Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2001-2005EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2001 730 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois NIE-NIBERS PRESENT: Heidi Care,.. Jessica Deis, Barbara Gardner, George Halik, Lynne Heidi. Micl•-acl Imlay, Kirk lruin. Susan Reagan and Mark Sarkisian MEMBERS ABSENT: Mich. -1 Girard OTHERS PRESENT: Polo Petav"mich. Richard Koenig. Dennis Langley, Rob T homp:on. Melissa Thompson. Robert N. Katz, Laurence Morgan, James Murray and Bill McClure PRESIDING: Kirk Irti+in. Chair (2000) and Barbara Gardner (2001) STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz and Arthur Alterson 1. DETERMINATION OF QCORGNI Kirk; In4in, Chair, determined a quorum was present. He called the meeting to order at approximately 7:40 p.m. If. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2001 Kirk: Irvin said that in accordance to the Evanston Preservation Ordinance, the Commission should elect new Officers at the regularly scheduled January meeting. He also said that no other nominees had been brought to his attention. K. Irwin noted that the Commission had approved the slate of nominee Officers for 2001 in December 2000. K. Iruin moved that the following Commissioners be elected as 2001 Preservation Commission Officers: Barbara Gardner, Chair Michael Girard, Vice -Chair Susan Regan. Secretary Heidi Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Kirk Irwin congratulated the newly elected Commission Officers and yielded the chairmanship of Banston Preservation Commission Minutes -- Januan 16. 2001 Pace 2 the meeting to Barbara Gardner, Chair. Barbara Gardner thanked Kirk Irwin. 'Mark Sarkisian and George Halik for the outstanding job they performed during the year 2000. Carlos Ruiz asked that the Commission consider a motion to delegate the duties of the Commission's Secretary to the Presen•ation Coordinator. Barbara Gardner moved that the Commission delegate the duties of the Secretary to the Preservation Coordinator. The motion seconded b% passed unanimously. M. APPROVAL OFMINUTES Barbara Gardner said that Commission members received the November 21, 2000 minutes via e- mail last month and also received in the packets the December 19, 2000 minutes. She asked for any comments and or corrections. None were made. Lynne Heidi moved that the Commission approve the November 21, 2000 minutes as submitted. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Lynne Heidi moved that the Commission approve the December 19, 2000 minutes as submitted. Michael Imlay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. COMMUNICATIONS None. Z'. CONI'MITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1705 Benson Avenue - Alteration of retail entrance (west elevation) jAlterationj Polo Petavanich. representing the architectural firm of Florian Architects presented plans for removing existing doors and installing a recessed wall on the west elevation at 1705 Benson Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Polo Petavanich said that the existing doors have been closed for a long time because behind the _ doors, in the interior. there is a kitchen for a restaurant. He said that the exterior finish of the new wall would match the existing exterior finish. The wall would be recessed to maintain the scale, proportion and rhythm of the existing storefronts. Commission's Findings George Halik asked if the applicant would consider maintaining the existing doors, replacing the clear glass with opaque glass and block the entrance with an interior wall. Polo Petavanich said that he had considered that possibility, but he was concerned with the change of temperature from the outside to the inside and the potential for the glass cracking. - Banston Preseration Commission Mimics —January 16. 3001 Page 3 George Halik said that insulating the space between the doors and the interior wall would be recommended and appropriate to a%oid cracking of the glass. Jessica Deis concurred with George Halik's obscrvations and she expressed that she would like to minimize any exterior alteration so that the %%est elevation of the building will remain as intact as possible. Mark Sarkisian said that he would prefer to leave the existing glass on the doors. George Halik said that if the glass had to be changed. it needed to be done correctly. He said that just painting the glass would not produce the quality finish that is expected. George Halik moved that the Commission approve the project with the condition to save the opening and the doors in place, replace the glass (optional). and build an insulated partition wall behind the doors. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. Discussion: ;Mark Sarkisian amended the motion so that the Preservation Coordinator would work out design details of the doors with the applicant. George Halik seconded the amendment to his motion. The motion passed unanimously as amended. 2. 319 Dempster Street - Exterior alterations, new fence, new ADA ramp JAlteration) Richard Koenig of Interfaith housing Development Corporation. and Dennis Langley, architect (and Preservation Commission member in Oak Park) presented plans for the exterior renovation, new fence and accessibility ramp at 319 Dempster Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Richard Koenig said that Interfaith Housing Development Corporation had plans to renovate the building at 319 Dempster for single room occupancy with a total of 48 units. Dennis Langley said that the exterior work to the building consists of restoring the existing 8 over I double hung wood windows and installing new wood storms on the front elevation. Also, replacing the existing I over I double hung wood windows on side and roar elevations with aluminum double hung windows with thereto broke insulated glass and matching dimensional members and historic brick mold panning. Dennis Langley said the exterior brick and stone would be cleaned and tuck pointed 100% with mortar mix and color to match the existing original mortar color. Carlos Ruiz asked if the project also included the installation of a fence and the construction of a wheelchair accessibility ramp. Dennis Langley said that a steel fence would be installed on the alley side and a wood fence would be installed on the residential side of the building. Regarding the ramp D. Langley said an ADA required ramp would be built at the front of the building. He said landscaping would be installed in front of the ramp at sidewalk. Michael Imlay commented that the proposed ramp would be similar to the YMCA ramp I1000 Grove Street]. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the proposed work at 319 Dempster Street, as presented, as meeting the applicable standards for alterations. Mark Sarkisian seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — January 16. 2001 Pave -1 3. 720 Central Street - Rear /south (new sliding door) and side/east (replacing three H indo" s with tr o µ indos►s) [Alteration] Rob Thompson and Melissa Thompson, owners presented plans for exterior alterations at 720 Central Street. The propem is an Evanston Landmark. The project consists of removing three existing windows on the east Side elevation, then reducing the wall opening and install two new windows, and removing two non-contiguous windows on the south'rear elevation and installing a slidine door and transom instead. Melissa Thompson said that the proposed work w•as not directly visible from the street but visible from the side alley. She said that they needed to increase the wall area on the east elevation for installing new cabinetry for the kitchen. Commission's Findings George l lalik asked how the window openings would be infilled. Melissa Thompson said that the window openings would be inftlled with new brick to match the existing brick. She said that they had rebuilt the chimney before and that they were able to find a good brick match. Carlos Ruiz said that the architect [:inn McGuire] had indicated to him that the brick to be removed from the south elevation could be reutilized. M. Thompson said that the new windows are Nlarvin casement wood windows with simulated dived lights. The wood sliding door and wood transom are also Marvin with simulated divided lights. George I lalik moved that the Commission approve the proposed work at 720 Central Street as presented, as it met the applicable standard for alterations. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 810 Clinton Place - zoning variance (National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District) [Advisory review as required by the Zoning Ordinance) Laurence Morgan, owner, James Murray, attorney; and Robert Katz. architect presented an application for minor zoning variations for lot coverage and front yard setback at 810 Clinton Place. The property is within the National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District. Carlos Ruiz read the Zoning Ordinance Section 6-15-10-5: "Whenever on application is made for a special use or variation relating to an historic landmark, or a propern, located in a Federal or local historic district, the application shall be referred to the Preservation Commission that shall lwve the authority, to make its recommendations to the appropriate decision -making boA- relating to lot coverage, )-ard requirements, parking, building height, fences, and/or landscaping based upon its determination as to srhether the special use or variation: (R) Is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts: or (B) Is necessary to provide the ox•ner a recoverable rate of return Bansion Prvw%ation Commission Minutes - Januz--_. 16. 2001 Pave i on the real property' is -here the denial thereof would amount to a taking of the property ivithout1lut compensation: and C/ Will not be materially detrimental to the public r health safeand sre� (are or injurious to property in the district or viciniry where the property is located." James Murray distributed photographs of the residence and the immediate homes on Clinton Place. He said that the project is for a side yard open trellis and an open porch front addition necessitating a front yard zoning variation from the required 27' front yard setback to 18', and a zoning variation from the allowed 3V0 lot coverage to 39%(the existing lot coverage is 31.5%. Currently the house has a side entry on the cast elevation with a priman- fagade on the north elevation. The proposed front porch would create a central front entry on the north elevation. Commission's Findings The Commission discussed the applicability of standards (A), (B) and (C) and determined that standard (A) was the most applicable. Lynne Heidi asked if neighbors .were notified about the project. Laurence 'Morgan said that he had contacted his neighbors with preliminary plans for the proposed project. fie said that he is aware of only one neighbor who is opposed to his proposed zoning variations. Carlos Ruiz said that the zoning file contains two letters opposing the zoning variations. Michael Imlay said that he could not visualize the proposed addition without a graphic representation of the porch in the context of the existing sireciscape. George Halik said that unlike the graphic examples presented by the applicant to the Commission of other houses with front porches. the proposed front porch is a light wooden open porch. Michael Imlay expressed his concern regarding the proposed 18' front yard setback. He said that the addition would stick out in the middle of the block. He said other existing projecting structures occur at both ends of the same side of the block. Robert Katz said that the addition is a light structure that will be almost transparent and it will not adversely affect the character of the existing streetscape. fie said that his design will not introduce a ne►v architectural design. rather it uses existing architectural design elements such as the covered main entry area on the east elevation. George Halik said that he believed the Commission had enough information to arrive at a recommendation. Mark Sarkisian concurred with G. Halik. Lynne Heidi and Michael Imlay said they would like to see a more complete graphic representation of the proposed porch. Barbara Gardner sueeested taking a straw poll and determine how many Commissioners thought that the Commission could render a recommendation of the project as presented. hive (5) Commissioners voted that they could render a recommendation of the project as presented. Four (4) Commissioners though that more graphic representations were needed. Susan Regan said that she believed that the proposed front yard porch would have an effect on the streetscape. She said that she would not be convinced otherwise until she could see a perspective of the proposed front porch in the context of the existing homes and their front yards. Carlos Ruiz said that since the Commission's findings would be a recommendation only to the Zoning Administrator, that the Commission could include in its recommendation both points of Evanston ireser6an:in t_•:i n'il`intur: Minutes - Januar, Page 6 View-. lie asked Ar:-.- A:h=s n if that su.,: estion we,uld b. hel ful to him for issuing his determination.-A-nhcz said that he would pr_fer that Cc-nnmissioti _ findings include specific recomrn nd:jors . f = . He said that ha%in onl% addi-3,in ai drat:--tes would not help him as much. . George Halik moved That _h. Commission-eco�-ner_,ds of the prc:posed lot ociverage and front card s-thack zorm—u! % nations fo: the -,Top.*d -ont y_rd pt.irch a`= submitted. finding that the requested v rr a c rtc m:et standard £.-1 - I O A) o, the Zoning Ordinance. Kirk In%in weconded the n:-_-tion. The, motion passed_ Vote: 6 a -es. _ hats. 5. 12;Milburn Part: - xorning'-'ariance (`ational Roister `o-rtheast Esanston Historic District) j Ads i-s-on res it-% as required by the Zoning Ordinance] Bill McClure, anome- prtv.,i tt;�d an applic:-ion f or a ::xtce zoning %-ariance to er_zt a 5' wrought iron corner lot fence ai 12 N4ilb-.um Park. n. e propert- is v.iiEn :he Nation-0 Register Northeast Evanston Histor-ic Di;.rict- Bill McClure said th..a his :lie: t would like to erect a iradit`onal 4,-n•le 5-foot high wroucht iron fence on the south -slur pit:rtetty line along Milburn Sweet :he west -side propertti line along Sheridan Road and tl,.e' nar:.h-side property line. He s.uid th.-t the Arthur Alterson Zoning Administrator irdicatt!d than he would be piepar.d to grant the zoning fence vat-L- ion for a 4-foot high wrought irE-n fence r r-her than a 5-foo: high fenc: pending pine Presenation Commission's recommendation-s. K_ said tha.• there were a number ,>f wrought son fences in the neighborhood and that the proposed fenc ,- ttould be in keeping with .he characr-zr of such existing fences. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner ask%:d if t`wre was a reason to the erecti-an of the fence in front of the existing stone %,6-aJI er_:ry i1• e =the southts:st corner t-f the prop=iy. Bill McClure said that the location of the psopo---,--d ferice : s presented in the appucatioz wa;, an error. N\1ia: he wanted to show was the ptn imet= of the proposed fenced area. The r,ew• fence will st: rt at both ends of the stone wall gate. Carlos Ruiz asked if the propo-sed fence would thatch t"he existingz wrought iron fence facing Milburn Street. Bill McClure said, no. He added that the exxistittp. fence is 4.5-foot high and it has pickets with arrowhead -is or finials at the top. His aid twat his client considers the existing fence not safe fo: her Jog. The proposed traditional w; oug t iroc fence has solid flat pickets. Carlos Ruiz asked if t=ne Icc-atio:i of the proposed fend wog, Id be ?tchind the existing vegetation. Bill McCIure sai-d. nc, He said that the fence will be ereetCd in Li ant of the existing landscaping and it was the imentic-a to art the landscaping grow. beHind -so tha-, the appea.-ance of the fence would be reduced cores: ideraabl - Jessica Deis moved dhat thtr Commission recommends, approval of the zoning feric.e variation for a 4-foot high tra: itionaJ srAr uTought iron fence as tttj.--tinsi standards 6-15-10-5 (B) and (C) of the Zoning Ordinance_ Kirl: lruin seconded the motion. Banston Preservation Corar..ission Minutes — January 16, 2001 Pace 7 Discussion: Barbara G_ dner asked Jessica Deis if she would consider amending her motion so that the fence starts at K-ih ends of the stone wall gate. Jessica Deis moved amending her motion so that the 4-foo: hich traditional style µToueht iron fence would be erected starting/ending at both ends of the existing stone %mall gate. Kirk mein seconded the motion. The motion passed as amended unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS None. I'll. NEW BUSINESS A. Reestablishment of Committees and Appointments to Committees Carlos Ruiz said that among the most important year 2001 tasks for the Commission are the annual Preservation and Design awards Program and the adoption of the Commission's Rules and Procedures. He said that he would like to work with the respective Committees as soon as possible. He suggested xvriting a first draft of the Rules and Procedures for the February Commission's meeting and if possible adopt them in March 2001. Regarding the annual Preservation and Design Awards ceremony Carlos Ruiz said that it should be held in May 2001, preferably during the National Preservation Week. beginning on May 6 and ending May 12, 2001. Commission members volunteered to the following Preservation Commission Committees: Rules and Procedures: kirk ir%yin Preservation Awards: Jessica Deis, Michael Imlay Housewalks: Heidi Carey District 65 Architectural Competition: 4fark Sarkisian Realtors Information: L%-nne Heidi B. Signage for Historic Districts Carlos Ruiz said that he received a letter from Jack Weiss, graphic designer, regarding the city-wide wayfinding signage program. J. Weiss is the designer of the signs. His proposal includes new signage for the existing historic districts and for the newly adopted Northeast Evanston Historic District. According to J. Weiss the wayfinding signage program was intended to unify parking and other municipal signs on the city's parkways. In 1997, J. Weiss had estimated that the cost would be 572.00 per sign and the count was approximately 50 signs. J. Weiss wrote that a RFP have yet to be sent by the City. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — January 16. 2001 Pacc 8 The Cornmission asked that staff find out more about the wayfinding signage program and report back to the Commission at the next Commission's meeting. [Kirk Irwin left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.] Vill. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is scheduled Tuesday. February 20, 2001. at 7:30 p.m., Room 2403. Evanston Civic Center, Evanston, Illinois 60261. IX. ADJOURNMENT Lynne Heidi moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Carey, Jessica Deis, Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Lynne Heidt and Kirk Irwin MEMBERS ABSENT: George Halik, Michael Imlay, Susan Reagan and Mark Sarkisian OTHERS PRESENT: Bill McClure, Stephen Knutson, Greg Maire, Bonnie Rosenberg, Nate Kipnis, Wendy Kaplan, Anne Thrush, Anthony Hurtig, Mike Helmer, Kathie Shaw, Garrett ObIuck, Kathleen Ludwig, Laura Norris, Michelle Kretchmer, Gary Kretchmer, Jim McAuley, Judy Fiske and Aleca Sullivan PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:40 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that with only five Commission members in attendance (Deis, Gardner, Girard, Heidt and Irwin) that a quorum was not present. She said that a sixth Commission member was expected to arrive at 9 p.m. B. Gardner said that she would like to hear presentations from applicants until that time. She also said that a straw poll would be taken among Commission members present to determine if a project will be approved when a quorum is present. B. Gardner said that when the sixth member arrives, and a quorum is established, a summary of the projects would be presented so that an official vote could be taken for the Commission's official action on the respective projects. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Carlos Ruiz said that he wrote the minutes from his notes and without the recorded tape of the meeting, due to technical problems with the microphones. He asked if there were any corrections to the January 16, 200I minutes. Kirk Irwin said that he would like to amend section II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS, first paragraph, first sentence, replace in January with at the regularly scheduled January meeting; Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — February 20, 2001 Pape 2 insert the new sentence He also said that no other nominees had been brought to his attention, next sentence, replace slate of Officers with slate of nominee Officers. Kirkhrwin also said that the minutes should reflect that he had left the meeting at 4:30 p.m. before the adjournment of the meeting. III, COMMUNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz reported no communications. IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA 1. 12 Milburn Street -atoning variance (requesting new motion to approve relocation of proposed fence) (National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District) [Advisory review as required by the Zoning Ordinance] William McClure, owner said that last month the Commission had approved a recommendation for a zoning variance that would allow the construction of a 4-foot high wrought iron fence at 12 Milburn Street. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District listed in the National Register of Historic Places. V►'. McClure said that the motion was for the fence to be erected from both ends of the existing stone wall gateway. He said that the entry gate stone walls height slope down from approximately 6-feet to 1.5-foot in height. Because of that he said he would like to request that the Commission consider the relocation of the fence behind the entry gate stone walls, and extend the fence to meet the 4-foot height at the stone walls. W. McClure said that he also had mentioned the possibility of erecting a wrought iron gate between the existing stone walls with a design s�tnpathetic to the period of the house. Commission members discussed the merits of the applicant's request and concluded that the relocation of the 4-foot wrought iron fence behind the gate stone walls and the erection of a wrought iron gate, with concave top, not exceeding the stone walls height, was reasonable. Barbara Gardner asked Commissioners to raise hands to indicate a favorable vote recommending the zoning variance for the relocation of the proposed 4-foot wrought iron fence behind the existing stone walls and the erection between the stone walls of a wrought iron gate with concave top. Five Commissioners raised their hands to show their favorable vote. 2. 2315 Sherman Avenue - exterior alterations and rear addition (Construction] Stephen Knutson, architect presented plans for first floor bedroom and laundry room addition at 2315 Sherman Avenue. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. S. Knutson said that the bulk of the house is a two-story square house, with a one-story room in the back. He said that the exterior materials for the addition would be the same as the existing materials on body of the house. The siding, the texture of the stucco, and wood shingles on the roof would match the existing exterior materials. S. Knutson also showed section elevations Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — February 20. 2001 Pate 3 from the property line as well as showing the court portion of the addition. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner referred to the elevation drawings and said that her concern was that the addition seemed a long run down the back yard. Jessica Deis said that it seemed the new addition came out 24-feet to 25-feet beyond the existing addition. S. Knutson said that the bedroom bay south elevation was 27-feet beyond the face of the family room, the north elevation was 24.5-feet. In response to J. Deis' concern about the alignment of the rear of neighboring structures, S. Knutson showed photos and said that the rear of the neighboring houses did not lined up. He added that the house to the south had a large one-story addition. Barbara Gardner said that she was concerned with how far out the addition would be compared with some of the other houses. Carlos Ruiz asked about the depth of the lot. S. Knutson said that the lot %vas extra deep. C. Ruiz asked if that was typical for the neighboring lots. B. Gardner said that neighboring lots were also deep. S. Knutson said that one property to the north there is an alley that runs cast and west. The properties to the south have the same depth as the subject property. Barbara Gardner said that Judy Fiske, the neighbor to the north, would like to comment on the proposed addition. Judy Fiske said she was speaking because she did not see the plans, and also she was speaking on behalf of her neighbor to the south of the subject property, who was also concerned. J. Fiske said that the subject house was sold last year and none of the neighbors had met the new owners. She said that she lived on the block for twenty-five years and her house is the second she owned in the block. She also said that S. Knutson had designed her addition seven years ago. J. Fiske was confident that S. Knutson was doing a beautiful addition, but that she had another concern. She said that when she did her addition, she sited the addition and the windows to take advantage of the view across the backyard. Judy Fiske said that what her addition did was bring her small Arts and Crafts house into the same scale and mass of the rest of the houses on the block. She showed some pictures to illustrate her concern. She said that her addition was designed to look out diagonally over the back yards. J. Fiske said that the only view from her kitchen would be effectively gone with the northern portion of the addition. The rest of the windows on her house look out on the wall of the subject house. She said that she was happy that the addition was only a one-story addition. Judy Fiske also noted that her house is an Evanston Landmark for the architect, the design and the original owner who built the house. She said that she was also concerned with both, her landmark house that she worked so hard to save, and the rest of the neighborhood. J. Fiske said that she made some concessions on her addition so her neighbors could look at it from the two alleys and from their back yards. She said she would like to work with her new neighbors and give them what they want and minimize the impact on her house. She asked that she and her neighbor to the south of the subject property have the opportunity to meet with the new owners of the property and talk about the design. Evanston Preserva:icr Commission Minutes — Februar. 20, 2041 Page 4 In response to J. Fiske's concerns S. Knutson asked how many feet off the ground her deck was. J. Deis from photographs estimated that the deck was 3.5-feet off the ground. S. Knutson said that the rail wall enclosing the deck was 6-feet off the ground. He said the eave on the addition was 11-feet off tl�e ground with a shallow roof pitch. S. Knutson said that with a shallow pitch and a low building, they enhanced the privacy and quiet by having their outdoor space private. S. Knutson illustrated on a site plan at what point the Fiskes could see grass from their deck. Lynne Heidt asked if the Commission had purview as to the effect one house doing an addition would have on another neighbor. B. Gardner said that the Commission had certainly taken into consideration that concern and it had voted not always the way a neighbor wanted. J. Fiske noted that the south portion of the addition would not affect her or the immediate neighbors for that matter. She appealed to her new neighbors that for their laundry room addition she would be loosing an a%NU a lot. J. Deis asked J. Fiske what part of the design was problematic. J. Fiske said it was the length, and she said if the length would pull back slightly to give them any kind of view at all; she emphasized that she would loose the view of several windows. J. Fiske said that she had landscaping in front of the rest of the windows facing her neighbors to the south, and that some landscaping could be used to soften the new addition, but her major concem was the total loss of the existing diagonal view. Barbara Gardner asked Stephen Knutson if there was anything that could be done to pull back the northern portion of the addition. S. Knutson said that his clients were preparing for this house to be their last house, and there was no need for additional space on the second floor. He said that their intention was to enhance everyone's privacy. He said that there are quite a lot of pets next door, and separating the outdoor living space from that was part of the goal. Jessica Deis said that despite the proposed addition, the view to the Fiskes' rear yard and their angled view of the neighbors yard would be preserved. J. Fiske said that the addition would eliminate the angled view of the neighbors' yard. S. Knutson disagreed on the last issue. Judy Fiske said despite the outcome she would hope that there would be in place a process that would allow the discussion of the impact of an addition on neighbors. She said that it appeared that the addition was doubling the space that takes up on the lot. J. Deis said when there is no zoning issue, there is no neighbor notification officially from the City. J. Fiske said that being a historic district that neighbors ought to participate. J. Fiske thanked the Commission for giving her the opportunity to speak. Stephen Knutson showed Commissioners a sketch illustrating from the ground, the sight lines angled view from the Fiskes house inside window to their neighbors' back yard with the addition. He said that view was an 11-foot eave compared to a 6-foot wall. He said that the addition was of a pretty small scale with a facade with many planes and many textures and details. Kirk Irwin said that he would be prepared to vote for the project because the northern addition was small; the strength of that side of the design, and it was in scale with the Fiskes' addition. He added that the U-shaped design made each of the individual backyards private and distinct from each other, yet as shown with the sketched sight line and if accurate, the Fiskes still get to r E+aruton Prtservaiion Commission Minutes — February 20, 2001 Pane S maintain a lot of the view of the natural landscape in their back yard and that of the adjacent properties back yard. K. lruin said that the main architectural issue for him was of mass and scale. The scale and mass of the laundry and exercise room portion of the addition was in keeping with the additions, the decks. the porches, etc in the neighborhood. Jessica Deis agreeing with K. Irwin said that she also appreciated the neighbors concern, but she had to consider the site as a whole. The size, the height, the scale and the Iength of the addition is in keeping with the size of the lot and the surrounding lots. She said because of those reasons she would also tend to approve it. In response to a question from Barbara Gardner, Stephen Knutson said that the Fiskes would be able to see the tops of bushes and trees and even the horizon. The addition would not block the winter sun, the view of trees and sky, but it is blocking the view of the ground. He added that after a certain point there are barriers and fences where ground could not be seen whether they built or not. Kirk Irwin said that unlike zoning, it is not a requirement of the preservation ordinance for neighbors or the City to notify other neighbors around them that an addition is to be built on an adjacent property. He said that S. Knutson's design was within the ordinance and the Commission had done its job. He added that the Commission was in the process of developing a series of rules that would supplement the ordinance, and discussion had occurred about the possibility of having some kind of notification built into the process of review. Stephen Knutson said that his clients relocated from Washington, both are professionals and friendly. Because of their jobs they have not been physically in Evanston very much. Barbara Gardner said that on the one had she agreed with what favorably was said about the addition, but on the other hand she would feel much better if anything could be done to address the concerns expressed by the neighbors. S. Knutson response was that the design addressed the minimum requirements of their clients and that also there is a direct correlation of cost with square footage of construction. He said that he was not hopeful because there was no motivation to further reduce the scale of the project. Kirk Irwin referred to the standards for review of construction and indicated that standards 10, 12 and 15 were met. Barbara Gardner called for a straw poll asking to show hands of those that would vote in favor of the addition. Three Commissioners raised their hands in favor of the addition, one abstained and one recessed, both citing potential conflict of interest. Barbara Gardner said that she too would vote in favor because at the end despite her reservations, the project met the standards for review of construction. 3. 2735 Sheridan Road - exterior alterations and rear/side addition [Construction] Greg Maire, and Bonnie Rosenberg, architects presented plans for a south side two-story addition and an east one-story rear side addition at 2735 Sheridan Road. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Eva.-iston Preservation Commission Minutes — Fcbruary 20, 2001 Page 6 Bonnie Rosenberg said the south is a full two-story and basement addition, the east is a one-story conservatory addition. She said that proposed elevations have taken cues, materials and elements of the existing house and carried them onto the south addition. She also said that the vertical elements and windows of the existing house were also carried to highlight the south addition. Bonnie Rosenberg said the north elevation of the addition to the east faces Isabella Street. She said that the one-story addition also carried the same window style as the existing house. The coach would be restored as far as the existing windows and siding and roofing. The garage doors would be enlarged for contemporary uses. The new garage doors are more in keeping with the style of the house than the existing doors. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked about exterior materials and Jessica Deis asked about any zoning issues. Greg Maire said that there were two zoning issues. First, there is a separate lot south of the property that would be consolidated. The second is a side vard setback requirement. G. Maire said that currently the house is within a side yard setback to the north that is legal non -conforming. The conservatory would need a major zoning variance for the required side yard setback. Regarding the exterior materials G. Maire said the existing house is shiplap siding up to the level of the windowsills on the second story and above that it is stucco. He said the addition would continue the same exterior materials. Carlos Ruiz confirmed that new zoning cases included 2735 Sheridan Road, and they tentatively were scheduled for March 6, 2001. Commissioners discussed how the Commission should proceed regerding the zoning variation and agreed to render a recommendation subject to any citizen's comment. Barbara Gardner called for a straw poll for recommending the side yard set back zoning variation. Five Commissioners raised their hands indicating that they would vote in favor of a recommendation for granting the zoning variation. A straw poll for the consolidation of the property to a second lot was taken. Five Commissioners indicated that they would vote recommending the consolidation Five Commissioners in a straw poll indicated that they would vote in favor of the proposed two- story south addition and the one-story conservatory addition on the east. 4. 1112 Hinman Avenue - exterior alterations and rear addition (Construction) Nathan Kipnis, architect and Wendy Kaplan, property owner presented plans for a two-story rear addition and exterior alterations to the existing house at 1112 Hinman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Nathan Kipnis showed pictures of the house from around 1942 highlighting the 2-inch exposure siding and the distinctive pattern of windows. He said that the existing front elevation picture r Evanston preservation Commission Minutes — February 20. 200 Page 7 window was not original; the plans call for replacing it with a pair of double hung windows. N. Kipnis said that there are distinctive brackets on the house and he planned to continue those on the addition. He said that the two-story addition would follow the architecture of the existing house. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if there were any zoning issues. N. Kipnis said, no. Carlos Ruiz asked if the neighbors were aware of the addition. Kaplan said the neighbor to the north was aware. N. Kipnis added that the new windows would follow the style and detail of the existing windows. Kirk Irwin asked how the mass of the addition compared to the adjacent properties. N. Kipnis said that the addition was in line with the property to the north; the one to the south was not that far, but it was quite similar. in response to a question from Carlos Ruiz, N.Kipnis said that the south side of the addition did scale down and was farther away from the adjacent property. Barbara Gardner called for a straw poll to determine how many Commissioner would vote in favor of the project. Five Commissioners indicated that they would vote in favor of the addition. 5. 1228 Forest Avenue - exterior alterations [Alteration] Anne Thrush, architect said that she had an either/or situation for a restoration at 1228 Forest Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. A. Thrush said that the project included new cedar roof, new copper gutters, and replacing windows on the existing addition. She said that the either/or portion was the front porch. Anne Thrush said that option (A) was to demolish the existing deck and rebuild the porch out of wood to match the design, based on the available original design plans. Those plans showed the porch extending south. She said that if the budget did not allow the reconstruction of the porch, the stairs would be relocated and maintaining the existing deck and repair it as necessary. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked what was the condition of the balusters on the porch. Anne 'inrush said that according to Dean Mosca, building code inspector, if the deck is demolished, then the porch has to comply with the code and the balusters would be raised. If the porch is repaired, the existing balusters could remain. Barbara Gardner wondered if the Commission could advocate for buildings to retain their original design. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission could advocate for maintaining the original features of landmark buildings, but it was not the purview of the Commission to determine whether or not that should be granted. Carlos Ruiz said that James Wolinski, Director of the Community Development Department could grant that. He believed that if the concrete portion is removed and the existing porch is restored, the only portion that needed to meet the code was the new stairs. Barbara Gardner said that the new stairs would then have a higher balustrade to meet the code. C. Ruiz said that James Wolinski was the person who could overrule the code. C. Ruiz added that the Commission could make a recommendation explaining Evusston Preservation Commission Nfinu:cs — Fcbruar} 20, 2001 Page S the Commission's point of view in regard to maintaining the original design of buildings. Kirk ]min wondered if the new stairs needed a roof to meet the code and asked about the brick below the deck. Anne Thrush said that she was not removing any brick. She reiterated that the scope of work included windows on the rear porch and possibly demolishing a section of the front porch and relocating the stairs per original drawings. Barbara Gardner said that when the Commission votes on this project that the motion include restoring the wood porch and deck and leave the balusters to the existing height, and in the new stairs that the balusters be the same height as the existing balusters as originally built. Barbara Gardner called for a straw poll for approving the project as presented with the amended change in the balusters. Five Commissioners indicated that they would approve the project with the proposed amendments. V. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At this time Heidi Carey arrived to the meeting. After determining that a quorum was present, Barbara Gardner called the Preservation Commission meeting officially to order at 9:00 p.m. B. Gardner said the Commission would review and vote on the remaining projects. 6. 1720 Wesley Avenue - removing an existing deck to accommodate an addition [Construction] Anthony Hurtig. Kathie Shaw, architects and Mike Helmer, property owner presented plans for removing an existing deck and building a two-story addition to the rear of a house at 1720 Wesley Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Anthony Hurting said that during the 1960s a garage was added that is concealed by going down 8-feet. In the 1970s an enclosed porch was added on top of the garage, and subsequent to that a powder room was added on the back. He also said that in the 1970s the cedar siding was covered with aluminum, however the cedar shingles in the gable were left. The project is to remove all the existing screen parches and build a two-story addition to the back, adding a family room and a bedroom wtith a bath on the second floor. Anthony Hurtig said that the addition has the same cornice line, entablature, and dentils as the existing featw-es on the existing house. He said that the massing was relatively consistent with the bulk of the original house. Because of the ceiling heights on the second floor, he pulled up the height of the eave to get through the addition and have reasonable head room at the sides of the room addition. A. Hurtig said that he will use cedar siding and shingles on the gable end. Also, a porch would be built behind the sunroom above the garage. Commission's Findings Kirk Irwin stated for the record he used to be Kathie Shaw's teacher, he also said that he will not recuse himself because he did not see that there was a conflict of interest. Evanston Preservation Cerr^ission Minutes -February 20. _00 Payee 9 Michael Girard asked is the cedar siding for the ne,,ti• gab':e ,;%ould match the cedar siding of the gable in front. Anthon% Hurtig said, yes. Carios Ruiz asked if there was a zoning issue with the addition. Anthony Hur-.ig said that he studied the zoning ordinance and he believed that there was no zoning issue. Michael Girard moved :hat the Commission approve the proj.ct at 1720 Wesley Avenue as presented, because it rrt�--ts criteria for construction 7. 12 and 15. Heidi Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 1942 Orringtoa Avenue - exterior alterations, and replacement of windows Garrett Obluck, contractor and Kathleen Ludwig, property• owner presented plans for exterior alteration and replacement of windows at 1942 Orrington As cnue. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Garrett Obluck said the project consisted of remo%ing tyro existing windows in the kitchen and replace them with one double hung wood window and replace all windows on the house with double hung wood windows. The front elevation windows would be a 60140 split Pella wood windows. The rest of the windows would be 50/50 split_ He said that the fence was no longer part of the application_ Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked why the windows needed replacement G. Obluck said the current windows were totally inefficient. Kathleen Ludwig said the window glass was distorted, the wood frames are separated, the windows do not fimction or cannot be lift up. She said the heating bills are tremendous. Garret Obluck said that on the north elevation, the existing double hung window and one pane window in the kitchen %kill be removed and replaced with a smaller double hung wood window. Heidi Carey moved that the Commission approve alteration for 1942 Orrington Avenue as meeting the appropriate standards 1, 2, and 5 of alterations. Kirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 1001 Forest Avenue - exterior front alterations and addition [Construction] Laura Norris, property owners presented plans for exterior front alterations and the construction of a rear addition at 1001 Forest Avenue. The propem is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Laura Norris said the addition in the back east eles4•ation is a small bay for the kitchen with a pediment above the windows. The existing three windows to the left of the proposed bay will be removed and replaced with a French door and a railing. Two slender windows on each side would flank the French door. On the front west elevation the main entry door would have new E%mrmcm ?rr-r.ior. Cora ,ission IN-Cmur_-s - 201 Peres 14 pLt, ;tern and a pediment above. A new railing would be added between the columns and above the oge= po.4h roof. Commission's Findings C_ Ruiz saik :hat the new railings might not need to be 36-inches high, depending on the height .m thr- grade to the porch floor. The railing on the porch roof was decorative only. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the project as presented, finding that the al --orations are in accordance with the applicable standards, with the caveat that if its deemed unrteccssan to have the railing height at 36-inches, that the owner may elect to make it lower. K:-rk Ira -in seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 1406 'Maple Avenue - exterior alterations and replacement of second -story windows [Alteration] 1`CcheUr and Gary Kretchmer, owners presented plans for removing the existing vinyl siding and re;�laciYg existing windows on the second floor of the house at 1406 Maple Avenue. The proper.: is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. INUchelle Kretchmer said that the Commission had previously approved an addition to the back and th—the removal of the existing vinyl siding was subject to condition of the existing wood suing =d affordability. They discovered that the rear v.-all wood siding underneath the vinyl siding was completely deteriorated and had nail holes and the walls did not have insulation. She ai.�r.o sa:J they would like to replace eight existing completely deteriorated windows on the second floor. The new windows would be aluminum clad windows that are already being used in the back. The new windows would be of the same style of the existing windows with wood trim and caa:.ng around them. Commission's Findings Comm;ssioners did not have any questions or comments. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the project at 1406 Maple Avenue as presented, finding that it is in accordance Kith the applicable standards for alteration 2 and 8. Heidi Carey seconded the motion_ The motion passed unanimously. At this time the Commission with a quorum present re%iced the previously discussed projects. 2- 2315 Sherman Avenue - exterior alterations and rear addition [Construction] Kirk Irrain summarized the presentation by Stephen Knutson and the concerns expressed by Judy Ftske, the neighbor to the north of 2315 Sherman Avenue. Kirk Irwin said that it was recommended approval of the proposed addition based on standards of action 10, 12, 14 and 15. Through a straw poll Michael Girard recused himself and Lynne Heidi: abstained and three Commissioners agreed to vote in favor of the addition. K. lrwin described the addition as a U-shape addition to the back of the property. The middle part of the Evanston Presmation Commission Minutes — February 20. 2001 page I U is an exterior deck. The north side of the addition is a laundry room and an exercise room. He said it is a small scale and mass wing that comes out on the north side of the property and is one- story tall. Dirk Irwin said that adjacent to the north is a property o%kmed by Judy Fiske, who expressed several questions and concerns. One concern that was a procedural one was that she was not notified of the proposed addition. The Commission indicated, as she was already aware, that the preservation ordinance does not require notification to neighbors for additions. The Commission has discussed this issue before as part of the Commission's rules. J. Fiske's architectural concern w-as that the addition will, to a certain extent. limit her view of open space. Continuing his summary, Kirk Irwin said that Stephen Knutson had indicated that the height of the addition to the north would be 5.5-feet higher than Judy Fiske's deck which is immediately adjacent to the addition. K. Irwin continued by saying that some of the Commissioners discussion had to do with size, scale, material, proportion and quality of the design. Everyone agreed that the quality of the design was good. Three Commissioners found that what S. Knutson had proposed as an addition was in keeping with the adjacent properties with regard to the scale, original qualities of the character of property, the significant historic architectural material and standard 15 of construction regarding additions. Kirk Irwin said what persuaded him of voting in favor of this addition in light what Judy Fiske presented was the scale of the mass of the addition which is in keeping with the properties around it and in keeping with what Judy Fiske presented showing her back yard. K. Irwin also said that S. Knutson sketched a sight line that indicated that maybe the Fiskes will still see quiet a bit of open space. Kirk Irwin asked if Heidi Carey had any questions. H. Carey said, no. Kirk Irwin moved that the Commission recommend approval of the proposal finding that the standards 10, I2, 14 and 15 are met, based on the visual and verbal testimony of the architect. Heidi Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote; four (4) ayes, one (1) abstained, one (1) recused. 1. 12 Milburn Street - zoning variance (requesting new motion to approve relocation of proposed: fence) (National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District) jAdvisory review as required by the Zoning Ordinance] Barbara Gardner summarized the presentation by William McClure, property owner of 12 Milburn Street. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places. William McClure wants to run the fence in behind the stone up to the 4-foot level, because the stone wall goes down to about 2-feet at the end. Also, across the driveway the property owner wants to put a gate. The Commission needs to make a recommendation for the zoning variance regarding the Iocation height of the fence and gate. Carlos Ruiz said that because the property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District in Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — February 20, 2001 Page 12 the National Register of Historic Places. the purview of the Commission is recommending the appropriateness of the zoning variation. Michael Girard moved that the Commission recommend approval of the zoning variation to construct a new fence behind the existing stone structure and the new gate between the pilars. Lynne Heidi seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 2735 Sheridan Road - exterior alterations and rear/side addition (Construction] Barbara Gardner said that there were two motions for this project, one was for a conservatory on the back of the house. Michael Girard said that the applicants were consolidating lot 2 to their lot 1 to build a two-story addition on the south side. He also said that applicants need a major zoning variance for the north sideyard setback to build a conservatory at the rear. Barbara Gardner said that the second motion would be for approving the addition and the conservatory. The applicants were also restoring the garage, the garage doors would be raise with architectural garage doors. Jessica moved that the Commission recommend approval of the [two] zoning variations and consolidation la, c and e.. Kirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the two-story addition with basement at south side of building end, and conservatory at rear of building as well as garage restoration and renovation as pertains to garage doors and exterior modifications as materials wtill match existing materials as meeting standards of construction 1, 7, 8 and 12. Kirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1112 Hinman Avenue - exterior alterations and rear addition (Construction} -- Barbara Gardner said that the project was for an addition to the back and remove the aluminum siding and restore some architectural details from a picture taking in 1932. Kirk Irwin noted that the addition is a large two-story addition to the back of the house, yet the property to the north also has a previously built two or three-story addition. The project even though almost doubles the square footage of the house its still in line with what is adjacent to it. _= Michael Girard moved that the Commission accept the project as proposed at 1112 Hinman Avenue as meeting standard for review of construction 1, 7, 8, 10 and 14. Heidi Carey seconded the motion. 5. 1228 Forest Avenue - exterior alterations (Alteration] — Barbara Gardner said that the owners are trying to restore the property. They would like to — remove the porch poured concrete deck and replace it with a wood deck. The height of the balusters was a code issue. B. Gardner said she would like to advocate for allowing the property owners keep the original balusters size, she said that she would like a motion to indicate that. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Februan. 20. 2001 page 13 Michael Girard moved that the Commission accept the project at I228 Forest as it meets standards for review of alterations 1, 2, S, 8 with the strong recommendation that the railing be approved at its original and historic height, rather than the code [building]. Lynne Heidi seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VI. OFF AGENDA ITEM 1333 Church Street - Advisory review for exterior alterations Jim McAuley, property owner, said his issue was windows. Carlos Ruiz said that Mr. McAuley's contractor had stopped by his office that afternoon requesting information about window alterations to the landmark at 1333 Church Street. He suggested to him that his client approach the Commission for an advisory review that evening. Jim McAuley said that there are thirty-six windows and many of them are completely deteriorated. He said he would like to replace all the windows. He said that he is considering estimates from Marvin for custom built with aluminum clad and wood inserts to replicate the original windows. Michael Girard described the existing windows as true divided light double hung wood windows and with couple of different profiles. He said there was a 3" band top and bottom and a 3" band around the perimeter of the house. Jim McAuley said that there were predominantly two window styles on the house. He said that he was not convinced of restoring the original windows primarily because of "R" value [insulation] for such a large house. Barbara Gardner said that she was certainly sympathetic to Mr. McAuley's concerns. However, she said that window restoration was not a terribly difficult thing, but rather it was time consuming. She mentioned the difficulty of keeping the upper sash in place. In terms of the insulating situation, she mentioned pulley -seals, an economical solution for insulating windows. She also mentioned storm windows and that new storm windows today are better than in the past. Barbara Gardner said that she would not be that concerned about the window replacement if the house was not a landmark house. Carlos Ruiz said that at this time the Commission does not have any evidence that window restoration was not feasible. He recommended that Mr. McAuley further investigate the cost of restoration versus replacement. He also mentioned that the standards clearly state that when replacement is necessary the replacement must be in kind. He said that aluminum clad windows were not a good match. Jim McAuley said that he was willing to further explore restoration, but he was concerned with cost, and energy efficiency. He mentioned that he should be allowed to change some of the windows. He had inspected carefully all the windows and he was not convinced that the windows were restorable. He said the windows were 118 years old. He said four windows were not original to the house. Carlos Ruiz encouraged Mr. McAuley to do additional research about restoration of the windows E%anston Prnsemaiion Commission Minutes — February 20. 2001 Pare 14 and at the end provide to the Commission the information they need to make a fair decision, Barbara Gardner suggested that if at all possible restore those windows that can be restored. Jim McAuley asked if the interior work could proceed before the exterior work is approved. Carlos Ruiz said. yes. Jim McAuley said if he could proceed with the replacement of windows that needed replacement. Carlos Ruiz suggested fir. McAuley to contact the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (11IPA) for the Assessment Tax Freeze Program. fie said that the IHPA would consider the replacement of windows on secondary elevations. C. Ruiz said that it appears that the rehabilitation of the house would qualiA. for the Assessment Tax Freeze Program. Jim McAuley agreed to work with Carlos Ruiz. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules and Procedures i� Barbara Gardner said that Commissioners had received a draft of the rules and procedures. On the subject of windows she passed out a piece from the New York City Ordinance. She envisioned that this information will be given to the public. Barbara Gardner asked Michael Girard to coordinate with Carlos Ruiz the section about garages. Barbara Gardner asked Commissioners to review the documents and suggestions should be made to Kirk Irwin or herself. Kirk Irwin said that Barbara Garner and he looked at examples of rules from Railey, North Carolina; New York City and the old Evanston rules. He said that the draft contains a checklist for different kinds of work and buildings. The Iist categorizes routine maintenance, minor changes. major changes and whether those kind of work will go to staff of to the Commission. Carlos Ruiz said that the existing process for public hearing should be incorporated. B. Aieeting with Mayor Lorraine Morton Barbara Gardner said that she had a meeting with Mayor Lorraine Morton. She said that among many issues, they discussed new appointments to the Commission. Michael Girard said that Abby Willard had applied for appointment. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Tear downs Lynne Heidt passed around a copy of an article about a tear down in Winnetka. Barbara Gardner said that this case illustrates why Evanston needs a Preservation Ordinance. B. Design Evanston Meeting Barbara Gardner said that she had attended a meeting of Design Evanston. One issue discussed =_ was the City's design binding review proposal. She brought up the upcoming elections and the Evanston Presc.%ation Commission Minutes — Fe�ruar.:1. _'C�) i Page 15 possibility of doing a design competition with District 65. Barbara Gardner said that she communicated to a Board member of District 65 that the Commission is ready and willing to work together on the design competition. C. Miscellaneous Barbara Gardner said that she also learned that Bob Best, an attorney working for District 65 was retained to ad,.zse the district on zoning matters and that he was not in favor of tearing down the landmark building It 314 Ridge Avenue]. Commissioners briefly discussed the upcoming elections, wondering if preservation was an election issue. L%mne Heidt mentioned that the electoral race was very close in the First Ward. Regarding an article that had recently appeased in the Round Table, Kirk Irwin said that about a year ago many things were happening regarding negotiations between Northwestern University and the City. He recalled that Nir. Thomas McMahon called him suggesting a truce, he also mentioned that the Governor had given Northwestern University 5750.000, and that the Alderman were negotiating trying to get 5100,000,000 line of credit for the City of Evanston through Northwestern. Northwestern was supposed to build community centers in two wards, and along Sheridan Road there was suppose to be some swapping of zoning and allow the [historic] district. Kirk Irwin said that it did not happen because there was not executive leadership to pull it together. He said that the Aldermen were left negotiating with the lawyers and the president of Northwestern. He thought that it w-as not fair to put the Aldermen against a great university. He said the Round Table article of last week described those events. Barbara Gardner mentioned that some Northwestern students were more skeptical about the Northwestern position regarding the historic district. IX, MINUTES Kirk Irwin said that he would like to correct the minutes of January 16, 2001 to indicate that he did not second the motion for adjournment and that he had left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Jessica Deis said that she had seconded the motion for adjournment. Kirk Irwin said that he would like to clarify that when the Commission elected officers for 2001, no one else had put any other names in the nomination. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the minutes as written with the two exceptions that Kirk Irwin had noted. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. X. ADJOLTFL MENT Michael Girard moved to adjoum the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Preserva:ion Ca:nmission Minutes — Febn ar} 20. 2D01 Page 16 Note: The next Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 20, 2001, at 7:30 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, Evanston, Illinois 60201. Respectfully submitted: 4Cars D. Ruiz � Senior Planner/Pres� On Coordinator Date: t EVAI STON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 20, 2001 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessica Deis, Barbara Gardner. Michael Girard, Lynne Heidt Michael Imlay, Kirk Irwin, and Mark Sarkisian MEMBERS ABSENT: Heidi Carey, George Halik. and Susan Reagan OTHERS PRESENT: Pamela Sundell, C.T. Carmichael. Jeff Gardner, Peggy and Douglas Goldhamer, Bill Donets, Michael Schumacher, Joe Behles, Jim McAuley, Elliot Dudnick and Jim Ferrera PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. II. COISiMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA 1. 1841 Asbury Avenue - partial demolition of an existing attic addition and the construction of a new half story third floor addition [Alteration] Pamela Sundell, architect and C.T. Carmichael, owner presented plans for partial demolition of an existing attic addition and the construction of a new half story third floor addition at 1841 Asbury Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Pamela Sundell said the project would expand the ridge of the existing structure four to five fL for a third floor bedroom and bath. New third story would be three il. set back from the front elevation. The addition's exterior materials would match the existing materials of the structure below. She said that the original front elevation gable would remain. Evanston i'resernation C -�m�ssion Minutes —Starch 20. Pace " Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner note,' that the new windows would be on the side of the addition. She asked if the skylight %would �e visible. Jessica Deis said that the skylight would be difficult to be seen. Pamela Sundell said :hat the skylight would not be easily visible. Michael Girard asked if the project included removing, existing third story addition. Pamela Sundell said, yes. Carlos Ruiz explained that a zoning variation application had already been in front of the Zoning Hoard of Appeals for .he side yard setback requirement. Pamela Sundell said that the zoning variation was for the side yard because the existingwall is non -conforming at 2.94 ft. setback. Barbara Gardner said that it appeared that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the zoning variance with the condition that the Preservation Commission also approve the project. Jessica Deis moved thai the Commission approve the project at 1841 Asbury Avenue as presented in both graphic and verbal testimony, finding that it is in conformance for the applicable standards for alteration. Lynne I leidt seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: G ayes, l nay (y.(ichacl Imlay). 2. 1307 Ridge Avenue - changing the style of a previously approved fence [Alteration) Barbara Gardner recu_sM herself and asked Michael Girard to chair the meeting. Jeff Gardner, owner presented plans for a comer lot fence at 1307 Ridge Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Jeff Gardner said that they would like to change the style of a fence previously approved by the Commission. The fence would be 2 ft. setback from the sidewalk with landscaping in front, and stepped down. He said that the I" x 2" lattice on the proposed fence would be of high quality. The 8" posts would be simpler %with a cap. Showing the layout of the fence on the property, J. Gardner said that the fence would give some privacy in the back yard. He added that the fence would be translucent %with landscaping in front. Commission's Findings Kirk Irwin asked if there %would be gates. Jeff Gardner said there would be gates at the three walkways. The ,gates would have a closed panel at the bottom. The posts would be stepped down because of the grade of the site. Mark Sarkisian asked if the previously approved fence was solid. J. Gardner said that the previews design had 2"x 2" boards separated like a stair rail. Carlos Ruiz asked J. Gardner if he had obtained a zoning variance for the corner lot fence. J. Gardner said, yes. C. Ruiz asked if anything else was changing %with the fence besides the style. J. Gardner said, no. lie added that the new fence layout has the 20' radius for visibility purposes where the alley meets the street. Kirk Irwin noted that the application was listed as an alteration. Carlos Ruiz said that the proposal was for alteration to the previously approved fence. K. Irwin said the project should be listed as new construction for consistency. C. Ruiz agreed. Evanston Presenation Commission Minutes -March 20. 2001 Page 3 Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the alteration in design for the construction of the fence. She said that the motion was based on prior testimony and approval regarding location, height and setbacks of the fence, and taking into consideration the new proposed design of the fence. J. Deis said that the proposed fence was in accordance with the standards of new construction. Dirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 1509 Forest Avenue - demolition of an existing one -car garage and the construction of a new t►vo-car garage (Construction] Carlos Ruiz said that the applicant withdrew the application at this time. 4. 1235 Oak Avenue - construction of a tree -car garage lConstructionj Peggy and Douglas Goldhamer, property owners and Bill Donets, contractor presented plans for the construction of a new three -car garage at 1235 Oak Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Bill Donets said that his clients would like to build a new three -car garage. Fie said that the previous garage had collapsed due to heavy snow. Showing the pictures of the former garage B. Donets said that the new garage would be almost identical to the original garage. The swing doors would be changed to three bays with overhead doors. Commission's Findings In response to questins from Commissioners. Bill Donets said that the outside material is panel siding or hardboard siding. I le noted that the material comes in vertical boards with 4" or 8" spacing, similar to plywood siding. Barbara Gardner asked if the panel siding looked like board and batten siding. B. Donets said that he would use the 8" vertical panels. B. Gardner asked about the main house exterior material. B. Donets said the house %vas finished with asbestos shingles. B. Gardner asked about the garage doors. B. Donets said that the garage doors would be overhead steel doors with all around moulding. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the construction of the three -car garage, finding that both graphic and verbal testimony was in accordance with standards for construction. Lynne Heidt seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously approved. S. 1400 Judson Avenue - window replacement at bay and exterior repairs (Alteration] Michael Schumacher, architect presented plans for window replacement at a bay and exterior repairs at 1400 Judson Avenue. The Property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Michael Schumacher said that the owners would like to change the double hung windows at a bay with casement windows. He said that the windows interior finishes were removed due to water damage. A Schumacher said that Marvin windows can make a window with simulated divided lights. The casement windows would have a similar appearance to the existing double Banston Preservation Commission Minutes -March 20. 2001 Page a hung windows. The exterior repairs would match the existing shingle siding as needed. Commission's Findings Kirk Irvin asked about the exterior material of the windows. Michael Schumacher said that the exterior window material would be wood. Kirk Irwin moved that the Commission approve the modifications to the bay as presented graphically and in verbal testimony, finding that all appropriate standards for alteration had been met. Lynne lieidt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 2672 Orrington Avenue - minor zoning Variation for lot coverage (ZAR 01-13-M) from Section 6-8-2-7 of the City of Evanston Zoning Ordinance [Zoning variance] Joe Bahles, owner/architect presented an application for zoning variation for lot coverage involving an addition and construction of a new garage at 2672 Orrington Avenue. Property is within the National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District. Joe Bahles, said that he would like to remove a dilapidated rear porch and construct a one -store addition. lie also said that the existing garage would be demolished. The wire struck brick from the existing garage would be salvaged and reused for the addition. J. Bahles said that he had replaced two years ago the tile roof and gutters on the house. The addition would have the same details as the front of the house. A new two -car garage would be built as well. Joe Bahles said that without the zoning variance they could have build a second story addition, but in his opinion that would be a mistake. He said that the house is a very attractive bungalow that he would like to retain. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner praised Joe Bahles for keeping the appearance of the bungalow. Jessica Deis asked about the garage exterior finish. J. Bahles said that the new garage would be finished with new brick to match the existing brick on the house and the roof would be tile. Barbara Gardner asked if the lot coverage variation included the two -car garage. Joe Bahles said, yes. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission recommend the zoning variation for lot coverage for the residence at 2672 Orrrington Avenue, finding that the preservation Commission does not object to the plan as proposed. Kirk Irvin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 1333 Church Street - partial demolition (one chimney) and exterior window alteration(s) [Aiterationi Jim McAuley, owner presented plans for the demolition of one chimney and the alteration to a rear window at 1333 Church Street. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Banston Presena_aa Commission Minutes - March =r1. 2001 Paec 5 Ridge I listoric District. Jim McAuley said that the only exterior alteration would the rear kitchen window that would be raised 12" to accommodate a modem counter top. Also. one of three chimneys. which is not original to the house. -.could be remo%ed. The other two original chimneys would be rebuilt. J. McAuley said that the remaining windows would be rebuilt. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked about the cost of rebuilding the windows. Jim McAuley said that rebuilding the windo«s would approximately 50% higher that new windows. mainly because the contractor rebuilding the windo%%s has a shop 3 hours away from Evanston, lie noted that the new wood storm windows have a movable screen. I`9ichael Girard moved that the Commission approve raising 12" the rear window and the removal of a chimney as presented in graphic and verbal testimony. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motionpassedunanimously. Barbara Gardner praised Jim McAuley for retaining the existing windows. 8. 1251 Lakeshore Blvd. - partial demolition of an existing fence And a two -car garage addition [Construction) Elliott Dudnick. architect and Jim Ferrera representing the Parks and forestry Department presented plans for the partial demolition of an existing fence and a two -car garage addition. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Elliott Dudnick said that the new two bays would be identical in size to the existing bays located to the cast of the building entry. The piers would match the existing brick piers. The two new garage doors would match the existing garage doors. Jim Ferrera said that the original garage on the east elevation no longer was used as a garage. Kirk Irwin asked about the exterior brick. Elliott Dudnick said that the new brick would match the existing brick as much as possible. He said that the west end was redone about ten years ago. K. Irwin asked about the brick size. E. Dudnick said that the brick size was 2-114". He said the existing wood %indows were rotted and would be replaced in kind. Barbara Gardener suggested installing storm windows for additional protection. Kirk Irwin moved that the Commission recommend approval of the addition to the lakefront office building, finding that the proposal met all the applicable standards for review of construction. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. II1. OLD BUSINESS Carlos Ruiz said that soon he would be mailing; the application for the preservation awards program to architects and home owners. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — March 20.2001 Pate 6 Barbara Gardner said that while driving around Evanston, she found houses that have been worked on and should be rccov-nized. She mentioned one house in the middle of the 1100 block of Maple Avenue. B. Gardner said that the new ov ners of that house have done a wonderful job on the house. She said she %could like those projects that did not need to come in front of the Commission to be acknowledge. Jessica Deis mentioned another similar project on the 1500 block of Greenleaf Street, west of Ridge Avenue. Michael Girard said that that project was an addition to the kitchen. Michael Girard mentioned the house that burned at Greenleaf Street and Michigan Avenue. He said that the restoration of that house looked very nice. Barbara Gardner said. with no intention to take away what the property owners have done with the house that the project was paid by home insurance. Lynne I-icidt said that the property owners of that house «ere lucky to have the right insurance. She wondered if the Commission should address that issue for the benefit of other property owners. Carlos Ruiz said that the National Trust for historic Preservation has offered insurance for historic homes. B. Gardner said that State Farm has insurance for historic houses. She said that perhaps the Commission could have seminars about this issue. On another note, Michael Girard said that he was still preparing the standards for new garages. IV. NEW BUSINESS Barbara Gardner reported that Kirk Ir%%in, Carlos Ruiz and her had a meeting with Jack Siegel, the City's Corporation Counsel, regarding the law suit that Northwestern University (NU) has against the City. She said that the judge had ruled to allow the law suit to move forward . She noted that the judge had never said that the NU case had merit. B. Gardner said that information would be provided to Jack Siegel about all of the times that NU came before the Commission in the last five years, and determine if NU got what they wanted, or whether their projects were approved immediately. Lynne Heidt asked what was the answer for those questions. B. Gardner said that NU came in front of the Commission about 15 times in the last five years. In one case NU had to come back for a rear fire escape stair. in all other cases, NU projects were approved. Lynne Heidt asked if Barbara Gardner, Kirk Irwin or Carlos Ruiz would testify in the case. K. Irwin said that the attorneys have to go to the judge and let him know who is going to be called as witnesses. I le said that they probably be subpoena. B. Gardner said that the case will go on probably until the end of the year. Carlos Ruiz said that there was one time when the Commission denied NU the demolition of the Commonwealth Edison Station, but later the City Council approved its demolition. Barbara Gardner said that information of properties owned by NU north of Lincoln Street will be provided to the City, attomeys. She said that NU has argued that they were discriminated against because the City Council kept all NU properties in the Historic District. B. Gardner said that City Council did not kept all NU properties in the Historic District. B. Gardner said that documentation of how many properties NU owns outside the Historic District and inside the other two Historic Districts as well. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — titarch'_D, 2001 Pace 7 Barbara Gardner said that the judge is a NU law graduate and a former law professor at NU, but he did not recused himself from the case. Jessica Deis asked if there was an update on District 65. Barbara Gardner said that the offer about the headquarters is in their court. Regarding the Commission's rules, Barbara Gardner said that the rules document would be coming back the Commission probably by the next meeting. �'. STAFF REPORT Carlos Ruiz said that lie will be away from his office from a week at the end of March until April S, 2001. He also said that his new direct a -mail address. Barbara Gardner said that Lynne lieidt had brought to the meeting news paper articles: -Winnetka offers perks to spare homes". another article about Van Doren Shaw, architect. \71. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced Preservation Week {May 6-I2, 2001). He suggested putting a slide preservation for City Council to highlight Evanston Schools. Barbara Gardner said she had met with Mayor Lorraine Morton. B. Gardner informed the Mayor that the Commission would like to be more visible in the community. Then talked about the proclamation for Preservation Week and the Preservation Awards. B. Gardner talked about the Northeast Evanston Historic District and also talked about new applicants for appointment to the Preservation Commission. She said that there are two applicants. B. Gardner also talked with the Mayor about the property tax freeze program. She informed the Mayor that while property had gone up 107% since the program started, the properties coming out of the tax freeze program have gone up 234%. She asked the Mayor to acknowledge that preservation is good for Evanston. B. Gardner said that the Mayor would like to have a plaque program for Iandmarks. U,mne lieidt said that plaques would be very helpful to potential homebuyers and realtors. She asked why landmarks and properties within district were not recorded with the Assessors office. Carlos Ruiz said that he has been discussing with the Assessors office recording properties within historic district and landmarks. Commission members discussed various ways to promote historic preservation including self - guided tours and working with the Conventions Visitors Bureau. Carlos Ruiz said that the City has now a web site. He said that he would like to have landmarks and information about historic preservation in the City's Web site. Evanston Preservation Commission ` Minutes — March 20. 2001 Pace S VI1. AMOUR ME`:T Jessica Deis moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Kirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted: f 6222'4,� t'rdinator Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservatio Date: EVANSTOti PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessica Deis, Barbara Gardner, George Halik, Lynne Heidt, Michael Imlay. Susan Reagan, and Laura Hodes lacks MEMBERS ABSENT: Heidi Carey, Michael Girard, Kirk Irwin, and Mark Sarkisian OTHERS PRESENT: Virginia L Beatty, Robert Heilman, Richard Cohen, John Holbert, Reinhold M. Weiss, Anita Remijas, Ellen Galland, Paula Barker, and John Coghlan PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM[ At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jessica moved that the Commission approve the minutes of February 20, 2001 as submitted. Michael Imlay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA 11. 1139 Ridge Avenue - New two -car garage [Construction] Owner or representative was not present at this time 2. 1509 Forest Avenue - Demolition of existing garage, construction of two -car garage [Demolition -Construction] Virginia Beatty, owner and Robert Heilman, architect with Airoom Architects, presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new two -car garage at 1509 Banston Presenation Commission Minutes —April 177, 2001 Page 2 Forest Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Robert Heilman said the project includes the demolition of the existing one -car garage and the construction of a new two -car garage with two garage door bays. He said that there is a stairway to a second floor for storage area. He said that the Commission had previously approved the - project in 1997. but V. Beatty did not proceed with the project for personal reasons. Robert Heilman said that the new structure would reflect the architecture of the existing home which was built in 1851 and added onto a couple times. He noted that the vernacular of the home was very clear and simple. The proportion and geometry of the new garage reflect that of the original structure. The roof pitch is the same as the existing structure;, the height of the structure would not exceed 28 ft. as required by the zoning code and the setbacks are met per the zoning code. The structure would also serve as beach clean up area. Robert Heilman said that V. Beatty had executed a document stating that the property and the structure would not be used ever as a rental unit. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if the new garage sidine would match that of the house. Robert Heilman said, yes. B. Gardner said that the existing garage was barely standing. George Halik read the standards for review of demolition. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the existing garage at the rear of the property at 1509 Forest Avenue, finding that approval for demolition is in concordance with the standards for demolition. George Halik seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve of the plan and verbal testimony for the new garage at 1509 forest Avenue, finding that it is in concordance with the applicable standards for new construction. Michael Imlay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. I220 Michigan Avenue - Adding a one-story kitchen to the south side, raise roof over existing home with gambrel/gable roof jAlteration] Richard Cohen, owner and John Holbert, architect presented plans for a one-story kitchen addition on the south side, and raising the roof over the existing home with a gambrel/gable roof = at 1220 Michigan Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. John Holbert said that the project included a new kitchen and new bedrooms. The addition would have a gambrel roof running nonWsouth. He said that the gambrel roof would be sympathetic to the colonial character of the house. Richard Cohen said that mold had spread throughout the walls and floors, necessitating replacement. John Holbert acknowledged that the project would change the house, but it would be done in a sympathetic manner. John Halbert noted that they would prefer a gambrel roof over E-arsxr: Frrser%ation Commission yttmut=s — April 17. 200I PM„. -. then Cara r as opposed to the gable roof as shown on the drawings as submitted in the packets. Canmm^ms.ion's Findings S:tt.; .-a Gardner asked if the second floor exterior finish would be wood shingles. John Holbert said, ve::. In response to a question regarding the i%indow•s, J. Holbert said that the windows wc+uid bte wood %vindows with divided lights to match the existing windows. He added that the kin: hen -windows may have a different sill height. Je:-:sica Deis said that the gambrel roof over the garage looked different from the gable roof, but it wzut, egt:aJJy good. Susan Regan agreed with J. Deis. George Halik said that it also looked fine, bur he wondered if a model would help determine the hierarchy of the roofline. Je.-:sica Dris moved that the Commission approve the project at 1220 Michigan Avenue as pr(vsente~.3 with the caveat that if the owner and the architect determine that they would like to use the _�i=r, el roof design over the garage door, as presented at the meeting, that they would have than optjton. She also moved that the kitchen window could have a sill height to correspond with the- vast Elevation first floor %%indows. The Commission found that the project is in accordance witfh the <andards for alteration, according to the testimony received in graphic and verbal form. Lvmne Pj--idt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1735 Wesley Avenue - Repairing existing siding, roof and trim; repair masonry tyundation; add concrete curb at alley; add dormer on roof of garage [Alterationj Johin Hci7nert, architect presented plans for repairing the siding, roof, trim, masonry foundation, adihirtg a concrete curb at the alley, adding a garage door and adding a dormer on the roof of the garage at 1735 Wesley Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. John Ht=Caert said that the existing barnlgarage structure has severe structural problems. He said thtr,cxpo--,;.rd brick on the three sides would be repaired. The west side is bowed and it would be sltcrmd = and the masonry rebuilt. The wall on the alley side would have to be raised with S or 10 dnr-hL of concrete to have an apron going into the garage to stop the water. He said that the apron wc:Eald cover the foundation wall. Jahn He1"lo--rt said that the existing wood siding would be repaired where needed. Also, a dormer woruld be added on the roof at the west elevation. He said that the north and south elevations w•otuld ha �,e a double window each under the gable, instead of the single windows. Cormrni raon's Findings Jes!�aca Diris said that she was thrilled with the project. She said that the only thing she was not quip-- szr` about was regarding the two openings on the second floor of the garage. She wamderet« if the openings would still be there as reminiscence of the original structure, because there Eire e7-ocative and historical element of the structure that predates the automobile. She said that- as lec4g. the openings remain, they would be ideal for locating the air conditioning units. Jessica Dt -is moved that the Commission accept the project as presented, allowing the air E%- on Presenation Commission Mir.t.:cs —April l 7. 2001 Pate conditioning unit to go on the second floor, -where the east side would be an acceptable location for the air conditioning opening. Lynne Heidt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 921 Ridge Avenue - Removing an existing chimney on the north side [Alteration] Reinhold M. Weiss, property owner presented plans for the removal of a chimney located on the north side of the building at 921 Ridge .avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Commission's Findings Reinhold W. Weiss said that only one of the three existing chimneys is being used. He said he would like to make a better use of the interior space and build a stairway. Barbara Gardner asked if the fireplace could be removed and retain the chimney. R. Feiss said, no because the fireplace is inside the building and chimney protrudes through the roof. Jessica Deis said that the chimney is self-supporting with the fireplace. George Halik moved that the Commission accept the proposal to remove the chimney, as meeting the applicable standards for alteration. Lynne Hcidt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 2311 Sherman Avenue - One-story addition to the south and east elevations lConstruction] Anita Remijas, property owner and Ellen Galland, architect presented plans for building a one- story addition to the south and cast of the building at 2311 Sherman Avenue. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Ellen Galland said the mudroom is located on the north side of the house. Jessica addition seems to complete the existing addition. Barbara Gardner asked if the area underneath the deck would be opened. Anita Remijas said that landscaping would cover the area under the deck. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the addition at 2311 Sherman Avenue as presented, finding that it is in conformance with the applicable standards for construction. Lynne Heidt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 320 Davis Street - New front entry overhang, front window replacement, east side second floor bay addition lConstruction] Paula Barker, property owner and Ellen Galland, architect presented plans for a new front entry overhang, replacement of front window, and addition of a second floor bay on the east elevation at 320 Davis Street. The property is %%ithin the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ellen Galland said that the rear of the house was not visible from any public way. However, she would like to get comments on the front. She said that since the application was submitted, some Evanston Preservation Commission N1inutes — Anil l _ool Page S initially proposed materials had changed. E. Galland said that the front entry roof overhang would be 18" with slate roofing and copper gutters. Paula Barker said that the big change is that her clients would like to finish the addition and the rest of the house in stucco instead of brick. Commission's Findings George Halik asked what would be done with the corbelling or brick detail below the overhang. Paula Barker said that the brick pattern would not be seen. She said that the stucco finish would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Ellen Galland said that they also had changed the windows to Pella casement windows in a dark green color. She said that another change was the proposed glass roof with a slate -hipped roof with columns. Ellen Galland said that they would be applying for a minor zoning variation because they would like to build beyond the required 27' front yard setback. Laura Hodes Zacks arrived at this time (approximately 8:30 p.m.) Ellen Galland said that at the rear of the property there is a 1.5' tall brick wall that dates from the original house on lake Street, her clients would like to build a 6' tall brick wall with stucco around the other parts of the property, leaving the 1.5* tall wall in place. She said that the proposed brick wall was not part of their original application. The fence would be on the east lot line from the northeast comer of the house and on the west lot line from the northwest comer of the house. back to the rear lot line. Carlos Ruiz expressed concern with the proposed solid fence and its impact on the neighbors. Paula Barker said that they had intentions to consult with the neighbors about the solid fence. Jessica Deis asked if the fence will be visible from the public gray. It was concluded that a portion of the fence would be visible. Carlos Ruiz suggested recessing the masonry stucco fence towards the rear to minimize its impact on the streetscape. Paula Barker asked if landscaping could be used in front of the masonry fence. The Commissioners said, yes. George Halik read the criteria for special uses and variations. The Commission found that criteria A and C were applicable. Jessica moved that the Commission recommend approval of a minor variation for the front entry porch overhang, finding that it is in accordance with items A and C of special uses and variations. Lynne Heidt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve a proposed masonry fence of a height of G-feet, pending notification of adjacent neighbors with a diagram and indication of the location of the fence. Staff can approve said fence presuming that there is no objection from the neighbors. Lynne Heidt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Lynne Heidt moved that the Commission accept the proposed changes to [the house] at 320 Davis Street with a new front entry, window replacement, east side second floor bay addition in stucco and slate roof as proposed as meeting the standards of construction. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. E%anston Prescr ation Commission Minutes —April 17. 2001 Pace 6 8. 1139 Ridge avenue - demolition rif existing garage and carport, construction of nc%v tivo-car garage and carport ]Demolition/Construction] John Coghlan, property owner presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new two -car garage at 1139 Ridge .Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. John Coghlan said that a carport attached to the existing two -car garage collapsed due to heavy snow. He said that the southern wall of the garage had shifted a couple of inches. J. Coghlan described the project as a two -car garage with a one -car tarpon and replacing the flat roof to extend over the carport. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked why not build a three -car garage. John Coghlan said it was convenient to pull a car into a carport and it also shows that somebody is home. Carlos Ruiz asked J. Coghlan, based in the available drawings, if he knew what he was going to get. J. Coghlan said that he had a detailed contract. Carlos Ruiz said that the application only had a description. J. Coghlan explained that the hipped roof will cover the two -car garage and carport. Jessica Deis asked John Coghlan if he had design drawings that show the design of the garage. J. Coghlan said, no. He said that he had seen photographs of similar garages. Discussion ensued about the type of roof. John Coghlan believed that the roof will be a hipped roof coming to a point. Some Commissioners said that the roof could be a hipped roof with a ridge in the middle. George Halik said that the Commission's previous discussion about garages seemed to focus on the pitch of roofs and other the characteristics of adjacent garages. Lynne lleidt suggested that staff could review design plans and approve the certificate of appropriateness. Barbara Gardner said that she would prefer that the roof pitch be raised to have the appearance of a vintage garage. George Halik said that the Commission should give some direction to the applicant so that he could go to his contractor and determine what the impact will be on the design. Michael Imlay said that it would be useful to know what is the design of the proposed roof, lie emphasized that the lack of information was a reoccurring problem. J. Coghlan said that he had discussed the roof design with his contractor and that he wants the hipped roof going to a point. George Halik moved that the Commission approve the project with the understanding that the roof will come to a center point in the elevation of the new garage, with the cave being the same all way around, and therefore the pitch of the roof will be more than 5 and 12. The applicant will come back with a more accurate sketch for staff review and approval. Lynne Heidt seconded the motion. Discussion: Carlos Ruiz asked if the proposed vinyl siding was appropriate. Barbara Gardner said that a garage on the 1200 block of Ridge has pink stucco above white vinyl siding and it looks awful. John Coghlan said that the trim on his garage will be brown to match the house and the vinyl siding will be beige. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - April 17, 2001 Paec 7 The motion passed unanimously. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the certificate for the demolition of the existing garage at 1139 Ridge Avenue, Ending that it is in accordance with the appropriate standards for demolition. Kirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 2675 Prairie Avenue - NVindow replacement, new window openings, and new roof windows at rear of house [Alterationj Susan Regan recused herself as Commissioner because she was the architect for the project. S. Regan presented plans for window replacement, new window openings, and a new roof window at the rear of the house at 2675 Prairie Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Susan Regan said that she had pictures of the front and two sides of the house, she did not have pictures of the rear of the house. She said that the interior work on the south and east side of the house affects window and door openings. A sill is being raised at one window that opens to the porch on the south. Also a door is being moved and a window installed in its place. Susan Regan said that the proposed changes are in the area of an existing addition to the house with a lower gabled roof coming off the main gable roof and on another one story addition. She said that on the second floor because of the -way the porch and the lower roof extends up, the new bathrooms will have roof windows. J. Regan believed that the roof windows will not be visible from Prairie Avenue. The roof windows are on the secondary gable as opposed to the main gable of the house. Susan Regan said that the new windows will be single light window sashes. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if the replacement windows are where the size of the window openings will change. Susan Regan said, yes. She said that window sill was being raised for a kitchen counter. The remaining window opening will be infilled with wood clapboard to match the exterior of the house. The rear windows (six over six double hung windows) will be removed and replaced with the single light windows. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the alterations at 2675 Prairie Avenue, finding that they are in agreement with the appropriate standards of alteration. George Halik seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. WELCOME TO NEW COMMISSIONER Barbara Gardner welcomed Laura Hodes Zacks, newly appointed Commissioner. Laura Hodes Zacks said she moved to Evanston since last September from downtown Chicago. She is an attorney interested in historic preservation and urban planning. She said she is originally from New York. E%anstonPresenauor. Commmoen Minuses — A,pri1 1 !X� I Page 8 V. OLD BUSINESS Carlos Ruiz reported that the Iawsuit filed by Northwestern University against the City of Evanston was con=uing. He said that City staff has been working hard gathering documents that have been requested. He said that April 23 is a deadline to submit those documents. In response to a question from Barbara Gardner, Carlos Ruiz said that we only can give those documents in our possession. Kirk Irvin said that Altheimer and Gray is the City's Corporation Counscl. VI. NEW BUSINESS National historic Preservation Week 2001 Carlos Ruiz said that he would like Mayor Lorraine Morton read the proclamation celebrating the Preservation Week :.n the first week in May 2001. He encouraged members of the Commission to be present at the reading of the proclamation. Carlos Ruiz said tha: he would like to make a presentation of Evanston school buildings that are architecturally significant because this year's preservation week theme is neighborhood schools. V11. STAFF REPORT No staff report VIII. ANNOUNCEIMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Preservation Commission meeting is May 15, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. [Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois, 60201). Barbara Gardner urged Commissioners to call Carlos Ruiz the Monday before the Commission meeting if they do not plan to attend the Commission meeting. IX. ADJOURI.SIENT Jessica Deis moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Lynne Heidt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted: T �.= s Carlos D. Ruiz I Senior Planncr/Preservation sd for E Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting tilinutes Tuesday, May 15, 2001 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessica Deis. Michael Girard. Michael Imlay. Kirk Irwin, Susan Regan and Mark Sarkisian MEMBERS ABSENT: Heidi Carey, Lynne Heidt. and George Halik OTHERS PRESENT: Clifford Bridges, Robert Reece. Domingo T. Tiu, Elliott Dudnick, Doug Gaynor. Peter Siegal. Eugenia Alba -Just. Matthew E. Just Jr., Susie O'Connor Creevv. Martin Kim. Sunil Sanbhri, Kathy Burgess, Hans Friedman. Sid Ross. [Ryhis Vouthan], Paul and Judy Cooper. Robert Lubotsky, and Andrew Rolfe PRESIDING: Michael Girard, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20, 2001 minutes Susan Regan corrected the spelling of her name as "Regan" not "Reagan." Jessica Deis moved to approve the minutes of March 20, 2001 as corrected. Mark Sarkisian seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. COMMITTEE REPORT'S RVOCIV and Technical Review Committee 1. 1717 Benson Avenue (Second Baptist Church) - Rear Addition Clifford Bridges, architect, Boil Reece (SBC) and Domingo Tiu. Clifford Bridges said that the project includes the renovation of the church and an addition at the back end of 1717 Benson Avenue. C. Bridges said that the south elevation drawing showed the existing and the historic portion of the building. They propose to demolish the portion shown as E%anston Pnncr%an in Commission '*ta% 15. _001 . Mir.utrs Paue 71 new construction. That three and a half -story portion of the building would be replaced with a five -story addition. The new addition would match the existing material (brick) as closely as possible. as ,Nell as the cornice detail and limestone. The building (main) would be separated from the ne-.-. addition with a reveal. C. Bridges said that the ~vest elevation drawing showed that the five-sto; . addition would not overpower the existing main building. The sight line is so far back that the addition %%ould not be visible from the street. Clifford Bridges said that the east elevation faces the alley and would not be seen from Benson Avenue. Carlos Ruiz asked about the zoning variance. Clifford Bridges said that they would request for zoning variance because the project is over the allowable floor area ratio (FAR). The additional v-No stories are about 3.000 S.F. to be used mainly for offices and classrooms. C. Bridges said that they were in the process of applying for the zoning variance. In response to a question from C. Ruiz, Bob Reece said that the neighboring property owners did not express any concern regarding the zoning variance. lie added that the Evanston Athletic Club (neighbor to the north) was also contemplating an addition to its building. Jessica Deis asked about the proposed demolition of the existing rear addition. C. Bridges said that the building .%as built in two phases. He noted that the portion proposed for demolition is not historic. He said that they were removing three columns or fifty -feet and rebuild with the five -storm addition. Jessica Deis asked if the new brick would match the existing brick. Domingo Tiu said they would try to match the existing brick. Mark Sarkisian read the Standards for Rcview of Demolition. The Commission determined that standards 1. ?. 3 and 5 did not apply. Standard 4 was met. dark Sarkisian moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the [existing] addition which, based on submitted documents and verbal testimony does not provide and/or contribute to the historic character of the original structure at 1717 Benson Avenue. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Carlos Ruiz read the application for special uses and variations. The applicants responded the following: (a) "the proposed new addition will not adversely affect the historic architecture or aesthetic integrity because the new design will borrow similar elements of the historic features, such as the cornice details. similar window type and configurations (brick type, color, etc.)'; (b) "the special use is required because the Church growth over the years requires a larger worship space with more support rooms such as classrooms. meeting rooms, conference rooms, etc."; and (c) " if the special use is granted it will function a similar capacity as now, it will not be detrimental or compromise the safety or welfare of pedestrians or the properties in the vicinity. If special use is granted the renovation will help extend the historical landmark life expectancy. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission recommend approval of the zoning variation for the building and details given in verbal testimony of the existing characteristics of the building. Susan Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Jessica Deis referred to the seventeen standards for construction. She said that the new -_ construction µas in accordance with the applicable standards for new construction. Jessica Deis Evanston Preser%ation Commission May IS, 2001 -Minutes Page 3 moved that the Commission approve the construction of the new addition at the Second Baptist Church. finding that it is in accordance with the applicable standards of review for new construction. Mark Sarkisian seconded the motian. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 927 Noyes Street - Exterior Alterations Elliott Dudnick said that the Noyes Arts Center was under exterior rehabilitation including tuckpointing of the brick and repair of most of the wood soffits. E. Dudnick said that the most visible change would be the windows on the Gymnasium (1954 Perkins and Will). E. Dudnick said that the new windows would be practically the same as the existing windows. The only difference is that the new windows are thermo-break aluminum double -glazed. Commission's Findines The Commission found that the window openings would be the same as the existing as well as the mullions. The casement windows will operate with fixed top and bottom. E. Dudnick said that the series of lights over doors will be replaced. He added that a new wrought iron fence would be installed near the trash area, Elliott Dudnick reiterated that the existing brick will remain. as well as the appearance of the new windows would be the same as the existing windows. Mark Sarkisian read the standards for rcvic%%- of alteration. Jessica Deis said standards 2, 6 and 7 were applicable. Kirk Irwin moved that the Commission approve the renovation at 927 Noyes Street finding that the applicable standards of alteration 2.6 and 7 were in the proposal in written and verbal testimony. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 727 Sheridan Road Matt Just, and Eugenia Alba -Just, property owners, and Peter Siegal, architect presented plans for exterior alterations at 727 Sheridan Road. Peter Siegal said that at the rear of the house facing Lake Michigan, there was a bay added to the house. He said that bay suffered serious structural damage due to water. P. Siegal said that to repair the bay it will need to be removed in its entirety. He said that his clients would prefer to complete the back of the house in the plane of the rest of the house. Commissions Findings Jessica Deis asked if the Commission was reviewing the project because it was viewed from Lake Michigan, consider a public way. Carlos D. Ruiz said, yes. Peter Siegal said that they were proposing a trellis on the first floor. Michael Girard said that standards of alteration 2. 5, and 8. Susan Regan asked the material of the new windows. Peter Siegal said that the new xvindows would be wood. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the alterations to 727 Sheridan Road as presented. finding that they are in accordance with the applicable standards of alteration. Susan Evanston Preseration Commission May 15.2001 - Minutes Page 4 Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1000 Lakeshore Blvd. Sunil Saghri. property owner. Martin Kim and Susan O'Connor Creeyy, architects presented plans for a one-story addition at 1000 Lakeshore Blvd. Susan Creeyv said the project involves building a one-story addition family room and renovating an existing kitchen. The project also includes extending a four foot sunroom and making a bedroom on the second floor. Susan Creevy said that they were also requesting a zoning variance because the addition will be connected to an existing garage which is within the side setback. Susan Creevy said that the design will not only match the existing materials and windows size. but also the existing proportions of the interior of the house. Susan said that anybody that would buy a house of the size, location and cost of her clients' house would like to have a kitchen and family room. She added that the garage would also work as the changing room for the pool and connect the existing garage to the house. Susan Creevv said that the proportions of the family/breakfast room were almost identical to the size of the living room. Commission's Findings In response to Michael Girard's question. Martin Kim said that the base of the addition was brick. M. Girard asked about the new windows size. Susan Creev_y said that the size of the new windows match the existing windows. Jessica Deis asked about the zoning variance. Neil said that the minor variation was for side yard setback. The required setback is 5-feet, the garage is 4-feet. By attaching the garage to the house they need the minor variance. Michael Girard read the three standards for special uses and zoning variations. He said that none of the standards applied. Mark Sarkisian moved that the Commission recommend approval for the recommendation to the Zoning administrator for the variation of side yards setback as it had been verbally described to the Commission. Susan Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Michael Girard said that the project maintains the scale of window, openings and their design vocabulary. and matching materials around the base and the stucco finish. He said that standards of alteration 2, S and 9 applied to the project. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the alterations proposed for 1000 Lakeshore Blvd., as they met the applicable standards for alteration. Kirk Irvin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Jessica Deis complemented the graphic presentation and the model that clearly illustrated the Evanston Presenarion Commission May 15. 2001 - % inutes pace 5 proposal. Michael Girard said that the standards for construction deal with massing. relationship of solids to N oids and proponions of facades. He said that those standards were properly handled. .161. Girard stated that standards for construction 1. 7. 8. 10 and 12 were applicable. Kirk lr«in moved that the Commission approve the new construction at 1000 Lakeshore Blvd., finding that standards for new construction 1. 7. 8. 10 and 12 are met by the proposal. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. S. 1330 Church Street Kathy Burgess, owner said that she would like to rebuild a fence that was originally around the house. She said that the fence would require a fence variance because it would be in front of the house. C. Burgess had a description from 1908 of the fence and how it was a trademark signature of Slyron Hunt (original architect). She noted how the fence tied the house ,.N ith the corner. C. Burgess said because the house is so close to the sidewalk, it is right now out of code and it always has been. Michael Girard asked if there were more photographs of the former fence. She said that she had a larger framed photograph that shows the fence in more detail at 42" height. She said that designs were being prepared for a higher fence at the rear yard. Kathy Burgess said she was seeking the Commission's input because she planned to apply for the fence variation and a building pertnit. She explained that her existing fence was on her neighbor's property and she would like to relocate it to her property. C. Burgees said that she had built a new garage (east side). A 6'-0'* fence will meet the garage and then from the garage a 42" fence would be along the front perimeter of the property and connecting to the front porch. She said the fence was in a tray part of restoring the two porches. Hans Friedman said they had completed the construction of the two car garage. He said that now his clients would like to restore the front elevations by removing the existing addition and put back the original roof lines and create an enclosed porch and restoring a patio. Commission's Findings Michael Girard asked if the existing footing will be used. Hans Friedman said that they were investigating the condition of the footings. It appears that there are no footings at all. Carlos Ruiz asked how much demolition will occur. Hans Friedman said they will takeout the windows of the addition and remove the roof and rebuilt the roof to its original design. In response to a question from C. Ruiz, Kathy Burgess said the porch facing Church Street most likely is not in compliance with the required setbacks. The porch facing Wesley Avenue was within the required setbacks. Carlos Ruiz said that the proposed changes to the porch facing Church Street may require a zoning variance for the setback. Michael Girard read the standards for review of alteration. He concluded that the proposal met the applicable standards 2 and 5. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the proposal for alteration on the west elevation of the house at 1330 Church Street, finding that it is in accordance with standards 2 and 5 for alteration. Susan Regan seconded the motion. The Evanston Prescr%ation Commission Sta} 15, _001 - 5.tin;as Page 6 motion passed unanimously. Carlos Ruiz su_-gested that the Commission consider the information provided by the applicant about the orieinal fence and state the reasons -why the Commission would recommend or not recommend the fence variation. Kirk Irvin referred to a monograph where it was stated that fences are considered a signature device fer .Livron Hunt. Also. other llunt buildings where there is a fence. the fence is integral to the architecture. K. Irwin said that information was consistent with the history of the 13-0 Church Street building. Kathy Burgess said that on the Church Street porch there is the same spindle feature with the same kind of railing as depicted in the photograph. Kirk Irvin read the standards for special uses and zoning variations. I le said that the proposed fence met standards (a) and (c). K. Irwin moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Administrator that standards (a) and (e) are met by the application. To support the Commission's recommendation he referred to the portion of the book on Myron Hunt that the applicant submitted with the application. If the fence variation changes, then the Commission will review again the application. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousiv. 6. 1212 Judson Avenue Judy Steele, owner said the rear addition for a kitchen/family room and an extra bedroom. Judy Steele noted that at some point in time the rear of the house was chopped off into pieces. There was a large gable where a bathroom was added on the third floor. They hoped to restore the rear of the house as much as possible. Judy Steele said that the house is sided. the architect and builder will determine ghat the finish was underneath the siding. They hoped to remove the siding and restore the original finish. The addition will be finished as close as possible to the original finish of the house including some of the leaded glass. Commission's Findinus Michael Girard read the standards for review of construction. He said that the proposed addition met standards 1. 2. 7 and 8. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the project at 1212 Judson Avenue as presented, finding that it is in conformance with standards 1.2. 7 and 8 for new construction. Kirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 7. 307 Davis Street Sid Ross said that they were proposing a driveway in front and side of the existing front yard. He said that they had lived at their house for twenty years and always parked on the street. He said that his %%ife has had two surgeries (hip replacements). S. Ross said that parking directly in front of Davis Street is a tow away zone. and it is two days alternate parking during the summer. Last winter their car was plowed in at least a couple of times. He said that the nature of the house does afford any kind of solution for off-street parking that would conform with the zoning ordinance. Sid Ross showed photos of their house and pictures of other houses with similar driveways. Banston Preservation Commission May 15. 2001 -Minutes Pate 7 Commission's findings Jessica Deis asked about the driveway surface. Sid Ross said it would be a dark concrete paver with additional landscaping. Jessica Deis said this was a difficult situation with a house near Lake N ichigan. Jessica Deis said that if done right the driveway could look like a wide walk. Kirk Irvin said that this was a unique condition where the property was landlocked. He said he would be favorable to approving the drivcuay, but he did not want to set precedent of putting cars in front of houses in Evanston. - Jessica Deis noted that there is no garage at the front or back and the proposed material for the driveway is typically used as a pedestrian type paving material. Carlos Ruiz asked Sid Ross if they had applied for the zoning variations for front yard parking. S. Ross said that they were in theprocessof doing so. C. Ruiz asked if the applicant had heard any negative response or comment from neighbors regarding the proposed front yard parking. S. Ross said. no. C. Ruiz asked if the applicants contacted their neighbors. S. Ross said that they will show their next door neighbors the plans for the driveway tomorrow night. Carlos Ruiz read the three standards for special uses and variations and the responses from the applicants. The applicants had stated under standard (a) that they had lived in their house for twenty years. the age and medical condition of Mrs. Ross made off street parking not a viable solution and also cited the landscaping improvements to the front yard. The applicants answered that standards (b) and (c) did not apple. Jessica Deis said that standard (b) did apply by stating that a house without a garage or parking within reasonable distance would diminish the value of the property. Kirk Irvin said that standard (c) also applied. because the driveway will help public safety by moving a car off a dangerous intersection from someone who has a handicapped permit. Kirk Irvin moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals [Zoning Administrator] approval of the landscape and driveway for 307 Davis Street, finding that standards (a), (b) and (c) are met by the proposal. The Commission added standards (b) and (c) as applicable. if the variation changes at the zoning level that the Commission will review the application again. Jessica Deis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 100 Greenwood Street Contractor [name not legible] said that the owner would like to remove the existing «indows in the dining room with French doors to have direct access to the front of the house facing Lake Michigan. Commission's Findings Jessica Deis said that the proposed alteration was not changing in any significant Nmav the previous large addition to the structure that is not a Landmark. Mark Sarkisian asked about the material for the new doors. The contractor said the doors will be wood. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission approve the new French wood doors on the first floor of 100 Greenwood Street. The house is not a Landmark and it has already undergone extensive Banston Presenation Commission Mati 15. 2001 - Minutes Pace 8 revisions. finding that what % as being proposed was acceptable. Susan Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 64.1, Michigan Avenue Paul and Judy Cooper owners said the house is a two and a half Victoria Queen Anne. The proposed changes are in the back. The L-shaped one-story portion of the house is the kitchen. The project consists of extending the line of the house in its very simple fashion. including the complete A-fratne with a kitchen on the first floor and a master bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. with the same gable in the back as on the front. The materials will be the same as the existing, on the house. Commission's l:indines Michael Girard asked to see the elevation drawings. Paul Cooper said that they only had elevations for the proposed addition. As far as the exterior aluminum siding on the house, it will be possible to match it because they had recently installed the aluminum siding after a recent fire at their neighbors next door. Paul said that a couple of windows will be rearranged to bring natural light into the house. Michael Girard expressed concern about the different size of window openings. The new windows seemed smaller than the existing tall windows. The Commission discussed extensively the window styles on the house from double hung to casement and awning windows. Also. Michael Girard noted that the gable roof over the rear entry on the cast elevation appeared to be floating without any support below. Michael Girard said that he would recommend that the sill and head height on the second floor windows approximate the sill and head height of the existing windows. hark Sarkisian said that some interior issues were determining the height of the proposed windows. Susan Regan mentioned that the master bedroom will have two different sizes of windows and that some windows will operate differently than others. Susan Regan moved that the Commission accept the project finding that it complies with standards for construction 1, 7 and 8. Mark Sarkisian seconded the motion. Discussion: Michael Girard asked if the motion would include the window discussion. Susan Regan said that the window discussion was information for the applicants and that they could share that information with their architect. Vote: The motion passed unanimously. 10. 721 Forest Avenue Robert Lubolsky, owner said he had previously been in front of the Commission in September of 2000 for the same project. Carlos Ruiz said that the proposed changes to the design need the Commission review. Evanston Preser%ation Cornmission May 15. 2001 - Minutes Page 9 Robert Lubotsk%, said that the exterior finishes are the same as before. cement stucco. good windows. wood trim. shincle roof and copper gutters. He said that the original design had a fireplace in the front of the house. now relocated to another side of the living room. The four - foot projecting bay in front of the house has now a different shape. R. Lubotsky said the rear faFade has also changed with a screen porch in front of the kitchen and a bedroom above. Another change is the addition of a room in the attic on the north side of the house and a dormer. Commission's Findines In response to a question from Jessica Deis. R. Lubotsky said that the square footage of the revised design for the new house did not change. Michael Girard asked how the new dormer on the north elevation affected the front elevation. R. Lubotsky said the new dormer was not drawn on the front elevation. but it would be below the chimney. Jessica Deis said that perhaps the dormer should be scaled down. Michael imlay said that the large dormer did not concern him at all. Michael Girard read the standards for review of construction. Ile concluded that the proposed construction of a new house met standards 1. 2. 3. 7 and 8. Susan Regan moved that the Commission accept the project for the construction of a new house at 721 Forest Avenue as meeting standards for construction 1, 2, 3. 7 and 8. Michael Imlay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. 111S Oak Avenue Andy Rolfe, owner said he and his wife would like to erect a wought iron fence behind a hedge in front of the house and along the north and south sides. A. Rolfe said that they need a contained open space for their two large dogs. He said that their house sits on the lot towards the middle on the north side. He described that behind the house is not a yard, instead there is a flab stone patio. The green space is to the south side of the house. Andy Rolfe said that there is a chain link fence on the south side that belongs to his neighbors and another fence on the north side owned by his north side neighbors. He said that the idea is to have a small fence along the north side that runs to the front corner of the house and along the inside of the hedge that runs along the house and end at the chain link on the south side. Commission's Findings Jessica Deis asked if there was any zoning issues. Andy Rolfe said there is a front yard fence variance issue. Carlos Ruiz said that he went to the site and met with Andy Rolfe. He said that there are two issues: one, setting precedent; and two. potential neighbors objections. He said that one alternative discussed ,%vrith the property owners was to erect the fence along the north side of the driveway and behind the hedge in front of the house. The property owners concluded that that alternative would divide the property in two halves. Jessica Deis said that the material and the transparency of the proposed fence were a marked contrast with a wood fence. Susan Regan asked if the gate at the driveway would be opened Evanston Presenaiion Commission May 15.2001 - Minutes Nee 10 manually. Andy Rolfe said he did not know at the moment. Michael Imlay said that the applicant made an incredibly sensitive response to the problem. Jessica Deis said that if there -.vas substantial change in grade that the fence step down in sections for a cleaner Iook. Jessica Deis moved that the Commission recommend approval by the "Zoning, Board [Zoning Administrator] as proposed at 1118 Oak Avenue. based on the following considerations: 1) based on the fact that it is a very transparent fence (wrought iron with widely spaced pickets): ?) it is a fence that is less than 4-feet high (42"): 3) based on the fact that it is way setback from the edge ofthe sidewalk and it is buffered by a thick hedge between the fence itself and the sidewalk. Mark Sarkisian seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Jessica Deis mowed that the Commission approve the construction of a wrought iron fence at 111 S Oak Avenue. in configuration and stele as presented. finding that it is in accordance with the applicable standards [construction]. dark Sarkisian seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 111. OLD BUSINESS Kirk Irwin said that he and Carlos Ruiz gave depositions at Altheimer and Grey [City's Corporation Counsel] regarding the Northwestern University lawsuit. Kirk Irwin said that he and Barbara Gardner were in the process of writing the Commission's Rules and Procedures. Michael Girard said that the garage standards were in progress and almost completed IV. NEW BUSINESS Carlos D. Ruiz said that there was no new business V. STAFF REPORT No staff report VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz said that the next Commission meeting is June 19, 2001 at 7:30 p.m., Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2403. Carlos Ruiz thanked Jessica Deis for her six years of service as a Commission member and Chair. Jessica Deis said that it was for her a great learning experience. Emanston Preservation Commission May I5.2001 - Minutes Page I I NIL ADJOURNMENT Jessica Deis moved to adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: --64 Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Presen�ation Coordinator Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION fleeting .Minutes Tuesday, June 19.200I 7:30 P.Si. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois hiENIBERS PRESENT: Heidi Carey, Barbara Gardner. Michael Girard, Michael Imlay, Kirk Irwin, Susan Reagan., M ark Sarkisian, and Laura Hodes Zack NZ IEMBERS ABSENT: George Halik, and Lynne Heidt OTHERS PRESENT: John D. Heimbauhg. Arthur Salzman, Eric Mullendore, Kevin Rock, Cynthia Bates, Ellen Galland, Henry Zimoch, Maurice Lennon, Fred Wilson. Jackie Mack, Kris Bradford, Steven M. Thompson, Kathleen Buffington, and Bridgette Rutter PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATIOIti OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum %,.as present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were submitted at this time. III_ COIN MITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA 1. 1330 Ridge Avenue (Unitarian Church of EV2n$ton) - alteration of the north and south curtain wall jAltemtionj Join Heimbaugh representing the Unitarian Church of E,%-z=on and Arthur Salzman, architect, presented plans for rehabilitating the north and south eln26ors curtain wall at 1330 Ridge Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. John Hcimbaugh said that Arthur Salzman was an experienced architect in the curtain %N211 field_ J. Hrimbaugh indicated that the building was constructed in 1958-59. The north and south Evanston Prrscr.a:ton Commuision Minutes - J one 10. 1-001 Pace curtain µ311s «ere built out of simple steel channels and are currently extremely deteriorated. He noted that there is no thermal break in the walls or a %iping system, consequently condensation has deteriorated the base and the inside of lower members of the curtain walls. John Heimbaugh said that they «ould like to propose removing the glass and stops of the existing curtain walls and use the steel frame«ork as the structure for a new contemporary and well designed curtain wall system. The original steel frame would remain inside and behind the new glass with a new thermally broken. J. Heimbaugh showcd several drawings illustrating the new curtain call system. He added that on the face of the new mullion, an additional extrusion would be installed to match the depth of the original mullion and cast the same shadow. The new wall would be moved out 4-inches from the existing plane of the original wall. J. Heimbaugh showed a sample of the proposed anodized material in a champagne color finish. Commission's Findings In response to a question from dark Sarkisian. John Heimbaugh said that the building was design as an extrusion itself, a concrete shell/tube where the curtain walls sit inside the tube. There is enough extension of that tube beyond the existing curtain walls for the new curtain walls. Carlos Ruiz asked about the glass specifications. John Heimbaugh said the glass is gray in color, thermo-pane and grade plate. Kirk Ire; -in moved that the Commission accept the proposal as presented verbally and in graphic representation. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1130 Lake Shore Blvd - partial demolition, alterations and two-story addition. {Alteration, Demolition, and Construction] Eric Mullendore, architect. Kevin Rock, Cynthia Bates, property owners, presented plans and model for partial demolition, exterior alterations and a two-story addition at 1130 Lakeshore Blvd, an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Erick Mullendore said that the existing one-story screened porch on the south elevation would be removed, and a two-story brick addition would be built in its place. He said that the massing of the addition came directly from the proportions of the existing building. Also, the plan comes from the relationship of the existing windows. There is a small covered terrace porch facing the lake on the floor and an open balcony on the second floor. An uncovered terrace in the back goes out to the garden. Erick Mullendore said that the first floor plan is a very simple plan. The new library space would be accessed from the central hall through an existing door assembly. The second floor addition supports the master bedroom with a dressing room and a master bathroom. E. Mullendore said that the third floor has three rooms with sliding windows. These windows would be replaced with new windows. Style and material of these new windows yet to be determined. Erick Mullendore said that the addition's windows would match the existing windows' size, proportion. and mullion detail. The new windows are Marvin Magnum historic double hung windows. The new brick would match the existing brick; the existing balustrade would be duplicated and continued around the new addition. Evanston Preser%ation Commission Minutes — June 19. 2001 Pape 3 Commission's Findings Kirk Irvin asked why the addition's south elevation second floor windows did not align with the first floor windows. Erick Mullendore said that the second floor plans show that the new windows align with the existing window openings. On the first floor the ne%v windows are placed in the center of the wall space left over by the construction of the fireplace as shown in the model. Susan Regan moved that the Commission accept the proposal as represented in the model and additional materials as meeting the standards of construction. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 715 ;Monticello Place - east elevation addition and window replacement [Construction and Alteration) Ellen Galland, architect presented plans for an addition on the east elevation by enlarging an existing bathroom and extending eastward an existing dormer for additional headroom at 715 Monticello Place. The property is an Evanston Landmark Ellen Galland said that previously, Charlie Brown, contractor, had obtained a certificate From the Commission for changing windows in the kitchen. The proposed project was a continuation of working on the house. E. Galland said that the new windows would be with simulated divided lights to match the windows in the kitchen. E. Galland said that the overhang detail would be matched to the existing overhang. Commission's Findings No comments acre made at this time. Kirk Irwin moved that the Commission accept the proposal for the modifications at 715 Monticello as presented, finding that it met the applicable standards for review. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. a. 1501 Hinman Avenue/425 Grove Street - restoration/reconstruction of upper portions of exterior walls [Alteration] Henry Zimoch, architect presented plans for the restoration and reconstruction of upper portions of exterior walls at 1501 Hinman Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Henry Zimoch said that bricks fell off from the parapet fagade facing Grove Street. He said that the proposed work addresses the imminently hazardous conditions. He said that all the threatening material was took down, some masonry considered stable was left. All but the pieces of limestone that were damaged during the fall would be replaced. A suitable match for the existing brick would be used. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner said when the project is done, it is not going to look any different than it did when before the bricks fell off. Henry Zimoch agreed with B Gardner statement. Carlos Ruiz asked if the cause of failure was determined. H. Zimoch said that the rusting of the shelf angle, that is causing outward movement and upward movement in the most critical areas where there was water infiltration. Also, it was an unflashed shelf angle, which was common in the building technology of the period when the building was built. He said that the condition was exacerbated by the fact that it was a short leg shelf angle and the wall ties were not existing. Evanston Prescnation Cocimtssion lttnutes - Junc 14. _001 Pace 4 Carlos Ruiz asked if the remaining brick would not follow• the same path as the brick that fell off. l lenr - Zimoch said that was pan of phase two of the project yet to be performed. Carlos Ruiz asked who was coordinating the selection of brick. H. Zimoch said that he had two architects, the contractor in the building committee and thee are ver% sensitive about that issue. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the project at 1501 Hinman Avenue, as meeting the appropriate standards of alteration 2, 5, 6, and 8, Kirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1333 Greenwood Street - Advisory Review of Zoning Special Uses and Variations for the placement of an air conditioning condenser on the north side of the house. +Zoning Variance) Maurice Lemon, property owner presented the proposed installation of an air conditioning condenser requiring a zoning variance at 1333 Greenwood Street. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission had previously approved the project (installing windows on the attic of the front elevation (south side), building a rear one-story addition and an open porch along the rear elevation (north side) matching the front porch - July 18, 2000). However, when a building permit application was filed, the applicant found that the AC unit was too close to the side yard property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the Preservation Commission provide advice on the proposed zoning variance to the Zoning Administrator or the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). C. Ruiz said that the ZBA approved the variance subject to favorable recommendation from the Preservation Commission. Maurice Lemon said that the AC unit was originally on the north side, but that they had moved it to the east side. The north side or back yard has limited space. He said that the cast side is a better location for the AC unit because it would not be visible from the street. Also, his neighbor favored the east side location, because the north side location would be closer to his back terrace or sitting area. M. Lemon said that one of the ZBA's requirements was that the existing fence between the two houses be maintained. E Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked if any neighbor had concems about the proposed location of the AC unit. _ Maurice Lemon said, no. Michael Imlay said that the issue was not aesthetic but rather the noise. He asked if there was a bedroom next to the AC unit. M. Lemon said, no. He added that there was a kitchen. Kirk Irwin moved that the Commission recommend approval of the placement of the air t conditioner as presented, in relation to the zoning requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 2015 Orrington Avenue - partial alteration of the north and east elevations. (Alteration) Fred Wilson and Kris Bradford, architects and Jackie Mack, property owner presented plans for partial alteration of the north and east elevations of the house at 2015 Orrington Avenue. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Evanston Prewr%ation Corimission Minutes - June 19. 2001 Pace 5 Fred Wilson said that the project included the kitchen remodeling. He said that the windows further to the west would be removed. He would be adding two windows further east and keep the existing head height. On the rear of the building he would continue continue the opening along the eastern fagade and put an entry door. He said the articulation of the proposed windows picks up on the rear fagade that has three wide treatments on the existing windows with the open panel below. F. Wilson said that the existing leaded glass windows would remain. Fred Wilson said that they were in the process of pulling off the ivy from the building and retouching the stucco finish. Commission's Findings Commission members did not have any questions or comments. Heidi Carey moved that the approved the project at 2015 Orrington Avenue as meeting the criteria for alteration. Mark Sarkisian seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 1225 Ridge Avenue - partial demolition, alterations and additions. ]Construction and Alteration] Applicants for this project were not present. S. 1304 Judson Avenue - replacing an existing fence and raise the height from 4' to 6'. lConstruction and Fence Variance] Steven M. Thompson submitted plans for replacing an existing translucent 4' high fence with a 6' high solid fence at 1304 Judson Avenue (comer lot on Judson Avenue and Dempster Street). The property is wi►nin the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Steven M. Thomson said that his wife was expected to arrive to the meeting soon. Barbara Gardner suggested using the existing translucent 4' high wood fence and increasing its height to 6'. S. Thomson said that in addition to safety, they were concerned with the ability of using their backyard. He said that they had called the Police because uninvited people were in their backyard. B. Gardner said that she had recently installed a translucent 6' high fence on her property at Ridge and Dempster. She was surprised with how much privacy now they have. Michael Imlay suggested an evergreen or upright yew as a sound barrier. S. Thompson said that they have considered many options. Their budget is limited and planting vegetation along Dempster Street may be too costly. At this time he asked to wait for his wife to continue the presentation. 7. 1225 Ridge Avenue - partial demolition, alterations and additions. [Construction and Alteration] Carlos Ruiz said that the owner of 1225 Ridge Avenue was unable to be present due to unexpected circumstances. The applicant had asked if the Commission would review his application anyway. 1225 Ridge is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District, C. Ruiz said that the Preservation Ordinance states that an applicant should be allowed to present testimony, but it does not require that the applicant be present during the review. Commission's Findings E%anston Prescivation Cor.,. fission Minutes —tune 19. 2001 Pave 6 Barbara Gardner said that she had the impression that the oµner aanted to replace all the windows. After further re, iewing the application the Comm—ssion determined some new windows were located at the rear and side ele%ations, includ:-Mg bastment windo%%s. Barbara Gardner referred to the rear porch windows. Michael Imla,. said that it troubled him the amount of muntins on the proposed porch windo%vs, noting th-- there «ere no muntins on the existing windows. He said that with half of the number of rr._trttins and a more judicious grid pattern would bean impro%ement. M. Imlay said that the paz_-,ern on the proposed doors seemed more appropriate for the new windo«s as «ell. Michael Girard noted that the window schedule as submitted uith the application was incomplete. Michael Imlay asked if Carlos Ruiz could talks,: to the property owners and suggest fewer muntins on the new windows. Carlos Ruiz said that with the Commission's consent he could talk to the applicants and convey the Commission's recommendations to them. If the applicants agree with the Commission's recommendations. b}r could issue the Certificate of Appropriateness, if not, then the applicants would have to appear in front of the Commission. Mark Sarkisian said that there tvere three issues. One. the r.=be: of window divisions; second, matching the style of the windows with wood .vindows; and third. matching the exterior finish material on the building. The approval could be made contingent on the Commission's staff review. Barbara Gardner said that another issue, referring tU fire building as a whole, was the restoration of windows as opposed to the replacement of the windows. Carlos Ruiz summarized the discussion by saying that the pr-eference was to restore the original windows rather than replace them, as much as possible. R—. arding the closing of and creation of new window openings. it was agreed to reuse existing brick if removed from other sections of the building to close or reduce window openings and match the size and proportion of existing window openings. Also, it was agreed to reduce the number of lights on the porch windows. All new windows should be wood windows, not clad windows_ Mark Sarkisian moved that the Commission approve the project at 1225 Ridge Avenue as meeting the appropriate standards of alteration and construcnon. The approval is subject: One, that the existing brick that is removed is reused when possible in areas of close openings and modification of the building such as new window openings_ Two, that the existing windows are repaired rather than replaced. New windows requiring new openings are provided to match existing construction believed to be wood, without clad. T'r..ird, the windows that are to be used in the porch enclosure have fewer divisions, similar to the ;:oposed divisions for the rear door or no muntins if the aesthetics are more desirable. Kirk Irwin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously . 8. 1304 Judson Avenue - replacing an existing fence and raise the height from 4' to 6. jConstruction and Fence Variance] Steven M. Thompson, and Kathleen Buffington, property cKners continued their presentation of their plans for replacing an existing translucent 4' high fence with a 6' high solid fence at 1304 Judson Avenue (corner lot on Judson Avenue and Dempster Sti et). The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Steven Thompson said that they had contacted the next doer neighbors at 413 Dempster Street and 1246 Judson Avenue, across the street. They both had signed statements that they do not Evanston Prescr%ancr_ Ccr--nission !Minutes — June 19. Pact 7 have objections it, the proposed fence. S. Thompson said that at 12.16 and 1302 Hinman Avenue and at 1247 Hinrra-i A%enue there are 6' high solid fences. He also mentioned 1304 Forest Avenue as another example of a 6' high solid fence. Kathleen Buffingt,_-�n said that before they bought their property the back yard was a gravel pit. She said the.. were trtiing very hard to improve the property. She also mentioned that over the past weekend the-. had called the Police because a man was wandering in the back yard. K. Buffington said that they had a three-year old son and that they were concemed about his safety. She said that their hack yard is very small and they are trying to make the front yard as inviting as possible as part of the neighborhood. K. Buffington said all they were asking far was being able to have their private backspace. Commission's findings Michael Imlay asked about the location of the fence. Kathleen Buffington said that the fence would start at 4' high behind the turret to the side vard on Dempster Street. From that point the fence would go to the rear property line with a height of 6' with a gate at the dt•ive%vay. K. Buffington said that the fence would be setback approximately 45' from the front yard property line. Michael Imlay said that an ornamental relief at the driveway gate would be desirable. Barbara Gardner m-entioned the fence at I203 Forest Avenue, which the Commission had approved with a 4' high solid portion and a 2' quatrefoil open design on top, but it was denied by Zoning because it was too opaque. K. Buffington said that she retailed a solid fence at that location. K. Buffington added that they plan to„put plants, -roes, and.hushm in front af-ihc fence - *Wr dampening noist'07softening the solid appearance of the fence. 4tichael Imlay said that earlier he had mentioned the visual and sound aspects of the fence. He said that arborvitae is %%av better for noise reduction than a fence. K. Buffington said arborvitae takes time to grow. She said that she appreciated M. Imlay's comments regarding the additional landscaping. Carlos Ruiz referred to a photograph of the property located at the northeast corner of Forest Avenue and Dempster Street indicating that the fence covered with vines was a desirable treatment. K. Buffington said she would put vines on her fence. Carlos Ruiz summarized the Commission's understanding of the project by saying that there would be a 4' high fence behind the turret and facing Judson Avenue, also a 6' high fence and a gate along the drivev.•ay on Dempster Street. The gate would have a different design treatment to further break the long span of solid fence. He also mentioned a staggered board fence that allows some through visibility when looking at it at a certain angle. Barbara Gardner said that the Zoning Administrator might not approve a 6' high opaque fence based on previous similar cases. B. Gardner suggested that the applicant should not rely on a board on board fence. Susan Regan said that the Commission is supposed to make a recommendation regarding the fence variation based on what the Commission thinks. the rest is advice dealing with different heights for the fence or the gate should have different height. Mark Sarkisian read the three standards for D-.tertnination of Special Uses and Variations. Barbara Gardner said that standard B did not apply because denying the fence does not make the property not worth it. K. Irwin disagreed; he thought that denying the fence would lessen the value. He said that the applicants had stated their concern regarding privacy and safety of their Evar.saon Preser►atior, Commission Minutes - June Iq. Ni" I Pace 8 young child. lie t„aught that related to the %alue of their property-. K. Irwin also said that there is pedestrian traffic to the retail area and the beach. He also said that the applicants have made a nice job %%ith the rear of their property. Finally, K Irntiin thought that all three standards were applicable and alsc, were met by the applicant. Kirk Irwin moved that the Commission recommend approval of the alterations to the property at 1304 Judson Avenue, finding that the three standards for review were met. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6 ayes, 0 nays (Michael Girard had already left the meeting). Michael Imlay asked whether the applicant would come back to the Commission to show the design of the fence. He thought that the manipulation of the gate was important, otherwise there would be a 100' long flat wa11. unless somebody breaks it up in the design sense, he said that to him that was as important as building a building. Mark Sarkisian said that the Commission had heard strong arguments about the safety and the sight line into the back yard. IvVhat the Commission is telling the applicant without saying it, is that these walls are not great for a historic community like Evanston. Whether or not there are fifty of them or three of them, they are not just great. Steven Thompson said that they wanted to work with the City and they also wanted to preserve the area around them. Susan Regan said that talking about other designs was not appropriate because that would be designing the fence for the applicant, she said the Commission should not be doing that. She said that a drawing would be nice and probably a solid wood fence with some detail that would give applicants what they want and give to some subtle variation, that's where the really interesting things would come. Carlos Ruiz asked if the Commission's concern with a solid fence would it be agreeable that landscaping in front of the fence may be feasible. Susan Regan said, yes. Mark Sarkisian said that Susan Regan and Michael Imlay had raised good points. He said that breaking up the continuum of the fence could be done with simple design solutions. Mark Sarkisian read the standards for review of construction. He said standards 1, 5, 7, 9 and 15 were applicable and that the applicant demonstrated an effort to comply. Mark Sarkisian moved to approve the new fence at 1304 Judson Avenue. The written documentation and verbal testimony met the appropriate cited standards. The motion included the landscaping in front of the fence and the strong recommendation (not a mandatory requirement) that the applicant provide some visual break or interruptions along the long fgade of the fence, at least at the driveway to break up the continuity of the fence. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. Discussion: Michael Imlay asked if the motion was stated as approval even though it was a recommendation. Barbara Gardner said that the motion is for approval for the construction part and that the fence variation portion was a recommendation. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 9. 725 Judson Avenue - Removing roof of south dormer in rear of house, build a new dormer on north side, creating a new roof line with a pitch to closely match existing roof pitch on the house. [Construction] Evanston Presmalion Commission Minutes — June t 9. 2001 Page 9 Bridgette Rutter. property o.%-ner presented revised plans for new dormers at 725 Judson Avenue. The Property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Bridgette Rutter said that she came in front of the Commission on December 19, 2000. She said that they have an existing dormer on the south side of their house. The plan was to build a matching dormer on the north side. Bridgette Rutter said that they found out later that duplicating the old dormer would cause structural problems, because the pitch was very low. The new plans increase the pitch of what would be two dormers with a new roof]ine so that structurally the load is distributed to the exterior walls. The new dormers would be more in keeping with the style of the house and the rise of the new roof would match the existing roof. Bridgette Rutter showed pictures with digitally enhanced showing the proposed addition with the rooflines. Commission's Findings Commission members did not have questions or comments. Laura Hodes moved to approve the changes to 725 Judson Avenue as meeting the appropriate standards of alteration. Kirk Irvin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays IV. OLD BUSINESS Rules and Procedures Barbara Gardner asked for feedback regarding the Rules and Procedures. Carlos Ruiz said that he would like to include a section dealing with applications that are submitted less than five business days prior to the meeting. fie said that he has been using a waiver form for the five days notice to property owners for protection of the Commission. Also, he said that for certain projects such as window replacements, he would like to have rules that would determine what staff could approve and what the Commission should review. Barbara Gardner said that there is a table in the proposed rules and procedures where staff could approve window replacements. Michael Imlay said he would be available to staff for consultation of any project. Depositions Kirk Irwin reported that Carlos Ruiz and he gave depositions for the Northwestern University (NU) lawsuit. He said that his deposition lasted six hours and that he was asked many questions related to the Northeast Evanston Historic District. He noted that the City's lawyer of Altheimer & Gray accompanied him with the presence of the NU attorney and the Court reporter. K. Irwin said that after the deposition he felt confident that the Commission did a great job handling the nomination. Acknowledging that this was K. Irwin's last meeting with the Commission, Barbara Gardner thanked K. Irwin for chairing the Commission during the nomination of the Northeast Evanston £sanston Prescr%ation Commission Minutes — June 19. 2001 Pace 16 Historic District. Carlos Ruiz announced that today was George Halik's last meeting with the Commission as well. Also, Mark Sarkisian officially announced his retirement from the Commission. Finally, Heidi Carey also is relocating. Carlos Ruiz said that the Mayor submitted to City Council two nominations Abbey Willer and Neal Sheehan. He also submitted to the Mayors office for appointment to the Commission the name of Christopher Carey, a builder. Barbara Gardner thanked Mark Sarkisian for his service to the Commission. V. NEW BUSINESS Carlos Ruiz said that there was no new business. VI. STAFF REPORT Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that he was deposed regarding the Northeast Evanston Historic District. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announce that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, July 17, 2001, Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center. 2100 Ridge Avenue. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Kirk Irwin moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Mark Sarkisian seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted: I k uiz ner/Preservation Coordinat Date: Banston Preservation Commission titinutes - July- 17. 2001 fait I EVANSTON PRESERVATION CO'IMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, Jule 17, 2001 7:30 P.M. • Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Lynne fleidt, Michael Imlay, Susan Reagan, Neil Sheehan, Abbie Willard, and Laura Hodes Zacks MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Philip Stephens, Dian Keehan, Kathryn Jackson -Bradley, Ernest Jackson, Alphonse Curatolo, Deanna Gotta, AIbert Kocemba, Elizabeth Kocemba, Christian Milewski, Gail Ward, Nicholas Patinkin, and Terry Freer PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Barbara Gardner said that the minutes would be distributed at the next Commission's meeting III. COMMUNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz said that there were no communications. IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 423 Greenleaf Street - erect a 4' high picket fence on the front yard, requires fence variance ]Construction & Fence Variance] Philip Stephens, property o%%mcr presented plans to erect a 4' high and 65' long picket fence on Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — Jul% I—,. 2001 Pasc the front yard facing Greenleaf Street that would require a fence variation at 423 Greenleaf Street. The proper y is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Philip Stephens said that the main reason for their request is to contain their two-year old child from runninu offthe street. lie also said that they plan to landscape the entire area. They feel that in doing so the overall neighborhood will benefit and in keeping with the stele of adjacent properties. The proposed picket fence will meet the Cit. 's opacity requirements and it is similar to an existine fence next door. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if the proposed fence is taller than the existing adjacent fence. P. Stephens said the proposed fence is the same height as the adjacent fence. He added that there would be a slight disconnect between fences. but it will be taken care of by planting a shrub. Carlos Ruiz referring to the notice to the neighbors. he asked if the absence of a fence facing the alley was to gain access to the garage. P. Stephens said, yes. C. Ruiz asked why the fence was being extended to the alley on the south property line. P. Stephens said that they would remove the existing shrub and install the fence to make that area look neater. C. Ruiz asked if there were any problems with visibility. P. Stephens said, no, He added that the existing shrub is probably 5' to G' tall. Carlos Ruiz suggested improving the landscaping on the south side rather than extending the proposed fence over the paved area towards the alley. P. Stephens said they could do that. Michael Girard read the standards for special uses and variations. The Commission found that standard C did apple. Michael Girard moved that the Commission recommend approval of the fence variation for 423 Greenleaf Street with the amendment to the drawings as discussed, where the proposed fence will not extend over the concrete paring. Lynne Heidt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Michael Imlay moved that the Commission recommend approval of the fence as meeting the criteria for construction 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 913 Monroe Street - exterior alterations include window•s and French sliding doors and new wooden deck JAlteration] Dian Keehan. architect presented plans for exterior alterations including windows and French sliding doors and a new wooden deck at 913 Monroe Street. The property is an Evanston landmark. Dian Keehan said that the project is a comprehensive second floor remodel with a partial first floor remodel. She said that her client would like to take advantage of the view to the east side yard from a projection on northeast corner that is a subsequent addition to the house. She said that area has an existing stockade fence that comes a third or halfway along that plane. They would like to shift that to the southeast corner to create access from the new program of the first Iavanston Presmatioo Commission Minutes - July 17. 2001 Pacc 3 floor to that side and backyard. Dian Keehan said that she proposed modifying the windows and the doors on the northeast quadrant. She said that the doors and the windows wiIl be in proportion as far as aligning with the heights of existing -first floor windows. giving 8' high French doors with divided lights to break down the scale of the glass door. The windows to the north in the kitchen are currently six over six divided light. The sills will be lowered to in context with the house. Commission's Findings In response to a question from Barbara Gardner. Dian Keehan said that the new windows are authentic divided light Marvin wood windows. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the alterations at 913 Monroe Street as it meets criteria 2.3. 5. and 8 of standards for review of alterations. Laura 1-lodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 1428 Florence Avenue - second -story dormer at rear jAlterationj Ernest Jackson. property owner. Kathlvn Jackson -Bradley (owner's daughter), and Alphonse Curatolo, architect presented plans for a second -story dormer at the rear of 1428 Florence_ Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. Carlos Ruiz said that the original drawing scheme showed a larger dormer than the latest revised drawing showing a smaller dormer with closets inside. He asked which version the applicant was asking for approval. Alphonse Curatolo said that his client would prefer the first design that shows the dormer almost completely across the back with a 1'-6" setback on each side. He said that allows a walking closet in one room and a large bathroom. Commission's Findings In response to a question from Barbara Gardner, Carlos Ruiz said that the proposed dormer would be visible from the south side alley and partially visible from Florence Avenue. Barbara Gardner asked if the proposed dormer matched the front dormer on the east elevation. Alphonse Curatolo said the front dormer is small or a dollhouse. Carlos Ruiz said the front dormer is for natural light and ventilation. The proposed dormer at the rear is for habitable space. Kathlyn Jackson -Bradley- said the main reason for the dormer is for a bathroom and closet on the second floor. Additional discussion ensued to consider alternatives to reduce the size of the dormer. Neil Sheehan had some concerns about how the dormer will be built. Carlos Ruiz said that before issuing the certificate of appropriateness he would receive the application for building permit that will include the construction specifications. In response to a question from Commissioners, Alphonse Curatolo said that the proposed dormer is sided with wood clapboards. The Commissioners agreed that wood shingles would be a more appropriate material for the exterior finish of the new dormer. Michael Imlay said that the Evanston Prescnation Commission Stinutes — Jui% 17. 2001 Pale 4 proposed dormer has roof overhangs and it is setback from the exterior side walls of the main house. which is appropriate. Neil Sheehan said that the proposed dormer is on a secondary elevation and it is c.)nsisted %vith the kinds of renovation work on houses of this form. He concurred that the -.wood shingles exterior finish was more appropriate. Also. he raised the issue of construction detail suggesting that the exterior wall of the dormer facing the rear should be recessed from the exterior rear wall of the house. Additional discussion ensued about the proportion of the dormer and architectural and building details. Alphonse Curatolo said that the Commission's recommendations were well taken. Michael Girard moved the Commission approve the project at 1428 Florence Avenue for a rear addition on second moor to dormer out the roof (scheme A). With the amendments that the proposed dormer be additionally 6" setback on both sides (north and south) so that the overall dimension reads 28'-0" for the width, and the exterior finish be wood shingles to match existing wood shingles. Laura Ilodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. a. 816 Milburn Street - Requesting side yard setback zoning variance for a two-story Addition (property is v ithin the National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District) IAdvisor•y review on zoning variance only) Deanna Gotta representing George and Dorothy Rosenbaum, presented plans for a two-story addition requiring a side yard setback zoning variance at 816 Milburn Street. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Carlos Ruiz explained that because the property is only within a National Register Historic District, the Commission's purview is advisory on the zoning variance only. Deanna Gotta said the 100 year old house has an existing side yard setback that is not conforming. The plans call for a 5'-0"x I Y-6" two-story addition to house in elevators so that the homeowners could live well into their retirement at home. The addition aligns with the existing non -conforming west ,.wall of the structure. The encroachment is approximately 8". The exterior materials of the addition match the existing materials (stucco, wood double hung windows and asphalt shingles). The shape and the roolline of the addition are designed in keeping with the existing style of the house. The addition is at the rear of the house. Commission's Findings - Carlos Ruiz asked if any neighbors had expressed any concerns about the zoning variance request. Deanna Gotta said, no thus far. Michael Girard moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board approval of the project at 816 Milburn Street as it meets standard (C) of the Zoning Special Uses and Variations. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — Jul% 17. 2001 Palze 5 5. 1101 Forest Avenue - replacement of front porch balustrade, window/door restoration and fence/gate installation [Alteration & Fence Variance] Albert and Elizabeth Kocemba, property owners and Christian .Milewski. agent for the owners presented plans for the replacement of the front porch balustrade. window and door restoration and fence and gate installation at 1101 Forest Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The fence and gate installation requires a fence vanance. Albert Kocemba acknowledged the presence of his neighbors Gail Ward. Nicholas Patinkin, and Terry Fryer. Albert Kocemba said they were asking for a variance for the fence. He showed pictures of his property and surrounding properties.- lie also showed views from the alley, and Greenleaf Street. He said that thev were trying to match the style of the balustrade and fence of 1108 Judson Avenue. Albert Kocemba said the proposed fence has a stone base and wTought iron picket fence on top (3' high stone base and 3' wrought iron pickets on top). Commission's Findings Michael Girard asked how far off the front the property line would the fence be located at. Albert Kocemba said on the southwest comer the fence would be at 42' to 44', and on the north side would be about 55'. Referring to the front porch balustrade, Albert Kocemba said that markings showed that perhaps the original balustrade was about 30" high, the current code requires a height of 36". lie was hopeful that with the Commission's support he could rebuild the balustrade at its original height. Albert Kocemba stated that at the suggestion of Carlos Ruiz he was in consultation with Mike Jackson of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency who is reviewing the window situation to determine what windows could be restored. Neil Sheehan suggested to Albert Kocemba that he get an opinion from Mike Jackson about the roof overhangs on the porch. Albert Kocemba said that he would like to remove the wooden posts at the comers of the porch and install steel brackets to the limestone columns. He stated that in winter the accumulated snow slides from the gable roof to the open porch. lie said that the overhangs keep the snow away from the open porch. Neil Sheehan said that it would require a good iron craftsman to produce a fence that is of good quality. He referred to the detailing of the fence and to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. He stated that those standards do not encourage replicating the past rather to create something representative of its time. Michael Girard said the fence should be contextual to the landmark. Barbara Gardner said that she was not sure if she would agree with the interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. She noted that the applicant .vas proposing to recreate a fence that might have been there at one time. Neil Sheehan said that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards propose the opposite. Michael Imlay said that he would like to see a drawing that shows the front elevation of the house and what the fence would do around it. Albert Kocemba said an architectural rendering as suggested would be overkill. Michael Girard said that a drawing as suggested by M. Imlay Evanst.m Presenation Commission. 4tinut,rs — Juh 17. 2001 Paec 6 - would make the Commission's decision easier. Barbara Gardner said that the fence variation is to permit a side yard fence on a corner house. Carlos Ruiz said that a zoning analysis had not been applied yet. Barbara Gardner said that the zoning ordinance requires a 20'4' setback from the end of the alley where it joins the street to avoid obstructing viewws. Carlos Ruiz suggested that the Commission should address the fence variation from the preservation point of view and anything else %kould be a zoning matter. ,Michael Girard moved and without the benefit of a zoning analysis that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board to approve the proposed fence variation to a fence setback at 1101 forest Avenue. Lynne Heidi seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ;Veil Sheehan said that the Commission does not know how the proposed fence connects to the house. He said that while he was generally inclined to think that the fence was a great thing, he felt that there was not enough information on ghat is intended and he would like to see a good deal of more detail and clarity before he was ready to vote. Ile stated that the property is one of the most significant properties that the Commission will reviews. Michael Imlay agreed with Neil Sheehan's comment. He added that an architect will present to a client the west, south and north elevation, showing the proposed fence and house and other things on the property. 1 le did not know how one could judge the proposed fence from small pieces of sections of the fence. Lynne Heidt said that she did not see the need to present drawings from an architect. Michael Imlay proposed to strike the word "architect" from his previous comments and asked could the Commission at least have an elevation drawing of the faces of that fence. Albert Kocemba said that was what he had presented to the Commission. Wichael Imlay said the submitted drawings did not showy the whole thing. Neil Sheehan said that it was important to have details of the fence like how the fence is connected to two points of the building is a significant issue. He said while the regular posts are shown to be at 10'-0" on center, the lot is not a regular I0-foot dimension. He also said footings are required and their location will vary according to the site peculiarities. He said that he feels that he would be approving a fence that was far too open- ended for him. In response to a question from Barbara Gardner, Carlos Ruiz said that the applicant needs detail section drawings of the footings/foundation and construction drawings for the fence. Lyrae Heidt wondered how complete of an application for obtaining a permit one needs. Barbara Gardner suggested that staff issue the certificate of appropriateness after at least two architects _� from the Commission review the final dra%%ings. Neil Sheehan said that would potentially increase the amount of time for the applicant in order to get approval because he would need to submit full construction drawings. Albert Kocemba said that he wanted to start the process to talk about the idea regarding the fence and not be concerned about technical details such as cross sections. He said he did not want to do the process two or three times if the fence was rejected by one of the review processes. Carlos Ruiz said that the applicant would need to submit construction drawings for building permit regardless. Laura Hodes moved to approve the design of the fence as meeting the standards without any Evanston Prestnauon Commission Minutes — Jui% i =001 Pace 7 additional detail drawines. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Lynne Heidi moved for the fence to be approved based on presenting more detailed plans to Carlos Ruiz and a couple of the architects in the Commission for their review. so not to delay the process more than it is necessary. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion: Lynne Heidt said that she was not asking that and architect do the drawings for the fence. Neil Sheehan asked Mr. Kocemba if a masonry compan} would do the shop drawings. Albert Kocemba said that the City's Building Department «ould request shop drawings. Neil Sheehan said in his experience shop drawings are an actual detail drawing of every stone. Michael Girard said that on a limestone job the drawings include a detail of the stone cap, a detail of the stone sill running through, a detail of a typical face of a block. and how it is either in the middle of the field or how it turns a corner. He said that limestone has to be cut therefore the shop drawings have to encompass that kind of scope. Barbara Gardner said that what Mr. Kocemba was objecting was to having to have elevations drawn of three faces of his house showing the fence. She said what Michael Girard had explained was that a section drawing should showing details of the footings, the materials, and how they were eoing to tie into the house. Nei! Sheehan said that somewhere along the way the applicant needs to indicate where every post is and how long each of the sections of «Tought iron fence are. He said the fence could not be built without that information. Mr. Kocemba said that there is going to be a design prepared for the craftsmen to do it. Neil Sheehan asked who would do the drawings. Mr. Kocemba said that the ironworkers would do the drawings. Neil Sheehan asked who would do the stone drawings. \ls. Kocemba said that he did not think that was necessary. He said that the natural limestone has to be cut by the mason at the field and set it. Neil Sheehan asked how the mason is going to know «here to set the stone. He said that Mr. Kocemba was asking the Commission to approve something that the Commission does not know exactly was it is. Mr. Kocemba said he was being asked to draw something showing 8' sections with dimensions of the height and width of the posts. He said that he is being asked to show 142' of how the final posts are going to be like. He said he was discussing the symmetrical dividing of that space. He said that the fence was not very hard to engineer for any craftsmen or mason to do. Neil Sheehan said that he did not agree with Mr. Kocemba, specially with something as complex as the proposed fence is. He said that Mr. Kocemba and he could disagree. Michael Girard said that what is before the Commission is something of a concept and is subject to tentative approval based upon subsequent drawings to be provided. Lynne Heidt asked if Commissioners, not necessarily architects, volunteer to review the requested drawings so that the applicant not need to comeback. Abbie Willard asked if Lynne Heidt's motion was worded or amended in such a way that the Commission moved to approve the fence in concept but pending review of some of the specifications that will make it work for this particular property and house. Abbie Willard said that she would like to find a way to make the wonderful idea work. She said that she would like a motion recommending approval in concept with final determination pending the review of Eu=nsion Presenatior, Corm-:: lion %t:rLites - Jul% 17. 2M 1 Pat•t 9 ine of the specifications that %would be necessan• for the Crafts people to complete the job. 'ti._ Kocemba said that tl e Commission was trying to solve the structural problems of the fence arm not the general idea of which he would like to have approved. Michael Girard said that the Commission appro%es the idea and concept, Neil Sheehan interjected said that it %vas unanimous. L%nne Heidi said that pre-erwation commissions do not get involved in construction. .Abibie Willard said that the Commission gets involved in how the whole thing is going to look al;e:t it is completed. Lynne Heidi agreed. "'hen things start moving around then the whole thin.` starts changing. Hart a u Gardner said that what the Commission has done in the past was approve the design and wha-n final construction drawings come in. if they vary significantly, then the applicant would }rave to come back. If the drawings are essentially what was proposed, the either Carlos Ruiz or other couple Commissioners could appro,.e the design. Neil Sheehan said that he agreed that whc-never possible. an applicant should not need to come back. fie said that generally the Cormission reviewws a design that is more worked out. and the step from completion of the design to the construction documents is an insignificant matter. The construction documents are used to confirm that they match the original design. lie said that what was presented was an iinitW concept, but not a full design. Barbara Gardner said that the applicant had presented a design for the fence. Neil Sheehan said that in his opinion the drawings %vere conceptual not a final design. Lynne Heidt said that she would second an amendment to her motion. Abbie Willard moved to amend Lynne Heidt's motion that the Commission recommend az�cep=ce of the fence in its concept form wvith final approval being considered at the point of rnie-Aing appropriate plans'documents that allows the Commission to make an informed decision about how this fence affects the entire property-. Lynne Heidt said that she would take back her second to the amendment because she thought the amendment would require the plans to come back to the Commission not to Carlos Ruiz. Discussion: U-mnc Heidi said that everything in Abbic «'illard's amendment to her motion was line, except that when the applicants get their final specifications, they take them to Carlos Ruiz. Abbie %Vilia_-d agreed. Lynne Heidt seconded Abbie Willard's amendment to her motion. Ntil Sheehan asked Mr. Kocemba if he understood or had a feeling of what the Commission was a dn4 him to do. fir. Kocemba said it was not really what he came for because Zoning is not onh• the aesthetics of the plans but the height, the length and the position, and if he brings the PUns to Zoning, that is what he expects the Commission to support. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission was supporting the fence. Mr. Kocemba said that now the Commission was tailing about how to lay the posts and the wrought iron fence. Michael Girard said that what the Commission was trying to say is that the Commission conceptually likes what it sees, but the Ccn=ission does not have enough information to out right approve the fence at that moment. E%anston Preservation Commiss:.n '.tinutes — Juh 17.2001 Pare Q M. Girard said that the Commission would like to say conceptually. "yes - great." but that when going to the permitting process. it is likely that Mr. Kocemba will need much more documentation. And when that documentation comes throuah. Carlos Ruiz would review it. When the Commission approves the pending motion, the actual certificate of appropriateness is not issued; it is only issued at the time of the permit review. Mr. Kocemba said that he will be happy to present to Carlos Ruiz the technical documentation, and w-hatever the Building Department will require. He said that he w,as sure that the Building Department would require drawings showing the foundation for the fence. Michael Girard said that what the Commission has done in the past. to avoid the applicant coming back again to the Commission, is have Carlos Ruiz distribute the documentation to other Commissioners to bet a general approval from them. Neal Sheehan asked Carlos Ruiz what specifically the Building Department would require for a permit. Lynne Heidt said that the Commission was not the Building Department. Neal Sheehan said that he understood that. but wanted to understand the motion and he wanted fir. Kocemba to understand how he needs to respond to the motion clearly. Neil Sheehan said that the way he understood the motion was the Commission would review the drawings that are required for building permit. That was the reason he was asking Carlos Ruiz what drawings are required for a building permit. so he would know what it .vilI be submitted. so he would know how to vote. Carlos Ruiz said that at a minimum the Building Department wvilI require the specification drawings for the foundation (a section). and the distance between piers, because the structure has to hold itself not only vertically, but also horizontally (the proper distance based on the size of the footing and the deepness of the footing). Also. it will be required some detail of how the piers are going; to be built (%vith a cap and a base). Neil Sheehan said then that he did not have a problem. Lynne Heidt's motion as amended by Abbie Willard passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner said that the next item was the balustrade. She asked Carlos Ruiz if he was aware of any other property on Forest Avenue where balusters were being rebuilt, and where the Commission had said that the balustrade should be built at 30" maximum, not 36" as required by code, and whether the City accepted that. Carlos Ruiz said that he did not recall. He also said that the issue of safety and preservation is much resolved by the Director of the Community Development. where safety has priority on those cases. Carlos Ruiz said that he had spoken to Christian Milewski about that issue and that he had expressed his concerns that if the height between the top of the floor and the grade is more than 30 then what they needed to provide was a railing that would be at least 36" in height. Which it does not necessarily address the Commission's concerns, because that is a safety issue. Barbara Gardner asked how tall was the existine balustrade. fir. Kocemba said that the balustrade was at least 40" high. , Carlos Ruiz said that in the past a landmark owner had a Prairie style landmark with a low parapet w•aIl on the porch less than 36" high. The property owner wanted to rebuild the parapet wall as it was. The Building* Department required that the new Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — July 17. 2001 Pace 10 parapet wall be at least 36" high. The solution was the change (raisel of the grade so that there was a slope coming from the exterior porch of the house towards the outside with landscaping in front. The other safety issue is that the spacing between balusters should not exceed 4. Christian Milewski said that the height from the top of the porch to the grade is 32", they could raise the grade and landscape in front. Carlos Ruiz if the Commission directs him to talk to the Building Division Director about the significance of the building he could do that, but if would be up to the Building Division to decide about the [safety] issue. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission should approved what it feels is right and then if it does not meet two code issues, then make the case to the Building Division for height of the railing and spacing of balusters. Neil Sheehan asked if the floor of the porch was stone. Mr. Kocemba said that the floor was wood, the columns and base are limestone. He said that the balustrade would be limestone. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the balustrade as presented and request that City staff discuss with the City code authorities allowing the lower railing height and wider spacing than required by local codes. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kocemba thanked the Commission. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Rules and Procedures Barbara Gardner said that on the Rules and Procedures the Commission could not vote on them because the Commission has two new members (Neil Sheehan and Abbie Willard). The item was held over. B. Garage Standards Michael Girard said that due to family matters he could not finish the standards for garages. VI. NEW BUSINESS Carlos Ruiz requested that Commission move the date of August meeting from the 21 st to the 27th because he will be away for two weeks. His request was granted. VII. STAFF REPORT There was no additional staff report Vill. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made IX. ADJOURNMENT Evanston Presenation Commission Minutes— July 17, 2001 Pace I Nfichael Girard moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Presen•ati Coordinator Date: EVANSTOti PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 28, 2001 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Gardner, Lynne Heidi, Neil Sheehan, Abbie Willard and Laura Hodes Zacks (late). MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, "vlichael Imlay, and Susan Regan, OTI]ERS PRESENT: Clint Funk, Lin Bercher, Ahmed Saleh, Lori Saleh, and Melissa Bailee PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At 7:40 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was not present. She said that for the benefit of the applicants she %vould like to hear their presentations and have a straw poll among Commissioners present to give the applicants an indication of whether their projects would be approved when a quorum is present. IL APPROVAL OF INI NUTES Barbara Gardner said that the minutes would be considered later in the meeting. III. COMMUNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz said that there were no communications. IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA 1. 1024 Judson Avenue - Window replacements (Alteration] Lin Bcrcher said that the veranda storm windows would be removed and replaced with windows to be in keeping with the Prairie Style. Exhibit B showed existing storm windows at 30" from Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Auuust 28. 2001 Page Two the floor. the new design would bring the windows doer to 27.5" to match the dimensions of the rest of the windows in the house. Some of the new windows %%ilI open as the second floor windows do in the porch area. matching size and functionality. Lin Bercher said that Al Hatcher is the contractor. Commission's Findings: Barbara Gardner asked if the windows will be painted on the outside. Lin Bercher said that the new windows would be painted in the same shade of brown as the existing windows. Neil Sheehan asked if the windows were aluminum clad. Lin Bercher said the new windows are wood. Carlos Ruiz asked if the dimensions of the nov %vindows. such as glass area are the same as the existing windows. Lin Bercher said the new double pane windows would match the dimensions of the existing windows on the second floor and in the first floor living room. Lin Bercher said that if someone in the future would like to remove the veranda windows and leave it opened as originally intended it could be done. Carlos Ruiz said that 1024 Judson Avenue is one of the few Evanston landmarks listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places. He thanked the property owners for taking good care of such important building. All Commissioners present indicated that they mould voic in favor of the project when a quorum is present. Additional discussion about the timing for obtaining a building permit and eligibility for the Property Tax Assessment Freeze program was discussed. 2. 610 Davis Street - Storefront renovation [Alteration] Lynne Heidi said that the architects for the 610 Davis Street project (Wallin/Gomez) are the architects for Tom Ro7.ack, developer of Chicago Avenue and Sherman Avenue projects, whom she represents. She asked if she had a conflict of interest. Neil Sheehan asked if the architects had a financial interest in the selling of the units. Lynne Heidi said only to the extent that she sells for commissions where designed by Wallin'Gomez. Carlos Ruiz said that he had some conversations about this issue with the City's legal staff. He was told that each individual should decide whether or not there is a conflict of interest, and that the Commission should not influence the individual malting the decision about a potential conflict of interest one way or another. Lynne Heidi said she felt comfortable deciding that there was not a conflict of interest. Ahmed Salch and Lori Salch, owners of the Olive hlountain restaurant presented plans for the renovation of the storefront at 610 Davis Street. The building is an Evanston landmark. Ahmed Salch said that they were removing the existing aluminum storefront windows and Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Aucust 28. 2001 Pace Three replace them with a new aluminum and glass storefront. Lori Saleh said that the original storefront had been previously changed with the z_xeeption of the upper portion of the building. She said that they were asking to remove the exisring tnt-o windows, lease the aluminum frame and replace them with doors that would open inw ids. They would like: to open the restaurant doors in the summer and the front of the store could have a vestibule in the inside for access for the disabled. Lori Saleh said that the storefront bulkheads would be removed so that the doors could be installed. The upper casing: and fascia will remain. The upper portion of the building will not change. She said they were asking to replace two windows with doors that %-.ill s-wing inside. Ahmed Saleh said that a canopy will be ir-,5Wletd above the storefront. Carlos Ruiz said that the canopy has to be approved by the Comrniision as well. Ahmed Saleh said that the respective boards had approved the canopy from Lie existing store. Carlos Ruiz said that the preservation review is a separate process from the other boards and that the sign permit would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission. Carlos Ruiz asked .%•hv the existing aluminum pan, is on the upper transoms of the storefront would not be removed. He said that by doing so. more natural lighting tviIl come into the restaurant. Ahmed Saleh said that the canopy .till be installed above the transom. Barbara Gardner asked Neil Sheehan his opinion _-~>out the storefront alteration. She thought that the alteration looked a little too busy. Neil Sheehan said that in his opinion that unless the original historic storefront is there, then the storefront is changeable. He said that it is pretty much open-ended. He also said that he was not a big fan of clipping mullions, but it was a personal preference. nothing to do with the Commission. Barbara Gardner wondered if it may be better to have plain French doors 4th no mullions. Neil Sheehan said that the problem .with applied mullions is the maintenance. Carlos Ruiz said that the introduction of new elements was not necessarily appropriate. He sugb,.sted keeping the storefront simple. Ahmed Saleh agreed. Lori Sahle said they would like the doors open during the summer time and shoty what is inside. Carlos Ruiz suggested removing the aluminum panels from the existing transom and replace it with glass to bring in more natural lighting and if possible eliminate the canopy. Signage could be pa inted`applied behind the transom glass. At night the sign .would be illuminated. He cited the storefront of Goods on ;.lain Street. Ahmed Saleh said that .what he heard made sense. Lori Sable said that they had a avicek before they could go through all the respective boards including Site Plan and Appearance Committee before they could obtain the building permit. Barbara Gardner asked if the Commission could, under the circumstances, go to one of the Commission members, take a vote, then go to another Commission member who was not here. Carlos Ruiz said that if the Commission would do that for one applicant then it would have to do it for the rest of the applicants. Barbara Gardner suggested calling the Commissioners who were not present, tell them about the Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Auuust 28. 2001 Paue Four suggestions the Commission had made and Pet their vote. Carlos Ruiz_ said that if the applicants would agree Avith the suggestions that he had made. then there would be almost no change to the storefront. Carlos Ruiz said he could approve the project. Fie said that he would be available at the Site Plan and Appearance Review meeting. A straw poll was taken. All four Commissioners present indicated their favorable vote to proceed with the storefront without the mullions. to remove the existing aluminum transom panels and replace them with glass. and eliminate the canopy above the storefront. Ahmed and Lori Sahle thanked the Commission. 3. 1611 Simpson Street - Rear 8-ft. high chain link fence lConstructionj Carlos Ruiz said that the property owner of 1611 Simpson Street was not present due to health problems. He had asked Carlos Ruiz to present his proposal on his behalf. Carlos Ruiz said that the site is located within a difficult area of town. The proposed fence would be completely to the rear and adjacent to the ally. The fence is an 8' high chain link fence. Barbara Gardner said that according to a friend who had spotted another property in the same area. the Cite was encouraging property owners to put up a fence. Carlos Ruiz said that the area has a lot of problems. Fie said that the proposed fence may protect the building, and it will keep trash away from the building. He also said that the property was not located within a residential area and it is in an industrial zone. Carlos Ruiz said that the 8' high proposed fence would be unusual. A straw poll was taken. All four Commissioners present indicated their vote, when a quorum is present. 4. 2107 Wesley Avenue - Installation exterior of vinyl siding jAlterationj Melissa Bailee owner presented plans to install vinyl siding over the existing wood siding of her home at 2107 V4'csley Avenue. ,tiis. Bailey distributed photographs to show that no detail work would be covered with the vinyl siding. Melissa Bailey said that they would like to insulate and vinyl -side their house. She said that it was freezing in their house last tear and that they were hoping that the insulation blown in by the previous owner would help, but it seemed to not help at all. She said that they would like to insulate the house and side it with vinyl. She said that they got estimates for removing the existing siding and haying the insulation put on underneath and having the siding put back on. .his. Bailey said that most of the siding is rotten. She said that one contractor told them that he would try it, and another contractor told them he would attempt it, but he could not guarantee the work to come out properly. Melissa Bailey said that the cedar siding is very expensive and they could not afford it so they would like to do the vinyl. Their intention is to go with a company Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - .Auc,ust 28. 2001 Pace Five that does landmark properties. Some of their work was done in Evanston. Neil Sheehan asked if their proposal includes removal of all the existing siding. NIs Bailey said that they do not want to remove the siding. She said that she asked them if they could install the insulation material jvwrap) and then install the vinyl siding and leave the existing siding there, so if some future owner would like: to take it all do%tin and redo it. they could. Neil Sheehan asked Ms. Bailey if the contractor gave a price to remove the existing siding and put a new siding on. Ms. Bailey said that the; contractor would have to work out man-hours. The contractor thought that it could not be possible. NIS. Bailey said that her theory was that if she could not do the cedar siding, she could not do the removal of the existing siding. Abbic Willard said that the contractor's proposal says hull away siding. Neil Sheehan was also curious about that. Ms. Bailey said that she also asked the contractor if they could leave the removed siding. The contractor said that they could leave it. Neil Sheehan said that according to the proposal if the contractor leaves the removed siding. Mr. and Mrs. Bailey could save $525.00. Ms. Bailey said that was true. but they would put the vinyl siding over the wood siding. Neil Sheehan said that leaving the siding; was actually worst than remo-Ong it. Ms. Bailey said that when the previous owner had the insulation blown in. they had holes drills in all the siding. Ms. Bailey said that those pieces would have to be replaced with cedar. Neil Sheehan said that it would be better to remove the existing siding. He said that the reason is when vine] siding is put up over the wood, what happens is as the moisture goes out through the walls of the house, is trapped behind the vinyl and rots the wood siding. tits. Bailey said that she was trying; to work around the idea leaving the wood siding. Neil Sheehan asked Ms. Bailey the reason she wanted to do what she presented was because she had wind blown through her house. Ms. Bailey said, yes. She also said they did not want to paint their house every six years. Neil Sheehan said his guess was that the reason the wind is blowing through the housc.is because the windows are Iicking. Ms. Bailey said that the area the wind blows from is the area where the previous homeowner had put vinyl windows. She said that the coldest room in her house was the living room. She said that one could actually feel the wind from the walls. Barbara Gardner made another suggestion to address the air infiltration by removing the quarter round at the bottom of the baseboard and caulk undemeath and put evenlhing; back. She said it makes a big difference. Veil Sheehan said that did not address her other concern, which is painting every six years. Barbara Gardner said, the property is a landmark house, it may be a small house, but it is a landmark house nevertheless, and when aluminum siding is put on it, the appearance would be changed. There would not be a relief between the windows and the siding; anymore. Barbara Gardner related her own experience, before the preservation movement had started, where she very sadly covered her house that had fish scale shingles with aluminum siding. She said the new siding; changed the appearance of her house irreparably. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Aucust 28, 2001 Pace Six Barbara Gardner said she understood that Ms. Bailey was the owner of her house, she is also a caretaker of the house for the time that she lived there. and if aluminum siding is put on, the house would be irreparably harmed for anyone else. She. encouraged Ms. Bailey to take that into consideration. Neil Sheehan suggested another material "hardy plank". ►which is a cementitious board that looks exactly like cedar. each board is tapered. it comes pre -painted. it cost a fraction of the cost of cedar, it is a little more than vinyl. and unlike cedar which has to be painted. Hard% plank comes pre -primed and it only has to be painted every fifteen years. Ile said that he was skeptical about the fifteen -year claim, but now he has seen projects that are ten years old that used the hardy plank that they are doing: okay. lie suggested his. Bailey take a look at hardy plank. St. James is the company that makes hardy plank. lie added that it is a better solution than the vinyl siding. ;pis. Bailey said that she was fine with the vinyl siding. Neil Sheehan said that the other things about detailing the installation with vinyl. when the existing siding is pulled off the corner boards do not need to be capped, nor do all the windows need to be capped. lfvinyl siding is installed on top of the existing siding, corner boards and windows would have to be capped. lie said that window frames need to be painted, but it is still vinyl, which you can tell from 5', but not tell from 40'. Fle said that he was inclined to agree with tearing off the existing siding and install either vinyl siding or hardy plank. lie said the house could look the way it does now and address Ms. Bailey's concerns from having to paint the house. lie said ,tits. Bailey should be aware that the vinyl will chalk out in fifteen years. Abbic Willard said that vinyl siding is not as carefree as the manufacturers claim to be. Ms. Bailey said that her decision was not because of the carefree aspect, the non -painting was a bonus, but it is really the price factor. Barbara Gardner if the house stays as is and if stain is applied over the siding, that would generally last a little longer than paint. NIs. Bailey said that she also needs to take care of the cold. Barbara Gardner said that she believes that there is another way to take care of the cold. Ms. Bailey said that she believed insulating the outside of the house ,vould help the problem. Neil Sheehan said that if the wall feels cold in the inside then he believed that there'.vas no insulation. Ms. Bailey said that the south side of the house was colder than the north side of the house. Lynne l-ieidt said that she believed in the benefits of cedar siding; versus vinyl siding. She wanted to address the issue of affordability. She said that affordability should be an issue under the Commission's purview, whether there is money to help homeowners or houses that are important to rehab these houses correctly. Carlos Ruiz said that there is one incentive for homeowners "The Property Tax assessment Freeze Program." To qualify a property owner need to invest 25% of the Assessors fair market value towards rehab or restoration. The assessment of the house .vould be frozen for a period of eight years. Ms. Bailey said that she would have to come up with the money now. Carlos Ruiz said that property owner has two years to complete work rehabbing; or restoring a house, Barbara Gardener said that the siding could be done in two phases. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Aueust 28, 2001 Pave Seven Carlos Ruiz said that with the discussion the Commission is trying to help Ms. Bailey. Ile said that the Preservation Ordinance has a section dealing with economic hardship. He explained that if the Commission were to deny Ms. Bailey's project, she would have the option to apply for economic hardship. In that case Ms. Bailey would have to demonstrate that the Commission's denial would cause her economic hardship. If that were the case, the Commission would issue the Certificate of Appropriateness. Lynne Heidt said that if the house is really cold, then it is a dilemma, because she really agreed that the aluminum or vinyl siding would really detract against the house, and yet she was concerned about the financial issue. Carlos Ruiz said that the economic hardship provision addresses that particular issue. Carlos Ruiz said that hardy plank has been used successfully in other throughout communities. In the National Trust list sere, hardy plank has been identified as the best alternative to vinyl. Its cost could be between the cost of cedar and vinyl, but its appearance is far superior to vinyl. Hardy plank could provide everything Ms. Bailey wants and it would maintain the appearance of the Iandmark. Neil Sheehan said that in the cost estimate there is a cost item of S 1,500 for door and window trim. if hardy plank is installed window and door trim would not be needed, because the existing trim would be undisturbed. Also if the existing siding is removed Ms. Bailey would be able to see whether or not the house is insulated. At that point it is easy to get the insulation that is really needed. Instead of the 1 /2" insulation material at a cost of $945, he recommended that the wall cavities are filled with blown in insulation and then put the TyVec house wrap over the outside of the house. This could be done well and seal it up against the windows and door trim before the siding is installed. I le said that the additional cost of the hardy plank may trade off some of the cost that are not needed. Carlos Ruiz asked Lynne Heidi (Realtor) about the re -sale value of houses with vinyl siding. Lynne Heidi said she did not knots-, but she was assuming that anything is better than vinyl for Ms. Bailey's future purposes when selling the house. Neil Sheehan said that he advises clients about this issue all the time. He said that if he were Ms. Bailey's architect he would advise her to apply for what she wants and take a chance. Unfortunately, an official vote cannot be taken tonight. Lynne Heidt asked if hardy plank was used in Evanston. Barbara Gardner took a stra-w poll for those inclined to vote for vinyl siding. Lynne laeidt said that she would vote in favor of vinyl siding reluctantly. Laura Hodes voted in favor of vinyl. Barbara Gardner, Abbie Willard and Neil Sheehan voted against. With no further items for discussion and the lack of a quorum the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted. 6WYreX,;(e-'- Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PlannerlPresmatio rdinator Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2001 7:30 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Lynne Heidt (left early) Michael Imlay, Susan Reagan, Neil Sheehan, Abby Willard and Laura Hodes Zacks MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Skomski, Diane Martin, Anne McGuire, Charles and Rhita Lippitz, Paul M. Lurie, Susan Benjamin, John Rheinfrank, and Matt Struve PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:30 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Michael Girard moved to approve the May 15, 2001 minutes as submitted. Michael Imlay seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS New Appointed Commissioner (Mary Brugliera) Barbara Gardner announced that the new appointee to the Commission, Mary Brugliera, would be joining the Commission in October 2001. IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) - (approximately 10 to 15 minutes per project) Barbara Gardner said that the Commission discussed the first two projects last month when a quorum was not present. She said the two projects would be discussed again for formal approval. Evanston Preservation Commission September 25, 2001 - 'Minutes Nomination of 641 Sheridan Square for landmark designation Page 2 1. I024 .Judson Avenue - Window replacements [Alterationj Carlos Ruiz said that the owners of 1024 Judson were not present at this time, but there were present last month. Barbara Gardner said that the owners of 1024 Judson Avenue have a part of the house that was originally an outdoor porch. Sometime ago windows were installed in the porch. Those windows did not match the original windows. The current owners would like to install new casement windows that would match the existing upper floor windows in size and materials. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission members present at the last month meeting took a stray poll [in favor of the proposal]. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the replacement of porch windows at 1024 Judson as presented by the homeowner [August 28, 2001 meeting]. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1611 Simpson Street - Rear 8-ft. high chain link fence [Construction] Barbara Gardner said that this is an old factory. The owners have problems with people dumping garbage in that area. At this time she acknowledge Mr. Tom Skomski and Diane Martin, property o%wiers. Barbara Gardner said that she new friends who own property in the same area. She said that apparently the City of Evanston is encouraging property owners to put fence at the rear ofthese properties. The neighbors seemed to want to do the same. Mr. Skomski said that he had found live ammunition in the area. Barbara Gardner said that the fence would a galvanized 8-foot chain link fence and installed behind the building. Carlos Ruiz asked Mr. Skomski if he knew the zoning classification of that area. Mr. Skomski said it was zoned commercial. Abbic Willard moved that the Commission approved with alteration at 1611 Simpson Street with the addition 8-Foot high -galvanized chain link fence. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl►. 3. 2107 NN'esley Avenue - Installation exterior of vinyl siding [Alterationj Barbara Gardner said that the property owner 2107 Wesley Avenue had withdrawn the application. �= 4. 917 Edgemere Court - Replacing front elevation slate roof with asphalt shingles (GAF Slateline) [Alterationj The applicant requested to be heard after the next project. 5. 1433 Hinman Avenue - replace decking and columns on west porch, built new wood stair to south side of west porch, replace non -original wood railings with metal railings, re -roofing with cedar shingles and other exterior maintenance/alterations 1Construction/Alteration] Evanston Presemarion Commission September 25. 2001 - Ni inutes Nomination of 641 Sheridan Square for landmark designation Page 3 Anne McGuire. architect said that her clients would like to add one item to their application, which is to remove the existing storm windows and install new storm windows. She said the first issue is the west porch that is in a state of disrepair. The porch is brick with wood columns that have carved wood at the top that in fact is a plaster material that is in disrepair. Anne McGuire said that the columns and plaster top would be cast and replaced with replicas in synthetic material. She also said that a side yard stair would be added behind the «Tought iron fence. She said that the gable at that end of the house is finished with a material that appears to be a pressed brick similar to the turret. Commission's Findings In response to a question from Neil Sheehan, Anne McGuire said that the columns probably were originally dark to the sandstone color at the base of each of the columns. Neil Sheehan asked if the railing was shown to code. Anne 1%4cGuire said that she was showing the railing at a height meeting the code. Additional discussion ensued regarding the height of the new railing. Carlos Ruiz said that because the new railing would black in %%Tought iron. then perhaps it would not be as detracting as anticipated. Anne McGuire said the most dramatic change would be to the rear mudroom/vestibule. The proposed work is a combination of original and non -original materials. She said the roof would be raised and matching the roofline. The gable ends would be replicated with wood shingles, and the new casement windows would be similar to the fenestration in the one-story porch. There would be a double stair leading to the yard and the driveway. Anne McGuire said that the brick portion is a pantry. Anne McGuire said that the asphalt shingle roofing material .%-ould be replaced with wood shingle roof and lead coated copper downspouts and gutters. She noted that the gable on the west elevation is the only masonry gable. Regarding the storm windows Anne McGuire said that she came in front of the Commission with another project at 330 Greenwood With Allied Storms. She said it is an aluminum frame but Is not a triple -track, it is a single frame where the storm and screen are switched out from the inside. These storms keep the narrow frame, it matches the stile, rail and sight lines are maintained. Neil Sheehan asked about the material below the new addition. Anne McGuire said that it is lattice. Michael Girard asked how the pressed brick would be cleaned. Anne McGuire said it would be chemically stripped. Neal Sheehan moved that the Commission approve all of the modifications as proposed for 1433 Hinman. Also, at the discretion of the owner and architect, the porch railing be approved by the City Code Official at the historic height as determined by the investigation of the poles. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 917 Edgemere Court - Replacing front elevation slate roof with asphalt shingles (GAF Slateline) [Alteration] Charles and Rhita Lippitz o%kmers of 917 Edgemere Court said that they had to put a new roof at a cost of $20,000. Charles Lippitz said that Mr. Ruiz was kind enough to suggest other alternatives to the GAF Slateline, which they thought would match better the original slate. He said that the slate that is visible from the street is a very small part of the roof that had to be redone. Their contractor Evanston Presenation Commission September 25. 2001 - Minures Nomination of 641 Sheridan Square for landmark designation Page -t said that the other alternatives suggested by fir. Ruiz were expensive alternatives. The base cost for the GAF is S 1.050. The cost base for the slate would be S4.500 in addition to the S 1,050. Mr. Lippitz said that most of the roof is a fiat roof and the back of the house was already re -roofed with the GAF. He said that it seemed inappropriate and well beyond their budget to spend $4,500 for a little bit of roof area that it shows from the street and that it would not match what they already have in the back. Mr. Lippitz said thew• %were asking the Commission's approval to use the GAF. Ile admitted that up close there is a big difference but from the distance what you see is a gray roof. Commission's findings Michael Imlay asked about the narrow band of roof and other appendages of roof, Mr. Lippitz said that the roof does not have more roof appendages. Michael Imlay asked if the narrow band of roof goes around the house. Mr. Lippitz said, yes. Carlos Ruiz said that originally he had approved a certificate for a flat roof, but then he saw a slide of the house that shows the narrow band of slate roof. Ile met the Lippitz at their home and thought that some of the slate could have been salvaged and reused. Unfortunately, the contractor only left a sample piece. Mr. Lippitz said that he had contact with a slate roofing supplier and asked to see the remaining slate. Fle was told that it would be veryexpensive to shift through the slate that could be reused. Carlos Ruiz said that he investigated some other alternatives and contacted slate roofing contractors. lie found that there is a rubberized material, and another composite material. None of the contractors new for certain how then: materials would perform because they are fairly new in the market. Also, their cost was close to the genuine slate, and the cost installation was lower than installing slate, but still more expensive than installing the GAF shingles. Neil Sheehan asked Carlos Ruiz if the house %vas a landmark building. Mr. Ruiz said no. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the change of the roof material on the house at 917 Edbemcre Court, from slate to asphalt shingles, as meeting standards for review of alteration 1, 9, and 10. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, I nay (M. Imlay) V. PUBLIC HEARING 641 Sheridan Square - Nomination for designation as an Evanston Landmark (see attached minutes of public hearing) VI. NEW BUSINESS (Informational only) A. 1314 Ridge Avenue (George B. Dryden House) District 65 Headquarters (Proposed Independent and Assisted Living Community - UU Continuum, Inc) Mr. Ruiz said that Dr. Politser of the Unitarian Universalist Association had contacted him via Aw telephone regarding the property at 1314 Ridge Avenue. This property is in the National Register of Historic Places, the Evanston Ridge Historic District and it is an Evanston landmark. Dr. Politser F%anston 11reser%ation Commission September 25. 20131 - Minutes Nomination of 6-:1 Sheridan Square for landmark designation Pazr 5 %%as interested in obtaining from the Commission feedback about the possibility of re -using the property as an assisted living community. The Commission expressed their concern in presen ing and restoring the Dryden Mansion at 1314 Ridge, the coach house at 1311 Asbury. and the oldest building on the property• at 1321 Asbury. The Commission did not take any action on this matter. B. Evanston Historical Site Plaques Program Matt Struve with the Evanston 14istoricaI Societe (EHS) made a presentation about a new program called Evanston Historical Site Plaques Program. He said that the program is an effort to clearly identify Evanston landmarks for the benefit of property owners and visitors to Evanston. Mr. Struve said that the second objective of the plaque program is to fund -raise money for the EHS. He noted that a minimal fee would cover the cost of malting plaques for Iandmark owners who order the plaques directly from the EHS. Carlos Ruiz cited the Commission's powers and duties under the Preservation Ordinance Section 2-9- 3 (G) 4: " To create an appropriate system of plaques for identification of individual landmarks and make a recommendation for the design and implementation of specific marking of streets and routes leading from one landmark or district to another." Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission could certify the landmark status of each property that has been designated as a landmark building by the City Council and allow the EHS produce the plaques. He noted that- in the past, the Commission was reluctant to establish a plaque program because there was no agreement on who should pay for the cost of manufacturing the plaques. Mr. Ruiz said that the EHS plaque program seemed to have addressed that issue directly and that the Commission would not get engaged in any monetary gain. Mr. Struve showed some examples of the proposed bronze plaques. Commission members indicated their preference for the oval shaped plaques. fir. Struve asked the Commission's support and endorsement of the EHS plaque program. Abbie Willard moved that Commission grant its support and endorsement of the EHS plaque program, with the understanding that the Commission would certify the landmark status of buildings. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, October t6, 2001, at 7:30 p.m., Evanston Civic Center, Room 2304. 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201. Vill. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:I5 p.m. Respectfully submitted: %1 �•:✓' Date: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preserva 0onc rdinator EV :ANSTON PRESERVATION COMiiISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 16, 2001 7:30 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MElIBERS PRESET: Mary Brugliera. Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Laura Hodes, Neil Sheehan. and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Imla%-. and Susan Reean OTHERS PRESENT: E. Shamus Hanlon. Chris Mile%vski, Robert Mosky, Fred Gleave, and Thomas Surcek PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner. Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERNIINATIO` OF QUORUM Barbara Gardner. Chair. called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m., a quorum being present. H. MINUTES Abbie Willard moved to approve the June 19. 2001 minutes as submitted. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS Barbara Gardner announced that a neighborhood meeting was being held for a proposed new historic district at Oakton School on October 2001 at She encouraged all present to go and if anyone was interested in working on the district, the organizers were welcoming volunteers. She said this effort was. being funded by the residents of the area. The proposed boundaries are Oakton Street on the north, Howard Street on the south, Ridge on the east and Asbury on the west. It is a small area with four streets that are single family, two streets (Hull Terrace and Austin Street) that are primarily two -flats and even among those there are bungalow two -flats. IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) Esa_nston Presenation Commission t]c.ober 16. 2001 - Minutes Paze 2 1. 3040 Colfax Street -New garage ]Construction/Zoning Variance] E. Shamus Hanlon. prop<:rt% owner presented plans for a freestanding one -car garage at 30-40 Colfax Street. The secondan structure is not visible from the street but it is visible from the alley. He said that thev hid to request a variation from the Zoning Board because then do not have enough proper.%. to meet the ten -foot offset that is required by a stand -alone -structure. Their offset is going to be 4'-9". As a result of that, the garage would be fire walled in its entirety. Mr. Hanlon said that DanIey Garages would build the garage. The%. have proposed vin%I siding. but also talked to Carlos Ruiz about a hardy plank siding. Danley Garages also spoke with an architect about a brick fascia siding in order that the structure would tie in more .with the current look and aesthetics of the home. E. Shamus Hanlon said that the new structure would be the same color as the house, reeardless if vinyl siding is used. He said that he was leaning toward the hardy plank or the brick fascia. because they are more durable long term material than the vinyl, as well as the fact that they probably tie in better with the aesthetics and the character of the home than the vinyl. Iv{r. Hanlon said that there %vas an issue with the pitch of the roof. He said the gable roof tends to be a little flat and they agree that the pitch of the roof could be raised. He said that they have three very high peaks in the front of the house. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if %fr. Hanlon Nvas concerned with blocking and existing window. Mr. I lanlon said, no. Michael Girard asked what was meant by brick fascia. Mr. Hanlon said that the material is I.'4" thick that is put on a surface with concrete and essentially comes in sheets and it is designed to serve as a fascia surface as opposed to building the structure completely out of brick itself. Barbara Gardner asked if the brick fascia would be painted the same as the house. Mr. Hanlon said. yes. Mary Brugliera asked about hardy plank. 'Jr. Hanlon said it is a composite cement material and is better that vinyl siding. Regarding the roof pitch, Barbara Gardner asked if the architects in the Commission had an opinion. Neil Sheehan said that the roof pitch of the garage should match that of the house. Michael Girard asked Neil Sheehan if he would recommend a gable roof. Neil Sheehan said. yes. Neil Sheehan said that if hardy plank is used, it would avoid the pressed wood look. He said the texture is really extreme and is meant to be seen from a great distance. lie recommended the smooth surface. Regarding the brick fascia Neal Sheehan said that the detail at the corners are difficult to handle. These types of materials are unreliable and subject to water infiltration. Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of demolition. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve demolition of the existing carport at 3040 Colfax Street, as it meets the standards 1, 2, 3, 4. and 5 of demolition. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B-anston Preservation Commission October 16. 2001 -Minutes Page 3 Barbara Gardner read the standards for variation. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission recommend the approval of the variance on the basis of determination (A) and (C) for determination of special uses and variations. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Michael Girard said standards for review of construction 7, 8. 12 and 16 applied. Relationship of materials and texture of the facade shall be visually compatible with the dominant materials used in the structure which is visually related. That was subject to debate as to whether is the brick or hardy plank. Roof shapes - there has been an indication of building a steeper pitch of the roof. Regarding standard 12, Michael Girard said that he did not believe the carport %vas historic. Standard 14 and 16 did apply. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the construction of a new garage at 3040 Colfax Street as presented with roof slope to match that of the existing house, and change of materials to the brick fascia to be painted to match the color of the house, as it meets standards 7, 8, 14 and 16. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1123 Ridge Avenue - Wrought iron fence IConstruction/Fence Variance] Robert I'vlosky, property owner. and Chris Milewski presented plans for erecting a wrought iron fence. R. Mosky said that there is a 170-foot of frontage. Fie said that there is a half circle driveway and a fence that goes all along the front. He proposed a new %%roug,ht iron fence to the side that attaches at the rear. The new fence would have basically the same look as the fence in the front. He said that the only difference is the height of the fence that is 6-feet as opposed to 5 1/2-feet, Robert Mosky said that he would like to reuse 40-feet of an existing fence in the front and erect a new fence to the side. Commission' Findings Michael Girard said the Commission has to consider a fence variation for front yard setback and standards for review of construction. Barbara Gardner read the standards for variations. Laura Hodes moved to approve the variation at 1123 Ridge Avenue as meeting standards (A) and (C). Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Michael Girard referred to the standards for review of construction citing standards 14 and IS. Barbara Gardner cited standard 9. Neil Sheehan added standard 7. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the proposed construction'of side yard fence at 1123 Ridge Avenue as it meets standards for review of construction 7, 9, I4 and 19. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Presenation Commission October 16. 2001 - ltinu:es Page .t 3. 1030 Forest Avenue - Rear replacement and modification (Alteration] Fred Gleave. architect said that the project consists of removing the existing rear porch, replacing that porch in kind. expanding to the north for a sitting area. and enclosing the second floor porch in 8' x 12' room. The existing porch on the first floor is approximately 6' x 12'. The roof would be replaced up above the second floor with a glass roof and glass walls for a conservatory. The existing porch was probably built in the 1920s. The house was built in I901. F. Gleave said that the porch always had a second floor on it, but the existing roof was added 20 to 30 years ago. Commission' Findings Neil Sheehan asked if the porch was visible from the street. Fred Gleave said the porch is visible from the alley. .Mary Bruglicra asked about the structure above the first floor. Fred Gleave said that second floor would mimic the first floor with a slate roof on top of it. The piers that hold up the first floor are Roman brick. The existing railing would be replaced with a similar railing up above. Neil Sheehan asked why the floor hung beyond the column. Fred Gleave said it was because the first floor is only 6-foot deep. His clients thought a 8-foot room would be more usable. The columns holding the first floor would be new. Carlos Ruiz asked about the windows. Fred Gleave said the windows would be wood with true divided lights. Michael Girard read the standards for review of alteration. Abbie Willard mowed that the Commission recommend alterations at 1030 Forest Avenue on the grounds that it meets standards 1, 2, 9 and 10. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1228 Hinman avenue - Partial removal and rebuilding front porch JAltcrationj Thomas Surcek. property owner said his project is the rebuilding of the front porch which wwas severely water damaged due to the lack of buttering around any of the house until 6 years ago, prior to his purchase of the house. He said, while showing pictures of the house, that the turret did not have any gutters, so that the water would rush straight on to the decking and rotted out the all the joists. He said he is rebuilding what is there. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if the existing railing would be reused. Thomas Surcek said the existing; railing would not be reused. Some of the posts would be reused. Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of alteration. Mary Brugliern moved that the Commission accept the reconstruction at 1228 Hinman Avenue, as it complies with standards 1, 2, 3 and 6. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Preservation Commission October 16. 2001 - Minutes Page S V. OLD BUSINESS A. 641 Sheridan Square -Nomination for designation as an Evanston Landmark Commission's Report and Resolution Carlos Ruiz referred to the preliminary report to be submitted to the City Council in regard to the application for landmark designation of 641 Sheridan Square. He noted that on the second page there were four items that still needed completion. He said that Nlichael Girard and Neil Sheehan would rc%-iew the completed report. The preliminary report lists the date of the public hearing. it lists the criteria for designation, and sections of the preservation ordinance that are pertinent to the nomination. The preliminary report also includes the significance of the nominated landmark. and explanation of integrity. Carlos Ruiz said that regarding the minutes of the public hearing on page 3, fourth paragraph, there are a number of names to be confirmed. Barbara Gardner spelled correctly the proper name K-e-c-k of Keck & Keck. Other spelling errors were corrected and clarifications were made. Neil Sheehan moved to approve the public hearing minutes of September 19. 2001 for 641 Sheridan Square as amended. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. ne motion passed unanimously. Laura Hodes moved to approve the Commission's resolution regarding 641 Sheridan Square. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner and Michael Girard signed the resolution. Carlos Ruiz the resolution, section 3 allows the Commission to make corrections as needed. He said that he will e-mail to Commissioners the final version for review. B. Rules and Procedures Barbara Gardner said that the rules and procedures were not yet ready. Michael Girard noticed that there was nothing about driveways addressed. Barbara Gardner wondered if driveways should be included with parking lots. Michael Girard said that the Commission had reviewed some parking lots and driveways in the past. He wondered if some projects should be approved by staff. Additional comments were made about the letter type as well some sentences were edited for clarification. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission does not review light fixtures on single family homes but it does review light fixtures on commercial buildings. The booklet clarifies that issue. Storm doors were not consciously not reviewed. She said that the text in the ordinance should be amended to reflect the Commission's practice. Storm windows are reviewed. Bansron Presen,_:ion ���•- - ;:��r. October 16.2001 - %fim_:_s Pate 6 Carlos Ruiz sai,a th.:, the nales and procedures do not supercede the ordittarice. The rules and procedures shot.:d Cl-',:.ply with the ordinance. 3arb,=-a Gardner cited sections of the ordinance under etiniaons for exterior architect: a aFr_varance: -the architecture character and g=nera: cornnos::ion of the zxterio. of a propert,. >tructure. object visible from a public s:-eet cr pul^lic 6ay. including but not--mited to the kind and texture of the building material anc the t%pe resign and character a= all —architectural details and elements including br_t no: limited to windows. doors_ liah: fixtures. trim and signs." She said the suggested cl-ange in «ording xvas: "but not 11r—nited to «tndo« C, doors. trim, light fixtures and signs on commercial property She said i- v.-as a matter of clarification. Mary Brugliera suggested that the change be in pareriLnesis so it would only apply to the signs. Barbara Gardner said it •.+ould also apply to the light fixtures and signs. She clarified that «indov s mould not be excluded. light fixtures and signs can commercial property would be included. Doors are also included In --cause they need a permit. Barbara Gardner said that p.•ople report activity that r:.a,• not have been approved by the Commission. She said that the important thing is that -I've public cares about preservation. Abbie Willard asked grout a building where windows were changed. Barbara Gardner said that when the Commission became aware of the si-:uation it was already a done deal. Laura Hodes moved to appro, a the brochure as amended on October 16. 2001. ;Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner asked if dri% eevays and parking lots should be addressed together. Carlos Ruiz said «ithin a historic district an%thing that -is in the public way and visible the Commission has ptsview. Nlary Brugliera asked about landscaping. Carlos Ruiz said that in the ordinance Lmder definitions. land altering acd-0ty is defined as -any act or process requiring a permit that changes one or more of the historical. cultural. architectural or archaeological features of an area. prop,:vy or site including but not limited to berming. scraping. labeling. grading. pile dri%ing. excavating and compacting." Michael Girard said than is structural landscaping. Carlos Ruiz said that he wanted to focus on what the Commission has pun-iew only. Micl%ael Girard the only things on residential projects requiring a permit are lawn sprinklers and parking. He said that landscaping not mentioned. Mary Brugliera said that she »anted to clarify that ce uTn landscaping projects do not require a permit. Barbara Gardner said that the ordinance does not deal %%ith it_ She said - that she did not have a problem «ith removing landscaping,. Mary Brugliera said that she did not want the Commission dealing with issues not included in the ordinance. Abbie NVillard suggested changing the text of "review of landscape master plans" to "topographic changes." N ich3cl Girard said that it %%-as h-is understanding that Evanston does not require a permit for topographic changes. Commissioners agreed to remove landscape master plans and remo%ml of trees (items 1 I - and 12) from the brochure. Under routine maintenance. remove item 9. Evanston Presenation Commission October 16. 2001 - Minutes Page 7 Regarding driveways Michael Girard asked if they should be put together .with parking lots or be separate. because they would come from two sources. Carlos Ruiz said that parking lots would generally be commercial or institutional. lie said that driveways should be separate from parking lots. because drive ways most likely are for residential projects. Under maintenance, driveways should be listed under repair. Construction or addition to driyemvay should be listed under major works. Barbara Gardner said that under major work it should sa_v: "new construction, alteration. addition. removal of driveways." Carlos Ruiz said that driveways become an issue when someone would like to build a driveway in the front yard or a parking space with a driveway. Abbic Willard said the Commission would make accommodations for driveways and parking spaces in cases of disability. Carlos Ruiz said that by its nature, the preservation ordinance clearly allows alterations and construction. The question is how one can go about doing alterations and construction. That puts the Commission in a different plane than a restrictive Commission. Barbara Gardner said that painting does not come under the Commission's purview because painting does not require a permit. Carlos Ruiz said that the brochure should be designed for clarity and clear]), highlight the section about routine maintenance. Vl. ADJOURti:►iENT With no further items for discussion Diary Brugliera move to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Prcservatio Co dinator Date: EVANSTOti PRESERVATION CONINIISSIOti Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:30 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera. Barbara Gardner, Laura Hodes, Abbie Willard, and Chris Carey (newly appointed). I IEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, Michael Imlay, Susan Regan, and Neil Sheehan OTHERS PRESEtiT: Jeremy &: Christine Bloomfield, Bob Costello. Anne McGuire, Aubrey Swift, Jill Berkeley, Larry Goldman, and Doug Gillespie PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner. Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERINIINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was not present. She said that for the benefit of the applicants, the Commissioners present will review the projects and through a straw poll indicate their vote when a quorum is present. II. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee 1. 1224 Oak Avenue - Building a second story deck at rear of house lConstruction] Jeremy &: Christine Bloomfield, property owners presented plans for the construction a second - story deck at the rear of the house at 1224 Oak Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Jeremy Bloomfield said that the deck would be built out of wood. An existing window is going to be removed and replaced with a door for access to the deck. The railing is designed with horizontal wood slats and vertical pickets. The deck is hold by 60 wood posts. Barbara Gardner read the standards of construction. Commissioners agreed that the project met standards 1, 3, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of construction. A straw poll was taken to approve 'the project as present. All five Commissioners present said "aye". Evanston Preser%ation Commission ;Minutes — No, -ember 20. 2001 Paec ? 2. 2135 Sherman Avenue - Building a Mo-story addition with back porch at rear of house (Construction) Bob Costello. property owner. and Anne McGuire, architect presented plans for a new two-story rear addition with back porch to a two-story plus attic frame house. The property is located within the Evanston Northeast Evanston Historic District. Anne McGuire said that the exterior materials of the addition will match the existing materials including: narrow style aluminum siding. asphalt shingles on the roof, one over one double hung, vinyl clad windows. and sliding vinyl clad doors with fixed sidelights at the kitchen level. The door opens onto a covered porch. The porch is painted «ood. Barbara Gardner read the standards of construction. Commissioners agreed that the project met standards 1, 3. 6, 7. S. 9. 10 and 15 of construction. A straw poll to approve the project as presented was taken. All five members presented said "aye". 3. 610 Grove Street - Building a whecl chair ramp and exterior alterations to building Construction/Alteration j Aubrey Swift, architect presented plans for exterior alterations at 610 Grove Street. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Aubrey Swift said that the Music Institute, the owners is doing the interior renovation of the building to create a music institute downstairs. Upstairs. the sanctuary room will be used as a hall for concerts. He said that the existing side entrances are made up of two pairs of 2'-6" wide doors which do not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Referring to page 3 of the drawings, A. Swift said that there are four symmetrical side entrances, two on the north and two on the south. The east grand entrance is T above the street level. For the accessibility issue, a ramp to the side on the north elevation eastern portion is being proposed. A. Swift said that the existing entrances have five (5) risers up leading to double doors. The proposal is to take out the double doors and put in a single door, which will meet the ADA width requirement. The threshold of that door would be lowered from 5 risers to 3 risers or lowered about 1.3" which also shortens the ramp by 1.1'. Aubrey Swift said that the existing light fixtures would be taken out to allow for a landing and a place for the ramp to meet the stairs and rebuilding the side %valls that are there now in limestone to match the existing. The railings would be rebuilt to match existing. The new railings would have the same character as the existing original %wrought iron rails and adapting them for the new stairs. A concrete %wall faced with limestone would be built in front of the ramp. On the ramp side the concrete is exposed. Aubrey Swift said that the limestone wall presents the opportunity to put some pedestrian signage. Painted metal letters mounted on the limestone is being considered for signage. The type it is similar to Times Roman font. Barbara Gardner asked if the signage above the transom would be the same type. A. Swift said that his clients have not committed to the style of signage above the transom. Chris Carey asked about the materials for the doors. A. Swift said that the doors would be oak wood, stained to match the existing doors with a chrome kick plate. The sidelight would be dark Gtanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Not -ember 20. 2001 Pave 3 stained rails and glass to match the light of the door. Above the door there is a painted metal small canopy about 30" deep and about the width of the masonry opening and anchored with metal brackets to the brick wall. The metal work will be painted probable to match the lights (antique gray -black). The canopy ~would announce the day to day entrance for the school. Aubrey Swift said that there are a couple of new- railings on the front steps required by the Fire Department. Currently there is only a single railing going down the center of the steps. The new railings will match the existing railing, flanking the steps on either side. The railing steel pickets are 3!-t" in width and the main supports are 1 ". In response to a question from Carlos D. Ruiz. Aubrey Swift said that the Chicago Avenue signage is still not resoled and it would probably be subject to another submission to the Commission. Regarding the lights, A. Swift said that the existing lights .would be taken down, then preserved and remounted. lie said the original drawings show similar lights in the front elevation, which they would like to replicate, but they are not in the current budget. Barbara Gardner asked about the west facade. Aubrey Swift said the back facade faces the alley. Currently there are some painted wood panels blocking off old air intakes. He said that the area which, is currently the Christian Science reading room. is going to become an air handling room for the new mechanical system to serve the entire building. In order to get fresh air to meet the code requirements for mechanical, they- are asking to replace two windows with painted metal louvers. and replace the two panels that have been blocked off with louvers also. The larger louvers are for fresh air for the large auditorium upstairs. 'ne existing air conditioning units under the windows will be taken out and replace with painted wood panels. In response to a question from Chris Carey, A. Swift said that bricking back in the openings would be a challenge because he did not know whether the brick could be matched. Aubrey Swift said that there will be a new electrical service with a meter cabinet mounted outside. Z he south elevation will remain the same. In response to a question from Carlos Ruiz, Aubrey Swift said the louvers are horizontal slat louvers so that they are storm proved. Barbara Gardner said that the proposed louvers seemed appropriate. Carlos Ruiz said that it was a good thing that the existing window openings, where the louvers will be installed, will remain the same size. diary Brugliera suggested louvers with a mullion to carry- the design of the windows. Aubrey Swift said that imitating a window design for the louvers will look phony. Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of alteration for the door and louvers. She said that the projects met standards 1.2, 3, 5, 9 and 10. Barbara Gardner took a straw poll asking Commissioners who will vote in favor of the alterations as presented to say "aye". All five members present answered, "aye". Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of construction for the ramp and signage. She said that the project met standards 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Barbara Gardner took a straw poll asking Commissioners *who will vote in favor of the ramp and signage as presented to say "aye". All five members present answered, "aye". 4. 1233 Crain Street - Raising the roof of the existing coach house [Alteration) 4M Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Nmember 26, 2001 Pare -t Carlos Ruiz said the architect for 123,33 Crain Street had requested to postpone the review of this project until the December meeting. 5. 652 Sheridan Road - Building a front yard second stun- addition and exterior alterations to the house lConstructionj Jill Berkeley and Larry Goldman. property owners. and Doug Gillespie, architect presented plans for a full second -story addition at 652 Sheridan Road. "fhe property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Doug Gillespie said that across the street on the cast side of the 600 block of Sheridan Road there are two houses listed as architecturally significant in the Lakeshore Historic District nomination. Most of the houses on the east side are two and a half to three -stop, houses. The west side of Sheridan Road has a mix of building styles. Doug Gillespie said that 652 Sheridan Road is a ranch style house that sits on a 55' %Yide and 166' deep lot. The living room, dining room and kitchen are on the one-story portion facing Sheridan Road, behind that there is a split-level. At the Iower level are the garage and the family room. The second floor has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. Showing; a composition of photographs, Doug Gillespie illustrated the relative sizes of the houses on Sheridan Road, lie said that the existing house at 652 Sheridan Road has board and batten siding on the lower level and brick. On the front the roof is a gable roof and in the back it is a hip roof with wood shake shingles. The windows are aluminum casement windows, single - glazed with interior interchangeable storm screen in the inside. Jill Berkeley added that some of the windows are broken and others do not work. Jill Berkeley said that they lived in the house since 1988. she and her husband are long time Evanston residents, in fact they grew up in Evanston. J. BerkeIey said that the house has a fantastic interior space with cathedral ceiling and plenty of natural Iight. 'Be house does not have eastern light in any of the bedrooms or morning sun. She would like to have a master bedroom with eastern sun and a house for contemporary use. She asked Doug; Gillespie to build a second floor on the front, but make it appear as if it was always pan of the house. She indicated that some houses in the neighborhood had taken a second skin approach, such as a house on Edgemere Court. Jill Berkeley said that they have coveted a house of the Prairie style located south and on the east side of Sheridan Road. She said that they have talked to their neighbors about their plans and they are very enthusiastic. Doug Gillespie said that the second -story addition would be on top of the living room, dining; room and kitchen. The second -story- has a master bedroom on the southeast corner and a new study room on the north cast corner. He said that the addition makes the house more consistent with the scale of many of the other houses on the block. Abbie Willard asked about the proposed fiber glass shingles for the new roof. Dough Gillespie said the roof is very shallow and not very visible. Chris Carey asked about the entry. D. Gillespie said that the new arched entry faces Sheridan Road, the door remains where it is. Barbara Gardner suggested a squared arch for the entry. Mary Brugliera asked about the transom above the front windows. Doug; Gillespie said they will be wood with a pattern. Carlos Ruiz asked if the windows have spacing bars between the glass. D. GiIlespie said no. Evanston Preserrnation Commission Minutes — November 20. 2001 Pace 5 Barbara Gardner said the project was interesting and the proposed addition looks more in keeping with what it is around it. Jill Berkelev said that one is really looking at the side of a ranch house when looking at the existing house from Sheridan Road. The new design will give the house more prominence. Carlos Ruiz_ said that he wanted Commissioners address the project keeping in mind that the addition to the house is not only an alteration but also a complete transformation of the house. He read standard 3 of alterations to illustrate his concern: "411 properties, structures, sites and objects shall he recognise as products of their own tine. . tlteration that have no hiviorical basis and that .seek to Create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. " Doug Gillespie said that in essence they were building a new house, it is similar if they were to scar down the house and build a ne%j house. He cited a new house being built on Judson Avenue as a similar example. Barbara Gardner said that for purposes of review. the Commission had previously adopted the position of reviewing projects that do not add footprint of a structure under standards of alteration and review projects adding foot print of structure under the standards of construction. Abbic Willard suggested that when a project increases the floor area square footage then the Commission would review the project under standards of construction. Abbie Willard said that another way to improve the definition of construction is by including the increase of the floor area above a certain percentage of the existing floor area. A third suggestion was using standards for construction where literal]), the entire outside envelope of a house is changed. After some additional discussion, Commissioners agreed to review the project under standards of construction because it changes the entire exterior and adds significant square footage to the house, becoming more than an alteration. Barbara read the standards of construction. Commissioners agreed that the project met standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, S. 10, 11, 14, and Ib. A straw poll to approve the project as presented was taken. All five members present said, "aye". Laura Hodes left the meeting at this time. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commission members agreed to meet on December 4, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in room 2403, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois, if a quorum can be convened. I11. AD.IOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted. Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservatio ordinator Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:30 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois ,'MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey. Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Laura Hodes. Susan Regan. Neil Sheehan, and Abbie Willard .MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Imlay OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Rairigh, Ellen Galland. Holly &: David Reynolds, Scan Barry, Eric Gresla, Mike Daly, Cary M. Williams. John Holbert, Toni Bark, Dave Dwyer, Ken Kessler, and Larry Termolen PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDERIQUORUM DECLARATION At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. 11. MINUTES Michael Girard to approve the April 17, 2001 minutes as presented. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Abbic Willard moved to approve the November 20, 2001 minutes. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 111. COMMUNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz said that there no communications. IV. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee Barbara Gardner asked for a motion for approval for the following projects as recorded in the November 20, 2001 minutes: E%anston Presm-anon Commission :Minutes —December 18. 2001 Pace I. 2135 Sherman Avenue - Building a two-story addition with back porch at rear of house (Construction) 2. 610 Grove Street - Building a is -heel chair ramp and exterior alterations to building (Construction/Alteration) and, 3. 652 Sheridan Road - Building a front yard second story addition and exterior alterations to the house iConstructionj Abbie Willard moved to approvc the above mentioned projects. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1233 Crain Street - Raising the roof of the existing coach house [Alteration] Bill Rairigh. architect said that his clients would like to add on to the coach house and raise the roof for a caretaker for their property at 1233 Crain Street. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Bill Rairigh said the building materials are the same as the house: brick, cedar shake roof, and true divided light windows. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if a zoning analysis was conducted. Bill Rairigh said he believed that to be the case. The question of whether the proposed use of the coach house was allowed was raised. Carlos Ruiz said that he did not see the need of a zoning variance in the actual building permit application for the project. Neil Sheehan and ;Michael Girard suggested providing a cornice line where the existing brick meets the new brick. Barbara Gardner read the standards of alteration. The Commission found that standards 1, 2, 3 and 5 were met. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the g modifications to the garage at 1233 Crain Street as presented. Abbic Willard seconded the motion. Discussion: Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that the architect for the project (Ken Hazelet) had just informed him that the project did not required a zoning variance. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 204 Davis Street - Exterior alterations, rebuilding garage jConstruction/Zoning Variationj Holly & David Reynolds, property owners and Ellen Galland, architect presented plans for = exterior alterations and rebuilding a garage at 204 Davis Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. _ Ellen Galland said that they have two unrelated projects, both of them will require major variations for required setbacks from the respective yards. Ellen Galland said that the existing 12' x 2 F garage was built in the 1950s and that her clients would like to build a new 13' x 25' garage to be more consistent with the rest of the house. The new garage has a slightly modified roof (witch's hat). The primary fagade seen from the street is the new garage fagade. Ellen Galland said the other project is the kitchen. E. Galland said that they did a number of schemes to avoid additions but it left them with a really small kitchen. The final scheme is a Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - December 18.2001 Page 3 t%vo-foot projection into the side yard with a cantilever bay for an eating area. E. Galland said that the finish materials above the garage and the addition would be stucco, matching the existing stucco on the house and with a trim board and fix up the trim below the windows and wrap the whole addition «ith the trim. The new double hung windows for the bay ha%e divided lights unlike the other existing windows. but there are hardy visible from Lake Street. Ellen Galland said that it would be a low impact addition and it would not adversely effect any neighbor. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the roof material for the bay. Ellen Galland said the roof material is asphalt shingles. Carlos Ruiz if the neighbors know about the requests for variance. Holly Reynolds said that they have shown the plans to their three immediate contiguous neighbors. Regarding the zoning variations Ellen Galiand said that for the garage they proposed 4'-l" setback on the south yard and 6'-Y setback on the west yard. but the garage would be in line with the existing house. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission recommend approval of the zoning variation as not adversely affecting the historic district on the grounds of clauses A and C of determination of special uses and variations. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission recommend approval of the variance requested for the 6'-3" setback in the 30' rear year setback on the grounds of clauses A and C of determination of special uses and variations. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimouslv. Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of alteration. The Commission found that the project met standards 1.2 and 5. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the requested modifications including the garage and kitchen addition on the basis of standards 1, 2 and 5 in the standards for review of alteration. Abbie Willard seconded the motion 6. 526 Greenwood - Exterior alterations/rehabilitation, new garage (Alteration/Construction) Sean Barry, property owner presented plans for exterior alterations and rehabilitation of the main structure and the construction of a new two -car garage at 526 Greenwood Street. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Sean Bang said that house is a six unit apartment building and that his company owns the property since 1998. He said that the house needs a lot of work and that the plan is to bring the house as a single-family dwelling. Sean Barry said that the house was converted into six units back in 1969. Currently, the exterior of the house is shaker shingle style, underneath the shingle is a 4.5" horizontaI wood siding;. The wood shake is deteriorated and it has been patched over the years. Sean Barry said that what he would like to do is remove the wood shakes and go back to the original wood siding, strip it and restore the wood siding. Sean Bang said that the house roofline will remain the same and the fascia and gutters will be restored. He said that on the east elevation he is proposing removing some of the windows and Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — December 18.2001 Pace 4 relocating them to other areas of the cast elevation. The door from a living area to the front porch will be closed off and a new window installed in its place. On the north elevation one of the two existing entry doors "ill be removed and a «indow installed in its place (reclaiming the original windoxv). The main entrance door will be restore and a window reclaimed to its cast direction. Scan Barn- said that there are 37 double hung windows throughout the house. 6 casements, 3 of the double hung .%•ido%vs are Ieaded glass. There are 6 windows where the sashes are beyond repair and need replacement. He said that he is also proposing to restore the existing %indows. 1n response to a question from Chris Care.. Sean Barry said that the single pane windows would be converted to double pane windows. The windowopenings will remain then same. Neil Sheehan asked if the existing frames would be kept and the existing sashes replaced. Scan Barry said that he would try to retain the window frames and sashes as much as possible. Chris Carey asked if the 6 new windows are of a particular brand. Sean Barry said that they have a bid from Marvin Windows. On the south elevation there is an addition that was put on for a stairw•elI to the second story. He said that he plans to remove the stairs and keep the square footage of the stairwell, keeping it as post construction, then strip it and use it as habitable space. Scan Barry said that currently there is an existing gravel driveway that runs along the cast elevation of the house to 6 parking spaces in the back. One of them is a concrete path. The new garage requires a zoning variation for the 10'-0" separation between the garage and the house. Sean Barry said that they are asking for 7.271' and keeping within their setbacks, staying Y-0"off the property line all the %vay around. The garage is a two -car garage for a single family home. The second variation is the over hang in the eaves for the garage. A permitted overhang setback is Y-6", the proposed overhang is T-0" to match the house overhang. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner said the variations are the 10'-0" separation between the house and the garage and the overhanging roof eaves. Chris Carey asked what the finish on the garage would be. Sean Barry said the exterior finish of the garage would be 4.50" exposed wood siding to match the siding of the house. Barbara Gardner said the first variation is the 10'-0" separation between the house and the garage, the applicant proposes to reduce it to 7.27'. Neil Sheehan said that clauses A and C applied. Michael Girard concurred with Neil Sheehan. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission recommend approval of the zoning variance for reduction of the separation requirement [between the house and the garage] from 10'-0" to 7.27' ti,iichael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner said the second variance is the encroachment for the overhanging roof eaves from Y-6" to T-0". Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed zoning variation as submitted per clauses A and C. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of construction for the new garage. The Commission had questions about the design of the garage including roof shape and slope, Bans[on Prrscr,,ation Commission Minutes - December 18. 2001 Page 5 exterior building materials, garage door, and placement of windows. Scan Barn said that the garage would complement the house design and exterior finish materials including the roof shape. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission ape ro%a construction of the garage as proposed on the basis of standards 1. 2. 7. 8. 10. 1.1 and 16 in the Stand»rds for review of construction. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion pass-ed unanimously. Barbara Gardner read the standards for rcvie«- of alteration for the proposed exterior alterations including removal of the cedar shake siding, relocation of windows. installation of new windows, and removal of existing non original door. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the project at 526 Greenwood Street as it meets standards 1.2. 3, 5, 6 and 10 for review of alterations. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 518 Greenwood Street - Exterior alterations, installation of casement windows at rear and side [Alteration[ Eric Gressla, architect and property owners presented plans for a kitchen interior renovation with some changes to the exterior elevation at 518 Greenwood Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Eric Gressla said that they are proposing; to replace a set of windows that are unfit to the building and get back to more consistent detailing. primarily the trim around the window with a wider flat casing a nice drip cap. The new siding; will match the narrow existing; siding;. Eric Gressla said that the proposed casement windows were appropriate for the kitchen remodeling;. Mary Brugliera asked if the windows at 516 Greenwood [next door] were leaded windows. Eric Gressla said the windows at 516 Greenwood are double hung wood windows with wood muntin. He said that the type of pattern on the upper sash was not consistent with the house. Carlos Ruiz said that the reason why this projectwas in front of the Commission was because he wanted to establish some type of record for this type of alteration. He said the double house has additions that were not in front of the Commission and the existing windows at 516 Greenwood Street with divided lights on the upper sash are not consistent with the existing one-on-one double hung windows. He said when introducing a new type of window [casement windows] he wanted to make sure that the applicant had the opportunity to explain the reasons why of their preference. Carlos Ruiz said that one of his recommendations to the applicant was simulating the double hung appearance on the casement, and working With the existing; windows at 516 Greenwood in terms of proportion of the window openings. He said that he would have approved the certificate of appropriateness if those revisions were made. Commission's Findings Banstm ?resenation Commission Minutes - Decemb-cr 18. 2001 Past 6 Barbara Gardner asked if on the new «indows at 516 Greenwood Street. did not those match existinu w indo,%s on the front or side elevation. Carlos Ruiz said that he did not Find records that the Commission had revie«ed that project. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission had revie%%ed 516 Greenwood in 2000 citing that David and Andrea liandley came in front of the Commission. Neil Sheehan said that his opinion on Variations on a double house was that on the back he was not panicularl% concern. lie said that %gas the area "here domestic needs take precedent over s%-mmetn-. Carlos Ruiz said that another issue is the exterior finish of the proposed finish being aluminum clad. Barbara Gardner said that she recalled that at the 516 Greenwood project that the Commission asked the applicant to not clad the proposed windows. Chris Carey asked if is there an objection to putting a muntin pattern into the casement windows. Eric Gressla said that he had concerns into making the windows look like double hung because there is difference of plain and shadow line. Chris Carey suggested vertical muntin bars top to bottom without a break in the center. Eric Gressla said that the original of the windows on the house do not have divided lights. tie said the divided lights on the windows at 516 Greenwood are only on the addition. Chris Carey said the rear of the double house is not symmetrical but more personalized. Barbara Gardner said that the French door and matching the detailing in the porch begins to tie the rear of the house together. She also said that she had Iess concern with aluminum clad casement windows than aluminum clad double hung windows. Veil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the project as submitted on the basis of standards 1, 2, 3. 5 and 9 of standards for re%iew of alterations. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 1220 Michigan Avenue - Demolition of existing house/construction of two-story house (Demolition/Construction) John Holbert. architect presented plans for preliminary review for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new house at 1220 Michigan Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. John Holbert said that he and his clients had been in front of the Commission previously for alterations and addition to the existing house. At that time there was some concern about the presence of mold in the house. Since then his clients have learned that the mold is spread throughout the house and that a report from a consultant confirms that the house could not be cleaned without the risk that the mold will reappear again. The consultant's report and CD -Rom was submitted to the Commission with their new application. In addition, James Wolinski, Director of the Community Development Department, has issued a letter recommending the demolition of the existing house, finding that the evidence regarding the mold infestation warranted the demolition of the house. John Holbert said that now his clients are requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new one-story and a half house. lie E•.anston Presenation Commission Minutes - December 18.20oI Paxe5 exterior buildinL, materials. garage door, and placement of windows. Scan Barry said that the ea -age would complement the house design a.)d exterior finish materials including the roof sh :pe. y+eil Sheehan moved that the Commission apt: o% a construction of the garage as proposed on the b:s.-is of standards 1. 2. 7. 8. 10. 14 and 16 in t-he standards for review of construction. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner read the standards for rc%,ieu of alteration for the proposed exterior alterations including removal of the cedar shake siding, relocation of windows, installation of new windows, and removal of existing non original door. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the project at 526 Greenwood Street as it meets standards 1, 2. 3. 5. 6 and 10 for review of alterations. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. S. 518 Greenwood Street - Exterior alterations, installation of casement windows at rear and side [Alteration) Eric GressIa, architect and property owners presented plans for a kitchen interior renovation with some changes to the exterior elevation at 518 Greenwood Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District, Eric GressIa said that they are proposing to replace a set of windows that are unfit to the building and eet back to more consistent detailing, primahly the trim around the window with a wider flat casing a nice drip cap. The new siding will match the narrow existing siding. Eric Gressla said that the proposed casement windows were appropriate for the kitchen remodeling. Mary Brugliera asked if the windows at 516 Greenwood [next door] were leaded windows. Eric Gressla said the windows at 516 Greenwood are double hung wood windows with wood muntin. He said that the type of pattern on the upper sash was not consistent with the house. Carlos Ruiz said that the reason why this project was in front of the Commission was because he wanted to establish some type of record for this tNpe of alteration. fie said the double house has additions that were not in front of the Commission and the existing windows at 516 Greenwood Street with divided lights on the upper sash are not consistent with the existing one-on-one double hung windows. He said when introducing a new type of window [casement windows] he %%anted to make sure that the applicant had the opportunity to explain the reasons why of their preference. Carlos Ruiz said that one of his recommendations to the applicant was simulating the double hung appearance on the casement, and working with the existing windows at 516 Greenwood in terms of proportion of the window- openings. He said that he would have approved the certificate of appropriateness if those revisions were made. Commission's Findings B-anston Preseration Commission Minutes — December 18, 2001 Pace 7 said that the new house %%-ill be built on the existing foundation and they are not seeking any zoning variances. The new house is in the same family style of the existing house. Toni Bark. property owner and Dave Dwyer. contractor arrive to the meeting at this time. John Holbert said that the general scale of the house, roof massing with punctuation of windows is similar to the existing house but the specific detailing its different. Neil Sheehan said that the design of the new house is consistent with the neighborhood and it will develop nicely. He said that it is an improvement over the existing house. Carlos Ruiz asked Commissioners if they had questions about the report regarding the mold. Commissioners did not have questions. Some discussion ensued about the process of issuing the certificate for demolition and construction. Carlos Ruiz said that applicant is asking the Commission for direction regarding their proposal. Ken Kessler, a neighbor said that he did not kno,.ti- that mold %vas an issue in Evanston. Toni Bark said that most homes of the same age as her home have mold. Lary Termolen, another neighbor asked how one controls the spores from being released into the environment. Toni Bark said the mold that existing in the house is a mold that exists in our environment every day. She said the spores arc always around, but if one has trapped water in a house, it cannot breath. Then mold will keep growing. She said mold is not like asbestos. Dave Dwyer said that they plan to contain the mold inhere it may be loose and put into plastic bags and take it out. Barbara Gardner suggested that when the plans arc completed that the applicant show her neighbors the design of the house. Toni Bark agreed. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission will review the final plans next month V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2200 Central Street Chris Carey asked an update on the project at 2200 Central Street. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission received information about the project in the packets. She said that Michael Girard and her went to the Zoning Board Appeals hearing. The Commission had previously approved the project narrowly. The Commission was reluctant to approve anything without a zoning analysis. The applicant told the Commission that without the Commission's approval he could not move forward to the next step. Barbara Gardner said that any new design had to come back in front of the Preservation Commission. Carlos Ruiz said that Alderman Edmund Moran is closely following the project. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission had asked the developer to meet with the neighbors, something that it has not occurred place to date. Mary Brugliera said that the Commission just approved a new garage at 526 Greenwood based on the verbal description by the applicant and without looking at the plans. Carlos Ruiz said that the drawings for the garage do exist in the plans for building permit. The copy submitted by the contractor did not include the garage. He said that he did overlook the absence of the garage plans in the drawings submitted to the Commissioners. Neil Sheehan said that Carlos Ruiz will Banston Preser%ation Commission Minutes - December 18. 2001 Neu 8 review the plans before a building permit is issued. Carlos Ruiz said that the proposed garage is complementarw to the style of the house. VI. 1ENN' BUS11ESS Appointment of Nominating Committee for the Election of Officers for2002 Abbie Willard and 'Michael Girard volunteered to the Nominating Committee for the Clection of Commission Officers for 2002. Commission members discussed vacant seats in the Commission's membership and potential individuals who may want to apple for appointment to the Commission. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission has three vacant seats Text amendments to the Preservation Ordinance Barbara Gardner said that the proposed text amendments to the Preservation Ordinance are intended to make it consistent with the Commission's recently adopted brochure ["What You Need to Know to Work in your 1 louse - For Landmarks and Historic Districts"]. Barbara Gardner said currently the ordinance says: "...not limited to windows, doors, light fixtures, trim and signs..." She said the amended text would say: "... not limited to windows, doors, except storm doors, trim, and light fixtures and signs on commercial buildings..." Barbara Gardner clarified that what the Commission would review is anything that is visible from the public way and texture of the building material and the type design and the character of all architectural details and elements including but not limited to windows, doors, except storm doors, trim, and light fixtures and signs on commercial buildings..." She said that light fixture and signs would be reviewed on commercial building only, and not residential buildings. Susan Regan asked about signs on multi -family buildings. Commissioners discussed various scenarios where a building permit might be required for signs and light fixtures for single family homes and arrived to a decision to amend the text of the ordinance by adding a new sentence after:... not limited to windows, doors, trim, light fixtures and signs. Stor►n doors, light fixtures, and .signs ofsingle family residences are nor included Commissioners agreed that after the legal department has the opportunity to review the proposed text amendment the Commission could approve such amendment. Regarding storm windows Barbara Gardner said that the text in the ordinance could also be amended so that storm windows would not need to be reviewed. Carlos Ruiz said that he would like to leave storm windows under the purview of at least the Preservation Coordinator. Commissioners agreed to keep storm windows for review by staff. Guidelines for construction of new garages Barbara Gardner said that the proposed guidelines for construction of new garages could be developed into a brochure that would be available at the Building Division. Also encourage appropriate designs for garages. The brochure could include pictures of appropriate garage designs. Esanston Presemation Commission :Minutes - December 18. 2001 Pace 9 I314 Ridge Avenue - Community Meeting Carlos Ruiz said that at the community meeting of December 13. 2001 there was interest from the neighbors to develop the property with single family homes or low density residential as oppose to multi -family or office buildings. There was also interest to preserve the mansion and the carnage house and maintain the front yard open. The School District 65 Board members did not commit to am -thing that they heard from the community other than they will continue holding meetings with the public to gather their support, Carlos Ruiz said that the executives for the Auction Company were also present. The example of Cove School residential development •vas mention as well as Laura Park, but it %vas noted that both projects are not open but inward. VII. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF No comments VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.. Room 2.103, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201. IX. ADJOURNMENT With no other business on the agenda, Abbie Willard moved to adjourn the meting at 9:20 p.m. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously The meeting was adjourned at 9: p.m. Respectfully Submitted. Carlos D. Ruiz Senior planner/Preservation C rdinator Date: EV.4a STON PRESERVATION CUMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, Januarti. 15. 2002 7:30 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Cw-ev, Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Neil Sheehan, and Abbie Will::d MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Hodes, Michael Imlay, a_-}d Susan Regan OTHERS PRESENT: William Warner, Robert F. Lipman, David D«}•er, John Holbert, Burt Michaels, Victor Ne:son. Ron Cowgill, Nancy Kohn, DonnaLee Floeter, and J.,-k Weiss PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/QUORUM DECLARATION At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. II. IIINUTES Barbara Gardner said that the minutes would be approved at the next Commission meeting. I11. COMMUNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz said that there no communications. IV. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee 1. 731 Michigan Avenue - Removing an existing south gable attic dormer and adjacent roof structure to construct a bathroom shed roof dormer with flanking gable roof dormers [Alteration] Robert F. Lipman, property owner, and William Warner, architect presented plans for removing an existing south gable attic dormer and adjacent roof structure to construct a bathroom shed roof dormer with flanking gable roof dormers at 731 Michigan Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District ti Evanston Presen•atton Commission �Smutes — January 15. 2W2 Pape 2 - William Warner said that the dormer is in the area of the existing bathroom that has a T- 0" high ceiling. The room under the new dormer would provide much needed head room and natural lighting. The dormer would keep the same stucco material as the existing dormer. The shed dormer would be pulled back to emphasize more of the dormer element. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the type of windows. William Warner said the new windows arc casement windows to comply with the egress requirements. The new custom made windows are all wood ,.vith simulated divided lights with muntin bars that would try to replicate what is seen in a double hung windows in the rest of the house. :Lary Brugliera asked if the egress requirements apply to attic spaces. Carlos Ruiz said that every habitable space is required to meet the egress requirements. Chris Carey asked if the entire roof Would be remove or just the roofing on that particular side. William Warner said that the intent is to determine if there is any deterioration as such. He said that from the cost standpoint they were hopeful that tearing off the entire roof would not be necessary. The new roof would be asphalt shingles. Chris Carey asked about the siding material. William Warner said that the siding material would be stucco on the shade portion, but in the flanking gable dormers it would be shingle as the existing materials. Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of alteration. The Commission found that the proposed project met standards 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10. Standards 4, 6, 7, 8,and 9 were found not applicable. Mary Brugiiera moved that the Commission accept the project based on standards 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 929 Sherman Avenue - Raising the roof approximately 3'-0" and adding dormers and windows, restoring porches and restoring exterior brick JPartial Demolition and Constructionj Dave Dwyer, property owner presented plans for raising the existing roof approximately 3'-6" at 929 Sherman Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. Dave Dwyer said that all the walls E and the stairway on the first floor would remain the same. Except for the bearing walls, all the walls on the second floor (attic) would be new. Chris Carey asked if the house is a two -flat. Dave Dwyer said that the house is a legal two -flat. Dave Dwyer said that he has another proposal to another Department in the City, not to change his property, but somehow manage to save the property economically. He said that he did not know that the property was a landmark when he bought it. Chris Carey asked if the property would be converted to a single-family residence. Dave Dwyer said, yes. He said that his property is adjacent on the south to a long-term parking lot. He said that he met with lames Wolinski [Community Development Director) to trade the front of the parking lot to the back of OF — his lot, so he could build a similar structure on the front of what is now the parking lot. i Evanston Presen-a%on Co=Tt ssion :Minutes — Januan I.. '_W2 Page 3 Carlos Ruiz asked about the two -flat apartments. Dave Dwyer said that the first apartment is approximately 2' - 6" below grade. He said new drain tile would be installed in the inside as well as tuckpointine the walls in the inside. He said that he would like to sand blast and tuckpoint the exterior walls as well. Barbara Gardner said that sand blasting would be detrimental to the exterior walls. Dave Dwyer said that he meant power washing the walls to remove loose paint. Neil Sheehan recommended wire brush first; if power wash is needed then do it slowly to avoid penetration of water into the brick. Carlos Ruiz said that Prosoco has a Iine of products to safely clean brick. Dave Dwyer said that he would like to expose the natural brick if possible. He said that he would Iike to restore the building. He said that he would like to replace the existing railing with a new- railing more appropriate to the house. He did not know if the dentil configuration in the porch was original to the house. Barbara Gardner suggested to go to the Evanston Historical Society and look at the listings of Wilkinson and Jenks that kept all of the old listings back to the 1920s with pictures. Barbara Gardner asked if the proposal was for raising the roof and to build four dormers, two on each side. Dave Dw•ycr said that his first alternative was to add just dormers. He said that in his opinion it did change the central character of the building. Although in the neighborhood that type of dormers are very common, but it lends nothing to the appearance of the building. He said that this type of dormer is legal but cheap. Dave Dwyer said that he found out that in the house, the existing rafters are real 2" x 4", but are 24" on center, therefore structurally not good. The roof sheathing is the old planks that hold the roof together in the old fashion way. Nevertheless, still not good. Dave Dwyer said that he would rather take off the whole roof and raise the roof up and let the building last for another hundred years and add the little dormers that would not detract from the appearance of it. He said the new dormers would enhance the north and south elevation. The new dormers would be hardly visible when the roof is raised. He said that compared to its neighbors the building appears squashed. Barbara Gardner said that the house directly north from 929 Sherman is a full two-story. Dave Dwyer said that that house is about 4-feet higher that his house and it has a full second floor that is actually useable by people, which is essentially what he is trying to accomplish. He said that if the house must remain a two -flat then the downstairs could be condominium so that a family could afford to live in the house. Neil Sheehan asked if the whole porch was being reconstructed. Dave Dwyer said that he wanted to repair/restore the porch. He said he wanted to find out what the original balusters, rails, and original dentils looked like. Neil Sheehan asked if Dave Dwyer knew if the starburst on the gable of the porch entrance was original. Dave Dwyer said, no. Neil Sheehan asked, in installing the new gables on the sides, is the cave of the main roof broken at the gables so it turns back into the gable. Dave Dwyer said, yes. He added that the dormer would be flush with the wall. Neil Sheehan asked if that was because otherwise given the second floor location, the sill of the window winds up too high. Dave Dwyer said he thought so. Neil Sheehan said that in general he did not object increasing the overall height of the house, particularly given its present context. He said that while increasing the height of the house, some of the original elements of the house stay at the same level. The roof of the porch stays where it Evaruton Preservation Corrtrrussicn Minutcs — lanuan. 15, 2001 Paec 4 was and the front window, which he assumed would be kept and reinstalled on the same location. Dave Dwyer said that the windows are not original windows. Neil Sheehan said that what he was going to suggest %ras to pull that window all the way up to the line of the cross trim piece to match the way its presently detailed. That would eliminate the sense that the porch stayed too low by raising the porch roof as well. Neil Sheehan said the side windows breaking the eaves on the main roof of the house is problematic. He said that those windows could be a little bit taller and start matching the proportions of the bigger windows on the house. Neil Sheehan said that he assumed that windows would be all painted «ood, that the siding would match the existing siding and that the corner boards would all be consistent with the existing. Dave Dwyer said that he has been working with this type of house all his life. He said that he liked the core of the housing in Evanston, it's all holding together because ofthis kind ofconcem. Chris Carey asked if the fish scales would be kept under the gable. Dave Dwyer said, yes. Dave Dwyer said that originally he planned to tear down the house and build town houses on the lot. He said that when he bought the house he did not know about its landmark status. He said that if he cannot do what he proposed to do with the landmark in addition to his other proposal to swap land with the parking lot, he did not know what he would do. Barbara Gardner said that what is in front of the Commission was the alteration of the house. She said that she did not find it necessary to repeat the standards for review of alteration. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the alterations to the property at 929 Sherman Avenue as it complies with standards for review of alterations 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10. Further condition of the approval is that the brick would not be sandblasted. Also, that the window on the street front elevation of the house would be increased in height, so that it aligns with the top of the window aligned with the transitional trim from clapboard siding to fish scale shingles. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. Discussion: Chris Carey said that before the height of the new windows is raised, it would be important to observe proportion, because he was not sure that having new windows match windows on the {second) floor was the answer either. Dave Dwyer said that the windows below are massive windows, he said the dormer windows are half the height of the existing windows. He said that half of the big windows would meet egress requirements. Carlos Ruiz asked by how many feet would the height of the building be increased. Dave Dwyer said that the building increase in height would be 3' - 6" as shown in the drawing, although in the written the application says 3' - 0". Neil Sheehan clarified that the height of the building would be 31' - 6". He said that it came to his attention that a previous project approved by the Commission where the front elevation was altered, when the owners applied to the Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program, their application was denied. The denial was due to the changes made to the front elevation of the house. Even though a project has met the Iocal standards, it does not mean that the project would benefit from the financial incentives offered by the State. Evanston Present atton Commission Itinutes — hnuan• 15. 200' Page 5 The motion passed. tote: five (5) ayes, one (1) nay (Chris Carey). 3. 1220Michigan Avenue -Demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new house (Demolition and Construction] John Holbert, architect presented plans for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new house at 1220 Michigan Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Carlos Ruiz said that last month he received a full report regarding the mold contamination. Barbara Gardner asked about the east elevation, what is going to be where is says window openings. John Halbert said there would be open windows. He said that the windows on the curved wall would be single light casement windows and one -foot off the floor. Chris Carey asked John Holbert to explain his design philosophy behind the project. ti4'hy it looks the way it looks versus anything else. John Holbert said tha+ the new house is not exactly in the same footprint. He said to some degree the precedent is the existing building and just because of the footprint he is following the line of the original house to some degree. The intent was to balance the garage to partially bring down the importance of the garage. Barbara Gardner said that about a year ago the applicant came with a project to clean the mold, gut the interior and raise up the house. Last month they came with the proposal to demolish the existing house and build the proposed house. Chris Carey asked the materials for the garage. John Holbert said the garage doors would be wood paneled and painted details to be determined. Chris Carey asked about the roof shingles. John Holbert said the roof shingles would be architectural timberline type shingles. The wood siding would be stained. Michael Girard said the project appears to be very much in the design phase and there is not a lot of detailing or nor all the materials have been thought out. Neil Sheehan said the Commission reviews submissions of a wide variety and every level of submittal. Philosophically he was reluctant to prescribe design for new construction in particular to any homeowner or architect. His comments were about the round form and the rh)lhm of openings. He said that it was inconsistent with rhythm and detailing of the other windows that is part of the house (traditional vs. modern). The windows on the round form were not defined. He asked why the two gables start at different heights. He said the garage gable is higher that the linear gable. Some of the detailing was missing and perhaps would not translate to the actual built form. John Holbert said that the level of detail was not up to his ow-n standards. He said that he would like to talk about potential issues and address those. He said he would happy to come back. Carlos Ruiz asked if the zoning analysis was completed. John Holbert said, no. He felt confident that the new construction would not require a zoning variation. Carlos Ruiz suggested that plans should be submitted for zoning analysis before the next Commission meeting. Barbara Gardner said that if a zoning analysis determines that a zoning variation is necessary, the Commission would review the project again. Evanston Preservation Cc"- usslon Minutes -- Januan_• I5. 2,X- Page 6 John Holbert sumrn::.-ized the Commission's concerns: garage door design, front door design, gables in general, round room in general, and details. Chris Carey was concemed that on the west elevation there is a fair share of windows next to a small window. The south elevation shows fixed windows with operable transoms. Carlos Ruiz suggested for next review session the drawings have labels specifying the type of windows. John Holbert asked if he had more than one design, could he bring those for discussion. Barbara Gardner said, absolutely yes. Chris Carey said that the design is in the right track. John Holbert said he was comfortable with all the Commission's comments and that he would like to address them at the next meeting. 4. 1204 Asbury Avenue- Construction of a one -stony rear mudroom iConstruction] Victor Nelson architect said that the proposal is to put a small mudroom basement entrance on the rear of the house at 1204 Asbury. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Victor Nelson said the addition would provide access from the outside and also to the inside of the house. He said that the 2.5"-inch wood siding and comer boards, window casings, the double hung windows would match existing. On the new roof structure the detail that is on the existing flat roof front porch with a small crown right below the overhang and a wide band that its separated by another horizontal piece of trim would be matched on the addition. Victor Nelson said that on the alley there is a six-foot high fence, which is going to obstruct most or all of the addition_ He said that it is possible to see a small portion of it as one walks down the alley. Barbara Gardner asked if on the west and north elevations a window would be taken out. Victor Nelson said, yes. He said two new windows would be installed. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the mudroom entry would be a transitional space going down to the basement or going up to the first floor. Also, renovating the bathroom calls for removing a window. Victor Nelson said, yes. Barbara Gardner asked if the new window would be painted wood window. Victor Nelson said, yes. He added that casings are also painted. He added that they would match the existing brick foundation and the 6" band that separates the brick from the siding. Chris Carey said that the muntins on the existing storm windows would not be replicated on the new windows. Victor Nelson said, no. The new windows are all wood double pane insulated glass windows. Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of construction. The Commission found that standards 7, 8, 10, and 12 were met. Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 did not apply. Evanston Preservation Con ssion Minutes — Januar}: 15. 200" Pagc 7 Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the project for addition of a rear mudroom, removal of window as proposed at 1204 Asbury Avenue, as it meets standards 7, 8, 10 and 12. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 610 Callan Avenue - Raising the roof and adding roof gable(s) (partial demolition and construction] -Advisory review Nancy Kohn, property owner, and DonnaLee Flocter, architect presented plans for partial demolition of the rear, removing of the existing roof structure and raising the roof and adding gables at 6I0 Callan Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. DonnaLee Floeter said that they have two and a half versions of what her clients would like to do with their home. She said that the building is and has been for a long time a two -fiat dwelling unit. The bottom floor is one unit and the top floor is another unit. DonnaLee Floeter said that the plans are for the renovation of the upper unit by adding another half story or three quarters of a story in order to make the upper unit more usable. The preferred choice would be scheme 1, where the level of the roof is raised approximately six feet straight up the whole length of the house, and also an addition to the rear. Scheme I shows elevations with dormers at the sides and an alternate elevation without the dormers. DonnaLee Flocter said that the other scheme that she showed to her client is for an addition completely off the back of the house that would accomplish their square footage. In this scheme the front part of the house would not be changed. Nancy Kohn said that the second scheme would get rid off the entire yard in the back. DonnaLee Flocter said that the two-story rear addition is much taller than the old part of the house. Barbara Gardner asked %is. Kohn if her mother was in front of the Commission two or three years ago after a fire. Nancy Kohn said that on June 1, 1998 they had a fire, at that time the exterior of the house was asphalt siding which was replaced with vinyl siding. Barbara Gardner noted that the owner at the time could not afford the wood siding, nor could the asphalt shingles be replaced. Nancy Kohn said that at that time she lived in the bottom unit and her mother was living in the upper unit. Neil Sheehan referring to the previous project at 929 Sherman Avenue said that project worked for him. He said that it looked that the roof at 610 Callan would be raised six feet, which is a little less than double from the project at 929 Sherman, which also has a front porch that mitigates the additional height. DonnaLee Floeter said they would love to have a roofed porch as well. Nancy Kohn said that the original house had an open porch across the front that they would like to put it back. Neil Sheehan said he was asking himself how significant is the house as a landmark. Barbara Gardner said that what is affecting how this house is being perceived is that the house is narrower than the house at 929 Sherman Avenue. Adding 3 feet in height to 929 Sherman Avenue versus adding 6 feet in height to 610 Callan Avenue makes this house appear even taller and skinnier. Chris Carey asked about the addition layout. Nancy Kohn said they are adding two bedrooms, a bathroom, a laundry room and a TV area. She said that she did not want to convert the existing r Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — Januar• 15. 2rX ,2 Page 8 two units together. The bottom has always been family rental unit. Her fiance's mother would live in the bottom unit if they can do the addition. Commission members discussed further the pros and cons of each scheme. Neil Sheehan said that philosophically he would have to denigrate the quality of the building as a landmark to talk about the proposed design. He mentioned the proposed new window(s), which are out of proportion to the Nvidth of the existing openings. DonnaLec Floeter said that the windows on the second floor meet egress code for double hung windows in a bedroom. Veil Sheehan wondered what would happen if the front elevation second story;tindow was a bay window instead. He noted that if that were the case, then a roofed front porch would be needed. Nancy Kohn expressed her interest of having a roofed front porch. Barbara Gardner suggested that looking under the asphalt siding would help to determine if there was a front roofed porch originally. Michael Imlay said he did not think so, because the location of the window heads is too low. Barbara Gardner added that the building was more of a Luxembourg Cottage style. In response to a question from Commissioners, Nancy Kohn said that the asphalt siding is underneath the vinyl siding. Chris Carey asked Nancy Kohn what would she do with the siding issue. Nancy Kohn said that the siding on the addition would match the existing vinyl siding and the new windows would be wood as the original windows. Barbara Gardner said that the landmark statement of significance indicates that the house is important based on its detailing. She said that she assumed that the detailing Mould stay. DonnaLec Floeter said if there was a way to keep the same exact brackets they would do that, if they were destroyed in the process of relocation, she would replicate them. Chris Carey asked if the existing small addition at the rear would be incorporated into the proposed addition. DonnaLec Floeter answered, yes. She said that it is the kitchen now, which would be dismantled. The new addition will go out further than the existing foundation. Neil Sheehan asked Carlos Ruiz what was the process of removing the landmark status of a landmark building. Carlos Ruiz said that a landmark building that has lost its integrity would qualify. He elaborated his response by saying that when considering removing the landmark status of a building and by going down the list of criteria for landmark status, it has to be found that the criteria for designation is no longer met. Neil Sheehan said he was reluctant to establish a precedent to allow a landmark to be so significantly altered. He said that he did not think that the Commission would have allowed the alteration of the previous Iandmark [929 Sherman Avenue] when it is a very gray thing. He also said that he was really reluctant to say to the property owner "you can't do this to your house." Nancy Kohn asked if, because of the fire, the house would qualify for removing its landmark status and because of the vinyl siding. Neil Sheehan said probably not, because the vinyl siding is closer to the original siding than not. Abbic Willard asked if the siding was the only thing that was changed after the fire. The answer was, yes. Carlos Ruiz read for the record the Preservation Ordinance, section 2-9-6: Amendment and Rescission of Designation. Carlos Ruiz said that it seemed that the reasons for the proposed alterations to the Iandmark [610 Callan Avenue] are beyond the Commission's purview. If the Commission would not approve the project, it has to be because the Commission would have found the proposal does not meet the standards for alteration and/or construction. In that case the a; plicant would have the option to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council [within Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes — January 15, 2002 Pace 4 thirty days of the denial]. The Council can look at the case and it may or not concurred with the Commission. Carlos D. Ruiz explained that the Commission makes its decisions based on the standards for review and it cannot make determinations beyond their purview. He said that Ms. Kohn may have very good reasons to do what she «ants to do, but if those reasons are not the tools that the Commission uses to make a determination, then the Commission cannot issue the certificate of appropriateness. Carlos Ruiz said that the appeal process to the City Council gives Ms. Kohn the opportunity to explain the other reasons beyond the Commission's purview, why is necessary to do what she plans to do. If the City Council approves the project, and if the project is done, the building would loose its integrity, then applying for rescission of the landmark status would be appropriate. Abbie Willard asked if there would be a difference in not denying the certificate of appropriateness but instead saying that the Commission did not have the authority to do what needed to be done to approve the project. Michael Girard said that, in effect, would be a denial. Nancy Kohn asked why the Commission would deny her project. Neil Sheehan said that (by not denying the project] it would set a precedent for a significant change to a landmark. Michael Girard said that for him was a matter of scale, the proposal is nearly doubling the size of the house. Neil Sheehan said the proposed addition is such a dramatic increase in the height of the building that completely changes the character of the original old building, in a way that it would make it not a landmark anymore. Nancy Kohn referred to an information sheet distributed by the Commission in the past, indicating that the Commission had advisory review only on proposed alterations to landmark buildings. Carlos Ruiz said that particular information sheet applied to the old Preservation Ordinance not the new ordinance. Nancy Kohn said that her house was landmarked when the old ordinance was in effect. She asked why her home was not grandfathered into the old ordinance. Carlos Ruiz said that when the new ordinance was adopted, all the landmarks were grandfathered into the new ordinance. Anything to be done to the existing landmarks would be subject to the new ordinance. Nancy Kohn said that she personally feels as a home o+,,ti•ner and tax payer, that nobody should be able to tell anybody what they can and cannot do to their home. She said that in the recent past when someone wanted to landmark a whole area, there were signs saying, "no". Nancy Kohn said that [historic preservation] is not for everyone. She added that each homeowner should have that choice whether they want their home to be a landmark or not to be a landmark. Neil Sheehan said that the Commission does not make the political decisions, the City Council does. He suggested that his. Kohn contact Gene Feldman, her Alderman. Carlos Ruiz said that when an official application for certificate of appropriateness is submitted, and if the Commission denies the certificate, Ms. Kohn can appeal within thirty days from the Commission's decision. Neil Sheehan asked how long the appeal process would take. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission would have to prepare the minutes and report of its findings for the City Council when an appeal to the Commission's decision is submitted. The City Council would review the appeal based on the standards versus other reasons why the applicant is requesting the appeal and uphold the Commission's decision or reverse it. Jack Weiss (from the audience) said it would B-anston Preservation Commssion Minutes — Januan 15. 202 Paec 10 take at least six weeks. Carlos Ruiz said first the appeal would be introduced to City Council and then later it goes to City Council. Jack Weiss asked what penalty is involved if the Council grants the appeal and applicant proceeds with her project. Carlos Ruiz said there would not be a penalty because the Council would have granted the appeal. Jack Weiss asked what if the Council would agree with the Comm,]ssion's decision of denial. Barbara Gardner said then that the applicant would not be able to obtain a building penr.it. Nancy Kohn asked if she would be able to come back then with a demolition application. Carlos Ruiz said that the house does not meet the standards of demolition_ Carlos Ruiz said the advisory discussion so far was only about scheme I and not the second option, which is the two-story rear addition. This option preserves the integrity of the landmark. He said that the Commission has continually approved rear additions to landmarks. He also questioned if the height of the two-story addition needed to be so high. DonnaLce Flocter said that the first floor is 10-feet high, the second floor is 8-feet high and not including the pitch of the roof. Carlos Ruiz said that a model would help to better understand the scale of the project. He said that the two-story addition at the rear could be done and that it still maintains the integrity of the landmark. Nancy Kohn said she would be loosing all of her yard space in the back of her house. Carlos Ruiz asked what would be the rear setback in the second option. DonnaLee Flocter said that it would be at least 30-feet to conform to the zoning ordinance. Nancy Kohn said she is a gardener and in the back she has a whole section of different gardens. Carlos Ruiz asked how many feet is the addition from the back of the house. Donna Lee Flocter said it was 8-feet [to the south] and 20-feet [to the west]. Carlos Ruiz said that it appears that there would be enough rear setback. Nancy Kohn asked what her next step is. Neil Sheehan said the Commission is not inclined to approve the project [scheme 1]. The Commission would be inclined to approve the second scheme [addition to the rear]. He said he would be willing to vote on the project tonight to shorten the length of time. Nancy Kohn asked if they come back with the second scheme, if the Commission would vote in favor of it. Neil Sheehan said, yes. Carlos Ruiz said that the elevations as drawn in the second scheme are deceiving because the addition is recessed back and it will not appear as odd and tall and the integrity of the landmark would be preserved. Nancy Kohn asked if they were only increasing the height of the house by six -feet and putting cver)Ihing that makes the house a landmark back, then she did not understand why it would not be approved. Neil Sheehan said the six -feet for all surfaces does not have the original design of the building. Barbara Gardner added that the house would go from a Luxembourg farmhouse to something else. Chris Carey said is not only the brackets and the gable but also the scale of the house that makes it a landmark. Nancy Kohn said that is what [brackets and the gable] supposedly made it be a landmark. The Commissioners disagreed with Ms. Kohn's interpretation of the statement of significance. Carlos Ruiz said that the original designation had its own standards for landmark status. Today the Commission is enforcing the current standards. He said Ms. Kohn might want to argue that today's standards no Ionger make this house a landmark. Ms. Kohn said that when she looks at other houses that are Iandmarks, she does not know why her house is a landmark. She sees the old Victorian homes and mansions near the Lake and is even harder for her to picture why her house was ever a landmark. Evanston Preservation Comsnissson :Minutes —January 15, 2002 Pace I I Barbara Gardner said that what perhaps is the hardest for the Commission, in terms of why the house is a landmark, is the fact that the house had synthetic siding on it when it was first designated. A modest house that has distinguishing architectural merit needs more protection than the mansions. A landmark does not have to be a mansion to be a landmark, but Nis. Kohn's house already had some compromising factors. She expanded on Carlos Ruiz' point that ifMs. Kohn came back today and said I want my house to be a landmark, would the Commission vote to be a landmark, she asked. Barbara Gardner said that she was not sure if the Commission would designate it, because the Commission would have felt that the house had been already compromised with the synthetic siding. Carlos Ruiz said \%;hat it is important to remember is that Ms. Kohn has options to either consider removing landmark status or, if denied for the certificate, appeal to the City Council. He said that he believed the second option might be a good solution. Neil Sheehan asked if the applicants had a sense as to where the addition might be in the yard to get a sense of how much of the yard is going to go away. his. Kohn said, no. Neil Sheehan encouraged Ms. Kohn to do that. He said that the Commission would be helpful in pushing setback variances if needed. Neil Sheehan suggested Ms. Kohn not to make a decision right now, rather evaluate the situation. DonnaLee Floeter said they would like to know now what the Commission would vote so they could move on and come back in thirty days with something else. Carlos Ruiz reminded Ms. Kohn that she could appeal within thirty days from the Commission's decision. In case of needing a zoning variance, the Commission has indicated that they would recommend favorably for such variance. Mary Brugliera said that if the applicant requested a vote tonight and if denied, she could file for appeal. In the meantime Nis. Kohn may come back to the Commission with a design that the Commission could approve. Carlos Ruiz said that Ms. Kohn could withdraw her appeal at any time and come back to the Commission with another proposal. Ms. Kohn reiterated that if she had the Commission vote on her proposal and denied, then she could file an appeal within thirty days, meanwhile she could comeback next month with a new plan and she would not have to withdraw her appeal if denied again. Chris Carey suggested Ms. Kohn discuss her situation with her Alderman so that she could determine what her Alderman thinks and determine if the Council would be interested in the case. Carlos Ruiz said that he has worked in the past with Ms. l=loeter and has always been able to come with an appropriate design. Ms. Kohn requested the Commission take a formal vote for scheme 1. Michael Girard read the standards for review of alteration. The Commission found that the proposed alteration and addition as shown in scheme I did not meet standards 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10. The Commission also determine that standards 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 did not apply. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission reject the alteration of the property at 610 Callan Avenue on the basis that it does not meet standards for review of alterations 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 that are applicable in this case. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evans= Preservation Cormnission Minutes — January 15. 2002 Pate 12 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Barbara Gardner reported that there was no unfinished business. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Jack Weiss said he was the person tning to organize a new historic preservation district in Evanston. He informed the Commission that a meeting with St. Francis Courts owners (356-410 Ridge and 1000-1011 Hull Terrace) was scheduled Wednesday, January 16. 2002. He said that there are 72 owners in this building, which is a local landmark. The owners did not know that the building is a landmark. The owners of this building want to change the windows. Jack Weiss said that this was an opportunity for the Commission to show the condo owners that they can replace their windows and it would not be very painful, and that there are appropriate ways in doing so that arc consistent with the preservation standards. He hoped to have all condo owners join the side of pro historic district. ,'Michael Girard asked if a sample window was shown to the condominium owners. Jack Weiss said that it is unknown what the problem is. Barbara Gardner said that the other issue was whether or not the existing windows could be repaired rather than replaced. Barbara Gardner said that it appears that the window frames are rotten indicating a more serious problem with water damage.. She also mentioned that the existing storm windows are triple - track aluminum storm windows. Barbara Gardner had mentioned to one of the condo owners about the new windows at Montessori Chiaravalle School. The new Weather Shield wood windows ended up costing less than the windows proposed initially by the school. Neil Sheehan said that the Commission could offer advice and recommendations regarding the windows. Barbara Gardner said that she emphasized to the condominium owners that the building is an Evanston landmark. Jack Weiss asked if the Commission had set a date to hold one of its meetings at Oakton School. Carlos Ruiz said that he received via fax from District 65 the application form for requesting a meeting room. lie said that the tentative date is February 19, 2002. Jack Weiss said that he expected around 50 people attending the Commission's meeting. He said that a newsletter is going out every other month to answer questions from neighbors. He said that if neighbors could see how the Commission operates would be great. Mary Brugliera said the Commission could have a couple of workshops about "frequently asked questions" from people on the proposed district. Neil Sheehan was not sure if the Commission should be in the role in advocating in establishing historic districts, because the Commission seats and reviews the presentation of the nominations of districts. He said the Commission's reviews arc required to be objective, skeptical, and to evaluate it on its merits. Mary Brugliera said she proposes an informational approach to indicate how it works and highlight the benefits to the citizens. Carlos Ruiz read parts of section 2-9-3 (G) Powers and Duties: The Commission shall have the following powers and duties: "2-9-3 (G) 6. To nominate areas, properties, structures, sites and objects to the National Register of Historic Places and to the Illinois Register of Historic Places and to guide owners in the 1;.•=on Presen-ation Corrmss:on Mrrx.:tes — January 15, 200" race 1: p-ocesses of nominating their properties to the National Register of Historic Places and the i'ilinois Reeister of Historic Place_. -9-3 (G) S. To inform and educate the citizens of Evanston concerning the historic, cultural, a. chitectural and archaeological heritage of the City by publishing appropriate maps, newsletters, b:ochures and pamphlets, and by sponsoring programs and seminars". Carlos Ruiz said that the role of the Commission is x ell established in the Preservation Ordinance. Commissioners discuss various options about an educational meeting with the Community includine: • Educational program before a regular meeting • Simple discussion of policies and procedures • Go over the Commission's standards Carlos Ruiz said he would prefer the Commission be prepared for the educational meeting before holding a regular meeting. Neil Sheehan suggested for the educational meeting discussing the following: • What does the Commission review • How does the Commission reviews it • The general logistical rules to get things done The Commission considered that the educational'regular meeting could be in March 2002. Jack Weiss said that he would announce in his newsletter that the Commission's educationallregular meeting at Oakton School would be on March 19, 2002. % 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of Nominating Committee for 2002 Commission Officers Michael Girard announced that Barbara Gardner agreed to be nominated as Chair, Neil Sheehan, Vice Chair, and himself as Secretary. Barbara Gardner asked if there were additional nominations from the floor. Being none, Barbara Gardner asked for a vote. The slate of officers for 2002 was unanimously approved. B. Proposed text amendment to Preservation Ordinance Barbara Gardner said that the proposed text amendment tot the Preservation Ordinance would need to take place next month because the material was not ready. C. Proposed review guidelines for garage construction Barbara Gardner asked that the proposed garage construction be distributed via email. Evanston Preservation Co=ussion Minutes — January 15, 2002 Pace 14 D. Commission's Retreat The Commission announced that the Commission's retreat for 2002 would take place on Monday, February 11, 2002, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Mare Brugliera and Abbie Willard volunteered to serve in the retreat committee and develop the agenda. Abbie Willard offered her home as the meeting place 2315 Sherman Avenue. Nail Sheehan volunteered to be the facilitator if needed. 'III. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201. IX. AD.IOUR.NNIENT With no other business on the agenda, Michael Girard moved to adjourn the meting at 10:05 p.m. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously Respectfully Submitted. k Ruiznner/Preservatio ordinator Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 19, 2002 7:30 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Neil Sheehan, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Hodes, Michael Imlay, and Susan Regan OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Knutson, John Holbert, David Dwyer, Andrew Venamore, Paul Ozga, Muffy Hendershot, Michael Hendershot, Nathan Kipnis, and Kimberly A. Gray PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/QUORUM DECLARATION At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. 11. MINUTES Neil Sheehan moved to approve the January 15, 2002 minutes as submitted. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz said that there were no communications. IV. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee 1. I406 Oak Avenue - installation of two new skylights in the existing roor EAlterationj Stephen Knutson, architect presented plans for installing two new skylights in the existing roof of the house at 1406 Oak Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Stephen Knutson said that the proposed skylights would only be seen from the alley or from the north on Ridge Avenue within a stretch of about 50'. The flat Velux skylights would be raised approximately 8' from the roofline. The attic skylights are necessary for providing means of egress only. Evanston Prestr►ation Conmission February I9, 2002 - Minutes Page 2 Stephen Knutson also shoti►ed elevation dra►►ings of two dormers with full size windows to demonstrate how large these dormers would be if installed. He said that in comparison to the dormers, the proposed skylights seemed to be a better solution. Commission's Findings ;Michael Girard moved to approve the proposed skylights as submitted as meeting the standards for alteration 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1220 ,Michigan Avenue - demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new house (Demolition/Construction) John Holbert, architect and Dave D► )-cr, contractor presented plans for the demolition of the existing house at 1220 Michigan Avenue and the construction of new one-story and a half house an the same foundation of the existing house and with new foundation for an expansion. John Holbert said that since last time with the Commission he re-examined the project for consistency on the exterior skin of the house and making sense of all the roof shapes, and studying the windows to get more regularity in rh)nhm. Fie said that he looked at more examples of Shingle style projects within the proximity of the subject house. He said the Shingle style would be consistent with the block and also lends itself towards the one- and a half story houses. The Shingle style allows a lot of freedom in the forms as a part of the architectural language. John Holbert also presented a model of the new house. John Holbert said that the model helped to reduce the front overhang from V-0" to 4'-0", and also remove the columns from the original plans. He said the T-0" overhang seemed excessive and the columns seemed forced since they were not supporting anything. The horizontal aspect of the house is now emphasized by the new changes in the design. Commission's findings Michael Girard commended John Holbert for being able to pull off the project, Barbara Gardner said that it was interesting that the model helped to improve the design. In response to a question from Chris Carey, John Holbert said that the exterior finish material would be cement stucco for the first floor base; cedar shingles up above the first floor base, including the dormers, and brick chimney. The windows would be Pella aluminum clad with simulated divided lights. John Holbert said the windows casing would be flat stock 514" x 3.5" and color to match the matting of the windows. The cedar shingles would be in natural color or white stain. The gutters and downspouts would be aluminum painted in white. Dave Dwyer said that on behalf of the owners of the house they would like to request the demolition of the house and leaving the foundation. He said the reason of their request for demolition was black mold in every corner of the house. He said that the mold is in the break air space (through and through) across the attic and everywhere. Barbara Gardner noted that the Commission received a report about the black mold in a CD. Motion for demolition Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the existing house at 1220 Michigan Avenue as it is under standard I of demolition, not a significant historic, cultural, Evanston Preservation Commission February 19, 2002 - Minutes Page 3 architectural archaeological property. Under standard 2, the property does not contribute to the distinctive historic character of the district (Evanston Lakeshore Historic District). Under standard 3, the demolition of the property (structure) would not be contrary to the purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance or the district_ Under standard 4. the property has no uncommon or unusual character design. texture or materials that w ould be difficult to reproduce; and standard 5, the ow ner is presenting a proposal to replace the structure. :Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion for construction Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the construction for a new house at 1220 Michigan Avenue, in the grounds that complies with standard 1, in that it is visually compatible in height and scale to the surrounding properties in the neighborhood. That it complies with standards 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in that the property is consistent with the character of massing, detailing, and forms of roofs, dormers, chimney, window forms, rhythms of open and void to the scale and character to the surrounding neighborhood. Also. meets standard 7 in materials and finishes proposed are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Standard 8, the roof shape is a steep gable and varied consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, Standard 9, in that it does form a wall of continuity with the surrounding properties or at least matches the current established walls of continuity which vary on the block. Standard 10, the scale of the structure is compatible with the neighborhood and it is visually broken down to further match the character of the surrounding. houses. The directional expression of the front elevation as described as required in standard 11, is consistent with the surrounding, properties, though the garage doors varied from the standard around the neighborhood, but not unusually so as two houses around the comer have garages that face onto the street Standards 12 and 13 are not applicable. Neil Sheehan commended in his motion the design for being contemporary in character so it complies with standard 14, Also the project complies w ith standard 16, because of its character as new construction and is a building of its time; and standard 17 is not applicable. Mary Bruglicra seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Dave Dwyer asked if it was a matter of record why he demolition was approved. Neil said that the Commission did not rule on the mole rather that the demolition does not affect the character of the district. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission also received a recommendation from the City of Evanston. 3. 2326 Orrington Avenue - construction of a one-story rear addition [Construction] Mike and Muffy Hendershot, property owners, Andrew Venamore and Paul Ozga, project architect with Airoom presented plans for a rear one-story addition at 2326 Orringlon Avenue. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Andrew Venamore said that the project consists of remodeling the kitchen and removing a powder room. This would provide some continuity and much more usable space for the kitchen. The addition extends minimally to the rear yard. Andrew Venamore said that the addition attempts to bring the existing bump outs such as the one in the dining room. The addition would not be visible from Orrington Avenue, howe,.er it is visible from the alley. The addition is a one- story. The exterior finish materials to be used will match the existing materials stucco, asphalt shingles, doors and simulated divide light windows. The existing style of the house is being matched as much as possible in terms of materials and floor plan. Evanston Preservation Commission February 19, 2002 - Minutes Page 4 Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asi ed if the nea windows are aluminum clad nindo►%s. Paul Ozga said that the new,windows are aluminum clad wood ~Marti in u indows with transoms and simulated divided lights. Mike Hendershot corrected that the neti+ u.indows would be all wood so that he could paint and match the existing trim color. Mary Brugliera asked about the triangular section facing out and the t+vo ridges coming down. Paul Ozga said that the design of the roof %Nas to a:commodate the existing tivindows on the second floor. The proposed roof would be seen frcm the ground le%el differently than the main roof on the house. Paul Ozga clarified that the horizontal line shown on the elcvation is the line of the existing second floor overhang. Neal Sheehan said that if this were a landmark house he would mote against the proposed addition, because it is out of scale with the overall form of the house and the design does not relate to the house at all. Mary Brugliera had a question regarding downspouts connected to the sewer. Carlos Ruiz said that he did not know about the requirements in Evanston, but different communities in the North Shore do not allow direct discharge from downspouts into the sewer. ;Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the project at 2326 Orrington Avenue as presented (one-story kitchen addition at rear), as it meets standard 7, the relation of materials and texture. The materials v6ould match existing stucco of house. Standard 8 roof slopes, the proposed roof is trying to follow along the line of the existing roof slopes in the main structure. Standard 14, contemporary design, for additions to existing properties should not be discouraged, and additions that do not destroy significant historic, cultural or architectural material if such design is compatible. He said that the addition is compatible in color, material and the character. It also meets standards 15 and 16. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay (Neil Sheehan). 4. 935 Ridge Court - construction of 9 oneltv►o-store rear addition JConsiruction/Zoning Variancel Nathan Kipnis, architect and Kimberly Gray, owner presented plans for a two-story addition in the rear and into the south at 935 Ridge Court. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Nathan Kipnis said that the building is consistent in design all around except in the back. He said that the current second floor has three bedrooms. The master bedroom in the back is very narrow. The downstairs has a small family room. The project is for a four -bedroom home with an adequate family room and a solar addition. The detailing of the addition is picking up the character of the house in the massing, roof elements, the actual trim and the house has very interesting three color stain glass throughout. Nathan Kipnis said that the large solar windows would be in the south elevation with the red, blue and yellow colors. Nathan Kipnis said that the house is a passive solar home. There would be a thereto mass, an overhang between the first and second floor that would have ivy on it and the actual projected overhang bumps out even a little bit for shading. He said that the addition matches the detailing of the house. Nathan Kipnis said that the sun would come through the first and second floor. There is a two- story solar space; the upper part is a loft that does go all the way across, so that the sunroom is a two-story space that has the loft hanging out from the master bedroom. Any heat that is collected Evanston Preservation Cortrnission Februar. 19. _002 - Minutes Page 5 either hits the slab directly and it is brought into a thereto mass. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the terra Gotta tile slab. Nathan Kipnis said that underneath is like a honeycomb, making the slab hollow to take all the return air through it. If solar gain is picked up, it %%ill preheat to the furnace and it «ill temper that space. There is a vent for the summer that could handle the hot air straight out. Carlos Ruiz said that the passive solar mwindo- is the two-story window under a gable on the south elevation. He asked if the colored glass Has solar as well. Nathan Kipnis said all the glass would allow light and heat through it, they just wanted to pick up the stained glass that is present throughout the house. Kimberly Gray said that the house was built in the late 1800s. She said they arc only the third owners of the house. Abbie Willard asked if the windows %sere original. K. Gray said, yes. She said another house nearby has similar stained glass windows. Carlos Ruiz said that contemporary design is not discouraged in the ordinance. Therefore, the proposed solar windows being of contemporary design may still meet the standards for review. Nathan Kipnis said that the rest of the windows are Marvin with simulated divided lights similar to the existing w indows. Carlos Ruiz asked how visible the south elevation be from the alley. Nathan Kipnis said he did not think the south elevation would be visible from the alley, it may be visible from the front. He said that by looking at a picture of the north elevation, a portion of it projects south considerably more in the proposal than the current projection. The visibility would not behead on, but rather oblique. Ms. Gray said that from the technical point of view, the proposed addition was designed as if it were designed at the turn of the century, before the benefits of cheap oil became available. Barbara Gardner said that many houses at the turn of the century were built as passive solar, by putting windows on the south and the east elevations. Nathan Kipnis said he refers to the proposed addition as. "state of the art 1910 w ith technological goodies added to it." K. Gray said that the property also has huge Elm trees that would diminish the visibility of the addition. Barbara Gardner said that she could not visualize the proposed windows with the color. She noted that all the existing windows have the colors running around the edges. However, it seemed that the colors on the new windows are hush posh. She wondered if she was missing something. Nathan Kipnis said that they were not trying to replicate the one or two windows perfectly, rather it was a splash of color. He said that the new windows would be visible all the way through from the kitchen, from the family room, and they are lit up on the second floor through the glass doors into the master bedroom. He said that they wanted it to have and interesting play of color and it was not intended to be a rigid replication of what was there. Abbie Willard asked w hether stained glass was considered rather than colored glass. Nathan Kipnis said yes, but it is definitely more expensive. Abbie Willard asked about the durability of the colored glass. Neil Sheehan said that the color can be peeled off and that it would look still good after ten years. Carlos Ruiz asked if the configuration of the proposed windows could be double hung windows and still accomplish the same. Nathan Kipnis said that a lot of discussion went into cost and the Evanston Preser%ation Commission February t 9, 200Z -!Minutes Page 6 decision was made based on the size of w indews that is needed to do what they want to do. lie said that it could be done w ith double hunc %k irdow s, but the size of the glazing determines how a window is divided up. He said that the size of the windows was not determined by the solar gain, rather it was an interpretation of the stained glass. Barbara Gardner said that Carlos Ruiz's question eluded that the subject building is a landmark building. Carlos Ruiz said that he liked the idea [proposal), but he wanted the Commission to have a case where contemporary design is not being discouraged. I le noted that the proposal was definitely a contemporary design on a landmark building. Carlos Ruiz said that whether or not there is an adverse effect or no effect, would depend on how at end the addition is built. He said that in two dimensions it is difficult to understand what is going to be the impact. He said that it was important to have the necessary information to make a determination about the project. Nathan Kipnis said that one can match up a house with the massing, the scale, the roof forms, the detailing, the color, etc. He said they were doing everything and taking one thing and twisting it right there and still making it relate to the house. ;Veil Sheehan said that in his the Preservation Ordinance standards and the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines are written to require that new construction look like new construction. He thought that most boards and preservationists «hen they review new construction take a romantic approach that says that it has to be a recreation of the past and forget that requirement far too often. He said that he was encouraged to see something that is in fact modem. Barbara Gardner said that the form of the addition is compatible with the house, and if later is determined that the windows in the gable did not turn out as expected, theycould be reversed. Carlos Ruiz said that there are many ways to accomplish appropriate alterations. For example, setbacks are encouraged to differentiate the existing from the new construction. lie said that what he wanted to avoid was that someone else could come and say that the Commission had allowed windows that do not relate at all with the building. Then the person could propose windows that, from that person's point of view, were more in keeping with the style of the house despite, for instance. the vinyl or aluminum cladding material. Fie said that he would like to know the reasons why the proposed contemporary windows are so important for the design. Nathan Kipnis said that the existing house on the north lot line was 3'-10 1/4" that includes not just the sleeping porch but a portion of the existing house and a huge bay that is way over the allowable setback or I'-0" to 1'-6" off the property line. Fie said that the addition was continuing along that line. Half of that is a one-story addition and the remainder was a two-story addition. Carlos Ruiz asked if the applicants had heard anything from the neighbors. Ms. Gray said, no. Barbara Gardner read the standards for special uses or zoning variation. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission recommend the zoning variance for the addition to the property at 935 Ridge Court on the basis that it meets standard C. That it would not be material detrimental to the public health safety or welfare or injurious to property in the district or vicinity where the property is located. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the proposed addition to 935 Ridge Court, on the basis of standards for review of construction: Standard I (the height is compatible with the height of the existing building). Standard 2 (not applicable). Standard 3 (the fenestration on the Evanston Prescr%ation Commission Februan• 19. 2002 - :Minutes Page 7 addition is consistent with the fenestration on the rest of the house or ss here it varies, is consistent %%ith the nature of fenestration of other similar properties). Standards 4, 5, 6, and 8 (as the overall rh)ihm of solids and voids, openings, porch structures, entrances, recesses and roof forms are compatible with the existing building and with the surrounding buildings). Standard 7 (in that the materials proposed for finishing the building are consistent with those materials on the existing building). Standard 9 (not applicable). Standard 10 (the addition is compatible with the size of the existing building). Standards 11, 12 and 13 (not applicable). Standards 14 and 16 (the addition brings modern expression to the existing historic house in a way that is distinctive «hile being compatible with the character of the property). The proposed addition does not meet standards 15 (it would be rather difficult to remove the addition); and standard 17 (not applicable). Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS Awards Program The Commission discussed the 2002 Preservation Awards. The Commission agreed to hold the awards program and invite the City Council and have a separate reception for the award recipients outside the Civic Center. The nomination form would be available by the end of the month. Other Issues Barbara Gardner suggested that each project submitted in the packet should have attached to it the applicable standards. Neil Sheehan said that when stating a motion some standards could be grouped to state their compliance. Carlos Ruiz said that he offers his advice to applicants when requested. Barbara Gardner said that Carlos Ruiz does a wonderful job because in most cases he has guided the applicants where their projects need to go, making the review process easier for the Commission. Mr. Carey said that it would be useful to know beforehand why certain projects could not be in compliance with the standards for review. He requested a review form with the standards attached to each project with the monthly packets. 1314 Ridge Avenue - District 65 Administration Building Barbara Gardner announced on March 5, 2002 the District 65 Board would set the parameters for the auction of 1314 Ridge Avenue. She said that means, for example, if the Board would accept only single family development or if the property has to be put back to the tax roles. Mary Brugliera said that by ordinance the Commission is supposed to comment on planned unit developments (PUD). Barbara Gardner clarified that the Board was not setting up a PUD, but the developer who is going to come in front of the Commission for review. Neil Sheehan said that one thing to remember is that as District 65, a public entity, sets the terms and the conditions of the sale, they are essentially defining the future character of the PUD. Mary Brugliera had the opinion that the Commission should have a strong presence at the District 65 Board meeting. The Commission discussed ways how the Commission could take a position regarding the development of the site. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission could take a position regarding the property at 1314 Ridge Avenue if it is done in a public forum. Some concern was raised about the future of the two landmarks and the third building and potential redevelopment. Barbara Gardner said that the mansion is 14,000 S.F. and it could be converted Evanston Preservation Commission February 19. 2002 - ;Minutes Pagc 8 to condominiums. The Commission discussed some potential ways to redevelop the property and preserve the landmarks. V1. OLD BUSINESS Commission's Retreat Barbara Gardner said that on February 19, 2002 the Commission had a very successful retreat. The Commission set some goals and objectives for the current calendar year. Preservation awards: series articles about the activities of the Commission and historic preservation; tradesman referral; «eb site; and volunteer register. Abbic Willard volunteered to work on a web site and writing nc%vs articles. VI1. ANNOUNCEMENTS Barbara Gardner said that the previously planned 'March 19, 2002 Commission meeting to be held at Oakton School had been rescheduled to April 16, 2002. Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is on March 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. Room 2403. Evanston Civic Center, Evanston, Illinois. Vill. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF No Comments made. IX. ADJOURN51EtiT The meeting was adjourned at 9:1 S p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carlos D. Ruiz v Senior Planner/Preservation Coord' ato Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MeetingMinutes Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Gardner, Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Michael Girard, Stuart Regan, Neil Sheehan, and Abbie Willard ,MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Hodes OTHERS PRESENT: Joanne Haas, Terri Strauss. Ellen Burke, Doug Miller, Alice Tybout, David D«}er, Jeff Sharer, Elizabeth Sharer, Yavor Goranov, Tia Sawhney, Steve J. Econornou. Paul Jeffrey, James Truer Eric Mullendore, and Toshi Davis PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION 11. MINUTES III.COMM UNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz said that today he received a letter from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) in regard to the Administration Building of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) at 1730 Chicago Avenue. The letter indicates the nomination of the Administration Building to the National Register of Historic Places. The Commission has the opportunity to comment whether the proposed nomination meets the standards for the National Resister. The Commission also would transmit the nomination to the City Council for their comment. The Commission has until May to provide its comment to the IHPA. IV. REPORTS Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) - (approximately 10 to 15 minutes per project) 1. 641 Michigan Avenue - Second and third floor additions [Alteration) Carlos Ruiz showed slides of the house. The applicant said that the new windows would be more consistent with the existing windows. Evanston Preser %ation Commission 'March 19. 2002 Page 2 Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if the new windows on the front elevat:on would be non -opening? The applicant said that the existing windows are eery small and the ne,.+- windows will open. Barbara Gardner asked if the windows in the back really needed to be replaced? The applicants said those windows were in bad shape and with water damage. Chris Carey asked if there was any context to the proposed arched window on the second floor rear elevation. The applicant said. not necessarily, and that sl:,�- was not convinced that they would do that. Chris Carey asked if the shingles and the roofing would match the existing shingles and roofing materials. The applicant said. yes. She added that all is wood shake shingles. Michael Girard asked if the general window proportions would be kept in the new windows. The client said, yes. She added that the new wood windows would be with %inyl clad as in the family room. Barbara Gardner read the standards for review of alteration. The Commission found that standards 3, 4. 7 and 8 did not apply. Standards 1. 2. 5. 6. 9, and 10 applied and were met by the application. Abbie Willard moved that the Commission appm-we the alteration to the property at 641 Michigan Avenue as it meets standards 1. 2. 5. 6. 9. and 10. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. Mary Brugliera moved to amend the motion to inclade the removal of the arched window, on the rear of the addition. Michael Girard seconded the amendment to the motion. Discussion: The Commission suggested to the owners that instead of the arched window, consider the installation of a square or rectangular window floating above or flush to the new w•indows. The owners agreed. The motion passed as amended unanimously. 2. 1006 Ridge Avenue - exterior alterations including modifying a rear hip roof to a gable, replacing a double hung window and installing new casement windows [Alteration] Ellen Burke and Doug Miller, property owners, presented plans to modify a rear hip roof to a gable roof, replacing a double hung window and installing new casement windows at 1006 Ridge Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Doug `filler said there is on the second floor the bedrooms is the front, a bathroom, a closet and a staircase. The rest of the second floor is unfinished. He said that the roof from about the center of the attic space slopes down. He said that the new &-,nner would match the same angle of the dormers on the front and side. The intention is to use :.ilex that match the tiles on the existing roof and the new brick would match the existing brick in size and color. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if there would be windows on the side ohhe new gable. Doug Miller said, yes. He said that they had installed new steel storm-,%%indows and kept the original casement windows. Their architect had recommended that the new windows match the existing casement window without a storm window•. He said that the double hung window on the second floor Evanston Prescr%ation Commission March 19. 2002 Nee 3 south elevation would be replaced. The two new windows and storm windows on the new dormer would match the windows and storm %%indows on existing dormers. Chris Carey referring to the aluminum clad windows asked if it was to replicate the aluminum feeling without having a storm window? Doue Miller said, yes. He said that the new casement windows are therrno-pant:, and having storm windows seemed impractical. He added that a limestone sill would be installed in all new windows. He also noted a basket %veaye effect with the brick underneath the caves. The dormers are also masonry with the same pattern as the rest of the house. He said that there is an interesting pattern on the brick where every so often there is a double course of vertical bricks. Chris Carey asked about the front elevation windows. Doug Miller said that they are wood casement windows behind a steel single pane storm. Chris Carey moved to approve the project at 1006 Ridge .avenue as presented as meeting standards 1.2. 5, 6, and 10. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 624 Garret Place - Exterior alterations to wcst elevation [Alterationj Alice Tybout. property owner presented plans for removing a staircase, door and awning on the west elevation of the building at 624 Garret Place. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Alice Tybout said that the affected area would have a new projecting bay and window with true divided lights. The exterior would be finished in stucco. The shingles over the bay roof would match the existing shingles. An existing wood window with true divided lights to the North of the proposed bay would be replaced in kind. The powder room windows would be also replaced in kind. Alice Tybout said that the proposed new greenhouse box window was deleted from the plans. Commission's Findings Abbie Willard moved that the Commission approved the proposed alterations at 624 Garret Place as it meets standards of alteration 1, 2, 3, 4.9, and 10. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 929 Sherman Avenue - Building a two-story wood frame addition [Constructionj David Dwyer, property owners presented conceptual plans for a two-story wood frame addition to the building at 929 Sherman Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. Carlos Ruiz showed slides of the building taken from the public way. He said that Mr. Dwyer had previously submitted plans to increase the height of the building by approximately 3-feet. His new proposal is a two-story addition to the rear of the building. David Dwyer said that he bought the house under the advisement that it was not a landmark. The property was zoned for multi -family townhouses. He made the decision to keep the house as a Iandmark and rehabilitate it. He made a proposal to the City to keep the structure as is and Evanston ('reservation Commission March 19. 2W2 page a swap pan of the parking lot on his lot so that the City's parking lot would be in the back. Ile could then build two houses similar to the landmark house on the front. He realized later that his proposal to the City would take few years to materialize. David Dwyer said that his new proposal would keep the landmark building intact and joined to the new structure. He said that the proposal meets all the zoning requirements. There is enough space to build a four or five car garage. The two dwelling units are on an R-3 zoned lot. The back of the landmark structure has been completely remodeled in the last ten years. There is no existing original structure on the back where the connection with the new structure would be made. The landmark structure would keep its integrity. The landmark's front porch and chimney would be rebuilt, damaged siding and roof would be replaced. The heating, plumbing, electrical systems would be upgraded. The brick foundation is in good structural condition. The foundation brick would be tuckpointed. Commission's Findings Neil Sheehan said that at this level the Commission would not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness because the drawings are preliminary. David Dwyer said his motive tonight was to affirm the concept before committing more money for architectural drawings. Commission members agreed that the new proposal was significantly better than the first proposal. 'Veil Sheehan said that there is no need to recreate in the new building the design of the original building according to preservation standards. David Dvycr said that visually the front elevation of the concept building works very well and it would not take anything away from the landmark. Barbara Gardner said that there are double houses in Evanston and they do reflect each other architectural. Carlos Ruiz, speaking of the landmark structure, noted that the preservation standards call for restoration of original materials rather than replacement whenever possible. Replacement of original materials when necessary should be in kind. David Dwyer said that he would follow the preservation standards. The Commission through a straw poll determined that the concept design as presented for the new structure joined to the landmark was acceptable. David Dwyer acknowledge that he needed to come back in front of the Commission for final approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 5. 2326 Brown Avenue - Adding two attic dormers at the rear west elevation. Also, extending second story over existing one-story kitchen and removing and enclosing window opening and adding a new window on the second-stor}• south elevation [Alteration] Jeff and Elizabeth Sharer, property owners, and Yavor Goranov, architect presented plans for adding second -story attic dormers at the rear west elevation. Also, extending a second -story over existing one-story kitchen and removing and enclosing window opening and adding a new window on the second -story south elevation of the building at 2326 Brown Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. Evanston Presenation Commission March 19, 2002 Page 5 Jeff Sharer said that their intention was to finish the attic. A new stairway was build from the second floor to the attic, replacing an old stairway. The finish attic would have an office and a fourth bedroom. The new dormer in the back of the house would allow the attic space to be used as a bedroom. Building the new staircase required extending a second story wall on the south elevation to accommodate the bathroom. Commission's Findings Michael Girard asked about the gables over the dormer windows. Yavor Goranov said that for practical reasons the window height would allow the necessan• headroom. Aesthetically, the gables over the windows pick up some of the existing features of the house. Otherwise the dormers would have been shed dormers. Yavor Goranov said that on the south elevation, the second -story extension of the wall would replace and existing addition that has a flat roof and a bubble skylight. The proposed addition completes the south elevation and brings more balance to it and accommodates a bathroom with a bathtub. Neal Sheehan said that the butterfly dormers on the gable roof at the rear were of some concern. Veal Sheehan suggested instead a cross gable that would address the height issue by raising the ridge height and eliminate the butterfly dormers. Yavor Goranov said that there is a chimney that would be in the way of a cross gable. Jeff Sharer asked if there would be a special consideration since the dormers were not visible from Brown Avenue. Veil Sheehan said that his suggestion of a cross gable instead of the dormers was a recommendation. but he thought that it would be the right thing to do for the landmark building. Yavor Gomnov said that they explore further the cross gable for the attic expansion. Mary Brugiiera moved that the Commission accept the proposed additions to 2326 Brown Avenue as meeting standards of alterations 1, 2, 5.6. 9, and 10. Abbic Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ages, 3 nays. 6. 1327 Church Street - Exterior alterations jadvisoq review) Tia Sawhney, property owner requested an advisory review for exterior alterations to the building at 1327 Church Street. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Tia Sawhncy said the back one-third of the house was built in 1896, the front two -third was built in the early 1880s. Tia Sawhney said that between 1920 and 1921 the property had two different owners. A building contractor owned the house for one year in 1920 and spent $5000 in the house. The following year another general contractor owned the building and spent $2000 in the building. The house is a turn of the century traditional Victorian house that acquired a new look in 1921. Tia Sawhney said that the west side has wood siding boards with 2.5" of weather exposure, the south and east side have siding boards with 8.5" of weather exposure. The west side of the house is flat while the other two sides visible from the street are very elaborate. Tia Sawhney asked if she could at least bring one side of the house consistent with the 1920s changes to the house. Neil Sheehan said that in his view with properties that are not landmarks, alterations are acceptable as long as the alterations are comfortable with the neighborhood. Evanston Presenation Commission ~larch I9.:!M" Pace 6 Barbara Gardner said she would not be as liberal as Neil Sheehan was. She said one could go either way. but the front elevation with the wide boards may be the way to co. Carlos Ruiz said that if GIs. Sawhney was considering applying for the Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program. the State of Illinois I listoric Preservation Agency ("IIIPA"). may not agree with the previous comments. He believed that IHPA would like to preserve the original materiai as much as possible. Ms. Sawhncy said that an alternative for her,.vould be Jeaving the north side as is which also matches the coach house and just change the west side. Barbara Gardner suggested that his. Sa.s-hney contact the IHPA so that IHPA can determine what she can or cannot do. Nis. Sawhney said that the most consistent elevations of the house are the east and south of the I920s. She said that the stucco on the bottom of the west elevation was another change of the 1920s. Carlos Ruiz said that the II IPA may agree to bring the house to the 19205. Barbara Gardner noted that the II IPA's goal, as far as the tax freeze program, is restoration and replacement when only necessary. Ms. Sawhncy said that the only windows to be replaced would be the kitchen windows, which are not historic. There are steel windows under the main gable on the front fapdc. Ms. Sawhney asked if she could remove the old burglar bars from the basement windows. Commissioners did not object to such alteration. tits. Sawhney asked if clad windows would be acceptable. Carlos Ruiz said that as long as H-IPA does not object to clad windows, the Commission would not object. Commissioners also said that the coach house could be considered as a separate issue. Ms Sawhney said that she would contact the IHPA to inquire about her project. 7. 234.1 Orrington Avenue - New accessibility• concrete ramp K ith a metal railing and reconstruction of the existing patio terrace and installation of a wrought iron railing. [Construction] James Traer, Interim President, and Paul Jeffrey of Kendall College and Stec J. Economou, architect presented plans for the construction of an accessibility concrete ramp with a metal railing and the reconstruction of the existing patio terrace and the installation of a wrought iron railing on the front of the building at 2344 Orrington Avenue. The property is within the'Northeast Evanston Historic District, Other exterior alterations include, but are not limited to re -roofing the entire structure with asphalt shingles, tuckpointing brick, window repair and new landscaping. Steve Economou said the house needs an accessibility ramp. The proposed stone would mimic the existing balustrade, but would be higher and a little bit closer together. The ramp would be placed to the north of the house adjacent to the existing parking lot. Some of the bushed %vill come out, the Iandscaping on the front yard would remain. New landscaping would be placed throughout the front of the house and around the ramp itself. The base of the ramp would be fieldstone and metal railings on top. The stone on the patio would be retained when possible replaced in kind when necessary. Some fieldstone would be added at the base, Steve Economou said the roof needs new asphalt shingles; the brick and stone need tuckpointing, all the wood trim would be stained. The double hung windows (not original to the house) would remain, the clear anodized aluminum storm windows would be removed, and new aluminum storms painted in a dark color would be installed. E%anston Preservation Commission March 19. 2002 Page 7 Commission's Findings Neal Sheehan asked if it was feasible for the ramp to continue back along the side of the house and under the archwa%. Steve Economou said that the height of the ramp under the arch would not be acceptable. Carlos Ruiz said that another approach for the ramp ,.vould be to incorporate the ramp into the landscaping as it was done at the Art Center. Steve Economu said that landscaping plans still needed to be prepared. Neal Sheehan asked if the front door would be the main entrance into the building. Steve Economou said, yes. Carlos Ruiz suggested recessing the ramp further back so that, in elevation, the ramp would be perceived as part of the raised patio. Steve Economou said that they would consider that alternative. Neal ShcLhan asked about the functions of the building. James Traer said that the building would be used mainly for teaching and some research. Steve Economou said that he would consider redesiping the ramp so that it would not project on the front yard. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission accept the proposed ramp such that the landing will not project in front of the existing front porch railing and that it will extend back alongside the parking lot outside the existing buttress. Also, approve the tuckpointing of the brick and stone the balusters as proposed. ;Veil Sheehan added that the project meets standards of alteration 1, 2, 4, 5, 6. 7, and 10. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 1130 Lake Shore Boulevard - Constructing an alley side masonry wall, and concrete parking pad, erect a canopy with steel pole frame with canvas awning and prefabricated greenhouse [Construction[ Eric Mullendore presented a landscape plan to include a concrete parking pad as an additional parking space, a C high brick wall along the alley, and a pre -fabricated greenhouse kit for the property at 1130 Lake Shore Boulevard. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Commission's Findings Michael Girard asked if the project obtained a zoning analysis. Eric ,Mullendore said that the project was zoning compliant. Chris Carey asked about the proposed ornamental iron gate, Eric Mullendore said that the gate is a rolling gate over the driveway. The canopy over the parking space would blend with its surroundings and it has a canvas roof. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the proposal as presented in the grounds that it complies with standards 1, 7, and 15 for review of new construction. Abbic Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9. 1220 Crain Street - Partial removal of an existing enclosed porch, construction of one-story frame addition. Also, closing up of two existing windows on the cast elevation and installing one new single window [Construction] Susan Regan rccussed herself from participating as a Commission member as being the architect of the project. Fvanston Prescmation Cornmiss;on %larch 19.:00= Page 8 Susan Regan. architect presented plans for the partial removal ofan existing enclosed porch, and the construction of one -stop frame addition. Also, closing up of two existing windows on the east clevation and installing one nets single window to the building at 1220 Crain Street. The property is within the Evamton Ridge Historic Building. Susan Regan said the project is an addition on the rear of the house. The existing structure is and enclosed porch that originally was an open porch. The enclosed porch .%ould be extended another 5' out to the rear. The addition maintains the original form of the banding and Tudor style elements on the second floor by having a flat roof profile. Susan Regan said that some windows on the east side of the house would be changed. Two existing %%-indotvs in the kitchen would be changed into one %%indow. All the new windows are Weather Shield wood windows. The second story windows have divided lights, the first story windows do not. but there are windows with leaded glass. Susan Regan said that the first floor is finish with stucco and without Tudor style details. The second floor has the Tudor st-Oc details. Commission's Findings Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the project as presented in the grounds that it complies with standards for rev'Iew• of alteration 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, and 10. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. NEN%' B SINESS Garage Standards Carlos Ruiz distributed a draft of the garage standards. Michael Girard and Barbara Gardner, authors of the garage standards requested that other Commission members review and comment on the proposed standards at the next meetine. 610 Callan Avenue - Appeal to the City Council Carlos Ruiz_ said that the Legal Department reviewed an application for Appeal to the City Council of the Commission's denial of a second story addition to the building at 610 Callan Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. ManBrugliera asked if the applicants had any -- communications with Carlos Ruiz about the altemative plan. Carlos Ruiz said, no. Carlos Ruiz said that he had sent a letter to the property owners of 610 Callan Avenue, acknowledging the Commission's denial. Carlos Ruiz distributed a draft of the Commission's findings and recommendations to the City Council dated March 18, 2002. He noted that the property owners initially had requested an advisory review and later during the meeting they requested a final review of their proposal. _ Carlos Ruiz said that for the draft document, he elaborated in more detail the Commission's findings. fie entered the draft document into the record. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's report would be distributed to members of the Planning and Development Committee ("P&D") of the City Council. City Council would have to approve a motion to accept the appeal to be able to review it. The appeal is scheduled introduction to City Council on Monday, March 25, 2002. Neal Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the report on 610 Callan Avenue as presented by staff regarding the application for appeal to the City Council. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Preservation Commission March 19. 2001 Page 9 1314 Ridge Avenue Carlos Ruiz said that the School District 65 Board passed a resolution requiring that the new owner of I314 Ridge Avenue pay taxes regardless of non -for -profit status if applicable. Carlos Ruiz said that he had received calls from people asking questions about the potential uses of the land and redevelopment possibilities. lie also said that the School District 65 wiIl auction the property in NJay. 2002. 2002 Preservation Awards Carlos Ruiz said that the deadline for the Evanston Preservation Awards is March 25, 2002. He said that he had received two nominations date. Mobile Workshop - American Planning Association National Conference On April 16, 2002 the City of Evanston will conduct a mobile workshop in Evanston as one of the activities planned for American Planning Association National Conference. Arthur Alterson, Assistant Director of Zoning and Carlos Ruiz will showcase Evanston landmarks and historic districts. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Preservation Commission meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, April 16. 2002 at the Oak -ton School Library from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission under the invitation of citizens who are interested in nominating a new historic district in that area will explain how it conducts its business, and also explain the standards for review of designation. The regular Commission meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. 1X. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn the meeting at I0:10 p.m. was seconded and passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted: i Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservat on C Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION ;fleeting Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:30 p.m. Oakton School, 436 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Mary Brugliera, Laura Hodes, Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Susan Regan, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Imlay, and Neil Sheehan OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Bogacz, Margaret Eissa, Elizabeth Beckman, Robert Ahrens, Dennis Rupert, Dave Pickert, Susan Rolander, Ellen Galland, Susan Nelson, Sandy Locher, Lori Osborne, Mary B. McWilliams, and Margaret McRaith. PRESIDING: STAFF: 1. QUORUM Barbara Gardner, Chair Carlos D. Ruiz Barbara Gardner, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:0Tp.m., with a quorum being present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 19, 2002 minutes Mary Brugliera said she did not understand the sentence on page 7, under new business: "Chris Carey said that for him it would be useful to know before hand why certain standards could not be in compliance." Mr. Carey said that what meant w-as that he was requesting a review form attached to each project. Ms. Gardner said that the minutes should be corrected to reflect that the review forms would be attached to each project. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the February 19, 2002 minutes as amended. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee {R&TA} I. 1008 Wesley Avenue - Two and a half -car garage [Construction] Jerry Bogacz, owner presented plans for a new two and Ill -car garage at 1008 Wesley Avenue. Bansion I'reser%ation Commission April 16. 2002 - Minutes Pace 2 The property is a landmark within the Evanston Ridge Ilistoric District. Mr. Bogacz said that the project is a 22 x 22 -feet two and 112 - car garage at the back of the property. The garage has a 7,112 pitch gable roof that matches the roof gable of the house. The existing concrete slab would be replaced. The new garage would be 4 to 5-feet deeper from the alley. He said that he plans to use the garage to park one car and for storage. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the exterior finish. Mr. Bogacz said that the house is cedar shake siding. this material is too expensive for the garage. Instead, he chose the TI-I 1 vertical fir with 8-inch groove. Chris Carey said that the garage should have trim around the door, windows and garage door to be more in keeping with the house. Mary BrugIiera said that the exterior finish of the garage does not have a great connection %}ith the house except for the gable root. Michael Girard said that a Iarger trim would help to tic the garage to the house. Mr. Bogacz said that he would consider the larger trim. Michael Girard moved to approve the proposed garage at 1008 Wesley with the amendment to drawings that there would be a wider trim face around the garage door, window, and garage entry door to match the trim of the house. The project as amended meet standards of construction 1 (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 8 (roof shape), and 10 (scale of the structure). Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. At this time Susan Regan left the meeting. 2. 2020 Orrington Avenue - Removing a back porch, building a ncis- family room, remove the rear portion of the attic and rebuilding new roof Margaret Eissa, property owner and Elizabeth Beckman, architect presented plans for malting a better use of the attic space and improving an existing stair with low headroom that does not meet code. his. Beckman noted that the kitchen's back stairs had been removed and there is poor access to the basement. Also, an existing back porch would be converted into a family room. The rear addition is designed to come into a stair or back entrance to the family room. Ms. Beckman said that the attic would continue its sloping roof that faces the street and it would be extended to the back of the house, maintaining the gable on the sides of the house. The design would provide the adequate headroom and maintain the character of the house by avoiding a cross gable. his. Beckman said that they intend to use the same details and materials such as the shingle upper story, the same trim proportions, and double hung windows. She said that they would like to replace the existing window sashes with Marvin wood replacement sashes. Ms. Beckman said that the existing windows on front and rear elevations do not have divided lights or any special character. They would like to introduce windows that have more scale on the front elevation by removing the existing 1960s bay windows with operable casement windows with some divided light detail. The 1960s concrete stoop and landing will be replaced with a wood porch and railing. Ms. Beckman said that there arc other windows that they would Evanston Preser%ation Commission April 16.2002 -Minutes Page 3 replace with new windows because of their poor condition. The new windows would be in keeping with the rest of the original windows on the house. Also, the flush, plain and featureless front door would be replaced with a new door that has a window. Some detail would be added to the existing sidelight and transom. Commission's Findings In response to a question from Mr. Carey, tits. Beckman said that the exterior siding is 3-inch lap wood siding on the first story and woodshakeson the second story. Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of demolition. Nis. Brugliera moved to approve the demolition of the rear structure at 2020 Orrington because it does not violate any of the standards of demolition. NlichaeI Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Abbie Willard moved to approve the construction as proposed at 2020 Orrington because it meets standards for review of construction I (height). 2 (proportion of front facade is compatible), 3 (proportion of openings is compatible), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids in front facades is consistent with those around it), 5 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes), 9 (walls of continuity), 10 (scale of a structure), I I (directional expression of front elevation), and 12 (the distinguishing original qualities or character of the structure is not going to be destroyed).Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 2030 Nlaple Avenue - Two -car garage lConstructionj Robert Ahrens, owner said that his house is a landmark built in 1894. The house is a wood frame construction of the farmhouse style. He said that they would remove the shed roofed kitchen at the back of the house, and convert that into a family room. Then, add a full basement to the south of that, and on top of that, build a new kitchen and new master bedroom and bathroom, and a studio in the attic. Commission's Findings Michael Girard abstained from the discussion. Mary Brugliera asked if the two windows on the second floor would be casement windows. Mr. Ahrens said yes, and that the casement windows are the same as the second floor original bedroom windows. Chris Carey said that a substantial addition would be built to the south. Mr. Ahrens said that the addition was just about the same shape as the deck being removed. The addition was 2-feet to the west. Barbara Gardner asked about the French doors on the east elevation. Mr. Ahrens said that the French doors would have muntins. He said that presently, he has a French door with divided lights that opens onto the deck. Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of demolition. Chris Carey moved to approve the demolition of the rear shed at 2030 Maple based on demolition standards of which none are in conflict. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 5 ayes, 1 abstention. Abbie Willard moved to approve the construction of the additions as proposed at 2030 Maple as Evanston Preservation Commissien April 16. 2002 - %iinu:ts Page a meeting standard for review% of construction I (height). 2 (proportion of front facade). 3 (the proportion of openings), 4 (rh%ihm of solid to voids in front facades). 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets). 6 irh, 7=I of entrance porches. 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes). 9 («alls of continuity). 10 (scale of a structure), 1 I (directional expression of front elevation). and 12 (the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 5 awes. 1 abstention. 4. 2888 Sheridan Place - Construction of a second-stor}• addition to existing one-stor% garage, and one-story wing. Replace existing %%indow• at back of house %tiith a French door (Construction) Dennis Rupert and Dave Pickert, architects presented plans for the construction of a second -story addition to an existing one-story garage and one-stot•w- .ving. and the replacement of existing Windows at the back of the house with a french door at 2888 Sheridan Place. The property is an Evanston landmark Mr. Rupert said that the house is a two and 1/2-story brick house with a one-story garage to the west. The house was built in 1927 and in 1995 they added a one-story addition off the back for a family room, kitchen and garage ex(ension. Mr. Rupert said that what they were proposing was an extension over the one-story garage that would be a gabled bedroom -.with dormers. The dormer detail is intended to match the dormers at the top. The slate roof is to match the existing slate roof on the house. The brick detail on the back of the house would match the 1995 addition. The addition is distinct from the original house but the materials remain the same, brick, limestone, and wwTought iron railing. Mr. Rupert said that they would like to change one of the windows at the back of the house into a French door, providing exit into a terrace to the one -stony breakfast room. They would like to add a wrought iron railing for the terrace. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if they would be able to match the existing brick. Dave Pickett said that for the )995 work they were able to find a close match brick. He added that slate is the new roofing material. Chris Carey mowed to approve the construction for 2888 Sheridan Place based on the standards for review of construction 1, (height), 2 (proportion of front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solid to voids in front facades), 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes), 9 (walls of continuity), 10 (scale of a structure), 1 l (directional expression of front elevation), 12 (the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed), 14 (contemporary design for addition to existing properties shall not be discouraged, 15 (if the addition were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired), 16 (no architectural design had been imposed). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 6 ayes, 0 abstention. Evanston Presenation Commission April 16. 2002 - Minutes Page 5 5. 1235 Hinman Avenue - Removal of existing addition at rear of house and replace it with a two -stony framed addition iDemolitionlConstruction[ Susan Rolander. architect said that her clients would like to remove the existing rear addition and make a larger two-story framed structure addition with a finished basement. The design aims to minimize the projection that is seen from the front elevation. Ms. RoIander said that the existing structure is non -conforming as it sits on the north setback. The proposed addition would be brought up to the south and would be seen the least from the east of the front elevation. Nis. Rolander said that the new materials would match the existing materials on the house, window sizes and heights would match the existing windows. The height of the Ridge would match the existing highest point; the gable in its detailing, size and shape matches the existing gable on the front of the house. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera said that the proposed addition balances the west elevation. Chris Carey asked about the windows with muntin bars and without, particularly on the south and north elevations. skis. Rolander said that because the windows on the front of the house do have muntin bars, they decided to cam it out in the addition. She said that the proposed siding is wood siding. ,Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of demolition. Michael Girard moved to approve partial demolition at the rear of 1235 Hinman Avenue, as it is not in conflict with any of the standards of demolition. 'star}• Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Abbie Willard moved to approve the plans for the construction at 1235 Hinman in that meets standards 1 (height). 2 (proportion of front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solid to voids in front facades), 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches, 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes), 4 (walls of continuity), 10 (scale of a structure), I I (directional expression of front elevation), and 12 (the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed). Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 6 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 646 Forest Avenue - Construction of a framed two-story rear and side addition [Construction] Ellen Galland, architect for 646 Forest and 650 Forest accompanied Susan Belson, owner of 646 Forest. Ms. Galland said that 646 and 650 Forest are properties within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Galland showed a booklet of the 600 block Forest Avenue w7th each house in it and their history. She said that there are three houses that have almost the same floor plans, but they are taking different approaches because of the different interests of the two families. She said that they are tearing down from both buildings some little tacked on shed like structure. Also, both E%anston Presenation Commission April 16. 2002 -Minutes Pace 6 project require side yard setback zoning variation for the north setback because they do not have 5-foot setbacks. but in both cases they are aligning the addition with the existing north walls of the house. Ms. Galland said that 650 Forest has a very minor amount of lot coverage of 23 square feet over what is required to keep it under 30 percent. The property at 646 Forest is about 130 square feet over what is required to keep it at 30 percent. The front of the house at 646 Forest has aluminum windows on the sun porch that would be replaced with wood windows with top sashes and muntins. The rest of the windows on the first Door have unequal sash. but to make the neu- wood windows fit in the existing openings they are being replaced with windows with two equal sashes. Around the corner on the north side there is glass block in a stair%%ay that would be replaced with stain glass. Nis. Galland said that there are existing French doors around the house. A French door would be installed at the back of the house going out to the deck, and upstairs out of the master bedroom. The windows on the back of the house are stepped down. The French doors are coming out onto the deck. Those windows are taller because of the step down. The exterior is stucco. roof caves, and trim would all match. The second floor sill trim would be continued out onto the porch. Ms. Galland said reason why the addition is a little bit larger is because the Nelsons have folk art that they would like to showcase it, and to keep the study room. She said the railing is stucco for privacy reasons. They also are adding a mudroom and a kitchen extension. The family room is somewhat generous but not as large as other similar structures in the neighborhood. Commission's Findings Ms. Gardner said that the zoning variation is for the lot coverage and the setback on the north property line. Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of variation. The lot coverage is 1.68 percent increase. Mr. Carey moved to recommend the variance for lot coverage for an increase of 1.68 percent as it does not conflict with any of the standard for zoning variation. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mary 13rugliera moved to recommend approval on the setback variation since it does not conflict with any of the standards previously cited. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Chris Carey moved to approve the demolition of the rear structure at 646 Forest, as it does not conflict with any of the standards for review of demolition. Laura Hodes seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Abbie Willard moved to approve the construction at 646 Forest as it meets standards 1 (height), - 2 (proportion of front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solid to voids in front facades), 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes), 9 (walls of continuity), 10 (scale of a =- structure), 11 (directional expression of front elevation), and 12 (the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed). Mary Brughera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Banston Preservation Commission April 16, 2002 -Minutes Pace 7 Vote 6 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 650 Forest Avenue - Construction of a framed hvo-story rear addition [Construction] Ellen Galland, architect, Steve and Sandy Locher, o%vners presented plans for the construction of a framed two-story rear addition at 650 Forest Avenue. Nis. Ellen said that they wanted to put the powder room and mudroom in a sensible place and leave the kitchen open to the first floor with an eating area. and a bay similar to the bay on the south side of the house. On the second floor the bathroom is rebuilding the bathroom over to the north and doing a new master suite in the back of the second floor. Part of the family room ,would be a one-story addition. Some demolition would occur at the rear of the house. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the windows are double hung windows and if the exterior trim details would be matched, and if the cave overhang has bead board. Ellen GalIand said yes. Barbara Gardner cited the standards for review of zoning variation. Michael Girard moved to recommend approval of the zoning variation for sideyard encroachment and lot coverage relief of 23.41 square feet, as it meets standards A and C. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Barbara Gardner cited the standards for review of demolition. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the demolition of the rear structure at 650 Forest since none of the applicable standard would recommend denial. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Abbie Willard moved to approve the plans for construction at 650 Forest as it meets standards for review of construction 1 (height), 2 (proportion of front facade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solid to voids in front facades). 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes), 9 (walls of continuity), 10 (scale of a structure), 11 (directional expression of front elevation), and 12 (the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 6 ayes, 0 nays. IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. 1730 Chicago Avenue- WCTU Administration Building - National Register Nomination (See attached minutes of public hearing) B. 3200 Harrison Street —Nomination for Evanston Landmark Designation (See attached minutes of public hearing) Evanston Preser%ation Commission April 16.2002 - Minutes Pagc a V. NEW BUSINESS Garage Standards Barbara Gardner tabled the garage standards be to the May meeting; due to the lack of time. V1. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is scheduled on May 21, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois. V11. ADJOURNMENT Mary Brug;licra moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation oor nator Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Public Hearing Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:00 P.M. Oakton School 436 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Laura Hodes, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Regan, and Neil Sheehan OTHERS PRESENT: Mary McWilliams, Lori Osborne PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 9:05 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quomvm was present. II. PUBLIC HEARING 1730 Chicago Avenue (The National Woman's Christian Temperance Union Administration Building) Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places Lori Osborne, an Evanston resident, presented to the Commission the nomination of 1730 Chicago Avenue, The National Woman's Christian Temperance Union Administration Building (WCTU) to the National Register of Historic Places. She said that she had written the first draft of the nomination. Lori Osborne read a prepared statement. She highlighted that the WCTU Administration Building is historically significant and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our nation's history. The oldest part of the building was built in I910, then an addition was built in 1922, and a library added in 1940. The Administration Building has served as the national headquarters of the WCTU since 1922. The WCTU, founded in 1874, has been associated with the temperance and prohibition movements in the United States. The WCTU became the largest women's organization of the 19`h century, and played an important role in the 20`s century prohibition and woman's suffrage movements. Evanston Presenation Commission Public Hearing - titinutes April 16, 2002 Page 2 Lori Osborne also read that the local significance of the WCTU Administration Building is established because it represents E%-=ston's historical association wit temperance and prohibition. In 1955 Northwestern University petitioned the state to amend its charter to establish the "4-mile limit." The amendment read in part, that "no spirituous, vinous or other fermented liquors shall be sold under license, or otherwise, within four miles of the location of said University." When the town of Evanston was incorporated in 1863. The board of trustees' first act was to pass an ordinance that enforced the 4-mile limit. The WCTU was informally headquartered in Evanston beginning in 1879, when Frances Willard, well-knov-m 19'h century reformer and Evanston resident, became president of the WCTU. After her death in 1898. the WCTU moved its national headquarters to the Frances Willard's house in 1900. In 1910, a new building was constructed directly behind the Willard house. Charles R. Ayars designed the 1910 building called the "Literature Building" or "WCTU Publishing House." The 1910 building played an importa--it role when the WCTU began its campaign for national prohibition soon after its completion. The editorial and circulation offices of the Literature Department were located in the 1910 building. All the printed campaign material and the «'CTU's two weekly newspapers were produced and distributed from the 1910 building. Prohibition became the law of the land in 1920. In 1922 an addition was built to the 1910 building to create the WCTU's National Headquarters building, also designed by Charles Ayars. From the Administration Building the WCTU worked on its new campaign emphasizing the need for law enforcement and personal abstinence. After the repeal of national prohibition in 1933, the WCTU continued advocating for personal abstinence and renewed its focus on alcohol education. In 1940, a library was added to the Administration Building. Earl H. Reed Jr. designed the addition. Lori Osborne concluded her remarks by stating: "The WCTU Administration Building is historically significant for its association with the many events that occurred within its walls and reached beyond them to make a significant impact on local and national social and political history. The building saw the WCTU through the campaign for national prohibition, the triumph of the adoption and enforcement of the l 8`h amendment, and the reevaluation that took place after repeal. Although changes were made to the 1910 building, in 1922 and 1940, very little has changed since then. Primarily in association and feeling, but also in location, setting and design, the WCTU Administration Building continues to convey its historic significance, and therefore retain its historic integrity. The building still serves as the national headquarters, publishing house, and resource library and archives of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union." Barbara Gardner thanked Lori Osborne for her presentation. Barbara Gardner said that the City of Evanston as a Certified Local Government has the opportunity to review, comment and solicit public remarks on the nomination. Also, the Commission can advise Evanston Preser%ation Commission Public Hearing - Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 3 why the subject property does or does not satisfy the National Register criteria. She said that the Commission's advise has to be submitted to the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council (IHSAC) by May 13, 2002. Barbara Gardner asked the applicants if the nomination was for the historical criteria and not architectural criteria. Mary McWilliams and Lori Osborne said that the nomination was under Criteria A for its association with historical events. Barbara Gardner asked for comments from the members of the Commission. Mary Brugliera complemented the applicants for the quality of their submission. M. Brugliera found it to be very interesting. Barbara Gardner said that the WCTU has had an impact on Evanston for a long time. She said that literally, the WCTU kept Evanston dry until the 1970s. She said that the women who were associated with the WCTU were also feminists of the time. The WCTU also got involved with the right of women to vote. Barbara Gardner solicited comments from the audience. Mary McWilliams, Site Manager for the WCTU, said that the owner of the property approves the nomination. No other comments from the public were made. Commission' Findings Chris Carey asked how landmark status affects the property in the future, would it be restricted in terms of development? Mary McWilliams said that the building is of legal non -conforming use. She said that the WCTU talked to the City of Evanston with the understanding that the building can continue to be used as office space. She said that the National designation was desirable for this very important site. Chris Carey asked if the building could be demolished. Mary McWilliams said that if the appropriate standards of demolition are met the building could be demolished. Carlos Ruiz added that the National Register designation does not protect the building from demolition, unless federal/state funds or permits are used triggering Section 106 review. Even then the building could be demolished. The Evanston Preservation Ordinance provides the best protection against demolition. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission might see the building again for local designation, which would put the building under the Preservation Ordinance. Barbara Gardner asked again for comments from Commission members or the public. No additional comments were made. Carlos Ruiz said that the documents regarding the proposed nomination were submitted to the Evanston City Council as a communication. He suggested that the Commission approve its recommendation at this meeting so that the May 13, 2002 deadline for submitting its recommendation to IHSAC could be met. Evanston Preservation Commission Public Hcaring - Minutes April 16, 2002 Page 4 Mary Brugliera mos•ed that the Commission recommend to City Council that the Headquarters of the WCTU at 1730 Chicago Avenue meets the standard for historical importance as listed in the Secretary of the Interior's Criteria, because the building is historic in its social importance in the history, of the United States, Evanston, and the State of Illinois. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner closed the public hearing for the nomination of 1730 Chicago Avenue, WCTU Administration Building at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Pdanncr/Prescrvati4 ordinator Date: Y/3o/OZ EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Public Hearing Minutes Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:30 P.M. Oakton School 436 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Marti• Brugliera. Chris Carey, Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Laura Hodes, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS .ABSENT: Susan Regan. and Neil Sheehan OTHERS PRESENT: Margaret McRaith and Susan Benjamin PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETEP011NATION OF QUORUM At approximate]), 9:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. 11. PUBLIC HEARING 3200 Harrison Street -,Nomination for Evanston Landmark Designation Margaret NIcRaith, property o%kmcr and Susan Benjamin, architectural historian presented the nomination of the house at 3200 Harrison Street for Evanston landmark designation. Susan Benjamin said that intemationalIy acclaimed Chicago architect Bertrand Goldberg designed the Thomas Mullin House in 1936. She added that the nomination of 3200 Harrison Street meets criteria 3 and 4 for designation. Criterion 3 for exemplifying early modern style, and criteria 4 because its identification with Goldberg. She said that it was incredibly avant-garde at the time that it was built. It is all about geometry and simplicity; there is no applied ornament, no historic references, and it is eery different from the houses in the neighborhood which are more traditional style Bungalows or Cottages or somewhat larger houses. Susan Benjamin said that the house's original site was next to the Northminster Presbyterian Church. She said that the neighbors were not thrilled when this modem ]rouse was built in its original location, and they were fearful that it would impact their property values. In 1950 it was sold and moved down the block to its present location. Susan Benjamin said that the house is basically a 25' x 25' cube with an " L" off the back Evanston Presen-ation Commission Public I lcaring; Minutes - April 16. 2002 Page to accommodate an extension of the livinu room. The house is unusual in that there are not many great buildings that combine the International style and the Prairie style. She said that the volumetric qualities make it of the International style as exemplified in the Herbert Bruning House that is roughly contemporary by George Fred Keck. Susan Benjamin highlighted the broad overhang and the horizontality of the house. The house also references the early Prairie work of Frank Lloyd Wright with the broad overhangs and the horizontal bands. Susan Benjamin sho%%ed slides of the house to illustrate its geometry with simple rectangular punched openings. no muntins on the windows. On the cast side there is a band of clear ston- windows that there are eery much a reference of horizontality of Frank Lloyd Wright design. These windows illuminate the interior. The rear elevation clearly shows the geometric simplicity of the design with a rectangular chimney punching up through the roof, and with eery strong rectangular volumes of the house. Susan Benjamin showed slides of the patio. She noted that the house it is built on a slab. She said that there are man}v built-ins in the house for storage. She pointed out the French doors that extend the horizontal emphasis of the adjacent windows. Interior slides showed how the chimney descent right through the house. She said that the chimney was built with common brick and it is all about rectangles. She said that the %west elevation is very simple and plain. She also highlighted a little porch off the dining; room. Susan Benjamin said that the house has a beautiful interior, it is a modest house but it represents a beautiful organic whole. Slides of the second stony showed the entrance to two bedrooms and a bath, a seating area off one of the bedrooms. This was published in the monographs. Susan Benjamin said that there has newer been a monograph on Goldberg published in the United States. The monograph presented to the Commission went along with an exhibition that was held on his work in Paris, France in the 1980s, Susan Benjamin said about 3200 Harrison Street that even though its neighborhood is predominantly historical revival homes, there are other sensational early modem houses. She cited the Phil Wills house built in 1937, and a Lam Perkins house across the street built in spec in the late 1930s. Susan Benjamin said that Goldberg's architecture in the 1930's was about rectangles and simplicity, and that he had not yet gotten into his organic shapes. She said that Goldberg's Chicago buildings are as important as any signature buildings in Chicago as the Water Tower. Susan Benjamin said that Goldberg; was born in 1913; he went to Harvard and left Harvard in 1932 to study at the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus closed the same year. Then he went to Berlin to study with Mies van der Rohe. He came back to Chicago in 1934, at the time as George Fred Keck was building the Crystal House at the World's Fair of 1933-34. Goldberg went to work for George Fred Keck for a short time, then he went to work for Evanston Preservation Commission Public Hearing Minutes - April I6.2002 Page 3 Paul S. Goldberg worked on the drawings for Paul Schweikher in Roselle, Illinois, today's Schaumburg. Goldberg's work was eery much in the main stream of modern thinking at this time. Susan Benjamin showed slides of a Modern style houses in Illinois to illustrate the architectural characteristics of the Modem style. Susan Benjamin asked that the Commission consider recommending landmark designation of 3-700 Harrison Street because the house was not only recognized in the Architectural Press early on, but also because it is a very interesting example of early Modern architecture by Goldberg who is known worldwide. She said that the house at 3200 Harrison Street is among a dozen of Goldberg's early homes. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner said that this house intrigued her. Later and when she learned that Bertrand Goldberg was the architect, then she realized why this house was so important. Even though the house may seem out of character with Northminster, it is literally around the corner from the other tv.,o modem houses in the neighborhood. She said had a picture had been taken form Harrison Street, instead of from Central Park, a total different contextual experience is evident. Barbara Gardner noted that Goldberg's early work is not well known and is overshadowed by his later work. Susan Benjamin said that around the time Goldberg started to practice in Chicago, he began rejecting the strict rectangular design. Chris Carey asked Susan Benjamin about the criteria for designation. Susan Benjamin said that the nomination cites criteria 3 and 4. Criterion 3, because it is an example of that late 1930s early 1940's. early Modernism. Criterion 4, because its association with Bertrand Goldberg. Barbara Gardner asked if the persons who lived in the house had any fame. Susan Benjamin said that apparently Goldberg and his wife visited the previous owners. They asked Goldberg who did he designed the house. Mrs. Goldberg answered that it was designed for somebody who worked for her father and that he was in the business of shoes. She did not mention the name )=lorsheim of the Shoe Company, At this time Barbara Gardner asked if anyone else had any comments or testimony they would like to give. No one else came forward. Commissioners concurred that criteria 3 and 4 were very strong in the nomination. Chris Carey asked if the ceiling was a plaster ceiling. Susan Benjamin said that the material for the ceiling is Celotex, then a modern composite material. Margaret McRaith, the current owner restored those panels. The wood strips on the ceiling were replicated as originally intended. Chris Carey asked if the walls were stained plywood. Margaret McRaith said that the walls were washed with oil soap and waxed, not re -varnished. She added that the Evanston Presen ation Commission Public Hearing Minutes - April 16. 2002 Page 4 exterior was oricinall, stained cedar %ood. later the exterior walls were painted. Chris Carey said that the nominated landmark met criterion 3, because of its architectural ttipc. rarity and almost singular in de -sum. Also. because of its innovation of design and use of common and mass-produced materials in innovative ways to create certain character. Michael Girard said that the nominated landmark also met criterion 4. Fle said it was interesting to learn how an architect's design interests and output changed over his career and lifetime. He said that the house at 3200 Harrison Street is totally alien to anything that he did later in his career. Also, the dramatic change of scale compare to his later work such as Ri%er Citv and Marina City. Chris Carey said that Goldberg was always concern with space and ways to create affordable housing. Mary Brugliera said that the uniqueness of the windows in the front second floor was an important critical feature. Chris Carey moved that the Commission recommend to City Council that the house at 3200 Harrison, designed by Bertrand Goldberg, in 1936. be designated as an Evanston landmark, based on criterion 3 in that it exemplifies an architectural type, style of designed distinguished by innovation. rarity. uniqueness and overall quality design an use of materials and craftsmanship. Also. criterion 4 as identified as the work of an architect, whose individual work is significant in the histon- of the United States, development of the City of Evanston, the State of Illinois and the Midwest Region. Mary Bruglicra seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Around 10 p.m. Barbara Gardner said that the public hearing will be continued until the next Commission meeting to allow staff prepare the Commission's report. Respectful]}' Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation oord' for Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMIIISSION Special :fleeting Minutes Thursda}, May 16, 2002 7:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Ev2nston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera. Chris Carey. Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Neil Sheehan. and Abbie «'illard MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Hodes. and Susan Regan OTHERS PRESENT: Ra Joy. Vera Chatz, Gerald Gordon, Vito Bruglicra, Kirk Irwin, Tom Carey. Robert IngersoI, John LaPIante, Ann Dienner, Ben Sims, and Judy Fiske and audience PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner. Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz OTHER STAFF: Roger Crum. Keith Jujihara, Rajeev Dahal, and Sat Nagar 1. CALL TO ORDER/QUORU.Ni DECLARATION Barbara Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with four Commission members being present at this time (tw-o more members arrived later). 1I. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION Ridge/Church/Davis Traffic Signal Modification She said that there was only one agenda item and that was the proposed traffic signals along Ridge Avenue. She noted that the Commission's purview was only on how these traffic lights would affect the Ridge Historic District and any other landmark properties along Ridge Avenue. She said that the Commission could not debate the issues of safety, nuisance, and speed during its deliberation. Barbara Gardener said that while those issues are important, they are not under the Commission's purview. Barbara Gardner said that first the Commission will hear a presentation from City (Public Works Department) and then people in the audience may speak. She encouraged that speakers do not repeat themselves in the interest of time. She announced that a sign up sheet was available for those who wish to speak. Roger Crum, City Manager, introduced himself and introduced the project by saying that the Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 2002 Special Meeting ,Minutes Page 2 signalization project has been on the books for many }ears. and is now underway. At this time the City is looking at some of the things that probably should have been looked at earlier. He said that he asked Keith Fujihara. Deputy Public Works Director to give the presentation and address the background on the project. inhere it has been and where it is now. I fie said that David Jennings. Public Works Director, is on vacation and out of towrn: otherwise he would have been there as well. Keith Fujihara introduced Sat Nagar. Senior Engineer and Rajeev Dahal, Senior Traffic Engineer. He said that he %vas not in Evanston for most of the project, and since he was told about this meeting, he was researching files frantically. Ile said that the meeting was intended to present information, that he was not there to be adversarial, and that he understood that some citizens are upset. He said that he would answer questions with the assistance of City staff. Keith Fujihara said that the project stared when it was realized the condition of the existing traffic lights was in poor condition. The poles are rusting through, the controllers and signal heads need continuous maintenance. and it is not possible to change the periodic timing of them. He said that it is desirable to have a different timing period for rush hour than at twelve o`clock at night, for instance, in order to move traffic along. Keith Fujihara said that as he speaks he would be giving answers to questions that were brought up by people. Fie continued by saying that, one of the ways that speed of traffic would be controlled on Ridge Avenue is with the new timing, so that traffic could not be moved any faster than 30 miles an hour. If one goes at 32 miles an hour, one will hit a stoplight. Ile said that a CMAC application was submitted for 80% Federal funding for the project. At that time the application was made for replacement of existing signal heads with interconnections and more modernized controls. The City hired Metro Transportation Group to design the project. The project consists of twenty-one intersections. The consulting firm determined and since confirmed by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), mast arms are used for four -lane highway with large traffic volumes. The traffic volume on Ridge Avenue is over 20,000 cars a day. Keith Fujihara said top -mounted signals (post -top signals) are used primarily on two-lane roads with low volumes. IDOT told the City that they do not recall ever having approved a traffic modernization interconnect project for four -lane highway with the volume of cars on Ridge Avenue, using other than mast arms. [DOT also told the City if the project were designed with post -mounted signals, the project would have been rejected. The project was designed and submitted to IDOT for approval. IDOT bid the project and the low bid was from Hometown Electric for S1.86 million. The project was awarded to Hometown Electric and construction began. Keith Fujihara said that the normal procedure for historic preservation on an [DOT project is that when plans are submitted by the consultant, District One IDOT checks by means of the state historic register to determine if the project is within a historic district. if it is, a notice is sent to the State Historic Preservation Department. The State Historic Preservation Department then seeks comment from the local historic district [preservation commission]. IDOT did not identify that this was a historic district to the state preservation department, and that is where some of the Evanston Preser%ation Commission May 16. 2002 Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 problems have since happened. Keith Fujihara said that an Evanston resident made a complaint about the upcoming construction to Carlos Ruiz (Presenvation Coordinator). Carlos Ruiz tiled the complaint with IDOT's Bureau of Design and Environment, and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (11-IPA). Mr. John Walthal of IDOT's Bureau of Design and Environment then requested David Jennings to «rite a synopsis of the project for his review. David Jennings sent the letter to John Walthal on April 29, 2002. John %N"althal then sent a copy of the letter to Anne I laaker of 11117A. Anne Haaker then called David Jennings and requested a meeting with him. Roger Crum, City Manager and David Jennings met with Anne I laaker on May 6.2002. John Walthal and Anne Haaker stated at that meeting that IDOT made a mistake in not noticing that the area was in a historic district. IDOT and IHPA also concurred with the existing design. It was suggested that a more ornamental base could be used to dress up the poles. David Jennings suggested that the signals at Dempster Street and Asbury Avenue also be changed due to its non-residential look. Both state parties agreed. On May 9, 2002 John Walthal sent a letter to Anne Haaker restating the meeting and giving IDOT's recommendation for the proposed changes. The City has been told that Anne Haaker is awaiting results from this meeting and the May 20, 2002 City Council meeting. before confirming the letter. Keith Fujihara said that the Evanston Department of Transportation (EDOT) has been replacing post -tops signals with mast arms signals throughout Evanston for the past seven to ten years when they felt appropriate. There have not been public hearings on these changes because EDOT felt it was a public safety decision. EDO'1' has felt that its first priority is public safety and it is within their venue to make that decision. IDOT replaced post -tops signals on Asbury Avenue and Dempster Street, also within the historic district in 1992, without asking either the City or the Preservation Commission. Fujihara said that the City concurs that the historic district must be treated differently than the other areas in Evanston. For this reason, the following practice will be followed in the future. All City projects requiring changes in the historic district will be first sent to Carlos Ruiz for review and comment. Keith Fujihara said that he has sent letters to ComEd, Nicor, and to the Water Department to do the same. Keith Fujihara apologized for the oversight of not initially sending the plans to the Preservation Commission. He said that it may have been an error. At that time there was some talk that this was considered a State project. There were possibly many reasons for the oversight. lie was hopeful that all could move on from there. Keith Fujihara said that after the presentation he would address the questions asked at the Planning and Development Committee meeting and also talk about IDOT's standards for post -top design if the City should go that route. Keith Fujihara proceeded with his presentation (see attachment). He indicated that a proposed alteration to the traffic signals was shortening the length of the mast -arms to extend one fourth over the traffic lane. After his presentation Keith Fujihara addressed the questions raised by residents at the P&D meeting. Regarding data on accidents, there were savings of accidents at Dempster Street and Evanston Preservation Commission Staff 16.:002 Special Meeting Minutes Pace -t Asbun, :venue. and at Noyes Street after m: st arms .%ere installed. There were around 30% fewer accidents. Cite staff came with additional information: Iowa State Universit% at 33 intersection. 3 years and a `ears after - 320NO less accidents Kansas Cite. Missouri at 6 intersections. 1 -..car before and one rear after - 25% less accidents City of Atlanta. Georgia. 6 moths before. six months after - 89°,0 less accidents City of Buena Ventura. I year before, one year after - 60'-b less accidents ]DOT has its own numbers - 25% less accidents Regarding pedestrian accidents, there have been reported accidents at Ridge Avenue and Asbury Avenue. Over the last twelve years: On Church Street - 3: on Davis Street - 7; Lake Street - 1; Dempster Street - 1: Greenleaf Street - 3: Main Street - 3: Oakton Street - 7; Mull Terrace -1; Mulford Street - 3: at Asbury Avenue and Davis Street - 2. Keith Fujihara said that at the P&D meeting there was comment made that Robert K. Sayfried, Director of Transportation Engineering Division had made certain statements. The City has a letter from Mr. Sayfried indicating; that he did not make those statements and that he is in favor of the project. Keith Fujihara said that on Friday, May 10. 2002 at a meeting with IDOT's District One alternatives were discussed and what would happen if a post -tap design �vere selected. IDOT could not guarantee that it would be approved. IDOT and Federal standards require that traffic signals have to be a' behind the curb. Presently, the traffic signals are approximately I' behind the curb. If the traffic signals were located 4' behind the curb, there needs to be two State and Federal sight distance requirements. One is a cone -ision from the crosswalk with a 20-degree cone, 140' deep. A preliminary survey shows that there would be fifty trees affected under that parameter. Keith Fujihara clarified that these trees would not necessarily be taken down, which would be an IDOT decision. IDOT would be looking at it block by block basis to determine what IDOT considers to be safe. Two, there is a line of sieht for braking;. The speed limit is 30 miles an hour, requiring 250' to stop. If one is in the inside lane and there is a truck, one could not see any further, then one would have to see down to the tragic light to see how- many trees are in one's way. This needs to be done in all four directions on an intersection to determine the trees that would be affected. It is assumed that there would be trees maybe taken down or trimmed. There may be additional signage, and blinking yellow lights. Keith Fujihara said that he would not guess what the outcome would be. Keith Fujihara said that 150 trees that were found to be within that area, going down Ridge Avenue. Some 10 to 20 percent may be possibly removed or trimmed; it all depends on the State and Federal standards. The City asked IDOT what would happen if the City did the post -tops on its own. IDOT response was that Ridge Avenue is a State right-of-way, IDOT owns the signals after installation, that basically it's ]DDT's property. The City would still have to meet the State and Federal guidelines, whether the City or anyone else puts them up. IDOT would not guarantee that they would approve post -tops. The City would have to show IDOT that the sight distances were fine and that people could see the signals 250' away. In response to a question from Chris Carey, Keith Fujihara said that the signal does stand 4' away from the curb. He said that if the design of the mast arm were to change from half away across Evanston Preservation Commission Stay 16. 2002 Special Meeting Minutes Pare 5 to quarter away across, one signal is on the curb line. this might require some tree trimming, so people can see the traffic signal. Barbara Gardner asked if there would not be tree trimmine with the mast arm as well. Keith Fujihara said no. One of the current two light signals are right on the center of the lanes. They are so far out that the trees would not interfere. There would not be tree trimming required. Chris Carey asked if the City is currently in violation of current standards because of the existing post -top signals location. Keith Fujihara said. yes. If they are to be changed, then the City has to meet the guidelines. Barbara Gardner said that in preservation. restoration is preferable rather than replacement. She asked if the existing light poles could be kept and re -configure the electronics inside the poles and replace the rusted pieces so the poles would not have to be moved. Keith Fujihara said that the existing poles are really rusted through including the bases and the heads. He said the existing poles have to be replaced. The controllers have been outdated for 20 to 30 years. He said that if all the signals were replaced with post -tops it may have not been 1.86 million, it may have been 1.7 million. He said it still is an expensive project. The reason why the City started the project was because the poles were falling apart. Mary Brugliera said that at Davis Street and Oak Avenue there are post -tops on the various comers with the walk lights on them and also other signals above them. She asked if would that be the case if the existing poles were replaced with the mast arms? Keith Fujihara said that at a given intersection there are eight signals. Sat Nagar said that any project on Ridge Avenue have to be approved by IDOT. Roger Crum said whether there would be one or two poles, was still in the open. lie said that there would be one pole on each corner on the proposed project. Barbara Gardner said, there would be lights hung on the side and over the top. Keith Fujihara said that currently, there are two lights on each corner, where there would be one after the project is completed. Gerald Gordon, of 1228 Lake Street, said he had been looking at these intersections. He said that at 90 or 95 percent of the intersections, there are twelve sets of triple red, yellow, green lights. There are three on each pole, four poles, one on each corner. «-tether it is mast arm or post -top. He said that all the proposed poles are not needed. Barbara Gardner asked if twelve lights were the standard. She said that at the last presentation it was mentioned that eight lights were the standards. Rajeev Dahal said that it depends on the design and the intersection and the required 20-degree cone of vision. Barbara Gardner asked if currently, the 250' distance of unobstructed view was met for each existing light along Ridge Avenue. Rajeev Dahal said no. Barbara Gardner asked why the City was not trimming the trees to comply with the standards. Keith Fujihara said that the standard is a 20-degree cone that has to be met and within the cone, one has to be able to see 140' within the cone. The standard requires that one could see at least one light while sitting in a car. Also, within 250' one person has to be able to see the signal, if trees are in the way, those trees could be affected. If it takes 250' to stop at 30 miles an hour, then one should be able to see the signal. Neil Sheehan asked if one is driving north on the right lane, approaching an intersection, is one required to see one signal on the south side of the intersection and one signal on the north side of the intersection, and how many signal are required per intersection. Rajeev Dahal said that for Evanston Presena.ion Commission May 16. 2002 Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 four -lane at least tuo signals per lane are required. The proposed project requires two poles per street direction. Neil Sheehan said that right now there could be eight poles per intersection and there would be four poles with the proposed project. Barbara Gardner asked if the mast arm would be between i 8' and 20' high. Rajeev Dahal answered that it was an approximate height. Barbara Gardner said that at that height the lights would be at the top of people's second floor. Sam Grober. of 1110 Ridge Avenue. asked if the amount of construction that has already been done. does that still make the current discussion viable, or are these just mute discussions because of what has already been done. Keith Fujihara said that what has been done is the underground wiring that will go to the controllers. The City would use that wiring and the controllers in either design. He said that starting last Friday the poles were to be fabricated. The City has stopped all work in the historic district area. The area outside the historic district is still being fabricated. The contractor has been given the go ahead to keep working in those areas. Sam Grober asked if there would be any kind of financial penalty if the City makes any of the changes discussed tonight. Roger Crum said that probable there would be. Keith Fujihara said that if a consultant is hired to design a new project with the post -top, it would take at least six months for the design. It takes about three months to get appro%-ais and another month or two to go through the bid process. This is a year delay. Barbara Gardner said that IDOT had made a mistake by not going to the If -IPA. She was not sure if the City should have to bear the entire cost of redesign. Rover Crum said that the City did not know the answer. What is known is that any change at this stage will cost somebody more monw. At this time Barbara Gardner asked for citizen comment. Ra Joy representing Janice D. Schakowsky. Member of the U.S. Congress, of 1101 Ridge Avenue read a letter dated May 6, 2002 to Barbara Gardner, Chair, Evanston Preservation Commission. Ms. Schako»•ski expressed in her letter the historical importance of Ridge Avenue and its uniqueness in terms of providing a canopy of trees to Evanston's cityscape. Ms. Schakowski, as well as her neighbors, believes that the proposed mast -arm traffic lights project is unacceptable. Ms. Schakowski said that as the elected Representative to the United States Congress, she would want to be part of a process that: - Maintains post -top lights along the full length of Ridge Avenue - Maximizes important safety and traffic flow objectives - Maintains the Federal dollar contribution for the project - Minimizes any additional costs to the city of making the needed changes Ms. Schakowski expressed her disappointment that her neighbors and she were not included in the decision making process. She believes that is not too We to develop a plan that will preserve the beauty and historic integrity of Evanston and improve the safety and efficiency of Evanston's streets. ==_ Evanston Presenation Commission May I6. ?W? Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 Sarah Chatz of 1430 Ridge, said she drove through Evanston and much of the ;Forth Shore to observe exactly what kinds of traffic signals were used. what they look like and how they are used. She showed the Commission members a display including pictures she had taken showing the various intersections on Ridge Road and what the proposed traffic signals would look like at those intersections. his. Chatz stated that a warning sign precedes every mast arm signal on Green Bay Road in Wilmette. She questioned why a warning sign is needed when the citizens have been told the mast arm signal is much more visible than the current lights on Ridge Avenue. Ms. Chatz expressed her appreciation for Congresswoman Janice Schakowsky's message to the Preservation Commission, as well as her attempts to get to the bottom of this situation. Ms. Chatz quoted from Congresswoman Schakowsky's message as follows: -*The spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law had been violated." Ms. Chatz read from an application from the City requesting federal funds for "modernization and coordination of signals on Ridge Avenue, Church Street, and Davis Street." Ms. Chatz stated that she and the members of this community stand with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in firm opposition to this proposed community blight. In response to a comment made earlier in the meeting, Ms. Chatz stated that it was she who spoke to Robert Seyfried on the telephone and read the following from her notes of that conversation: She said that he said the existing traffic lights could be connected to absorb the signals that would control the traffic flow. Gerald Gordon, 1228 Lake Street said he had heard that work had stopped in the preservation district, but that was after it proceeded from the comer of Davis south to south of Greenleaf almost to Main Street. The Preservation District has been worked on extensively as far the underground wiring is concerned. He thought that there should not only have been a Preservation Commission meeting, as required by the ordinance, but there should have been a notice to the residents along ride as well as a public hearing. Mr. Gordon said that, earlier in the day he had spoken with Roger Crum, (Evanston City Manager) regarding cutting trees and possible extra costs. Ile said Mr. Crum said that approximately 50 trees would be cut and the cost would be anywhere from $200,000 to S 1.000,000. Mr. Gordon said that a good compromise to reduce the extra costs and to resolve the problem of cutting down the extra trees would be to put in the control system and wire it up to the existing lights. Vito Brugliera, 1304 Wesley Avenue said that staff, by bypassing the Preservation Commission has ignored the fact that Ridge traverses an area that is a historic residential district. He said they have shown ignorance/disregard of the city's ordinances. They have jeopardized the Northwestern lawsuit by an example of disregarding the Evanston Preservation Ordinance, putting national and local historic districts in jeopardy of being compromised, and exposed the City budget to potential monetary impact. Mr. Brugliera said that there has been last minute trips by City staff to confer with IDOT and 11-HPA prior to any meeting with the Preservation Commission. These trips should have been done after review and comment on the proposed lights. He said that the references to decreased traffic accidents on Dempster and Asbury over a ten-year span are not convincing. Evanston Preservation Commission 10a) 16. 2002 Sptxial Sleeting Minutes Page 8 Mr. Brugliera said that the Cite Council will have to spend additional hundreds of thousands of dollars or undermine the integrity of the Ridge Historic District. He hoped that everyone would be aware that ordinances have to be followed. Kirk Irwin, a licensed architect said he was appearing at the request of St. %lark's church at 1506 Ridge. fle said he had the following four concerns about what he has heard so far tonight: 1) Public Safety, 2) Character of the street, 3) Character of the trees. and 4) Characterization of the street as a highway. Mr. Irvin said he was concerned that. because St. Mark's does not have a parking lot, many of it's members park west of Ridge and have to cross Ridge to get to the church. He asked that the City not be allowed to ruin the character of the street. Mr. Irvin said that he strongly disagrees with characterizing Ridge as a highway, he said it is a residential street with a high volume of traffic. I le said the trees are beautiful and create a canopy on Ridge Avenue, and if those trees are lost, Evanston loses the character of the street. Tom Carey, a resident of 1120 Lake Street which is on the southeast comer of Lake and Ridge Avenue stated that when researching the Ridge historic district and making a decision to move there, they spoke to several people that worked for City government. He said that Evanston staff told him that Evanston was serious about its Historic Districts. its houses and its trees. He said that was one of the reasons they decided to move into the Historic District. Mr. Carey felt sure that the City took its position seriously and they would not have to wort,• about the street being widened, etc. He said that the course that the City is taking no%v would set a dangerous precedent for future activities along Ridge Avenue. "I'he planning has been done, the contracts have been let, the work has been started and it looks like the City is about 75% do«vn the path and is just now starting to look at the aesthetic issues that are being raised here. Mr. Carey said the correct set of standard of esthetics is appropriate for Ridge Avenue is the current traffic control traffic light configurations already on Ridge Avenue. He said what he is now hearing from the City is more of an adversarial position, they are trying after the fact to justify what they intend to do based on traffic, safety. etc. What he would like to hear is that the City is trying to find a creative solution to address this issue. He felt that one solution would be to coordinate the City's computer system with something similar to the traffic lights already on Ridge Avenue. Mr. Carey said he agreed with everything others had said tonight. Robert Ingersol, a resident of 1202 Church Street which is on the corner of Church and Ridge said he moved to the area because he felt the neighborhood he was moving into would maintain its character. He said that many years ago, Wilmette wanted to tear down its streetlights because they were ineffective and all rotting inside. Mr, ingersol thought that would have changed the character of the neighborhoods. He thought that Evanston should maintain the current lights and perhaps, add some new technology to them so they can be timed better. John LaPlante said he is not a resident of Evanston. but he goes to the Unitarian Church on Ridge Avenue in Evanston at the corner of Ridge and Greenwood. He explained that he is a traffic engineer and that he feels there is a real safety issue along Ridge Avenue and that it is going to get worse throughout the Country. He said drivers are becoming less and less used to looking off to the side for a signal. Instead, drivers are looking for a signal overhead. Evanston Preservation Commission May 16. 2002 Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 ,Mr. LaPlante said that in the City of Chicago the intersections that do not have mast -arm signals have more traffic accidents. He said that there is not anything aesthetic about a broad side collision and that there is the need to come to some other solution. The proposed mast -arms would be a bronze color monotube. Shortening the mast -arms is an excellent suggestion. Ile asked that everyone, those who drive along Ridge Avenue and those who cross Ridge Avenue, think about the other motorists and pedestrians. Mr. LaPlante stated that there should be a solution that provides both safety and aesthetics. He said he would hate to see anything that would damage the canopy of trees. Mr. LaPlante said that mast -arm signals cause a reduction in accidents - at least a 25 percent reduction, but often a 50 to 80 percent reduction. The majority of the accidents that are reduced are those involving motorists blowing through red lights, or sleepy and drunk drivers. Many of the motorists involved in accidents are those who are not familiar with Evanston. Mr. LaPlante said that there should be some way to make the traffic signals more visible, and that this method should involve tasteful design. Ann Diener, 1034 Sheridan Road, said she was bon and raised in Evanston and inquired as to the accident rate on Ridge Avenue for accidents involving both pedestrians and automobiles. She asked what were the worst intersections. She cautioned that if the flow of traffic would be improved by these new signals, then the amount of traffic along Ridge Avenue is bound to increase. She also wondered about pollution. She explained that it would be unfortunate to remove trees, as they absorb a great amount of automotive pollution. She also asked if it would not be better to incorporate a design and a plan that everyone can live with for the next twenty years. She said that City staff comes and goes and a lot of them do not understand the uniqueness of Evanston. She urged that the situation should be examined carefully, and that the right decision be made, regardless of the opinion of Federal, State or City staff. She asked that the project be carefully considered. Ms. Diener felt that the base of the mast -arms signals in downtown Evanston are not attractive. Ben Sims, 910 Ridge said he was concerned with the trees. He said that he lived in Evanston for thirty years and that lie would be opposed to anything that affects the trees in Evanston. Judy Fiske, 2319 Sherman Avenue said that she has been working on the issue of historic districts in Evanston. She said that she wanted to give the Commission information about the history of historic preservation in Evanston. She mentioned a report of the Evanston Planning Conference in 1974 that emphasized the importance of Evanston's setting and its community character as a part of larger whole. She also made a reference to the Comprehensive General Plan in 1974 that included the qualities of the streets in Evanston, such as street Iighting and street signage. The Plan cited Daniel H. Burnham who described Evanston as" the most beautiful city in the world." In 1978, the Commission was asked to emphasize urban conservation. She said that she is concerned with the concept of urban sprawl and urban clutter. Judy Fiske said that Sheridan Road is included as part of the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Sheridan Road was included in the Northeast Evanston Historic District, because the history of Sheridan Road is so important. She said that Evanstonians are lucky that the Ridge Evanston Preseration Commission Ma% 16.2002 Special titretine Minutes Page 10 Historic District happens to cross Ridge Avenue, which is the only reason whv there is a meeting this evening. Ridge Avenue is the only strut in the entire City of Evanston that has a broad strectscape. Historically. Ridge Avenue has been cited as "the cathedral of the Elms." She said that the aesthetics of the strectscape provides Ridge Avenue with its historic cache. Judy Fiske said that Ridge is a difficult street because it crosses downtown. In the 1950s Evanston was trying to reinvent itself. it called itself the "Headquarter City'." Evanston allowed a lot of development along Ridge Avenue including single family homes and institutional buildings. She read from the book by Barbara J. Buchbinder-Green "Evanston: A Pictorial History." She noted that it was remarkable that Ridge Avenue had gone through so many changes with so many historic structures being demolished over the Period of time and stills retains its character, its sense of place. its integrity, and it makes a beautiful statement to the City of Evanston. Judy Fiske said that the traffic lights are really important. She encouraged the Preservation Commission to try to find the best way it can to eliminate the possibility of more urban clutter on Ridge Avenue, and preserve the sanctity of the avenue. Abbic Willard asked if City staff could talk about of some of the impediments or constraints would be to using the existing fixtures and installing the new controllers with the existing fixtures. Also, what are the implications in terms of cost if the City ryas not purchasing the large new fixtures, but repairing the existing fixtures? Roger Crum said that the existing fixtures will not last, they must be replaced within very short period of time. fie said the existing fixtures are a disgraced, they' are leaned, rusted, they cannot be preserved and should not be preserved in their current exact physical pieces. He said the question is whether the existing look could be preserved in some other manner. Electrically and mechanically the poles could be wired up, so that they could work on the new electronics. Nevertheless, replacing the signals will be necessary within very short period of time. fie emphasized that the existing poles are not good right now. Barbara Gardner said that the standards for review of construction would be used for the Commission's review. Neil Sheehan said that additional comment might be warranted, because he would predict that by simply saying that the proposal is not in keeping with the district, it would not offer some direction. Barbara Gardner said that what the Commission is doing; is making a recommendation to City Council and IHPA. She said that she talked to Anne Haaker of IHPA. The Commission should have reviewed the project first and given the Commission's recommendations to IHPA. IHPA did not do anything; in %yriting. IHPA was led to believe that the Commission did not have a say on the project. Anne Maker told her that because of the procedure where the Commission makes a recommendation to IHPA. Anne Haaker was told that it was not necessary to have the project reviewed by the Commission. She was also told that the project was not in a local historic district. Roger Crum said that if the Chair was quoting the meeting he was at, he said that it was not true. He said that with all due respect, he was at that meeting. Specifically the City was invited to go to Springfield to explain the situation. Roger Crum said that it was explained that yes, the project was in a historic district, and that the Preservation Ordinance said that public projects could be review and comment by the Preservation Commission. Although, it had never been done in traffic project. Roger Crum emphasized that the City informed IHPA that the project Dianston Preservation Commission 'eta} 16. 2002 Special tteetine ,tinutes Page I I was in a historic district. A member in the audience said that in Wilmette. about twelve years ago, they wanted to replace the light fixtures with fluorescent lights. He said that those lights are still standing and wondered if there was anything that could be done for the poles in Evanston and retained. Barbara Gardner said that in cases of houses, that it is not always the whole thing that is deteriorated. The lights are made of the base. the pole, and the Iight itself. From restoration versus replacement point of view, she found difficult to believe that all three components have to be replaced in every single fixture. She asked if the City have done a survey to assess the condition of each pole? She asked is really necessary to replace everything.? Sat Nagar said IDOT has to approve any changes to the proposed project on Ridge Avenue. Neil Sheehan asked if a traffic light were hit by a car. would it be replaced on the same spot and would IDOT standards not kick in? Rajeev Dahal said MOT standards would not apply for maintenance of the poles. Neil Sheehan said that if the project were re -wiring, re -control, and repair of existing light standards, why would IDOT standards apply with regard of repair of existing light standards? Sat Nagar said the proposed scenario would have to be done as a different project. Barbara Gardner asked what was the percentage of the cost of controls and wiring? Roger Crum said it was a difficult question to answer, because it involves labor cost on controls and wiring. Ile said that the fabrication of the mast -arms alone was $200,000 for the proposed project. fie said that installing the poles is more costly and the design cost at this stage has been already committed. Chris Carcy asked if the rewiring was going the same locations of the existing stop lights? Rajcev Dahal said that after gas and sewer lines, and other underground utilities are located, then the location of the new foundation is determined. Barbara Gardner said that she had a concern outside the historic district. She noted that there are eight multi -family dwelling landmark structures outside the historic district to the south. There are landmarks at the corner of Ridge Avenue and Oak -ton Street. at both sides of the intersection, and another landmark a block down on Ridge Avenue. The landmark on the cast side of Ridge Avenue and Oak -ton Street, extends down the block, and across down the street at Hull Terrace and Ridge Avenue there is another landmark structure. in her opinion, the mast -arms would affect all the residences along Ridge Avenue. She did not think that the mast -arms were any more appropriate for the rest of Ridge Avenue that they are for the Historic District. Barbara Gardner said that from the preservation standpoint the case could be made that there is concern about landmark structures at Hull Terrace, ;Main Street, and Oakton Street. Barbara Gardner referred to a comment at a P&D meeting that all the light fixtures were going to be the same, one way or the other. She asked if that was not the case. Roger Crum answered that no decision had been made. At the moment the City was able to temporarily halt work in the historic district; there was no excuse to halt the project elsewhere. From the traffic engineering design, it is desirable to have a consistent set of signals. Barbara Gardner said that there has to be a consideration for consistency when fifty percent of an intersection is within the historic district. Evanston Prescmation Commission Ala} 16. 2002 Special Nleitine Minutes Page 12 Neil Sheehan said that if the Commission were to say as its recommendation. "no" (to the mast - arms), and keep the post -top fixtures. what would likely go up is the mast -arm fixtures without modification. if indeed the mast -arm fixtures go up. fie said he rather see that not happen, but if it were to happen, he said he would like to introduce a motion for some requirements for the mast -arm fixtures if they were to go up. Barbara Gardner suggested going through the standards for review first, then entertain a motion. Abbic Willard said that the project as designed does not meet standard 1, in terms of the height being visually compatible. Standards 2. 3 and 4 are not applicable. It does not meet standard 5, in terms of the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street. It does not meet standard 6, because of the projections that would not be consistent of the public ways with the other scale in the area; it does not meet standard 7, in terms of the relationship of materials and textures. Standards 8 and 9 are not applicable. It does not meet standard 1 Q, in terms of scale of structure. Standard f I is not applicable. Abbic Willard said that she was particularly concerned that the project does not meet standard 12. in that the structures (mast -arms) that are proposed are not consistent with the historic character of the street and the surrounding houses. Standards 13. 14. 15, and 16 are not applicable. It does not meet standard 17, if signs are generally defined. Abbic Willard moved that the Commission encourage the City to halt work on the entire project. That the Commission encourage the City to explore the feasibility of new wiring and controls with repair and restoration of existing poles. That the City explore alternative funding for such a project. And. if the project is approved at other levels, that the Commission be involved in suggesting the type of workmanship and the configuration of whatever project is approved. Neil Sheehan seconded the project. The motion was unanimously approved. Neil Sheehan moved that if the mast -arm poles were to be installed, that specific design of those poles must be submitted to the Commission. The drawings must show shop drawings details outlining all aspects and character of the fixtures, and that the Commission encourage these fixtures to be in color to match the Tallmadge streetlights, not brown anodized. That these fixture have decorative bases of cast aluminum or steel, not mold form details. That these fixtures be the same size all along Ridge Avenue, and that under no circumstances, any signage be allowed on the crass -armed of these fixtures, only the lights, And, that these cross -arms be, as proposed, half way across the lane with fixture near the curb and fixture overhead. Barbara Gardner said that she was concerned that the Commission may be sending mixed signals. She said that Abbic Willard's motion included that if the project was approved at another =_ level, that it should come back to the Commission. Neil Sheehan withdrew his motion. �� Mary Brugliera said that she would like the Commission to insist in more involvement with the project. She said that the Commission's comment will go to City Council, and City Council will do whatever they have to do. The Commission's recommendation and the City Council decision would be fonvardcd to IHPA. She wondered what was next. Carlos Ruiz said that the final decision at that point would be between ]DOT and IHPA after consultation with the City. Carlos Ruiz suggested the Commission expand on Abbie Willard's motion and explain what it means not being in compliance with the appropriate standards. He believed the City Council Evanston Preservation Commission Ma} 16.2002 Special %teetine \Minutes Page 13 would like to hear what the Commissions message is. other than just the finding that the project does not meet the preservation standards. He added that the Commission could offer to City Council some suggestion for their consideration and comments. Gerald Gordon. 1228 Lake Street, said that from what he heard the decision for the project is going to be made between IDOT and IHPA. Barbara Gardner believed the decision would be made with City Council. Gerald Gordon said that [DOT and IHPA would make the decision, out of the City's hands. John La Plante said that would be the case if only federal money is used. Ra Joy said that with federal money, the Federal I [ighway Authority also needs to send'a letter to the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. After 48 hours of this communication, construction could resume. Gerald Gordon said as a tax paying, voting citizen of this City, if the decision is taken out of the City's hands, then he strongly requested that the Commission and the City Council take the City money out of the project and stop it. Mary Brugliera said that she could not imagine that IDOT and 1HPA would just go along with the project. She said that when the project gets back from IDOT and 1HPA that members of P&D and the Preservation Commission meet with these agencies, so that the discussion is not in a vacuum. Neil Sheehan said that what Carlos Ruiz had suggested was that some additional discussion will help guide the City Council. Carlos Ruiz said that recognizing that some of the standards are applicable, is the beginning of giving the City Council some good comments about the Commission's feelings about the project. He said that the Commission should make its best effort to communicate to City Council what would be acceptable to the Commission, as a recommendation to City Council take certain steps. Whether the City Council would consider those recommendations and weigh against the safety issues and the cost is still unknown. He said that the Commission's role is to review and comment on the project. Neil Sheehan said that there is a point of compromise that has to happen in this situation. He said that he was not sure if it was realistic to expect that those existing fixtures remain. He said that he agrees with the safety argument. He said that those intersections would be safer when the lights are the way as proposed. On the other, hand he said the lights can be done in a much more sensitive way with the traffic signal poles matching the color of the existing light poles, limit the size of them, and make those bases of a high quality material. Barbara Gardner said that the approved motion indicated that the Commission's preference would be to do the electronics, but keep the current poles. When parts needed to be replaced that they be replaced. Neil Sheehan said that he understood that federal funding is going to dictate that certain standards had to be met. The federal agency could say that there is no money if the project does not comply with the standards. Barbara Gardner asked if that would not be appropriate in a further follow up meeting? Michael Girard said, based on the preservation standards, the new light fixtures overshadowed everything that is out there in scale, in height, in presence on the street, in how they march down the street as opposed to the current location of existing fixtures. He said that the safety issue was of some concern, he mentioned that he uses Greenleaf Street to cross Ridge Avenue, noting that Evanston Preservation Commission May Ib, 2002 Special Sleetins: Minutes Page 14 it can be a danuerous intersection. fie added that another concern for him was standard 9, regarding walls of continuity. facades. structures and properties such as masonn• walls and landscape masses. I le said that trees are landscape masses that are integral part to the district. lie said the Commission heard numerous testimonies referencing the trees directly. as being a value element of the district. Ile said that Abbie Willard'd motion included looking for other revenues to finance the project. lie said that if federal dollars require to cut down trees, he said the he did not know if that was such a good thing for the community. Abbie Willard, referring to standard 5. said that if the Commission wanted any objects or structures to be visually compatible µith the properties that are currently there, that the mast -arm fixtures are not compatible with the properties surrounding the area. Standard G, regarding the projection over the intersection and the visual impression, the way it reads visually is in contradiction to the rest of the flow of the street in the neighborhood. Abbie Willard said that she felt strongly about standard 12, because it says: "the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed." She said the mast -arm fixtures are so out of character with the neighborhood, the street and the houses on it, that they do in fact affect certain qualities of the historic district. Barbara Gardner said that she was not sure %%hether was about the height or the rhythm of spacing, but the mast -arms and the light fixtures themselves are going to be at the top of people's bedroom windows. At night. every time the light changes, there is going to be a blink in people's bedrooms. She said that the light fixtures should not have the kind of proportion and height that a house has. Neil Sheehan said that he experiences that scenario at Asbury Avenue and Dempster Street, being half a block away from the intersection. Mary Brugliera wondered if the Commission could continue its review and comment %nth P&D, A&PW and the traffic engineers and talk this through and reach some kind of a decision the City, the Commission and the neighbors are comfortable. Chris Carey said that the situation calls for additional participation. He said that what bothered him, if what he heard was correct, was that at the revie%v process, public comment was not provided for. He said that it is important to take whatever time is necessary to allow for that public comment that should have happened long before the project even started. Barbara Gardner said that there would be public comment with P&D committee as a whole on Monday, May 20. 2002. Chris Carey said that the lack of public participation shows disregard for what the Commission does and what the citizens of the community feel. Carlos Ruiz asked if the Commission could be more specific about its comments to City Council. Michael Girard said that the Commissioners previews comments were in support of Abbic Willard's motion. At this time Abbie Willard reiterated her motion: " we urged that there be a halt to work in the entire project. Two, we (the Commission) encourage the City to explore the feasibility of new wiring and controls being installed with repair and restoration of the existing poles. Three, we encourage them to explore alternative funding for the project. And, four we encourage them, if the project is approved elsewhere, that this body be involved in discussions about the appropriateness of the materials and the structures that are to be used. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission request a meeting with members of the City Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 2W2 Special MeetinL Nlinulcs Page 15 Council. and members of the Planning and Development Committee to discuss the project in greater depth, Chris Carey seconded the motion. Mary Brugliera amended her motion to include the traffic engineers. Abbie Willard seconded the amendment. The motion passed the motion as amended unanimously. Neil Sheehan said that he would like to introduce a new business item and immediately tabled it to the next meeting. He said that this was the third time in his experience that the Commission had an issue of this type come up. Where roadway related infrastructure has been installed. completely- ignoring the Preservation Commission and the historic district in which it was installed. fie sited the guardrails that were installed on Asbury Avenue• south of Dempster Street; the signals at the corner of Asbury Avenue and Dempster Street. and now this entire project. fie said that in the last instances, where City staff was asked about the issue, the Commission was told that it would never happen again, and issues of this type would appear in front of the Commission. Neil Sheehan said. an amendment to the Preservation Ordinance should be looked at that makes a very clear requirement of what City staff needs to be doing when issues of this type come up so that we do not have this situation happening in the future. Neil Sheehan asked Carlos Ruiz if perhaps corporation Counsel could attend the Commission's next meeting, so the Commission could discuss possible approaches to amend the ordinance to address this problem. A member of the audience asked about the removal of an Elm tree at Church Street and Ridge Avenue, while widening the road by 18", was that part of the historic district? He asked. Barbara Gardner said that technically that location is not part of the historic district. Gerald Gordon said that the Commission is being asked to review and comment through the appropriate department. He said that if the Commission %vas reviewing and commenting prior to the project being funded and started, that the Commission would say, "absolutely not," that is not appropriate for the historic district. He said if that is the case, it seemed to him that the Commission was confusing its position by stating other things. He said the Commission should go to the Council with a statement that the project is not appropriate, and let the Council struggle with it. He said that would be a clear and unequivocal statement. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission had to cite the standards by which the project is not appropriate. She said that in Abbie Willard's motion it was said that the Commission did not think that the project was appropriate. With no further discussion, Michael Girard moved to adjourn the meeting. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjoumed at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Date: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservat n C ordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATIOti COMMISSION Meeting 1linutes Tuesday, flay 21, 2002 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MENIBERS PRESENT: Barbara Gardner, Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Abbie Willard, and Neil Sheehan MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, and Laura Hodes OTHERS PRESENT: Chris and Nancy Hoppa, DonnaLee Flocter, Eric Mullendore, Karen French, Chris Felix, Janet Kohl, Tia Sawhney, David Rittenberb, Jay Hubolt, Susan O'Connor Crecvy, Helen Roberts Evans, Candace Corr. Faruk Cerkic, Thomas Prairie, and Scott Small. PRESIDING: STAFF: I. QUORUM Barbara Gardner. Chair Carlos D. Ruiz Barbara Gardner said that a quorum would not be present at the meeting. She said that the five Commissioners present will hear the projects and if there is a unanimous consensus for approval of a project, the Preservation Coordinator will issue the Certificate of Appropriateness. She explained that the projects would be approved at the next Commission meeting and with quorum being present. II. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 610 Callan Avenue - Construction of two car garage Chris and Nancy Hoppa, property owners and DonnaLee Floeter, architect presented plans for a two -car garage at 610 Callan Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. DonnaLee Floeter said that Carlos Ruiz had prepared the elevation drawings of the garage and the she prepared the zoning and the site plan that shows the placement of the garage. Nancy Hoppa said that the garage would have two doors and a stained glass window facing east. The gable roof has a 4112 pitch. The garage doors would steel paneled doors. Tile exterior finish Evanston Preservation Comrrussion ttav 21. 2002 - Minutes Page 2 would be the same vinyl siding as the house. The garage would be placed on the south side of the lot. Commission's Findings Abbie Willard proposed a motion that the Commission accepts and approves the garage at 610 Callan Avenue. The project meets the following standards of construction: 1 in terms of height, standard 3, proportion of the openings, standard 4, rhythm of solids to voids, standard 5, rhythm of spacing of structures on the street is appropriate, standard 7 relationship of materials and texture, standard 8 roof shape, standard 9, walls of continuity, and standard 10 scale of the structure. Standards 14, 15 and 16 are instructions to the Commission. The following standards do not apply: Standard 2 (because the garage is not a front elevation facade) 6, 11, 12, 13, and 17. Barbara Gardner called for a straw poll to accept :pis. Willard's motion. All five Commissioners indicated their favorable vote at the next Commission meeting and with a quorum being present. Barbara Gardner said that a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of the garage would be issued. 2. 610 Callan Avenue - Construction of open front porch and one -store Addition at rear DonnaLee Floeter said the proposal is for rebuilding the existing 9' x 4' section in the back of the house and adding to that another 6' one-story addition, with a roof to approximately match the existing roof on the house. Ms. Floeter said that the existing two levels of the house would be combined with an interior stair into a single-family residence. She said that the old front porch indicated in the plat of survey would be rebuilt. Also, a new deck in the back would be built. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if there were any pending zoning issues. DonnaLee Floctcr said, no. Chris Carey asked about the materials for the front porch. Ms Floeter said that the front porch material would be painted wood, and the addition would have the same vinyl siding on the house. The new roof of the one-story addition would be slightly lower that the existing roof. Carlos Ruiz noted that the lower roof on the addition was an effective solution to distinguishing the addition from the original structure. Barbara Gardner commented that the proposed plan was a great plan and it would make the house so much valuable that it would have been with the first proposal (addition over the one -and- a- half story). Speaking as a retired realtor, Barbara Gardner said that making the house into a single family, it would make it more valuable that it was as a two -flat. She said that the owners might be giving up the rental income, but they would get it back in the end when it comes time to sell. Chris Hoppa said that the new proposal looks nice the way it is. Chris Carey asked about the window and door trim on the addition, would the trim match the front or side trim. DonnaLee Floeter said that the wood trim on the addition would match the existing side trim to include the horizontal piece on top. -_ Evanston Preservation Conunission May 21, 2002 - Minutes Page 3 Barbara Gardner, referring to the standards for review of construction indicated that the following standards were met: Standard 1 height, standard 2 proportion of front facade, standard 3 proportion of openings, standard 4 rhvthm of solids to voids, standard 5 rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, standard 6 rhythm of entrance porches and other projections, standard 7 relationship of materials and texture, standard 8 roof shape, standard 10 scale of the structure, standard 12 distinguishing original qualities or character of a property and its environment shall not be destroyed. She said that standards 14. 15 and 16 are directions to the Commission. Standards 9, 11, 13 and 17 do not apply. Barbara Gardner called for a straw poll to determine that the project meets the applicable standards as presented. All five Commissioners present indicated they favorable vote. 3. 1110 Sheridan Road - New terrace at rear, window replacement [Alteration/Construction] Eric Mullendore, architect, Karen French and Chris Felix owners presented plans for a new rear terrace and window replacement to the house at 1110 Sheridan Road. The property is an Evanston landmark located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Mullendore said that they would like to do interior remodeling that would affect the exterior and replace the 1960s windows with windows appropriate to the house. The interior work includes a kitchen, a master bathroom suite, and a laundry room on the second floor. The attic would be converted into a family room. The replacement windows are on the front, two side elevations and the rear of the house. The house would also have a new air conditioner and a new terrace. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if the new casement windows are all wood windows. Mr. Mullendore said that the windows have simulated divided lights and 7/8" muntin bars. Ernest Mayo designed in 1910. Carlos Ruiz asked if the applicants have been in contact with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) for the Assessment Property Tax Freeze. Mr. Mullendore said that they have been in contact with a preservation consultant, Vicky Granicki. She only provided one comment about a proposed stone floor in the entranceway that the IHPA might question. Mr. Ruiz said that the approval of the Commission does not automatically mean that the IHPA would approve the same project. Carlos Ruiz asked about the impact of the replacement windows on the front elevation. Mr. Mullendore said that the house has double -hung windows. The same windows are being used for the replacement windows. Chris Felix said that the house became a landmark because of the changes that occurred under the previous owner. Barbara Gardner cited the standards for review of alteration. Chris Carey said that the proposed Evanston Prcicrvatton Commission �iay 21. 2002 - Minutes Page -i alterations meet standards 1, 2, 3, 5, G (roof), 7, and 10. Standards 4, 8, and 9 do not apply. his. Gardner called for a straw poll in favor of the project as presented. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1046 Sheridan Road - New masonry and wrought iron fence [Fence variation[ Janet Kohl, owner presented her application for a fence variation. The Commission had approved the fence design previously. Mary Brughera noted that the Commission's determination is binding to the zoning administrator for historic fences. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's determination is advisory for fence variations. ,Nis. Gardner said that Ms. Kohl would like to recreate a historic fence, therefore the Commission's determination would be binding. Ms. Kohl said that the fence would be a 4-foot wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the property, duplicating the wrought iron design in the grates in the front of the house. There would be five brick pillars along the house front door on Greenleaf Street, The pillar style duplicates those of the pillars on the front porch. There would be newel post every ten feet Commission's Findings Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of fence variation. The Commission concluded that standard A and B were met. Neil Sheehan said that it should be noted again that the applicant is trying to recreate a historic fence, hence the Commission's finding is binding to the zoning administrator, Ms. Bruglicra mentioned the Zoning Ordinance sections 6-4-6-7 (K) supponing the Commission binding determination. Ms. Gardner called for a straw poll in favor of the fence variation. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1327 Church Street - Exterior rehabilitation, alterations, addition and partial demolition [Alteration/Construction] Tia Sawhney, property owner presented plans for the exterior rehabilitation, alterations, partial demolition and rear addition to the building at 1327 Church Street. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Tia Sawhney said that the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) did object to changing the siding on the ~vest and north sides of main the house, maintaining that the two different types of siding are representative of their era. The IHPA has granted permission for the placement of the shingles from the hip dormers in the west side with wood siding and converting the hip dormers to gable dormers. Tia Sa%vhney said that they would remove the shed type structures on the north side and build a new 12-feet deep structure with the same double roofline, for a mudrootn on the left and a breakfast area for the kitchen on the right. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked about the existing steel casement windows on the second floor front elevation Evanston Presen ation Commission May 21. 2002 - Minutes Page _' under the gable. Tia Sawhney said that those windows would be restored or replaced with new in kind steel windows. Carlos Ruiz said that the IHPA should be aware of the proposed alteration. Barbara Gardner asked if the IHPA was aware of the addition on the rear. Tia Sawhney said that the IHPA did not object to the rear addition. Through a straw poll and unanimous affirmative vote Commissioners found that the proposed project mct standards for alteration 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. 6. 11 l 1 Oak Avenue - Demolition of garage and construction of two-story house j Denolition/Construction] David Rittenberg, owner and Jay Hubolt, architect of Fitzgerald Associates presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new house on an existing vacant lot. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Rittenberg said that they would like to take down the garage and build a new Queen Anne style house on the property compatible with the district. Ms. Gardner said that the Queen Anne is the predominant style on the block although there are other styles also represented. Commission's Findings Mr. Carey asked about the materials. Mr. Rittenberg said that they are using cedar siding and cedar trim, the windows are white wood aluminum clad double hung windows. The front porch would be pressure treated base. The rear of the house has sliding doors leading onto a wooden deck. The house is within the required setbacks. Jay Hubolt said that the front yard setback is 20-feet or the average between two houses (I 5-feet and 25-feet respectively). The two -car garage would have the cedar siding; the roof would mimic the roofline of the house. The garage is a two -car garage with a single paneled door. The chimneys are boxed in. The bay is finish in a wood panel board for a better smooth finish. The roof is asphalt shingles with a shadow line same as on the house. Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of demolition. The Commission determined that none of the standards were in conflict with the demolition of the garage. Ms. Gardner called for a straw poll in favor of the garage demolition. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of construction. The Commission determined that standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, S, 10, and 11, were met. Standards 9, 12, 13, and 17 did not apply. Standards 14, 15, 16 are advisory to the Commission. Ms. Gardner called for a straw poll in favor of the construction of the new house as presented. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Rittenberg asked about the possibility of moving the garage to the south, Ms. Gardner said to contact Mr. Ruiz if that is the case. Evanston Presmation Conmusston Stay 21, 2002 - Minutes Page G 7. 2518 Central Park Avenue - construction of a rear wood frame one-story addition and deck [Construction] Susan O'Connor Cree,.•v. architect said that her clients recently purchased the house. The house is a two -bedroom one -bath home. They would like to add new bathroom with that a little space at the back door. The house is an Evanston Iandmark. Ms. Creevy said that from the back door there is one step down into what it was a family room, steps up to the kitchen and steps down to the basement. The addition is very minimal. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the addition was a one-story. Ms. Crcevy said yes. The material is cedar siding to match that of the house. The roof is pitched with asphalt shingles as the existing on the house. There is a small flat roof area above the bathroom. The windows are all wood windows with simulated divided lights. Mr. Carey asked what was the function of the addition. Ms. Creevy said that the addition is to give another bathroom and more space to the kitchen and the rear entry and. The door is a wood door. Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of construction. Mr. Carey said that the proposed addition meets standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12. Standards 2, 4, G, 9, 11, 13, and 17 do not apply. Standards 14, 15, and 16 are advisory to the Commission. Ms. called for a straw poll in favor of the proposed addition as presented. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 1840 Ash ury Avenue -Replacement of wood siding with vinyl siding on existing rear addition JAIteration] Helen Roberts Evans, Director of the Child Care Center of Evanston, and Candace Con-, Board President presented plans for the replacement of wood siding with vinyl siding on an existing rear addition to the building at 1840 Asbury Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District, Ms. Corr said that the proposed alteration needs to be done in the two weeks in August when the center is close. She handed out the contractors' bids. She referred to the view of the addition on the north/west corner of the center from Emerson Street. She said that hardi-board or hardi- plank was not recommended on this project because the additional cost and its typical industrial use. The first bid (Superior Exteriors) is the only one that included the small addition on the south side of the building. The second bid (John McKnight) is the highest and he does not even use Nardi -plank. The last bid (M. Smith Builders, Inc.) did not include the gutters. Superior Exterior was the original contractor. Commission's Findings Neil Sheehan said that, in his opinion, the existing addition is a completely inappropriate addition that could be tom down some day. He said that in his view, it did not matter whether is Evanston Preservation Con=ssion May 21. 2002 - Minutes Page 7 sided in wood or vine] siding, and it is hard to see. Mr. Sheehan said that the addition is a glaring odd addition to a building. in such a distinctly different form in character; finish and treatment that, is not going to set a precedent to allow vinyl in a landmark house. Nis. Corr said that the vinyl siding would be in a color to complement the house and the weather exposure would be 3-inches. The trim would be similar to the house next door, which is vinyl trim. The windows are wood. Barbara Gardner cited the standards for review of alteration. Nfr. Carey said that the alteration at 1840 Asbury met standards 1, 2, 3, and 4. Standards 5, 6. 7, S. 9, and 10 did not apply. Ms. Gardner asked for a straw poll in favor of the alteration as proposed. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 9. 1916 - 1918 Maple Avenue - Exterior alterations [Alteration) F'aruk Cerkic, architect on behalf of Robert Taylor, owner presented plans for exterior alterations to previously approved enclosure of rear porches to the building at 1916-1918 Maple Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. Mr. Cerkic said that the project as approved included the replacement of large wooden rotten windows with vinyl windows. The issue then was the arch windows on the front elevation that were replaced. Mr. Ruiz asked if Mr. Taylor had followed the Commission's recommendation to modif}ing the arch of the windows to be more true to the original windows. Mr. Cerkic said that it is hard to make in vinyl window and that vinyl window sashes are too thin. Mr. Cerkic said that Mr. Taylor was not aware of the landmark status of the building and that he hired them to do some interior remodeling and replace windows. Mr. Taylor did so without appearing in front of the Commission. Mr. Ruiz said that the permit apparently was issued for the interior work, but not the window replacement. Neil Sheehan said that the record shows permits form mechanical and electrical that does not automatically trigger preservation review. Mr. Cerkic said nothing has been done except the window replacement. He said that Mr. Taylor would like to apply for the permit after the Commission's review. Mr. Ruiz said that if the project did not change since the first time it was approved, he would reissue the certificate of appropriateness. Ms. Gardner said that if something has changed they would have to come back. 10. 1414 Davis Street - Exterior alterations (Alteration] Scott Small, owner and Thomas Prairie, architect presented plans for a pergola, wood fence and gate at the cast side of the house. The house built in 1908 is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Prairie said that they would like to redo the garage into a single -car garage, have a space between the garage and the house, and replace the doors to single doors. Evanston Presm-nion Commission May 21, 2002 - `.Iinutes Page 8 Barbara Gardner said that they should consult with the IHPA before the construction starts if the applicant plans to apply for the Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program. Mr. Prairie said that they have tried to bring some symmetry to the front, and remove the lire escape. Chris Carey asked about any precedent for the pergolas or if there were there other similar examples. Mr. Prairie said that they did not know. He also said that the front entrance was originally wood that had stucco finish, making it hard to determine if is the original. Mr. Small said that the intent of the design was to better incorporate the flat roof garage to the house. Veil Sheehan said that raising those pergola elements is setting a datum line across the front elevation of the house, and it does not match up with anything else in the house. He said that the front elevation has a regular rhythm where horizontals happen in the overall composition of the house. He noted that there are horizontal lines across the bottoms of the windows as well. The existing pergola on the east side of the house aligns with the roof over the top of the door, and that line occurs around the house. He argued that the roof low over the door is actually intentional. Mr. Sheehan also said that elements of the proposed pergola are far too heavy for the house. The design may require something a little bit lighter. Mr. Prairie said that they were trying to pick the Arts and Crafts feel in the proposed pergola. Mr. Sheehan said that his recommendation would be to not do the pergola over the front entry. Chris Carey concurred with Mr. Sheehan. Barbara Gardner cited the standards for review of alteration. Further discussion ensued regarding the roised pergola over the main entr}•. Mr. Small said that he could live with the existing pergol.s as is. He said that his biggest issue was the tacked on garage and how without the zoning restrictions they could have a two -car garage better incorporated into the house. Mr. Ruiz said that the best xay to deal with the issue of the front entry pergola is consulting with the IHPA. ,his. Gardner said that if the IHPA says that the proposed pergola is fine, the Commission would also be okay with it. Arcs. Gardner a--r:cd for a straw poll in favor of approve the project subject to the IHPA response in regard the pruposed front door pergola. Vote: S ayes, 0 nays. II1. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Ridge Avenue Traffic Lights Barbara Gardn_. reported that the night before during a City Council meeting, Alderman Bernstein made a motion that work on the traffic lights along Ridge Avenue be halted. Also, that the state and national Iegislators go to work and try to get waivers for leaving the post tops where they arc. Ms. Gardner said that there were the votes for the motion, and that only one vote was against the motion. However, there was some concern about the money, at that point there was a suggestion that tiie City Manager goes to the State and advocate on the part of the citizens to IDOT. The Council did not vote on the motion. Barbara Gardner said that she wrote a memo to Anne Haaker at the IHPA, explaining that the Evanston Presen ation Commission May 21, 2002-1t:!,utes Page 9 votes were there and that their support was needed and wanted. Mr. Sheehan said that his office deals with IDOT and it is unheard off that this type of projects happened without IDOT's standards and requirements. If the City were to repair the traffic lights, the City might be liable for any legal s,.d-s in case of accidents. Barbara Gardner said nobody knows who has responsibility. Mr. Ruiz said that according to the information he received, even if the City did not checked in the application that the project was within a historic district, it is IDOT's responsibility to double check that that is the case. Ms. Gardner said that there was a mistake on both sides. Also, in the same form there was a question asking whether there was notification to the public, the answer was yes. The next question was how the notiftcu;ion took place. The answer was in formal meetings, meaning City Council meetings. City Council voted approval of this on the consent agenda, and the original project that came to A&PW was for internal recviring of the existing fixtures. A&PW approved that, but when the City went through a consultant, evidently it was changed to mast arms, but nobody seemed to know that, except for Alderman Raincy who seemed to have understood the situation. Ms. Gardner sail that if the City is going to meet with representatives of IDOT and the IHPA she would like to li" .,e a representative of the Commission present at that meeting. IV. ADJOUIUNINIE\T The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully s:.' mitted: 5� Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Piannvoi'reservati OCOrdinator Date: EVANSTOti PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesdap, June 18, 2002 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stephen Droll, Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Neil Sheehan. and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: David Jennings, Suzan Pinsof, Rajeev Dahl, Dennis Pierce, Jill McClusky, James Murray, John Simpson, Charles Barrow, Ray Geraldson, Stephen Yas, John Fishes, Tim Bennet, Phil Crihfield, Martha Rudy, William Lang, David Pickert, John Holbert, and Robert Ahrens PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Barbara Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. a quorum being present. 11. MINUTES Consent Agenda (Projects reviewed an May 21, 2002 but not ofiicially approved) Barbara Gardner said that due to the long agenda minutes would be approved later in the meeting. III. COMMUNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz said that there were no communications. IV. REPORTS A. Evanston Bicycle System Improvement Plan David Jennings, Director of Public Works introduced Suzan Pinsof, who made a presentation to the Commission regarding the Evanston Bicycle System Improvement Plan. Suzan Pinsof Evanston Presm-ation Commission Minutes -June 18. 2002 Pap 2 distributed a map of the draft bicycle system. She said that the recommended bike►yays include; bicycle routes, bicycle lanes and improvements of the past system. Bicycle lanes are 4' to 5' wide with strips and supplemented with signing on the roadway. She talked about different signs for bicyclists such as warning signs and way finding signs. David Jennings said that the significance of bringing this presentation to the Commission is because they are having a public meeting on July 11, 2002 in the Council Chambers from T p.m. to 9 P.M. Suzan Pinsof said that there is a Web page in the City's Web site. The first report assessed the needs and existing conditions within Evanston from the standpoint of view of bicyclists. Suzan Pinsof said that there would be signs within historic districts as shown in the map. Carlos Ruiz asked where the signs would be posted and how often. Suzan Pinsof said that if it is a bike lane the sign is put at the beginning of each block. For bike routes, the signs are installed where the bike route starts and about every two to three blocks, or where directions are changed. She said that signage is kept to a minimum and where it is needed. In response to a question from Michael Girard, Suzan Pinsof said that Chicago Avenue would have a bike lane and a bike route sign and a way finding sign. Chris Carey asked about the difference between a bike lane and a bike route. Suzan Pinsof said a lane involves pavement markings and a designated space in the road that is just for bicyclists. On a bike route there is no lane. In response to a question from Mary Brugliera, Suzan Pinsof said that there are already bike routes in Evanston. Some of the signs for bike routes are still up, but they would be taken down and replaced with the new signs. Chris Carey asked what is an advanced route. Suzan Pinsof said that the only one in the system is parts of Sheridan Road. The sign is for motorist to make them aware that bicyclist are also using the road. Carlos Ruiz asked if the bike lanes are one way only. Suzan Pinsof said, yes. Steve Droll asked if the proposed bicycle paths are being constructed. Suzan Pinsof said that some of the paths are already under construction. Some of them are in the stage of applying for a grant. Carlos Ruiz asked what was the next step for the project after the July 1 I meeting. Suzan Pinsof said that by the July 11 meeting, the draft plan would be completed. After the meeting and depending on the comments, adjustments would be made. The object is to complete the plan by the end of the summer. Carlos Ruiz asked if the objective of the presentation was to obtain the comment from the Commission for the July I I meeting. David Jennings said, yes. He noted that being a citywide project, they thought to be appropriate to bring the project to the Commission for comment prior to the public hearing on July 11. He said that if the plan were implemented, it would have signs throughout the City and bike lanes in historic districts as well. David Jennings said that the next step after having the plan adopted is to estimate the cost to implement the plan and then funds would be sought. The implementation phase is not funded yet, but they are several avenues that they will investigate to obtain the money to implement the plan. _ Evanston Preservation Commission Minu:es • June 18. —'002 Page 3 Carlos Ruiz asked if after July 11 would Cite Council receive a final report. David Jennings said that a final report would be preparea for City Council that would allow them to start to get the funding. The report would be completed in August/September '_'002. B. Evanston Way Findings Signs David Jennings said that the second City project before the Commission is called the Way Finding Sign Program. He said the way finding is to get people from here to there, it is a directional signage program that tells people what destinations are and how to get to them. He said that the program started several years ago with the Chamber of Commerce and Evmark who wanted to do a �%ay finding signage program primarily to the commercial areas in town. David Jennings said that the idea was good but it was not broad, so it «-as expanded to include civic, cultural, historic, recreational, and medical destinations. It also includes schools, City functions, the Service Center, the Civic Center, and parking. Jack Weiss Associates designed the signs. The status of the project is that it is funded, it is fabricated, and it is ready to install this summer. David Jennings said that there are eight to ten prototype signs around Evanston. He said there are two kinds of signs: the directory signs, which have multiple destinations, and guide signs for single destinations. Directory signs give a picture of what is coming up. The guide signs are to get people to an actual destination, and there are also parking signs. David Jennings said the project is in front of the Commission because it is a citywide program and would have signs installed in the historic districts. He said he would like the Commission's favorable recommendation. In response to a question from Barbara Gardner, David Jennings said that the historic district signs are not part of the project because the project is a way finding program, the historic districts signs are not. Chris Carey asked about the location of the signs. David Jennings said where there are poles available, the signs would be banded to the existing poles. Free standing signs would be on brown stained wood poles. Susan Rundle asked if the way finding signs would be coordinated with the bicycle signs. David Jennings said that the intent was not to double up the signs. He said the way finding plan preceded the bike plan by three years. He said that there are opportunities to integrate the bike plan with the way finding plant. Barbara Gardner asked Commissioners if they had any problems with the way finding signs. No one expressed to having a problem. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approve the Evanston Way Finding Signs as presented, where they do occur in the three historic districts. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) - (approximately 10 to 15 minutes per project) New Projects 1. 2011 Orrington Avenue - Demolish existing garage, build two car garage Evanston Presenalion Commission Minutes . June 18. 2002 Page 4 [demolitionlconst ruction) Mr. Dennis Pierce said that his son and wife owned 2011 Orrington Avenue. lie said that the existing garage is in bad condition and needs to be demolished. The new garage would be an improvement for the neighborhood. Commissions Findings The Commission determined that the garage would be of frame construction with a wood composite siding and a 6/12-roof pitch gable roof. The windows would match the windows on the house. Michael Girard said that the drawings specified a 5" textured primed siding with cedar trim at the corners. He asked if that texture -primed siding was hardyplank. Carlos Ruiz said that in conversations with the owner was discussed that the siding would be wood. The Commission determined that the proposed demolition of the existing garage met the standards for review of demolition. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approved the demolition of the garage at 2011 since it did not violate any of the standards for review of demolition. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Michel Girard moved that the Commission approved the construction of a new garage at 2011 Orrington Avenue with the understanding that it would be wood sided with cedar comer boards, gable roof and windows to match that of the house. The project meets the standards for review of construction for height, proportion of openings, relationship with wood windows and scale of structure and roof shapes. Steve Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 938 Edgemere Court - Add 4' balcony to the south side of coach house [Alteration] Jill McClusky, property owner said that she would like to put a small balcony (about 4' deep) on the south side of the coach. The balcony would be visible from the alley. 938 Edgemere Court is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if the French doors would be new. Jill McClusky said, yes. She said that Ken Schroeder would be the architect. In response to a question from Chris Carey, Jill McClusky said that there are two mindows on the second story and south side of the coach house, the French doors would be installed between these two windows. Steve Droll asked if there were other balconies on the house. Jill McClusky said, yes. She added that the existing front balcony is of cement construction. Barbara Gardener read the standards for review of alteration I through W. Chris Carey moved that the Commission approve the project at 938 Edgemere Court, in the basis that it meets standards of alteration 1 (Every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure, site or object in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property, structure, site or object Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - June l S. NUZ Page . and its em ironment): 2 (The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed): 9 (Contemporary designs for alterations and additions to the existing properties shall not be discouraged «hen such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological material); 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). Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 2733 Colfax Street - Subdivision of one lot to hvo lots [Subdivision] James Murray, attomey said that his clients, the owners of 2733 Colfax Street, had submitted a letter earlier in the day, requesting to continue the proposed subdivision of 2733 Colfax Street (Evanston landmark) from this evening to the next meeting, without prejudice to any of the time and constraints that are imposed on the review of such matters. Mary Bruglicra asked if there were any changes or additions to the proposal that would be coming. James Murray said the he was not certain about that, they have not had the opportunity to explore all those issues at this time, but if there were, they would make an amended filing. Mary Brugliera said that according to the Preservation Ordinance, when there is subdivision at issue, the Commission is to hold meetings and public hearings on the matter and make their recommendations to the City Council or the appropriate committee thereof. John Simpson, of 2715 Colfax, a 66-year resident of Evanston, he said that he owns the property adjacent to the petitioner's property. It is between his property and the petitioners' property that the proposal has been made to create the parcel and presumably buildable land. He said that his wife and he are opposed to the proposed subdivision, and that the neighbors on the other side of the petitioner, and the next door neighbors, all have similar feelings. He also said that Mr. Murray and his clients did not contact them to advise them of this meeting. John Simpson said that as he understood the Preservation Ordinance, it should be determined that the objects are visually compatible with the adjacent objects in the district. He said that could not possibly be true, because there are only six houses in the entire block. These houses are very big houses. He said that the estimated tax on his property is S25,000 and with the kind of a lot that would be available to build on, it would not be that kind of house at all, it would be of different character than the other houses on the block. He said that it is also required that the proposed subdivision not result in adversely affecting the landmark area or the critical features of the landmark area. He said that the open land on this block is one of the critical features of that area. He said that the grant of the petition it should preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape. He said that too would not take place with the proposal. He said that, most importantly, the grant of the petition, not adversely effect the adjacent property values. He said that the other adjacent neighbor of the subject property and he were confident that the proposed subdivision would very much adversely effect their property. Evanston Preservation Comrissioa Minutes - June 18. 2002 Page 6 Finally, John Simpson said that living in Evanston for 66 years, he .vas absolutely surprised at the lack of sensitivity that the petitioners have shown for the feelings of their neighbors. He said the possibility of a petition %was never discussed with them. James ;Murray asked the Commission if the hearing wvould be continued this evening, or would his request be considered. Mary Brugliera said that since the neighbors had come because hearing that the petition was going to be considered tonight, she suggested letting the neighbors speak, but also to continue the discussion to another time and have a real live public hearing that would be announced. Charles Barrow of 2735 Colfax Street, said he would second what John Simpson had said. Charles Barrow said that this is a unique block with only six homes on it, one of the nicest blocks in Evanston across from the forest preserve. He argued that what is going on throughout the northern suburbs is people buying houses, tearing them down, and building monster houses right to the lot Iines. That totally destroys the aesthetics of a block where all the existing houses have sizable yards and green space. Charles Barrow said that the Commission should be aware that the property owners of 2733 Colfax Street are moving out of Evanston. lie said that this is America, and everyone wants to maximize their value, but the owners of 2733 Colfax while maximizing their value, they would be destroying the ambiance of what it is a magnificent street in Evanston. Ray Geraldson of 2739 Colfax Street, said he understood that there would be a public hearing, at which time they would be notified and there would be time to make remarks again. He said that he joined in with the remarks made by his neighbors at the meeting. He said that the focus is on the landmark home at 2733 Colfax Street that edges next to a house on a 46' lot. The streetscape, the appearance and the ability to appreciate that landmark home would be destroyed. Carlos Ruiz said that he would like to clarify the distinction between a public meeting and a public hearing. He believed that a public hearing was not required. Mary Brugliera cited section 2-9-3 (G) (12) of the Preservation Ordinance indicating that a public hearing was necessary. Carlos Ruiz said that he was concerned because a process for public hearing for nomination of landmarks was clearly established, but not the process for public hearing for subdivisions. Michael Girard moved that the Commission grant the continuance for 2733 Colfax Street proposed subdivision, until the Commission's next meeting on July 16, 2002. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. James Murray said that it was unclear in the Preservation Ordinance as to whether a public hearing is required. He said that he was not suggesting that the Commission could hold a public hearing, but there was no public hearing demanded or requested by the applicants, and there was no notice requirement that failed to have been met by the applicant. Barbara Gardner said that in fairness to everybody the Commission would hold a public hearing on July 16, 2002. She said that people would be properly notified. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -June 18.2002 Page 7 4. 1630 Hinman Avenue - Partial demolition and construction of accessible ramp and entrance [Demolition/Construction] Stephen Yas, John Fishel, and Tim Bennet, of YaslFishel Partnership presented plans for partial demolition and construction of an accessible ramp and entrance at 1630 Hinman Avenue, The First United Methodist Church, and an Evanston landmark. Stephen Yas said that Phil Crihfield, Chair of the building committee and Martha Rudy of the building committee were also present. Stephen Yas said the project involves an overall construction project in the interior of the building. lie said that the Church Street entrance for all intend and purposes is the main entrance to the building almost seven days a week. He said that there is the adjacent City parking Iot and the preschool uses Church Street as the main entrance. They would like to expand the main entrance to make it a real entrance for all the uses. Stephen Yas showed photographs of the building noting that the drawings they had presented show the arch a little bit steeper than the existing arches on the building. fie said that the construction drawings by Tallmadge and Watson (architects) are not what was built. The proposed arches would be flatter rather than steeper. Stephen Yas said that the addition would have the same vocabulary and architectural form as represented in the original drawings. The new arched entrance on Church Street would be in line with an existing window and a hallway, which will be the real functional entrance. The smaller opening in between the proposed entrance would also have an arch with a vault as shown on a section drawing. The existing entrance would be demolished and pulled out to make an accessible ramp and entrance. The new ramp is behind a new limestone retaining wall to match the exterior building material of the main building. The existing curb on the sidewalk would be pulled back 9-feet to have a lay-by for a five-minute drop off and also a designated handicapped parking space for accessibility. A knuckle at the end of the sidewalk would be landscaped. Commission's Findings Michael Girard asked if the rear portion of the Church was an addition itself. Stephen Yas said that the rear was done between 1910-1930. Michael Girard asked if where the proposed double doors are, there is an existing window. Stephen Yas said, yes. The opening may be increased to install a set of new doors (to match existing doors) for allowing a wheel chair to go through. The two existing lights would be restored and installed in the new facade. Susan Rundle asked if the rounded shapes of the existing arches would be replicated in the new arches. Stephen Yas said, yes. The Commission reviewed the standards for review of demolition (for the partial demolition) of the existing entrance on Church Street. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approved the demolition of the Church Street porch at 1630 Hinman Avenue, noting that that the porch demolition will not go against any of the standards in the standards for demolition. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - June 18. 2002 Page 8 Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the redesigning of the new [Church Street] entry at 1630 Hinman Avenue to provide accessible ramp and a second pair of doors with a covered entry* as it meets standards for construction in that its proportion of openings in relationship of widths and heights of windows and doors are visually compatible with that of the principal structure. He added that the rhythms on the street would be maintained. The rhythm of entn' porches and other projections will be maintained relative to the sidewalk and the street. The materials, textures, roof shapes, walls of continuity, scale of the addition, and distinguishing original qualities will all be maintained (standards 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12). Man• Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. S. 1601 Wesley Avenue - Window opening modification and window replacement on renovation area (Alteration) William Lang, architect presented plans for window opening modification and window replacement at 1601 Wesley Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. William Lang said the project would recapture a porch with a kitchen remodel of the house. The existing windows on the kitchen are 28-inches off the floor and unusable for counter space. He said they want to keep the masonry openings as is, raise the sills and keep everything else the same and then introduce the panels below. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked if the new panels would match the existing panels. William Lang said that to the extent possible new panels would match the existing panels. Carlos Ruiz asked if the salvaged brick would be re -utilized to partially close window openings. William Lang said that some of the salvaged brick would be used to infill underneath and reduce the size of new panels. William Lang said that the new second story windows would be Marvin windows. He did not believe that the existing second -story windows were original, because the affected area was originally a sleeping porch. Regarding windows, Michael Girard said that he had spoken recently with Mike Jackson, the State architect in relation to a project in Lake Forest. Mike Jackson told him that changing windows would not qualify for the Property Tax Assessment Freeze Program. Barbara Gardner said that she had attended a window restoration seminar where a window restoration company showed how original windows could be restored to maximize energy efficiency. She suggested that considering the restoration of windows could be worthwhile. Carlos Ruiz said that the State would want windows to be restored on all facades visible from the public way, and replacement in kind would be acceptable only when necessary. The Commission advised William Lang that if his clients were considering applying for the assessment freeze that they should obtain the State's approval first. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the project as proposed as 1601 Wesley Evanston Preservation Ccn=ismon Minutes - hrie IS. 20+1-' ry 9 Avenue, which entails window modifications: infill one windo%v opening with brick to match existing. the remaining windows are to be raised and filled in with a detailed wood panel below t:o maintain the existirg masonr- opening. The Commission «ou!d give purview to Carlos Ruiz, -fter the architect discusses with the owner as the course of action. Right now there would be Wood storms supplied to existing second floor windows. The application meets standards 1, 2, 5, and 10. Mary Brugli_ra seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. 2888 Sheridan Place - Second- story rear addition on one story garage one story existing wing addition. Replace existing window at back of house with a French door. Change a windori on the west side of the house (Substantially revised plans to previously approved plans) jAherationj David Pickert, architect presented revised plans for a second- story addition above the garage in front and a second- story addition above the area in the back of 2888 Sheridan Place. The property is an Evanston landmark David Pickert said the revised plans still retain the original plans for two bedrooms, two baths, but the elevations had been changed quite a bit. He said the revised elevations now have a Mansard roof with more vertical dormers. The roof would be consistent with the front and back additions with a slate roof on the vertical parts and slate detailing around the dormers. The new roof would be copper (flat seem). David Pickert said that the a back window would be changed with a French door on the second floor, and a small window on the side by the garage would be changed to a smaller double hung window. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the salvaged brick would be re -utilized. David Pickerd said that would be possible. The Commission referred to the standards for review of alterations. That Commission found that standards I, 2, 5, and 10 were met. Chris Carey moved that the Commission approve the alterations at 2888 Sheridan Place, in that it meets standards 1, 2, 5, and 10. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 10I5 Forest Avenue - First floor addition to rear of house, new leaded glass windows, enlarge one existing window, replace existing fence and move forward new fence lConstruction/Alterationj John Holbert, architect presented plans for a first floor rear addition, installation of new leaded glass windows, enlargement of an existing window, replacement of an existing fence and moving forward a new fence at 1015 Forest Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. John Holbert said at the rear of the house there are a series of additions, including a sleeping porch on brick peers, there is an inset area facing the alley that would be filled in. He said that Evanston Preservation Commission Minuics -June 18, 200: Page 10 this area would be a breakfast room for the kitchen. The infiil of the inset would keep the existing trim intact. All the siding and the foundation would match the existing materials by using salvaged common brick to face the foundation. The windows would be large double hung to match the existing windows. John Holbert said that the house in general is a combination of big simple double hung windows and different shape casement windows. He said that the project would add new double hung and leaded glass casement windows. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the windows would be single pane windows. John 1 lolbert said that they would like to use single pane leaded glass casement Marvin windows with exterior energy panels. Fie said that an existing chimney would be removed as well. John Holbert said that there is also a fence 4-foot high facing Forest Avenue that is now setback 3-feet from the principal structure. A 5-foot high fence would be installed on the south side. The Commission referred to the standards for review of construction. The Commission found that standards 3, 5 (fence), 7, 9, I0, and 12 applied and were met. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the project at 1015 Forest Avenue for an infill wall on an existing recessed wall of the house at rear, new leaded glass casement windows to be Marvin windows with single pane and energy panel. and new fence at front and side yard. Finding that the project meets standards 3, 5 (related to the fence), 7, 9, 10, and 12. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. 2030 Maple Avenue - Partial demolition at rear, one story rear addition, enclosed porch on north side, open deck on west side, covered porch on south side. IDemo lit ion/ConstructionI Robert Ahrens, property owner presented revised plans of a previously approved project (partial demolition at rear, construction of one-story addition, enclosure of north side porch, construction of open deck on the west side and covered porch on the south side at 2030 Maple Avenue). The property is an Evanston landmark. Robert Ahrens said that the revised plans are more in keeping with his budget. He said that the exterior is basically the same as before, but %ithout a second story and no attic. The exterior is wood siding; the windows conform to the existing windows in the house. The footprint is the - same except the addition of a covered porch on the south elevation and a covered enclosed porch -_ on the north side for a mudroom. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner said that the Commission had previously approved the partial demolition. The - Commission referred to the standards for review of alteration. The Commission determined that standards 1, 2, and 5 did apply and were met. Chris Carey moved that the Commission approved the project at 2030 Maple Avenue for standards for review of alterations. The project meets standards 1, 2, and 5. Stephen ©roll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, I nay (Susan Rundle). Evanston Preser%aiion Commission htinutes - June IS, 2002 Page I 1 V. UNFINISHED BUSENESS A. Public Nearing (Continuation) 3200 Harrison Street - Nomination for Evanston landmark designation At this time Barbara Gardner reopened the public hearing for 3200 Harrison Street nominated for landmark designation. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's report establishes the applicable criteria for designation 2-9-4 (A) 3, 2-94 (4), and 2-9-4 (B). The report identifies two critical features and the proposed guidelines if any. The report also includes the procedural history beginning April 16, 2002. The report recommends to City Council the designation of 3200 Harrison Street as an Evanston landmark. The report includes the minutes of the public hearing. Susan Rundle said that the house had been moved to its current location. Barbara Gardner said that the nomination mentioned the moving of the house. She said it is interesting that where it was built before it was more compatible than where it sits now, because the Perkins and Will house was within half a block and another modern house across the street. She said that there was a cluster of modern structures that had the same feel to them. Carlos Ruiz said that the report indicates that even though the house had been moved, its integrity in terms of design and materials was not compromised. Michael Girard said that many of the Evanston landmarks are structures that have been also moved to their current locations. Michael Girard moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council the nomination of 3200 Harrison Street, designed by Bertrand Goldberg for Evanston landmark designation, as it meets criteria 2-94 (A) (3), 2-9-4 (A) (4), and 2-9-4 (B). The approved public hearing minutes and the approved report are included in the Commission's recommendation. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner closed the public hearing at this time. B. Approval of Projects Discussed on May 21, 2002 Chris Carey moved that the Commission approve the projects reviewed without a quorum on May 21, 2002 and as prepared in review sheets. The projects include: 1. 610 Callan Avenue - New two -car garage [Construction] 2. 610 Callan Avenue - One-story rear addition [Partial Demolition and Construction] 3. 1110 Sheridan Road -New terrace at rear, window replacement [AlterationlConstruction] Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - June 18. -'002 Page 12 4. 1046 Sheridan Road - New masonry and wrought iron fence [Fence variation] 5. 1327 Church Street - Exterior renovation, alterations, addition and partial demolition [Alteratioa'Construction] 6. 1 Ill Oak Avenue - DemoIition of garage and construction of two-story house [Demol i tion/Construct ion] 7. 2518 Central Part: Avenue - construction of a rear wood frame one-story addition and deck [Construction] 8. 1840 Asbury Avenue - Replacement of wood siding with vinyl siding on existing rear addition [Alteration] 9. 1916 - 1918 Maple Avenue - Exterior alterations [Alteration] 10, 1414 Davis Street - Exterior alterations [Alteration] Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Susan Rundle left the meeting at this time. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Garage Standards Barbara Gardner said that the garage standards would help those applicants for garage building permits that adhere to the standards and obtain approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness through the Preservation Coordinator. If the applicant does not adhere to the standards, then the Commission would review the application. The garage standards also differentiate landmark structures from non-contributing structures within a historic district. Carlos Ruiz discussed the difficulty of getting garage companies on board with the garage standards. He said some garage companies raise the cost of estimates for things such as increasing the pitch of the roof. He asked at what point this increase in cost would be considered economic hardship. Chris Carey said that structures affecting landmarks and historic district should adhere to the preservation standards. He said that lower quality design and materials are not appropriate. Carlos Ruiz said that similar situation occurs with window restoration. He advises applicants to consult with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency in regard to window alterations when applicants are contemplating applying for the Property Assessment Freeze Program. Evanston Preseration Commission Minutes -June 18. 2002 Page 13 Barbara Gardner said that she had leamed a lot about window restoration. She is more convinced that restoration is the appropriate thing to do. A newwindow is only guaranteed for ten years. A historic window could be restored indef nicely if properly maintained. Commissioners discussed various options for %, indo%% restoration. The Com.mission also discussed the possibility of sponsoring seminars of how to restore historic .windows. The Commission returned to its discussion regarding the garage standards. Nary Brugliera said that, under the landmark section that replacement be required due to condemnation by the City of Evanston... she suggested to add: "or need for larger garage". She also asked why only wood garage doors would be accepted. Chris Carey said that the wood garage door was a difficult standard to enforce. He said that he had a project for two designer garage doors for a cost of 511,000.00 installed. The middle of line for this company is S7,500.00. A metal door is an average of S 1,200.00 to S 1,500.00. Carlos Ruiz asked if a garage also had to be made out of brick if the landmark was brick? Barbara Gardner said if they wanted staff's approval, yes. Michael Girard said that if a pre- existing garage was made out of wood the new garage could also be made out of wood. Commissioners also recognized the smaller scale of original garages in comparison to the current size of recreational vehicles. %oar• Brugliera asked about the urging to provide a single bay garage. Stephen Droll said that is because single bays are usually more historically accurate. Mary Brugliera asked about garages with flat roofs, on houses with pitched roofs, could that be approved. Carlos Ruiz said that, in that situation, the Commission would review the proposed garage. Stephen Droll said that in the guidelines should be mentioned that new garages should be designed in the context of the main house. Mary Bruglicra asked if wood doors are better because there are more authentic to the historic period? Commissioners agreed that integrity includes original materials and wood garage doors are appropriate. Commissioners discussed issues related to economic hardship, projects that would have the pitched roof and other architectural details in place but not wood garage doors. Michael Girard said that other communities with historic preservation ordinances do not include economic hardship as part of their purview. Barbara Gardner said that each case has its own merits. In modest neighborhoods the garage standards would be applied accordingly. She said that with the garage standards the Commission is raising the bar on the quality of construction. She noted that the marked improvement in the quality of projects is because of the binding ordinance. Chris Carey said that people are more sensitive to the preservation standards now titan before. Michael Girard and Steve Droll said that the standards could be improved with additional and clearer graphics. Barbara Gardner said that she would like more comments on the graphics. Michael Girard asked the need of having garage plans in the standards. Commissioners agreed to continue reviewing the garage standards in subsequent meetings. E%anston Preservation Commission Minutes . June 18, 200" Page 14 B. Appointment of a Commission member to the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Public Place ,Names Michael Girard volunteered for appointment to the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Public Place Names. C. Ridge Avenue Traffic Lights Modernization Project (Update) Barbara Gardner said that the Cite Council received the Commission's recommendations regarding the Ridge Avenue Traffic Lights Modernization Project. The Council was supportive, but the issue is still the money. City Council sent some legislators to try to convince the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to back off from their position. Julic Hamos has designated 5500,000,00 in the State budge to make up for any short fall that the City would incur by changing the traffic project. Safety has become a big issue, even though it was never part of the initial application for funds. Jan Schako►vski had requested for Section 106 review. The project now is on hold. !Nary Brugliera said that the citizen's group has requested a freedom of information act request to Kirk Brown, Secretary of Transportation, John Koss, District Engineer, District One, and Nancy Mingus, Chief Bureau of Local Roads and Streets, lames Easterly. Director of Division of Hyways, and Michael Hyne, Bureau Chief Design and Environment Division Barbara Gardner said that she contacted Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois (LPCI) and they are supportive. LPCI will send a letter to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) requesting for consulting status under Section 106. VIII COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF None VIL ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz said that the next Commission meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 7:30 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date: -7 ,/ /�af�J-1D EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, .July 16, 2002 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEIIIBERS PRESENT: Barbara Gardner. Mary Brualiera, Chris Carev, Clint Funk, Stanley Gerson, Susan Rundle. Neil Sheehan, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Droll, Michael Girard OTHERS PRESENT: Healy M. Rice, Sara Brenner, William Lang. Kim First, Mike Kelly, Bill Homer. Antonio Fanizza. Dimitrios Travlos, Marilyn Educate, Mike Niazmand, and Scott Prestangen, Diary McWilliams, Ann Dienncr. Doraine Anderson PRESIDING: STAFF: 1. QUORUM Barbara Gardner, Chair Carlos D. Ruiz Barbara Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m., with a quorum being present. 11. WELCOME TO NEW COMMISSIONERS Barbara rardner welcomed ne%v Commission members Clint Fink and Stanley Gerson. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Abbie Willard moved that the Commission approve the June 18, minutes. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. C051 M UNI CATIONS Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission received a letter from James Murray, attorney dated June 21, 2002 notifying the Commission that his clients, the property owners of 2733 Colfax Street have withdrawn their request for review of their proposed subdivision of the lot at 2733 Colfax Street. Evanston Preservation Commission ,Minutes -.Iuly 16. 2002 Paae Two V. CONIIIITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical :assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2522 Lincoln Street - Demolition of existing garage, construction of new (1co- car frame garage Healy Rice, architect and the property owner of 2522 Lincoln Street presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new two -car garage at 2522 Lincoln Street. The property is an Evanston landmark. Ms. Rice said the), would like to demolish an existing detached and build a new slightly larger new garage. She said that the existing garage was probably built forty years ago and it does not have anything special in terms of historic significance. The garage is a frame structure with no architectural significance. Ms. Rice said that the current setback of the existing garage is 1.5-feet. She said that to build the new garage they are seeking a minimum zoning variance and also to protect an existing tree of a 1 4-inch diameter. The new garage is L-shape with stucco finish as the stucco dormers on the house. She said that there would be a window facing east and a window facing west and a round window above. The new garage «ould be located 5 to 6-inches north. from the existing garage. therefore it would be less non -conforming. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked if they had heard from their neighbors regarding the request of the zoning variance for the sctback. Healy Rice said. no. Carlos Ruiz asked when was the deadline for the neighbors comments. Ms. Rice said it was probably last week. Chris Carey asked about the double hung window on the east elevation. He said that the proposed window does not have muntin bars. He said that everywhere else the windows have muntin bars. its. Rice said that the east elevation window faces the garage next door and that the garage door would be a flat panel %wood door. Barbara Gardner referred to the standards for Zoning variation. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend approval of the request for zoning variation at 2522 Lincoln Street, based on items A and C of the standards for review of Zoning variations. Abbie Willard seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously. Abbie %Villard moved that the Commission approve the proposal for demolition of the existing garage. The demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest or contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City. the garage does not have a distinguishing historical, cultural, architectural or archaeological characteristic. The demolition would not be contrary to the Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - July 16, 2002 Page Three purpose or intent of historic preservation in the district. and it is not a structure with anti unusual or uncommon design. texture or materials that make it difficult to replace. tits. Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Willard moved that the Commission accept the plans for construction of a two -car garage. because the proposed garage is visually compatible with the height of the house. Also. the proportion of openings, the relationship of materials, the roof shape. the scale of the garage, and the directional expression of the garage front elevation are consistent with the house. The distinguishing original qualities or character of the property or structure are not being destroyed, and the garage is not being done in a manner that could not be removed in the future. Stanley Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1017 Ridge Avenue - Two story addition at rear Bill Lang, architect presented plans for enlarging a kitchen, and adding a breakfast and seating space at the rear of the house at 1017 Ridge Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. He said that the new addition contends with an existing pretty unsympathetic addition. Commission's Findings In response to Mary Bruglicra's question. Mr. Lang said that the project is a two-story addition, with a one -car garage below the grade and a mud room in between and a breakfast/seating area on the first floor. lie said that there is an existing two -car garage. Chris Carey asked about the exterior finish of the addition. Mr. Lang said that the exterior finish of the addition is brick to match as much as possible the brick on the house. Neil Sheehan asked if the house was a contributing structure. Barbara Gardner said that the house is likely to be a contributing structure in the Ridge Historic District. Mr. Carey asked if changing the existing metal handrail in the back ►%Us considered to match the new handrail in the new addition to achieve a more cohesive rear elevation. Mr. Lang said, no. He said that the existing rear deck is all steel super structure. Neil Sheehan said that the building is not a landmark and the rear addition has minimal visibility and it is generally keeping with the quality of the house. Carlos Ruiz called to the Commissioners' attention the selection of the new wood casement windows with aluminum clad on the new addition versus the existing double hung all wood windows on the original house. Ms.Gardner said that for the kind of room the applicants have proposed, casement windows are appropriate. Mr. Ruiz mentioned that the new casement windows match the style of the windows on the existing addition. Abbie Willard moved that the Commission accept the plans as proposed, because they met the standards of construction: (1) Height, it is visually compatible with the rest of the structure on Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes •.Jul► 16.2002 Page Four the back of the property: (3) Proportion of openings, it is visually compatible in the back of the house; (3) Rhythm of spacing and structures on street. it meets; (7) Relationship of materials and texture. it is in compliance, (8) Roof shapes, it is compatible; (9) Walls of continuity, it meets: (10) Scale of the structure, it is compatible ►►ith the current size and mass of the rear of the house; 02) The distinguishing original qualities of the property, and structure are not in any way being violated; { 14) Contemporary design to the existing structure is not being discouraged; (15) The new addition is being done in a manner that it could potentially be removed. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. He moved to amend the motion stating that standards (5) and (9) are not applicable. Ms. Dillard concurred with Neil Sheehan's amendment. Mary Brugliera seconded the amendment. The motion passed as Amended unanimously. 3. 1108 Washington Street - Replacement of existing wood/aluminum/steel windows ►►'itlh aluminum double hung windows Mike Kelly and Kim First of St. Nicholas Parish presented plans for window replacement at 1108 Washington Street. Carlos Ruiz said that the landmark designation applies to the lot of record. The building at 1108 Washington Street is not individually designated as a landmark. but it is part of a lot of record designated as a landmark. fie said that the Commission should review the project in the context of the lot of record. He said that originally the landmark designation was for the Church at Ridge Avenue. Kim First asked if the lot of record showed all the buildings (the school, and the Rectory). Mr. Ruiz said, yes. Mr. Kelly said that the building at l 108 Washington Street was built starting in 1898 when the church burned down. A portion of the building with a basement and a one-story was built first, then it was added vertically, and then the building was added to the north and south. Mr. Kelly said that the building is of mixed use with the school, meeting hall, and a religious facility. Mr. Kelly said that the building has predominantly double hung windows, but not exclusively. There is a chapel area where steel windows were placed on both sides at some point. He said that it is the intention to change the windows with double hung aluminum windows. Mr. Kelly said that at the suggestion of Carlos Ruiz, they have pursued two other options, rehabilitation of the existing windows and the replacement with wood windows. He said that the wood windows represent a S40,000 initial cost difference over the whole program, and about S4,000 difference for the first 9 (nine) windows, Ms. First said that some of the existing windows on the third level have been boarded up because of safety concerns. The window restoration person recommended installing grates, wires, or some safety guard around all the third level windows in the gym and locker rooms. Neil Sheehan said the same issue would apply to double hung aluminum windows. Mr. Kelly said that the big issue is the rabbet, it is not deep and strong enough. The rehabilitation proposal ►m to rehabilitate the windows with insulating glass, re-►vork the sash and replace it with insulating Evanston Presen ation Commission Minutes - July 16. 2002 Pane Fire glass. But the rabbet is not big enough and the windows are so large that the restoration contractor thought that with force applied to the middle, the window may break out, and the rabbet was not strong enough to hold the glass in place. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the aluminum window would match the arched top windows. Mike Kelly said that they have been told that they window manufacturer can make arched top windows. Neil Sheehan asked why did the window need to be replaced. Mr. Kelly said that the windows are in terrible state of disrepair, the wood has rotted. and there is a tremendous amount of condensation during the winter. He said that insulating glass makes the project a more doable thing. Mr. Kelly said that the first phase of the window replacement would be on portions of the west and south elevations. Carlos Ruiz asked about the color of the replacement windows. Mr. Kelly said that the color would be white or a dark finish {bronze}. Mr. Sheehan asked how the frame face width compares to the existing wood windows. Mr. Kelly said that it is similar. In response to a question, Carlos Ruiz said that the cost is not the issue with restoration, he said that it is the safety issue. He said that the restoration contractor does not feel that the glass is adequately supported within the sash. Mr. Sheehan said the contractor's concern is the extra double pane glass being held in the sash. Carlos Ruiz asked who was the restoration contractor. Kim First said the restoration contractor is Gerotech. Mr. Ruiz said that Gerotech is the same contractor that Michael Girard, Commissioner has experience with. Mr. Kelly said that Gerotech came highly recommended by Nate Kipnis, Evanston architect. Chris Carey if the glass would be clear glass. Mr. Kelly said, yes, except in the bathroom. Mr. Ruiz asked if is there a design detail that is incorporated into the actual window frame, rather than having a plain, square looking frame. Mr. Ruiz said that this is a case where the building at 1108 Washington Street is complementary to the landmark Church. Ile said that the replacement windows should not have to look historic, when the existing windows are not, but the new replacement windows should be compatible with the existing windows. Mr. Kelly said that if money was not an issue, wood windows would be their choice. Mr. Sheehan said that he did not feel comfortable imposing wood windows on an institution like St. Nicholas Parish. He said that he had to ask himself, how important is it that the existing windows be repaired. fie added that the problem with installing, the double sash window is that the sashes are significantly larger than a typical residential installation. As a result it is difficult to bet the glass to stay in a frame. Also, condensation levels in a residential installation are not as high as they are likely in the subject building with higher levels of occupancy. fie said that there is a legitimate need for double -glazing. That said, Mr. Sheehan asked himself if there is a Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -.Iuly 16. 2002 Page Six bad precedent being set. Ile said that teen though the particular building is a landmark due to the change in the Preservation Ordinance. it is not the significant building in the property that the Church is. He said for that reason he %%as inclined to note for the proposal. Barbara Gardner said that she was reluctant to require window restoration when the restoration contractor had reser%ations about safety. She also said that landmarking the lot of record was a good idea to protect the landmark buildings on the site. Chris Carev raised the issue of color. Mr. Ruiz said that perhaps complementing the church structure would be appropriate. Mire Kelly said that the windows on the church are white. Nis. First said that white color seemed to overwhelm the brick building. Mr. Ruiz said that a darker color would complement the brick building and be a counterpoint to the church building. He offered his assistance to the applicants with the selection of color. Mr. Kelly welcomed Carlos Ruiz' assistance. Susan Rundle raid that she agonized over the aluminum windows, she said that it is a difficult decision to make, considering the architecture of the subject building. Abbie NVillard moved that the Commission accept the proposal for alteration as submitted, because it is in compliance with the standards for review of alterations: (1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property in a manner where there are minimal alterations to the structure; (2) the significant original qualities or character of the property (particularly the subject building) will not be destroyed; (3) recognizing that the subject building is a property of its own time and it has evolved through a number of periods; (4) that the changes that have taken place over time are being recognized and respected; (6) if the Commission accepts the restoration contractor' opinion, the deteriorated architectural features cannot be repaired. Diary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 1106 Oak Avenue - Construction of two -car garage William Homer, property owner presented plans for the construction of a two -car garage at 1106 Oak Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Homer said that he is proposing adding a garage to a 101 year old landmark house that has _ never had a garage. He said that there are two eery similar houses that are almost 4 to 5-feet - apart. The houses are wood frame with cedar shingle facing in the outside, they both have brown shingles on the roof. he said that the proposed garage has an almond color wooden trim, The garage would be built using similar materials, stain cedar shingles on the outside, almond trim and brown roof tops. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked about the dormers shown on the drawings. Mr. Homer said that the dormers were eliminated from the construction plans. Carlos Ruiz asked if the garage door Evanston Presen•ation Commission Minutes -.fulw 16, 2002 Poee Seven would be with panels. ik4r. Homer said that the garage door has not been specified yet. but based on Carlos Ruiz' recommendation he will look for a panelized metal door. Susan Rundle asked since the garage was all wood, if the applicant had considered wood windows as opposed to aluminum clad windo%vs, Mr. Homer said that he has leaded glass wood windows that require maintenance. He was not looking forward to continue maintaining the new garage windows . He said that the aluminum clad windows Lill match the almond color of the trim. 1`1s. Gardner said that staining wood windows was an option. Stains have a 20-year guarantee with a primer and two coats of stain. fir. Homer said that he spends considerable time maintaining the leaded glass windows. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the construction of the garage as presented, in that (1) the garage height is visually compatible with the existing house; (3) the proportion of openings it is appropriate to the garage and consistent with the surrounding properties; (7) the garage has the same materials and textures and it related to the existing structure; (8) the roof shape is visually compatible with the house: (10) the scale of the structure is consistent with the house; (directional expression of the garage's front elevation is appropriate facing the alley; (12) the distinguishing original qualities of the site have not bee disturbed; (15) if the garage were removed. it .would not adversely affect the property; and (16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement of a particular style for the garage. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 1608 Chicago Avenue - Storefront expansion and remodeling, Antonio Fanizza, architect; Dimitrios Travlos, restaurant owner; and Marilyn Educate, representing the building owner presented plans for a storefront expansion and remodeling at 1608 Chicago Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. Mr. Fanizza said that the project is to recess the entryway into the store space that Golden Olympics restaurant is taking over. The existing doorway is being removed and the existing window is being extended over the same area. The existing windows would be matched. The limestone base would be extended over to match the existing limestone base. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked for clarification about the project. Mr. Fanizza said that the southern most entryway will be removed, the existing window will be extended over that area as well as the limestone base. The other alterations are occurring behind the glass area of the storefront. The new vestibule is immediately north of the entryway being removed. The existing door will be replaced with an window and a new door for the vestibule. A new door will be installed perpendicular to the storefront. Mary Brugliera asked if the fluted stone detail will be covered by the new storefront. Mr. Fanizza said. no. Carlos Ruiz asked if the existing storefront was original. Ms. Educate said, no. Evanston Preservation Commission .Ntinutes -.fuh- 16, 2002 Pace Eieht Mr. Ruiz said that he wanted to avoid inappropriate alterations to the storefront. Mr. Fanizra said that %%hen looking at the plan, most likely there was an entrance on the cast side of the building. He said that probably the proposed storefront was more like the original storefront. Mr. Ruiz asked if the new bulkhead would match the existing bulkhead. Mr. Fanizza said, yes. Chris Carey asked about the paint on the small addition to the north of the storefront. Dimitrios Travlos said that the paint on the north addition would be cleaned. Mr. Ruiz suggested using the gentlest means of cleaning. Air. Cares asked about the existing awning. Mr. 'rravios said that they are trying with the other tenants that have the same awning design across the storefront. Mr. Ruiz said that the City invested considerably in the rehabilitation of the building. Abbic Willard moved that the Commission accept the alteration as proposed at 1604-08 Chicago Avenue, because it meets standard (1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the structure on the property in a manner where there are minimal alterations to the structure; (2) the original distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed; (4) changes that have taken place over time are clearly evident; (5) distinctive stylistics or examples of skilled craftsmanship is going to be treated with sensitivity (6) there would some cleaning and repair of deteriorated architectural features; (7) the surface cleaning on the structure will be done in the gentlest means possible; and (10) there are alterations, and if removed in the future the essential form and integrity would be unimpaired. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously. b. 585 Ingleside Place Carlos Ruiz said that the applicants had canceled the advisory review. Instead they will come in August for final review, He said that one of the challenges to the project is the zoning requirements. Neil Sheehan asked if the proposed three -car garage was the problem. Mr.Ruiz said that most likely the required setback .vas the zoning issue. -- Barbara Gardner said that the rules approved by the Commission require notification to the neighbors. Mr. Ruiz said that he recommends to applicants to obtain a zoning analysis first so that if there is a zoning variance issue, then neighbors will be notified through the zoning variance process. Ms. Gardner said that it was important that neighbors are notified for cases such as 2733 Colfax Street proposed subdivision, where neighbors were very upset because of not being notified. _- Commissioners discussed the need of notifs•ing neighbors for projects that for example, would dramatically increase the size of a structure. Abbie Willard said that notification requirements for some projects and not others may create a problem for the Commission. V1. NEW BUSINESS 1. 1314 Ridge Avenue - Advisory/informational session requested by developers Carlos Ruiz said that the one of the developers [Mike Niazmand] and their architect Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -.July lb, 2002 Page Nine (Scott Prestangen] had requested an advisory/informational session with the Preservation Commission to introduce themselves and to discuss preliminary ideas about the development of the landmark property at 1314 Ridge Avenue. He said that Alderman Steve Bernstein was also present at the meeting. Mike Niazmand said that his «-ife Marsha and he have lived in Evanston for some twenty years. He said he is a preservationist. and that he would like to preserve the property at 1314 Ridge Avenue. He said that he would like to build structures that are compatible with Evanston. Fie also emphasized that he likes old buildings and antiques. Mr. Niazmand said that the reason why they were in front of the Commission was because they wanted information and to learn what the Commission would like to see on the site. He said that he had called some neighbors and will talk to more neighbors. He also said that he had talked to Alderman Steve Bernstein twice. Mr. Niazmand said that he has received calls from people about some of the potential lots. Some people like the proximity to the Synagogue, others like the coach house as is, so they might sell it as one unit. Thev also received calls about the stucco house on Asbury Avenue. Mike Niazmand said that Vladimir Novakovic was his business partner. Scott Prestangen referring to a site plan said they had designated areas in front of the coach house and mansion that they expect should remain opened. There are two large areas where it seemed logical the development could take place. There is an area between the buildings which seems a very special space. In response to a question from Chris Carey. Mr. Prestangen said that the plans are very preliminary and that they want the participation of particularly the neighbors so that they can have a better idea what path to follow Mr. Niazmand said that the stucco building 1321 Asbury Avenue it does not seem to be in good shape. He said that they will make an attempt to rehab that building if it seems important to the Commission. He said that they do not know when they can inspect the building further because District 65 is leasing the building until September. Mary McWilliams from the audience said that the building 1321 Asbury Avenue would be a contributing structure to the historic district and subject to the all the rules of the Preservation Ordinance. She said that the building was built as the coach house for a house where the Unitarian Church is. She said that she did not know whether the building was structurally sound or not. Barbara Gardner asked if the proposed lot north of 1321 Asbury was a 50-foot wide lot. Mr. Prestangen said that the lot was approximately 53-feet wide. Neil Sheehan asked, as the lot being parceled as shown, was the intent to build a structure in every parcel. Scott Mr. Prestangen said, yes. Neil Sheehan asked if they pursue that idea, would it be a planned development. Mr. Niazmand said that they were looking at that possibility. He said chat he would like to do is Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -.1uly 16.2002 Pace Ten have some kind of association to maintain the grounds. tie said he would like to have four or five tapes of houses approved by appearance. Al*lr. Sheehan said the least intrusive type of development «ould be the most organized development approach.,khich is row houses and not single family detached houses. He said that the footprints of row houses are more compact, rather than being distributed. The ro« house approach opens up landscape that property owners individualize and becomes more controlled. I le said that row houses would be more consistent %tith the architecture of the existing buildings on the site. ,1r. Niazmand said that row houses %vas their initial intent, but after talking with Ald. Bernstein, they were under the impression that single family homes were preferred. NIr. Prestangen said that they would need to rezone the lots to R-4. Mr. Sheehan suggested a plan development. Mr. Prestangen said that plan development •%ould not allow two attached structures in an R-I zone; one can build single structures 12-feet apart. Mary McWilliams said that plan development would not allow double houses. She said that she sees ever} reason to change the planned development ordinance. Mr. Sheehan said that single house development has many implications such as double the amount of driveways and attached garages. Doraine Anderson asked where the garage for the mansion was. Mr. Prestangen said that the garage for the mansion could be detached. maybe with a minor connection if appropriate. He said that Asbury Avenue would be the main ingress and egress for %chicular traffic with two existing driveways. In response to a question from Barbara Gardner, \Jr. Prestangen said that in an R-I zone one family and two-family per lot is allowed. The mansion, the coach house and 1321 Asbury could be two-family dwellings as of right. He said one major concern for neighbors is the issue of density. He said he would like to explore the idea of two-family houses. NIS. Gardner said that two-family houses sound appealing. Mr. Niazmand said that for the mansion. he would like to have four dwelling's with a shared lobby. He noted that dwellings without a celebrated entrance are harder to sell. Ms. Gardner said that around Oakton Street and Ridge Avenue, there is a 1920's area. On one side of the street most of the houses have built-in garages. Mr. Niazmand said that he had looked at a -_ similar development favorably. Susan Rundle asked if anyone in the Commission was looking at the context of the site. She said that structures on the proposed plan would block the view of the mansion from Dempster Street and Ridge Avenue. Mr. Sheehan said that he believed the zoning problems could be resolved and encourage Mr. Niazmand to present alternatives. Ald. Steven Bernstein said that he did not have a problem with the mansion having more than two dwellings. He said that he was not impressed with townhouses. He was more comfortable _ Evanston Presen-ation Commission Nfinutes-.ful%- 16. 2002 Pace Eleven with row houses life on Maple Avenue or Elm%%ood A, enue. He also said that his prevailing feeling was that Mike Niazmand and his partner «ant to work with the Evanston community. He said he is looking to working with someone who can appreciate the solemnity of the comer at Dempster Street and Ridge Avenue. He said he would like the developers make their profit. but he would like to keep that comer pristine. Doraine Anderson said that she would like to call to the attention of the Commission two properties: the Paten property. «here only the fence is left. The other property is on Sheridan Road in Winnetka. where an Italian Renaissance mansion that sat in the back of the property. was demolished. She said there is a need to keep in mind what not to do. Ms. Gardner asked what was the feeling of the Commissioners on the new parcels, should they be more uniform in nature. much more relating to the mansion. or having different kinds of houses like in the rest of the neighborhood. Chris Carey said he would look for clues in the mansion and in the coach house to build similarly, so that they looked as contributing structures to the other structures on the site. Neil Sheehan said that said that there is a defined area or hard edge from the coach house to the mansion. Mr. Carey said that he would not like to see the buildings right to the edge of the sidewalk along Dempster Street. his. Gardner said no fence would be proposed. Mr. Ruiz noted that rezoning from R-1 to R-4 implies that in a single family residential zone. multi -family use would be allowed if for an act of God, the mansion burns down to the ground, the rezoned R-4 lot will have multi -family development potential. Mr. Sheehan questioned the regulations of the planned development ordinance and wondered if R-4 development is not allowed. ,%Ir. Niazmand said he has asked his zoning attorney to look into the planned development ordinance to detennine if density increase is allowed in exchange for increase of green space. Scott Prestangen cited restrictions on planned development according to the R-1 zoning. Ms.Gardner said that asking for R4 rezoning would cause major opposition from the neighbors. tits. McWilliams said planned development allows concessions within limits. She said that portions of the planned development ordinance could be amended to trade cluster density for open space. 11r. Prestangen had asked Arthur Alterson where was the advantage for the developer to go for planned development. Mr. Alterson's response was that there was none, planned development gives the advantage to the City to control everything. Ms. Gardner asked if he Commission could reach a consensus with the developers, and it was something acceptable to Aid. Steve Bernstein and the neighbors, could the Commission then lobby with City Council to make a change to the planned development ordinance. Aid. Bernstein said that his sense was that the Commission would be very persuasive with the Evanston Preser%ation Commission Minutes-.iulw 16.2002 PageT%%elve Council. He said that consensus ►►ithin City Council is to keep the property pristine to the extent that it can. Scott Prestangen asked if the Council could change the ordinance for this particular case. Aid. Bernstein said that could be considered spot toning. lie added that legal counsel does not like covenants. and the only ►way from precluding the type of development that R-4 would allow after a lire on the landmark property. %%ould be a co►enant that probably is not enforceable. He said that we are in a set of mind of cooperation. where a product can be achieved that meets ever►body's needs and expectations. Ms. McWilliams said that the planned development ordinance could be amended to alloy the appropriate development on the landmark site. Mr. Sheehan noted that side yard set backs and front yard setback variations are doable. Ms. Gardner said that she like the idea of the common lobby in the mansion. %like Niazmand said that he would also like the front basement area as a common area such as a club. %fr. Ruiz said that another concern raised by neighbors at the December 2001 meeting was the issue of context. Ile said that a development similar to Cove school, which has a fence around it, might not be appropriate for this site. He said that he wanted to remind the developers that this site is not only a local landmark, but also listed in the National Register or Historic Places. He said that the Illinois Historic Presem'ation Agency needs to be notified about the proposed development, particularly if state or federal money or permits are being considered, triggering section 106 Review. Mr. Niazmand said that they would he sensitive to that requirement. lie said that they may apply for tax assessment freeze, other preservation incentives where mention such as the Fagade Easement program, the "Class L" program through Cook County. Itiir. Niazmand said that his sense was that they ►will iry to avoid any complications for the project. ,\tr. Prestangen said that what they heard from the Commission was encouraging. Mr. Ruiz asked if Aid. Steve Bernstein had heard anything in this conversation that has raised his concern. Aid. Bemstein said that he would defer to the Commission's expertise. He added that a solid coverage of the lot ►would be a major concern to him. ,,%fs. Gardner said that earlier, a driveway to the development was mentioned. She said that the property owner adjacent to that proposed driveway was very sensitive about the proposed development Mr. Prestangen asked about the building on Asbury Avenue, Ms. Gardner said that if the building is salvageable, she would like the building rehabilitated. Mr. Niazmand said if they can do it. they will. Ms. Gardner said that the consensus was to rehabilitate the Asbury Avenue building. \fr. Niazmand said that 4 (four) units in the mansion was acceptable. Ms. Gardner said she would prefer 3 (three) units. Chris Carey said that one major issue with the neighbors would be the parking issue. Undergroundibeloww grade parking was mentioned as a tray to minimize parking issues. Mr. Prestangen said that row houses would significantly reduce the parking issue. Ivfs. Gardner said she would prefer the double house configuration as proposed to a string of row houses. Mary Brugliera said that she would entertain the concept of row houses with a variety of Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - July 16. 2002 Page Thirteen designs as .;ell as double houses. tiir. Prestaneen %elcomed the comment on picking up the context out of the three existing structures. Ms. Anderson said that it -,.vas %%orthwhile considering below grade parking especially for the mansion. 'pis. Gardner thanked Mr. Niazmand and Mr. Prestancten for meeting with the Commission. She invited them to come back at any time. 3. Ridge .avenue Traffic Lights Barbara Gardner said that Jan Schakow•sky had called for a Section 106 hearing to determine the adverse effect of the proposed traffic lights on the Ridge Historic District. She said that the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has already acknowledged that there would be an adverse effect. Ms. Gardner said that there are several proposals on the table including the full mast arm. a half mast arm, 1/4 mast arm, post top, post top four feet away from the comer, post top 2 feet away from the corner. post tops in their existing location. and post tops with larger heads. Each one of these proposals would be documented in the report for the public hearing. She said that the property at Ridge and Oakton is a historic property. Ms. Gardner said the post tops in their current location would not have an adverse effect because there would be no change. The larger post top head also would not have an adverse effect. When post tops are moved away from the corner, the tree issue is affected. The Illinois Historic Presmation Agency (114PA) maintains that the trees are significant and important to the Ridge Historic District. Ms. Gardner said that there was discussion to taking back Ridge Avenue. The City would like to do that, but the City also would like the State of Illinois to pay for repaving Ridge Avenue first. The State in return would like to widen Ridge Avenue. The City would not allow it. She said that 1DOT has agreed to see if there are funds to repave Ridge Avenue. If funding were secured for this improvement even in the next five )-cars. the City would take back Ridge Avenue now. If the City takes back Ridge Avenue. the City could do whatever it wanted. She said that the clean air grant comes to the City no matter who has control over Ridge Avenue. Carlos Ruiz said that [DOT has regulations that they have to follow which are higher standards than the federal standards. Mary Bruglicra said that in Chicago. Wacker Drive and Michigan Avenue have pot tops. Barbara Gardner said that the funding for those projects came from the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT). Mr. Ruiz informed the Commission that he is now a member of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Team. He would be advising the City on City projects that may have adverse effect on historic properties and districts. He said that a process and policy are being developed to facilitate the review process to be done administratively or through the Commission. He said that keeping a balanced and appropriate participation of the Commission regarding City projects was important. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -.Jul%, 16. 2002 VII. MISCELLANEOUS Page Fourteen Susan Rundle said that allowing aluminum windows on certain non -landmark buildings would not set a precedent. Mary Brugliera said that every project is different and the Commission tries to be reasonable with homeowners. Barbara Gardner said that Montessori school on Dempster Street wanted to install aluminum windows, the Commission said no. Daniel Burnhan designed the building. They replaced the old wood windows with new wood windows. Carlos Ruiz said that he would be on vacation from July 29 to August 9, 2002. lie said that Jeff Burdick, General Planner and Susan Guderley, Housing Planner would be available to assist with preservation projects. Vlll. ANNOUNCEMENTS Carlos Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is scheduled on August 22, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.. Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting, was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carlos D. Ruiz Date: 8!5101 EVAN'STON PRESERVATION COMIMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois .MEMBERS PRESENT: Stephen Droll, Mary Bruglicra, Clint Funk, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Abbie �klillard MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, and Neil Sheehan OTHERS PRESENT: Cerise Ladipo, Dane Caswell, Ralph Hoffman, Paul Janicki, Patricia Bialek, Renata Stec, Alan Gartin, Stuart Cohen, Neal and Sharla Luken, Steve Knutson, Debbie Thorne, Jerry Esrig, David Blatt, David Moore, Arthur Salzman, Susan Regan, Robert Mosky, Nathan Kipnis, Pam Kendall, Kendan Mills, David Dwycr, Fred Wall, Cyndee Kaiser, Peter Eikert, Terry Fryer, Elizabeth Kocemba, and Albert Kocemba. PRESIDING: Abbie Willard, Acting Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. QUORUM Abbie Willard, Acting Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m., with a quorum being present. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1012 Lake Shore Blvd. - New wrought iron fence within front yard, requires fence variation iConstruction/Variationi Cerise Ladipo, property owner and Dane Caswell of Nature's Perspective presented plans for erecting a 4-foot wrought iron fence within the front yard at 1012 Lake Shore Boulevard. The proposed fence requires a fence variation. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Banston Presenation Commission Au¢ust 20. 2002 -!Minutes Pace 2 Dane Cas%%ell said that the proposed fence would keep people from coming from the beach onto the property and would serve for security purposes. Also. the fence would deter people from parking on the driveway, using the water hose or sitting on the private lawn. The design of the fence is very conservative and it would be the backdrop of plant material. The proposed fence would be no higher than 4-feet. Commission's Findings Mary Bruglicra asked if the existing posts on the drive«av were original. Mrs. Ladipo said no, and that the posts were purchased from Salvage One. She said that her main concern was security. because they had many scary situations such as attempted burglaries. Clint Funk asked why the fence setback on the driveway. Dane Caswell said that the fence setback on the driveway would break an otherwise continuous fence. Thomas Prairie asked about the shape of the balusters. Dane Caswell said that the balusters would be square shaped and 5!8" thick and the posts would be 2.5" thick and beveled at the top. Carlos Ruiz asked if any neighbors had objected to the request of fence variation. Dane Caswell said that no neighbors had opposed the proposed fence variation and that Arthur Alterson, Zoning Administrator had approved the fence variation. Mary Brug'liera moved that the Commission recommend approval of the fence variation at 1012 Lake Shore Boulevard as meeting standards A and A for Special Uses and Variations. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Abbie Willard said that the proposed fence met standards for review of construction: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12. 14. and 15. Clint Funk moved that the Commission approve the construction of the proposed 4-feet high .%Fought iron fence at 1012 Lake Shore Boulevard. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 409 Greenwood Street - Window replacement and alteration [Alteration] Ralph Hoffman, representing Christine Garrett, owner presented plans for window replacement and reconfiguring one window opening in the back of the house with a larger opening. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore historic District. Mr. Hoffman said that the new windows are all wood Marvin windows with simulated divided lights and with a narrow profile. The upper sash of the new windows would have three divided lights with wood moldings and profiles. Regarding the rear elevation, Mr. Hoffman said that, two smaller bedrooms are being combined into a larger bedroom, which would allow them to put a much larger window. He said that the stucco would be repaired and repainted to match the existing stucco finish. Commission's Findings Ms. Willard cited the standards for review 1 through 10. She noted that the project met particularly standard 6 regarding replacement: "Deteriorated architectural features shall be repair Evanston Prescrti_-.Fon Commission August 20. 2002 - M, �r,�:; s Pape 3 rather than rep!.::ced. a henever possible. In the event that replacement is necessary. the new material should match the new material being replaced in compt-Isition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. -- Mary Brugliera mo%ed that the Commission approve the window alterations at 409 Greenwood as submitted. as it m"ts standards [of review of alterations) 1. -. 5, 6, and 9. Clink Funk seconded the rn.otion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes. 0 nays. 3. 709 Foster Street - Kitchen addition [Construction] Paul Janicki. architect presented plans for 709 Foster Avenue, a Queen Anne style stucco house, circa 1890. The house is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Janicki said that the project is a one-story addition to the kitchen with a mudroom and exterior wooden stairs with a Ianding on the north, and a bar with three windows and additional space on the west. The exterior finish is stucco: the windows on the west elevation arc leaded glass casement %►indo-ws. Also, there is a slight bead board eve that goes around matching the details in the front facade of the house. There are also brackets under the eve by the entry. The existing brick foundation would be continued for the addition. Mr. Janicki said that the railings for the exterior stairs are of the Queen Anne style with small dimension between the pickets or balusters. He noted that the new windows arc all wood Marvin windows. He said that the brick moldings could probably get laose and that the new casings would match the existing casings. The leaded glass would match the leaded glass in the front hall. The leaded glass %inflows would have an energy panel on the outside. Commission's Findings Stephen Droll said that the roof on the addition seemed too shallow. Mr. Janicki said that the front porch roof is even shallower than the roof on the addition- Mr. Droll said that he would like to see a roof peach study done to determine if increasing the peach would be feasible. Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of construction 1 through 17. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission accept the plan for the addition at 709 Foster, based on its meeting standards 1, 3, 4. 6. 7. 8. 10, 12 and 15. Ms. Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0nays. 4. 228 Greenwood Street — Attic build -out and the addition of two new skylights [Construction) Paul Janicki, architect said that the project was an attic renovation onto a Mayo -Mayo house at 228 Greenwood Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic district. Mr. Janicki said that his client wanted to bring natural light into the room with skylights. He said that the design is for a traditional hipped skylight %vith divisions of metal and glass. Mr. Janicki said that the roof is almost like a mansard English Tudor roof with a flat roof behind. The skylights are on the flat roof with a metal to match the steel Aindo«•s of the house. The skylights Banston Prescrnatton Commission August 20, 2002 - Minutes Pace 4 would not be visible from the street from within a block. Carlos Ruiz said that he went up on the roof while his colleague Jeff Burdick stood on the sidewalk across the street. l le said that he held a pole measuring 3-ft. high from the roof. He said that the proposed skylights would be visible at certain points from the street. Commission's Findings In response to Mr. Ruiz. question, Mr. Janicki said that the skylights would be of aluminum frame to go with the steel windows on the house. He believed that the skylights would be barely visible if at all. Carlos Ruiz said that Ernest Mayo, remodeled the ltalianatc house. The existing house was built on the foundation of the Italianate house. Abbie Willard cited standards for review 1 through 10. Stephen Droll moved to approve the alterations to 228 Greenwood, including an attic built out with skylights, and that they met standards 1, 2, 3 and 9. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1107 Lake Streett1452-1456 Oak Avenue - Window replacement (Alteration) Patricia Bialck said that she was representing John Baird. of Baird and Warner, who owns Church View Apartments on Lake Street. The building is an Evanston landmark. Ms. Bialek introduced Renata Stack, property supervisor. Ills. Bialek said that the windows have reached a level ofdeterioration becoming a safety hazard for the residents of the building, and anybody - walking by the street. She said that they had lost a couple of casement windows in the last year. Ms. Bialek said that after consulting with Mr. Ruiz, they investigated three different options: s repair, restore, and replace the windows. She said that repairing the windows was a very costly proposition specially, not knowing .vhat was hidden behind. Restoration was their number one choice, however, after talking with restoration companies and discussing restoration projects with other managers that had gone through it, they found out that the displacement time to their residents would be significant as well as the cost of restoration was extremely prohibitive to Mr. Baird. Ms. Bialek said that restoration could probably go for years. =- Ms. Bialck said that they opted for replacing the windows with costume made Marvin windows. She said that Mr. Ruiz looked at a condominium building in a historic district in Chicago that they did this year, replacing about 2000 windows. The building at Lake and Oak has 425 windows and 26 apartments. riffs. Bialek said that there are casement %%indows on the front, double -hung windows in three facades and in the courtyard of the building, and six small curved windows in the towers, which could be repaired. Ms. Bialek said that the building in Chicago has aluminum clad windows, where there are from 4 to 15 windows per apartment. 1t took a maximum of three days to replace the windows. She = said that Mr. Baird wants to keep the same appearance of the windows do%tim to the same color. _ Evanston Preservation Cemmission August 20. Z002 - Minutes Page S Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked if the wood frame piece on the casement windows would remain. Ms. Bialek said that the wood dividers would be costume made with individual window lights. Nis. Rundle asked about the diamond shaped basement windows. Ms Bialck said that the diamond - shaped lights are applied. She said that they had picked the wood windows with aluminum clad exterior so that thev would not have the maintenance or the deterioration issues down the line. Ms. Rundle noted that the window sills appeared to be .-ood. Ms. Bialek said that they should apply aluminum clad on the windo« sills as well. Thomas Prairie said that with aluminum clad windows the color is permanent. He asked if the existing color was the original color. Ms. Bialek said that she did not know, but she knows that the existing French vanilla color has been there for at least 28 years. In response to a question from Mary Brugliera, Ms. Bialek said that Mr. Baird did not have the intention to apple for any tax credit for the project. She did not think that aluminum clad windows would be approved by the State [Illinois Historic Preservation Agency]. his. Bialek said that they applied for a tax credit, but it was denied. Mr. Ruiz asked if the primary reason for the aluminum -clad windows was the maintenance issue. Ms. Bialek said that maintenance was one of the reasons, but they also need to look at the cost of maintaining the building, which translates into rental costs. Mr. Ruiz also mentioned that the main issue in terms of preservation is the integrity of the landmark building. He said that preservation standards call for. whenever possible, repair rather than replace. If replacement is necessary then the replacement should be in kind. In this case, it means replacement with all wood windows. Mr. Ruiz noted that the Commission should clearly state why the proposed aluminum clad windows. meet or do not meet the standards for review of alteration. Mr. Ruiz said that if the Commission were to deny the aluminum clad windows, the applicant has the option to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council. Ms. Bialek said that all wood windows are the other alternative. Mr. Ruiz said that if the Commission were to approve the aluminum -clad windows, the Commission should consider the setting of a precedent for similar projects. Commission members discussed other issues related to the maintenance of the original windows versus the new windows. Also, the option to stain the wood windows rather than paint the v6ndows. Stephen Droll said that the front casement windows were a critical feature of the landmark building. He said that modern windows have definitely a different dimension than the original, which translated to smaller glass size. Mr. Droll said that it would help him to see shop drawings of new windows, all woad or aluminum clad, in comparison to the existing windows showing dimensions and profiles. Mr. Ruiz mentioned the Montessori School building on Dempster Street (designed by Daniel Burnham} that has all wood replacement windows. Those windows are double pane with simulated divided lights. He suggested to compare those windows with the aluminum clad windows. Evanston Preservation Commission August 20. 2002 -Minutes Pace 6 Thomas Prairie asked about screens. Ms. Bialek said that the existing windows do not have screens. The new windows would have half screens on the double -hung windows and full screens interior on the casement windows. Air. Ruiz said that perhaps it would be worth) of exploring the possibility of restoring or replacing the casement windows with all wood windows on the main elevation. The double -hung windows on the secondary and tertiary elevations may not be such a bad alternative. Ms. Bialek said that the most deteriorated windows are the casement windows. Ms. Willard said that the Commission would like more information, more alternatives, possibly different handling at different sides of the building. She said that Mr. Ruiz and some of the Commissioners would be willing to work with Ms. Bialek or the window representatives. Mr. Ruiz also said that the Commission could also consult with the State to make the right decision. Ms. Brugliera said that the Commission is appreciative that Mr. Baird is involved in the preservation of the building, and that the Commission does not want to impose unnecessary hardships. Ms. Brugliera moved that when the owner returns to the Commission with more information about replacement in kind, and restoration issues for the building, the Commission would include the project in the next meeting agenda for consideration. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: b ayes, 0 nays. 6, 1013 Ridge Avenue — Construction of garage and installation of ne►v fence (Construction, Fence/Gatej Alan Garfin, owner and Stuart Cohen, architect presented plans for the construction of a new garage and the installation of a new fence wall at 1013 Ridge Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Stuart Cohen said that the work includes the interior of the house as well as the construction of a three -car garage. He said that there is a coach house that would remain as a rental property and the owners would like to rent the existing one -car garage and construct a three -car garage. Mr. Cohen said that rather than building a bump on the side of the coach house, they decided to _ build a one-story garage with a flat roof with no openings and no windows facing the yard, and essentially use the garage as a garden wall that actually ends visually the view from the street and the property. He said that they started from the minimum garage door clearance of 6.8-f3 high, plus the lintel, the motor and the depth of the framing. Mr. Cohen said that they moved the wall away from the existing coach house and put in a garden gate. He said that they are also proposing an extension of the garden wall at the same height of the front of the garage. Mr. Cohen said that the whole effect from the yard and from Ridge would be taking the expansc space and ended in what it took likes a high garden wall with a gate in the back. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked about the height of the garden wall. Mr. Cohen said 9.2 feet and it would require a zoning variation. He also said that they would eliminate a gate at the point where the wall is detached. lie did not know whether they would jug the wall or bring it straight off the Banston PrOM.3tion Commission August 20.2002 - ltins:es Page 7 back of the garage. Sir. Cohen said that they would like to revise the three -door garage to a paneled single door and a double door. Carlos Ruiz explained that before the Commission could make a recommendation on the zoning variation that neighbors should be notified. Mr. Cohen said that the Commission could determine that the project was compatible in relation to the structure, and that the Zoning could turn them down anyway. Mr. Ruiz said that the Zoning Ordinance requires Preservation Commission's ad-isory review regarding the zoning variation to the "Zoning administrator or the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Cohen said that he would like the Commission to review only the garage and then they would apply for the fence. Mary Brugliera said the Commission could review the zoning variation subject to the zoning review and approval. Mr. Ruiz said that he was interested in the due process and giving the neighbors the opportunity to comment in front of the Commission. Mr. Ruiz asked if there was a precedent of three -car garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Cohen said that they did not know, but that as an architect he did not have a problem with a three -car garage facing the alley. He said that it would be easier to pull in and out the garage with a double door. Thomas Prairie asked if the wall could have a stone copping. Mr. Cohen said that for budgetary reasons they decided to not introduce the stone copping. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission would consider a double door if there were an actual physical impediment for not using a single door. Stephen Droll said that he was concerned with the scale of the new garage because it is larger than the coach house. He said that it would help if the two structures were further apart. Mr. Cohen said that if that %were the case, it would be difficult to put a garden gate to expand that distance. Ms. Willard asked if after hearing the concerns about the scale of the new garage whether a two -car garage was considered. Mr. Garfrn said that they needed a three -car garage and that being on a double lot it seemed appropriate. Ms Willard cited the standards for review of construction. She said that standard 16 was a directive to the Commission not to impose a particular style, and standard 17 did not apply because signs were not involved. Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission approve the garage plan for 1013 Ridge, as meeting standards 1, 2, 3, 5.7, S (with the wall), 9, 10, and 11 (with the wall). Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays. Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of zoning variation. Scary Brugliera moved that the Commission advise in favor of the zoning variance for the height of 9.2 feet to the Zoning Board based on standards A and C. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay. Mr. Cohen asked if they opted to have a stone copping which would raise the height of the wall another 6 inches, would the Commission still be in favor of that. Ms. Willard said that she would be in favor from the aesthetic point of view because it would look more like a garden wall. taanston Preser%ation Commission August 20..2002 - 4tinuies Paee 8 7. 3680 Orrington Avenue — Install vertical plank wood fence JConstruction/hence Variationj Neal and Sharla Luken, properly owners presented plans to install a 5-foot high vertical plank fence on the bacVside yard of their propene at 2680 Orrington Avenue. The properiv is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. The property is on the Southwest comer of Ingleside Place and Orrington Avenue. The fence would setback about 6-feet from the sidewalk. Most of the fence would be behind a 74001 deciduous bush. The reason for the request is for privacy for the comer lot propert)•. Pedestrians from the school generated a lot of foot traffic, and from Evanston Hospital to the west, as %%ell as vehicular traffic from Sheridan Road. Orrington Avenue and the hospital, and bus traffic on Orrington and Ingleside. From time to time kids cut through the house and go to the alley at Ingleside. fir. Luken said that their house is a contributing structure in the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Commission's Findings Mr. Luken reiterated that the fence would be roughly 5'-2" high and that it is located 6-feet back from the sidewalk behind the bushes. The existing fence is a replacement at it was erected as of right. Carlos Ruiz asked if neighbors had an), comments about the fence variation. Mr. Luken said that the Zoning Division had not received complaints to date. In fact the adjacent and across the street neighbors are in favor of the fence. Stephen Droll asked if Mr. Luken would consider continuing the latticework across the top of the fence as oppose to alternating it. Mr. Luken said that they would do that as long as the bottom of the latticework is tall enough, so that most people walking on Ingleside Place would not pick over the fence. Susan Rundle said that when looking down the street, other fences are open wrought iron, and when standing on Ridge Avenue and looking down Ingleside Place, contextually is house after house with yards. The proposal contextually is house after house, then a monumental fence sticks out to the sidewalk and then house. The proposed fence really breaks up the street. She said that minimizing the bulk of the fence would be desirable. Mr. Luken said that was why they have elected to put the fence behind the bushes, as oppose to right on the sidewalk. Most of the fences East of the hospital from Central Street (north) and even on Sherman (central south), are fences right on the sidewalk. Mary Brugliera argued that bushes would hide most of the fence. She also listed the fence variation request: 1) having a fence on a corner lot, 2) having a fence that is setback 6' instead of l 5', and 3) having a fence that is 5'-2" high instead of W high. Stephen Droll moved for approval of the fence and that the Commission recommend to the - Zoning Board approval of the fence variance at 2680 Orrington Avenue, with the provision that the solid portion of the fence be W high and latticework extend the height of the fence up to 5'-2". Evanston Preservation Commission August 20. 2002 - Minutes Page 9 Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Discussion: Carlos Ruiz said that the motion combined standards of construction and fence variation. Mary Brugliera said standards A and C for zoning applied. Stephen Droll amended his motion to approve the fence at 1680 Orrington with provisions that the solid portion of the fence not exceed 4' in height, that the latticework portion extend the fence to the height of up to T-2", as standards of construction 1, 3, 5, and 9 are met. Thomas Prairie seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay. 8. 1118 Judson Avenue — Partial demolition, installation of new windows #Demolition/Alteration] Steve Knutson, architect Jerry Esrig and Debbie Thorne, owners presented plans for remodeling a kitchen and bathroom at the back of the house at 1 118 Judson Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Steve Knutson said that they were removing an obsolete chimney and closing a bathroom window on the south side that has been altered with glass block.' He said that because a shower and a window are a bad combination, they were proposing a skylight in the bathroom and on a gentle pitched roof with a high eave. The skylight would not be seen. Mr. Knutson said that the house was originally at 228 Greenwood. The house is an 1860 Italianate that was moved in 1890. Commission's Findings Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of demolition for the removal of the chimney. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the chimney at 1118 Judson Avenue as is shown in the drawings. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 6 ayes, o nays. Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of alteration. Mr. Funk moved that the Commission approve the alteration based on standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 9. 1142 Judson Avenue — Install new windows ]Alteration] David Blatt and David Moore, owners, presented plans for the replacement of windows in the front of the house on the third floor and the enlargement of the window that faces the street. The building at 1142 Judson is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. David Blatt said the current windows have storm windows that would be replaced with wood Marvin windows that are more in keeping with the construct of the house originally. The additional window would be brought in line with the decorative detail on the side dormers and painted to match. Commission's Findings Clint Funk said that the front window opening curves [at either side], he asked if that is going to remain. Mr. Blatt said that the new half -round window opening above the curved portion would Evanston Preservation Commission August 20.2002 • Minutes Page 10 be flashwith the front of the house and it would not curved. Mr. Blatt said that there is no sight view out the front of the house on the third floor. The %%indow stops at 4 feet (above the floor]. Mr. Ruiz asked if glass could be installed on the existing front half round sunburst. fir. Blatt said that it %%ould not bring enough light. Mr. Droll said that the alterations as proposed would have a considerable impact on the character of the house. The Commission asked if the architect could draw accurate drawings to scale for the Commission's review. :pis. Brugliera said that what has been proposed is quite a change to the significant piece of trim .with three: windows recessed back and the tuned shingled opening and the circular decorative element above it. Mr. Ruiz noted that the existing two front double hung windows are being replaced with divided light windows. the middle window is fixed. lie suggested to the Mr. Blatt and Mr. Moore to explore other possibilities to solve their concern. The existing windows and sun burst are an important focal point on the house and the proposed alterations do not seemed to meet the standards for review. Mr. Blatt said that there is no sight view form the interior of the room. Mr. Ruiz said that unfortunately, the Commission's purview is limited to the exterior of the building. Mr. Ruiz said that he would be available to work with the architect of the project. Mr. Blatt agreed with the Commission to table the project until the next meeting. Ms. Brugliera moved to table the alterations to 1142 Judson until the Commission receives more information. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 10. 1018 Greenwood Street — Addition to house, replacement of windows and roof IConstructionlAlteration J Arthur Salzman, owner presented plans for alterations and additions to his house built in 1946 at 1018 Greenwood Street. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Salzman said that. four years ago, they were in front of the Commission for similar changes to the house that did not take place. lie said that the front of the house is a two-storywith a one- story extension in the back, which originally was a garage with a breezeway connected to the house that was enclosed by the previous owner. Mr. Salzman said that they would like to put a second story on top of the one-story extension. He said that his wife's health was not well and that he would like to be home closer to her. Mr. Salzman said that they would also like to add a second garage with a deck on top. The second garage would also add resale value to the house. The big space over the existing garage would be his office and laundry room. The breezeway below would be enclosed. Finally, they would like to add a vestibule in the front of the house Mr. Salzman said that the construction would be brick veneer painted white. The second floor would be fiber -cement siding. This wood siding treatment was done on neighboring properties. Commission's Findings Stephen Droll asked if any of the material near the existing entry would be salvaged. Mr. Evanston Presm ation Commission August 20. 2002 - Minutes Page II Salzman no. because the vestibule would be wider. He said that the trim around the entry was basic 1946 construction. Ms. Brugliera asked if wood siding was considered for the exterior finish. fir. Salzman said that he ,-vould prefer the fiber -cement siding. Mr. Droll said that the siding weather exposure dimension could be smaller. Mr. Ruiz said that 3.5" exposure siding would be more appropriate with the brick. Mr. Salzman said that he prefers the 5" exposure. Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of construction. Ms. Brugliera moved to approve the new construction elements at 1018 Greenwood. based on standards 1. 2. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Ruiz said that the alterations include: replacement of the exterior walls of the first floor space between the existing house and garage, the replacement of the existing flush panel overhead garage door ,.vith a paneled overhead garage door. The house would be repainted and the roof would be replaced to match that on the new addition. Ms Willard cited the standards for review of alteration. Clint Funk moved to approve the alterations based on standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays 11. 1050 1linman Street — Second story addition to rear of home, visible from public right of say ]Construction] Susan Regan. architect presented dra%%ings for an addition expanding a second floor bathroom under an existing roof space at 1050 Hinman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Regan said that the brick being removed would be reused and there is a large window on the new addition. She said that the new window is a high quality vinyl window. It is vinyl because is located in the shower. Commission's Findings Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of construction. Mr. Droll moved to approve the construction at 1050 Hinman in that it meets standards 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 12. 1123 Ridge Avenue — Construct addition to driveway ]ConstructionNariation] Robert Mosky, owner presented plans for and addition to a driveway at 1123 Ridge Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. The proposed addition requires a zoning variation. Robert Mosky said that he bought old brick to match the existing brick on the driveway. The addition to the driveway would add two parking spaces and a turn around spot to ensure the safety of the occupants and visitors. Cranston Preservation Commission Aueust 20. 2002 -!Minutes Pace 12 Commission's Findings Mr. Droll said that it seems that what it would be constructed was different from what it %vas shown on the drawings. Mr. Mosky said that the new driveway is being built as shown. Mr. Ruiz asked if neighbors were aware of the proposed work and requested variation. Mr. hiosky said yes. Mr. Ruiz said that in general parking on the front yard of a property is not allowed in Evanston, unless there was a particular need. ,Mr. Mosk}, said that his father has had two back surgeries and a knee surgery and his in-laws are over 70 years old. Nis Willard cited the standards for advisory review for zoning variation for the proposed parking on the front yard. his. Brugliera mowed that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board the request for a parking path in the front yard of 1133 Ridge, since it does meet standards A and C for advisory review of zoning variations. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays. Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of construction. Stephen Droll moved to approve the construction of the parking path in the front yard at 1123 Ridge Avenue, as it meets standards 5, 7, and 15. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 13. 222 Burnham Place — Install new windows and new fence [Alteration] Pam Kendall, owner and Nathan Kipnis, architect presented plans for some interior work and installing new windows to the building and the installation of a fence on the property at 222 Burnham Place. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Nathan Kipnis said that on the %west -side first floor, the sill would be raised up on two new windows. These windows are visible from the street. On the south side second floor, a new vinyl window would be install in a bathroom. These windows are not visible from the street. Nathan Kipnis said that they would restore the existing windows or replace the windows with Marvin Windows. He said that for the billiard room they found perfect replica of a triple hung window with simulated divided lights. Nathan Kipnis said that the existing fence is significantly further back from Burnham Place, they would like to move the fence forward to extend the yard. They believe that the fence used to be significantly forward because the coach house used to be a barn and that a fence was located forward for the horses. Nathan Kipnis said that the 1912 addition is the billiard room with triple hung windows, and _ currently in poor quality and shape. The addition is on peers and the crawl space is dirt. There is loose concrete around the foundation. He said that they would like to rebuild it because of its deteriorated state. As part of that they would like to have an entrance to the basement from the _ outside. Otherwise the rebuilt structure would be identical to the existing. Susan Rundle said that the proposed fence would obstruct the view of the garage. Pam Kendall said that she was opened to suggestions. Carlos Ruiz said a wwTought iron fence would provide - Evanston Preservation Commission August 20. 2002 - Minutes Page 13 the desired safety and privacy. Nathan Kipnis said that he was seeking advice from the Commission regarding the potential demolition of the 1912 addition and its exact reconstruction. Abbie Willard said that she would be interested in materials and cost comparison of restoring the addition versus the exact reconstruction of it. Nathan Kipnis said that in almost all respects the reconstruction would be an exact replica except the dimensions of the windows have slight variations. Carlos Ruiz said that having a cost comparison would be useful. He also said that the Secretary of the Interior's standards do not require exact replication of original features for new construction. Thomas Prairie said that he would like to know why is not feasible to make the addition thermally efficient or repair the concrete block foundation. Carlos Ruiz suggested to the applicants to keep in mind the standards of demolition. Nathan Kipnis said that there is a skylight that would be installed at the comer of the turret. The third floor turret is for a play area. Susan Rundle asked if the skylight could be located in a less visible area. Nathan Kipnis said that the skylight is placed symmetrically on the center of the turret. Susan Rundle asked if the only vinyl %vindo%v was to the rear and not visible from the public way. Nathan Kipnis said, yes. Nathan Kipnis said that they would also need a fence variation because the proposed fence is within the setback and they need to dodge around the entry. and they are asking for the fence to be 6' tall. Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of alteration. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the alterations proposed for 222 Burnham Place with the exception of the skylight being to the back, so that it would not be seen from the street. The alterations as amended meet standards of alteration 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9. Marti- Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Kipnis said that the proposed fence hooks around the entry, but. if they need the variation, it would make sense to go straight across. Mr. Kipnis said that the fence would be 15 feet from the property line. Mr. Ruiz said that it might be difficult to grant a 6-foot high solid fence. Ms. Kendall agreed to come back next month with a revised fence. 14. 1220 Michigan Avenue — Addition of two dormers and raising the home 18-inches [Construction] Kendan Mills, architect and Dave Dvvyer, contractor presented plans for the construction of two dormers and raising the home at 1220 Michigan Avenue another 10-inches. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Carlos Ruiz said that the applicant is proposing changes to previously approved plans for the construction of a new house at 1220 Michigan. Ms. Mills said that the squared columns were eliminated from the original plan per request of the Commission. She said that they would like to extend a gable to align with the south edge of the wall for more natural light into the interior Banston Preser%ation Commission August'_0. 2002 - Minutes Page 14 space. The extended gable is more consistent with the houses that are in the block. leis. Mills said that they would also like to raise the first level by 18-inches to provide more ceiling height in the basement, and bringing the first floor level more in line with the typical first floor level on the block. Originally, they had four steps leading to the first floor, now they are requesting seven steps. Finally, they would like to add a dormer above the garage to allow natural light into the bedroom. :its. %,tilIs said that the height of the building would increase by 18-inches. Commission's Findings Mr. Ruiz asked if anyone in the Commission had a concern about the new dormer above the garage. No Commissioner expressed a concern. Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of alteration. Mr. Funk moved to approve the alterations as proposed at 1220 tilichigan, based on standards 1. 2 and 9. Ms. Bruglicra seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 15. 1138 Sheridan Road -- Construction of a deck on the side of the house [Construction) Fred Wall and Cyndee Kaiser. owners presented plans construction of a deck on the side of the house at 1]38 Sheridan Road. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Wall said that they would like to cut back what was previously proposed as a deck and build more like a walk out. He said that there are two sections in the house, one is the sunroom French doors that go out to nowhere, and the other is dilapidated steps that need to be replaced. Mr. Wall said that the proposed walk out wrap around would connect the French doors and the door to the side, and steps leading to the back yard. Mr. Wall said that the walk out would be 1 l-feet deep, it would be at the same height as the existing French doors. The materials are stucco with inlay brick. which would match the open porch area with the same type of brick. Ms. Kaiser said that they were in front of the Commission two years ago for approval of wood balustrades over the main entry to the house. The work has not been done yet. Mr. Ruiz said that the certificate is good for six months and it would need to be reissued. Commission's Findings Stephen Droll asked about the location of the walk out. Ms. Kaiser said that the walk out projects 11-feet to the south of the house. Ms. Kaiser said that they would also like to rebuild the kitchen area to match with the rest of the house. Ms. Willard cited the standards for review of construction. Mr. Droll moved to approve the construction at 1138 Sheridan Road in that it meets standards 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 15. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Kaiser asked if the cost of the walk out is prohibitive, could they build only stairs without coming back to the Commission. Ms. Willard said that if they lay a patio, they would have to Esanston Preser%atien Cornmais;un August 20, 2002 - %1;m::ci Page 15 come back. Carlos Ruiz said that he would like to review the plans first. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. 1101 Forest Avenue - Alteration to previously approved corner lot fence (construction stopped) Albert and Elizabeth Kocemba. owners introduced Peter Eikert, architect, and Terry Fryer. neighbor. ?sir. Kocemba said that about a year ago the Commission had approved the restoration of the house at 1 1 O1 Forest. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Kocemba said that about three %%eeks ago they started building the fence. Some people came forward and said that the fence was not being built according to the approved plans. The primary concern was the rough stone being currently used. fie said that about 20-inches of the base has been built with the Touch limestone. The plan calls for a 2-feet high base with a River Limestone. Mr. Kocemba said that the original concept was from the beginning to use the rough River Limestone with the v.-rought iron fence, even though the computer generated drawings showed a more symmetrical stone pattern. Mr. Kocemba said that he met Barbara Gardner (Commission Chair) and Michael Girard (Commissioner) at the site to talk about the fence. He said that it was agreed to refer the issue to Mr. Mike Jackson (architect) of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA). Mr. Kocemba said that Susan Benjamin. his preservation consultant, send the same materials to Mr. Jackson for his review. Mr. Jackson has provided his opinion over the telephone to Ms. Benjamin. Mr. Jackson's opinion is that the rough stone is compatible with the neighborhood and complementary to the house. Mr. Kocemba said that they are in front of the Commission to allow them to continue with the work based on the information provided to the Commission today. He also said that his neighbors are in favor of the fence and that 16 neighbors signed a petition in that regard. Terry Fryer said that the neighbors are in support of the project. Commission's Findings Ms. Willard asked where the compliant came from. Mr. Ruiz said that while he was away, a current member of the Plan Commission, who also served in the Preservation Commission, had called Jeff Burdick, General Planner and asked about the wall being built. Mr. Burdick looked at the file and realized that the appearance of the fence was not the same as the approved drawings. He decided to stop the project until %fr. Ruiz's return. fir. Ruiz said that Mr. Kocemba is also applying for the Assessment Tax Freeze Program with the I}IPA. The IHPA conducts a comprehensive review utilizing the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Review. According to a phone call from Ms. Benjamin, Mike Jackson would issue a written opinion stating that the rough stone is compatible with the landmark and the district. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission could ratify the IHPA's ruling. Mr. Ruiz said that landscaping would be provided at the base of the stone, hence minimizing its appearance. Mr. Droll asked if the peers would be constructed with the same stone as the base. Carlos Ruiz said ties. Nis. Rundle asked at what point was the stone was switched. Mr. Eikert Evanston Preser%ation Commission August 20.2002 -Minutes Page 16 said that the stone was never se%itched and that the computer -generated drawing was the closest representation of it. Ms. Willard moved that the Commission accept the IHPA's decision [regarding the rough stone]. tics. Qrugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Bruglicra moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:10 a.m. (August 21, 2002). Ms. Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: i Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PlannerlPresertatio �dinatar Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting :Minutes Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Bruglicra, Chris Carey, Stephen Droll, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Funk, Neil Sheehan, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Dillard, Joanne DeVargas, Michael Stein, Tony Hurtig, Mike Helmer. Drew Heindel, Catharine Jones, Gary Beyer], Jennifer Knapp. Peter Marks, Dorothy Marks, Kenneth Lehman, Marjorie Benton. Pamela Sundell, Jenny Lerum, Frederik Harboe, Ellen Galland, Pat Bialek, Tom Mackey, and Scott A. Walbridge. PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. QUORUM Barbara Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m., with a quorum being present. 11. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2236 Central Park - Demolish existing garage, build new two -car garage Robert Dillard, owner presented plans for the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new two -car garage at 2236 Central Park. The property is an Evanston landmark. Mr. Dillard said that the existing garage is not complementary to the house. The new garage is finished with stucco to match the house, the garage door is a panelized steel door, the windows are wood windows, and the roof is asphalt architectural shingle. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the trim. Mr. Dillard said that trim would not be appropriate for the E►anston Preservation Commission September 17. 2002 -!Minutes Page 2 house. Mr. Carey said the rear garage door facing the house does not have any windows. Mr. Dillard said that wall is not visible from the street. Barbara Gardner cited the standards for review of demolition. Michael Girard moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 2236 Central Park as it meets standards for demolition. Mr. Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. Chris Carey moved to approve the construction of the garage at 2236 Central Park as it meets the standards for review of construction I (height). 3 (proportion of openings), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes), 10 (scale of a structure), and 12 (the distinguishing original qualities shall not be destroyed. Standards 2, 4. 5, 6, 9, 11, 13. 14, 15, 16 and 17 do not apply. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1115 Oak Avenue - New hvo-car garage and trellis Jo Anne DeVargas, owner and Michael Stein, architect presented plans for the construction of a new two -car garage and trellis at 1115 Oak Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Ms. DeVargas said that the new garage would have a roof deck for additional green space. The back of the house is pressure treated shiplap siding, which is the same siding for the new garage. Mr. Stein said the garage would have trim around the windows. The south and cast side have no windows. The north side of the garage is in conjunction with a bridge that connects the house. The bridge has a wood trellis that could be planted with some vines Commission's Findings. Chris Carey asked about the handrails, and the pergola finish. Mr. Stein said that all would be painted. Ms. DeVargas said that the view from the yard includes the trellis, and the windows in the upper level. Mr. Stein said that a lattice would be applied to the facade facing the yard. In response to a question from Stan Gerson, Ms DeVargas said that the house started in the 1870s; in the 1900s a back section was added at the back. The wood garage door would have lights above. The garage would not be seen once the vacant lot to the south is built with a new house. Mr. Carey asked about the concept of the deck over the garage. Ms. DeVargas said that she would like to put additional green space and be able to walk out of the kitchen to the deck. Stephen Droll asked about the deck construction. Mr. Stein said that the framing would be a TGI framing lumber. The deck would be leveled on sleepers. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the construction of the garage at 11 I5 Oak Avenue based on the standards for review of construction I (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes), 10 (scale of structure), 14(contcmporary design not being discouraged), 15 (additions if were to be removed the essential integrity of the structure would be unimpaired), and 16 (the Commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style). Standards 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 17 do not apply. Stephen Droll Banston Preservation Commission September i 7. Z002 , Minutes Pape 3 seconded the motion. The motion -nassed. Vote: 6 ayes. 2 nays. 3. 1720 Wesley Avenue - Construction of screened porch over previously approved rear porch Michael Helmer, owner and Anthe-3y Hurtig. architect presented plans for the construction of a screened porch over a previously approved rear porch at 1720 11'eslev Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Hurtig said that the construction is in progress. He said that the project is for adding a screened portion over the south%;es: corner of the previously approved porch. The screened porch would be subordinate to the main volume by using a hip roof and utilizing the existing same materials. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked about the hip rt�of over the screen porch. Mr. 1-lurtig said that they did not choose the gable roof because it stayed to compete with gable end of the house. A portion the screened porch roof would be connected to the new addition. The siding under the screen porch is the vinyl siding as on the house. Stephen Droll moved to approve the alteration at 1720 Wesley Avenue as it meets the standards for reyie%v of alteration I (minimal alteration is being performed). 2 (the distinguishing original qualities or character are not being acstroy cd), 5 (distinctive features are being treated with sensitivity), and 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 10 (new additions if removed the essential form and inteerity of the structure would be unimpaired). Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 2509 Harrison Street - Exterior window alterations and construction of new deck at rear Drew HeindeI, architect and Catharine Jones, owner presented plans for exterior window alterations and the construction of a rear deck at 2509 Harrison Street. The property is an Evanston landmark. Drew Heindel said the project invoI;es primarily the back of the house due to interior remodeling to improve the kitchen ---3d the connection of the house to the yard, through the introduction of new pair of French doors that open to the deck. The deck is the only new construction. Also, windows are being replaced. On the east facade there is an existing casement window that would be replaced with a larger casement window. On the north facade there was a porch that was enclosed and expanded. They are introducing a new window arrangement that would open the kitchen more dramatically to the yard within the same structure. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the «windows on the north elevation. Mr. HeindeI said that the new windows on the north elevation would be double -hung windows with simulated divided lights. Evanston Preser%ation CoTmission September 17, 2002-'.Sir,tcs Page 4 Also a window on the main house would be replaced ►►-ith a French door with a transom above. The hip roof is not being modified. Susan Rundle asked about the deck railing. Mr. Heindel said that the railing is 1.25-inch square with balusters with the traditional cap. Sus..n Rundle asked about the trim on the two-story existing rear addition. Mr. Heindel said that the L-im on the rear two-story addition also occurs in the bay of the east elevation. The rest of the house is unbroken. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the new construction and alterations to 2509 1 larrison Street. The project meets the standards for review of alteration 1 (minimal alteration). 2 (distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed). 3 t all structure shall be recognized as products of their own time), 4 (changes may have acquired sizxiificance). 5 (distinctive stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity). 6 (In the event of replacement. the new material should match the material being replaced). 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 10 (alteration when removed, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired). Standards 7 and 8 do not apply. The new deck meets standards for review of construction I (height). 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 10 (scale of a structure), 12 (distinguishing original qualities or character of a structure shall not be destroyed), 14 (contemporary design for additions is not being discouraged). 15 (addition if removed, the essential farm and integrity of the structure would unimpaired0. and 16 (ne%% construction, the Commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style). Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 585 Ingleside Place - Conversion of n►o-car garage into one -car garage, demolition of 1970 stucco and glass addition, construction of new three -car brick garage, t►►o stun- brick addition on cast cle►•ation [Demolition/ConstructionA ariation] Gary Beyerl and Jennifer Knapp, (architects). Peter ;Marks, and Dorothy Marks (property owners) presented plans for the conversion of a t►►o-car garage into a one -car garage, demolition of 1970 stucco and glass addition. construction of new a three -car brick garage, two story brick addition on cast elevation at 585 Ingleside Place. The property is an Evanston landmark within the National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District. Gary Beyerl said that the proposed addition replaces a one-story addition to the east with a one - and 1 /2 addition. Also, a three -car garage would be built on the south property line facing Ingleside Place. He said that because of the required setbacks, there is very little buildable area on the property. fie noted that preserving the open space and respecting the character of the house with the new addition are important issues addressed by the project. Gary Beyerl said that the proposed addition to the east has a steeply gable shaped roof and it would be more integrated with the house that the existing one-story addition. The roof gable terminates at a wall with flashing made of stone. The ►►zndows and openings on the addition are very similar in proportion to the existing building. The only significant difference is the rounded bay on the center of the addition, facing east, foIlo►+•ing the central axis that runs through the house. Branston Presen ation Commission September 17. 2002 - Minutes Page 5 Gary Be%erl said that the existing garage is substandard I Tx 16.5' tw•o-car garage. Putting an additional new three -car garage out fon%ard to the street seemed the only logical solution. The proposed garage is not crammed up against the house. He said that the existing south elevation has a one -stony flat roofed garage and unlikely to be original to the house. The proposed glass structure "ith a low flat copper roof and skylight would seat to the left of the proposed garage, providing a covered entrance to the house from the new garage. The new garage has a flat roof %N ith details that pick up on the character of the house such as the cornice line and ironwork. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the construction materials. Gary Beyerl said that the building material is brick with limestone coins at the corners, limestone cornice line that runs around the eaves. The garage would have a more modest use of these materials. The garage doors are carriage like doors. Gang Beyerl said that they would put some kind of treatment on the new brick to replicate the peeled off paint that is there now. The hope is that the new brick would have a patina. Susan Rundle asked about the existing large Poplar tree shown on the east elevation. Gary Beyerl said the tree is hollow and cannot be saved. He said that Barlett Tree Company was consulted and had arrived to the same conclusion. Chris Carey asked if the new roofing material is slate. Gary Beyerl said, yes. The plan is to find salvaged slate with the patina on it. Carlos Ruiz asked if there were nearby properties with four - car garages. Gary Beyerl mentioned 2719 Sheridan Road (three -car garage) and other properties nearby properties with two to three -car garages. Stanley Gerson asked if there were other Iandmarks on Ingleside Place. Carlos Ruiz said that 621 and 832 Ingleside Place are Evanston landmarks. Carlos Ruiz asked about the required zoning variance. Gary Beyerl said that they arc seeking two major variances. The first is to put the three -car garage on the property line at the front yard. The required setback on a front yard is 27-feet. The second variance is the rear yard setback for the addition facing cast. The proposed addition is 13-inches over the required 30-feet rear yard setback; the existing addition is 19-inches over the required rear yard setback. The addition on the east is within two small towers that have Dutch gable roofs on them. Barbara Gardner asked about the distance between the house and the proposed garage. Gary Bcycrl said from the north face of the garage to the south face of the living room is about 11-feet, and from the west face of the garage to the east face of the existing garage is about 10-feet. He said that they want to look out from the living, room at the side of the old garage and at the side of the new garage centered in the opening. He said that the existing gate and stucco wall along Ingleside Place would remain. The proposed distance from the house to the new garage is also maintaining natural lighting for the library room located northwest of the proposed garage. Stanley Gerson asked what would happen if there were fewer garages. Gary Beyerl said that assuming a garage is possible in that position, getting a little smaller would not fundamentally change the impact that it would have on the building. He said that his clients are really hopeful Cranston Prescnation Commission September 17, 2002 - Minutes Page 6 to have real garage space. They do not have a driveway like most people and now they park in the parkww•a%. Chris Carey asked about changes to the existing garage. Gary Beyerl said that 90 percent of the existing garage would remain, the changes would affect the garage door and the unbecoming roof over it. Carlos Ruiz asked if the issue of exceeding the maximum allowable 25-feet wide driveway by 5-feet (30-feet driveway) %was resolved. Jennifer Knapp said that the% had not heard from Traffic Engineering yet. Michael Girard asked if the intention was to connect the rooftop of the garages by a walkway. Gary Beyerl said that one idea %vas to put some type of landscaping on the roof such a series of planting pots or patio. lie said one of the unique features about the site if the wall of trees along Ingleside Place. Placing trees of top of the garages would continue that appearance. At this time Barbara Gardner acknowledged Kenneth Lehman of 2715 Sheridan Road. Kenneth Lehman said he became aww•arc of the project last Friday (September 13, 2002) through an official notice from the Cite. lie said that he had reviewed the plans on Monday (September 16, 2002), while this was disappointing it was not surprising. Mr. Lehman said that a photo from the file showed part of his property. lie said that the proposed cast addition would block their south view of the lake, and reduce natural light. lie maintained that if the project were built as proposed, any sense of openness on their entire southern property line would be eliminated. Whether or not the architectural details are considered compatible, it would create a size and scale that it is inappropriate and unnecessary. Mr. Lehman urged the Preservation Commission to vote no on the historic preservation question and to advise the Zoning Board of Appeals to do the same. Marjorie Benton of 581 Ingleside Park, said that she lived in Evanston for the past 50 years in Evanston and in four different houses. She said that for 17 %cars she had lived at 585 Ingleside Place. Ms. Benton said that, even though the application and drawings were submitted on July 22nd, that she Iearned of the planned expansion last Saturday, September 14th. Ms. Benton asked her if she would like to see the blue prints. Ms. Marks also told her that for safety reasons the 100 plus year old Poplar tree was going to be cut down. his. Benton said that the tree was already hollow for the seventeen years she lived at 585 Ingleside Place. She said that she finds the cutting of the tree and the expansion a little coincidental. Ms. Benton said that out of the 50 years of living in Evanston, she lived 27 years near the lake, She said that great privilege bringsspecialresponsibilities too. Nis. Benton said that during the 17 years living in 585 Ingleside Place, they made only one exterior change, and that was enlarging a dilapidated screen porch. She said that the porch was kept one-story high so that the porch would not obstruct the views and privacy of their neighbors to the north. Nis. Benton said that the house is very large, where they raised their three children, at one point they even took in college students. They also entertained friends and business associates. She said that Mr. Beyerl made his presentation focusing on the architectural details of the addition, he did not discuss the impact of the addition on the neighbors. Nis. Benton posed questions regarding: the addition's sense of proportion and scale, the addition overpowering and Evanston Prescrvation Commission Septcmt�er 17.2002 - Minutes Page 7 dominating the neighborhood, and she haying to face four garages built up to the property line. Nis. Benton said that Ingleside Place is a small dead end street, inevitably, cars would turn around in her driveway. She also said that construction activity would be very disruptive. Ms. Benton said that the Afarks want to build the garages to the property line because otherwise they would not have a back yard. She said that the proposed changes are hardly minimal. Ms. Benton respectfully suggested that the proposed additions belong on several acres of ground in the county} side. She thanked the Commission for the opportunity to express her concerns. Chris Carey asked about the requested zoning variations that include the front yard setback �yhere the garages would be. and the total lot coverage of almost 22 percent including the garages and the addition, where the maximum alloyed lot coverage is 30 percent. He also asked about the current encroachment on the north rear yard. Mr. Beyerl said that the encroachment on the rear and would be reduced from 1 8-inches to-1 5-inches. Regarding the application for advisory review of zoning variations. Mr. Bcycrl said he would like to address specifically the issue of light and vent. He said in winter, the sun is at 21 degrees. The addition is approximately 50-feet away from the north boundary. Ile said that the addition projection to the east would impede the neighbors' view, but he did not believe that the view is acknowledged as part of the criterion. Air. Lehman said that the addition would significantly impact their view of their southern exposure. %Jr. Beyerl said that they tried to keep the eastern addition tight to the footprint of the existing house. The two-story part is only on the center of the addition. The addition has a very steep one-story roof in response to the architecture of the building. Ms. Benton said that Mr. Beyerl had asked fir. Lehman to answer questions that he was not prepared for. She felt that the neighbors were put in a disadvantage. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission has advisory review on the zoning variations, and binding review on the construction. She said that Evanston is a city of neighbors, it would have been ideal that the applicants had contacted their neighbors, but they did not. At the end the, project would meet the standards for review or not. Ms. Benton said that what was not discussed tonight was the scale of the addition and how it reflects on the rest of the neighborhood, or whether is too large of a foot print, or is the proportion of the addition right or %%Tong. Carlos Ruiz said that the standards for review address those issues. Thomas Prairie said that his main concern were the four garages. Barbara Gardner said she too had some concern about the garages. She would like to see them a little off the sidewalk as the existing garage. She said that she would like to see the mass of the proposed garages smaller. Mary Brugliera said that if the Commission would ask the applicants to address the issue of reducing the mass of the garage if they would have a better change of obtaining the zoning variations. Ms. Gardner said that the Zoning Board of Appeals is very unpredictable. Stephen Droll asked how the Commission deals with what it seems to are two separate Banston Preservation Commission Septemher 17. 2002 - Minutes Page 8 construction projects needing zoning variations. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission could review the proposal as two separate construction projects or as one project. He also noted that the Commission's denial of a project could be appealed to the City Council by the applicant. City Council -would review an appeal based on the record. Ms. Benton said that Mr. Lehman was not given the opportunity to respond to the proposal. She requested time for the neighbors to prepare a response. Mr. Carey said that he needs more information that would enable the Commission to render the right decision. He suggested that a model be provided. fir. Beyerl asked if Mr. Lehman to grant permission to them to access his home so that they can take photographs from his home. Mr. Lehman said that he would be happy to grant access to his house. ,Ms. Benton also said that she would like Mr. Beyerl to consider her property's view to the garages from her property. Nis. Gardner suggested that the applicants contact all of their neighbors. Mr. Girard said that his concern was that the Commission asks only additional information based on the criteria for review. Mr. Girard moved to defer consideration on 585 Ingleside Place until a special meeting on Monday. September 30, 2002 at 7.30 p.m.. Evanston Civic Center, tentatively in room 2403. Also, request that the Commission be provided with sufficient materials from the applicants and neighbors. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes. 0 nays. 6. 705 Milburn Street - Erect a' high wood fence on corner lot - Fence variation only Barbara Gardner said that this involves the fence variation only. not the design of the fence at 705 Milburn Street. The property is within the Federal Northeast Evanston Historic District. Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of fence variations. Pamela Sundell, architect asked if the Commission's purview \,.zs for the placement of the fence. Ms. Gardner added that it also includes whether the fence in that location would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties. Ms. Sundell said that the current property has a 2-foot high retaining wall that goes along the east and south property. The owners would like to erect a 4-foot high fence on top of the ground behind the retaining wall. The reason for their request is because the major open space is the front yard. To the west there is a space ofapproximately 18-feet. The owners have five children and they feel that they really need a yard for the children to play. The property is a comer lot, and the owners want to create a buffer and some privacy for their family living space. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the shrubs would be removed. Ms Sundell said that the shrubbery is behind the fence. She also said that the house has upper balconies and strong white detailing. She said that the fence brings down the architecture of the building onto the yard. Mr. Carey said that fence would be 6-foot high if it is measured from the street level. Mr. Carey asked about some columns. Ms. Sundell said that they wanted to bring the brick in closer to the walk with the columns and a light fixture on top. Ms. Gardner said that the proposed fence Evanston Preser%ation Commission September 17. ?UQ'_ - Minutes Nee 9 would be on the front yard. Mr. Carey said that they have a barrier already with the 2-foot high wall and the hedges around it. Stephen Droll said that he had some concerns. in visiting the property. he said that this is the only property that has a retaining wall. I le sensed that the site was fairly private. I le said that there is an extreme openness of the area and he was concerned with a 6-toot tall fence. h1s. Sundell said that two properties right across the street. one to the east and one to the southwest both have chain link fences around the properties. Mr. Droll asked if the neighbors have been notified of the proposed fence variation. She said that the property to the north was recently purchased, the owner put up a fence right on the property line between to the two buildings. Mr. Girard said that standard A is the only one the Commission has a debate on: "is necessary and%or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely effect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts." Ms. Gardner said that the problem she has with the fence is its 30 percent opacity and a 640ot high fence on a front yard. If there were a wrought iron fence around the property, she did not think, she would have a problem with it. She said that she was really concerned with the precedent of putting a wall up. and a 30 percent opaque fence would be a wall. Mary Brugliera asked what %%ould be the total linear feet of the fence. his. Sundell said 103-feet. She said that one of the reasons they wanted the wood fence was because it carried the detail of the house. Chris Carey said that a wrought iron fence would be more in keeping with the character with the Colonial style house. Michael Girard said that he would prefer a wrought iron fence behind the shrubs. Mr. Carey said that he would consider a 2-foot high fence in front of the shrubs, at this point he would not be in favor of the fence variation, it would also set a precedent in having a front yard fence. Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission not recommend positively to the zoning board for the proposed fence at 705 Milburn, principally because of section A: "Is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely effect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts." She added that the fence as proposed does adversely affect the district. because of the material, height and location of the fence. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Additional discussion: Mr. Droll said that he would not recommend a fence that is higher than 4-feet from the grade of the sidewalk for approval. Ms. Sundell said that the fence would be about 3-feet from the sidewalk. Ms. Gardner said that she was not sure if she would oppose a 6-foot fence [from the grade of the sidewalk) if it were a wrought iron fence. Michael Girard said that for him it was also the issue of opacity. The Commission recommended that the applicant consider a 4-foot high %►Taught iron fence behind the retaining wall. Evanston Preservation Commission September 17, 2002 -'Minutes Page 10 7. 615 Clinton Place - Construction of a one-story attached garage, erection of two one- story additions on the west and east sides of an existing screened porch link from the present main house to the present attached garage - Zoning variation only. Jenn% Lerum, o«ner and Frederik Harboe, architect presented plans for the construction of a one-story attached garage, two one-story additions on the'.vest and cast sides of an existing screened porch link from the present main house to the present attached garage at 615 Clinton Place. The property is within the Federal Evanston Northeast Historic District Mr. Harboe said that «hat they are looking to do is convert the existing garage into a living space with two small one-story additions at either side, and build a new garage at the back of the lot. The new construction would require a zoning variation for 37.85 percent of lot coverage «here only 30 percent is allowed, and for a rear yard of 3-fect for an one-story attached garage addition. where 30-feet are required. Commission's Findings Mr. Ruiz asked if the neighbors are aware of the proposed zoning variation. Mr. Harboe said that no neighbor is opposed to their request. Ms. Jenny Lerum said that their immediate neighbors have indicated vcrbally that they arc not opposed to the proposed zoning variation. Chris Carey moved to recommend the zoning variation based on criteria A because it does not adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of the local historic district. Criteria 8 and C do not apply. Mary 13rugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. S. 2519 Orrington Avenue - Removal of existing screened porch at rear of house, construction of one-story family room, window alterations, new French doors in existing dining room, new wood deck. Ellen Galland, architect said that 2519 Orrington is an Evanston landmark built in 1914 with alterations, which included the screened porch on the right of the house. A two-story addition in the back was built later, and then next to that addition a screened was added %%ith a bubble skylight. Ms. Galland said that they proposed to add on in the comer where the screened porch was, and make that into a small family room. She said that some alterations to the initial plans allow a better window configuration at the back. The casement windows match the windows over the front stair, and a wider casement %vindow is in the middle facing the back yard. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the windows and the deck. Ms. Galland said that the windows mostly are double -hung windows, but at the north elevation over the stairway there are casement windows. Regarding the deck, Ms. Galland said that the guardrails are an ornamental detail that is present also in the front of the house, and porch is pressure treated lumber. Evanston Preserti ation Commission Septernt,cr 17.:W2 - Minutes Page I t Nis. Gardner cited the standards for review of demolition. Chris Carey moved to approve the demolition of the screened porch at 2519 Orrington as it is not in conflict -viih any of the demolition standards. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays Stan Gerson moved to approve the construction of the one-story addition and the good deck at meetinL the standards for review of construction 1 (height). 3 (proportion of openings), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes). i 0 (scale of a structure), 12 (the distinguishing original character of a structure shall not be destroyed), 1.1 (contemporary design for additions shall not be discouraged). 15 (new additions to structures when removed, the form and integrity would be unimpaired). and 16 (the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style). Chris Carey seconded the motion. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay. 9, 646 Forest Avenue - Dormers rehabilitation, including enlargement of south side dormer Ellen Galland. architect said that 646 Forest Avenue was in front of the Commission before. Since then there was a fire in the attic in the front of the house. leis. Galland said that the attic needed to be rebuilt. She said that they are making the south -facing dormer longer and taller for additional headroom and means of egress. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the dormer on the south and the exterior materials. his. Galland said that new dormer would not necessarily adversely affect the existing two dormers. The exterior material would match the existing stucco; all the damaged windows would be replaced. Stephen Droll moved to approve the alteration at 646 Forest Avenue in that it meets standards for review of alteration I (minimal alteration), 2 (distinguishing qualities shall not be destroyed), 3 (alterations that seek an early appearance shall be discouraged), 5 (distinctive stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced), and 10 (new additions when removed, the essential form and integrity of a structure would be unimpaired). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays 111. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 1142 Judson Avenue -Front fagade window alteration The applicants were not present. 2. 1107 Lake Street/1346-1452 Oak Avenue -Window replacement Pat Biaiek. of Baird and NVamer, Tom Mackey, and Scott A. Walbridge, contractors presented plans for the replacement of windows at 1107 Lake Street/1452-1346 Oak Avenue. The building is an Evanston landmark and is in the National Register of Historic Places. This kind of building E►anston Prescr►ation Commission sepiembcr 17. 2(s)2 - Minutes Page 12 has to be held at a higher standard than a non -landmark. Because it is in the apartment district. it had to be able to stand on its own to be in the National Register. Nls. Brugliera asked what the State saes about replacement windows. Nis. Gardner said the State would like replacement like for like. Mr. Mackey said that what they want to do is replace the Mndows with any type of windo►►s that the Commission would like them to use, if the Commission would like them to use a single daze window with a divided light as a ►►ood they would do that. if the Commission wants them to use insulated glass. they would go with simulated lights. But, to go with the true divided light. it can't be done ►►ith the same look as it does now. Nis. Bialek said that cost was not the issue because she had talked to another building manager from another building that went through this process, where residents were displaced for t►►elve weeks when restoration was going on. To ask someone to li►•e ►vith plywood for twelve weeks or move out of their home for twelve weeks, is asking a lot to the residents. Nis. Gardner said that there is another material than plywood. Nis. Gardner said that she could go with a replacement window, but did have a problem with the simulated divided light, because it looks too flat, and it does not look the same. She was interested to hear from the architects in the Commission if interior storm windows could be put in the casement windows. She asked what are the options. tics. Gardner said that the biggest problem she had was the aluminum -clad windows. She was not sure that owning a historic building should be maintenance free Ms. Bialek said that last month there were two issues that came up. One was, whether or not with the wood window replacement, any effective light openings would be lost. She said that the documentation shows the measurements of the existing versus the schematics of the new windows. In most instances the new %vindows would give more light. The other issue was, would the cladding of windo►vs detract from the visual quality of the building. Ms. Bialek introduced Tom Mackey and Scott Walbridge to address those issues. Tom Mackey, of Lee Lumber of Chicago introduce Scott Walbridge of Marvin Windows. Mr. Mackey said that aluminum clad windows do not need painting. all wood windows after few years would need some painting. The brick mold casing that surrounds the window is ,very similar to the brick mold casing on the windows themselves. The interior of aluminum clad windows is wood. There are light divisions on the windows as they exist in the building now. The same light cut would be maintained with the simulated divided light with the spacing bar in - between the pane of glass. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if they were considering true divided light windows with insulated glass. Mr. 5 Mackey said yes. lie added that the problem with the insulated glass, the muntin bar becomes thick (from 71" to 1-5/8 "). Mr. Mackey said that they had measured the lights on the existing windows, and compared them to the Marvin windows. For the double hung Marvin window dimensions are 13-1/4" x i i ", the light on the existing window is 12-3/4" x I 1 "slightly smaller. Ms. Bialek said that the brick mold remained the same. Chris Carey asked if the new windows were a tilt pack application. Mr. Mackey said that the windows are being replaced brick to brick. Ms. Bialek said that they prefer the replacement because the lead based paint issue and the advance deterioration of the existing windows. Ms. Bialek said that there are 425 ►vindows and 254 masonry openings. Evanston Preservation Commission September 177. w002 - I.EnUtes Page 13 Ms. Gardner said that she learned that an investigation %ould show if the restoration of the front elevation casement %%indows would be possible �%hile replacing the remaining windows. Ms. Bialek said that those casement windows are deteriorated to a point that virtually are beyond restoration. They have become a major safety hazard. Carlos Ruiz asked about the issue of energy efficiency of a single pane window with a storm window versus a double pane insulated glass window. He said that Mike Jackson, the State architect is a strong advocate for restoring windows. Mr. Walbridge said that Mr. Jackson and other preservation advocates like the single glazed with windows with energy panels is because the energy panel keeps the existing window. As far as energy efficiency, the energy panel is going to add efficiency to the window, but is not going to meet what an insulated unit is with the weather striping and the technology put into it, and %%ith the low C Argon gas. Mr. Ruiz said that another issue that he hears is that most of the heat loss that occurs is through the walls and not through the windows. Mr. Walbridge said that what needs to be measured is the entire unit and the efficiency measurement. Also it should be consider the sill of the glass to the sash, and the sash to the frame. Mr. Walbridge said that the Commission would like to replace the windows in kind. Marvin windows whether aluminum clad or all wood have the same appearance, same dimensions, same sight lines; everything about it is going to be identical. 'Marvin has a clad window with the commercial break finish. Also. Marvin has full screen or half screen option. The color of the screen would match the color of the window. Carlos Ruiz asked about the warranty of Marvin windows. Mr. Walbridge said 20 years in the glass, 10 years in the manufacturing of the units. The warranty is non -registered, its transferable, is not prorated. Some common problems involve the balance tubing and the sill that occur by the fifth year. Chris Carey said asked what is typical for the particular property as far the sills. Mr. Mackey said that the standard sill is most typical. The height of the sill can be adjusted. Ms. Bialek said that some casement windows have fallen off already and replaced. She said that there are 74 casement windows on the cast fagade, and 351 double -hung windows on the other facades, including 60 on the south fagade. Ms. Bialek said that all the casement windows are beyond repair except those that have been already changed. The windows are original since 1923. Ms. Gardner said that she would like to see as much restoration as possible on the primary facades. The building is one of the most prominent apartment buildings in Evanston. She said that she had trouble with the simulated divided light. Ms. Brugliera asked if architects would be able to tell the difference. Ms. Gardner said that the issue is replacement in kind or, allowing something less. She said that this building is a landmark building in the National Register. Mary Brugliera said that she had a lot of trouble requiring restoration of windows because she believes it is impractical, unnecessarily expensive, and not needed to maintain the landmark quality of the building. Carlos Ruiz said that he would like to see a certified window restoration company verifying that the casement windows are beyond repair. He said that the Commission would set a precedent whether it approves all wood or aluminum clad windows. Evanston Presenanon Commission September 17. 20-72 - Minutes Page 14 ,Ms. Bialek proposed the replacement of the existing windows with all wood windows with simulated divided Iights. Mr. Droll said that he would be willing to accept where restoration is not possible in the case of casement windows. an all- vood casement window replacement. He said that it would be nice to see the single glazed windows. but what he would not like to see is the Crider muntin bar. Michael Girard moved to approve replacement of all % indows at 1107 Lake Street/1346-1452 Oak Avenue. All windows are to be all wood Marvin %,.indo%;-s, with double insulated glass; 7/8" simulated divided lights frith spacer bars, for both casement and double hung windows. Muntin patterns are to match existing, as well as the existing sill detail is to match existing. Brick mold casing to match existing. The good windows would be painted. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. IV. CONUNIENTS BY PUBLIC, CONIMISSION INIEMBERS, STAFF Michael Girard moved to table the rest of the agenda until the next meeting. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. V. AWOURIN LENT Mary Brugliera moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 am. (September 18. 2002). Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 0 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PIannenTreservation oord nator Date: Eti :4.1STON PRESERVATIO` COMMISSION Special Meeting ,Minutes Tuesday, September 30, 2002 7:30 P.NI. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mare Brugliera. Chris Carey. Stephen Droll, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Neil Sheehan and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Beyerl, Jennifer Knapp. Peter Marks, Dorothy Marks. Susan Benjamin, Kenneth Lehman. !Marjorie Benton, Ed Noonan, Jim & Gail Gilbert, Judy Fiske, Walter & Audrey Kihm, and Mary McWilliams PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. QUORUM Barbara Gardner called the special meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., a quorum being present. 11. 585 Ingleside Place - Conversion of hvo-car garage into one -car garage, demolition of 1970 stucco and glass addition, construction of new three -car brick garage, hvo story brick addition on east elevation Demolition/ConstructionNariation] Gary Beyerl, architect presented plans for converting of a two -car garage into one -car garage, demolishing a stucco and glass addition, and partially demolishing a garden wall along Ingleside Place. Also, constructing a new three -car brick garage. and a two story brick addition on the east elevation of the home at 585 Ingleside Place. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Northeast Evanston Historic District listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Gary Beyerl said that they have information that would address the concerns raised by the neighbors to the north of 585 Ingleside Place. He said that they also have information about the streetseape running the full length of Ingleside Place, from Sheridan Road to Lake Michigan. He also said that a site plan would show all of the neighboring properties and their relationship to Ingleside Place. Evanston Preservation Commission September 30.:002 - S7 ciai %letting Minutes Page 2 Susan Benjamin. architectural historian. said that she was working with Peter and Dorothy Marks, the property owners and with Mike Jackson. State architect with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency IHPA ). 'Mike Jackson had visited the site to ensure that the proposed work met the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for I listoric Preservation. Slike Jackson wrote a letter indicating that the proposed -vork meets the guidelines. The proposed garage as designed meets the standards and is in keeping with the design of the house. Susan Benjamin said that she had spoken on the phone with dike Jackson prior to the meeting and asked him about the t«o-story addition. Mike Jackson reiterated that the addition did not concern the IHPA because it is on the rear and replaces a non-contributing 1970s structure. He also had commented that the nature: of the site is unusual. and there is no place to put off street parking which is desirable for the neighborhood. In response to questions from Commission members and a member of the audience, Susan Benjamin said that the "garage renovation" referred to the whole project. and that Mike Jackson was at the site in July or August of 2002. Also. she did not know whether Mike Jackson took into consideration the zoning issues. Gary Beyerl said that the documents turned in on July 25th had a site plan that showed the setbacks and also called out what the setbacks were. Dorothy Marks of 585 Ingleside Place thanked her neighbors Walter & Audrey Kiltm, and Jim & Gail Gilbert for attending the meeting. She said that she has lived in Evanston for 41 years and at 585 Ingleside Place for the last 13 years. She said that her husband has his offices in Evanston too. She said that they lore Evanston and intend to stay in Evanston. Mrs. Marks said that the removal of the Poplar tree was untimely coincidence with the proposed work. She provided photos to illustrate the condition of the tree. She said that she and her husband contribute to Evanston in many ways including with volunteer work. She hoped what would be considered by the Commission is the architectural merit of their design and proposal. Peter Marks said that at the last meeting they came prepared to discuss the enhancement to their landmark home. and how those enhancements met the standards for review. Unfortunately, two of his neighbors took the opportunity to question his character. Ile said that he was proud of his _ character. Mr. Marks noted that over the last 13 years they used the best materials to maintain their home. Mr. Marks said that soon after they moved to their home they realized that there were two areas of their home that were not architecturally compatible with their French country style home. He mentioned those areas as the weight room and the garage entrance. He said that the garage entrance should not be confused with the main front fagade of the house, which is the most architecturally important, and which they are not touching in any way at all. The garage entrance ,was a glass conservatory that was destroyed many years before they moved in. It had been replaced by a sliding glass door. which does not match others original to their property. Regarding the weight room. Mr. Marks said that it has stucco exterior walls, which do not match any other surfaces. The width of this building covers up the beautiful limestone comer coins. _ Mr. Marks said that those two areas do not fit with their French country style home. He said that Mrs. Marks researched more about the French country style. lie said that they hired Gary Beyerl Evanston Preservation Commission September 30, 2002 - Special ".1cetinv Minutes Pave 3 as their architect and they are thrilled with his design. Mr. Marks said that once the final revisions of the design were done. they notified their neighbors. They feel that they have gone well beyond the letter of the law• in their neighborliness efforts. They had extensive meetings with their neighbors. fir. Beyerl has spent many hours doing computer models. light studies, shading calculations and view studies. \fr. Marks said that two of three neighbors immediately adjacent to their house have endorsed their project. Mr. Marks said that they had consulted with three professional arborists and that all determined that the Poplar tree had to be removed. Regarding their project. lvlr. darks said that they are not asking for a lot coverage variance, and they are way under the allowable lot coverage. The new roofline would be at or below the existing roofline. lie said that their neighbors arc not concerned how the addition would fit the historic house, rather they are concerned with their views. He said that Mrs. Benton and the Lehmans have fabulous views. Mrs. darks read a letter endorsing their project from Ms. Gilbert, her neighbor who resides at 582 Ingleside Place. Mr. Beyerl talked about the relationship of the property at 585 Ingleside with the Lehman's progeny immediately north. The ideal view to the lake for the Lehman's is due. not cast, but rather northeast. He said that the primary setback of Mr. Lehman's house is 90-feet from the lake. The proposed addition would not cause a significant loss of view, to the Lehman's property or Mrs. Benton's property. %ir. Beyerl said that from the Lehman's house there are views to the Mark's house. The Lehman's view to their rear yard and the lake would not be blocked. Mr. Beyerl discussed computer model illustrations. He said that the view from the Lehman's house into the east is not obstructed by the proposed addition. Regarding the dimensional relation of the two houses. Mr. Beyerl said that the Mark's house most extreme point to the north is 3.75-feet from the property line. the Lehman's house is about 13.5-feet. Both buildings step away from the lot line as going to the cast (24-feet for the Lehman's and 16-feet for the Mark's). At the point of the addition the setback is 29-feet. The addition is 53-feet from the edge of the Lehman's house. The second story addition starts at 34-feet from the property line, so it is 58- feet from the edge of the Lehman's house. Mr. Beyerl said that the addition is a reasonable distance from the Lehman's property. He said that the addition is behind the line of common setback to the lake. Mr. Beyerl discussed what kind of impact the addition would have on the sunlight. A computer model was done with the angle of the sun on December 21 st, at noon, the lowest angle of the sun at 24 degrees. The shadow line of the addition does not reach Mr. Lehman's home. The next item discussed was the garage. Mr. Beyerl described the strectscape and the house on either side of the street. He said that at the Mark's property there is a wall 6-feet high and about 200-feet long. The proposed garage would change that wall. At a particular point the wall would step up to 10-feet. Mr. Beyerl said that they want to preserve the view of the trees. They would like to plant a new tree at the gap between the wall and the garage. They are also putting Evanston Preservation Commission September 30, 2002 - Special Meeting Minutes Page -i landscaping on top of the garage. Mr. Beyerl said that approximately 70 percent of the street is wa11, including the south side of the street. Mr. Beyerl said that another concern was the scale of the project. The east addition would be setback approximately 50-feet from the south property line and behind the proposed garage. The ridgeline of the addition is about 65-feet from the south property line. The main entry to the house would be enhanced with a new gate and the existing sidewalk would remain the same. Michael Girard asked if the applicants had preliminary discussions with the zoning staff. Mr. Marks said that they met with Frank Aguado, zoning officer. Barbara Gardner said that the Site Plan and Appearance Review- Committee had already approved the project subject to preservation approval. Stan Gerson asked what was the distance of the setback of the existing wall compared to the setback of the proposed garage. Mr. Beyerl said that the current garage is 3.98-feet, the proposed garage is on the property line. Mr. Marks said that both the existing garage and the wall are not conforming. Carlos Ruiz noted that the Commission's purview is limited to what is visible from the public way. For instance, the issue about the views that are being obstructed is an issue for the Zcning Board of appeals. Kenneth Lehman said he appreciated the service of the Commission to the City. He said that he and his family had lived in Evanston for over 30 years. He also has served Evanston in a civic capacity as Director and officer of the Evanston United Way: he was a director and officer of the Youth Job Center. He was the founder chair of the Evanston Community Foundation. He said that, both the Lehman and the Benton families have raised three children in Evanston. Marjorie Benton's family grew up at 585 Ingleside Place. Mr. Lehman said that Firs. Benton was a citizen of the world as well as of Evanston. As the U.S. Ambassador to UNICEF, she visited the most impoverished countries of the world. When she returned from these trips, 585 Ingleside Place became her refuge to recover from her trips. Regarding the proposed addition at 585 Ingleside Place, Mr. Lehman said that the application states the project is to enhance the property's lake views, natural light and ventilation. The proposed variation would not have adverse effect on the adjoining properties or their use. enjoyment, or property values. He said that those assertions were made, vet, no attempts were made to validate them by either the owners or their architect, until this past week. Mr. Lehman said that they met with Mr. Beyerl once. They agreed to erect poles to determine the mass of the addition. They agreed to meet again. At the last minute Mr. Beyerl told them he could not meet again because of the raising costs. He reminded Mr. Beyerl that he was «illing to share the cost. Mr. Beyerl said that the new material Would be sufficient to address their concerns. Mr. Lehman cited some historical information about the property indicating that the lot was once part one of a larger lot. According to the application for zoning variation, the division of the original lot into three smaller lots created the hardship. He noted that the house at 585 Ingleside Place was built in 1926 as an authentic reproduction of a French provincial chateau in France. Mr. Lehman said that the property was subdivided into two and later tree lots long before the house was built. Evanston Presemation Commission September 30. 2002 . Special Meeting Minutes Page c Marjorie Benton said that the plans for the addition started in January 2002. then plans were submitted later in Julv. firs. Benton said that she became aware of the project in September 2002. At the September Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meeting. Arthur Alterson. Committee member. asked if the neighbors were informed. the applicant told the Committee that the neighbors were in favor of it. Mrs. Benton said that the neighbors to the immediate north and south did not know about it. She said that after the September 17th Commission's meeting. they met w7th Air. Be%erl as instructed by the Commission. Mrs. Benton said that the Bentons and the I_ehmans have asked architect fed Noonan to represent them in this matter. Rd Noonan said he would talk about the changes ofthe street scene, the changes to the Lehman yard, and the changes to the Russell Walcott's design (585 Ingleside Place). He said that the project came as a shock to his clients, because the house is handsome and large, over 7,000 feet on three floors, including the basement. The Marks family is also handsome, but not as large; two parents and two children, he said. Their yic%v across their property to the lake is wonderful, and that 585 Ingleside Place is a eery special place. Mr. Noonan said that the house is non- conforming now. The house already extends to the front yard within 3.5-feet of the wall that surrounds it. The house already extends into the backyard setback. Mr. Noonan said that the proposed changes to street scene intrude on the street scene, and therefore hurt it. Ile said that an important feature is the stucco wall with the slate copping that extends from the garage to the lake. The building has excellent integrity. Mr. Noonan highlighted from different points of reference, the presence of the stucco wall as an important feature of the street scene. Ile also said that one couldn't see the faVade of the building because of the stucco wall is in front of it. Mr. Noonan referred to the elevation drawing of the proposed three -car garage and said that they belong more to a townhouse. He said that the garages fagade could be turned 90 degrees (facing west) to minimize its impact on the street. Mr. Noonan said that the proposed garages would intrude on the street scene but it does not need to. Regarding the changes to the Lehman's yard, Mr. Noonan said that he appreciates the shadowing studies at noon and on December 21 st, but Mrs. Lehman is not in her pool on December 21 st, she is in her pool all summer. He said that the problem is the invasion of privacy, because from the Marks' second floor one can see the Lehman's pool. He said that all the people being in the discussion have one thing in common, and that is the desire for privacy. Chris Carev asked when the Lehman's house was built. Mrs. Lehman said their house was built about 25 years ago, and that they maximized their views to the lake while respecting the privacy of others. Mr. Noonan said that the inside changes to the house are being dominated by the outside contextual plan. He said that the proposed addition's details are well done, but the scale of it is Evanston Prexnation Commission September _10. _W2 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 so much Iar,,er that an%thim! that was intended to the garden in front. as compared to the chateau front. He said that the proposed addition dominates the house. Mr. Noonan said that if the taraue were turned 90 degrees it would be the polite thing to do 11or the neighbors. If the bulk and height of the addition are reduced. keeping the %%indows and doors and decks off the north side of the house. one would do honor to the neighbor. Then the garden fagade to the south and to the north %would be preserved and protected, and the house by tite original architects would be honored. lie said that he was hopeful because the proposed addition was not built het. and it could be modified to preserve the integrity of the original architect's ,work and add a reasonable amount of space. Judy Fiske. from the audience. asked «hat was going to the Zoning Board of Appeals (T_BA) the next day. Michael Girard said the ZBA would consider the variance for the north property line. which would be a reduction of the setback intrusion, and the garage setback. Also, to put the garage in. they would have to cut the stucco wall. Judy Fiske said that she and Mary McWilliams are the authors of the Northeast Evanston historic District nomination. She said that one of the benefits of the historic district is that it would allow neighbors to come together to talk what the future design of the neighborhood is going to be. Ms. Fiske said that the opponents of the district have maintained that they trusted their neighbors to make the right decisions. Ms. Fiske urged the Commission to take this opportunity to work wilh the community and increase the ability of people to learn about projects before they come to the Commission. She said that if preservation is going to succeed in Evanston. is because the Commission would take the initiative to build a consensus. She said that putting signs on the properties that are subject to review would be one idea to think about. Walter Kihm of 587 Ingleside Place, immediately west of 585 Ingleside, said that at the time his house and the house immediately west were built ( 1996): the subject house was the only house that really had an address in Ingieside Place. The houses on the south side are oriented towards Ingleside Park. The south side of the street is a row of fences and garages. He said that it would make a minimal impact on the street. He believed the plan was a good one. Commission's Findings Zoning bariarions: The Commission discussed the variation to the north where the proposed addition goes over the backyard setback, in footprint it would be a reduction as far as encroachment. Nis. Brugliera cited the standards for review of zoning variations. 6-15-11-5: RELATIONSHIP TO SPECIAL USES AND VARIATIONS: Whenever an application is made for a special use or variation relating to an historic landmark, or a property located in a Federal or local historic district. the application shall be referred to the Preservation Commission that shall have the authority to make its recommendations to the =_- appropriate decision -making body relating to lot coverage. yard requirements, parking, building Evanston Presenation Comr.-.ission September 30. 2002 - Sp er,s" Met!:inr Ntinules Page 7 height. fences. and or la-ndscaping based upon its determination as to whether the special use or variation: (A) Is necessary and or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts; or B) is necessary to pro% ide the oN%ner a recoverable rate of return on the real property «•here the denial thereof «ould arnount to a taking of the property without just compensation; and C) Will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the district or vicinity %%here the property is located. (Ord. 108-0-98) East side addition. - The Commission determined that standards A and C apply. Standard B does not apply. The Commission also determined that the addition is not in conflict with standard C. Regarding standard A. Thomas Prairie said that 4tr. Bcyer) mentioned that the addition is needed to keep the symmetry on the existing building. Ntichael Girard said that the issue is about the aesthetic integrity of the landmark as well. Barbara Gardner said that Mike Jackson. IHPA architect, had stated that the addition would not be detrimental to the property. Susan Rundle said that the addition dc-es not obscure the existing massing of the house or architectural integrity of the existing house. Sian Gerson said that to him the important word in standard A is the word "appropriate." He asked. is the addition appropriate in the interest of historic conservation? Mary Brugliera moved to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the request for a zoning variance on the north side of the property for the east side addition, as it meets sections (A) and iC) of the ordinance [Zoning Ordinance: 6-15-11-5]. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes. 0 nays. Zoning variation for the construction of the ihree-car garage: Ms. Gardner cited the standards for zoning variation as state above. Ms. Brugliera referred to the statement of significance of 585 Ingleside Place: "...an important feature is the stucco wall with slate copping that extends from the garage to the lake. The building has excellent integrity." Ms. Brugliera said that putting the garage would take out the wall. lvir. Droll said that the garage takes part of the wall, but it keeps the character of the wall, while it may change its vocabulary. The nature of the street is defined by an edge created by the wall; in his opinion the garage keeps that edge. htr. Prairie said that turning the garage 90 degrees is interesting. but even if that were done, the wall would be still interrupted. Ms. Gardner wondered if it would be better if the three -car garage were stepped back from the property line like the existing garage, particularly since the tree is gone. Mr. Girard said that by setting back the garage from the property line, it would provide some relief from the street, it would be in line %%ith the existing garage, and the new garage would relate to the wall in the same way that the existing garage does it today. E%anston Prescr►ation Commission September 30. 2002 • Special Wetin�� Minutes Page & Ms. Gardner said that she was concerned with a three -car garage, she wondered if it would it be better to do a two -car garage. Mr. Prairie asked if the Commission could consider voting on ►;]tether the Commission would accept or not a garage in the front yard, and keep a decision separate from the way it looks. .11s. Gardner. referring to standard (A) about adverse effect. said that it would seem that a two -car garage would have less adverse effect than a three -car garage. Carlos Ruiz said that the effect would be on the overall footprint of the landmark. because the variation for the front yard setback would still be needed for a two -car garage. fir. Girard said that a reveal or a break might be desirable between new construction and existing. particularly if the new garage is built within the same plane of the wall. Susan Rundle. referring to the south elevation. she said that the existing back structure sits in front and does not obscure the rest of the building. She said that the proposed garage obscures the mass of the house behind. She wondered if the garage would adversely affect the historic architecture of the house. :ifs. Brugliera asked if it would possible to add another space to the existing garage. Mr. Ruiz said the Commission should respond to the request for a three -car garage. If the recommendation is to deny the zoning variation as submitted, then the Commission could recommend a two -car garage as having less adverse effect. It would be the applicant's decision to pursue a revised plan. Nis. Brugliera moved to not recommend the proposed variation for the nc%v garage on the south side of the property at 585 Ingleside Place. since it does not meet section (A). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Votc: 8 ayes, I nay. Demolitinn of the existing, srnrroom on the vast .ride: Nis. Gardner cited the standards for revicLv of demolition. (1) Whether the property, structure or object is of such historic. cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the city and the state. The Commission determined that standard I does not apply. (2) Whether the property, structure or object contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the District as a whole and should be preserved for the benefit of the people of the city and the state. The Commission determined that standard 2 does not apply. (3) Whether demolition of the property, structure or object would be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the applicable District. The Commission determined that standard 3 does not apply. Evanston Presenation Commission September 30. 2002 - Special 4teeting N inures Page 9 (4) Whether the property. structure or object is of such old, unusual or uncommon design. texture. and.'or material that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense. The Commission determined that standard 4 does apply. The sunroorn is not of such unusual design, and it can be reproduced without difficulty and/or expense. (5) Except in cases «here the owner has no plans for a period of up to five }ears to replace an existing landmark or property. structure or object in a District, no Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued until plans for a replacement structure or object have been reviewed and approved by the Commission. The Commission determined that standard 5 does not apply. The applicant has plans to replace. Michael Girard moved to approve the demolition of the 1970 addition at rear of main house at 585 Ingleside Place, as it does not conflict with the standards for review of demolition as stated above. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. For clarification. Nis. Brugliera noted that the applicant is seeking a variation to not have a setback for the garage, and that the Commission voted recommending not to approve that request. Conslruc►ion of the east addition: Nis. Gardner cited the standards for review of construction 1 through 17. The Commission determined that standards 1.3. 7.8, 10. 12, 14, and 15 were applicable. Standards 2, 4, 5, 6.9, 11. 13, and 17 were not applicable. Regarding standard 16, it was determined that the Commission was not requiring the use of a single architectural style. Stephen Droll moved to approve the construction of the addition at the east side of the house at 585 Ingleside Place, in that it meets standards for review of construction: (1) Height. Height shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visibly related. The roofline of the addition is lower than the existing roofline. (3) Proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of endows and doors shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which the building is visually related. Openings relate to the new structure. (7) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of the materials and texture of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the structures to which it is visually related. The addition is contextually compatible n terms of the material. Evanston Preservation Commission September 30. 2002 • Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 (8) Roof shapes. "fhe roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related. The addition is largely made of the existing design and relates to the existing structure. (10) Scale of a structure. The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, windows. door openings. porches, and balconies shalt be visually compatible with the properties. structures. sites. public ways. objects. and places to which they are visually related. The addition is partially based on the existing design in terms of slope (12) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property. structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The alteration of any historic or material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. The distinguishing original qualities or character of the property, structure. and site are not being destroyed. (ld) Contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such additions do not destroy significant historic. cultural or architectural material, and such design is compatible with the size. scale. color. material, and character of the property. neighborhood or environment. The Commission is not discouraging contemporary design for the addition. The addition is not destroying significant historic. cultural or architectural material. and the design is compatible with the size. scale, color. material. and character of the property, and neighborhood. and (15) Wherever possible. new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions ,sere to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new addition if it were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays Alteration of the it -all: Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of alteration. Regarding standard 2, Ms. Gardner asked, does removing 30-feet of the fence affect the property negatively, or does removing 30-feet have an effect on the fence? Chris Carey said that the essential structure is still there. Ms. Brugiiera said that the State has approved the alteration to the wall. Ms. Gardner said that if one looks at the property as a whole, the alteration of the wall does not destroy it. If one talks about the fence itself, it does alter it. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission should weight the overall effect even if one or more standards are not met. Chris Carey moved to approve the alteration of the wall, in that it meets standards: (1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure, site or object in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property, structure, site or object and its environment; Evanston Preservation Commission September 30. _002 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 (5) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property. structure. site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible. (10) Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a property. structure, site or object shall be treated with sensitivity: and The gall alteration does not meet standard (2): The distinguishing original qualities or character of property. structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible. Standards (3), (4), (6), (7). (8). and (9) do not apply. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, I nay. Garage C'vnrslruction: Ms. Gardner cited the standards for review of construction 1 through 17. Discussion ensued regarding, the front facade definition, meaning the front facade of the garage or the front facade of the house. The Commission determined that the three -car garage met the following standards for review of construction: 1. 3, 4, 7. 8. 9. 11 and 15. Standards 2. 5, 10 and 12 %vere not inet. Standards 6, 13, and 17 were not applicable. Standards 14. and 16 arc rccommendations. ?NIs. Brugiiera stated that although the proposed garage did not meet standards 2, 5, 10, and 12, she moved to approve the construction of the garages at 585 Ingleside Place, since it meets standards for review of construction: (1) Height. Height shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visibly related, (3) Proportion of openings. The relationship of the «7dth to height of windows and doors shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which the building is visually related, (4) Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front facade of a structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related, (7) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of the materials and texture of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the structures to which it is visually related, (8) Roof shapes. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related, Evanston Preservation Commission September 30.2002 - Special ,Meeting Minutes Page 1 (9) Wails of continuity. Facades and property and site structures, such as masonry walls, fences. and landscape masses, shall. «hen it is a characteristic of the area, form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street, to ensure visual compatibility with the properties. structures. sites. public ways. objects. and places to which such elements are visually related. (11) Directional expression of front elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures. sites. public ways, objects, and places to whichitis visually related in its directional character. whether this be vertical character, horizontal character, or nondirectional character). and (15) Wherercr possible. new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion failed. Vote: I aye, 8 naps. Recommendations: Michael Girard said that he would prefer to see a setback for the garage. Ms. Gardner concurred, she added that she would prefer a smaller structure, whether that be a smaller structure on the street. If a three -car garage is what the applicants want, they may think about rotating the garage (90 degrees) or reducing it. Mr. Girard said that for him the issue was the mass of the garage along the street. ifs. Brugliera said that a possibility is the extension of the existing garage. Thomas Prairie said that his concerns include the setback, and two separate garages on the front. Stanley Gerson said that by looking at the south elevation, there seems to be a space where the existing garage could be expanded. NJr. Ruiz said that in that area there is a window that would be obstructed. Mr. Beyerl said that he would like to work with a subcommittee of the Commission to address the issues that have been raised. Mr. Beyerl said that he would go ahead tomorrow with the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine what the issues arc for them. In response to a question from the audience. Ms. Gardner said that a subcommittee would look at different alternatives, and whether or not they meet the Commission's concerns. Mr. Lehman said that if the darks were amenable to address the issues with the subcommittee, he would be too. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission does not have issues with the addition to the east of the house, and that the Commission has recommended the approval of the zoning variance. Also, the Commission has recommend that the Zoning Board not approve the variation for the garage. The Commission also has denied the construction of the garage as presented. If the Zoning. Board approved the variation for the garage, it is a mute point because the Commission did not approve the garage based on the design. This decision precludes the applicant from obtaining a building permit at this time. Evanston Preservation Commission September 30. 2002 - 5p:cial Meeting Minutes Page 13 Mrs. Lehman said that the photos presented by the applicant regarding the impact on her property were eery deceptive. Mrs. Lehman said that one of the reasons for her to be in front of the Commission is because the darks put in an enormous kitchen fan that blows on her garden. She said that the Marks have been very difficult to communicate with. N1r. Barbara Gardner encouraged Nlrs. Lehman to express her views to the Zoning Board. III. UNFISHED BUSINESS Ridge Avenue Traffic Lights Ms. Brugliera asked if there was a Commissioner who %vould like to assist her in writing the Commission's report about the proposed traffic lights on Ridge Avenue. Ms. Brugliera offered to assist. IV. AD.IOURNNIENT Thomas Prairie moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:000 p.m.. Stanley Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, Onays Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Pre atio Coordinator Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 15, 2002 7:30 P.tiI. - Room 2.303 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Stephen Droll, Barbara Gardner, Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Thomas Prairie, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Stanley Gerson, :Michael Girard, Susan Rundle, and Neil Sheehan OTHERS PRESENT: Ziggy Bednardz, Rob Sicrzega, Pat Mazurek, Peter Marks, Dorothy Marls, Gary Beverl, Jennifer Knapp, Ed Noonan, Kent Lehman, Margery Benton, Thomas Garmisa, Pamela Sundcll, Michael Lee, Faruk Cerkic, and Vera Chatz PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Barbara Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. She said that a quorum of seven members was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chris Carey moved to approve the minutes of June and July 2002. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 704 Judson Avenue - Demolition of existing garage, construction of a two -car garage jemolition/construction] Ziggy Bednardz, contractor presented plans to demolish an existing garage and build a new two -car garage on the property at 704 Judson Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. Banston Preservation Commission October 15. 2002 - Minutes Pace 2 Ziggy said that the existing garage has a new location and it complies with the zoning ordinance. The exterior finish of the garage is cedar siding painted to match the color of the house. The roof shingles would also match the roof shingles on the house. Commission's Findings Abbie Willard moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the garage, as it is in accordance with the standards of demolition: l (it does not contribute to the significance of the property). 2 (it does not have a distinctive historic value), 3 (its demolition would in any way violate the purpose or intent of the district), and 4 (it is of uncommon design but not of the type that is historic). Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Abbic Willard moved that the Commission approve the construction of the new garage at 704 Judson Avenue as it meets standards of construction: 1. (The height is compatible with the house), 3. (Proponion of openings, it is appropriate in that the garage door would be compatible with the house). 5. (The garage is compatible with the rhythm of spacing and structures in the street). Standards 7, 8, 10,12 14, and 15 are met. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. Barbara Gardner amended the motion to clarify that standard 12 referred to the distinguishing qualities of the property not being destroyed, Stephen Droll seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously as amended. 2. 2426 Lincolnwood Avenue - Replace existing garage wood door with new casement windows and brick wall infill - [alteration] Rob Sierzega, architect presented plans for replacing an existing garage wood door with new casement windows and brick infill on the building at 2426 Lincolnwood Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark Rob Sierzcga said the project is converting the existing front elevation two -car attached garage into a family room. The garage door would be replaced with windows and individually stained brick to match the existing brick on the house. The proposed new windows are casement windows to match the existing windows on the house. Also, the casement windows on the side of the garage would be replaced in kind. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked if the property owners were interested in applying for the Property Assessment Freeze Program since the proposed alteration would be subject to review by the State. Rob Sieraega said that his clients were not applying for the assessment freeze. Chris Carey asked if the existing limestone lintels would remain. Rob Sierzega said yes. He added that the new windows would be Marvin windows with the simulated divided E anstan Preservation Commission Octobcr 15.:002 - xtir,c:,s PIL'C 3 ` light and the spacer bar between the panes of glass. Thomas Prairie asked if the nc%v windows are in swinging casement %%indo%%s. Rob Sierzega said the new casements arc out swinging. Chris Carey said that he had a concern with the out swinging windows that would look different from the existing in swinging windo%%s with storms on the outside. Thomas Prairie said that his concern also was that the new out swinging windows would be seen while standing opened, the exiting in swinging windows would not be seen when opened. He suggested customizing the new windo%vs to match the existing in swinging windows, Thomas Prairie moved that the Commission approve the proposed project at 2426 Lincolnwood Avenue with the provision to explore the possibility of customizing the new windows in appearance and with in swinging operation to match that of the existing casement windows. The proposed project as revised meets standards of alteration: I (reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property), 2 (the character of the house would not be destroyed), 5 (the proposed windows as revised treat with sensibility the stylistic character of the house), 6 (the proposed project as revised would match the existing casement windows and brick exterior finish), and 10 (the essential form and integrity of the houses would not be unimpaired if the new windows and brick were to be removed in the future). Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousiv. Barbara Gardner said that if there is a problem with the revised project that Rob Sierzega should consult with Carlos Ruiz. Rob Sierzcga said that his clients have a second option to replace the existing garage doors with original carriage house doors that would be sealed. Abbic Willard asked if the windows on the carriage doors were operational. Rob Sierzega said that '..would be their preference. Thomas Prairie asked about the driveway. Rob Sicrzega said that the driveway would be removed for the first option and landscaping installed across the front. For option (2) the driveway would remain. Mary Bruglicra said making something look like a garage when it is not did bother her. She felt that the first option was the most preferable. Commissioners agreed with leis. Brugliera. 3. 1519 Judson Avenue - 5-Coot tall wood fence along the side tot line within the front yard along Judson Avenue ]Fence Variation/Construction] Pat Mazurek, on behalf of Mitchell Harrison, property owner, presented plans for a 5-foot tall scalloped wood picket fence along the side of the north side lot line within the front yard along Judson Avenue at I5I9 Judson Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The proposed fence requires fence variations for the height and front yard location. Pat Mazurek said that the existing fence is a rusted chain link fence that Mitchell Harrison would like to replace with a 5-foot scalloped wood picket Nantucket fence. She Banton Preser, ation Commission October 15. ?UU'_ - Minutes Pace a said the new fence goes better «ith the house and the neighborhood. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked if neighbors had any objection to the proposed fence. Pat Mazurek said that the neighbor immediately to the north does SLpport the proposed fence. Mary Brugliera asked %%hy the proposed fence needed to be v.-ithin the front yard. Pat Mazurek said that the proposed fence would be where the existing fence is. Stephen Droll asked if the length of the proposed fence is the same as the exi;.ing fence. Pat Mazurek said, yes. She added that the fence posts are 5-feet tall and that th.- scalloped pickets go lower in bet%%cen the posts. Mary Brugliera asked about the fence on the south property line. Pat Mazurek said that there is a high brick fence along the south property line that extends to the sidewalk on Judson Avenue. Flan• Brugliera said that she did not ---e any point to have the new fence on the north side extend all the way to the sidewalk on Judson Avenue. Clint Funk said that the proposed fence gives balance to the front yard because the fence on the other side is a 6-foot wall. Stephen Droll moved that the Commission recommend the fence variation at 1519 Judson Avenue for the proposed 5-feet tall scalloped picket wood fence as it meets standards for special uses and variations: a (it does not adversely effect the integrity of the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District or the property). and c (it is not materially detrimental to the public health). Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay (M. Brugliera). Abbie Willard moved that the Commission approve the construction of the proposed 5- foot tall scalloped wood picket fence at 1519 Judson A%enue as meets standards of construction: 1. (The fence height is visually compatible with other existing fences), 5. (The spacing with other fences is visually compatible). 7. (The fence material and texture is visually compatible with the main structure), 9. (The proposed fence is visually compatible with adjacent properties), 12. (Distinguishing original qualities or character of the property are not being destroyed), and 14. (The proposed fence is compatible with the size, scale, material and character of the property). Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 6 ayes, 1 nay (.11. Brugliera) 4. 5851ngleside Place - Oration A. Replace garage door of existing two -car garage, construct new two -car garage setback 2' from property line (partial demolition/construction/zoning variance) Peter Marks and Dorothy Marks, property owners. Gary Beyerl, and Jennifer Knapp, architects presented plans for replacing a garage door of an existing two -car garage, and building a new two -car garage on the property at 585 Ingleside Place. The proposed garage requires a major zoning variance of the required setback from the property line. Banston Presertiasion Commission October i'. _UU-' - stinssrs pace 5 The property is an Evanston landmark within the Northeast Evanston Historic District listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Gary Beyerl referred to a re%ised site plan. south elevation and floor plan drawings of the proposed two -car garage facing Ingleside place. He said that the drawings showed a reduced scale and mass of the proposed garage. Also. he referred to a revised drawing of the west elevation of the house and a revision to the streetscape. He noted that the front of the house faces west and that the garage is the side yard of the house even though it fronts Ingleside Place. - Gary Beyerl said that the Commission's denial of the previous garage design had to do with the scale and the proportion of the garage. lie said to respond to those concerns, they took the exact width of the existing garage and left its original design intact. They plan to install a new period garage door. The new garage has the same width (20'-9") and the same garage door and much reduced puncture through the existing garden wall and is now T-0" from the property Iine. The wall from the new garage would flair in a semi- circular pattern, the same as the existing wall relative to the existing garage. Behind and 6-'0" from the wall, they proposed to build Nving buildings for storage. Gary Beyerl said that they lost the originally proposed mudroom. The new design moves the mudroom out into the garage addition. The iving buildings behind the wall pick up the height of the existing cornice Iine of the main volume of the house. The mudroom appears slightly taller than the garage to allow an appropriate ceiling height. Also, a narrow and steep staircase on the northeast comer of the storage room leads to the top of the garage roof. The actual size of the garage addition is tied directly to the proportions established for the main house. Gary Beyerl said that the centerline of the garage is the centerline of the windows of the second and first floors of the two-story addition behind the proposed garage. One of the comments from the Commission's review sub -committee was to align the new garage with the same setback of the existing garage. Gary Beyerl showed two drawings depicting the new garage at the same setback as the existing garage (3.96') and at a 2'-0" setback. He said that from the street point of view the impact of a 2'-0" setback is minimal compared to a 3.96' setback, which would require a larger cut of the garden wall, because the arc becomes a 4'-0" radius instead of a 2'-0" radius. From the ownees stand point the 2'-0" are critical. If the garage is moved back, they do not want to make the garage any smaller and the view from the library out would be reduced from 9'-0" to T-0"wide. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's review sub -committee had indicated that they would prefer not to have the conservatory and that the view out from the library was Banston Preservation Commission October 15.:rxj: - I finutes Pace 6 already limited. 1 le noted that the Commission's concern is what would the impact of the garage be on the street, on the historic district and on the landmark 1n response to questions from Chris Carey. Gary Be%crl said that the garden wall would retain almost an additional 10'-0" compared to the original proposal. Also, the existing garden wall bets cen the door and the new garage would be disturbed minimally and if anything restoration of the wall %kould occur. Stephen Droll said that he was concern with the proposed landscaping over the new garage. He said that the large plantings would increase the scale of the new garage. Gary Beyerl said that the intent of the roof top landscaping was to regain the landscaping lost when the Cotton tree was lost. Stephen Droll said that he was in favor in setting back the new garage to align with the existing garage, he said that the continuity of walls was important. Carlos Ruiz said that the review subcommittee was unanimous regarding the additional setback for the new garage. In response to a question from Thomas Prairie, Gary Beyerl said that the conservatory's width was t i'-0" wide and the opening looking to the east was 10'-0" and the vertical dimension inside the courtyard was about W-0" to the glass and a parapet above. Thomas Prairie said that the structure did not feel as a conservatory, but rather a connecting room. Gary Be%erl said that the intent of that room was to preserve the exterior walls of the house. Ed Noonan, architect representing K. Lehman and M. Benton (neighbors of Peter and Dorothy Marks) said that the Marks' and Gary Beyerl and the Commission's subcommittee were supposed to go through alternatives because the proposed garage seem too big. One scenario was to look at a one -car garage next to the existing two -car garage. Another idea was coming through a 12-foot opening in the courtyard and making the garage inside the courtyard facing 90 degrees from what was being proposed. He said that he was shocked when he got drawings of a garage 20 square feet more than the existing garage. He said that he was working on a letter of agreement between the Marks', the Bentons and the Lehmans. He had asked that the Marks' put an 8 to 10-foot tree in order to hide the two sheds on either side of the new garage and that the sheds be dropped to T-6". He received an answer from the Marks' attorney stating that his clients would not commit to any kind of a tree. Ed Noonan said that after talking with Gary Beyerl he learned that there were not going to be meetings between them, but that they could e-mail. Ed Noonan said that he learned that if the proposed garage did not work out, the Marks' would propose to put a garage in the rear of the lot. He said that he did not understand how the Marks' would propose such change without giving any consideration to the issues discussed by the Commission. Evanston Prescr .. ion Commission, October 15. _'002 - Minutes Pace 7 Ed Noonan said that they hale tried to come with an agreement with the ~Barks' with specifics in the landscaping and setbacks. He said that they were trying to establish some lines of trust. - Commission's Findings In response to a question from Chris Carey, Ed Noonan said that his loyalty xas to the whole house at grounds together and concern for the privacy of the neighbors and balancing the %Barks' right to do within the law- what they want to do. He said that he is looking for landscaping towards the street to shield and reduce the size of the two sidewalls of the sheds. Ed Noonan said that he is looking for landscaping between the addition of the lake room and the fence, because the Lehmans do not have much choice for privacy. Fie said that the most important thing to be done to neutralize the lack of harmony between the neighbors is to suggest some kind of privacy shields between the neighbors. Regarding setbacks, Ed Noonan said that he was in agreement with the Commission's subcommittee recommendation. Mary Brugliera said that she wanted the Commission to focus on the landmark and how the garage plan is being perceived, and whether the Commission could answer or not the objections of the neighbors. Ed Noonan said that the proposed south elevation of the garage is a good elevation, if the landscape dominates the two wings and the garage stays small scale and if the height of the sheds is dropped. Chris Carey asked if by excavating further down the grade, the sheds could be lowered. Gary Bcyerl said that they wanted to access the mudroom from the garage without stepping down. He said that they need and 8-inch dimension and 16-inches of structure and decking plus 8-feet. With those dimensions they have picked up the roofiine of the main body of the house. He said that the intent is to make the new structure green by means of landscaping. Gary Beyerl said that considerable effort has been made to separate the Lehmans and Marks' homes by providing some screening. Barbara Gardner said that the two-story addition had already been approved and that if some screening is being provided, it would have to come back to the Commission for review if a permit is required. Margery Benton asked if the Commission would further discuss lowering the height of the sheds. Chris Carey asked about the reference point for the wing walls in relation to the house. Gary Beyerl said that the height of the wings pick up the height of the comice line on the house. He said that what they want is solid buildings that have a glass building in between. Chris Carey said that he sensed that the Commission would like to see a greater setback than the proposed T-0". Stephen Droll moved that the Commission recommend the variation for the construction of the garage within the front yard setback with the provision that the setback matches the setback of the existing garage at 3.96'. The request for zoning variation meets standards: a. {the garage will not adversely effect the integrity Banston Presenation Commission oacber 15, 2002 -Minutes Pace 8 of &.e district) and c. Ithe proposed garage it would not be detrimental to the public health). Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Thomas Prairie moved that the Commission approve the partial demolition of the garden wall at 585 Ingleside Place with the provision that the setback of the proposed garage meets the setback of the existing garage. The partial demolition meets standards of demolition: I. (The partial demolition is not detrimental). 2. (Most of the wall would be preserved), 3. (The partial demolition is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the Preservation Ordinance), and 4. (The wall can be reproduced). Standard 5 is not applicable. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Abbie Willard asked what other solutions for the .wings were explored. She said that she understood the reasoning behind the roofline, but she also perceived from the drawings a lot of clutter. Gary Beyerl said that they had explored many options and that there are three different heights: a copper clad conservatory setback 15-feet. and the two heights for the garage; one which matches the existing garage and one which matches the eave of the existing house. lie said that in his view the new design is a better product than the previous design. Abbie Willard moved that the Commission approve construction of the two -car garage on the property at 585 Ingleside Place with the following conditions: that the garage be 3.96' setback from the front property line. also, the landscape masses (as referred in standard 9 for review of construction) give a sense an established park like setting to minimize the appearance of the wings to the new garage. The project meets standards of construction: l (height), 3 (proportion of openings). 5 (rhythm of spacing and structures on streets - as giving the conditions above), 6 (rhythm of projections), 7 (relationship of materials and texture), 8 (roof shapes), 9 (walls of continuity), 1 I (directional expression of front elevation), 12 (the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property are not being destroyed), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged). Standards 2, 4, l3, 16 and 17 are not applicable. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. 705 Milburn Street - Erect a 4-foot high Wrought iron picket fence within the front and street side yard on corner lot [fence variation onlyl Michael Lee, property owner, and Pamela Sundell, architect presented plans for a 4-foot high wrought iron picket fence on the front and side yard of the property at 705 Milburn Street. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits fences within the front or street side yards. The proposed fence requires a fence variation. Pamela Sundell said that the proposal is for a wrought iron fence on the same location as it was originally proposed for a wood picket fence in the September 17, 2002 Preservation Commission meeting. Evamswn Prts:-%ation Comrnioion OC(o'xr 15. =002 -its Pace 9 Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner said that the proposed --wrought iron fence is 4-feet high and approximatel% 6-feet high from the grade if including the existing retaining wall. Pamela SundelI said that the slope of the property varies from ?-feet to 8-inches from east to west. Thomas Prairie asked why the need of the fence. Michael Lee said that the fence is for safety reasons, and to keep his children and dog in the yard. Barbara Gardner said that in the September meeting the Commission indicated to the applicant that the Commission would accept a %woucht iron fence. Abbie Willard moved that the Commission recommend approval of the fence variation for the property at 705 Milbum Street. The proposed fence meets the Special Uses and Variations standard a) the proposed fence does not adversely affect the historical architecture of the historic district. Also, standard c) the proposed fence would not be materialhv detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the historic district or vicinity where the property is located. Clint Funk seconded the motion. Tice motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, I nay (Stephen Droll). 6. 1916-1918 Maple Avenue - Enclose rear porches, install new w indows and sliding doors at rear, provide three off the street parking stalls [alteration/zoning variation] Faruk Cerkic, of Eriksson Architecture presented plans for the enclosure of rear porches, installation of new windo►►s in lieu of sliding doors at the rear of the building and providing three off-street surface parking stalls at the rear of the building at 1916-1918 Maple Avenue. The property is an Evanston landmark. The parking stalls require a zoning variance. Faruk Cerkic said that Robert Taylor, owner of the property was seeking re -Certification of a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness. He said that the previously designed common stairwell for condominiums could not be done, because the stairs need to be covered and enclosed. This would mean that the maximum lot coverage would be in excess. Faruk Cerkic said that the new plan is for the existing two stairwells. He said that the Commission had approved the enclosure of the existing two porches. The changes to the rear elevation include the retention to the stairwells for each building and the removal of the sliding doors and replace them with windows. Carlos Ruiz said that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had recently reviewed variations to building lot coverage, rear yards and parking location allowing construction converting a central core light well to usable interior dwelling space, adding a roof deck, and providing parking in the rear yard. The ZBA granted variances for roof deck by vote of 4 to 1, with 1 abstention; denied variances as to infill of light well, rear stairs and Evanstor. Preser%atio:, Cos- m;ssion October 15. =QC'_ S!snta_5 Pace 10 parking location b% Note of 5 to 0 with I abstention. Carlos Ruiz asked Faruk Cerkic what , difteren: no« from what the ZBA had revie%%ed. Faruk Cerkic said that the difference is the enclosure of porches, and changing the elevation by removing four sliding doors and replacing them with windows. He said that the ZBA did not review the latest proposal yet_ Regarding the parking spaces. Robert Taylor is proposing three parking spaces at the rear of the building within the 10' between the building and the rear property line. Additional discussion ensued regarding the existing vinyl %%indows and the previous approved enclosure of porches with vinyl siding. .*far% Brugliera asked «hat the zoning regulations require for parking. Faruk Cerkic said that they need five parking spaces for four units. Discussion ensued regarding the safety issue as it relates to the parking spaces. Barbara Gardner said that the proposed parking spaces could potentially block the access of fire trucks to the adjacent building. Faruk Cerkic said that the building %%ould be sprinkled. Stephen Droll moved that the Commission deny a recommendation for the parking zoning variance at 19 t 6-1918 Maple Avenue, as it adversely affects the historic nature of the landmark, and that it would be materially detrimental to the public health and injurious to the property. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes. 1 nay (Chris Carey). Barbara Gardner asked about the design of the new windo,.►•s in the enclosed porches. Faruk Cerkic said that the 2' x S windows were already designed for the basement. The door openings are also a' wide and by using the same windows where the doors were originally designed the hope was to create some balance on the elevation. Abbie Willard moved that the Commission deny approval of the alterations to the property at 1916-1918 Maple Avenue as proposed - specifically the size and type of windows and the vinyl siding. The changes do not meet standards of alteration: 1 (the property would not be minimally altered), 2 (the distinguishing original qualities of the property), 5 (craftsmanship is not treated with sensitivity), 6 (new material are not consistent %%ith the composition design and color of the existing materials), 9 (the design would destroy the significant historic architectural material of the building, and 10 (the changes could not be removed in the future and the integrity of the structure would be unimpaired). Standards 3, 5, 7, and 8 do not apply. ;tart' Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ridge Avenue Traffic Lights Vera Chatz, Evanston resident (one of the consulting partners to the parties to the Section 106 process) said that the Commission had received a draft report as part of the Section E%,xnsfon Preservation C'omrmision October 15. _D02 . Ntim:lcs Pare t t 106 process. which is to determine the adverse effect of modiA-ing the traffic signals on Ridge Avenue. Other consulting parties are: the Preservation Commission, the City of Evanston, Illinois Historic Preser•ation Agency, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). and Jan Schakouski's office. The Federal Department of Transportation administers the Section 106 Review. Vera Chatz said that all the consulting parties were to work together to draw- a document that would mitigate the adverse effects on the Ridge Historic District. Also, to propose a system of signals that would not affect the historic district. The City prepared a first proposal, then consulting parties got together and revised that proposal and submitted back to the City. Then the City added to the joint proposal an additional alternative. The City staff proposed originally was that the City would ask IDOT for a jurisdictional transfer of Ridge Avenue. and MOT would repave the road and give the road to the City of Evanston. Thus, the City of Evanston could put post top traffic signals on Ridge Avenue, which was the preferred mode of traffic signals. Barbara Gardner said that the City might take jurisdiction of Ridge Avenue prior to repaving the road. MOT would commit to funds at some point in the future. Vera Chatz said at the meeting with all the interested parties was decided that the best thing to do was to ask for the jurisdictional transfer, put up the post top traffic signals in conformance with Federal standards. which are different than the State standards. Vera Chatz said that the latest alteration to the proposal includes a second alternative: "the next best alternative would be the decorated quarter mast arm." Vera Chatz said that the consulting parties do not agree with this, they do not feel it is necessary to give a next best alternative. She also noted that the entire document argues against mast arms. Vera Chatz informed to the Commission that two of the consulting parties, Steve Patton and Roy Joy (Jan Schakowski's office) had met with City Manager Roger Crum. According to Vera Chatz Roger Crum had acknowledged that the Section 106 process had not been properly adhered to. Ile said that City staff would work again with the consulting parties to prepare a document that is acceptable to all the parties. The document would be put in the City Council Agenda of October 28. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission had not had the opportunity to vote on what changes the Commission wants to see in the proposed document. Barbara Gardner said that some text should be put back to the document such as "an overflow crowd attended the City Council meeting." Insert text about what standards were not met according to the Commission's review. Also insert text about the Commission's unanimous vote to have the underground wiring done using the current fixtures and the current locations and replace damaged parts as necessary. Another text to be included in the document is the 2' from the curb setback for the post tops. Also, the Commission's recommendation regarding the current location of post tops, rewiring, and refurbishing the post should also be included. Barbara Gardner said that the document should include what Nancy Magnus, Bureau Chief of local roads and streets for IDOT had said at the initial meeting, which is that she would approve the jurisdictional transfer. The City then said that it could not take the transfer without the funds. Evanston Preser%ation Commission October 15. 2002 - Minutr: Pau 12 Vera Chatz said that the consulting parties have recommended that the mast arms that have been already constructed be sold to somebody else. Barbara Gardner said that if at some point the City does not get the jurisdictional transfer, then the City should go back to the draN%ing board and figure out \hat are the next alternatives. Shc'said also that the public hearing is still to come. Vera Chatz said that a series of errors had occurred in the City's application for funds that at the end the City Council approved the project as part of the regular budget, but never gave it any thought to impact on the historic district. Barbara Gardner said that said that other changes to the text should include removing the word National on page 4 from "National landmarks." Also, include text regarding a landmark building at the corner of Ridge and Oakton listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Thomas Prairie said that historically Ridge Avenue might be the first or one the first road with synchronized traffic signals. Carlos Ruiz said that the report has to get approval from City Council before the public hearing. He had the hoped that the final document would have the support of all parties involved. Abbic Willard moved that the Commission approve the text changes to the latest proposal as outlined by Barbara Gardner. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS Capital Improvement Projects - Preservation Review Process The Commission tabled this item until the next meeting. Mary Brugliera and Abbie Willard volunteered to review the CIP policy draft and report to the Commission for its approval. VIL ANNOUNCEIMENTS The next Commission meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. Room 2.103, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201. VIll. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: arios Ruiz Senior Planner/PreservatioLldinator Date: // - 51 - 0 EVANSTO` PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday,;tiovember 19, 2002 7:30 P.M. - Room 2.103 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois N1EMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Gardner, 4iary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stanley Gerson, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Neil Sheehan, MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Droll, Clint Funk, Michael Girard, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Gross. Mathew and Jolic Fleming, Pamela Sundell, Mike Howell. Ronald Nagler, Jay Baehr, Prudence Burke, Kathleen Hardgrove, Dave Pickert, Ellen Stoner, Kory Burton, Adolf Hansen, Penelope Peterson, May Pruess, Michael Walker. Robert Klingel, Shiele Kaminski, Suxannc Ross, and Robert Taylor PRESIDING: STAFF: 1. QUORUM Barbara Gardner, Chair Carlos D. Ruiz Barbara Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m., with a quorum being present. II. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1217 Michigan Avenue - Demolition an existing rear addition, construction of a one- story rear addition and exterior alterations jDemolition/Construction/Alteration] Julie Gross. architect presented plans for the demolition of an existing rear addition, the construction of a one -store rear addition, and exterior alterations to the building at 1217 Michigan. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Julie Gross said the existing rear open porch would be removed and replaced with an addition to the kitchen, which will be the breakfast room. The new one-story addition has a shed roof and it is similar in massing and scale to the existing porch. She said that the house was build c. 1894. Evanston Preservation Commission ,Minutes - November 19. 2002 Paee 2 Julie Gross said that the existing screened rear porch had been enclosed. The rear porch would remain the same scale. The porch %%ould be restored -Mth the same columns and filling the south wall with windows. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the priorities for the project. Julie Gross said the priority of the project is the rear of the house. She said that her clients would like to restore eventually the whole exterior of the house. She said the restoration of materials includes the rear corner of the porch (south side). all the way around to the end of the kitchen. The existing siding would be remove to expose the shingles or clapboard siding on the second story. The ground floor is stucco. Julie Gross said that she believes that the front fagade of the house has the original materials including the windows. She pointed out that there is missing dormer or gable on the front elevation. She said that one existing tree would be removed at the rear for the new one-story addition. Also. a proposed fence would be on the south side of the house (3-feet high picket fence with two s%vinging gates). Julie Gross said of all the original windows only one would be removed. The non -original windows at the rear would be replaced with wood windows and divided lights for the upper sash and without an arch. There are new horizontal windo►%s on the north elevation, that occur from the upper cabinets (inside) to the back splash. Carlos Ruiz said that he received a call that afternoon from the IIlinois Historic Preservation Agency (IIiPA). Apparently, the owners of the building are applying for the Property Tax Assessment breeze Program. He was informed that the IHPA would approve the project with the condition that the front elevation windows needed to be restored. Julie Gross said that the front elevation windows are in bad shape. She said that all the muntins needed re -cutting and re - milling. Barbara Gardner said that, since the rear porch is not visible from the public way, the Commission would refer to the standards of alteration only. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the project as presented as it complies with standards of alteration 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10. The addition is in keeping with the character of the property, the details are consistent with those existing on the house, and the whole ]character of the house] is treated sensitively. He further moved to authorize the Preservation Coordinator to approve a 3-feet high picket fence as described. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes. 0 nays. 2. 1745 Wesley Avenue - Construction of a one -car garage ]Construction] Mathew and Jolie Fleming, property owners presented plans for the reconstruction of a one -car garage on the property at 1745 N\'esley Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Jolie Fleming said that they had researched the location of the original garage at the Evanston Historical Society. The new garage would replicate the design and of the original garage. The exterior finish would be vinyl siding to match the color and weather exposure Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - Noventher 19. 2002 Pace 3 dimension of the existing «ood siding on the house. Mathew Fleming said they chose vinyl siding for upkeep reasons and because cedar siding is 35 percent more expensive than virtyl siding. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner praised the Mathew and Jolie Fleming for their efforts to replicate the design of the original garage. 'Mathew Fleming said that the new garage door is a panelized aluminum door. Jolie Fleming said that the curb cut was filled in last year and it would be re -installed again. Carlos Ruiz asked how far would the proposed garage be from the main house. Jolic Fleming said it would be more than ten -feet. Chris Carey asked if adding additional details under the gable was considered. Niathew Fleming said that they had considered it, but it did not look right. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the project as presented under the standards for review of construction. Because the garage is not related to the scale, proportion, setback, forms of the existing houses in the neighborhood standards 1.2, 3, 4, 5, 6.9, 10, and 11 do not apply. The garafe is consistent under standards 7 for relationship of materials and texture, 8 for roof shape. 12 distinguishing original qualities and character of the property or site are not being eroded. 14. 15. and 16. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes. 0 nays. Mary Brugliera noted that the house at 1745 Wesley Avenue is a I contributing structure to the Evanston Ridge istoric District. . 3. 1700 Asbury Avenue - Installation of skylights (Alteration] Mike Howell, property owner and Susan Sundell, architect presented plans for the installation of skylights on the roof of the building at 1700 Asbury Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. After viewing slides of the house. Carlos Ruiz explained that the roof area where the skylights are being proposed is difficult to see from the public way. Susan Sundell said that her clients are proposing to finish the attic. New windows are required to meet the requirement of light and ventilation. She said that there is no way to put additional dormers, because the house has already five dormers and a turret. Susan Sundell said that she put the new three skylights in line with an existing element at the staircase dormer. Two skylights arc further behind the existing gable on the north side of the roof. One of the skylights is required for egress. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson asked about the appearance of the skylights. Susan Sundell said that the skylights would be 4.5" deep, dark anodized aluminum. She said that the cave of the shed roof over the stairs is staying where it is, but the pitch is being changed for headroom. Chris Carey asked if the entire roof would be re -roofed. Susan Sundell said that the south side had already been done. The north side would be done next. Mike Howell said that the south and west -end of the roof were redone. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19, 2002 Pale a Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the project as presented to install st'C Velux skylights. as they are w inually invisible. The proposed skylights comply with standards for alteration: 2 (the proposal does not alter the historic character of the property). 9 (it is a contemporary alteration that should not be discouraged). and I0 (the skylights %would be easily removed by some future owner and %without any ill effect to the property). diary Brugliera seconded the motion. She noted that the building at 1700 Asbury is a contributing structure to the historic district. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes. 0 nays. 4. 2133 Sheridan Road - Construction of the Ford Motor Company - Engineering Design Center (Construction] Ronald Nayler and Jay Baehr. of Nonhwyestem University presented plans for the construction of the Ford Motor Company - Engineering Design Center building on the property at 2133 Sheridan Place. The property is on the same lot of record for the Shakespeare Garden, listed in the National Register of I listoric Places and also listed as an Evanston landmark. Prudence Burke and Kathleen HardLrove of the Garden Club of Evanston were also present. Neil Sheehan recused himself from the discussion. Ronald Nagler said that they had considered the site constraints in the design of the new building. The zoning would allows a building 85-feet in height. To minimize the impact of the building, two stories of program space are below grade. Referring to a model of the proposed building. R. Nagler said that the actual height of the rear portion ofthe building would be 10-feet lower than what it was represented in the model. He said that the elevation drawings were accurate. showing 48-foot height of the front building. plus I.5-11oot high parapet. R. Nagler said that by putting two -stories below grade and reducing the height of the building, there is not impact on the Shakespeare Garden until after 3:00 p.m., according to the shadow studies. After that there is negligible impact giving the trees. the shrubs and hedges that already exist on the west side of the garden. The shadow- studies include April and August (beginning and ending of the growing season). The shadowy studies show for example that at 3:00 p.m. in August, the shadow of the building itself is just reaching the edge of the Shakespeare Garden. At 4:00 p.m. there is a modest impact. Ronald Nagler said that they had presented the initial concept to the Garden Club of Evanston who maintains the Shakespeare Garden along with the university at a meeting where Carlos Ruiz, -- the City's Preservation Coordinator was present as well. Also, the project was presented to the Garden Club's membership at large. The Garden Club raised some concerns for protecting the garden. The university responded to those concerns positively ensuring the protection of the garden during construction and protecting the trees that are outside of the garden. Commission's Findings Commission members discussed the purview of the Commission in regard to the Shakespeare Garden. Carlos Ruiz said that the purview of the Commission includes the lot of record [associated with the structure]. Ronald Naylor said that the lot of record contains Shakespeare Garden, but noting to the south. He noted that the lot of record also includes the Tech building Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Nee g and buildings that are north of Tech as well - extending to Lincoln Avenue and fatten Gym. but not Garrett. The impact of the new building is its proximity to Shakespeare Garden. Ronald Nagler said that the ne%% building is located as far away from Shakespeare Garden as possible. He said that a portion of the building is one-story high (cast elevation) minimizing the impact on the aarden's west'north corner. Ronald Nayler said that the massing and setback of the new building relates to the massing and setback of Tech. He said that there is a motte that opens up the levels that are below grade. There is a step area in front of the building's first level below grade. on the western edge for daylight. The moues and the building [Tech. Ford Center] edges are lining up, the massing in terms of its height as Tech moves cast starts to step up, and the new building does the same. Chris Carey asked %%hat is the exterior cladding. Ronald Naylor said that it would be limestone (similar in color to Tech) and glass. The stone pieces would be larger than the stone pieces on Tech. with scores and brakes. Barbara Gardner asked if the back and higher portion of the building goes below grade. Ronald Nayler said that the entire footprint goes two floors below grade. Barbara Gardner asked why is the back taller. Ron Naylor said that it is higher for the mechanical space. Carlos Ruiz asked about the noise level that would be generated by the mechanical systems. and whether the noise level %could have a negative impact on the garden's peaceful environment. Jay Baehr said that the Tech building already has considerable mechanical systems. He said that they do not anticipate any more noise from the Ford building. He said the building is designed to be a sustainable building, with lower energy and velocity systems. There is no high static that is typical in a research laboratory. Barbara Gardner asked giving the context of the surroundings, why the design is so contemporary instead of blending in into its surroundings. She said that the building would be jarring even compared to Tech building. Ronald Naylor said that the building blends in by being its own building in terms of its massing and its use of materials. He said that they had looked at approximately twenty different studies in terms of architectural design, which included traditional Gothic design. He said that Tech is a different building type than Garrett or AnderseMLeverone buildings. Those are the buildings that the Ford building is in context with. AndersenfLeverone is a modern and massive building; Garrett is traditional Gothic, and Tech, which is difficult to put a label on. More than half of the schemes were traditional in design and they did not work because the difference in the context and for what the Ford building is. The Ford building is for undergraduate and graduate students. The building is to represent what the future of the Engineering Department on the campus is. The building is forward looking building. He said that even the trustees who initially supported a traditional design concluded that the current design in front of the Commission is a better approach. In response to a question from Mary Brugliera, Ronald Naylor said that the building is a glass box transecting a mason;.- box. similar to the Block Muscum on campus. The west side of the building if floated above the ground, the half on the other side hits the ground. A reveal is in place to see the difference between the two portions of the building. A skylight goes through an Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - . o%ember 19. 2002 Paee 6 atrium from the top of'the building down through the entire building to the first floor. and public space at the main level. The building's envelope is clear Blass. the opaque material is shadowbox operating as spandrel glass 18-inches in depth. The mullions are aluminum in a champagne finish similar to a limestone color. The intent is to have a smooth glass finish. The columns are concrete because the structure is a concrete frame buildinc with a curtain %vall and a masonry wall. The columns would have smooth finished limestone as the masonry building. A bridge connects Ford building with the Tech building. On the west elevation motorized shades will operate with a sun sensor on the roof. Susan Rundle asked if Ford Motor Company Engineering Design Center is part of the Technological Institute. Ronald Nayler said that it is part of the McCormick School of Engineering. All of the users. with exception of a couple of minor uses in the basement, are off campus. Currently. the Engineering Design Center is housed in the Research Part: and the students have to travel from campus to the Research Park. The computer science faculty is located of campus also in the Research Park. Prudence Burke introduced Kathleen Hardgroye. President of the Carden Club of Evanston. P Burke said that she was in charge of the Shakespeare Garden. A letter that she had written to Northwestern explained the concerns that the Garden Club had about the project. Northwestern had responded promptly and those concerns and were addressed earlier in the meeting. P. Burke said that they have to wait and see how even -thing goes with the garden. Barbara Gardner asked what was the Garden Club's position regarding the project. Kathleen Hardgroye said that they had several meetings and a general meeting on November 11.2002. P. Burke's letter was read to the Club and people were very satisfied and that the issues brought to Northwestern had been satisfied. The Garden Club has maintained the Shakespeare Garden sin 1915. K. Hardgroye said that the whole City enjoys the garden and particularly North-western faculty, staff and students. She thought that Nor l-twestem was sensitise to the garden. The corner stone of the garden are the hawthorns. which were brought in 1915 from France when Jan Jansen designed the garden. Northwestem took care of the hawthoms during the summer a quit a bit expense. She said they would be vigilant how the construction impacts the garden. She said that everything that has been asked for from Northwestem has been done. Barbara Gardner asked if then the Garden Club was satisfied with Northwestern. Prudence Burke said that the west side of the garden used to be plusher with bushes and trees. Now it is changed. but that could be addressed. Kathleen Hardgroye said that there «•as a cyclone fence that would be replace with an architecturally interesting fence. She said that theywere hoping that the shade studies are accurate and that the garden would not suffer. The Garden Club would be extra vigilant about the hawthorns. If they had more shade they could possibly adapt their plantings. Also. the major trees within the garden are still standing. Jay Baehr said that Northwestern has hired a licensed landscape architect that has worked on other four Jan Jansen landscape projects in Chicago. Also, the landscape architect is the liaison between Northwestern and the Garden Club. She coordinated the tree protection when the team pipes were run. Evanston Presen•ation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2001 Page 7 Carlos Ruiz asked if the Garden Club or Northwestern have consulted with the National Park Service since the Shakespeare Garden is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Kathleen 1-lardgrove said. no. Jay Baehr said that it is being considered to potentially use federal funding for the project. If that were the case the project would be subject to Section 106 review. Carlos Ruiz said that if the project utilizes state or federal funding. license, or permit, the agency providing the funding must initiate Section 106 review with the Illinois I listoric Preservation Agency. Prudence Burke .wondered if someone impartial to the project could look at the Shakespeare Garden and protection. Kathleen Hardgrove said that the Garden Club would like to take every precaution for the garden. She was hopeful that as other issues come up during construction that Northwestern would address them. Jay Baehr said that Northwestern is twilling to work with the Garden CIub. Jay Baehr said that the garden would be accessed from the same point of access as present. Regarding signage. Jay Baehr said that the sign would be minimal standard sign with the Ford Motor Company legend on it. lie said that no zoning variations are needed for the project. The Commission referred to the standards of construction: (1) Height. Height shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ►ways, objects. and places to which it is visibly related. Applies/meets The Commission found that the design of the new building met standard 1. (2) Proportion of front facade. The relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related. Appliesfineets The Commission found that the design of the new building met standard 2. (3) Proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of %vindows and doors shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public sways, objects, and places to which the building is visually related. Barbara Gardner questioned with all the --window massing whether it did meet standards 3. She said that there was nothing around it that has that kind of windows. No decision was made at this time, Later Barbara Gardner said that the new building did not relate to Tech. She said that when coming down Sheridan road one sees Seabury Western, Garrett at the back, Tech, and the green space. With the new building one would see a large building with a lot of glass that nothing else has. ;Mary Brugliera said that the proposed building is compatible with is surroundings because there is stone on the north end of the building, there is the window wall, and that Tech is the only building that on is confronting, because there would be next to each other and they right up the same line [setback], it also continues the motte from Tech. Stan Gerson agreed with Mary Brugliera. lie added that the massing and the roofline are also Evanston Presem ation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Pace 8 compatible with Tec=. In a straw poll three Commissioners thought that standard 3 was met. and three Commissioner_ did not. Neil Sheehan abstained. (4) R ,-ihm of solids to soids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front facade of a structure shall be visually compatible with properties. structures. sites, public wa%s. objects. and places to which it is visually related. No decision %vas made at this time. Later. Susan Rundle said that standard 4 was met even though the structure has a lot of glass. but in the afternoon it would be perceived as solid. The model shows that the building is a block matching Tech. (5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space bets cen it and adjoining structures or objects shall be x-isu Jlv compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways. objects, and places to which it is visually related. The Commission found that the design of the new building met standard 5. (6) Rhythm of entrance porches. storefront recesses and other projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with the properties. structures, sites. public ways. objects, and places to which it is visually related. The Commission found that standard 6 was not applicable. It was mentioned that the main building relationship is Tech. (7) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of the materials and texture of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the structures to which it is visually related. The Commission found that the design of the new building met standard 7. (8) Roof shapes. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related. The Commission found that the design of the new building met standard 8. (9) Walls of continuity. Facades and property and site structures. such as masonry walls. fences, and landscape masses. shall, when it is a characteristic of the area, form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street, to ensure visual compatibility with the properties, structures, sites, public wags, objects, and places to which such elements are visually related. The Commission found that the design of the new building met standard 9. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - N(yernher 19. 200 Pane 9 (10) Scale of a structure. The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces. windows. door openings. porches. and balconies shall be visually compatible with the properties. structures. sites. public ways. objects. and places to which they are visually related. . Barbara Gardner questioned if the standard referred to the mass of the building because it also referred to windows. Susan Rundle thought that standard 10 went along with standards 3 and 4 related to the proportion and the rhythm. Later. Susan Rundle said that the size and mass are tine. The windows do not meet standard 10. but then if every standard has to be met. is the Commission discouraging contemporary design, she asked. Mary Brugliera said that if the Commission concludes that the new building does not relate well to Tech. then she thought that a 2002 modem building with a fair amount of glass next to a 1950s modern building would never work. She said that she would not agree with that conclusion. Barbara Gardner said that the new building does not at all like Garrett or Seabury. but it is related to those properties and it occupies the same relative space visually. In a straw pole one Commissioner thought that standard 10 was met, five Commissioners said that it does not meet standard 10. Neil Sheehan abstained. (11) Directional expression of front elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the properties. structures. sites. public ways. objects. and places to which it is visually related in its directional character, whether this be vertical character, horizontal character, or nondirectional character. The Commission found that the design of the new building met standard 11. (12) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The alteration of any historic or material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. Susan Rundle said that the new building does change the context of the garden into a courtyard garden. Stan Gerson said that from Sheridan Road one only can see the trees but not the garden. Carlos Ruiz said that the purview of the Commission is limited to the view from the public way. Mary Brugliera questioned said questioned if the view from the public way limitation should govem in this case since the main reason the Commission is reviewing the project is because the garden. Susan Rundle paraphrased: the distinguishing original qualities of it Should not be destroyed. Carlos Ruiz said that might be if one assumes that one of the distinguishing qualities of the garden is the open space and the open sky on the west. Barbara Gardner said that the new building would make a huge change from inside the garden. Mary Brugliera said that it changes the garden, but it does not destroy it. She said that evenihing around the garden is part of its context. Discussion ensued on the purview of the Commission from the public way and whether the Commission should consider viewing the impact on the garden from the grounds of the garden itself. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19, 2002 Pale 10 Later. Susan Rundle said that the last sentence in standard 13 did not apply. Mary Brugliera said that the new building it alters the environment. but is not destroying it. Thomas Prairie said that some might think that some of the character of the garden would be destroyed. In a stra►s• poll five Commissioners said that standard 12 was met. one Commissioner said no. Neil Sheehan abstained. (13) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. The Commission found that standard 13 does not apply. (14) Contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural or architectural material, and such design is compatible with the sire, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. The Commission found that standard 14 does not apply because the new building is not an addition. (15) Wherever possible. new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The Commission found that standard 14 does not apply because the new building is not an addition. (16) 1n considering new construction. the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Susan Rundle said that standard 16 covers what it was discussed in standards 4 and 5 that if just change the rhythm that in fact is not compatible with the surrounding structures. (17) Signs. Any sign that is readily visible from a public street shall not be incongruous to the historic character of the Landmark or the District. -_ Recommendations regarding signs are advisory only and may be referred to the Sign Review and Appeals Board for consideration. Barbara Garner said that standard 17 was not applicable since no sign was presented at this time. The Commission found that the proposed new building did not meet standards 3 and 10. Chris Carey moved that the Commission approve the Ford Motor Company Engineering Design Center at Northwestern University [2123 Sheridan Road] in that it meets standards 1.2, 4, 5, 7, Evanston Presen-ation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Pale I I 8. 9. 11. 12 and 16. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: d ayes. 2 nays. Neil Sheehan abstained. Regarding standard 12. diary BruLliera moved to note that the Commission is aware that the view to the west from the Shakespeare Garden is altered by the new construction. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes. 0 nays. Neil Sheehan abstained, 5. 2888 Sheridan Place - Window exterior alterations [Alteration[ David Pickert. architect presented plans for window exterior alterations on all four elevations of the building, at 2888 Sheridan Place. The building is an Evanston landmark. David Pickert said that he was in front of the Commission previously for other alterations to the building that the Commission approved. lie noted that the new plans show additional alterations to the building including: replacing the existing rotted and drafty single wood pane wood casement windows on the third floor dormers with new wood Pella Architect Series casement windows to match the existing windows in size. material and muntin pattern. The plans also called for removing the existing aluminum storm windows and existing aluminum trim and replace them with original wood profiles and trim. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the new windo%vs were casement windows with simulated divided lights. David Picker( said yes. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the project at 2888 Sheridan Place lbr the replacement of third store casement windows in that the proposed alteration ofthe property complies with standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Carlos Ruiz noted that incremental alterations to a building have the potential to compromise its integrity. 6. 1509 Ridge Avenue - Windoty exterior alterations [Alteration] Ellen Stoner, architect presented plans for replacing the existing steel windows with aluminum casement windows on the building at 1509 Ridge Avenue. The building is the Rectors home %%ithin a property designated as an Evanston landmark and within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Ellen Stoner said that the proposed EFCO 590 windows are the same dimensions as the steel windows. The new windows are designed as replacement windows for steel sash with the thermo quality of an insulated unit. The appearance of the aluminum %�indo vs is very similar to the steel windows. She said that leaded glass windows would be restored including the wood sashes. All the steel casements would be the same %%ith identical pattern as the existing steel windows. Thomas Prairie moved that the Commission approve the replacement of %N indows at 1509 Ridge Evanston PreserNation Commission Minutes -November 19. 2002 Page 12 Avenue based on standards of alteration 1. 2. 4. 6. and 10. NeiI Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed. Tote: 6 a.. es. I nay (Chris Carey). 7. 2121 Sheridan Road - New off street surface parking Ronald Nayler and Kory Burton of Northwestem University. and Adolf Hansen. Vice -President for Administration at Garret Seminary presented plans for the construction of forty-two (42)- parking spaces on a vacant field area on the property at 2121 Sheridan Road. The property is on the same lot of record as Garret Seminary. an 1Nyan5ton landmark. Ronald `:a%.Icr said that relative to couple of meetings with the neighbors in the area. the proposed parking area will in part alleviate parking congestion in the neighborhood and on the Northwestern University campus and it allow Garret to accommodate visitors. guests. trustees, and others %%ho may have to park on peripheral lots. He said that the parking lot would be gated and specifically for Garret and not for the new Tech Center. Garret would operate the parking lot to access it. Barbara Gardner asked if there are many people from Garret that park on the side streets now. Adolf Hansen said that the parking lot is designed primarily for visitors. the Board of Trustees of Garret. the field supervisors for continuing education events. etc. Currently those persons go to the street. trustees get to park in the Northwestern University lot with special permission. fie said that it is difficult for people to come in, see the campus and interact in terms of program, because there is no place to park. Adolf Hansen said that the parking lot is for visitors primarily. thought it would not sit empty «hen there are not scheduled events on campus. Barbara Gardner asked about the existing parking lot immediately to the south. Ronald Nayler said that nonhem most row of parking is reserved parking for Garret only, and that will stay as is. Ronald Nayler said that Garret resident students and Garret staff that do not have reserved parking are able to park in University lots. He said that there are other people that can not be accommodated. - Ronald Nayler said that the parking lot was designed with a setback that is greater than the required zoning setback, the lot is denscly landscaped and additional trees would be planted within the parkway that would match the species of existing trees. He said that the parking lot visual impact would be minimized by heavy planting (over story and under story trees and shrubs completely around the lot). - Barbara Gardner said that it seems as though Northwestern University continues to pave over green spaces for surface parking. She asked if any thought was given to take the existing parking lot and putting a parking structure that would be compatible with the surroundings, and that it would not look Iike a parking garage, or enlarging the existing garage in the south end of the campus. Ronald Nayler said that the proposed parking lot is for Garret, Northwestem University is acting as the agents for Garret. It is Garret that is proposing the parking lot, not Northwestern University. Because Garret does not have the technical facility staff that the University does, the University is assisting Garret in this endeavor. Ronald Nayler said that Nonhwestern University Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 PaL7c 13 is seeking parking garage solutions and it is looking at other ways that surface spaces could be developed. simply because they are the most economical way at this time to provide additional parking. Garage space costs more than ten times .%hat a surface space costs. Underground parking cost increases a third to fifty percent, depending on the type cif garage. Also. given the type of soil conditions existing on the eastern edge of the campus with mostly Lake water underground. the fifty percent cost increase would be even hither. Ronald Nagler said that the University, for its strategic planning. has looked at options for garage spaces, and eventually the University would have to do that. but at this time is more economical to do some surface parking lots. Barbara Gardner said that between the adjacent proposed Ford building and the proposed parking lot, a huge area of green space would be tak_n away. Ronald Nayler said that is one of the dilemmas about being able to reduce parking demands in the community and alleviate the congestion on campus and the green space issue. The existing parking lot on Sheridan Road is one of the options %yhere a building and garage integrated could be developed. He said that after the Ford building and the economy, he does not think that the University would be doing anything like an integrated building and parking garage in the near future. Commission's Findings Neal Sheehan said that at looking at this property as a landmark property. and that these properties are evaluated as building, and site. I le thought that the parking lot would seriously adversely affect the character of the site. because the building is setback from the road with the generous view across open green space. He noted that his comment was not in the context of the Ford Center. Rather. he saw this case as its own independent property. from/with the building out to street, and evaluate it in that way. Neil Sheehan gave the example of imagining one of the historic houses along Ridge avenue. and that someone would propose to either plant up the view of the building heavily or put a parking lot in the front yard. lie said that as the Commission review the standards of alteration to a historic property. that it could not find anything in those standards that would allow the Commission to approve a parking lot. He said that the standards of alteration do apply and because in the way that they are structured. they refer to the project more directly. lie said that standards of construction are more for new buildings. Neal Sheehan said that while he sympathized and shared in occasionally the parking problems. the Commission is here to review historic impact on buildings, not the parking problem in the community. Adolf Hansen said that Garret is not trying to solve the parking problems of the community and that Garret does not have any parking space under its sole control. Neil Sheehan said that he understood Garret's situation. but the parking problem is almost something the Commission could consider as an offset to whether or not the proposal to put a parking lot in the front yard adversely affects the historic character of the property or not. He said that there are other mechanisms far that kind of review, after the Commission's review. He said that what the Commission should ask is whether the historic character of the property would be adversely affected? Adolf Hansen asked if the Commission is calling the proposal an alteration or construction? Barbara Gardner said that the Commission still needed to decide on that question. Adolf Hansen Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November )9. 2002 Palle 14 asked if are there criu- is that appl% to parking areas:' Barbara Gardner said that there are no criteria that apply to parking areas: there are criteria that apple to the property and character of the property. Adolf Hanson said that he %%as surprised to Iearn that the project had to come in front of the Commiss-.on. Ile thoueht that the Commission dealt Nvith facilities that %%ere structures. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission deals with the %%hole property. Susan Rundle said that because of the context of the structure is important and because how it is seen. the Commission has to deal «with the context of the structure. Adolf Hansen said tha he was with a Preservation Commission in Indianapolis. as vice -chair. and they would hale considered the parking area as something, not under their jurisdiction. Carlos Ruiz said that the purview of the E%anston Preservation Commission applies to anything that would adversely affect the appearance of the property and it also applies to the lot of record. The purview of the Commission is to review anything that happens on that lot of record [visible from the public way]. Thomas Prairie said that he too had concerns. He said that the existing green space is the front yard facing Sheridan Road. it sets not only the character of the school [building] but also the whole campus. which seems to be continually eroded, not enhanced. Ile said that the property was lovely. with the driveway and the cul-de-sac that is part of the parcel where the landmark building is on. I le said that adding a surface parking lot next to the landmark building is detrimental to the building and not helpful. Neil Sheehan referred to the alteration standards and said that each of those standards is clearly addressing the nature and character of the historic property, structure. site and object. As oppose to new construction standards that talk about new building within a historic context, with only one item that would applied. Commission members concurred with Neil Sheehan assessment. Carlos Ruiz asked if the project had been review by zoning. Kory Burton said that the project had a preliminary zoning analysis. He said that there were two items raised by the zoning analysis: one was about the surface material, and the other was about the width of the handicapped stalls. Carlos Ruiz asked if the location of the proposed parking Iot was interpreted by zoning as the front yard of the property. Ronald Naylcr said in U-zoned areas parking is allowed where it is being proposed, even if it is the front yard, he noted that there is a ten (10)- foot setback requirement. He also said that the proposed setback is over twenty feet from the property Iine. Ronald Nayler said that he understood Mr. Sheehan's comment, but the view across the lawn from everything that is north of Garret Place is still there. While coming from the south, along Sheridan Road, one still looks across parking that is not landscaped as one looks towards the building. Then the new parking area becomes landscaped with heavy under story and over story trees. Even though there are cars present, there still is a heavy landscape that is not lawn. Then it becomes full open space and even then there is still trees. He said that it is not a clear shot or the Deering Meadow, even with the trees that are up and down Garret Place. He noted that there is a paved road that comes up near the site. Ronald Nayler said that they believe that the lot in this particular location is appropriate because of its proximity to the adjacent lot, that everything Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Page 15 that is open has been maintained as viewed from Garret Place north, while it is heavily landscaped. Garret's concern is to ensure that as the lot is developed and that it does not detract significantly from the character of Garret. He noted that the building is Garret's symbol. it is clear that Garret wanted to preserve the building as its symbol and not to have a detrimental impact. Referring to the photographs. Ronald Nayler said that the photo showing the new parking lot showed more cars that what the actual cars would be. He said that they took the cars that are in the large lot and replicate then in the picture of the new lot. He noted that there would be only two bays of parking. Commissioners commented that the proposed landscaping was a much - improved situation o%er the existing lot. Neil Sheehan said that he saw the heavy landscape as further obstructing the view across the open space that is the essential character of the site. fie also sass it as an incremental step by step modification to the site. He also said that he would cite the proposal as a bad precedent for future submissions in front of the Commission %%here the same issue is ven• likely to come up, and the question would be %%ould the Commission would allow this kind of modification to the existing context on the site:' Ronald Naylor said that this is a large institutional setting versus a residential setting. He said that there could be differences when looking at a very large parcel in an institutional setting and not setting a precedent for a residential setting. Neil Sheehan said that he was thinking of some of the very Iarge houses along Ridge Avenue that are similar in scale, admittedly not quite the same. but certainly closer in scale than most typical residential lots. Neil Sheehan cited the house at the former District 65 headquarters [at Dempster Street and Ridge Avenue], where a very long discussion was about the need to sustain the open view from along Ridge Avenue. The developer of that property had proposals that zoning would allow in the front yard. The Commission told him that those proposals were not preferable. Adolf Hansen asked if the line of argument of destroying the space as looking in to Garret was the primary basis for Neal Sheehan's argument. Neal Sheehan said that was correct. Adolf Hansen said that then that argument was not valid - taking all the space and putting a four -stony building and approving it. Neil Sheehan said that he had recused himself from that discussion. He said that he did not have an opinion on that project. Adolf Hansen said that the argument of others that did not recuse would be the same and that project received a favorable vote. Barbara Gardner said that the vote for the Ford building was not unanimous. Neil Sheehan said that his argument would be that it was not the Garret property. Barbara Gardner said that her argument voting against the Ford building was precisely that she felt that the new building was taking up open space. Thomas Prairie said that he too thinks there is difference between putting a building to the north and putting a parking lot in front of Garret Place. Adolf Hansen said that he would agree with that if blocking the view were the argument. Mary Brugliera said that the same argument could be used for putting a parking lot on the Deering Meadow lawn. Ronald Nayler said that the University would never proposed that, there arc places that are considered sacred. Kory Burton said that the Garret building is currently obstructed from view. Neil Sheehan Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Pate 16 ackno%%Iedged that there are trees in front of the building and that it's difficult to see the building. nonetheless he argued again that the open space in the front of the building is an essential character of the site. Barbara Gardner referred to the standards for review of alteration: (1) Every reasonable ef)"ort shall he made to adapt lire properly, structure, site or object in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property. structure. site or object and its environment. Commissioners found this standard was met. (2) The distinguishing ori,ginul qualities ar character of a prope=rtt: structure, site or object art! its environment shall not he destro'ved. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural. features shall be avoided when possible. Commissioners found that standard (2) was not met because the quality or character of the site would be destroyed. (3) All properties. structures, sites. and objects shall be recogni_ed as products of their otit•n time. Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. Commissioners found that standard (3) did not apply. and (10) Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that ifsuch additions or alterations were to be removed in the fitture, the essential form and integrity of the structure trould be unimpaired. Barbara Gardner said that standard 10 applied and met if the site is taken into account. Neil Sheehan asked what would be the likelihood of removing a parking lot from Northwestern campus. Ronald Nayler said that the likelihood of that occurring was pretty small. Ile said that in fifty years and Northwestern is building structures, then he thought that parking lots would be probably converted to more green space as parking structures are built. Commissioners found that standards of alteration 4, 5, 6.7, 8, and 9 did not apply Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission reject the project as proposed on the grounds that it does not meet the most salient requirement of review for alterations (number 2). in that it would destroy an essential character of the property. which is the open space in front of the building. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay (Chris Carey). Adolf Hansen asked what are the options if Garret Seminary does not agree with the Commission's decision. Mr. Hansen was informed that Garret Seminary might appeal the Commission's decision to the Evanston City Council within thirty (30) days of the denial. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 P22C t S. 733 Lincoln Street - Rebuilding one -car garage to two -car garage /Zoning Variation only] Penelope Peterson. owner presented plans to rebuild a one -car garage at 733 Lincoln Street. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Rebuilding the garage requires a zoning variance. Penelope Peterson said that a driver who apparently had hart attack hit her garage and fence. She said that she %ould like to presere everything about the garage and keep the roofline and brick. She said that at a Site Plan and Appearance review Committee someone had recommended a panel garage door with glass and split in the middle. Ms. Peterson said that in 1993 under the Zoning Ordinance it was passed that any new construction must be setback 15' from the sidewalk. The garage is only 3' setback from the sidewalk. The one -car garage would be rebuilt as a two -car garage. Commission's Findings Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board approval of the variance as requested at 733 Lincoln Street for a setback of 3' from the property line for reconstruction of a garage, under determination 6-15-11-5 (A) Is necessary an appropriate in the interest of historic conservation as to not adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts. diary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes. 0 nays. 9. I2.37 Ridge Avenue - Construction of a hs•o-car garage, new ivindow and skylights on main structure [Zoning Variation/Construction/Alteration] Amy Prues. owner presented plans for the construction of a new two -car garage, installation of a new window and skylights on the house at 1247 Ridge Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge I listoric District. The existing exterior finish of the house is aluminum siding. Amy Prues said that a plat of survey dated 1987 does not show the small freestanding structure at the rear that she plans to tear down. She said that the structure is about to collapse. Barbara Gardner said that the new garage requires a zoning variance because is proposed at 9'-9'' instead of the required 15' setback. Amy Prues said that there is an Elm tree that she would like to preserve that it's within the 15' of setback. Amy Prues said that the existing fence on Dempster and the fence between Dempster Street and a light pole would stay. The garage would be about 5' away from the Elm tree. The existing parking area on the other side of the garage rill remain. Commission's Findings Veil Sheehan moved that the Commission make a recommendation to the Zoning Board that they approve the requested zoning variance of 9'-9" setback, in that it is necessary and appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely affect the aesthetic Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Pace Is integrity of the property by requiring the cutting down of a 40" Elm tree. Chris Carey seconded the motion. 'fhe motion passed unanimously. Amy Prues said that the new garage would most likely have two bays and two doors. Barbara Gardner referred to the standards for review of construction: (1) height. Height shall be visually compatible with properties. structures, sites. public %%ays. objects, and places to which it is visibly related. Applies/meets The proposed garage meets standard 1. (3) Proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of windows and doors shall be visually compatible with properties. structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which the building is visually related. The garage meets standard 3. (4) Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front facade of a structure shall be visually compatible with properties. structures, sites. public strays. objects, and places to which it is visually related. The garage meets standard 4. (5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related.. The garage meets standard 5. (7) Relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of the materials and texture of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the structures to which it is visually related. The garage meets standard 7. Amy Prues said that the exterior finish of the garage would be wood siding. She said that hopefully some day the house would be %vood siding as well. (8) Roof shapes. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related. The garage roof shape is compatible with the main house roof shape, (10) Scale of a structure. The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, -- % indows, door openings, porches, and balconies shall be visually compatible %%pith Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -November 19. 2002 Paee.19 the properties. structures, sites. public ways. objects. and places to "hick they are visually related. The garage meets standard 10. (11) Directional expression of front elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible Mth the properties, structures. sites. public ways. objects. and places to which it is visually related in its directional character. whether this be vertical character, horizontal character. or nondirectional character. The front elevation of the garage meets standard 11. (12) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The alteration of any historic or material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. There are no distinguishing original qualities on the proposed garage. (13) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by. or adjacent to any project. Presumably there are no archaeological resources on the property. (14) Contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural or architectural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. The proposed garage meets standard 14. (16) In considering new construction. the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Standard 16 does apply. Standards 2, 6, 9, and 15 are not applicable. Thomas Prairie moved that the Commission approve the construction of the garage at 1247 Ridge Avenue based on standards 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, S, 10, 11, and 14. Mary Bruglicm seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Amy Prues said that on the third floor they need four skylights to meet light and ventilation requirements. Three of the skylights are located on the slope of the roof that cannot be seers from the public way (south elevation). The fourth skylight on the cast side would be seen from the Evanston Preser- ation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Pace zo aile%. Them are tr+o windows that need to be enlarged to meet the egress requirements. The new• windo%%s «ould be all wood %%indows with six panes on the upper sash. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the installation of skylights and new and gable window at 1247 Ridge Avenue as proposed. in that the alteration complies with standards 1, 2, 5, and 9. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion Passed unanimously. Mary Bruglicra noted that the Ridge historic district nomination cites that the house was built in 1892 and there is an addition by Ernest Stayo in 1919. Amv Prues said that blue prints only showed what Forest Mayo changed. but not the original house. It appears that the exterior of the house was change from a true Queen Ann stele to a Federal style. A wrap around porch was probably taken out and Corinthian columns were installed. and the front door waywas changed. The interior was also completely altered. The frail blue prints would be framed and sold with the house. 10. 2733 Colfax Street - Demolition of a rear porch, construction of a two-story rear addition wvith attached car garage, and exterior alterations (Partial Demolition/Construction/Alteration) Michael Walker, property owner and Robert Klingel, architect presented plans for the demolition of a rear porch. the construction of a two -stony rear addition with attached car garage and exterior alterations to the house at 2733 Colfax Street. The property is an Evanston landmark. Michael Walker said that the neighbor to the west has a porch that comes up to within 2 to 3 feet from the property line. A line furs goes down between the driveway and that porch. He said that one of the big issues that he has is the garage. The house previously had a one -car attached garage with a rear entry that is now used as a family room. The existing garage is accessed from the street. Michael Walker said that he would like to fence the rear of the property with a wood fence. Commission's Findings Robert Klingel said that the new windows on the addition would be Marvin windows with simulated divided lights. the roof on the addition would match the asphalt shingles existing on the house. The new addition is lower than the main structure. The two roofs do not touch, the reason why the connector would be standing seem roof. He also said that the intention is to take out the existing cast gravel driveway for green space. Barbara Gardner asked if there were any zoning issues. The Robert Klingel, no. Barbara Gardner referred to the standards of demolition: Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the existing garage at 2733 Colfax Street on the grounds that is does not conflict with the standards of demolition 1, 2,3,4, and 5. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Page 21 \oil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the addition to 2733 Colfax Street as presented. further approve the demolition of the existing sunroom and deck in that the modifications comply with standard 1 for height. 3 for portion of openings, 5 for rhythm and spacing of structures along the street. 6 for entrances. recesses. projections as compatible with adjacent properties. standard 7 for relationship of materials and textures, standard 8 for roof shapes, standard 10 for scale of structure. 12 the existing distinguishing characteristics of the property are not being destroyed. 14 the contemporary- design is not being discouraged. 16 the Commission is not imposing a single architectural stele. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimous],. 11. 2115 Sherman Avenue - Demolition of two existing car garages and construction of a two -car garage [Demolition/Construction) Shiele Kaminski presented plans for the demolition of two existing car garages and the construction of a two -car garage on the property at 2115 Sherman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Northeast Historic District. Shiele Kaminski said that the two existing garages are not structurally sound and about to collapse. The garage to the south is completely off the foundation and leaning. The rafters in both garages are pulled out from their joists and the roofs are not stable. Shiele Kaminski said that the new two -car garage is 22' x 24' with 5" exposed textured primed siding and 1 " x 4" cedar corner boards. The roof is finished with asphalt shingles. The door is 16' x 7' steel overhead door. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner referred to the standards for review of demolition of the Preservation ordinance 2-9-9 (D) and (E) Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the two existing garages at 2115 Sherman Avenue, in that the demolition does not conflict with any of the standards for review for demolition. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the construction of the two -car garage at 2115 Sherman Avenue, in that the height of the garage would be consistent with the height of the adjacent garages. The portion of the front fagade would be consistent with the surrounding portions as well proportion of openings. The new garage is consistent with the rhythm of solids and voids, the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, the relationship of materials and textures, the roof shape, the Nvalis of continuity, the scale of the structure, and the directional expression of the front fagade. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 12. 2673 Orrington Avenue - Construction of two -car garage [Zoning Variation only] Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Pace 22 Suxanne Ross. property owner presented plans for the construction of a new two -car garage on the property at 2673 Orrington Avenue. The garage requires a zoning variation. The property is within the Evanston Northeast Historic District listed in the National Recister of l listoric Places. Suxanne Ross said that she is requesting a 2' setback as opposed to the required 3' setback. The new mo-car garage would be 6.5' from the house as opposed to the required 10' from the house. Ms Ross said that the existing one -car garage would be demolished because is not structurally sound and is too small. Commission's Findings Neil Sheehan said that he was more concern with the 6'-6" distance from the house than the required 3' feet setback from the property line. He suggested building the new garage on the same line of the existing garage and stay further away from the house. Ncil Sheehan moved that the Commission advise the Zoning Board to approve the request far zoning variance for'_' setback, increasing lot coverage. and 6-6" distance from the garage to the main house as requested by the applicant. Barring, that, any variation on the setbacks increasing the distance as requested by the applicant. The motion is on the grounds that variation is necessary and appropriate in the interest of historic character of the property. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 13. 1916-1918 Maple Avenue - Enclosure of rear porches, construction of a rear brick wall enclosure and providing a three -car parking [Alteration/Zoning Variation] Robert Taylor presented plans for the enclosure of rear porches. the construction or a brick wall at the rear of the existing building and a three- car parking on the property at 1916-191 S Maple Avenue. The building on the property is an Evanston landmark. Mary Brugliera and Thomas Prairie expressed concern with the lack of sufficient graphic information about the project. Robert Taylor said that the revised proposal is the same as the last proposal except that there is now modified windows. Carlos Ruiz said that on October 2002 the Commission denied alterations to the building from previously approved alterations to the same building. Originally, the Commission approved sliding doors on the side and rear elevations of the building among other alterations. Robert Taylor said that the Zoning Board had previously approved a deck, and denied the 3' cantilevered rear stairs. He said that he has a memo from Alan Berkowski, Fire Chief addressing fire egress concerns that the Commission had raised last month. Robert Taylor said his proposal is for the consolidation of the two adjoining two-story/two-flat buildings into four units with a one -condominium association. The buildings are circa 1930-35 brick buildings. Robert Taylor said the zoning variations involve the partial brick enclosure of the air and light shaft (6' w-ide x 26.5' deep) between the two buildings. He said that one of the Evanston Preservation Commission Nlinutec - November 19. 2002 Pace 23 problems with the buildings is that the rear bedrooms off the kitchens are extremely small {8'-2" x 8'-6" ). 2 ' less than the BOCA Code requirement. Increasing the size of the bedrooms also increases the overall lot coverage. and exceeding the current code by 1.1 percent. The wall is already in place on the west elevation. He is asking for a retroactive zoning variance. Robert Tay for said that 6-6" rear setback variance is not because of the stairs. but because of the new code requires that the nevv 6-6" enclosure has to have a 6-6" setback from the rear propert% line. Regarding the parking plan. Robert Taylor said that it requires 1' %ariation for parking space K 1. The parking plan is not the same plan that the Zoning Board had seen before. He said that he also owns the adjacent property at I008 Garnet, he would establish a permanent easement to permit access off Garnet into the driveway. The current plan has three parking spaces that do not create a fire code issue according to the memo from Chief Berkowski. There is access for fire trucks from Maple and the alleyway to the south. Robert Taylor said that he is asking for parking a 6" setback as opposed to the required 3' setback. Also. the code requires 5 parking spaces, he is proposing 3 parking spaces. Thomas Prairie said that he some issues ,-with recommending less parking than required by the zonine ordinance. Commission's Findings Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission advice the Zoning Board that the Preservation Commission does not have an issue with granting five zoning variations at 1916-18 Maple Avenue for issues related to the historic character of the building. The Commission understands that those variations include: 1) the consolidation of two Property Index Numbers to one; 2) an increase in the lot coverage of 1.1 percent; 3) a modification in the rear setback requirement for the construction of 6-6" wide wall; 4) a reduction in the setback requirement for one parking space from zoning requirement of 3' to 6"; and 5) a reduction in the number of code required parking spaces from 5 to 3. It is the Commission's determination that the variances are appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and that the requested variations will not adversely affect the historic and aesthetic integrity of the landmark propeM% Barbara Gardner seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 ayes, 1 nay (Thomas Prairie). Robert Taylor said that the Commission had previously approved the full enclosure of the back stairs and the exterior vinyl siding. He said that the current plan has new windows on the brick wall enclosure. The stairs have sliding patio doors with metal railings: the new double hung windows are vinyl as the rest of the building. The corner detail have a venical board wooden corner, the downspouts would be relocated. Barbara Gardener commented that if the condos are for upscale buyers, the more upscale finishes are used in the building, the more likely upscale buyers would be attracted. The cheaper the finishes on the building, the less likely to get a good price. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - November 19. 2002 Page 24 Barbara Gardner referred to the standards of alteration. The Commission determined that standards 1. 2. 9. and 10 «ere met. Standards 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 and 8 are not applicable. Chris Care%- moved that the Commission approve the alterations at 916-18 Maple Avenue with vinvI %%indoxvs. «ood %•inl clad sliding doors. and vin}•I siding. in that it meets standards 1, 2. 9. and 10. ,Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimousl%. N'. NEWBUSINESS CIP Policies Mary Brugliera made revision to the CIP policies as of November 19, 2002. Mary Brugliers said that on the listing of projects the wording was changed to include the review of the Preservation Commission and the Preservation Coordinator. There are twelve item including traffic circles. Garbage pick up %vas omitted. On the form. under criteria for review, the City of Evanston Preservation ordinance standards would be used. If there were federal funds involved then the federal standards would be used. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the CIP policies document as presented. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. U. ,MINUTES October 15, 2002 minutes Thomas Prairie moved to approve the minutes of October 15.2002 as submitted. Neil Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V11. ADJOURNMENT Neil Sheehan moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted. raArlos D. Ruiz Senior PlannerTreservation C ator Date: l- d l- O 3 EVAtiSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 17, 2002 7:30 P0*1. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Barbara Gardner. Stanley Gerson, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Droll, Michael Girard, and Neil Sheehan OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Lazar, Drew Ranieri, Nina Black, Paul Jeffrey, Phil Davis, Adolf Hansen, Korey Burton PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETER.NII.rATION OF QUORUM Barbara Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. She said that a quorum of eight members was present. II. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1040 Lake Shore Blvd. - Installing a two -car garage door to existing garage jAlterationj Mark Lazar, contract owner and Drew Ranieri, architect presented plans to install a two - car garage door on the rest wall of an existing garage.'coach house. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Lakeshore Historic District. Mark Lazar said that the new two -car garage door is meant to pro%ide a better access to the garage from the alley. He said that the porte-cochere on the north side of the house is too narrow to open the doors of vehicles. Bandon Preser%atian Commission December 17.2002 - Minutes Pare 2 Commission's Findings Stan Gerson moved that the proposed alteration at 1040 Lake Shore Blvd. be approved as meeting standards of alteration I (it requires minimal alteration to the property), 2 (the distinguishing qualities of the property are not going to be changed). 5 (stylistic features are not going to be destroyed), and 10 (the proposed change could be reverted). Standards 3, 4. 5. 7. 8, and 9 are not applicable. Man. Brugliera seconded the motion. Barbara Gardner said that no sand blasting should be used if the brick on the garage is cleaned. The motion passed unanimously. 2. I210 Lake Street - Mudroom addition [Construction[ Nina Black, owner presented plans for a mudroom addition at the rear of the house at 1210 Lake Street. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Nina Black said that the proposed mudroom would be sometivhat visible from Lake Street. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie asked about the proposed %vindo%vs. Nina Black said that the new windows %vould be metal casement windows to match the existing casement windows. Nina Black clarified that the existing open porch would be enclosed to become the mudroom, although the slab under the existing covered area would be increased in length from 8'-3 I/2"to9'-0". Chris Carey moved that the Commission approve the mudroom addition at 1210 Lake Street, in that it meets standards of alteration I (every effort has been made requiring minimal alteration to the property), 2 (the distinguishing original character of the structure is not being destroyed), 3 (alterations with no historical basis are being discouraged), 5 (stylistic features are being treated kith sensibility), 6 (material and architectural features would be repaired rather than replaced), and 10 (the proposed alteration if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure; would be unimpaired). Standards 4, 7, and 8 do not apply. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 2344 Orrington Avenue - Construction of accessibility ramp, fire egress stairs and exterior rehabilitation [Alteration/Construction] Paul Jeffrey and Phil Davis of Kendall College presented plans for the construction of an accessibility ramp, fire egress stairs and the exterior rehabilitation of the building at 2344 Orrington Avenue. The property is Mthin the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Evanston Presrnation Commission December 17, 2002 -Minutes Pace 3 Paul Jeffrey said that the project was in front of the Commission before, at which time the concerns were the accessibility ramp and how the railing in the front would be treated. Paul Jeffrey said that an additional alteration is the exterior stairwell for egress from the second floor on the south side of the structure. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz said that the initial preliminary drawings showed an open stair with a roof. He had recommended since then an enclosed stairwell with materials to match the existing exterior materials. Paul Jeffrey said that the exterior stucco and timber finish of the stairwell would match the exterior finish of the existing dormers on the north and south elevation of the main structure. He said that matching the glazed existing brick on the main house would be very difficult. Barbara Gardner asked about the ramp and railing which appeared to be drawn inaccurately on the plans. Paul Jeffrey said that the ramp extends four -feet from the buttress on the north side. the railing is a metal railing along the length of the ramp. The patio balusters on the east elevation are made of a vinyl material (fypon). Susan Rundle asked about the fieldstone facing Orrington Avenue. Paul Jeffrey said that the base of the front porch would be raised approximately 1 b-inches to be at the floor level of the house. The grading to the exterior base -wall would remain approximately the same as existing. Carlos Ruiz said that the architect had mentioned the use of cast stone for the balusters. Paul Jeffrey said that the balustrade needed to be raised 44-inches in height to meet the code. Susan Rundle said that there is no need to raise the height of the balustrade if the height from the floor of the patio to the grade is 1 S-inches or less. Barbara Gardner noted that the elevation drawings did not reflect the proposed height of the balustrade. Susan Rundle said that a concrete base wall around the patio and ramp would be more in keeping with the house. Paul Jeffrey said that the front concrete stairs would be replaced not rebuilt. Barbara Gardner requested to investigate "Haddonstone" product for the balustrade. Chris Carey asked about the cleaning of the brick. Paul Jeffrey said that the brick would be power washed and re-tuckpointed with the same mortar joint profile. Carlos Ruiz said that on April 19, 2002 the Commission had approved the ramp so that the landing would not project in front of the existing front porch railing, and that it would extend to the back alongside the parking lot and outside the existing buttress. Also, the Commission approved the tuckpointing of the brick and stone balusters as proposed. Barbara Gardner noted that the base of the ramp was fieldstone and the flagstone on the patio would be retained when possible and replaced in kind when necessary. Paul Jeffrey said that would apply to the floor of the patio/deck and the face of the steps. Evanston Prescr►--tion Commission December 17. 2002 - Minutes Page 4 Susan Rundle asked about the new railing for the stairs. Phil Davis said the railing would look Iike the proposed balustrade for the patio. Carlos Ruiz suggested installing a quality design aluminum railing instead. Chris Carey asked if a new foundation would be poured for the nee; stairs. Paul Jeffrey said. yes. Chris Carey asked if the same copper detailing at the comers of the roof would be instal -led. Paul Jeffrey said. yes. Barbara Gardner asked about the proposed casement windows and why not installing on the second floor double hung windows instead. Paul Jeffrey said that the first floor has leaded glass casement windows. He acknowledge that the second floor windows are double hung windows. Chris Carey said that the drawings were inconsistent with the presentation. fie requested that a new set of drawings be submitted reflecting the actual proposed work. The Commission requested that the revised plans include: a concrete base rather than a flagstone vencer berming and landscaping the area around the patio and stairs so that the height from the top of the balustrade to the grade would be less than l fl- inches. retaining the existing height of the balustrade on the patio and use Haddonstone for new balusters installing a higher metal handrail behind the balustrade to meet required codes installing double hung windows where appropriate installing copper gutters and copper detailing at corners of roof to match existing repairing existing slate Chris Carey said that he was concerned with the proposed stairs for egress and the stucco finish. He said that he would like to see another finish material such as brick veneer. Phil Davis said that if brick were used for the stairs, the buttress in front of it would disappear. Carlos Ruiz suggested that the applicant and the architect of the project meet with Chris Carey, Thomas Prairie and the City's Plan Examiner and go over the plans to resolve the many issues that seemed still pending. Paul Jeffrey agreed to continue reviewing the plans with Commission members and City staff. Mary Brugliera moved to table the application for alterations at 2344 Orrington Avenue. The applicant would meet with some Commission members and City staff to revise the proposed plans. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passes! unanimously. Carlos Ruiz said that he would arrange the meeting between the applicant, Commission members and City staff. Evanston Preservation Commission December 17.2002 - ~Minutes Pace 5 a. 2121 Sheridan Road - New off street surface parking (amended application) JAlteration] Adolf Hansen of Garret Seminary and Kory Burton of Northwestern University presented revised plans for the construction of a new of street surface parking at 2121 Sheridan Road. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Adolf Hansen thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present a fuller picture of the project and also present some amendments to the original proposal. Ile said that the first time in front of the Commission their presentation was just about a parking lot. Since then he has read the Preservation Ordinance and learned that he could talked about other things that would enhance the property. Adolf Hansen referred to his letter to the Commission dated December 12.2002. lie emphasized that the parking lot would enhance the appearance of the land south of Garrett Place as «,ell as provide 40 parking spaces that would be utilized primarily for visitor. The open field and large asphalt volleyball court would be replace not only by parking spaces, but also by thoughtful landscaping and new lighting consistent with the character of the property. More than half (54.4%) bounded by Garrett Place on the north, the main building to the east, the current parking lot to the south, and the property line to the west would be preser.-ed for landscaping and sidewalks. The remainder (45.6%) would be used for parking. Adolf Hansen said the amended plans represent phase three. He noted that phase one had parking on both sides of Garrett Place. They eliminated parking on the north side of Garrett Place, and maximized parking with approximately 80 parking spaces south of Garrett Place. Garrett determined that 80 parking spaces was not appropriate and decided to save half the space for attractive planting and lawrt area, and only use half of the space south of Garrett Place for parking. Mr. Hansen said that the north side of Garrett Place has a lot more greenery and more trees. Adolf Hansen said that there is some landscaping on the southwest corner of the lot and its used for a full size volleyball court, a basketball stand, and the remainder is use for ball field. There is only one exterior light near the Seminary. fie said that this is the only unimproved land at the Seminary that leases from Northwestern University. There is no space on the side or the back or any other location for any parking. The proposed improvements to the site would leave it open and still show the building. There would be handicapped access, curb cuts, landscape screening along Garrett Place. New low level landscape improvements near Sheridan Road. Two parking spaces were removed; the whole parking lot was moved about 1.5' to allow 10' more of landscaping towards Sheridan Road (three times to what is required by zoning). The setback is 30' instead of 20' facing Sheridan Road. The landscape would be lowered so that it would E%anston Prescr%ation Commission December 17. 2002 - Minutes Page 6 look more attractive in terms of enhancing the character of that location. Also, there is some landscaping to the south to separate the existing parking lot and provide some greenery. The pattern of trees would be restored as well. Two additional trees on the north side of Garrett Place would be planted and one additional tree on the south side of Garrett Place. Also, there is new lighting at either side of the cul-de-sac. The two existing light poles would be replaced. Chris Carey asked about the lighting. Adolf Hansen said that the existing light poles would be replaced %with either the Evanston standard light or the University campus standard light. There are three new light poles on the north side and three new light poles on the south side of Garrett Place, two at the south edge of the parking lot that are new. He said that there would be a total of eight new light poles and two replacements. Adolf Hansen requested the input of the Commission in the selection of the decorative light pole fixtures. Barbara Gardner said that Sheridan Road could have a combination of davit arm light poles with the Tallmadge light fixtures. Carlos Ruiz suggested to consulting with the City's Engineer to determine the most appropriate location of new light poles. Stan Gerson said that the discussion was about the details and forgetting about the basic problem that is to have a parking lot on the site. He said that he did not see much difference in the new proposal from the proposal presented last November 2002. He said the Commission should discuss that before talking about lighting and plantings. Adolf Hansen said that he wanted to share that there was more thinking from Garrett than the parking lot, and the Iights were part of the thinking from the very beginning as well as the landscaping. He said that the difference is that there was the desire to mane the parking lot more attractive looking into Garrett Place. Giving 10' more of landscaping is different from the original proposal. He said that from Garrett's understanding, this was an alteration of the property. He said that he looked up at the word'destroy' in the dictionary. The first definition is "to ruin completely." fie said that the criteria that the Commission used to say that what was proposed would destroy the character of the - property, was something that Garrett did not concur with. He said that the comment was so different then when with other proposals the Commission talked about altering the property, but not destroying it. He added that the word destroy is in criterion 2, the only criterion that was not met. Whether the parking lot ruins completely the site, which destroy means, or whether to tear down or break up, to put an end to, to kill, to render useless or ineffective, to subdue or defeat completely, to crush, those are the definitions of destroyed Mr. Hansen said. Adolf Hansen said that Garrett does have no intent to destroy anything, they want to alter the site to have some place where visitors can park. Garrett will celebrate its 150a' anniversary during 2003-05. Garrett is asking the Commission to reconsider, based upon _ the fullness of his explanation. -- Evanston Presenation Commission December 17. 2002 -Minutes Page 7 Commission's Findings In response to a question from Susan Rundle, Adolf Hansen said that the University owns the land, but Garrett owns the buildings. The land is leased to Garrett for 199 years. The leased land is shown on the plans. On the plan between the green and the dotted land, that area is under Northwestern control. Garrett has the privilege to park along the green area, even though the land is under Northwestern control. Anyone from Garrett that parks on that area pars a fee to Northwestern. Mar), Brugliera asked if the possibility of an underground parking lot was studied. She said it would restore green space on the Northwestern piece and presumably Garrett could par a share for parking spaces. Adolf Hansen said that he has explored parking possibilities with Northwestern for twenty years. The Seminary has no place .vhere people could come and visit the Seminary and park. The south parking area is a no visitors parking area. He said that they are trying to find a way that minimizes the alteration. but does not destroy the land and gives Garrett some place for visitors to park. Mary Brugliera asked if Northwestern or Garrett would know the cost of building an underground parking.. She said that another institution in Chicago had built an extensive underground parking. Barbara Gardner said that Alderman Art Newman had inquired about the project. When she mentioned to Alderman Newman that the Commission had suggested that Northwestern build a parking structure, Alderman Newman thought that would not happen. Barbara Gardner said that it costs 1 /10 to pave over grass than building a parking structure. The existing parking structure on campus and near the Lake was also very controversial. Chris Carey said that there are no alterations to the structure, but the structure sits on a lot or series of lots that are landmarks. Carlos Ruiz said that by definition in the ordinance the landmark status applies to the lot of record. Chris Carey said that the discussion is about the alteration of the existing property, and in that alteration, somehow the landmark would be changed in a detrimental way. Barbara Gardner said that she had voted against the project last time, Since then she went to the site. The yoIleyball court takes up 1/3 of the space of the lot now. It is already less attractive than any kind of a parking lot. She said that the now the parking lot has been pulled back and some landscaping has been added. She said that if at some point Northwestern decides to build a parking structure, it would be a lot easier to restore the green space that it is to tear down the Ford Building. Barbara Gardner said that she voted against the Ford building because she does not believe that it fits in. She came away having a real problem that the Commission approved something that at least some of the Commissioners think is not attractive, and it does not fit with the other buildings, and yet the Commission turned down something that it is an alteration and it is taking away green space, yet is desirable. Barbara Gardener Evanston Presenation Commission December 17. 2002 - Ntinu'es Paie 8 said that the proposed parking is a minimal alteration. The views of the landmark building from the street are obstructed because of the trees. She does not think that the proposed parking is going to cause further obstruction of the building by having the parking lot where it is proposed. She said that she has come down with a changed perspective from %%here she was last meeting. Mary Brugliem said that the only reason Northwestern came in front of the Commission for the Ford building was because of the potential impact on the Shakespeare Garden. The only thing that the Commission had purview was the potential effect of the Ford building on the garden. Marti Brugliera said that in the case of Garrett, the building is setback with a grand front %ard, it is a notable Gothic building by Ifolabird & Root, and it is a landmark. She mentioned the Dryden :Mansion on Ridge avenue as a similar example of lawn space in front of the landmark building. She said that there is a dramatic aspect to the lawn that goes up to the Garrett building now under the Commission's consideration. Adolf I lansen said that in 1998 and in 1999 (revised plans) the Commission had approved across the street from Garrett an addition to Seabury Western that included 15 parking spaces for a total of 36 parking spaces. Carlos Ruiz said that the difference is that those parking spaces are not in front of the Seabury Western building. Thomas Prairie asked Adolf Hansen if the parking at Seabury Western improves it. Adolf Hansen said that the parking at Seabury Westem comes close to Sheridan Road and that there is no landscaping effect that the proposed parking at Garret would have. He said that there would be more greenery on the Garrett parking lot and it would help to create a buffer of green between the parking lot on the south and the Garrett parking lot. Mary Brugliera said that the Seabury Western building is not impeded in the front by any parking. Referring to the Dryden Nlansion, Barbara Gardner said that the situation there was different. She noted that the Mansion is much closer to the street, and it does not have a street that goes down and cul-de-sac around right in front of the building. Barbara Gardner said that in the case of Garrett there is an existing street that goes right up to the front of the building. The street is lined with trees that basically block a clear shot view of the building. She said that Garrett Seminary had tried very hard to make the project more acceptable. Susan Rundle suggested to put the parking a foot below the grade and even berm if necessary the area in front of Sheridan Road. She said that it seems obvious that Garrett Seminary needs the parking, and that Northwestern is not going to help in this situation. Adolf Hansen said that in his view the Ford Building would have more impact on the Garrett building than the proposed parking lot in front of it would. Chris Carey said that Evanston Preservation Commission December 17, 2002 - Minutes Pace 9 if the Ford building -,vas any closer to the Garrett Building that he would not have voted in favor of it. Adolf Hansen said that one of the difficulties of putting the parking lot below the grade is the potential flooding of the basement and dealing with underground utilities. He also mentioned that the proposed plantings along Sheridan Road are low for screening the visibility of cars. He said that the plans called for plantings along Garrett Place and additional street lighting. Barbara Gardner through a straw poll determined that four Commissioners would approve the project having the parking lot depressed at least one -foot. Thomas Prairie said that he would like to see in elevation how the depressed parking lot would look like. A second straw poll determined that all eight Commissioners would consider reviewing a depressed parking lot. Adolf Hansen asked if the Commission would consider the proposed parking if it cannot be depressed. Carlos Ruiz asked how many parking spaces are really needed. Adolf Hansen said that they started with eighty parking spaces, then it went down to sixty, forty- two and now forty. He said that if the Commission would ask that they could do Nvith less parking spaces and not having to depress the parking lot, he would have to listen to that and consider it. After a straxv poll Barbara Gardner determined that four Commissioners would vote in favor of the project as presented, and four Commissioners would vote against the project as submitted. Barbara Gardner asked if two more parking spaces were eliminated (for a forty -foot setback) would Commissioners vote in favor of the project. Chris Carey said that he was struggling with balancing the need for a parking lot and whether Garrett Seminary could make it work without disrupting the essential views of the landmark property. Barbara Gardner said that denying any kind of parking when Garrett Seminary does not have a place to go is essential to a taking of their property. Abbie Willard said that Garrett Seminary is not a private home, it is a facility that numerous people should have access to in a way that would allow them to use it and to visit it without substantial inconvenience. Adolf Hansen said that Garrett Seminary does not have a place to offer parking to visitors except the street. Mary Brugliera said that she really would like to see the depressed lot. Susan Rundle said that her concern is that the parking lot takes the whole front vista out of context because of the sudden change from front lawn to bushes and then to cars. She wondered if she would feel the same way with Evanston Northwestern Hospital berms on Ridge Avenue. She said that, contextually for her, it was not the number of parking spaces, it is how her eye is stop and the context of the sweeping lawn is changed, 1f she could go up 18-inches Evanston Preservation Commission December 17. 2Vj2 - Minutes Palm 10 and visually continue to the building, it would help. Adolf Hansen said that Susan Rundle's comment is worth investigating_ Barbara Gardner said that would like to ask the applicant to consider: (1) dropping the surface parking below grade by I -foot; (2) dropping the surface parking below grade by 1-foot and berming it; and (3) leave the surface parking at grade and berming it. The berm would face Sheridan Road. Abbie Willard moved to table the proposed parking lot pending the return of some discussion of the three alternatives outlined by Barbara Gardner. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed Unanimously. V. NENI' BUSINESS A. Nominating Committee - 2003 Officers Chris Carey. Susan Rundle and 14ary Brugliera volunteered to the Nominating Committee for the 2003 Preservation Commission officers. The Nominating Committee will present the slate of officers (Chair, Vice -Chair, and Secretary) at the next Commission meeting. B. 2003 Preservation Commission meeting dates Abbie Willard moved to approve the Presen-ation Commission's meeting dates as submitted by staff. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preserti•ation Commission retreat (2003) The Presmation Commission set the date of January 9, 2003 to hold its annual retreat. The retreat is scheduled at 6:00 p.m. in room 3650, Evanston Civic Center. Some issues for discussion at the retreat are: completeness of applications for certificate of appropriateness, projects that could be approved by the Preservation Coordinator, preservation awards, and approval of the garage standards. D. Music Institute of Chicago Tour Carlos Ruiz said that he would schedule with the Music Institute of Chicago a tour of their new Evanston facility at 600 Grove Street. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Ridge Avenue Traffic Lights Modernization Project (Update) Carlos Ruiz said that the City Council approved the report prepared by the Citizens Committee and Public Works. Barbara Gardner said that the State of Illinois would give jurisdiction of Ridge Avenue and provide some funding to resurface Ridge Avenue. Evanston Preservation Commission December 17, 2002 -Minutes Pafie I I VIL ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Commission meeting is scheduled on January 21, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201. VIII. ADJOURNMENT With no further business on the agenda, Mary Brugliera moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservatio ordinator Date: I EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stephen Droll, Clint Funk:, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Susan Rundle, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Neil Sheehan OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Osborne, Don Jeffers, Marvin Walker, Arthur Nowik, Adolf Hansen, and Kory Burton PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. II. ELECTION OF PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICERS FOR 2003 The Preservation Commission elected Barbara Gardner as Chair, Chris Carey as Vice -Chair and Susan Rundle as Secretary for the year of 2003. IIh APPROVAL OF MINUTES Barbara Gardner said that the minutes would be approved later during the meeting. III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee {R&TA 1. 1005 Greenwood Street - Remove existing tandem garage, replace doors and windows on house [Alteration] R&TA's Report Regarding the proposed demolition of the added tandem garage at I005 Greenwood Street, Mary Brugliera said that 4 standards of demolition are applicable, none of which prevent its Evanston Preservation Commission "Minutes — January 2I, 2003 Page 2 demolition. Regarding alteration to the house, there was a question about the change of appearance of the new windows compared to the existing windows on the house. 1005 Greenwood Street is a non-contributing structure within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Applicant's Presentation Robert Osborne, property owner presented the proposed demolition of the existing tandem garage, rehabilitation and replacement of existing windows around the house. He said that the proposed new windows integrate all the elevations and give more natural lighting. Ms. Brugliera said that the most noticeable change was the picture window on the front elevation. Chris Carey said that the first floor windows are Cottage style windows. Susan Rundle noted that the nearby post W.W.II houses have kept the divided lights on the top and bottom sashes of their windows. Mr. Osborne said that the proposed picture window is more attractive than the existing divided light window. He said that standard 9 of alteration states that contemporary design should not be discouraged as long it is in keeping with the general character of the house, which the picture window is. The new clad windows are a complete replacement to the existing windows. Ms. Brugliera said that the 1948 structure is a non-contributing structure to the historic district. The rehabilitated one -car garage would have a new door. Mr. Carey asked about the brick mold at the windows. Don Jeffers, architect said that the brick mould would be replaced with painted wood surface. r Commission's Findings Mr. Carey asked if all the windows on the house and garage were being replaced with simulated divided lights. Mr. Jeffers said, yes. He also said that they were planning on having the spacer bar in between the panes of glass. Mr. Jeffers said that the picture window is reminiscent of a Chicago style window. - Carlos Ruiz asked if restoration of the existing windows was considered. Mr. Osborne said that there are several layers of paint. They would have to remove the paint all the way to the wood, potentially a lead paint issue. He said that it seemed not a good idea to take fifty-year old windows and restore them at a higher cost than replacing them. Mr. Jeffers said that all the woodwork in the house would be replaced. He said that the house is not in good shape because the house was a rental house for the last few years. Ms. Brugliera said that standards of demolition that apply are: I (would not be detrimental to the public interest, since nothing architectural was being removed), and 2 (whether the tandem garage does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural or architectural character of the district - the demolition of the tandem garage would not be contrary to any purpose in this chapter or objectives of the historic preservation district. The tandem garage is not old or unusual, or has an uncommon design, texture, or materials that it could not be reproduced. Standard 5 does not apply. Ms. Brugliera moved for approval of the demolition of the front - garage at 1005 Greenwood Street. Ms. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.— E-mmon Presmation Conutvssion Minutes — January 21, 2003 Page 3 Ms. Brugliera said that standards of alteration I, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are applicable to adapt the property with minimal alteration. She asked if replacing windows is minimal alteration so that it meets standard 1, 2, and 5. It does not meet standard 6 because the windows are aluminum clad wood windows. Mr. Jeffers said that from the public way one could not distinguish aluminum clad windows from painted wood windows. Mr. Ruiz said that standard 6 is clear in terms of replacing original architectural features when necessary and in kind (texture, materials). Susan Rundle said that one could distinguish the difference between all wood windows and aluminum clad wood windows. Continuing with her statement, Ms. Brugliera said standards 7 and 8 are not applicable. Standard 9 (contemporary design should not be discouraged) is met, as well as standard 10, because the new windows could be removed in the future. Ms. Brugliera moved for approval of replacement of windows and doors at 1005 Greenwood Street, on the basis of its meetine standards 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 1503 Florence Avenue - installation of vinyl siding over existing wood siding and replacement of wood ivindow•s with vinyl windows (Alteration] R&TA Report Stanley Gerson said that the proposal at 1503 Florence Avenue is to install new vinyl siding over the existing clapboard siding and to replace the existing wood windows with vinyl double hung windows. Standards of alteration 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10 are applicable. Mr. Gerson said that standard 6 has more relevance and should be discussed first. Standard 5 has also has relevance with a lesser degree. 1503 Florence Avenue is an Evanston landmark. Mr. Gerson said that standard 6 states that deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. Applicant's Presentation Arthur Nowik said that when they submitted their bid, they did not know that the house was a Landmark building. This is the reason why the contract for replacing the existing wood windows with vinyl windows and installing vinyl siding on the wood siding has been submitted for building permit. He is now requesting the Commission's approval, if that was not possible, he asked for something else that could be worked out. Marvin Walker said that his mother owns the house. He said that if they could repair the house they would, it would cost more money to repair than replace. He said that they spend a lot of money on the heat because of the windows; they do not keep out the cold air. They need to replace them. Regarding the vinyl siding, he said that every two years they need to paint the house at cost of two to four thousand dollars. They had estimates of up to eight thousand dollars. He said that his mother is on a fixed income. NIT. Walker said that it is ludicrous to do the paint every two years. He said that that is why they are requesting to make the change that is Evanston Presm3tion Commission Minut_s -- January 21, 2003 Page nccessan,. He said that it will save them money in the long run, it will enhance the beauty of the home, and it will make it a lot safer. Mr. Gerson raised the issue whether covering the wood siding with vinyl siding was necessary. He said that the question is whether the clapboard siding is so deteriorated that it cannot be painted. Chris Carey asked how the shingles at the gable and the mouldings around the windows would be treated. Mr. Norwik said that the vinyl siding has the same pattern. Mary Brugliera said that after looking at the house she thought that the wood siding was in wonderful shape. There are a couple of spots where scraping needed to be done and paint applied. The wood seemed to be totally intact. She noticed that there are triple track storm windows around the house, so she wondered about the leaky windows. Mr. Walker said that air is coming in. Ms. Brugliera said putting good weather stripping and insulation around the windows could solve that much easily. Mr. Walker said that one of the windows has to be completely replaced. Mr. Walker said that instead of trying restore every rwo/three years, they want to replace all of it at once to avoid any problems in the future. Restoring would cost more money and more effort and it would not solve tine heating problem. Regarding storm windows Susan Rundle said that the early triple track aluminum windows were not efficient. Chris Carey asked if it was considered to replace the windows with good windows rather than vinyl windows. Mr. Walker said that wood windows would cost more. He added that his mother is on a fixed income. Their purpose is to maintain the beauty of the home, but it also must be cost effective. Barbara Gardner asked Carlos Ruiz if there was a way to help the property owner apply for some grant through the _City of tie State _to help her with the proposed work. She said that this fr situation is more of the ied income issue than it is anything else. Mr. Walker said that it is also a matter of pride. His mother has been in the house since 1951, she has raised all her kids in this house and she never has asked for public aid, and she has never had to ask for any assistance. She does not want any handouts, grants, loans or anything of that nature as a matter of pride. Abbie Willard said in terms of the owner's investment, it would be more valuable to her and in terms of resale if the historic significance of the home is maintained with the wood siding and wood windows. Mr. Walker said that that was a matter of opinion in terms of the value. He said the value is to maintain its beauty, and to maintain it in a livable fashion. He said that wood has to be repainted every two years. Mr. Walker said that his mother has maintained her house all these years as a matter of pride in ownership. Stephen Droll said that it is a matter of opinion, but it is the characteristics that made the house a landmark. Susan Rundle said that because the house is a landmark it needs to meet the standards, and vinyl would not meet any of them. She said that is why they were talking about what can be done to retain its landmark status, hence limiting what it is acceptable. Mr. Ruiz mentioned the Property Tar Assessment Freeze Program administered by the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency as a financial incentive, but the property owner needs to invest 25% of the assessed value of the property in restoring or rehabilitating the landmark house. Mr. Evanston Presmation Commission Minutes — January 21, 20003 Page S Walker asked if the problem was the vinyl windows or the vinyl siding. The Commissioners said that the problem was both. Mr. Walker asked if vinyl siding was ever approved for a landmark house. Ms. Gardner said that a Landmark house was approved to replace existing asphalt siding with vinyl siding. In another case %inyl siding was approved after a fire and part of the house was already vinyl siding and another part of the house was asphalt siding. Mr. Carey quoted from the Statement of Significance "this one and a half story vernacular structure is particularly noteworthy for its intearity. Clapboard with the steep gable roof that contains square cut shingles in the peek of the gable." He said that the Statement of Significance is highlighting those issues that really give the house its character, and these are the same issues that the owner wants to cover over. Mr. Walker said that he understood the Commission's position and respects it. He said that the issue is affordability and the high cost of heating a house. He said that the windows need to be replaced. Mr. Ruiz suggested that the Commission explore further what could be done to assist Mr. Walker's mother and come back at a later date with a better understanding about the problems in terms of energy efficiency. At that point the Commission could recommend other alternatives to vinyl. If vinyl becomes the only option the Commission could recommend certain ways to install the vinyl so that the architectural features are not completely covered with vinyl. The goal would be trying to preserve the wood siding by installing the vinyl siding properly, so that in the future if someone would like to remove the vinyl, the wood siding underneath would not be damaged or rotted. Mr. Walker said that Mr. Ruiz's suggestion was reasonable. Ms. Brugliera moved to table the application pending a visit by Carlos Ruiz and whatever inspectors are appropriate to take a look at the situation with the heat loss. Stanley Gerson seconded the motion. DIscussion: Ms. Gardner said that there are wood windows that are not as expensive as Marvin windows. Mr. Carey said that many window companies are making the wood sash replacement kits. He asked about the vinyl siding style. Mr. Nowik said the vinyl siding is Dutch style siding. Chris Carey said that the triple three siding would be more appropriate to the period of the house. In response to a question from Mr. Carey the Contractor said that the fascia and soffits would be wrapped with aluminum, and all the corners would be wrapped with vinyl siding. The windows would have aluminum wrapping. Mr. Walker said that he was opened to all ideas, because all they want to do is to maintain the house. The Commission commended the owner for taking care of her house for all these years. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 2121 Sheridan Road - New off street surface parking (amended application) Adolf Hansen of Garrett Seminary and Kory Burton of Northwestern University presented amended plans for the construction of a 40 car off street parking lot on the property at 2121 Sheridan Road. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Evanston Preservation Commissions ;Minutes — January 21, 2003 Page 6 Barbara Gardner summarized the previous presentation about this project by saying that the Garrett Seminary had parking privileges on the existing parking lot immediately south and owned by Northwestern University. Now, parking on that lot is by permit only. Therefore, Garrett Seminary does not have parking on campus. The parting around Garrett Seminary is open to all and it is a ttivo-hour parking limit. Last month Garrett Seminary presented a smaller parking lot than originally presented in November 2002. The revised plan had better landscaping. At that point there was a 50150 straw poll in favor of approval of the parking lot. Mr. Ruiz said that four Commissioners were satisfied with the revisions and the other four Commissioners wanted more information before they could make a decision. Barbara Gardner said that a suggestion was made to dropping the parking lot below grade and to look at the possibility of berming up the landscaped area, so that the eye went up and over the top of the cars. R&TA Report Susan Rundle said that the building and everything associated with the lot of record at 2121 Sheridan Road is a Landmark. Therefore, the Commission has purview over the lot of record. Ms. Rundle said thee applicable standards of alteration were 1, 2, 9, and I0. Ms. Hansen said that they looked at three things. The possibility of lowering the lot by one -foot, having some berm along Sheridan Road, or some combination of the two, or to do both if possible. Mr. Hansen said that ARC Design Resources ('ARC) analyzed the possibilities. A letter from ARC states that lowering the parking lot by 6' was possible, but not 12". Also, ARC designed a Thigh berm, which together with a 6" drop of the parking lot would give 30" of screening. Mr. Hansen said that xvith dense landscaping on the berm and heavily planting use of evergreens and yews, there would be greenery on the landscaper) area at all seasons of the year. In addition to the landscaping, there would be 6 Tallmadge streetlight poles along Garrett Place _ and 2 at the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hansen said that Garrett Seminar, is very fond of the historic character of the building and they have done everything over the years to maintain it. When something needed to be replaced, it was done exactly as what it was there before. He said that Garrett Seminary is ready to celebrate their sesquicentennial starting in 2003, and that the parking lot would be much welcomed. Mary Brugliera asked if there was any problem with plantings that dense in terms of the necessary visibility for safety reasons. Carlos Ruiz said that landscaping is definitely encouraged in Evanston, at the same time natural surveillance is desirable. Landscaping could be maintained at a certain height to provide screening and natural surveillance. Stephen Droll said that berms sometimes look artificial; he suggested moguls to add a natural appearance, there could be a series of mounds, possibly with landscaping at a desirable height and few vistas into the area that would add some visibility for someone going by. Ms. Rundle said that progressive landscaping in front of the parking lot to move the eye over the cars to the building would be desirable, and if landscaping alone does the same thing, she asked =_- if berming was necessary. Mr. Droll said that adding some contour from the landscaping Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -- Januar% 21, 2003 Page 7 perspective would be desirable. Nis. Brugliera said that the concern is the loss of the green area. his. Gardner said that potentially the situation is that Garrett Seminary would not have an option for parking, and it could amount to a taking situation. Mr. Carey asked if the berm was confined just to the west elevation and what was the depth of the berm. Ms. Bruglicra said that there are low hedges along the northern boundary of the parking. Mr. Hansen, regarding security, said that the visibility to the north and south is pretty open. Mr. Carey asked if Kory Burton was helping Garrett Seminary with the aesthetic effect of the parking lot. Ivfr. Burton said that he was with Northwwestem University, acting as the project manager and agent for Garrett Seminary. Mr. Hansen said that the Garrett Seminary has access to Northwestern University's landscape architect and they want to make the parking lot as attractive as possible. He said that Garrett Seminary has a garden next to the Shakespeare Garden that is very attractive and frequented by visitors. Stanley Gerson asked about the option A and option B of the proposed plan. Option A is without a berm, the height is the same with berm or no berm. Mr. Hansen said that the plan could look the same with or without a berm, but with landscaping and as attractive as possible. Option A includes the 6" excavation of the parking lot surface. Carlos Ruiz said 6" inches below grade would not completely block the view of car rooftops, but it would have an effect. He said that he liked the idea of the moguls because they would divert the attention from the car rooftops and allow open areas for allowing some view into the parking lot for added security. He said that this was done at the Presbyterian Homes along Golf Road. He said that the City's landscape architect could help in that regard. Mr. Hansen said that he would like to have the advice of a professional landscape architect. Mr. Carey suggested that the moguls could be extended north of Garrett Place along Sheridan Road to create a balance and keep the property together. Mr. Hansen said that ire would take Mr. Carey's suggestion seriously and perhaps make a personal recommendation to Garrett Seminary Board of Trustees. Mr. Carey said that Prairie grasses could be used for additional landscaping. Mr. Gerson asked if drainage was provided for the parking lot. Mr. Hansen said that the drainage goes to the center of the lot. Mr. Gerson asked who would be parking on the new parking lot. Mr. Hansen said that their intent was not to leave the lot empty, but the primary intent is to provide parking to visitors for continuing education events, lectures, and Board of Trustees meetings among others. Garrett Seminary staff also has asked for parking spaces. Mr. Hansen added that their goal is to maintain the historic property and its historic character, they do not want the parking area to disturb or destroy the historic building. He said that he served on the Historic Preservation Commission in Indianapolis as Vice -Chair, he said that he understood what the Commission was doing and he appreciated it. Mr. Hansen thought the end result would be better lighting, better location, better landscaping and a little less parking. Mr. Gerson asked if Northwestern University would maintain the parking lot. Mr. Hansen said that Garrett Seminary would maintain the parking lot. The land is leased from Northwestern University for 99 years plus another 99 years. Garrett Seminary maintains the land north of Garrett Place as well. Mr. Hansen said that the circle at the end of Garrett Place would be renovated. Evanston Presertiation Commission Minutes -- January 21, 2003 Page 8 Susan Rundle summarized the proposal for a 40 car parking lot to be 6" below the grade with landscaping similar to what was shown on the plans to screen the cars. Barbara Gardner said that the applicant should be able to refine the landscaping plan. Mr. Hansen said that they would be willing to submit the final landscaping plans to Mr. Ruiz and the City's landscape architect. Ms. Rundle said that the whole point of landscaping with benn or moguls is to take the eye up to the building. That is the intent as shown on the plans, because it would work with or without a berm, she said. Mr. Hansen said that they would prefer option A without the berm and with the lighting. Ms. Rundle said that the Commission should consider this proposal as extremely extenuating circumstances and not to set precedent. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission had initially denied a similar proposal in November of 2002. The motion for denial only included standard 2. The Commission rejected the project as proposed on the grounds that it did not meet the most salient requirement of review for alterations (number 2), in that it would destroy an essential character of the property, which is the open space in front of the building. The motion to deny the proposal was approved then 6 to 1. Ms. Rundle moved that the Commission approve the parking lot as shown in the January 14, 2003 proposal with 40 cars (parking spaces), lot being 6" lower, with lighting as shown. It is noted that this is an extremely extenuating circumstance that should not be used as a precedent. Every reasonable effort has been made to cant' the eye toward the building so that it does not destroy the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property. The landscaping would include moguls with landscaping that is shown close to option A. Mr. Gerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Brugliera said that she felt uncomfortable with the use of the term "extenuating circumstances" because extenuating circumstances would need a Certificate of Special Merit or Hardship; that is something for the City Council to handle. She said that, in a way, the Commission does not deal with extenuating circumstances; rather it deals with the proposal and the building. She was concerned with somebody else in the future using extenuating circumstances to obtain approval from the Commission. Abbie Willard suggested the use of the term "unique circumstances." Ms. Brugliera amended the motion to substitute the term "extenuating circumstances" with "unique circumstances." Mr. Droll seconded the amendment. Ms. Rundle said that her motion was for option A with the moguls. She said that it could be a hybrid of option A and B (with a berm) Ms. Rundle accepted the amendment to her motion. She added to her motion that the proposal meets standards 1 (every effort has been made to minimally alter the Landmark), 2 (every effort has been made to not destroy the quality of the environment or the character of the building, 9 (contemporary design has not been discouraged), and 10 (if they should remove the parking lot and moguls in the future, it does not effect the basic building structure or property). Mr. Droll seconded the motion as amended. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay (Mary Brugliera). Evanston Presen-ation Commission Minutes -- January 21. 2003 Page 9 IV. INIISCELANEOUS Commissioners commented on the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) re- established role. They found the results eery useful for the review process of projects in front of the full Commission. Commissioners agreed that R&:TA continue its preliminary review. The Commission discussed possibilities to assist the owner of 1503 Florence Avenue. Chris Carey said that if the City could provide funding to provide the difference between the cost of vinyl windows and wood windows, the owner may be discouraged from using vinyl siding at all. Barbara Gardner asked Carlos Ruiz to find out if the City could allocate some funding for helping homeowners that need financial assistance to restore or rehabilitate their historic homes. Ms. Gardner said that it is being discussed that the Preservation League would resurface as an active organization. Apparently, they have around S3,000 in the bank. The Preservation League could start some kind of a revolving fund for preservation projects. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stephen Droll moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 2002 with spelling correction of the words "moat" and "break." Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VI. OTHER BUSINESS Mary Brugliera suggested appointing Associate Members of the Commission. She named Mary McWilliams, Barbara Buchbinder, Lori Osborne, and Anne Earle as potential appointees. Barbara Gardner. Chris Carey and Mary Brugliera volunteered to work on preservation walks activities VII. ADJOUILSINIENT The meeting was adjourned at I0:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator EVA:ti'STON PRESERVATION COMINIISSION Public Hearing Minutes Tuesday, February 18, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stephen Droll, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, Neil Sheehan, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: William Reich, Chimene Pellar, Michael Pellar, Robert Walker, Scott Walker, Steve Knutson, Mark Golan, Mark Miller, Sandy Locher, and Marian Tweedie PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. PUBLIC HEARING 3312 Dartmouth Place -[domination for Evanston Landmark Designation At approximately 7:30 p.m. Barbara Gardner called the public hearing to order and established that a quorum was present. Barbara Gardner read the public hearing rules. William Reich, property owner of 3312 Dartmouth Place thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present his nomination. He said that his property at 3312 Dartmouth Place is on northwest Evanston, east of Crawford Avenue and bordering Skokie to the west. W. Reich said that among the many reasons his house deserves landmark designation is because George Fred Keck, architect designed the house in 1940. Keck has been called a hero of architecture modernism. He combined the influence of the European traditional architecture with the organic style of Frank Lloyd Wright and other American architects in a synergy that has been recognized by other architects that were as progressive as Keck was. George F. Keck was also a pioneer in passive solar design. He was way ahead of his time in that regard. G. F. Keck developed many innovative techniques and designs, many of which were incorporated in the designs of his buildings, which resulted in considerable energy savings. G. F. Keck was relatively unique among architects in that he had a philosophy of economic conservatism; he built a lot of small houses. His houses were quite appealing aesthetically and ecologically conscious. George F. Keck was a prolific architect; thousands of homes arc credited to G. F. Keck. Among Evanston Presmation Co. scion February 18, 2003 - Pubti. Hearing Minutes Page 2 them two major developments, one in Glenview, Illinois called Solar Park, built in the 1940s; another one in Glencoe. IIlinois that included hundreds of homes. William Reich said that north of Wilmette and south of Kenilworth in Illinois, where there are condos now there was a large building that Keck designed in 192It is rumored that the Al Capone gang had some dealings with that building which was torn down within live years after it was built. Keck was chosen to design the "House of Tomorrow" at the 1933 Chicago Century of Progress. The House of Tomorrow is the forerunner of the solar designs that Keck created. At the same fair Keck also designed "The Crystal Palace" which was later moved to the dunes in Indiana. Most people hated the Crystal Palace; some people liked it a lot. One architecture critic denounced it as "Damned 'Modernism" at the time, but in any case famously of infamously it lives on in the annals of Chicago architecture. Keck moved on to design many homes in the Northshore. In his designs he used glass brick extensively as an aesthetic element that stayed with Keck his wi ole design career. William Reich showed a number of homes designed by Keck, including the first example of a house that had couple of elements that heck became well known. One is the angle of the roof; in summer time the sunlight does not get in into the space, but in winter time the sun pierces through the glass and eliminates the need for heating the space in any sunny day in winter time. The second element is the massive chimney design that is present in almost all of Keck's structures and became a Keck's trademark. William Reich said that Keck developed the "Solar Park" for Mr. Sloan, a developer and contractor in Glenview. The Solar Park is in west Glenview. The buildings in the Solar Park showcased the clear story %windows, another Keck's favorite design element, which is an aesthetic element and a passive solar element. During the winter the clear story windows allow additional sunlight and provide solar heating. The house at 3312 Dartmouth Place has a massive chimney and the typical Keck design roofline that allow more sunlight into the space during the winter. Keck was very influential in the development of "ready made homes," which were factory assembled and brought out to the site. W. Reich showed examples of Greens Ready Made that were built by the thousands in 1940s. Certain kinds of materials were scarce, energy was an issue during the War, and the nation was just recovering from the depression of the economy. Keck was interested in those necessities and he incorporated ideas dealing with those issues into his designs. The McCormick Warehouse in Lake Forest that Keck designed in 1953 is a contrast to the previous projects in that it is a modest design. Keck was the designer for the many of the earlier Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) projects. His scope of work: includes small suburban houses to huge urban residential structures. Keck's designs do not represent the standard CHA development. Keck's CHA designs incorporate the same design elements of the Greens Ready Made homes. It almost appears that Keck stacked up twenty ready-made homes on top of each other. William Reich said that the CHA developments included passive solar design. The shadows from the sun would fall over parking lots; the sun would fall over the recreational areas Evanston Preservation Commission February 18, 2003 - Public Hearing Minutes Page 3 as well as over the adjacent structures. William Reich said that although Keck is not quiet as well known as some of the most famous architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, he has been honored within the architecture community. Keck was the recipient of the First Illinois .Medal in Architecture, awarded by the University of Illinois in Chicago in 1980, celebrating a fifty-five year career in Chicago architecture, recognizing "a lifetime of professional dedication in excellence." William Reich noted the elements of energy efficiency that Keck incorporated in so many of his designs and some of «-hick are included in his house. Keck was very careful about the orientation of the structure on the site. In the case of his house, the north elevations are well protected and the window areas are relative small in relation to the total wall side, so that the north wind has less of a target area. The south elevation has a very high proportion of window area to maximize the utility of the sunlight. Keck also incorporated the heat retention tiles, when the sun comes in the tiles are colored in a certain way that they hold the heat even after the sunlight has receded. Keck was one of the innovators of thermo pane windows back in the 1930s. He worked to develop and use thermo pane glass windows in many of his homes. Keck also used external Venetian blinds. He recognized that internal Venetian blinds did not stop the heat from the sun rays go into the house. Extemal Venetian blinds are used for summer time cooling. Keck also gave a lot of thought to the flow of air within the house and in the ways in which it could be engineered. Heat from the windows could be brought to all parts of the house so that in the summer time, the flow of cool air could circulate throughout the interior of the house. Keck also developed radiant heat floors; he pumped hot water through the floors in many of his houses. William Reich shoNved a section dra,-tiing of his house that illustrated the design of the windows by the sun porch and the angles of the sun as they occur at variant times of the year. In the winter, the sun being low in the sky comes in and shines almost all the way into the interior space of the house. Whereas in the summer, because the height of the sun, the sunlight is totally outside of the house. W. Reich showed slides of the interior of his house to illustrate that in winter the sun goes into the deep interior of the house because of the way Keck designed the roof line. Another illustration showed how the circulation of the air keeps the house cool in the summer. Three examples (Keck's apartment in Chicago, the Blair house in Lake Forest and 3312 Dartmouth Place) of fireplace design showed two common elements. One is that the whole fireplace from floor to ceiling extends about a foot and a half into the room. That is a third of the size of the firebox, and consequently, as the hot air goes up, more of it is exposed to the room, that it would be in a conventional design where the fireplace would be totally behind the wall. A lot of heat comes from the upper areas of the fireplace. William Reich pointed out a device in the fireplace of his house called the heaterlator that allows a significant amount of hot air to circulate in the room. William Reich said about his house that in addition to being designed by George Fred Keck, Evanston Presmation Co--nission February 18, 2003 - Public Hearing Minutes Pagc 4 John Diekelmann, a vvell-known landscape architect, is the previous owner of his house..1. Diekelmann wrote a major landscape architecture book called "Natural Landscaping: Designing with Native Plant Communities." J. Diekelmann is now at the University of Wisconsin. He specializes in native indigenous plants. W. Reich said that Diekelmann drew for him a landscape plan of all the plantings that he put in the property. J. Diekelmann designed the most resent landscape plan for the addition to the Shed Aquarium in Chicago. As another note of interest regarding the connection of Keck with the CHA, William Reich showed a picture of the address numerals of his house. He noted that the numerals were done on drafting paper by Murphy Associates. Murphy was a huge desigm and architecture firm in Chicago. The firm did the Daly Center, McCormick Place. The firm change its name to Murphy Young, and under that name designed the United Airlines terminal at O'Hare Airport. W. Reich said that how the numerals of his house happened to get in their Murphy Associates design paper he did not know. William Reich said that he hoped that the Commission would look kindly upon his application. He noted that the house deserves the designation. He also mentioned that lie feared for the house in some ways, because it is a prime candidate for a tear down and it is on a double lot. He said that his house is only a two -bedroom home, so the appraised value is not particularly high to what it could be if the house is torn down and someone builds some huge monstrosity on the property, which the zoning would allow because it is a large lot. He said that he would like very much to see his delightful little house preserved, and he hoped that the Commission would agree with that sentiment. Barbara Gardner asked if any members of the audience would like to testify on behalf or against the nomination. No one from the audience spoke in favor or against the nomination. B. Gardner said that this was the time for the Commission to ask questions. She started by saying that she believed she might have the listing of the house when Mr. Williams bought his house. Barbara Gardner asked if the CHA buildings were still standing. William Reich believed that was the case. He said that Keck was the first in Chicago and one of the very first nationwide to develop mixed formats of public housing, so that Keck had multi -story housing allow with row houses and individual homes, all the way in the 1940s and 1950s. Barbara Gardner asked if the house had radiant Boors. William Reich said no. Mr. Reich said that he had Keck's brother William Keck over to his house; he is the one who told him about how the air flow works. Mary Brugliera asked Mr. Reich if he had any other documentation such as photos, drawings showing the house at the time it was built, or press comments. W. Reich said no. His house was not given too much attention. He said that the original drawings are in possession of the Wisconsin Historical Society. He has blue prints from that period, but no photographs. Mary Brugliera said that it is important for the Commission for the designation to known that the house has excellent integrity. William Reich said that the blue prints would substantiate the integrity of the house, except that couple years ago he had major repairs done to the sun porch. Stan Gerson asked if the exterior elevations are still the same original elevations. William Reich said that the only change that he made was the installation of thermo pane windows. There is no Evanston Preservation Commission February 18, 2003 - Public Hear-inc Nlm itcs Pagc 5 change what so ever to the appearance of the home. Stan Gerson asked about other Keck designed houses in Evanston. W. Reich said that they are listed in the eight hundred and some that Keck did. He believed that there are four in Evanston. He can not find any of them, but he has approximate addresses for all of them. It appears that they all have been remodeled or had additions put on them, or they just look nothing like the other houses that Keck designed. Barbara Gardner said that she believed the last house on the side of the railroad tracks, east of Ridge. That house is not amtWng like the house at 3312 Dartmouth Place. William Reich said that from the office of Keck & Keck that lists all of their projects, (he had one at Colfax and Lawndale) there is the A. E. Carlson home with no address, and the Investment Company on Central Street, 1973. Thomas Prairie asked if the exterior of the fireplace was painted originally. W. Reich said that the whole house was painted white when he bought the house. There is a big Keck house on Ridge Avenue in Wilmette that is painted all white, and several other houses that he had seen are white. Barbara Gardner mentioned that all the Keck houses that were shown during the presentation were white. The sun porch wall was rebuilt at the request of a City inspector. He reused the old bricks to rebuild the brick wall. Mary Brugliera asked if the heaterlator was original to the fireplace in his house. W. Reich said yes. Stanley Gerson asked if the heating system was conceptualized then with the house. W. Reich said he did not know, but that Keck incorporated the heaterlator in a lot of his fireplaces. With further questions from the Commission, Barbara Gardner closed the testimony portion of the hearing. Barbara Gardner opened the deliberation portion of the hearing. She started by saying that she was delighted to sec the nomination. She said that she is not particularly fond of contemporary architecture, but she became enamored with the house as she learned more about it and about George Fred Keck. She said that people do not put a whole lot of stock in the house because it is modem and because it is small; but really it is a wonderful house. In addition, because it is situated at the edge of the alley, one gets a panoramic view of the yard from the inside. B. Gardner said the house is deserving of landmark designation on the basis of the architect alone. Stephen Droll concurred with B. Gardner, he added that he had done some research on the Century of Progress and that it is important to recognize George Fred Keck. He was not so sure that 3312 Dartmouth Place is the best example of Keck's work, but it is characteristic of his work. Susan Rundle said that 3312 Dartmouth was obviously original and certainly different from the all the other houses that the Commission saw during the presentation. Barbara Gardner said that the house has the same features, including the upper set of windows and the sloped roof, although, much smaller than the other houses. Barbara Gardner granted William Reich additional testimony to illustrate more examples of Keck's work that showed similar characteristics as his house such the sun porch. He said that he had picked those examples because they shared features with his home. Mary Brugliera and Thomas Prairie wondered if the sun porch was original to the house. Stephen Droll said that said that the use of Keck's principles and the attempt to incorporate some passive techniques is Evanston Preservation Commission February 18, 2003 - Public Hearing Minutes Page 6 evident. Even though it may not be the best example of his work, it still shows consistency of philosophy. Mary Brugliera said that Keck continued the Chicago tradition of building affordable housing from the Sears Catalog Homes to Frank Lloyd Wright in his $5,000 house beautiful from every man. She said that it was an important feature of its uniqueness. Regarding the sun porch unpainted wall, Barbara Gardner said that if it had painted white as the rest of the house, people would not have the feeling of lacking cohesiveness. Barbara Gardner said that this nomination reminded her of the nomination of 3200 Harrison Street; a lot of similar features were there. Stanley Gerson said the house is a good example of Keck's type of architecture. In that respect it meets criteria 3 (an exemplification of an architectural type, style or design) and 4 (its identification of the work of an architect, who's individual work is significant in the history and development of the City and the Midwest region). S. Gerson said that in the basis of those two criteria, he would support the designation of 3312 Dartmouth Place as a landmark. Thomas Prairie said that he would support the nomination also. He thought that the house is essentially intact. One thing landmark status would do is help preserve it for future generations to be able to look at it. He was somewhat concerned about the paint on the brick, he did not know more about Keck to know that it was typical of his work. He would recommend holding off the paint in the sun porch. If the owner decides to remove the paint from the house, he recommended to not using sandblasting, but doing it gently chemically. In response to a concern raised by Carlos Ruiz, William Reich said that the only change to the windows was to replace from single pane to double pane glass; the window wood frames are the same. Chris Carey asked the house in the winter and are the Keck's techniques sufficient for keeping the house energy efficient. William Reich said the answer was yes and no. He noted that the house was not well insulated. At this time Barbara Gardner read the criteria for designation. The Commission concluded that the nomination met Section 2-9-4: Criteria for Designation: Every nominated Landmark or District must meet one or more of the following specified criteria for designation: (A) The Commission shall limit their consideration to the following criteria in making a determination on a nomination of an area, property, structure, site or object for designation by ordinance as a Landmark or Historic District. 3. Its exemplification of an architectural t)pe, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship; 4. Its identification as the work of an architect, designer, engineer or builder whose individual work is significant in the history or development of the City, the State, the Midwest region or the United States, and E%anston Presmadon Con=ission February 18, 2003 - Public Hearse Minutes Page 7 (B) Integrity ofLandnrar)s and Districts: Anv area, property. structure, site or object that meets any one or more of the criteria in subsection 2-9-4(A) shall also have sufficient integrhy of location, design, materials and vvorkwianship to make it worthy of presen-ation or restoration. (Ord. 12-0-94) Stanley Gerson moved continuance of the public hearing to the next regular Commission meeting so that staff can prepare the Commission's report to the Cite Council recommending the designation of 3312 Dartmouth Place as a Landmark. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. II. RE1.IRTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 811 Clinton Place (Landmark/Federal hEHD) - 2"d floor addition at rear (Construction) Mr. & Mrs. Pellar, o% ners, Robert Walker, architect, and Scott Walker, contractor, presented plans for a second -floor addition at the rear of the house at 811 Clinton Place. The house is an Evanston landmark within the Federal Northeast Evanston Historic District. R. Walker said there is a one-story addition at the back of the house, what they propose is to put a second floor on top of the existing one-story addition and interior renovation. They also want to renovate the exterior of the house, the plaster soffits are in poor condition and they will replace them with wood bead board. The existing is a stucco house with double hung wood windows with a couple of casement windows on the front of the house. The materials of the addition are stucco, and wood windows. There are no changes on the front of the house. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson, after reading the statement of significance said that the applicable standards of construction are: 1) height. Height shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visibly related, 3) proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of windows and doors shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which the building is visually related, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related, 7) relationship of materials and texture. The relationship of the materials and texture of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the structures to which it is visually related, 8) roof shapes. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the structures to which it is %visually related, 10) scale of a structure. The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches, and balconies shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually related, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The alteration of any historic or material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible, ld) Evanston Preservation Commission February 19, 2003 - Public Hearing %linutcs Page 8 contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural or architectural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment, 15) wherever possible, new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) in considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Mary Brugliera had a question in relation to standard 12 (distinguishing original qualities...) and the proposed stucco soffits replacement with bead board. R. Walker said that they replicated the brackets on the addition. S. Walker said that the sister house down the street has no brackets. Thomas Prairie suggested a cement fiber board to keep the appearance of tine stucco soffits. R. Walker said that the stucco on the house has a heavy texture appearance. They felt that the bead board was consistent with the time the house was built. The exterior part of the entry porch roof is already bead board. Mr. Pellar said that they want to go back to the original design as much as possible. Susan Rundle referring to standard 12 (the distinguishing qualities or character of the property shall not be destroyed) said that the west side elevation does not differentiate the original house from the addition, because the addition is on the same plane as the existing exterior wall, and one cannot tell the edge of the original house. Carlos Ruiz asked how feasible would be to provide a break with a recess to clearly differentiate the old from the new. R. Walker said that he will explore further the various ways to provide a natural break between the addition and the house. Stephen Droll asked about the rear elevation and the chimney that appears to interrupt the fascia and the soffits which seems a different treatment from the existing chimney. R. Walker said that the drawing is inaccurate; the chimney will flow out of the top of that. S. Droll suggested setting back the second story to make the break between the addition and the existing house. R. Walker said that maintaining the integrity of the original roof comer is the goal. Stephen Droll moved that the Commission approve the construction at 811 Clinton Place, and it meets standards: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 for the reasons stated earlier by Stan Gerson, with the provision that applicants pursue the alternate materials for the soffits with the intent of maintaining the characteristic of the stucco soffits, also that the design is modified with the intent of maintaining the original roof line as it currently exists, and with the recommendation to investigate alternative chimney materials. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Mr. Droll amended his motion to include that these provisions be study and sent to members of the Commission via fax for approval. Mr. Prairie seconded the amendment. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1326 Asbury Avenue (Landmark/Ridge HD) - Remodeling coach house [Alterationj Steve Knutson, architect presented plans for the remodeling of the coach house at 1326 Asbury Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Evanston Preservation Commission February 18, 2003 - Public Hearing Minutes Page 9 Mr. Knutson said the project includes the remodeling of the existing coach house, including new windows and French doors in the second floor living space. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera said that the applicable standards for alteration are: 1) height. Height shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visibly related, 2) proportion of front facade. The relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related, 3) proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of windows and doors shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which the building is visually related, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related, 9) walls of continuity. Facades and property and site structures, such as masonry walls, fences, and landscape masses, shall, when it is a characteristic of the area, form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street, to ensure visual compatibility with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which such elements are visually related, and 10) scale of a structure. The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches, and balconies shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually related. Thomas Prairie asked about the south elevation. Mr. Knutson said that there is a French door with a railing. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approve the alteration to the coach house at 1326 Asbury based on its meeting standards for alteration: 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay. 3. 137 Burnham Place (Lakeshore HD) - Second store and garage addition [Alteration/Construction] Mark Miller, o-Amer, and Mark Golan, architect, presented plans for a second story and garage addition at 137 Burnham Place. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Golan said that the original house is to the left of the drawing, the second story is over part of the original house, but is either projected forward or setback, and the wing to the right is intended to serve as a bookend of the original house. The addition has the same roof pitch, but updated with overhangs. Commission's Findings Chris Carey said that 137 Burnham is in the Lakeshore historic district; it is not a landmark nor is contributing to the district. The standards for construction that apply are: 1) the height, 2) proportion of front fatiade, 3) proportion of openings in relationship to the widths and heights of windows and doors, 4) rhythm of solid and voids in front facades, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, 6) the rhythm of entry porches in relationship with entrances that are compatible with the properties which is visually related, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shapes, 10) scale of the structure, 11) the directional expression of the front elevation, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property shall not be Evanston Preservation Cammission February 18, 2003 - Public Hearing Minutes Page 10 destroyed, 14) contemporary design for additions shall not be discouraged, 15) whenever possible new additions to structures should be done in a manner that if such additions were removed in the future the essential quality, integrity of the structure, be unimpaired, and 16) in considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose the requirement of a single architectural style or period. Barbara Gardner asked about the applicability of standard 12 on non-contributing structures. Carlos Ruiz said that for houses not listed as contributing structures, such Ranch houses, which have a particular presence, adding to the character of the district. He conveys to applicants the idea that, if at all possible, that presence should remain, because then the character of the district is maintained. Mr. Ruiz thought that standard 12 is applicable. Ms. Brugliera said that non- contributing structures such as Ranch houses do not add to the Lakeshore Historic District. This gives the Commission some leeway. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission has to balance what can be done to a landmark versus to a non -landmark building. Other issues to be considered are mass, proportion, and height. Chris Carey asked about the existing windows. Mr. Golan said that is their intention to put new casement clad windows throughout the house with simulated divided lights. The house will be sided with cedar shingles. The garage doors will be probably wood doors. Carlos Ruiz asked if the applicant has heard anything from the neighbors about the three -car garage. Mr. Miller said that all the neighbors liked the plans. Mr. Golan said that the design still defines the original house, but having what they added to it follow the same palette, for instance the roof pitch matches the pitch of the existing house, but they added the overhang. The gable to the left mimics the gable of the garage. The second story shingles are inspired by a house behind this house on Dempster. Barbara Gardner said that the applicable standards for construction are: 1) height, 2) proportion of front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) rhythm of solid to voids, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, 6) the rhythm of entry porches, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shapes, 10) scale of the structure, 11) the directional expression of the front elevation, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property shall not be destroyed, 14) contemporary design for additions shall not be discouraged, 15) whenever possible new additions to structures should be done in a manner that if such additions were removed in the future the essential quality, integrity of the structure, be unimpaired, and 16) in considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose the requirement of a single architectural style or period. Chris Carey moved that the Commission approve the project at 137 Burnham Place as it meets the following standards: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 16. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 650 Forest Avenue (Lakeshore HD) - Two-story addition at rear [Construction] Sandy Locher, owner, and Marian Tweedie, architect presented plans for a two-story addition at the rear of the house at 650 Forest Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Evanston Preservation Commission February 18, 2003 . Public Hearing Minutes Page 1 t Historic District. Ms. Tweedie said that they presented the project to the Commission about a year ago, and now they have down sized the scope of the project. The project includes a new bay and squaring off the northwest corner of rear structure. The interior work includes the remodeling of the kitchen, powder room and new second floor bath. Ms. Tweedie said that the bay roof will be rebuilt higher that the existing roof. The attic window is modified and the roof will be asphalt shingles. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson clarified that on the first floor, the addition is angled, where as on the second floor the addition is squared off. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the addition at 650 Forest as shown in plans and elevation, because it meets standards: 1) the height has not changed, 3) the proportion of the openings of the windows are compatible to the existing structure, 5) the rhythm of the spacing is a continuation of the existing house, 7) the materials are the same, 8) the roof shape is maintained, 10) the scale of the structure is smaller than the existing, 12) the original qualities and the character are not destroyed, 14) contemporary design is not discouraged, 15) the new addition, should it ever be removed in the future will not harm the integrity of the original structure, and 16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural style. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. III. NEW BUSINESS Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission requested new volunteers for the Review and Technical Assistance Committee. Stephen Droll, Chris Carey, and Stanley Gerson volunteered to serve in the Committee. Regarding the R&TA report on the applicable standards, the Commission agreed that it is important to not repeat the standard but, state why a particular standard is met. Also, Mr. Ruiz thanked Commissioners for volunteering in the Preservation Awards Committee, and the Education and Internet Committee. He said that in the future the Commission will have available to the public information in electronic form. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1503 Florence Avenue - Update Carlos Ruiz said that he has been trying to get advice from energy conservation experts. He said that is important to determine why the house has poor energy conservation. Mr. Ruiz said that he would try to get an energy test done in the house. An expert from Oak Park has been recommended to him. This expert could determine where the leaks are and then recommend energy efficiency solution. Regarding the wood siding restoration, hir. Ruiz said that removing the paint to the wood is labor intensive. Vinyl siding may be acceptable if properly installed. He said that the Evanston Presmation Conunission February 18, 2003 - Public Hearing Minutes Page 12 Commission should show that: 1) the energy efficiency of the house can be improved, 2) vinyl may be acceptable if necessary, and 3) economic hardship is not an issue. V. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COhI-MISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Preservation Awards Susan Rundle said that one Commissioner could participate as a juror on March 22 or March 29, 2003. Susan Rundle said that there are about 24 applications. Stephen Droll said that the applications have been sorted by completion year 2001 and 2002. Music Institute Tour Thomas Prairie said he enjoyed the Music Institute tour. Commissioners echo the same sentiment. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planncr/Presekion Coordinator EVAN'STON PRESERVATION CONLNUSSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:30 P.NI. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenge Evanston, Illinois NIENIBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Stanley Gerson, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Gardner, Stephen Droll, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Rob Sierzega, Karl Sponholtz, DonnaLee Floeter, Ellen Galland, Eric Janssen, Charles Turner, Chris George, Paul Jeffrey, Phil Davis, and Steve Economou PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERNfIINATION OF QUORUM Chris Carey determined that a quorum of seven members was present. He called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. II. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2426 Lincolnwood (Landmark) - Keep part of existing driveway in front yard for two tandem parking spaces [Zoning Variation] Chris Carey, Vice -Chair noted that 2426 Lincolnwood is a Landmark but it is not %vithin a local historic district. Rob Sierzega, architect presented a zoning variance application for two parking spaces on the front yard of the Landmark property. He said that he appeared in front of the Commission last fall. The Commission approved converting the garage into a family room. Rob Sierzega said that there was a question about the windows; they found a custom window maker to make the casement windows to open in, so that the windows would look like the other windows in the rest of the house. He said that the masonry is already up; the mason has applied stain to any brick that did not match the existing multi -color bricks. Rob Sierzega said that at the last meeting when he mentioned that his clients wanted to convert the garage to a family room, they also had the intention to keeping the driveway, or at least a Evanston Preservation Commission March 18, 2003 — Minutes Page 2 portion of it for guest parking during the day. He said that what they had applied for is a variance, for two tandem parking spaces in the existing driveway. The reason his clients want to keep those parking spaces is for convenience and because the long distance to the house from the street. He added that the driveway is blocked by shrubbery, and all the other neighbors have the same long driveway up to their house. His clients are trying to keep what is there, and not trying to build a new driveway as sho%vrt in the site plan and the photographs. Rob Sierzega said that he took the photographs on a Friday afternoon, every neighbor was kind to him and that they had parked at least one car on their driveways. Rob Sierzega said that his clients were also concerned with the narrowness of the street. Stanley Gerson asked if the neighbor's driveways event into garages. Rob Sierzega said that they do go into garages. Susan Rundle added that those that do not have garages do not have any parking in the front yard. Chris Carey asked if Rob Sierzega had contacted the neighbors about the zoning variance. Rob Sierzega said that there is a sign posted and that there was a mailing to the neighbors within 250 feet. Carlos Ruiz said that he was aware that there is at least one neighbor that has objected to the variance. Rob Sierzega said that that neighbor lives on Central Park, a block away behind his clients and across the street, almost at the exact same location. That neighbor is the only one who has sent a letter in opposition. He added that the letter came from California. Mary Brugliera said that the only thing she would disagree with the applicants on, based on two visits to the site (Saturday and Tuesday afternoon) is that there was virtually no traffic on Lincoln or on Lincolnwood, and did not seem to be a particular busy intersection for her. Off setting that, there is the fact that nearly everyone was, for about a block and a half, has some variant of a front yard driveway, and many cars were parked there. Chris Carey asked if there was anyone in the audience who was there to speak for or against the proposed variance. No one from the audience spoke. Chris Carey read the standards for zoning, special uses and variations: (A) Is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts. Chris Carey said that the house is not in a historic district, but it is a Landmark. (B) Is necessary to provide the owner a recoverable rate of return on the real property where the denial thereof ivould amount to a taking of the property without just compensation. Chris Carey said that standard B did not apply. (C) Will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and lvel fare or injurious to, property in the district or vicinity where the property is located. E%­amton Preservation Commission March 18, 2003 —Minutes Pace 3 Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie said that given the other homes on the street, the proposed zoning variance is not necessarily inappropriate. Mary BtuQliera said that the variance was not necessary. Stanley Gerson said that the proposed variance does not adversely affect the architecture or integrity of the house. He added that the house is not in a [historic] district. Chris Carey said he did not see how the variance materially would be detrimental to the public health or safety of the neighborhood. Stanley Gerson said that in view of the fact that the proposed zoning variance does not adversely affect the historical architecture of the Landmark. Also, in view of the fact that it is not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, he moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the variation be approved. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 2 nays (Rundle and Girard). 2. 1240 Hinman Avenue (Lakeshore HD) - Separate one-story additions South & west elevations, new deck at west elevation [Construction] Karl Sponholtz, with the Steven Cole Company, general contractor and architectural firm for the project, presented plans two separate one-story additions to the south and west elevations, also a new deck on the west elevation at I240 Hinman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Construction of new porch on the south, a new porch and a door to a mudroom in a new one- story bay, and construct a new bay on the west. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction are: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Mr. SponhoItz said that they are increasing an existing bay window in the family room, built out a one-story bay to enlarge the size of the kitchen. The two bays are joined by a wrap around roof. The exterior of the existing house is cedar shake and the same material will be used for the bay window. For the back porch they are using limestone piers and painted wood railing, the gutters will be aluminum and the roof will be asphalt. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said the following applicable standards for construction have been met: 1) height is of the new construction is visually compatible with the adjoining structures when viewed from the public way, 2) the openings of the new structure are compatible with the openings in related structures, 3) the open space between the building and adjoining structures is still compatible with the neighborhood, 7) that the materials and texture that are to be used in the new construction are compatible with the existing materials, with the reservation that the new windows should conform with the existing double hung windows and the new doors conform with the existing doors, 8) the new roof shapes are compatible with the roof shapes on the existing structure (the gable roof is okay), 10) the size and mass of the additions are compatible with the existing building and with the properties in the neighborhood, 12) that the original qualities and character of the existing structure are not destroyed, 14) the design is not a contemporary design, 15) if those two additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure will not be impaired, and 16) the Commission is not imposing E%-aaston Preservation Commission March 18, 2003 — Minutes Page 4 the requirement to use a specific architectural style. fir. Gerson moved that the proposal be approved. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Discussion: Thomas Prairie said that he still had a problem with the new gable roof. Michael Girard said that the House is not a contributing structure to the historic district, and the gable roof is at the rear of the property. He strongly recommended the applicant reconsidered the gable roof because it is atypical of the vocabulary of the vernacular for the type of house. Michael Girard moved to amend the motion with the rider that the applicant reconsider the use of the gable above the second in the kitchen. Susan Rundle seconded the amendment. The amendment passed. Vote: 6 ayes, I nay. The motion as amended passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 719 Forest Avenue (Lakeshore liD) - Addition to attic [Alteration/Zoning Variationj DonnaLee Floeter, architect, presented plans for an addition to the attic of the house at 719 Forest Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Floeter said that the attic addition requires a minor zoning variation for a 3.74' north side yard set back and partial creation of a third floor space. Ms. Floeter said that the addition will provide an additional bedroom for her client's children. Right now three children are sharing the same bedroom. The proposed addition is facing the backyard. The exterior material will be stucco to match existing material. The height of the roof is about 35'. Mary Brugliera said that standards A and C for zoning variance applied. Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend granting the zoning variations for the height and the side yard because they meet standards: A) it is appropriate and will not adversely affect the historical character of the district, and C) they will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to the district. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 4 ayes, 3 nays. Mary Brugliera said that the applicable standards for alteration are: 1) requiring minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed, 3) alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged, 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, 9) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design, and 10) new additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Susan Rundle said that the proposed addition did not meet standard 2 because in her view the original character of the house will be adversely affected. Ms. Floeter said that the ceiling height in the attic has to be 7.5' high for 50 percent of the floor area E.anstan Presen•ation Commission March 18. 2003 —Minutes Page 5 Chris Carey moved to table the review of the project until the next meeting and that the applicant come back next meeting with a drawing of the front elevation showing more information about the proposed work. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1420 Davis Street (Ridge HD) - One-story frame addition at rear [Construction[ Ellen Galland, architect, presented plans for the construction of a one-story frame rear addition to the house at 1420 Davis Street. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Ms. Galland said that they are replacing an existing structure with a one-story addition which is almost of the same size of the existing cnclosed porch. She said that the mudroom will bridge between the old and the new. The area between the mudroom and the existing wall is visible from the street. The whole house will be re -stained. The design change in the roof line in the back was prompted by the existing slightly off center roof. Skylights are necessary because the room below does not have direct natural light. The mudroom will be finished with a shingle detail, and the stucco and sill of the addition w•iIl line up with the transition between the brick and the stucco on the rest of the house. The porch like room has casement windows with no divided lights. The other exterior changes on the second floor sun room will be the replacement of the windows with casement windows. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera said that the applicable standards for construction are: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Thomas Prairie moved that the Commission approve the project for 1420 Davis Street based on meeting the standards of construction: 1) height is visibly compatible, 3) proportion of openings, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, 6) rhytlun of entrance porches and other projections, 7) relationships of materials and textures, 8) roof shapes, 10) scale of the structure, size and mass, 12) distinguishing original characters are not being destroyed, 15) the new additions if removed the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 707 Sheridan Road (Landmark/Lakeshore HD) - One-story rear addition w/second story deck [Construction] and 4' high front yard wrought iron fence [Construction/Fence Variation] Eric Janssen, owner, and Ellen Galland, architect presented plans for the construction of a one- story addition with a second story deck at the rear of the house at 707 Sheridan Road. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Galland said that the house is an 1899 farm house Queen Anne with many alterations. The design challenge is getting a view of the Lake and get in and out of the house and get in and out of the basement. The back architectural changes are: a curved addition, the new porch is bigger that the existing porch with a matching roof tying the front and back together. The front porch will have a standing seem metal roof, round columns and new railings. The house roof will have Evanston Preservation Commission March 18, 2003 --Minutes Page 6 new architectural shingles and copper gutters and downspouts. All the existing vinyl windows will be replaced with new wood windows. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked about the change of materials on the front porch roof with standing seem metal roof. She said that historically the roof would have been shingle. The Commission discussed the option of copper shingle roof. Mr. Janssen said that they really tried to retain what is left of the original material on the house. Chris Carey said that the applicable standards for construction are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the project as proposed at 707 Sheridan Road in compliance with all applicable standards for review of construction. in regard to standard 7 related to materials and texture, the applicants consult with Carlos Ruiz as to final selection of material for approval. Clint Funk; seconded the motion. Stan Gerson amended the motion by saying that all copper roofing material will not be acceptable including the front porch and the rear addition. Iviary Brugliera seconded the amendment. Discussion: Ellen Galland said that they would like to investigate if indeed copper roofing is inappropriate. Mr. Janssen asked what if they will like to put copper on the turTct. Mr. Gerson said that his amendment applied to the proposed work only. The amended failed. Vote: 2 ayes, 5 nays. Chris Carey moved to amend the original motion adding that in addition to Mr. Ruiz, two Commission members be involved with the decision of standard 7. Michael Girard seconded the amendment. The amended passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The original as amended by Mr. Carey passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Regarding the fence, Ms. Galland said that the variation request is for a wrought iron fence in the front and a cedar fence on the south side. 'There is a cedar fence on the north with copper caps and a chain link fence. The front yard fence will have a gate across the driveway. Ms. Galland said what was submitted for the variation was to leave the wall as it is and starts the cedar fence beyond it; that means that the cedar fence on the south side will only start at the front porch. But now they are not sure about their request. The Commission discussed the feasibility of the proposed fence and the possibility of creating a wrong precedent with a front yard fence. Michael Girard moved to table the recommendation for fence variation to allow the applicant further investigation on the proposed fences. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay. 6. 2522 Thayer Street (Landmark) Two-story side yard addition [Construction] Susan Rundle said that the standards for construction that do not apply are: 6, 9, 13, and 17. The rest of the standards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, S, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16) do apply. The project is a two- story addition to the cast side of the house. Evanston Presmation Commission March 18, 2003 — Minu:_s Page 7 Charles Turner, owner, and Chris George, architect presented the plans for the project as described by his. Rundle. The house at 2522 Thayer is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. George said that the proposed addition is off set 5 % the roof lines are the same as the existing roof line, and the existing front windows are vinyl clad windows. Also, they will like to put back the wood railing on the front porch. The new clad %indows on the front elevation have the top sash with divided lights. The exterior of the addition is wood siding. Susan Rundle asked about the proposed chimney. Mr. George said that the chimney has wood siding. She said that the proposed divided lights on the windows are not true to the house. Mr. Gerson said that the proposed addition is changing the character of the house. He said that he was surprised that the house is a landmark. He would like to see some evidence of why the house was declared a landmark. Mr. Thomas Prairie said that he would like to see clearly that there is a distinction between the original house and the addition. Mary Bruglicra said that her research did not show much evidence of why 2522 Thayer is a landmark. Carlos Ruiz said that 2522 Thayer is listed as a landmark in the Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Brugliera said that 2522 Thayer is listed in parenthesis and next to 2524 Thayer, a landmark. Mr. Turner said that they design the addition knowing that the house was a landmark. Carlos Ruiz read section 2-9-6 of the Preservation Ordinance: Amendment and Rescission of Designation. The Commission discussed in depth the appropriateness of the proposed addition compared to the standards for construction. The Commission made the following recommendations: that the chimney be brick veneer, no dividers on the windows, all wood windows -not clad, setting the addition back 6" to provide a distinction between the old and the new, Thomas Prairie moved that the Commission approved the project for 2522 Thayer Street as presented based on meeting the standards of construction: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. In regard to standard 7, the chimney at the rear is masonry brick, the windows be wood double hung without dividers. in respect to standard 12, the new addition is setback 6" at the front from the existing north elevation. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion railed. Vote: 3 ayes, 3 nays, 1 abstention. Mr. Turner said that he will like a definite direction from the Commission about the addition. Mr. Ruiz said that two Commissioners could review revised plans before the April 15, 2003 meeting. Thomas Prairie suggested contacting the neighbors about the proposed addition. Michael Girard and Susan Rundle agreed to review revised drawings and give their feedback to the applicant. Mr. Ruiz informed the applicant that he could submit revised drawings or appeal to the City Council the Commission's denial of the certificate of appropriateness. Mr. Turner _ and Mr. George agreed to come back with revised drawings. i Evanston Preservation Commission !March 18, 2003 -?Minutes Page 8 7. 2340 and 2344 Orrington Avenue (Northeast Evanston HD) Erect fire stair link between two structures and build a two-story addition at rear of 2344 Orrington [Construction[ Stan Gerson said that 2340 and 2344 Orrington are not Iandmark buildings, but both buildings are contributing structures to the Evanston Northeast Historic District. The project is for an enclosed two-story fire stair to be constructed between the two buildings, add a two story addition to the rear or west of 2344 Orrington. The standards that apply for construction are: all (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16) except 13, and 17. Thomas Prairie said that this project was in front of the Commission before. Since then, Chris Carey, Carlos Ruiz and he met with the applicants to give feedback on their revised plans. The applicants have been in front of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee and obtained their favorable recommendation. Paul Jeffrey, Phil Davis, of Kendall College, and Steve Economou, architect, presented the above described project. Phil Davis said that they also met with eight neighbors and Alderman Arthur Newman. Their major concerns were parking and traffic flow. Mr. Economou said that they are improving the parking behind the new proposed addition. Kendall College is in need of two more classroom kitchens, office space, computer labs, and a conference room. The link between the two structures will be a fire stair. There will be a new handicapped ramp. Mr. Economou said that they plan a complete restoration of the exterior of the two buildings, including the limestone, tuck pointing the brick, repairing existing wood windows, replace the aluminum storm windows in kind, restore the wood trim, and re -roof both buildings with asphalt shingles. The slate roofing material on specific visible areas on the front elevation will remain. The rear addition at 2344 Orrington is brick and patterned stone. Commission's Findings Michael Girard said that the design could be minimized by incorporating slope roofs and reducing the vertical wall that connects both buildings. Also, add a wrought iron gates between the two buildings. The Commission suggested the following revisions to the plans: 1) change the roof line at the link on the east front elevation and explore the parapet relationship, 2) consider a small window dormer on the roof, 3) changes on the wrought iron gates on the east elevation by moving them back, include the parking lot landscaping, and 4) repair the balustrades. Stan Gerson moved: that the proposals for 2340 and 2344 Orrington be approved as they meet standards for construction: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16, with the changes describe above, which include alteration of the roof on the structure that encloses the fire stairs (slope roof), the proposed fence be replaced by two gates on the east elevation enclosure for the fire stairs. That there be no aesthetic changes to 2340 Orrington, and that the parking at the west of 2340 is to be enlarged and include plantings on the southern border. Also, the balustrades to be replaced by stone balustrades. Mary BrugIiera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commission March 18. 2003 —Minutes Page 9 V. UNFItiISHED BUSINESS Public Hearing (Continuation) 3312 Dartmouth Place - Nomination For designation as a landmark Michael Girard moved to continue the hearing for 3312 Dartmouth Place (to April 15, 2003) due to the lack of time. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Carlos Ruiz said that next month the Commission will potentially review next month 1314 Ridge Avenue and the Swedish Retirement Home (construction of an addition to the west and one-story building on the southeast corner of the property). Mr. Ruiz said that the .January and February minutes will be available at the next Commission meeting. Stan Gerson asked about the landscaping for project approved on Garrett. Mr. Ruiz said that he consulted with City staff so they can direct the applicants in terms of the lighting and the landscaping. He consulted with the Director of public Works as well. City staff recommended reducing the number of light poles, and the other comment from Parks and Forestry was that the berms were not recommended due to difficult maintenance issues. Mary Brugliera said that the Commission specifically asked for berms, or moguls and plantings. Mr. Ruiz said that he misunderstood the direction from the Commission and only requested the City staff's opinion as he thought that was the Commission's request. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mary Brugliera moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PIanner/Pres . n Coordinator Evanston Preservation Commission Special Meeting Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 April 14, 2003 8:00 P.M. NIE11BERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stephen Droll, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF PRESENT: James Wolinski, and Carlos Ruiz OTHERS PRESENT: Alderman Steve Bernstein, Mr. and Mrs. Mike Niazmand, James T. Murray, Scott Prestangen, Thomas Stafford, Kris Davis, Bill Schwimmer, Sandra Robinson, Myra Janus, Ann Dienner, John Steege, Kristin M. Frieman, Bob Reeder, Vera Chatz, Dorothy Dare Harold and Karen Bauer, Mary McWilliams, James McWilliams, Anne Earle, and Peter Coiadarci 1. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Barbara Gardner determined that a quorum was present and called the special meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. II. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COINIAIITTEE (R&TA) A. 1314 Ridge Avenue/1311 and 1321 Asbury Avenue - Construction of I I residential units, restoration and rehabilitation of Mansion and coach house, and demolition of building at 1321 Asbury Avenue A member of the audience asked if notification to the neighbors about the project was required. Ms. Garner said that the Commission published a public notice in the Evanston Review and in the City's Website. She said that there is no required notification to property owners on this type of preservation review. Another member of the audience asked if the zoning analysis should be conducted before the Preservation Commission reviews the proposed project that includes demolition, alteration and construction. Ms. Gardner said that generally speaking, the Commission does not have purview on zoning issues, except for advisory review on zoning, fences and special use variations, and plan developments. Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 Carlos Ruiz said that there is a sign up sheet for those who would like to receive the Commission's agenda for this project, or future projects. James Wolinski, Director, Community Development Department said that preservation review was the first step of the process. The Commission will then make recommendations to the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission meeting will be sometime in the future. That meeting has a notification of 1000 feet within all directions of the site. The notice will be published in the newspapers. Mr. Wolinski said that the Plan Commission's meeting is a public hearing. The Plan Commission will make a determination as far as the recommendation of a proposed ordinance to the City Council. The Planning and Development Committee of the City Council, to which Alderman Steve Bernstein is a member of, will review the recommendation of the Plan Commission to eventually go to full City Council. W. Wolinski reiterated that this is the first step in a number of processes that involve a property that is historic and also a plan development. Carlos Ruiz said that the project would go back in front of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (SPAARC). SPAARC meets every Wednesday at 2.30 p.m. in the Civic Center. James Murray, lawyer said that he represented Asbury Ridge LLC. He said that the School District 65 formerly occupied the buildings on the site. Mr. Murray introduced Michael Niazmand, as one of the two developers, and Scott Prestangen, architect. Mr. Murray said that the process planning process for the development started in late summer of 2002. He said that they had conducted various analyses, layouts, and researched the existing buildings. Mr. Murray said that they have now preliminary plans. He said that they have appeared before SPAARC, and also Alderman Bernstein and the chairman of the Plan Commission. Mr. Murray said that they had also some conferences with various members of the community of the immediate vicinity. He noted that Mr. Niazmand is an Evanston resident. Mr. lviurray said that they have planned an informal public meeting. They will open the main mansion for such meeting. After the public meeting, and assuming that their dealings with the Preservation Commission have concluded, they would ask the Plan Commission to review the materials, including demolition, construction, renovation and restoration of the existing structures and new structures to be constructed. Mr. IvfurTay continued by saying that the parcel is irregularly L-shaped, with irregularities occurring along the north border, and adjacent to the unitarian Church parking lot. He said that the area is dominated by institutional uses to the north and to the south along Ridge Avenue. He also said that the area is dominated by the institutional uses on Dempster Street and Asbury Avenue. Mr. Murray indicated that there are two residences north of the subject parcel on Asbury Avenue and more residences across the street. Mr. Murray said that the application for COA included photographs of the existing site which have been constructed in the early part of the last century for and it was named the Dryden Mansion. The site is made up and apparently was aggregated by the acquisition of parcels that Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 200� - Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 include the stucco building that in his opinion does not conform with the existing structures that are considered the essential elements of the parcel. Mr. Murray said that the property is 103,0%, square feet, or approximately over 2 acres. It is clearly known by the expanse of open space to the south and to the east. It is served by brick drives, as a marvelous, well known structure that served as a residence for many years prior to the take over by District 65 administrative headquarters, and it was served by a coach house at the west end of the property. He said that there are three specific curb cuts of access ways to the property; two of Asbury within very close proximity to one another, and the third one of Ridge Avenue at the original 1314 Ridge Avenue address. Upon some discussion Commission members agreed that the presentation continued first with demolition, then restoration and finally construction. Mr. Murray referred to sheet one, a site plan of the existing structures: the coach house, the ESCCA Building, an open space in that area with a bicycle rack in it. There are roadways that serve the property; the coach house is Iittle different from A•hcn was originally constructed. The main mansion is what dominates tite entire parcel, and the brick %valkways and the brick vehicular drive that leads up to and goes beneath a porte cochere at the far north side of the building, and stops, at least as a brick drive, at approximately the rear of the main mansion structure. Mr. Murray said that they are asking approval of the removal of the so called ESCCA building, a light stucco building at the north and at the Asbury Avenue side of the property. Mr. Murray said that the ESCCA building does not contribute, and in their opinion is detrimental to the principal design vocabulary of the main house and the coach house. The ESCCA building is in relatively poor condition. The building is stucco that has many cracks. There is clear evidence of water seepage to the interior portions of the structure. There is substantial deterioration of the exterior wood and roof. All those elements suggest to them that the building does not fit anymore. Also, the ESCCA building, in their judgement, impedes the capacity to appropriately develop the entire site. Mr. Murray said that the other elements proposed for removal are areas on the existing driveways, because the ultimate plan attempts to treat those drives and vehicular ways in a different fashion from that which District 65 chose to do theirs. He said that next was the restoration of the coach house, and in order to truly restore the coach house, all of the indicia and additions that are there that allowed District 65 to utilize the coach house for commercial purposes. The loading dock in particular, the huge air conditioning element on Asbury Avenue, they propose to demolish and restore the exterior elements resulting from that demolition to their original condition. Mr. Murray said that the church immediately north has allowed District 65 park on their parking lot. He said that the new development would not have that privilege and they have to deal a divider between what appears to be an alley and a private drive in the existing parking lot for the church. For the main mansion, Mr. Murray said that they propose to demolish and remove at the rear of Evanston Preservation Commission April la, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 the building concrete stairs that were constructed in the Twentieth Century (or they may have been part of the original construction). These stairs lead to a window. By removing the stairs they propose to formalize the window or fenestration at that particular point. They also would like to remove a walknvay and a window. a door will replace such window as it was originally built. The window is located in the westerly portion of the east/west wing on the south fagade. There will be some demolition associated with the restoration, but it is simply a means by which the roof and structural elements and tiles will be removed and reinstalled in a structurally sound condition. Mr. Murray said that there is an immense amount of wood trim that it is all over the mansion and the coach house. The trim in many cases will be removed and reinstalled in order to address issues such as tuckpointing and other aspects of restoration of the project. Regarding the restoration portion of the project, Mr. Murray said exhibited as built drawings of the mansion. Mr. Murray showed the location of the stairs proposed to be removed. The stairs lead to a window that was clearly a door at one time based on the brickwork that was probably placed fifty to sixty years ago. Mr. Gardner asked if the door was original, would it be advantageous to put it back. Kristin Fricman from the audience, said that the stairway it does not look like it belongs to the building at all. Mr. Murray said that the stairs appear to lead nowhere. They would propose that the window be improved to appear as though it is complementary to the existing double window, it does suit the internal potential for that particular area of the building, in terms of the room that might be on the other side. Stanley Gerson asked Mr. Murray to point out the subject window on the south fagade. Mr. Murray pointing to the subject window said that it appears to have been filled in, and the suggestion was that there might have been an exit there, but there arc existing doors in several positions along the south fagade. He said that that it appears to be a door or a window that it loses its context. Mr. Murray said that by replacing the window with a door, they create the similarity and balance that the originally structure probably intended. On the west elevation the stairway will be removed and the existing window will remain. The stairs leading to the cellar of the mansion will remain. Mr. Murray said that they go estimates for the proposed work including the tuckpointing of the main mansion and the coach house. The entire roof on the mansion would have to be removed and reinstalled as is. Chris Carey asked if the existing roof tiles would be reused. Mr. Murray said yes. He added that all the tiles will be removed and stored. Structural elements, roofing deck and whatever needs to be replaced will be replaced. He said that excess tiles were found and they will be mixed in with the existing tiles. Mr. Murray said that there are some exterior paneled doors that are damaged and need at least forty to fifty percent restoration and or replacement. The moldings are in serious deterioration and the exterior lighting and all the other elements are intended to be restored. Mr. Carey asked if the windows and the trim would be restored. Scott Prestangen said that was their intend. Mr. Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 Carey asked if any other material would be use for the trim other than wood. Mr. Prestangen said that they should be able to replace the trim with like wood. He said that as their investigation proceeds they might find deeper deterioration, but for right now they plan to use like wood. Michael Niazmand said that that windows appear to be in good condition and they should be able to preserve most of the windows. Mr. Murray said that some of the dormer windows may need some replacement. Mr. Niazmand said that at the flat rooftop, the copper needs replacement. Mr. Murray said that the modest estimates of the exterior restoration process are in the excess of one million dollars. In response to a question from Mr. Carey, Mr. Prestangen said that the majority of the windows are double hung, single pane glass with muntins and divided true divided lights, there are some hopper windows at the basement level. Some storms are missing and the material is mixed. There are some elliptical or arched windows in the gable ends with have leaded glass that need restoration. The storm windows would be further assessed. Most of the windows are in good condition, the basement windows need a little more work, and dormer windows needs also more work. Everything appears to be salvageable at this point. Mr. Prestangen said that their intent is to replace the majority of the glass with insulating glazing. He said that more conversation with the Commission regarding single glazed windows is needed. Mr. Prestangen said that lie did not know if it is in their best interest to maintain single pain glass throughout the building. Mr. Niazmand said that their proposal is to salvage the windows and that what they are going to do as much as they can. Ms. Gardner said that Allied storm windows are a good product to replace aluminum triple -track storm windows. Susan Rundle mentioned that there is a restoration window company that will restore windows and double glaze wood windows with insulating glass. Regarding the coach house, Mr. Murray said that on the westerly elevation, the air conditioning equipment will be removed and the balustrade above the double functioning doors will be restored. He said that the masonry would be restored, as well as other doors associated with the wings in the coach house. Mr. Murray said that the east fagade would have the most work. The loading dock and access ways will be removed. Three of four windows will be reinstalled. In response to a question from Stanley Gerson, Mr. Murray said that the main entrance on the coach house would be on the east elevation, with entrance capacity on the west as well. The roof would be replaced by removing the the and rebuilding the decking and reinstalling the same tile. Also, tuck -pointing of the brick is needed. Chris Carey asked if the brick would be cleaned. Mr. Niazmand said that he would prefer to leave the brick as it is. Mr. Prestangen said that if any cleaning is needed, it would be a power wash. Mr. Niazmand said that the balusters will be reproduced because the existing balusters are rotted. Regarding the tuckpointing of the brick, Mr. Prestangen said that the original plans call the tuckpoint mix 'white cement' and they will be very conscious of that. Ms. Gardner asked if a preservation consultant was involved. Mr. Prestangen said that McGuire Igieski & Associates, Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 Inc. of Evanston are the preservation consultants. Mr. Niazmand said that the proposals they arc getting are from experienced restorers. Stephen Droll asked if there are original drawings of the structures. Mr. Prestangen said that they were able to collect some including limited elevations. Chris Carey asked about any brick to be removed for new openings or reused to close existing openings. Mr. Prestangen said that in the coach house there is a significant wall that needs to be dealt with. Mr. Niazmand said that the brick being removed is a close match to the brick on the coach house. Mr. Prestangen said that they are researching the brick with masonry companies. He also noted that the presmation consultants have worked on other Ernest Mayo homes, and that they might have seen this brick before. Mary Brugliera asked to a member of the audience if she knew how many dwelling units were in the original coach house. The member of the audience responded that there were two dwelling units. Mr. Murray said that they would propose to create two separate dwelling units of 3,600 square feet each within the coach house. Dryden Manslon Regarding the Dryden Mansion, Mr. Murray said that on the original building they have 21,000 square feet of space, including a cellar, first, second and third floor. They propose the structure be divided into four attached vertical as well as horizontal dwellings. There would be a dwelling on either side of the building. The: main faqade would retain the main entry, as well as the porte- cochere entry. He said that they intend to retain the walkway and the driveway because: a) they answer the question "why is structure hanging from the center of the main structure, and b) it helps to understand the site itself and other elements of the structure. Mr. Murray said that the main entry area stairways would be used to access the various elements of the revised dwellings units. The dwelling units would have approximately 4,800 square feet. In response to a question from Barbara Gardner, Mr. Prestangen said that there was some duplexing of units on the south projection of the mansion. The other three floors are dedicated principally to long single units on one floor. hfr. Niazmand said that everyone would share the elegant entrance or common area to come through. Mr. Murray said that they their public meeting was expected to take place within the next two weeks. Mr. Murray asked if the Commission would like to see the floor plans. Mr. Ruiz explained that the Commission has studied floor plans in order to understand how the interior floor plan would affect the exterior of a building. Ms. Brugliera suggested showing the floor plans at their neighborhood meeting. New Construction Regarding the new construction Mr. Murray showed drawings about the proposed new structures. He addressed the issue of setbacks. The setbacks originally ranged from 50-foot setback to 70-foot setback on the Ridge Avenue side. Alderman Berstein had indicated to them that he considered the front Iawn area on Ridge Avenue one of the more appealing aspects of the site. Mr. Murray said that space (100' x 226' or half an acre property) would be preserved in its original lawn expanse with some landscaping materials that would enhance the general Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 appearance of the front of the mansion. The N iews from the northbound drive on Ridge Avenue would be preserved. The vie«' from each of the four corners of the intersection (Ridge and Dempster) would be essentially preserved. The view from southbound on Ridge Avenue is not particularly significant because of the placement of the Unitarian Church and large landscape materials. Mr. Murray said that they would utilize the existing drive with visitor parking spaces in that area. He said that they would also utilize the brick walk. Mr. Murray said they proposed the construction of two 4-unit single family attached dwellings on the Dempster street side, separated by an access walkway to the interior courtyard circulation drives, and green space. Also they propose a 3-unit structure at the far north end of the property. He said that there are six two- car garages proposed to be built in the interior. There would be maintenance area enclosed elements for refuse removal. Mr. Murray said that the circulation is a two-way in and a two-way out on either of the two drives off of Asbury Avenue. They also proposed in -bound right turn and out -bound right turn access off of Ridge Avenue. Chris Carey asked about the parking area of the Unitarian Church and if it would accessible to the new development. Mr. Murray said that was subject to discussion with the Unitarian Church. However, it was their intent to respect their property rights, and not rely on that parking lot or drive. He noted that the plan was that one could get out onto Ridge going south. Mr. Carey asked if the driveways were going to be brick. Mr. Murray said that they had looked at pavers and other materials that would enhance the appearance of the circulation area. Mr. Carey asked if the existing driveway would be restored. Mr. Murray said that there arc some low spots, but it would also depend on what the reaction would be to the visitors spaces proposed on the front. He said that there would some work done in terms of leveling and drainage aspects for the two walks and driveways. The two 4-unit buildings are mirror images one of the other, and the inside units are mirror images on the interior. The same applies to the type-2 interior unit, which would common in each of the five proposed interior units. Mr. Murray said that the end units would be oriented with entries off of Asbury Avenue. The buildings along Dempster would have entries from the interior driveway. He noted that elevations on Dempster have a similar appearance to an exterior entry. Mr. Murray showed the elevation drawing 4-unit single family attached dwellings on the Dempster fagade. They would setback 100 feet from the property line of Ridge and they have various aspects of interplay with pedestrian movement along Dempster, as well as vehicle movement. The materials are man made limestone base, a masonry to match that of the mansion and some stucco elements at the upper levels. The roof lines, ridges and the heights all complement those which were establish by the main residence and the couch house. Barbara Gardner asked if there would be access to the units from the Dempster side sidewalk. Mr. Murray said that they propose a means by which to travel between the two buildings, but that each of the other elements would have a wrought iron fence and 15 foot setback from the Demspter sidewalk or Dempster property line. The fence would be there for two purposes: security and its decorative aspects, and it would also delineate the invitation the enter the main Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page s portion of the site through the central walkway. Each unit would have an individual Qate, the principle main entry is at the interior of the site for the inner units but not the end units. :vas. Gardner said that she did not want to see any buildings with their backs on the street. She said that she understood having the garage in the back and people coming through the back door all the time, but she wanted to make sure that the front doors are accessible from Dempster to each of those units. Mr. Murray said that there would be. He said that there is a walk up to each unit from Dempster, there are steps that go up to the doonvays, and there are doors that invite persons to come within. Chris Carey noted that the plans did not show that there were sidewalks leading to each unit. Mr. Murray acknowledged that the sidewalks were not shoti«t on the drawings, but they would be adjacent to the steps. Ms. Gardner said that the fence that goes along Dempster would have a gate that would open onto the sidewalk that would go into the front door of the house. Mr. Murray said yes. 1W. Prestangen said that there were entries on both sides of the buildings. He said they do not turn backs to the street. lair. Murray said that the mailboxes would be located on the interior court. Mr. Niazmand said that his plan was not to treat Dempster as the back side, even though, clearly is the back side, but their intent is not to treated as the back side. They want to bring out the Dempster side as much to look like a front, but not really have it be the front. They want the main entrance to be from the courtyard. Mr. Niazmand said that they do not want much traffic on Dempster, but rather have the traffic on the courtyard side, Mr. Murray reiterated that the intent was to address the facades along Dempster as they were indeed principle entries to each of the townhomes or attached single family residences, and that there is the vitality and appearance and the structure elements that suggest that those indeed arc the front doors. Ms. Gardner said that she wanted a person to walk on Dempster, turn into his sidewalk and go into that door and not be forced to go up in between the two buildings and fan out to the back. Susan Rundle said that there was nothing to keep the Dempster side to like the backyard because there would be play equipment. Mr. Murray said that they would restrict some of that activity. There would be a townhome or condominium association responsibility to enforce those regulations. But it is the plan that those types of social functions do not take place on the Dempster side. They do not want a bunch of pieces of equipment and/or things to mar the front lawn. He said that they are trying to provide be restrictive elements that the play areas are centralized to the interior court of the buildings. Stanley Gerson asked if there were three parking spaces on the front yard of the mansion. Mr. Murray answered, yes. In response to a question from Nis. Rundle, Mr. Murray said that there were talking about restrictions to store barbecues, bicycles and those types of equipment on a regular basis that would be out of place in the front yard in any other residence in the community. Mr. Niazmand said that their plan was to provide through the association some form of formal garden, landscaping, and maintenance so that there would be a formal uniform appearance as much as possible. Evanston Preservation Comrni:::ion April 14, 2003 - Special �ieetir_� :Minutes Page 4 Ms. Gardner asked about the 3-unit northern most building on Asbury Avenue. She said that she did not see the north elevation of those units. Mr. Niazmand said that the intent is to make the north elevation of those units Ic.-)k like the south elevation of the building facing Dempster. Carlos Ruiz asked why not formalize the Dempster side of the buildings as their main entrance. Mr. Murray answered that there is no parking on Dempster Street, people who %would walk from the CTA or htetra train station --ould be able to open the gates on Dempster and access the buildings. He said that the rhythm and appearance were there. GIs. rundle said that if she lived in one of units and she had a pa M,, her guest would have to park somewhere else anyway. Mr. Niazmand said that the Unitarian Church had been calling them, because they had an arrangement with the School District, and they would like to have an arrangement with them. Ms. Gardner said if one %vould take a look at the development at Ridge and Lake, all of those houses have their fronts to Ridge, their practical entrance is through their back door and they do not have their backs to the street. Mr. Murray said that they did not think that the proposed buildings have their backs to the street. He said that the clear indication is to come and knock on the front door. lair. Niazmand said that they wanted to make the mansion as the focal point not Dempster Street. his. Gardner said that there is a development at Ridge and Grove where they turned their backs to Ridge Avenue, and it looks as the most unfriendly development she is aware of. She did not want this to be that t% a of development. She suggested taking the fence along Demppter dour. She said that not many people on Dempster have fences. Mr. Murray said that they need to address issues of security and privacy as well. He said that they want to have the capacity to open the door and let a child be in the backyard without the potential for any kind of conflict there. He said that the fence is a combination of brick, stone and wrought iron. Mr. Niazmand said that both sides of the buildings look like the front of the buildings. Regarding the fence he said that he would remove it if the Commission would ask him to do so. Mr. Prestangen added that landscaping could still provide some protection. Mr. Murray said that in order to address the issue of the capacity to produce new construction on the site, they had proposed initially that the first unit would be closer to a tree than to where the mansion building is currently constructed. The major objection then was that they had to preserve and take the buildings back from Ridge. He said that in order to do that, they cannot loose the number of units, they have to be able to make this a project, which has economic return as reasonable. In order to do that and preserve a half -acre of property, they had to increase the ridge and rooflines. Public Comments Thomas Stafford said that he favored the fence on Dempster Street. He thought the fence would appeal to families with young children. Bill Schwimmer said that the sight lines and the landmark designation of the property should be maintained. Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 Sandra Robinson asked about the materials next to parking areas. Mr. Murray said that the material would be concrete with brick or concrete pavers. He also said that there would areas dedicated to storm water retention. Myra Janus, expressed her concern about the height of the new buildings and the setback on Asbury Avenue. h4r. tilurray said that the new buildings would be 42' high to the roof ridge. He noted that the mansion was 34' high and the coach house was 30' high. John Steege, said that the ESCCA building is the older structure on the site, lie was concerned about its proposed demolition. He was also concerned with the sight lines on the property. He also wondered about the adverse effect that the proposed development would have on the Ridge Historic District. Susan Rundle asked how was it determined that the ESCCA building could not be repaired. Mr. Murray said that the stucco finish is in eery poor condition, there is evidence of leaking on interior and exterior walls, and it is felt that it would not sustain a conversion in its current condition to any type of sound residential property. Mr. Niazmand said that it cost almost 3 million dollars to purchase the property, the cost of restoring the mansion on the outside would be 1 million dollars. In response to a question from Mr. Steege, Barbara Gardner said that the first Plan Development ordinance was for the Cove School on the corner of Greenleaf and Forest. Mr. Steege said that the fence on Dempster would make that side of the buildings their back yards. He also wondered how the proposed development would configure to the historic nature of the district. Kristin M. Frieman said that she applauded the efforts by the developer to save the historic buildings and under the current restrictions. However, she was not in favor of the new three attached single family homes. She said that the proposed development could be improved. Bob Reeder said that he was not contacted about the proposed development. He said that the developer was not forced to buy the property. Mr. Reeder said that the developer is calling the development as attached housing, but he understood what a townhouse is. He asked if townhouses appropriate in a historic district of single family homes. Mr. Reeder was also concerned with potential problems associated with two principal entries for each unit. He asked how many townhomes were allowed in a historic district of single family homes. Dorothy Dare said requested perspective drawings to better visualize the development of all structures. Ms. Dare said that the new residents would be appreciative of having a fence on Dempster. Harold Bauer said that the sequence of events are now leading to a situation where the investment by the developer needs to be preserved at the risk of what, he asked. Mary McWilliams said that she was the Chair of the Preservation Commission when the Planned Development Ordinance passed. She said that the ordinance passed because the experiences of Evanston Presmation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 the development on Ridge and Grove and the Lohr project. Ms. McWilliams said that the Plan Development Ordinance does not allow for more than two units in the mansion, ant it does not allow for rowhouses, but allows double houses. She thought that there were too many houses proposed. However, she liked the general idea and the plan development approach to help save the mansion. Still she was concerned of a vm crowded space. She suggested that the Commission take a look at 1100 Forest to better understand her concerns. Regarding Cove School, Ms. McWilliams said that on the whole the large home was preserved, but the new construction is somewhat problematic. Peter Coladarci said whether allowances were made for asbestos abatement and lie expressed his concern about the height of the new buildings. He said that the privacy of homew-k-ners would be compromised. He said that the Maple trees adjacent to his property should be saved. A person from the audience asked what kind of consideration Mr. Niazmand was taken for the demolition of the ESCCA building. Mr. Niazrnand said that they did not have the opportunity to get into the ESCCA building. All they know is what the engineering report revealed. Barbara Gardner asked Alderman Bernstein how the restriction of the Plan Development might affect the proposal. Mr. Bernstein said he did not have the chance to think about it yet. He said that this was the second time that this property was in front of the Commission. The first time Neil Sheehan of the Commission had proposed the rowhouses concept. He said that the development has to conform to the law. He said that Mr. Niazmand has been eager to work with the City. Alderman Bernstein said that his concerns were similar to what the residents have indicated mainly on Asbury. He said that the view line from Ridge is what it needs to be preserved because of its historical stature. The other issue is that the zoning ought not to be changed beyond the R-1 zone. Chris Carey said that how the Commission is supposed to consider the proposal under the current restriction of a plan development. Alderman Bernstein said that is part of the Commission's deliberation and decision. He said that the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board have to address those concerns as well. Ultimately, the City Council would determine the final approval. Mr. Bernstein said that he was not aware of what changes would be necessary to accommodate the four units in the mansion or to build more than double houses. He said that at the end the neighbors would be happy, the developer would make a profit, and the historic character of the property would be preserved. Stanley Gerson said that if it appears that only double houses are allowed, how the Commission should consider what has been presented, he asked. Ms. Gardner said that if there was support for an ordinance change for putting more than two units in the main building, the Commission could support the developer on that. Likewise, on the townhouse concept. She said that the Commission has encouraged homeowners when they wanted to do something to go in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask for a variation. James McWilliams said that changing the Plan Development Ordinance should be done in manner that would not be considered as spot zoning. Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 Carlos Ruiz said the Commission could review the proposal in terms of a concept, preliminary and final review. This would allow the Commission to better understand the Plan Development process. He said that the Commission has an advisory role in the Plan Development process. The Commission eventually would submit a report to the Plan Commission and the City Council. Mr. Ruiz said that the restoration of the mansion and the coach house are the known aspects of the development with no apparent controversy. The demolition of 1321 Asbury is still to be resolved according the applicable standards. He said that at this moment there is no proposal for a Plan Development. Abbie Willard asked about the restrictions on the number units currently allowed under the Plan Development Ordinance. Mr. ;Murray said that they have had conversations with the Planning and Zoning Departments. He said that they are aware of the requirements in place, particularly the multi -family aspects. He said that there is the need of some sort of legislation to permit what they proposed. They are hopeful that they would be able to obtain. Anne Earle asked how many units could be built on the site for R-1 zoning. Mr. Murray believed that 18 single-family homes could be built under the R-I zoning, including building in front of the mansion. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission has advisory review over subdivision of lots, City Council has final authority over subdivisions. Mr. Niazmand said that the overriding concern was the preservation of open space on Ridge Avenue. He said that he came out of the introductory meeting with the idea that attached single- family housing. Chris Carey asked if fir. Niazmand was aware of the restrictions of the Plan Development Ordinance. Mr. Niazmand said that he was aware, but to make it work they need to ask for some concessions. Ann Dienner said that walking tour of the property would give people a better idea of how one could visualize what it and what is not s being proposed. She said that with drawings is very difficult to visualize what is really wanted. She said that she would like to see more of perspective drawings. Carlos Ruiz recommended to Mr. Niazmand to work with volumetric models to study the mass, height and the roofline. Mr. Carey moved that the Commission continue the meeting at a selected date and time, with the opportunity to do a site tour and review more information from the developers as in volumetric models and perspective drawings. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. Discussion Mr. Droll said that it would be helpful for the developer to gain access to the ESCCA building and determine if the building could be salvaged. A structural engineering of the building would be desirable for the next meeting. Mr. Ruiz asked if the applicant would agree to continue the meeting beyond the 45 days. Mr. Niazmand said that part of the confusion is to whom they should go first. Mr. Murray said that the Plan Development Ordinance requires them to go in consultation meeting with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (SPAARC). At that meeting the Alderman of the Ward and the Chair of the Plan Commission are requested to Evanston Preservation Commission April 14, 2003 - Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 appear. At the SPAARC meeting some of its members expressed their opinion that too much effort was made to adapt the principal architectural elements of the mansion. He said that they had anticipated that they would get conflicting reviews and responses. Rir. Murray said that everyone has different opinions. He said that they would attempt to provide with the requested information. Carlos Ruiz said that the Preservation Ordinance is a binding ordinance. The review by SPA -ARC is not binding [architecturally]. In regard to the production of a model, Mr. Murray suggested to leave aside the ESCCA building. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission had asked Mr. Niazmand before to do everything as possible to save the ESCCA building. She suggested that the model should have the buildings that are being proposed and the existing buildings as well. Mr. Murray asked how accurate should be in terms of the topography. Ms. Rundle said that an approximate topographic representation would be desirable. The Commission announced a continuance of the meeting on Monday, May 12, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in room 2403. The motion as stated by Mr. Carey passed unanimously. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. The meeting was adjourned at 10.20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preserva Coordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COt1LNIISSION Partial Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 15, 2003 7:30 P.'.►I. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stephen Droll, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Funk, and Michael Girard OTHERS PRESENT: William Reich, Charles Turner, Chris George, Nathan Kipnis, Leslie Shutruff, Andrew Otting, Frank Steinberg, James T. Murray, Michael Lee Kathrein, Victoria Zaytseva, Elliot Dudnik, Jim Elsass, Susan Morse, John Malarkey, Ed Kelly, Justin Heinz, Judy Fiske, Jim McWilliams, and Mary McWilliams PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. II. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation) 3312 Dartmouth Place - Report on the nomination for designation as a landmark Barbara Gardner reopened the public hearing and asked if there was any additional testimony regarding 3312 Dartmouth Place. No additional testimony was presented. Thomas Prairie moved to adopt the Commission's report and recommendations to designate 3312 Dartmouth Place as an Evanston Landmark. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Barbara Gardner closed the public hearing for the nomination of 3312 Dartmouth Place as an Evanston Landmark. William Reich expressed his appreciation for the work of the Commission. He said that it was E-.mnston Presmation Commission April 15, 2003 -:Minutes Page 2 obvious to him that people take presmation seriously and with dedication and hard work. Ill. REPORTS A. Review and Technical :assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2522 Thayer Street (Landmark) - Two -store addition on east And south elevations [Construction) Charles Turner, property owner and Chris George, architect presented revised drawings for a rear two-story addition to the house at 2522 Thayer Street. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Susan Rundle said that on the original plans, the massing of the existing house was not distinguishable from the addition. Also, the proposed addition needed to be more complementary to the house. The revised plan sets the proposed addition back substantially (15.5 feet) from the existing front elevation, and it also uses a lot of the same vocabulary that is in the existing house. The addition has a side gable on the east side that is the same as the existing home. Carlos Ruiz said that Susan Rundle and Michael Girard had come up with similar suggestions independently. Chris George said that he developed hip roof in the front and the back of the addition and included a window on the second floor on front elevation of the addition that lines up with the window on the first floor. He said that he removed the rear gable and now the east elevation is more balanced. Chris Carey asked about circular window shown on the front elevation as existing. Mr. George said that the circular window is being proposed. Thomas Prairie said that he was troubled with the kitchen window being wider than the other windows and he doubted that the shutters were original and being used as decoration. Mr. Prairie said that at a minimum the window kitchen should be made smaller. Charles Turner said the kitchen window would be made smaller to be consistent with the other windows and the proposed circular vdndow would be deleted. Chris George said that the material at the gable end would be wood shingles and wood siding; the windows would be all wood. Mr. Carey said that on the west elevation of the existing drawings it shows a section being shingles, but it should be wood siding instead. Mr. George clarified that the west elevation would remain as is. Mr. Carey noted that on the east side would be replicated what is on the west side. Susan Rundle said that part of the reason the project did not pass last time was because of the concern that the initial volume did not meet the standards. She asked if the current south elevation met the standards. Mr. Prairie said that the south elevation may be treated as a tertiary elevation. Ms. Rundle said that the front and side elevations do respect the existing house and pick up in the vocabulary, yet it is separate. She said that on the south elevation the vocabulary is lost. She said that the first south elevation had the same volume of the house instead of the Evanston Preservation Commission April 15, 2003 - Alinutes Page 3 proposed big blank mass, she asked Mr. Turner and Mr. George if changing the massing of the back of the house from one flashed wall, to delineating under the hip roof, and pull that area out by two feet and in that way maintain the same volumes and rhythm of the existing house and establish a line of demarcation. Stephen Droll said that he had some concerns about the scale of the addition; he also said that the planning concept was good in that there is a eery simple existing house and taking the addition by off setting it. He said that was very respectful of the existing structure and in elevation it looks like it will match the existing house. He said that the roof plan was very complex, for example from the cast elevation, because of everything that is going on, it will not be perceived three -dimensionally like the existing house. Mr. Droll said that the strength of the existing house is its simplicity, a bungalow with a very clean little gable and a dormer. Mr. Droll said that gable on the front elevation of the addition it really does not existing because it does not go back with dormers on the side. He said that from the massing standpoint it is going to be very large compare to the existing house. Mr. Droll suggested to simplify the roof because the proposed roof is too complex compared to the simplicity of the existing house. The Commission discussed possible solutions to simplify the roof on the addition. It was suggested moving the addition approximately three feet to regain headroom clearance between the existing house and the addition and eliminating the saddles on the roof of the addition. Mr. Droll said that change seemed to be going in the right direction. Susan Rundle summarized the Commission's changes including the proposed north elevation would be brought forward up to approximately three feet to accommodate a true dormer with roof at each side and to simplify the roof. On the south elevation, on the east side, under the new hip roof, it would be brought forward or extended south approximately two feet. The proposed round window on the front elevation of the existing house would be eliminated, and the new kitchen window oddth on the front elevation of the addition would be reduced to the same size as the one on the second floor. Chris Carey said that R&TA's review determined that the house at 2522 Thayer Street is not in a historic district, but it is an Evanston Landmark. He said that R&TA felt that the following standards for review of construction applied: 1) height, 2) proportion of the front facade, 3) the proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids in the front facade, 5) the rhythm of spacing in structures on the street, 6) the rhythm of entrances, porches, 7) relationship of materials and texture, 8) roof shapes, 9) does not apply, 10) scale of structures, 11) directional expression of front elevation, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of a property shall not be destroyed, 13) does not apply 14), 15), 16) and 17) does not Apply. Thomas Prairie moved that the proposed addition meets all the applicable standards as reported by R&TA and included the changes to the proposed design as summarized by Ms. Rundle. Ms. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 abstention (Stanley Gerson). Evanston Preservation Commission April 15, 2003 - Minutes Page 4 2. 1140 Forest Avenue (LandmarkILSHD) - Two new porches and stairs on south and west elevations, new windows [Construction/Alteration] Leslie 5hulruff, owner, and Nathan Kipnis, architect, presented plans for the construction of two new porches and stairs on south and .%-est elevation, and the installation of new windows to the house at 1140 Forest Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Kipnis said that the building was built in 1989 and addition was done in 1908 at the corner that the current project is located. That addition is sagging, the foundation are piers that are deteriorated. They will rise up that portion of the house and fix the second floor office space. They will rework an interior stair and redo the kitchen inside. They will add a breakfast room with a covered porch and reworking the existing covered porch facing west. The materials are stucco, copper roof (tentative) and the exterior trim detailing will be the same. Mr. Kipnis also said that the porch wood columns will relate to the front concrete columns on the north. They will also apply the same existing brackets that are on the sides of the front porch. The addition will have painted wood windows. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that there is construction (the new foundation and the new porch at the south) the following standards apply: 1) height. 3) proportion of openings, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, 7) relationship of materials and textures, 8) roof shape, 10) the scale of the construction, 12) distinguishing original qualities of the property, 14) regarding contemporary design, 15) new additions could be removed without harming the original structure, and 16) no requirement for a specific architectural style. Regarding alterations; there is replacement of windows on the south and rebuilding the porch on the west. The applicable standards are: 1) regarding minimal alteration of the structure, 2) about the effect on distinguishing original character of the structure, 3) all properties are recognized as products of their time, 4) changes that have taken place in the course of time, 5) distinctive stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible, 9) contemporary design shall not be discouraged as long as it does not destroy significant architectural features, and 10) whenever possible, if the alterations are removed shall not affect the original structure. Chris Carey said that the existing porch has acquired its own significance and perhaps should not be altered. Mr. Kipnis said that they will maintain the design of the existing railings, the heavy overhang is made of a squared off detail under a shallow roof. He said that the columns will articulate to pick up the front and add the brackets. The existing configuration will change in a minor way. The addition has no proper foundation. Stan Gerson moved that the construction of the new foundation at the southwest comer and a new porch at the south be approved at it meets standards for construction: 1) the height is E,6-aston Preservation Comrnission April 15, 2003 - Minutes Pa^c 5 compatible with the properties, 3) the proportion of openings are compatible, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures as visible from the alley is compatible, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches is compatible with the existing structures, 7) relationship of materials and textures will be compatible, 8) the shape of the roof will be compatible with the existing building, 10) the scale is proportional and compatible with the propem.. 12) the original qualities or character of the property will not be destroyed, 14) this is not a contemporary design, 15) if the additions were to be removed that the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for a single style. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson moved to approve the above stated alterations as meeting the standards for alteration: 1) there is minimal alteration of the originai structure, 2) the original qualities and character of the structure are not destroyed, 3) the characteristics of the building are products of their time, 4) changes that have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the development of the structure and these are recognized and respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features, examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterized the property are treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features are repaired rather than replaced, 9) no contemporary design is being proposed, and 10) if the alterations were changed or removed, the character of the original structure will be unimpaired. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1490 Chicago avenue (Landmark/LSHD) - Free-standing sign on north/cast corner of front yard, two nesv engraved signs on parapet Wails flanking main stairs facing east [Construction] Andrew Otting, of Scott Byron Landscape Company, representing the Music Institute of Chicago presented plans on a proposed sign at 1490 Chicago Avenue. The Building is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Otting said that kiosk sign is replacing the current church sign at the corner of the property. They took the architectural window detail and brought it into the ATought iron sign. They also incorporated the design of the lamp posts on Grove Street. The purpose is to identify the Music Institute of Chicago now as a different venue for the City of Evanston. The sign is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Otting said that the second signage element are the stone columns at the entry and potentially engrave the bases of the stairwell in the front of the building. The proposed lighting for al] the signage will not shine into traffic or pedestrians. They have also been in front of the Sign Board requesting a variance for the proximity of the sign to the sidewalk. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle moved that the Commission accept the proposal for alterations of the engraved sign at 1490 Chicago as it requires: 1) minimal alteration to the property, 2) the distinguishing original characters of the building are not destroyed, 3) is not trying to create an earlier Evanston Preservation Commission April 15, 2003 - Minutes Page 6 appearance, 5) distinctive stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity, 6) it does not destroy any of the craftsmanship that is of character on the building, 7) surface cleaning will be done with gentle means, 9) the Commission did not discourage contemporary design, and 10) if the pieces were removed they could be replaced in mind. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission accept the proposed sign on the corner of Grove and Chicago as design because it uses the same vocabulary that exists in the building; it does not obscure the historic building at all, therefore meeting standard 17 of construction. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1214 Lake Shore (LSHD) - Increase height of first story %vndows on east elevation, new canopy over front stoop, extend garage by 3' into rear yard (Alterations) Frank and Andy Steinberg, owners of, and Chris George, architect presented plans for a copper canopy over the front door (similar to the copper canopy over the door of the building next door), increasing the height of the first floor windo«•s on the front elevation of the house, replace on the side elevation the dining room lower windows with transom windows, extend the garage at the rear of the house by 3 feet. The garage extension will have Lennon stone exterior finish, and remove a door on the north elevation. Commission's Finding Chris Carey asked if all the windows on the house would be replaced. Mr. Steinberg said yes, and that the new windows would be Pella architectural series with simulated divided lights. Barbara Gardner noted that a transom would be added over the main entry door. Chris George said that two additional windows would be enlarged on the south elevation as being part of the living room. Mr. Carey asked if it would be possible to match the lannon stone. Mr, Steinberg said that the new lannon stone would match as close as possible the existing lannon stone. Stephen Droll said that raising the height of the windows, if it is done well, one would not be able to tell. He has some concerns with the transom over the door because it did not seem to fit with the character of the house. He said that he would like to see drawn the details of the new canopy over the main entry door, Mr. Droll noted that he was concerned with the key beautiful stones. He asked what is the underside of the canopy and how does it engage the wall. Carlos Ruiz said that maintaining the key stones over the main door and lowering the height of the proposed canopy seemed more appropriate as it would mean less change to the front elevation. Barbara Gardner asked how the Commission should act on the expansion of the garage, since such change would not be visible from the public way. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission could issue an advisory review stating that the proposed expansion of the garage was not in conflict with the standards of construction. Evanston Preservation Commission April 15, 200-' - Minutes Page 7 Chris Carev said that 1214 Lakeshore Boulevard is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District, but is neither a contributing structure neither a landmark. The scope of the project is to remove a door on the north elevation, enlarge and replace windows on the east and north elevations. and add a canopy at the entry. Mr. Carey said that R&:TA determined that the all the standards of alteration, except standard 8 (archaeological resources), did apply. Stephen Droll moved that the Commission conditionally approve the alteration at 1214 Lakeshore Boulevard, in that it meets all of the standards including standard 1 (every reasonable effort has been made), 2 (the distinguishing original qualities are not being compromised), 3 (that everything on the site is being recognized as product of its own time0, 4 (that changes that have occurred are being recognized and that have significance of their own), 5 (That distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity), 6 (the windows that are being replaced are not the original windows, 7 (surface cleaning) Contemporary design is not being discouraged, 10 (whenever possible). Discussion: Mr. Droll noted that the extension of the garage at the rear of the house does not compromise the standards of construction. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 705 IMilburn Street (NR-NEHD) - Completed expansion of one -car garage to ttvo- car garage, requires major variance for north side yard setback [Advisory review on zoning variance only) Michael L.ec Kathrein and Victoria Zaytseva, owners and James Murray, attorney presented an application for a major zoning variance of the required Sfect to 0 feet side yard setback, for a completed expansion of a two -car garage on the north property line at 705 Milburn Street. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District Iisted in the National Register of Historic Places. Carlos Ruiz, Preservation Coordinator said that the Preservation Commission (Commission) has advisory review to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on the requested zoning variation, because the property is within a National Register Historic District. The property is not within a local historic district, nor is it a local landmark. James Murray said that the project is in front of the Commission because of a procedural oversight that became known during the course of the zoning hearing relating to a major variation. The variation is required in order to increase the size of the garage and to further expand the garage into the required rear yard. He said that this matter was submitted with plans requesting for a permit application. In September of 2002, the Zoning, Building and Engineering departments had reviewed it. The project was approved all around and the permit was issued on October. Work was commenced very shortly thereafter. The garage addition amounted to 3.75 feet to the north and for approximately four feet (give or take a millimeter or centimeter) to the east. Evanston Prrsmation Commission April 15, 200_ - Minutes Page 8 Mr. Murray said that the City discovered pursuant to a complaint alleged by a neighbor that a variation was necessary. He said that the com-�uction was essentially done. The walls were up, the roof, the foundation, and concrete work was done. The door was to be hung because it was necessary to secure the premises. Mr. Murray said that the documents that were filed accompaming the application shoved the'as built' condition of the building. He mentioned one survey after construction that indicates the na.ure and extent of the construction as completed. He also mentioned another survey prior to the construction in July, when the Kathreins purchased the property. Mr. Murray said that a zoning analysis was issued, the City issued a zoning compliance certificate, and it was discovered that it had been done in error. In the course of the variation proceeding in front of the ZBA, someone called to the attention to the then Chairman, that it was necessary to have an advisory review by the Preservation Commission because of the National District (Northeast Evanston Historic District) in which this particular property is located. Mr. Murray said that they were in front of the Commission for their advisory approval. Commission's Findings Stanley Gerson asked for clarification of the various steps that have been taken place for this particular matter. Mr. Murray said that a permit application with plans and request for a building permit was filed with the City of Evanston Building Division on September 20, 2002. Pamela Sundell, architect, had signed and sealed the application. Barbara Gardner said that on the plans that the Commission received, they showed a September 20 date, a revision on October 21, and the revised as built. She asked what the original drawings looked like. Mr. Murray said that the drawings were virtually identical, except that there was a balustrade that matches the balustrade on the south elevation sun porch. Susan Rundle asked if the additions mentioned by Mr. Murray were for additions, both to the east and to the north. Mr. Murray answered yes. He said that a minor variation had been granted before for a 4 feet extension of the garage to the east_ The revised plans were reviewed by Zoning and signed off by Martin Travis on September 25. The plans were reviewed and signed tip, off by the Engineering Department in October 15 . The plan review was completed and signed off and permit issued on October 15 . Mr. Murray said that there was never a review by the Preservation Commission. Ms. Gardner said that the zoning analysis dated September 25, 2002 shows only an extension 4 feet east. It says nothing about a north extension. Mr. Murray said that was part of the error. Ms. Rundle said that the zoning analysis says 'cast only' but the drawings said north and east. She added that the zoning analysis did not match %xith the drawings. Mr. Murray said that Mr. Travis did two zoning analyses in 2002. One it was done in September 2002 when Mr. Travis reviewed the plans as submitted. Then he issued a zoning compliance certificate. Later in November, his attention was called to this matter by a citizen complaint. Then Ikir. Travis completed a review, which indicated that a variation for the north extension was necessary. Ms. Gardner said that zoning granted the extension to the east only. Mr. Murray said that Mr. Travis Evanston Preservation Comrnission April 15, 2003 - Minutes Pagc 9 approved the plans as submitted, and under the basis of the plans, a permit for construction was issued. He said that his clients acknowledge that the permit was issued in error. Mr. Murray said that the garage is up and it has been completed. Ms. Gardner said that she would like to see a copy of the plans that were submitted in September 2002. Mary Brugliera asked the dates that the applicant submitted an application for a fence. Michael Lee Kathrein said that the fence application was in front of the Commission in September or October 2002, Ms. Gardner asked Mr. Kathrein why he came in front of the Commission for the fence and not for the garage. fir. Kathrein said because they %vere told that they had to come in front of the Preservation Commission. City staff did not say that they had to come for the garage, so he did not. Mr. Murray said that the permit had already been issued for the garage. Ms. Rundle asked if the garage was completed by the time that it was realized that there had been an error. Mr. Murray answered yes. He said that except for the door installation that allegedly might have been installed. He noted that the permit was issued on October 21, 2002. Ms. Brugliera asked Mr. Kathrein if he knew at the time the reason wily he had to come in front of the Commission for the fence, i.e. because the National Register Historic District and that he needed a zoning variation, or that the Commission has ad,.7sory review. Mr. Kathrein said that it is considerably clearer now the why than it was then. He said that at the time he hired Ms. Sundell. Her}ob was to hold his hand and take him through the process. Mr. Kathrein said that the first time Ms. Sundell came in front of the Commission he was not available. Ms. Sundell had said that there was a determination that %%nought iron fences were preferable to wood fences. He said that lie agreed with that determination. Mr. Kathrein said that during the second time he was present, and the review was done in few minutes. Susan Rundle said that the zoning analysis was done on September 25, and the certificate of compliance was issued also on September 25, 2002. Then the drawings were revised on October 21, 2002. Ms. Gardner said that the permit has an approval date of October 15 and October 20, 2002. Chris Carey said that the zoning analysis was done before the permit. Ms. Rundle said that the zoning analysis only says'east.' Mr. Murray said that is one of the errors. Stephen Droll asked who did the hand written corrections on the plans. Mr. Murray said that Ms. Sundell made the corrections, and they were made in response to observations that the permit review section of the Building Department. Ms. Brugliera asked about the north line of the garage in relation to the property line. Mr. Murray said that it is approximately 2-3/4 inch, south of the north property line. Ms. Brugliera asked if that did not ring any bells. Ms. Gardner asked how Mr. Kathrein could not know about the required variation. Mr. Murray said that many of the existing elements of the structure are within 18 inches of the property line. Mr. Kathrein said that the plans that they had submitted are unequivocal in their intentions, its right therein blue and white. Many professionals from the City said 'there is your permit, you can build.' He said that in the process of construction, the City inspector came in reviewed the Evanston Presmation Commission April 15, 2003 • liinutes Page 10 work. as it was being built. The inspector saw the footing right there dug that close from the property line, and he said that it looked good and the cement was poured. Mr. Kathrein said everyone was given them their blessings and they kept going. When the neighbor complained, the City told the neighbor a couple of times that he was mistaken. Mr. Murray said that when the error was discovered there was a stop work order issued. Mr. Kathrein said that the question could be directed to all those people involved. He said that he is the person who hired people to do this for him. Ms. Gardner said that the architect should have known that her client needed a variance. Mr. Kathrein said that Ms. Sundell knew about it. She wrote in a memo saying that most likely he would need a variance. He said that they «-ere up front with the City. Mr. Murray noted that the original submittals are marked'revised drawings' which was intended by the Permit Clerk to alert Zoning, Building, and Engineering to the fact that there had been previous drawings, and that these drawings were in fact revisions of those drawings. Thomas Prairie said that as a point of order, what the Commission was doing that evening was to determine if the project is appropriate near the side yard, not whether should or not had happened. Ms. Gardner said that the issue was would the Commission have made a recommendation for the project, had it been done properly in the beginning. She said that is how the Commission has to come down about the issue, error or no error. Mr. Kathrein said that after having been in ZBA meeting for nearly four months, it was not until the fourth session that someone had asked if the project had gone through preservation review. Ms. Gardner said that that %vas the thing, how Mr. Kathrein could not Mow about the variance after being in front of the Commission for the fence. Mr. Kathrein said that he does not have the background that the Commission has. He said that fence is on the front yard, the garage issue is at the rear where no one can see. Commission members said that the property is a corner lot and that the north side is very visible. Chris Carey said that once he drove by the property when the garage extension was halfway built, because the Commission was reviewing the fence at that time, and he mentioned to Carlos Ruiz that the Commission did not see this project. Mr. Kathrein said that if it was halftvay built why (the Commission or City staff) said something. Mr. Kathrein said that with all do respect, nobody did the right thing. Mr. Murray said that nobody caught the problem. Mr. Carey said that the process is that Mr. Kathrein submitted to zoning for an analysis which said that he wanted to add 3 feet to the east, and that was zoning approved. Mr. Murray said that in the year 2000, a minor variance was granted without review of the Presmation Commission as well, to increase and move the front part of the garage, 4 feet closer to the east property line. That was in part what Mr. Travis thought he was looking at again and apparently went forward and he gave it a rubber stamp on September 25, 2002. Mr. Carey asked if Mr. Travis pulled the approved plans out of the file and put another date on them. Mr. Murray said he was not saying that at all. He said that it seems to be work that was done on the date that it bears. It simply Evanston Presmation Commission April I5, 2003 -Minutes Page i I indicates a misunderstanding by Mr. Travis on the nature of the revised plan because it does indeed address the easterly portion, which had been the subject matter of prior minor variance that was approved, but never carve in front of the Preservation Commission. Ms. Brugliera asked if no one had mentioned that the property was in the National Register Historic District. Mr. Murray said that the district %vas being designated right in about that time. Ms. Gardner said that once the nomination was in, even -thing fell under [the Preservation Ordinance]. fir. Murray said that the ZBA directed them to appear in front of the Preservation Commission. He said that the material is part of the record at ZBA as well. Except for the as built drawings, which were produced at the request of Mr. Ruiz, so that there would not be any question about what it is that is actually out there. Mr. Prairie said that speaking professionally, and having sometimes run into situations like this, he would talk to the Zoning Administrator and get a verbal interpretation and go from there. But, he also assumes that when he submits the plants that they are going to be reviewed, and if they are irregular, that is going to be caught, and if they are not irregular, that presumably the plans are okay. He said that there is a'detrimental reliance' by submitting drawings and getting approval, even though, ultimately they do not meet the requirements. Carlos Ruiz asked if the zoning analysis dated September 20, 2002 was issued to Michael Lee. Mr. Murray said that Mr. Kathrein is Mr. Michael Lee, ,vhose name appears in the documents. Mr. Ruiz asked what setback on the north properry line is shown on the plans that were submitted for the zoning analysis of September 20. Mr. Murray said that the plans are exhibit 92 before the ZBA. The setback on the plans is 2-3l4 inches. Mr. Ruiz asked if the zoning analysis was approved for a different setback. Mr. Murray said no, the setback was approved for a part of the submitted plans. The issue of the north line does not appear to have registered with the preparer of the zoning analysis. Mr. Ruiz asked if the north line setback was reviewed. Mr. Murray said that the September 20, 2002 plans were reviewed to produce the certificate of zoning compliance and the zoning analysis. He said that the issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance, as well as the zoning analysis, were in error. Stephen Droll asked Mr. Ruiz what was the required setback. Mr. Ruiz said 5 feet. Ms. Gardner said that the garage was already within the required 5 feet setback, but there was a variance to take that same line and go forward. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's job is to determine whether or not the proposed (as built) variance for the [garage] setback meets or does not meet the standards that the Commission has to uphold. He said that it does not really matter at this point whether or not there was a procedural error. What the Commission needs to do is to imagine that the (garage extension] is not there, and whether or not (the variation] would be approved. Susan Rundle asked if any of the documents outweighs the other because one is for one thing, and one is for something different. She also asked which one was approved. Mr. Murray said E%=ncpn P:=sen•ation Commission Apr-0 15. ZOW - Minutes Pair 12 that none of the documents is complete, but the permit is ghat caused the work to go forward for the plans that were submitted and approved with the seal of the City. He said that his clients did not ask for the zoning analysis. The zoning analysis was a part of the process of approval. 161r. Kathrein said that they never saw the zonine analysis. Mr. Murray said that the later documents were produced after the files were reviewed prior to the filings that were required by the ZBA. Mr. Ruiz reiterated that what does matter is whether or not the proposal satisfies the standards. He }aid that the garage is built, but does it still meet the standards, he asked. Judy Fiske approached the Commission to speak: about the historic district [Northeast Evanston] and its relationship to the zoning variation. She asked, on the application, is there a place for a homeowner to indicate whether or not the property is within a historic district. Mr. Ruiz said that the permit application has on the backside a place to check whether a property is a landmark: or within a district. In his experience, many people do not look the second page. He has received many applications without a check: mark. Ms. Fiske asked if people are required to fill out the second page, or they just do not do it and the building department does not check that. Mr. Ruiz said that it is a combination of people who check: and people who do not check. Ms. Brueliera said that way to check the status of a property is to go to the Information Geographic System (GIS), where it is says clearly indicated. Mr. Ruiz said that not everything goes automatically through the GIS system at the same moment that is filed for permit. City staff receives the applications but they do not necessarily enter the applications in the system at the same time. Ms. Fiske said that she understands that mistakes have been made on all sides. The homeowners do bare responsibility for indicating that their properties are within a historic district, especially for something as important as a zoning variation in a National Register District. She said that there are now four National Register Historic Districts in the City of Evanston, and that it is important for the Preservation Commission and those who care about preservation to make sure that the processes that are set in place are really followed. Ms. Fiske said that the integrity of the districts does depend on the process. She mentioned that she is one of the people who wrote the nomination for the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Ms. Fiske said that it is in Preservation Ordinance that the Commission has advisory review over zoning variations in National Register Districts. She said that shows how important it is because it does affect the entire streetscape of the district. Ms. Fiske said that on March G, 2000 there was a resolution submitted to the City of Evanston, the City Manager transmitted the report of the Preservation Commission, Kirk Irvin was the Commission's Chair, and George Halik was Secretary. She read pages 8 and 9: "Three Components of the District - Three components to the residential character of the district include the private hornes, the streets and alleys, and the spaces betsveen the houses and streets. A11 three of these are of a consistent high quality throughout the district and contribute significantly to the integrity of the district as a whole. Viewing the houses in isolation from one another does not fully consider the architectural significance of this district. The houses in the district are of a Evanston Presmation Commission April 15, 2DO3 • Minutes Page 13 consistent high quality, as seen in their materials, ivorlananship and design. They are of a consistent scale and are placed relative to one another on individual lots in a way that creates a consistent streetscape in some cases, and in other cases, creates vistas to Lake Afichiga►r. Porches, verandas, uvalk va'vs, and terraces in view• of the public exist in privately ou-ned areas. The development of this intermediate area allows the individual buildings to be viewed within a landscaped setting. Tire variety, of architectural expressions ;&!thin these elements and the landscaped setting between, taken as a whole, is irreplaceable. " Nls. Fiske said that those who worked so hard on the Northeast Evanston Historic District wanted to remind the Commission of all the work that the Preservation Commission put into, and the thoughtful approach that they took to the relationship of this buildings. Mary McWilliams said she seconded what Nis. Fiske said. She said that it is important that the process is being observed, and that in a historic it is the small nibbles at the pieces of it that change the character of the district and remove its integrity. She said that it is very important that the Commission reviews this application as though there was no garage there, and makes a decision. Nis. McWilliams said that she did not know the applicants, but she felt that they needed to understand that the process is important, as it is to the rest of the City. Mr. Ruiz said that the concerns that he heard from Ms. Fiske and Ms. McWilliams are well taken. He said that the system is set up in such a way that there are many people who depend on other people to do their jabs. He said that the computerized systems helps identifying what projects are filed for permit. Ultimately, there is no way that the information that is needed will appear by itself. Mr. Ruiz said that City staff is still dependent on somebody to input the information in the system or calling to notify that a project is there for a permit application. He said that the system will not work without the involvement of people, and people make mistakes. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission and City staffreview hundreds of projects a year, from fences to new structures. Unfortunately, it is found that occasionally the system is not perfect. He noted that he emphasizes with his colleagues that it is very important that they always check the GI:S system, the hardcopy of landmarks and historic districts. Mr. Ruiz said that he depends on his colleagues. Mr. Ruiz said that the occasional application directly for historic review is because people are aware that they are in a landmark or they have prior experience with the Commission. In those instances, people come to him directly, but not all the time. He said, usually he gets projects that _ are submitted for permit. He will receive calls that alert him that there is permit application for roofing, fence, or addition permits. He said that the zoning officers also contact him to let him know about zoning analyses. Mr. Ruiz said that City staff is doing what they can and what is humanly possible to review all the projects. Mr. Ruiz said that the initial task of the Commission involved about 800 landmarks, now there are over 2000 properties under the purview of the Commission. He said that there is only one person doing the same and more. He said that if he could not count on his colleagues to do what they need to do, his task becomes more difficult. Mr. said that City staff depends on each other Evanston Preservation Commission April 15, 2003 -Minutes Page 13 and they are doing the best they can with what they have. Nis. Brugliera said the Commission understood real clearly what Mr. Ruiz said. The Commission regrets when mistakes are made. She said that the point is the preservation issue, as if the extension to the garage was not built yet. Mr. Ruiz said now is the opportunity for the Commission to do what it needs to do. If the application, according to the Commission's review meets the standards, then there would be a recommendation in favor or against. He said that whatever happened before, in his opinion, it is important but not relevant to what the Commission has to do now. Stanley Gerson said that the Review and Technical Assistant Committee determined that the three standards for special use, zoning or fence variations were applicable. Ms. Gardner read the standards for special uses and variations: (A) Is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic consenation so as not to adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts; Ms. Brugliera said that the application did not meet standard (A). Ms. Gardner concurred with Ms. Brugliera. Susan Rundle said that it was atypical for the district for a piece of the main structure to be sitting on the property line. his. Brugliera added that the spacing between the structures, as quoted from the nomination, is an important feature of the district. his. Rundle said that the Commission may be able to find whatever the distance is between the house and the garage, there may be similar distance between two similar houses, but her guess was that not all houses are squeezed upon the property line. Ms. Gardner said that if one considers the words: 'the variance is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation' that was why she felt that the project does not meet standard (A). She noted that the existing garage was only 18 inches from the north property line, but that was a pre-existing condition. his. Brugliera said that the variation does adversely affect the historical character of the National Historic District. So it does not meet standard (A). Mr. Kathrein asked how the property got the variation the first time. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission did not review that variation either. Chris Carey said that he was not necessarily on board with Ms. Brugliera or Ms. Gardner. Mr. Droll said the question is in the interest of historic conservation of the district, is this a necessary variation. H said he did not believe so. Mr. Droll said that the proposed variation has nothing to do with the conservation of the district. Mr. Kathrein said that very few applications would be necessary. Mr. Droll said that standard (A) Also says 'necessary and/or appropriate.' Evanston Preservation Commission April 15, 2003 -Minutes Page Is Ms. Gardner read standard (B): (B) Is necessary to provide the owner a recoverable rate of return on the real property where the denial thereof would amount to a taking of the property without just compensation: Ms. Brugliera said that the application did not meet standard (B). Ms. Gardner agreed with Ms. Brugliera. She said that Nir. Kathrein purchased the property the way it was. Mr. Droll asked if Mr. Kathrein was the original owner of the property. Mr. Kathrein said no. Mr. Murray said that they believe that the property was built in the 1920s. Mr. Kathrein said regarding the aesthetics, that a car in a garage is more appealing than a car on a driveway. He said that if it were his choice he would let any neighbor parked a car in a garage, versus looking at it parked on a driveway in front of his house. Ms. Gardner redirected the discussion to whether the denial of the variation amounts to a taking or not and moved on to read standard (C). (C) 11111 not be materially detrimental to the public health, safes, and welfare or injurious to property in the district or vicinity, where the property is located. (Ord. 108-0.98) Mr. Gerson thought that the application met standard (Q. Mr. Carey asked would, the variation, not be injurious to the property and the district because it would be injurious to the neighbor. Ms. Gardner clarified the discussion by saying would the variation be injurious to property in the district.' Mr. Kathrein said it depends on the neighbor; the neighbor might prefer a garage to a car parked on the driveway. Mr. Kathrein said that he told his neighbor that if his house came up for sale that he would buy it. Mr. Ruiz at this point recommended to the Commission that they take a straw poll for each standard so that the Commissioners have a clear understanding of what meets or does not meet the standards. Ms. Gardner took a straw poll starting with standard (C). She asked who believed that the application meets standard (C). The vote: 4 (meets standard C), 3 (does not meet standard C), and I abstention. Abbie Willard said that she said voted yes because she did not see the variation as detrimental, she thought that 'detrimental and injurious' were very strong words. She found it difficult to make the leap from a garage that is IS inches from the property line to one that it is 2-314 inches from the property line. Ms. Willard said that she could not find that one is not detrimental and the other is. Nis. Gardner took a straw poll for standard (B). The vote: 7 (does not meet standard B), and I abstention. Ms. Gardner took a straw poll for standard (A). The vote: 6 (does not meet standard A), and 2 = abstentions. Evanston Presmatior. Corrxnission April 15, 2003 - grin+sxs Page 16 Mary Brugliera moved that in recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variation for the garage at 7 Gf 'Milburn Street, that the Commission, does not recommend the variation because it does not meet standards A and B, but it does me`t standard C. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes. ? abstentions. Ms. Willard said that she agreed with what the Commission has done in terms of the decision that the Commission arrived based on the standards. She said that she was very troubled with the process that has occurred and the amount of error that has brought the Commission and the applicants at [the meeting). Ms. Willard said that she is a very strong supporter of preservation, but she was troubled what it has done in light of die errors that have compounded prior to this situation. Ms. Gardner said that everybody is troubled by the situation and that it was not an easy decision. Mr. Murray said that they would be in front of the ZBA on April 29, 2003. 6. 1120 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark) - Construct 2.5-store wood and stucco rear addition, requires minor zoning variance [Construction and advisory review on zoning variance] Elliott Dudnik, architect presented plans for the construction of a 2.5-story wood and stucco addition at the rear of the house at 1120 Elmwood Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Dudnik said that he project is seeking a minor variation for the 3.3' to 3.5' north side yard setback. The addition incorporated all of the details of the existing house such as the corbels, and the overhangs. The width of the addition is identical to the width of the existing house. He said that the front of the house has double hung windows, yet the south elevation has original casement windows. The owner prefers the casement windows for the kitchen. They will like to reuse the south side bedroom windows on the second floor. The first floor will have a French door to the deck. Commission's Findings Stephen Droll asked how much of a change will occur if the plans were to comply with the side yard required setback. Mr. Dudnik said that the changes will be substantial because they will loose approximately 1.5'. Also, the width of the kitchen v611 have to be narrowed. Chris Carey said that in previous projects the Commission had asked a clear distinction between the old and the new. Mr. Dudnik said that he would normally provide a setback, but in this case it is difficult to do that. Susan Rundle said that the casement windows are not for the kitchen, but for the family room. Mr. Droll said the addition could be off set 2' and move the range into the cabinet space. Susan Rundle said that she found hard to believe that there was no other design solution to accommodate all the owner's needs. Mr. Droll concurred with Ms. Rundle. Barbara Gardner was also concerned with the lack of an offset. Mr. Dudnik said that he will consult with his clients about the off set for the addition. E%-anston Preservation Commission April I5, 2003 - Minutes Page 17 Stephen Droll moved to not recommend the construction at 1120 Elmwood Avenue for variation in that it does not meet standards: A) it is not neces_sarl• or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation for this construction, B) it is not necessary to provide the owner a recoverable rate of return for the property, and C) it would be detrimental to the property. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion to not recommend the variation passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for the m-o-story addition are: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Susan Rundle said that she still issues Nvith the proposed windows. Thomas Prairie moved that the commission recommend the addition at 1120 Elmwood Avenue, based on standards: 1) the height is visually compatible, 3) proportion of the openings, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, 7) relationship of textures and materials, 8) roof shapes, 10) scale of structure. 12) distinguishing original characters are not destroyed, 14) contemporary design is not being inhibited, 15) the addition could be remove without being detrimental to the original structure, and 16) the Commission is not requiring any specific style. The motion is contingent on a side yard setback within the zoning requirements for the side yard, the use of double hung windows on the addition that match the existing in style and character. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. Mr. Prairie amended his motion adding that the architect will submit drawings that reflect these conditions to Carlos Ruiz for review. Mr. Ruiz will confer with Commission members as he secs appropriate before he makes a final decision. Stephen Droll seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 2320 Pioneer Road (Landmark) - Construct 80 residential units on west and south side of property, and construct one-story building on south/west area of the property [ConstructionlAlterationI Preliminary review only Jim Elsass, President of the Board of the Swedish Retirement Association, Susan Morse, John Malarkey, and Ed Kelly, presented plans for the construction of a three-story building addition with 89 residential units on the west and south side of the property and the construction of a one- story building on south'%vest area of the property at 2320 Pioneer Road. The building at 2320 Pioneer Road is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Elsass said that the Board has financial difficulties and they need to reposition to be larger to survive financially. He said that they hired Ed Kelly as their developer, Susan Morse is the administrator, and John Malarkey is their attorney. 'sir. Elsass said that the plans were presented to the Board, the residents and the neighbors were excited about the proposal. Ed Kelly, developer, said that the seven acre site is surrounded by Colfax Street to the north, McDaniel Avenue to the West, Pioneer Road to the east, and Grant Street to the south. He said that the existing site plan has two buildings on the site; the Pioneer building built in 1905 and expanded around 1915, and the Landstrom building built in I975-76. Mr. Kelly said that the organization's endowment had 10 million dollars three years ago, now it has 7.5 million dollars. He said that the Pioneer building has 43 units licensed shelter care beds. Originally the building itself had 60 or 70 small rooms (8' x 10"). They began to double up the rooms over the years and Evanston Preservation Corunission April 15, 2003 - Minutes Page 18 add private bathrooms. Now the building is behind compared to other facilities. Mr. Kelly said that what they need is a facility that offers shelter care assisting Iiving with kitchenettes in each unit, and formal dining room, and activity areas. The area is a very residential neighborhood. The Lincolnwood School is across the street to the west. In addition to the setbacks and the neighbors, they wanted to preserve the walk area and the park like setting of the campus. They want to provide real independent living on campus, and add independent apartments on the new living; they need about 20,000 square feet of common space for a dinning room, new kitchen, library, auditorium, and used that to functionally connect the two buildings, The single story building is for Alzheimer's care with a flat roof. The three-story building might exceed the allowable height. They will have underground parking below the new building. Carlos Ruiz said that the project will be a planned development. The Commission has advisory review on planned developments. The Commission has binding review on materials and design. Mr. Kelly said that the elevation drawings presented to the neighbors seemed well received. Carlos Ruiz said that the proposed one-story building potentially could obstruct the view of the landmark building from the public way. He asked if the same function could be incorporated into the three story building. fir. Kelly said that the functionality of the Pioneer building and the addition makes that change a real challenge. Thomas Prairie aerced with Mr. Ruiz's concern. Mr. Kelly said that the one-story building is nestled among the large trees on the site. Mr. Ruiz said that if at all possible the one-story building should be reconsidered to maintain the view of the landmark from the public way. Mr. Kelly said that they will explore possibilities to maintain the corner. Stephen Droll said that he appreciated the park like feeling of the campus, but he was concerned with loosing green space on the west side of the property. Carlos Ruiz said that the gable roof of the three-story building is not necessarily the only roof line solution. Mr. Kelly talked about the parking and how to improve it. Carlos Ruiz suggested to Mr. Kelly to provide a mass model for the bencfit of the applicant, the different boards and commissions and the citizens. The applicants thanked the Commission for their time and attention. V. NEW BUSINESS 636 Church Street - Unified Business Center Sign Application Justin Heinz, property manager at the Carlson Building complex, presented a Unified Business Center Sign for the Carlson Building at 636 Church Street. The Carlson building is an Evanston Landmark. Evanston Preservation Conrrnission April 15, 2003 -Minutes Page 14 Mr. Heinz said that some of the existing signs are already in place and are part of the sign plan. Carlos Ruiz said that the Unified Business Center Sign plan allows commercial buildings to adopt a sign plan that improves the appearance to the building. Mr. Heinz said that they have two new restaurants coming in and they will like to have new signs that conform to the sign plan. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the proposed signs and awnings are the only design solution for the sign plan. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission had pre,, iously approved some of the existing signs. Stephen Droll suggested for the awnings to match the arch of the windows above. Stephen Droll moved that the Commission conditionally approve construction of the awnings at 630 Church Street, based on standard for construction 17 with the condition that the arc of the awnings matches the arc of the window directly above. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stephen Droll moved to approve the minutes of January 21, 2003. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. V11. ADJOUILNNIENT Stephen Droll moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Presery Coordinator Evanston Preservation Commission ZiaY 13, 2003 7:30 p.m. Evanston Civic Center - Room 2403 Special Meeting NIE,**IBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stephen Droll, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard and Susan Rundle NIE,%fBERS ABSENT: Clint Funk, Thomas Prairie, and Abbie Willard PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF PRESENT: Carlos Ruiz OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Niazmand, lames T. Murray, Scott Prestangen, Bill Sch%vimmer, Kristin M. Frieman, Bob Reeder, Karen Bauer, Mary McWilliams, 3enny Coladami, Jeremy Green, Betty Green, and other non identified members of the audience I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUi1f DECLARATION At approximately 8:30 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present (the meeting ivas delayed due to the lack of a quorum). 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. 3312 Dartmouth Place (7:35 p.m.) Adoption of a resolution directing the City Manager to transmit the Commission's recommendation to City Council to designate the house at 3312 Dartmouth Place as an Evanston Landmark. Carlos Ruiz called to the attention of the Commission and read a proposed resolution directing the City Manager to transmit the Commission's report and recommendation regarding the nomination of 3312 Dartmouth Place for Evanston Landmark designation. Mary Brugliera moved for approval of the resolution regarding 3312 Dartmouth Place nomination for Landmark Designation. Chris Carey seconded the motion. Discussion: Stanley Gerson said that in Section 5 should read: '... send the report to the Owner. The motion passed with the correction to the resolution as stated. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commission May 13, 2003 — Minutes Page 2 B. 1314 Ridge Avenue/I311 and 1321 Asbury Avenue (7:40 p.m.) Continuation of the public meeting regarding the proposed development of 13I4 Ridge Avenue, 1311 and 1321 Asbury Avenue for constriction of eleven residential units, restoration and rehabilitation of Mansion (four units) and coach house (two units), and demolition of building at 1321 Asbury Avenue Chris Carey, Vice -Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m, with the understanding that a quorum will be present shortly. Mr. Carey announced that a sign up sheet was available for those who wish to speak after the presentation of the applicant. James Murray, attorney with offices at 1033 University Place, Evanston, IL continued with his presentation of April 14, 2003. Mr. Murray said that his clients met the neighbors at the mansion on May 8, 2003. At that meeting neighbors perceived that too much of a significance was given to the Ridge Avenue facade of the property compare to the Asbury Avenue side of the property, in terms of set backs and design elements. Mr. Murray said that the message from the neighbors was to give a better balance to the entire project and to attempt to set back any new construction from the Asbury Avenue facade, without seriously hampering what the Preservation Commission perceives and others including Steve Bernstein, the alderman of the ward. Alderman Bernstein indicated during the meeting to rethink the setting of the buildings on the site to recreate a better balance between the set back on Ridge Avenue and the setback on Asbury Avenue. Mr. Murray said that what it was in front of the Commission was a model basically constructed in accordance with the original plan of two, four units, side by side, attached single family homes along the Dempster Avenue side of the property, and set back approximately 100-feet from the Ridge Avenue side of the property line. The mansion will be visible from Ridge Avenue north and south bound pedestrian and vehicular traffic, as well as east or west bound on Dempster Street. Mr. Murray said that another issue was the four unit buildings that seemed to create too much mass on the Dempster Street facade. Some care might be taken to break up those units into smaller individual groupings of buildings. The overall solution that seems to address the concerns raised by the neighbors was to: a) shorten the setback from the Ridge Avenue property line, from the I00-feet to 80-feet. This will allow to enlarge the set backs from Asbury Avenue property line by approximately 7-feet, on the south new construction as well as the north new construction. This allows the new buildings to be located well behind the westem most facade of the coach house, which is T-8" set back from the Asbury Property line. The model shows the model two four -unit buildings along Dempster Street. Mr. Murray presented massing studies showing the reconfiguration of the property with the new construction elements, so that the Dempster Street structures will be broken down from two four -unit buildings to a group of two (threes) and a (two). Evanston Preservation Commission Nfay 13, 2003 —Minutes Page 3 At this time Mr. Carey suspended the presentation and said that Ms. Barbara Gardner had arrived. Mr. Carey said that the Commission needs to take a moment to take care of another Commission business. Ms. Gardner, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m., a quorum being present. 3312 Dartmouth Place Nomination for Landmark Designation - Preservation Commission's Report and Resolution. Mr. Carlos Ruiz read for the record the Resolution with he Commission's report recommending to the City Council the designation of 3312 Dartmouth Place as an Evanston Landmark. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approve the resolution designating the house at 3312 Dartmouth Place as an Evanston Landmark. Chris Carey seconded the motion. Stanlev Gerson made a correction to the text of the resolution on page 2 "... the Commission shall send the report to the owiter..." The motion passed unanimously. 1314 Ridge Avenue At this time Mr. Murray continued his presentation. He passed out three photographic studies: 1) a view to the northeast, looking from the southwest; 2) a view from the northwest looking to the southeast; and 3) a view of the southwest looking from the northeast. The computer generated exhibits showed the breakup of the buildings, the separations between the three structures along Dempster Street to create a greater degree of view into the interior of the lot, and a greater sense of smaller structures, and greater emphasis on human scale. The buildings on Asbury will be set back 5-feet and adding a 12-foot interior walkway between each of the buildings. By virtue of the models of the two -unit end buildings from the four -unit buildings, the result is absorption of 8-feet, for a total of 20 plus -feet net overall eastward movement of the buildings along the Dempster Street. Mr. Murray said that the mansion is virtually entirely visible from the southeast corner of Ridge and Dempster, it will no be as visible from the southwest comer. There will be a full view of the mansion from the northeast comer. Mr. Prestaneen said that there will be a three -unit, then a two -unit, followed by a three -unit building along Dempster Street. The buildings will be a minimum of 15-feet to 17-feet set back from the property line on Dempster Street Another issue of concern was that the Dempster Street facades should address the street. Mr. Murray said that the proposal calls now for dual entries, with an entry on Dempster _ Street side, as well as the internal entry for access to the interior portion of the property, and an interior entrance from the garages. There will be six font doors to the Demspter side of the property. A front door to each Ridge Avenue side and the Asbury side at the far east and far west ends of the Dempster Street buildings. A facade will have a front door on Asbury Avenue at the far northwest corner, that building will have an Asbury entry and facade as well. The perimeter of the site is dressed with front doors for all of those units which have any bearing on those streets fronts. Evanston Preservation Commission May 13, 2003 — Minutes Page 4 Scott Prestangen showed the front facades of the new buildings. The buildings on Asbury Avenue had previously wall sections of stone finish, a rather monolithic appearance to the interiors which would be those portions of the walkways that go through the Dempster Street units. The facades in question have been reconfigured to include a predominantly masonry structure with limestone base and matching masonry at the upper levels, as «•ell as a line of limestone to catch the line of the balance of that particular side. Stephen Droll asked if the vertical heights of the buildings had changed from the previous presentation. Mr. Murray answered, no. Mr. Murray said that there was also a perception that the combined wrought iron and masonry fence along the Dempster side of the property was an attribute that added some dimension and visual interest to those yards, and the stucco previously presented, will be substituted with either stone or brick. Regarding the trees on the property, particularly the mature Maple trees on the northwest end of the property, Mr. Murray said that one will me removed, and they will do whatever they can to preserve two Maples that tend to be more towards the Asbury side of the property right along the property line behind the home immediately north. Concerns about the interior circulation were also discussed. Mr. Murray said that the vehicle roadways are basically the same width and they will allow the same turning capacities as are the existing general alley widths that are prevalent throughout those blocks in the City that have an alley between the block faces. The issue regarding the traffic that might be generated by the site was also discussed. Mr. Murray said that every day between 65 to 80 employees of District 65 reported to work there and would leave in the evening. There was also a truck fleet that was stationed there all day long, making various delivery rounds. Mr. Murray said that with seventeen residential units the amount of traffic will be substantially reduced. The vehicular circulation will be predominantly provided by the two Asbury street drives, out -bound and in -bound and two-way. Whereas, the Ridge drive will be attempted to be restricted one-way, right turn only and out bound. Traffic will be substantially reduced by internal controls by the condo association. He said that they may request some City action for the right to limit the in -bound access way. Mr. Murray said that they request permission to remove the Escca building. Further, structural engineering studies showed that it could be entirely rebuilt at the cost of approximately S750,000 to $800,000 overall, to have those two units replaced within the existing stucco building. That does not recognize the additional cost that would be necessary with reference to water retention and other elements that will be necessary to bring that particular building into more or less line with the existing structures as well as the proposed new buildings along Dempster. The net loss of that undertaking will be in the neighborhood of S300,000 to $350,000 with a questionable stucco building remaining on that particular site. Mr. Murray said that they would like to build a new structure on the location of the Escca building. Evanston Preservation Commission May 13, 2003 —Minutes Page 5 Chris Carey asked if the new buildings will have basements and if the Escca building had a basement. Mr. Murray said that the Escca building has a basement of common brick construction, and substantially deteriorated due to water infiltration. There are two oil tanks and two large tree trunks outside the basement. Mary Brugliera asked if there was an official report from the structural engineer. Mr. Murray answered, yes. Ms. Brugliera asked about the cost of demolition. Mr. Murray answered S30,000 to S40,000. He said that actual structural repair costs for human habitation are approximately S 135,000. The S500,000 to S600,000 reflects an estimated cost for the renovation work necessary to convert to modem day living units, and that figure is estimated based upon an average of S100 to S125 per square foot. fir. Murray said that the amount of effort to refurbish the Escca building does not yield an appropriate return to retain it. Mr. Murray said that Mr. Dixon is a registered structural engineer with the State of Illinois. Mr. Murray submitted Mr. Dixon's report. In response to a question from Stephen Droll, Mr. Murray said that the engineering report include the estimated restoration costs and the undertakings to accomplish the structural stability issues at S 135,000. Mr. Carey said that if the Escca building is tom down and build new, there is still the cost of construction. He said there is a net increase in cost of "x" amount of dollars for the structural work on the building. Mr. Murray said that the return of new construction substantially reduces the potential for return on the restored stucco building. Mr. Murray said that they have the floor plans for the Escca building. Carlos Ruiz said that generally speaking, the Commission does not have purview on interior work. The Commission perhaps had questions on the elevations, which the Commission has an idea what they would be, but is not certain that what is shown now, at the end, is what is going to be. Mr. Murray said that a major element of the reconstruction is the entire removal of all the stucco on the exterior, the replacement of all interior balloon structural elements. He said that the photographs show serious problems with water damage. Mr. Michael Niazmand said that all the windows need to be replaced. Mr. Murray concluded his presentation by saying that they have addressed the concerns expressed by the Commission and the neighbors. He said that in some instances they have responded directly to Mr. Reeder's objections such as the issue of balance on the Asbury side of the property, and the breaking up of the four -unit buildings to three and two. The new buildings would have renaissance stone, with colors similar to limestone. Marvin windows with interior muntins. Brick veneer to match the existing brick as close as possible. Also, exterior clad wood windows and wrought iron for fencing with brick peers. The new construction would be complementary to the mansion and with contemporary look. Paved driveways and walkways. There might be some concrete curbs. Looking into concrete colored pavers, UniIock product. Roadway paving also interlocking concrete paving on gravel base to allow drainage. Existing driveway is made of brick pavers, two Evanston Presen-ation Co—umssion May 13, 2003 —Minutes Page b brands Scouville. Similar clan tile. Asphalt architectural shingles on new buildings. Garage door stceL'aluminum. Wood door required more maintenance. Panelized coated doors. Garage door color to blend with color of window, stone and brick. Brick paver material used decoratively by the Escca building. Presumably if the Escca building is remove, that will create some additional paving materials for reconstruction and/or repair to be done to the driveway on Ridge Avenue and the sidewalk that extends from the front door of the mansion. and the carport area of the coach house. There are some trim and copper gutters and downspouts, and pre -finished metal soffits. Fascias across the board will carry a copper look. There is band across the buildings that would be clad metal. The vertical surfaces will be all copper, perhaps the soffits needs to be all copper as well. Public Comments Karen Bauer asked if it is possible to regulate the uses of the front yards on Dempster, and if so, what body will regulate so. She also asked about the estimated value sale price for the units. Mr. Niazmand said that they are aiming at a sale price of one million and over. The middle units are smaller; therefore, the sale price will be adjusted. Ms. Gardner said that in regard to the second question, a home owners' association could regulate the use of the front yards. She noted that at the previous meeting the Commission had concerns regarding the use of the front yard such as the storage of barbeque grills and the like. Carlos Ruiz said that he was not certain but that the Zoning Ordinance may have such regulations in place. He also said that condo associations can regulate certain things such as the color of window drapes facing the street. Ms. Gardner said that at the row houses on Church and Ridge, she never saw anything inappropriate on the fronts of those units. A member of the audience said that on Ridge Avenue front yards are small, but there is space in the lane to accommodate a swing set, or a basketball loop. He did not see an alternative space in the proposed units to accommodate those things. Mr. Murray said that those uses can be accommodated in the green area between the structures, and that the family and recreational use, can be directed as Mr. Niazmand suggested, with an equitable type of rules that would enhance the continued appearance and stately appearance of the Dempster facade, and direct people that are residents there, toward the inner open areas of the court and green space. The Ridge Avenue facade is seen as a passive recreational area, where barbeque grills and the like equipment would not be allowed. Mary Brugliera said that she considers in point of zoning fact, the yards of the proposed buildings on Dempster as the rear yards, because if they were the front yards, the set back should be 27 feet. Ms. Brugliera said that as a resident living on Dempster, she has never used her front yard for anything, but flower beds. Ms. Bauer asked where the set of regulations would be stated and legalized. Mr. Murray Evanston Prescnation Commission May 13, 2003 — ?Minutes Page 7 said that the home owners association has a rule of governing elements that is private; it becomes a pan of a public record when the particular units are offered for sale, as a disclosure element of the sale of condominiums. there are set or regulations that are imposed by the City of Evanston that deal with disclosure requirements for condominium sales. Ms. Bauer said that the regulations should be planned for in advance with certain guarantees. Mr. Nizmand said that his wife and he will be the largest condo owners before start selling the units. He said that in effect they could dictate the rules. Mr. Murray said that Mr. Niazmand is going to be the owner of one of the units in the mansion. Mr. Niazmand said that his partner will own the second unit. Kristin Frieman of 1326 Asbury Avenue said that there are other concerns such as the traffic. She wondered about a traffic study to really understand the impact of these units on the neighborhood. Carlos Ruiz said that the City could request a traffic study as part of the plan development process. his. Frieman said that the character of the neighborhood made up of historic detached single family home on large lots. in addition, these are homes that are distinct from each other. she said that in the proposal, the buildings are all uniform; she said that there is a concern about the impact of that on the neighborhood. She asked what about diversifying the units. his. Frieman also mentioned the concern about the property that is zoned R-1 for single family homes and duplexes. She asked what about duplexes. She said that the neighbors appreciate the gesture to broken up of the four units on Dempster, also broken up the horizontal wall like effect, but there is also concern about the vertical wall like effect around the property. Another concern is over the proportion of green space to individual unit. Although Mr. Niazmand at the neighborhood meeting said that that proportion of green space to building is in line with code. Her concern is the green space in proportion to individual units. Ms. Gardner said that in regard to zoning, there is building as of right, in terms of how many structures can be put on the property. Mr. Niazmand is coming for a planned unit development, which gives up some of the things that they have the right to do in exchange for others. She said that one of the concerns of the community has been the green space in front of the mansion not be eroded. Ms. Gardner said that the developers could build in front of the mansion by right. She guessed that the thing is that one can't have it both ways. Carlos Ruiz said that in terms of zoning, if one were to subdivide the property into R 1 individual single family lots under the current zoning, then what is as of right is building no more than 30 percent of lot coverage, the rest remains as open space. The developers are not proposing individual single family lots, although they could, but they are not. They are applying for a planned development, which includes leaving the green space on Ridge Avenue, and adding density on Dempster and some additional density on Asbury. Mr. Ruiz said that when District 65 announced during a neighborhood meeting that the property was for sale, he heard how important was to maintain the open space and the visibility of the mansion from Ridge Avenue, and how important was to develop 40 something a low density. When the developers approached the Commission to announce that they were the new owners of the property and that they had the intention to develop it, there was one comment by a former Commissioner, that perhaps instead of spreading Evanston Preservation Commission May I3.2003 -- Minutes Page 8 out so many structures (about 13 single family lots), condense those into less units or less buildings. lair. Ruiz said that it appears that there are four new structures as opposed to 13 new structures. Nir. Ruiz noted that it is important to look at how the project is evolving based on the conversations of the developer with the Preservation Commission, neighbors, Site Plan, Plan Commission and at the end with City Council. Ms. Frieman asked what happened to the idea of developing single family detached homes and to v,-hat extend the Commission involved itself in the financial matters of Mr. Niazmand. She stated that that should not be the Commission's concern. Ms. Gardner answered that it is not. Ms. Frieman said that she wondered why is being considered something that is zoned for R-2 in space that is R-1 in a historic district. Ms. Gardner said that the developer has the right to develop single family homes that obliterate the mansion. They are asking, because of the community concerns, to do a Plan Unit Development (PUD), which will require a denser development along the side (Dempster) in order to preserve the site on the front (Ridge). Ms Gardner said that what the Commission is trying to deal with is coming up with a plan that preserves the mansion and the coach house and that is not a bad plan for the neighborhood either. Michael Girard said that the question is why the project is being considered for a PUD when it is a historic property in a historic district. his. Gardner said because the developer could subdivide the property and build as of right. Mr. Reeder said the developer could build as single family not row houses. Ms. Frieman said that if this was decided by the Commission as the best for the community, she was not so sure if this was the best for the community. Nir. Ruiz said that the Commission cannot stop someone from submitting a proposal just because it is not a single family home. He said that the Commission needs to analyze the proposal and determine whether or not it meets the standards. He said that the Preservation Ordinance allows: alteration, construction, relocation and demolition. The developer is applying for a combination of three of those, except for relocation. He said that it would be irresponsible from the Commission or the City to not look at a project that they (the developers) are proposing without having the opportunity to determine whether or not it meets the standards. The Preservation Ordinance does not say to reject a project because is not a single family residential development. Mr. Ruiz said that the developers are asking for something that other developers have the right to do, which is to submit for a PUD. He said that the PUD may require an amendment to the zoning so they can build what they propose. This PUD may or may not be approved, that depends on how the Plan Commission will determine whether or not is appropriate. Mr. Ruiz said that the main role of the Commission is to determine whether or not the proposal, regardless of its need of obtaining a PUD, meets the standards for review. Ms. Frieman said that then it is the choice of the developer to propose it this way as to propose two different options. Mr. Ruiz said that is the developer's choice. Mr. Carey said that the Cummission is rczponUJ;ng lu the developer's proposal. The Commission did not tell him what to do; he came to the Commission with his ideas. Ms. Frieman said that there are a lot of questions about what happened to the single Evanston Presmation Commissiaa May 13, 2003 —Minutes Page 9 family detached development. Ms. Gardner said that was never the proposal. She added that the Commission has z- to talk about it, all the Commission has been doing the previous meeting and this -neeting is listening to the proposal and asking questions. A member from the audience asked if the real battle (so to speak) would that occur at the level of the Flan Commission. Mr. Ruiz answered, not necessarily. Assuming that the Commission finds that the proposed development as amended today, does not meet the standards that would be or ,: way to deter the development. However, Mr. Niazmand has also the option to appeal to the City Council the Commission's decision, or go back to the drawing board to address --zome of the concerns that the Commission may discuss later, as the Commission looks at aad analyzes closely the proposal. If the Commission finds thzt the proposed development does not meet tite standards then that could be a way to deter the project. Mr. Reeder said that the dcti•eloper said that he brought the row houses because he got that idea from the Commission. Ms. Gardner said that when the developers bought the property, they came to the Commission to field out options. A former commissioner suggested row houses, the rest of the commissioners said that they would prefer double houses. Mr. Reeder asked why then the Commission asked the developer to bring a model of the row houses. 'sir. Ruiz said that the Commission requested the model to better understand what the proposed project is all about for the benefit of the developer and the neighbors. He noted that after meeting -ith the neighbors the developer has amended his proposal. fir. Ruiz said he did not know that the day that he called Mr. Niazmand that there was a meeting with the neighbors. He asked Mr. Niazmand then if there was anything new to submit to the Commission. Mr. Niazmand said, no. Mr. Ruiz said that he would conclude that all the changes that have been presented at this meeting are a result of the meeting vuith the neighbors. Ms. Frtcman said that the neighbors do not want to stop Mr. Niazmand from doing what he wants to do. She asked if there was a way that the neighbors and Mr. Niazmand could work and streamline the process. B. Sch%%immer said that the City should not compromise based in the economics of the development the R-1 single family detached houses or duplexes. To him that meant no building along Ridge Avenue and preserving landmark status of the property. In response to a question from Ms. Brugliera, Nir. Murray said that his client plans to submit an application for plan development to the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission will hold a hearing subject to a public notice to everyone who resides within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the project. The Plan Commission will take into account the recommendations iffim curve from the Pm;ervation Commission, either positive or negative. Whatever changes may have occurred in the interim process that does not - substantially change the design or the decision from the Commission. Mr. Murray said that they are looking to the Commission for decisions relative to design aspects of the property, including the design of the new structures, demolition of the Eseca building, Evanston Preservation Commission May 13, 2003 — Minutes Page 10 and the entire site formulation. Mr. Ruiz further clarified that the Commission could not cause economic hardship in accordance to the provisions of the Preservation Ordinance. In case of a denial, the applicant could apply for economic hardship. fir. Schwimmer appreciated the Commission's role to ensure the quality of the design of the development, but it's the residential nature of the neighborhood that he is concerned about. The property was bought, knowing that it is R-1 and of landmark status. He said that the primary responsibility of the Preservation Commission should be to preserve the residential character of the area and Evanston's architectural heritage. Mr. Ruiz said that he appreciated Mr. Schwimmer's concerns, but the City of Evanston has in place different ways to do different things. One thing that the developer might want to do is to apply for a zoning change, for instance. That zoning change will not change the character of the landmark or the historic district as long as nothing happens on the property. Also, in the case of subdivision of the land, the Commission's purview is advisory to the City Council. A member from the audience asked how the Commission could possibly approve a plan that is presented to it, if they know that, as things currently exist, it is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission's findings will be subject to approval of the plan development. Mr. Ruiz said that the proposed development has to meet the standards for review; if the standards are not met the Commission will not approve the development. The standards for review are in place, but the Commission does not regulate the use. Mr. Ruiz noted that the Commission does not have binding review on zoning, special uses and fence variations. The Commission can only recommend to (lie zoning office or Zoning Board of Appeals, whether or not the proposed zoning variation has an adverse effect on the historic district or the landmark. Jenny Colidarchi said that she would like to continue enjoying the use of her yard and preserve as much green space as possible and trees. She was also concerned with the displacement of water. Mr. Murray said that there will provisions for storing water on site, so that the circumstances of water drainage do not chance from that which existed when the buildings were never there. Ms. Colidarchi said that the Escca building could go. Mr. Ruiz said that there are very modest landmarks, such as farmhouses built in the late 1 SOOs. People who do not know the history of these houses may wonder why they are landmarks. Jeremy Green said that there was a discussion earlier about diversifying the appearance of the proposed buildings which it may help in separate them. He asked if any color studies were done in terns of changing the brick type on the buildings. He also asked if there was an attempt to do some something more contemporary. Mr. Prestangen said that they had contemplated what would be most appropriate historic looking or contemporary design. At the end they felt most strongly in terms of being contextual in terms of the historic aspect of the mansion. Regarding diversity, he said that the new structures are very similar to each other. The diversity occurs between the existing mansion and the Evanston Preservation Commission May 13, 2003 -- Minutes Page 11 coach house and the new structures. The new buildings would fit in the context of the historic mansion and coach house. Also. the some of the spacing between the buildings is important. They tried to address each street independently. Asbury has smaller front entries' Dempster could handle more mass because what is across the street and Ridge is different as well. Betty Green said that the proposal is massive and monolithic, because the buildings on Dempster are four stories. She said that in a historic neighborhood one could have charming two-story row houses. She said that there is so much mass on Dempster and Asbury that it does not fit in with the neighborhood at all. In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Murray said that the mansion is three stories high or 45 feet high. The row houses are 40 feet high. Mr. Reeder said that the mansion is not going to be seen on Dempster. Ms. Brugliera asked about the distance between the buildings on Dempster under the current plan. Mr. Murray answered, 12 feet. Mr. Murray said that the proposal was in front of the City staff Site Plan and :appearance Review Committee (SPARC) for advisory sessions of which Mr. Ruiz is a member of. One of the architectural members suggested that the project abandon the brick and the coins and do something substantially more modern. Mr. Murray said that the current plans do not follow SPAARC's recommendations, out of respect to the existing and elegance of the mansion. Mr. Murray said that from here they wi[i go to a potential combined meeting the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Ultimately, they will go before the Plan and Development Committee of the City Council, where these plans will also be reviewed and either recommended or not recommended to the entire City Council. The ultimate decision rest with the nine members of the City Council and Mayor for approval or disapproval of the entire proposal Mr. Ruiz clarified that SPARC is composed by City staff and a non staff member. SPARC has binding review on the site plan and advisory review on the appearance of projects. He also clarified that he is not a member of SPARC, but he does attend the meetings because he is interested in what happens in Evanston, and occasionally there are properties that are affected by landmark status or within historic districts. In this case, he went to alert SPARC that this project should come in front of the Commission. He makes comments sometimes in terms of the architecture and urban design. He said that the City is not looking at the project from one narrow point of view. SPARC will review this project again, but they will look at the siting of it rather the appearance. SPARC can comment and make suggestions regarding the appearance. _ Ms. Gardner said that she is concern with the height of the proposed buildings. Mr. Droll said that he too was conccM the scale. He said that it was important when considering the scale of the structures that they are compared relative to the grade in - which they sit. Mr. Droll said that he put together an analysis that compares the grade of each structure to its respective ridge, and its respective fascia. The mansion sits at a grade in an elevation of 3 feet, and its roof ridge is 45'-5" for a building height of 42'-59$ . I Evanston Preservation Commission May 13, 2003 —Minutes Page 12 The town homes sit at zero and have 42'-6" to the peak, so is actually 1" higher than the mansion, if you were standing in front of The town homes and compared to standing in front of the mansion. 'Nfr. Droll said if one compared the grade, again the mansion of 3 feet to the roof fascia of the mansion, which is set at 31'-3" that is actually 28'-3" if one is standing in front of the mansion to the fascia. For the town homes the grade is again at zero, and its fascia is 33 feet. So it is 4'-9" higher when compare to that of the mansion. Ms. Gardner said so that the fascia is 4 feet higher, but the roof ridge is 1" higher. Ms. Brugliera suggested that for the next meeting, the applicant bring all the specifications of all the exterior changes to the mansion and the coach house, for the Commission to Vote on, and the proposal for the faith of the Escca building. If turns out, they need a major variation to do the four units in the mansion, instead of two, then the Commission could make a recommendation to the zoning Board on that issue. Ms. Brugliera could take care of those issues at that one meeting. Presumably the applicant will be scheduling meetings with the Plan Commission on the issue of the plan development, the number of units, etc. Then at the next meeting the Commission could deliberate on the big piece, because the Commission would have made a recommendation one way or the other on the Escca building, then the meeting succeeding that the Commission would go to work on the new buildings. Additional discussion ensued about the Commission's recommendation to the Plan Commission regarding the PUD. Ms. Brugliera suggested that the applicant submit a copy of the PUD application so that the Commission could review the proposed new structures. Mr. Carey said that perhaps the Commission should review the project with all the components in place and not break it down into pieces. Mr. Murray said that the basic program that the Commission has seen at this meeting and what they have suggested in terms of the split of the new construction is what Mr. Niazmand has authorized him to go forward with and make the application for PUD. He said that the City Council will not be capable of passing the project with some kind of zoning change, text or map or a combination thereof, to permit the consideration of the landmark building to be divided in a fashion that preserves the exterior and utilizes the interior in a fashion which is consistent with modern needs. Ms. Gardner said that another thing the Commission could do is review the project in parts such as the restoration of the mansion. If there are some issues about the new construction, they will at least know that the Commission approved of the restoration, and whatever is decided about the Escca building they will know whether it is an issue or not. Mr. Ruiz suggested said that at the end the Commission could provide its findings to the Plan Commission of the entire project, instead of just providing findings just on the restoration. Mr. Droll said that it is a good thing to postpone a decision until the Car,.,.+fission gets some rnort- information. he felt that the Commission should get some reaction to what the Commission has seen. It would only fair that the Commission gives feedback to the applicant, so that they are aware of the Commission's stands on some issues. It should be food for thought and it would give the applicant another opportunity to think about what they are submitting before they actually do it. _ f_ Evanston Presmation Commission May 13, 2003 —Minutes Page 13 Mr. Droll said %vas concerned with the streetscape. He would move the individual units so that there is a softer edge created along Dempster, and possibly along Asbury. He said that the relationship of structures to the street varies, and the spacing to each other varies. The proposed development is very uniform and not very contextual. He said that he would Iike to see those things shift. Mr. Droll said that would create some of that diversity, not only in plane but possibly in scale. He said that he would like to see more happening with the massing. Regarding the Escca building. Mr. Droll said that he was very intrigued to hear the structural analysis. He said that although it is a contributing structure, he did not know that it's detrimental to the neighborhood to see it to go away. Stan Gerson said that the Dempster side troubled him too. He was wondering if at least the middle two buildings could be setback so that there is no straight line on the street. About Escca, he said that the report says that the building is salvageable and it does not have to be demolished. As far he is concerned, it could be demolished. But, the report does not say that this building is lost and nothing could be done with it. Susan Rundle aurced with Mr. Gerson. she said that what it has to be done with the Escca building is cosmetic. She said that she has learned that the building was not an original stucco structure. She felt that the integrity of the original building has been compromised though the years when it was made to stucco. She said that she would not vote against tearing it down. Mary Brugliera referred to the Ridge Historic District designation. The Osborn Bam, 1321 Asbury Avenue, by Jarvis Hunt, built in 1906, there was an addition in 1912. It was move on the estate in 1912 and converted into a residence. Later, there was an improvement, presumably the stucco finish. The structure is one of the out buildings of the Osbom estate, which is on the site of the current Unitarian Church at 1326 Ridge Avenue. Mary Brugliera said that she too is concern of the wall along Dempster, the height of the buildings, and the lack of variation. She concurred with Mr. Droll about the difference in depth and height. She also said that there a number of ways to justify the demolition of the Escca building, and that is not nearly as important as the other two structures in terms of the property and the district. She said that she did not have a problem with the four units in the mansion. Chris Carey said that he appreciated the applicant's sensitivity to the landmark structures. He did not have a problem,,s7th the Escca building coming dowrl. He said that he also apprectated the process that the applicant 6 guing thirour"hl, whCrc he is ir'vittng PU%.1:i. comment. He said that the applicant has a vision of doing something within certain guidelines that are specific to Evanston. Mr. Carey said that he appreciated the use of doorways and openings onto Asbury and onto Ridge, and not leaving blank walls. He said that he concurred with other commissioners regarding mass, where some adjustment Evanston Presmation Commission May 13, 2003 -- !4linutes Page 14 could be made to mass and heiht. He said noted that it was pointed out that the heights of the town homes at the fascia line would be 5 feet higher than the mansion. he said moderating the facades should be something to be looking into. Barbara Gardner said that she was still sitting on the fence on the Escca building, and there is part or her that it wants it saved because it's the last remnant of the house that was on the comer of Ridge and Greenwood. She said that the engineering report reminded of the report on her house on Ridge was when they bought it. She said that they just fixed the house. his. Gardner said that she did not totally make up her mind about the Escca building. she did not think that its quality is as good as the other two structures on the property. Ms. Gardner said that she shared the commissioners concerns on Dempster. She liked the splitting apart into the smaller units. However, the part that she does Iike the most is that the development is pushed 20 feet up to the east. She did think that the neighbors on Asbury should have it all in that way either, but the whole thing from the very beginning was to not obscure the view, granted that the side view is going to be obscured. But looking across the intersection, there is going to be the whole wing out to the south side not visible any longer when sitting at the traffic light. That really bothered her. Ms. Gardner said that she would like to see the new buildings lowered somewhat. The roof heights seemed to look about the same, but the fascia height is an issue for her. She would like see some differing in the heights. Ms. Gardner said that she never was in favor of the whole roughhouse concept a year ago, and still not today. She does not want to put the buildings together. She would like to see one less unit on Dempster at the east end. Susan Rundle seconded Ms. Gardner's comments. She said that if there was anything that would stop her from voting for it would be the proposed setback on Ridge Avenue. She noted that from the intersection one could not see the front of the mansion. Mr. Droll said that the attempt to break it up and introducing another passageway was a good one. Mr. Niazmand said that he will take into account each one of the comments. Regarding the 20 feet less setback on Ridge, he said that there are rooms that they have already taken away 1.5'. He said that the day after he purchased the property, Alderman Bernstein told him that he did not want to see tin can buildings. He said that he does not to build tin can buildings either. He said that these are 4,500 square feet townhouses. He does not want the townhouses so small that they will not be in setting with the rest of the neighborhood. he wants a high end development. Michael Girard said the principal structure on the site is the mansion. He said that it - getting very close to matching ridges, and secondary structures have actually fascias that arc higher titan that of the mansion. The read of the principal structure versus what is secondary is confused. There is quire a few examples of roughhouses in Evanston and in single family residential neighborhoods. He mentioned two examples on the 1100 block of Maple Avenue, where they have variation of the front facades. Ms Gardner mentioned another example on Elmwood Avenue and Greenwood Street. Ms. Brugliera mentioned the row houses in Alta Vista Terrace in north Chicago, and the McCormick Seminary Evanston Preservation Commission May 13, 2003 — Minutes Page 15 house just east of the L stoop by Fullerton. Ms. Girard also mentioned another example of row houses on the 1200 block of Maple Avenue. Mary McWilliams from the audience said that there are good examples of row houses in the Ridge Historic District. Mr. Girard said that on the Essca building he grill reserve for when the Commission reviews the criteria. Ms. Gardner said that she too did not have a problem of putting four units in the mansion. Ms. Gardner said that the comments that were made at the meeting do not advocate a particular position. The commissioners were reacting individually to what was presented to them. Mr. Reeder said that the neighbors had expressed the same concerns as the Commission had expressed at the meeting, including the height of the buildings, not only on Dempster but also on Asbury. A member form the audience said that he appreciated in the way in which the Commission has enabled the neighbors just to enter into the discussion. Nis. Frieman said that some of the neighbors will not be able to attend a meeting in June. Ms. Garner suggested sending another one of the neighbors, or making written comments. Michael Girard moved to continue the meeting on Wednesday, June 11, 2003. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: "0 Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PlannerlPrese Coordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 20, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary BrugIiera, Chris Carey, Stephen Droll, Clint Funk, Michael Girard. Susan Rundle, and Thomas Prairie MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Elliott Dudnik, Marvin Walker, Arthur Nowik, Nate Kipnis, Liz Rorke, Healy Rice, Michael IJerdinger, Jim Bayley, Simon and Jane Thompson, DonnaLee Floeter, architect, Irene Sandler, Tom and Diane Skomski, Mark Trudcau, Victor Freise, Kent Marthaler, PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORU-51 At approximately 7:35 p.m. Chris Carey, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. II. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA 1. 1120 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark) -- Construct 2.5-story wood and stucco rear addition, requires minor zoning variance jConstruction/Zoning Variance] Elliott Dudnik, architect, and Jeff McCullough, owner, presented plans for the 2.5-story rear addition to the house at 1 I20 Elmwood Avenue. Mr. Dudnik said that initially they proposed an addition with no setback from the exterior wall of the house. In response to the Commission's concerns they are now submitting two updated drawings addressing the zoning issues, one with a b" setback and the other with a 12" setback. He said that his clients prefer the 5" setback. Mary Brugliera said that standards A and C for zoning variance applied. Jeff McCullough said that the interior layout for the kitchen is very small and the larger setback does not allow them to have the space they need. Mr. Dudnik mentioned a number of existing physical limitations such as water and heating sources. Evanston Presmation Commission May 20, 2003 — ?Minutes Page 2 Michael Girard said that he visited the house and sketched out some interior layouts, all of them required alteration of the original interior. Mary Brugliera, in response to a question from Mr. McCullough, said that the Commission has a principle that it is a good idea to distinguish additions from landmark houses in some fashion, and it does not have to be by means of setbacks; it could be materials as an example. Commission's Findings Chris Carey referred to standard A) is the addition going to adversely affect the historic architecture or integrity of the landmark. He said that a setback provides a clear differentiation between the landmark and the addition. Thomas Prairie said that in his view, the 6" setback was enough to provide that. Mary Brugliera said that the existing non -conforming status of the house was a factor for her consideration of the 6" setback, because the proposed 6" setback will put the house closer to the required setback. Susan Rundle stated that in her opinion 6" setback would not be enough to provide the differentiation. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend the zoning variance for the 6" side yard setback for It 20 Elmwood based on standard A (is necessary and appropriate so is not to adversely affect the architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark, and standard C (it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the district. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention. 2. 1503 Florence Avenue (Landmark) — Installation of vinyl siding over existing wood siding and replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows jAlterationj Marvin Walker, owner requested to hold the Commission's review until Arthur Nowik, contractor arrives to the meeting. 3. 920 Edgemere Court — (LSHD) — Two-story rear brick addition with tile roof jConstructionj Nate Kipnis, architect, and Liz Rorke, owner, presented a two-story rear brick addition to the house at 920 Edgemere Court located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The addition will have a life roof with a lower slope roof to the existing slope and a dormer in the back. The rear mudroom will be redone substantially and the windows will have simulated divided lights and limestone sills and the overhand bead board will match the existing. Also, there will be a bay in the back. Stephen Droll asked about the pitch of the addition in comparison to the roof pitch on the front. Mr. Kipais said that the proposed pitch is 6 and 12. Commission's Findings Mary Bruglicra said that standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14 to 16 applied. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for construction of the addition at 920 Edgemere, based on its meeting standards: 1) height being compatible with the other buildings and structures to which it is related, 3) the width and height of windows and doors, 4) the relationship of the structure to open space between it, 5) the rhythm — -= Evanston Preservation Commission May 20, 2003 — Ntinutes Page 3 of porches and other projections being visually compatible, 6) the visually compatible materials in relationship and texture, 8) the compatible roof shapes, 10) the scale of the structure in relation to all openings and other projections are visually compatible, 12) the distinguishing quality of the building has not been destroyed, 14) contemporary design has not been discouraged, 15) if the addition were to be removed, the essential form of the house will be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural style. Stephen Droll seconded. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1512 Judson Avenue -- New nvo-car detached garage with attached shed at the rear of lot ]Construction/Minor Zoning Variance] Healy Rice, architect, presented plans for the construction of a two -car detached garage for the Queen Anne Style house. The garage will have a cedar siding and the top of cave will be cedar shake to match the house. There is a small shed that is built into the garage. Ms. Rice said that they are requesting a minor variation from the 3' required setback to 1.9' mostly because of the turn radius, Ms. Rice said that the three closest neighbors have been contacted about the zoning variance. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle noted that the applicable standards for zoning variance were A and C. Ms. Rundle moved that the Commission recommend the zoning variance for the two -car garage at 1512 Judson as shown on the site plan. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the construction standards that applied were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 14 through 16. Ms. Rice said that the garage windows will be painted wood and the door will be painted wood with raised panel. The cupola will be wood with copper roof. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the two -car garage at 1512 Judson as presented because it meets standards of construction: 1) the height is compatible with the neighboring garages, 2) the proportion of the front fagade is appropriate, as well as 3) proportion of the openings in the garage, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids reflects what is in the main house, 5) the rhythm of spacing with other structures on the street it is appropriate with the rest of the garages, 7) the materials and texture are replicas of the existing house, as well as 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale of the garage is appropriate, 11) the directional expression of the front elevation as a garage, 12) its design is compatible with the existing structures and there is no change to the historic quality, 14), 15), and 16) are directions to the Commission. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. S. 1227 Leon Place (Landmark) —Two-story rear addition (Construction/Zoning Variance] Michael Merdinger, owner, presented Plans for the construction of a second -story rear addition over an existing one-story addition. The second -story will extend 6' over the first and second floor. Mr. Merdinger said that he was requesting for a zoning variance because the existing structure is setback at 2.89' versus the 5' that is required. The addition on top of the existing Evanston Prmr.•ation Commission Ntav 20. Nam: —Minutes Page 4 structure will match up with the house and then the new addition will be in compliance with the 5' setback. The roof lines do not match up, so there is delineation between the new and the old. Mr. Merdinger said that the rear and west sides of the house are not visible from the public way. The east side, on the lower level, will be blocked by the porch. Susan Rundle said that, on the east fagade, the roof on the addition on top of the porch is not lower than the main roof, and the exterior wail is contiguous. Mr. Merdinger said that the exterior material is aluminum siding to match as close as possible the wood siding. The windows are aluminum clad wood windows. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera said that the applicable standards for the variance are A and C. Chris Carey said that he did not have a problem with the variance but he had a problem with the aluminum siding, because it takes away the original quality and character of the house. Mr. Merdinger said that he would change the proposed aluminum siding to wood siding. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend the zoning variance as it meets standards A and C. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Michael Girard and Susan Rundle expressed concern about the size of the proposed windows on the addition. Thomas Prairie had a concern with the continuous east fagade. Mr. Merdinger said that the house is a narrow house. Ms. Brugliera said that the east elevation is very difficult to see. Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission approve the proposed construction of an addition at 1227 Leon Place, in that it meets standards: 1) height is visually compatible, 3) height of windows and doors is visually compatible, 7) the materials are compatible with the predominant materials used in the structure to which is visually related, 8) roof shapes are compatible wit the structure, 10) the size and mass of the structure in relationship to openings is compatible, 12) the original of qualities of the structure are not destroyed, no historic material or distinctive features have been altered, 14) contemporary addition is not being discouraged, 15) the possibility of removing them in the future and retaining the integrity of the building, and 16) not imposing a single architectural style. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, I nay, and I abstention. Susan Rundle noted that cedar siding will be used in place of the aluminum siding. b. 2024 Orrington Avenue (LSHD) — Two story rear addition iConstructiotn] Jim Bayley, architect, Simon and Jane Thompson, owners, presented the plans for a two-story rear addition to the house at 2024 Orrington Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Bayley said that the owners would like to have a family room and a master bedroom upstairs. Mr. Bayley said that they are taking an existing window and placing it on the side as a dormer, and they are taking out portion of the wall on the first floor and a smaller portion of the second floor for the addition. The addition to the existing house is raising the roof line, the gable is visible from the street, and between the existing houses one can see the existing dormer on the _- Evanston Presmation Commission May 20, 2003 — Minutes Page 5 side of the house, but the addition is visible from the street between the existing two houses. The rear of the house is a private alley. INlr. Bayley said that they are extending the existing ridge line of the house; the back gable is being extended as well, so the back of the house has the existing west gable and they are adding a secondary gable to the side which matches the south gable. Looking to the south there is the existing blank wall towards the street, the existing gable, the double hung window from the back of the house, and the contemporary addition to the back. The addition matches the form of the roof with enough headroom on the side; there is high glass where there is a series of decorative wood paneling on the existing dormer, and high first -story windows on the side for privacy. Mr. Bayley said that looking from the street, there is the gable that extends out 3', the addition sets out 6', and the glass is along the edge, the wood siding and the trim warrants matching pattern, as well as the wood siding. The new trim will also match the existing. Commission's Findings: Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards of construction are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the two-story addition at 2024 Arrington as drawn, because it meets standards: 1) the height is the continuation of the existing, 2) the proportion of the projecting front fagade is fine, as well as 3) the openings of all windows and doors are the same, even though in a contemporary way, also 4), 5) the spacing of the structure on the street is the same as its neighbors, 7) the materials and textures are the same, as well as 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale of the structure is appropriate and it does not diminish the existing house, 11) the directional expression of the front elevation is compatible with its surroundings, 12) the addition does not destroy any of the original qualities or character of the building, 14) the Commission did not discouraged contemporary design, IS) and 16) are directions to the Commission. Stephen Droll seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 abstention. 7. 719 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — Addition to attic (Al tern tionfZonIng Variance), two. car garage (Construction/Demolition] DonnaLee Floeter, architect, and Irene Sandier, owner, presented plans for an attic addition to the house and the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new two -car garage at 719 Forest Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission had previously approved a recommendation for the zoning variance and tabled the decision for the certificate of appropriateness for the attic addition and also requested a drawing of the front elevation. Also, the Commission is considering the alteration of the house, the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new two - car garage. Ms. Floeter said that the variance for the height is no longer needed, so the attic addition does not count as a second story. The roof of the addition is now matching all the existing slopes. The new windows are aluminum clad matching the existing windows on the house. Evanston Preservation Commission May 20, 2003 —Minutes Page 6 Commission's Findings Michael Girard said that it appears that the new roof extends a little from the existing roof. Additional discussion took place about the size of a proposed window required for egress and the height of a dormer for the stairwell. The roof height of the addition although taller is only affecting the rear of the house. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission grant a certificate of appropriateness for the alteration at 719 Forest in that it meets standards: 1) adapting the property requiring minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the property have not been destroyed, 3) alterations that have no historical basis shall be discouraged, 5) stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity, and 10) new addition shall be done in such a manner that they could be removed without damaging the essential form and integrity of the structure. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing garage at 719 Forest in that it meets all rive standards for demolition: 1) is not of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition would be detrimental, 2) it does not contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the District, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the Lakeshore Historic District, 4) it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture, and/or material that it could not be reproduced, and 5) the Commission will issue a certificate of appropriateness for its replacement. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approved the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a new two -car garage at 719 Forest, in that it meets standards: 1) the height is compatible, 2) the proportion of the front elevation of the garage is compatible, 3) the openings are compatible to which they relate, 4) the rhythm of solids to openings arc compatible, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures from the public way are visually compatible, 7) the materials and texture are visually compatible, 8) the roof shape is compatible, 10) the scale of the structure in relation to the openings is compatible, 11) the front elevation is compatible in relation to other structures, 12) it does not destroy the original character of the property, I4) through 16) are advise to the Commission on contemporary design. Clint Funk seconded the motion. Discussion: Susan Rundle said that the proposed door is steel as most of the other garages. The standard for garage doors is wood. Commissioners said that the Preservation Coordinator could approve a wood garage door. The applicant is now in front of the Commission requesting the approval of a steel door. Mary Brugliera said that the garage door is not facing the street and is not on a landmark house. Thomas Prairie called the question. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 3 nays. At this time Carlos Ruiz noted that the contractor for 1503 Florence was present. Evanston Presmation Commission May 20, 2003 — Minutes Page 7 2. 1503 Florence Avenue (Landmark) — Installation of vinyl siding over existing wood siding and replacement of wood window sashes with new wood window sashes ]Alteration] Arthur Nowik, contractor, presented a proposal to install vinyl siding over wood siding and the replacement of wood window sashes with new wood window sashes on the house at 1503 Florence. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Nowik said that Mr. Walker, his client, had to leave the meeting Chris Carey said that as it was agreed at time the Commission discussed last the project, he went to look at the house with Carlos Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz had raised the questions about the reasons for installing the vinyl siding, such as heat loss, lack of insulation, and determination of the owner's ideas behind the proposed work. After a closer look at the house, Mr. Carey, Mr. Nowik, and Mr. Ruiz discussed the use of wood windows over vinyl. Mr. Nowik proposes to use wood window sash replacements, and not cover some of the original detailing under the gable on the front, such as the shingles and the trim around the windows. They will restore all the wood work, including the soffits and fascia. The rear addition needs the rebuilding of the soffits and fascia. The front porch will be rebuilt. Mr. Carey said that the owner is Mr. Walker's mother and that the questions are: how to handle the issue of maintenance for an elderly home owner, the issues of heat loss, and cracks on the foundation. The idea of installing the vinyl siding is to preserve the wood trim around the windows and the corner boards and the horizontal base board and use vinyl between those. Mr. Carey said that in the interest of saving the original characteristics and qualities of the house and also trying the accommodate the owner's needs, it seems that the above project description, is a possible compromise to save much of the original features, yet still have to deal with the wood siding. Mr. Nowik said that there will be V4" insulation underneath the triple -three vinyl siding to keep the same look of the house. Mr. Nowik said that they have the option to remove the wood trim and built it up and install the vinyl siding. The other option is to remove all the wood siding to the sheeting and install the insulation and vinyl siding. This way the wood trim will not be disturbed and the woad under the gable will be restored. In respect to Section 2-9-9 (E) of the Preservation Ordinance, Carlos Ruiz referred to the National Park Service, Preservation Brief & Aluminum and Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings: The Appropriateness of Substitute Alaterials for Resurfacing Historic IVood Frame Buildings. Mr. Ruiz quoted: "For historic residential buildings, ahinrinunr or vinyl siding may be an acceptable alternative only if (I) the existing siding is so deteriorated or damaged that it cannot be repaired, (2) the substitute material can be installed without irreversibly damaging or obscuring the architectural features and trint of the building; and (3) the substitute material can match the historic material in si:e, profile and finish so that there is no change in the character of the historic building. In cases where a non -historic artificial siding has been applied to a building, the removal of such a siding, and the application of aluminum or vinyl siding would, in Evanston Preservation Commission May 20, 2003 —Minutes Page 8 most cases, be an acceptable alternative, as long as the abovementioned first nvo conditions are met. " Ms. Brueliera said that if the wood siding were deteriorated she would be swayed for the vinyl siding, otherwise, vinyl siding will be a bad precedent for a landmark house. Mr. Nowik said that there are many sections on the house where the siding is beyond repair and it needs replacement. Thomas Prairie said that wood siding repair is possible and it depends on the preparation of the material. Ms. Brugliera asked if there is an estimate of the cost of restoration versus vinyl installation. Mr. Nowik said that the installation of vinyl will cost S22,000 dollars. Mr. Girard said that restoration of the wood siding and application of stain on his house was S29,000 dollars. He said that there is also a difference benveen painting and staining the wood; staining requires less maintenance. Commission's Findings Ms. Brugliera said that standards 1, 2, 5, G, 7, and 10 of alteration applied. Thomas Prairie moved that the Commission do not approve the certificate of appropriateness for alterations for 1503 Florence, because standards: 2) the vinyl siding it would radically affect the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property or structure, also, because of the vinyl siding standards 5) and G) are not met. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 5 ayes, 2 nays. The Commission made the following recommendations: redoing the gutters where needed, checking for any damage and sources of water leaks including the roof, repairing any boards that seemed deteriorated by scrapping and painting, and scrape and paint the house in a thorough manner and possibly consider staining the wood siding on the house. Mr. Prairie said that consideration should be given to stabilize the house and minimize additional costs. Michael Girard moved that the Commission allow staff to approve restoration of wood soffits, fascia, wood corners, front gable design, all wood trim around doors and windows on house, installation of new roof, back, porch to match existing soffits and fascia, to install new gutters and downspouts, and to replace existing windows with wood replacement window kits, and repair and maintain the existing side porch. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Nowik asked if the rear porch should be sided with wood as well. Commissioners answered yes. S. 1611 Simpson Street (Landmark) - Replacement and alteration of windows, new exterior brick wall on west elevation [Construction] Tom and Diane Skomski, owners, Mark Trudeau, architect, and Victor Freise, contractor, presented plans for replacement and alteration of windows, and construction of a new exterior wall on the west elevatit?istf flic building at 1611 Simpson Street. The building , an Evanston Landmark. - Evanston Presmation Commission htay 20, 2003 —Minutes Page 9 Mr. Skomski read a letter requesting the above exterior alterations. He stated that the building needed repairs inside and out. The front fagade %%•ill remain as is, except for the removal of the glass block. He noted that the new glass block and aluminum windows above the glass block provide needed security. The brick wall on the west elevation is intended to match the existing brick %vall. Mr. Skomski noted that distinguishing qualities of the structure will not be destroyed. The plans call for changing the loading dock into part of the art studio, and one of the doors will have a double steel door on the north elevation. A brick wall will be built on the west elevation and skylights will be installed on the roof. The skylights will not be visible from the street. Finally, the building will be tuck pointed. Commission's Findings Mary Brugiiera said that glass block was a big innovation in the Art Deco period and the front of the building has a very art modern Iook to it. She thought that glass block, as a replacement, will be appropriate. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for alteration are all except standard 8. Chris Carey moved that the Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for the alterations to 1611Simpson in that it meets standards: 1) every effort will be made in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities and character of the property will not be destroyed, 3) the removal of any historic material or distinctive architectural features will be avoided, 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, 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. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, 7) the surface cleaning of structures and objects shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting shall not be undertaken, nor shall other cleaning methods that will damage the historic materials of the structure, site or object, 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged, 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. Clint Funk seconded the motion. Discussion: Regarding the windows, Carlos Ruiz asked if standard 6 was met. The Commission determined that the proposed window replacement did not meet standard 6. Chris Carey amended his motion removing standard 6 from it. Michael Girard seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 abstentions. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction of the wall are: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14 to 16 are directions to the Commission. Stephen Droll moved that the Commission approve the wall construction at 1611 Simpson Street in that it meets standards: 1) the height is compatible with the existing structure, 3) the proportions of the openings are also compatible Evmston Preservation Commission '%lay 20, 2003 — Minutes Pacc 10 with the existing structure, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street is compatible with those in the neighborhood, f) the relationship of materials and texture, in particular the mortar will match the existing. 8) the roof shape is consistent with the existing structure, 10) the scale of the structure is also consistent, 12) the distinguishing original qualities and character is being maintained and not destroyed, I4), 15) and 16) are notice to the Commission. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 2 abstentions. 9. 600 Barton Avenue (Landmark) - Screen porch addition to rear of existing bungalow (one-story brick residence) [Construction) Kent Marthaler, architect, presented plans for a screen porch addition to the rear of a one-story brick bungalow. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Marthaler said that the bungalow is a one-story brick house, and the original construction at the rear was an open porch. The porch was enclosed in the 1950's with a flat roof, also a screen porch was added on. The addition is for Mr. Nicholson who has Alzheimer's having access from the north side of the house into the yard. Mr. Marthaler said that the hip roof on the addition is integrated with the house. The addition will be visible from the alley. Part of the project includes the rwo-car garage with a coach house above with a dangerous spiral stairway as the only means of egress out of the structure. The Nicholsons want to get rid of the spiral stair and get a safer vat• of exiting from the coach house. The building materials for the addition arc heavy stained timber, in keeping with the style of the bungalow structure. The new addition will have exposed trusses in the interior. The new wood stairs will be visible from the alley. The carport is a one -car parking structure. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the existing rear screen _ porch and the carport to 600 Barton as shown in the drawings, because it meets standards: 1) the structure that is being demolished does not have any architectural or cultural significance, and 4) the two pieces are not of such uncommon design that they could not be reproduced without great difficulty. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the construction of a new screen porch to the rear of the building, and wooden stairway at the coach house, because it meets standards: 1) the height, and 3) the proportion of openings are compatible with the existing house, 5) the rhythm and spacing of the screen porch from the alley, is appropriate to the rhythm and spacing of the other structures on that alley, also 6), 7) the materials replace what is existing, 8) the roof shape is an improvement over the roof shape that is being demolished, 10) the scale of the structure is appropriate in size to the existing house, 12) the original character of the structure is not being altered, 14), 15), and 16) are directions to the Commission. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. `Tote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. ` 10. 636 Church Street (Landmark) Revised unified sign plan Justin Heinz, building manager at the Carlson Building at 636 Church Street, presented plans for a revised unified sign plan. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Evanston Preservation Ceuunission May 20. 2003 — Minutcn Page 11 Mr. Heinz said that last month the Commission approved the sign plan contingent on a couple changes having to do ivith the slope of the awning to match the slope of windows above. The Sign Board did not approve the sign plan. Based on that, the revised sign plan shows the top of the awnings match the shape of the window below, which is vertical all the way across on Church Street. On Orrington Avenue there are three windows that have arched tops. The sign Board recommended the use of the half barrel design to match the arch of those windows. Mr. Heinz said that the revised drawings show the corner store and the Bombay Garden restaurant. He asked the Commission's approval of the revised awnings to take it back to the Sign Board. Michael Girard moved to approve the proposed revised signs as it meets standards of alteration: 1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure, site or object in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property, or structure, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a property, structure, site or object shall be treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, 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. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention. III. ADJOURNMENT Michael Girard moved to adjourn the meeting. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservati coordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COINUNIISSION Special 1lleeting ?Minutes Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:30 P.]NI. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Vlary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Droll, and Michael Girard OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Niazmand, Scott E. Prestangen, and James T. Murray, Abel Smith, Hari Matsuda, Eleanor Smith, Marie Torkelson, Tom Stafford, Bill Schwimmer, Betty Kaplan, Arthur Alterson, Karen Bauer, and Anne Earle. PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I, DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Chris Carey, Vice -Chair declared a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Carey said that this meeting is to continue the presentation of 1314 Ridge Avenue, 1311 and 1321 Asbury Avenue projects. Michael Niazmand, ovmer, Scott Prestangen, architect, and James Murray, attorney were present. Mr. Murray said that since they last met with the Commission they attempted to address several of the issues that were raised during that meeting. A piece of correspondence and drawings were submitted which attempted to address their understanding of some of the concerns about the design elements of the project. Mr. Murray said that the Commission asked them to address several of the massing features, several of the groupings of the buildings. Another concern was about the singularity of the facades along Dempster Street. In response they attempted to do some things relative to the placement of the buildings and the relationship to Asbury and to .,..... _.. Ridge and to Dempster. Mr. Murray said that the Commission indicated that there was a preference for the setbacks along Ridge, but at the expense of the setback along Asbury. He said that they _= Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page 2 attempted to preserve the significant lawn space along Ridge and the privacy of the Dryden Mansion; at the same time they dealt with the setbacks along Asbury, in a fashion, which will not significantly alter the nature of the project or the building construction elements. All this would recognize a slide scale of a balancing act between the facades at either end of the block. Mr. Murray said that the setback that was originally proposed at 100 feet from the Ridge Avenue property line was reduced to 88 feet. This was done to enhance the setback on the Asbury Street property line from approximately 8 feet to 16 feet. They altered and adjusted the interior spaces between the three buildings and created a space that is 12 feet at its narrowest dimension, and has several court like elements to it that runs between each of the interior buildings versus the exterior buildings going cast or west. Mr. Murray said that they had adjusted and reacted to the Commission's request that they move or recess some of the building facade, so that a barracks like appearance on Dempster Street streetscape would be avoided. Mr. Murray said they recessed the buildings in each of the three units by a distance of 4 feet at the upper levels. Therefore, improving the facade of the lower section. Mr. Prestangen said that the recess in the upper levels is d feet back on the first floor, curving one section of those gable projections. One of the entry sections is curved as well. Mr. Murray said that they have a straight line of facade at either end of the 3-unit buildings, a curvilinear facade in the central portion of the central unit of the 3-unit buildings, two curvilinear fronts on the two central units, and a repetition of the lateral and then curvilinear front elements of the western most of the three units. Mr. Murray referred to the site plan. He said that one could see the curvilinear features alternating with the straight-line features and the recesses. He said that there is an entry on Ridge Avenue, an entry on Asbury, and then each unit along Dempster Street has an entry that faces Dempster Street. The fence was modified with some landscape materials to wrap from the patio area on the cast side of the eastern most building, to and along the Dempster fagade with gates and openings for entry to the eight units of the building. It continues turning the corner onto Asbury Avenue and it goes to the first of the two driveways. The fence has not been continued until north of the north drive. The wrought iron fence is constructed with masonry pillars in betwecn. The bases are approximately every 10 to 12 feCL The fence takes up north of the north drive, proceeds along the perimeter to the entry access walk at the furthest northern building. Then, it continues to the building lot line at the north. Mr. Murray said the two single-family residences that face on Greenwood Street are currently fenced at the rear yards. If a fence would be required for that location, they will maintain a good fence between the neighbors and the property. Mr. Carey asked about the parking let of tha-Unitarian Church on Greenwood Street. Mr. Murray said that there is a proposed fence along that property line. Members of the Unitarian Church have indicated that it would be difficult to obtain an agreement between Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page 3 their parking uses versus that of the development. Mr. Murray said that there would be visitor parking within the new development. Mr. Carey asked if the northern boundary would be landscaped. Mr. Nfurrav said they do not intent to do any substantial undertaking on the north boundary from the rear of the main building, other than to improve the current level of the brick paved driveway, and to enhance the landscape materials, and perhaps eliminating the stairs that now join the two properties. The 18,000 square feet of open lawn area will remain open. He noted again that the height of the fence would be 6 feet- Perhaps the capstones on the pillars would take the fence a little higher. The current chain link fence is 6 feet high. The back yard fence on the north is a 6-foot stockade fence. Mr. Murray said that the placement of the fence is approximately 1.5 foot to 2 feet off of the property line. There would be some landscape between the fence and the sidewalk. Mr. Murray said that the drawings show an overall appearance of the roof gables, roof peaks, and valleys that will be resulting from the construction. Mr. Murray said that the pavers circle the property, particularly on the north line, and back to the rear of the main house. He noted that the paving material has not been fully developed in terms of design, style or material. But, it is not intended to be just black top. The internal sidewalks will be concrete pavers. The driveways would be pressed concrete. Mr. Prestangen clalifted the use of pavers is for walks and drives. The stamped concrete is being presented as a possibility. Mr. Murray said that the redesign of the walkway areas between the buildings has a 12- foot section that would be paving material and would be landscaped along the perimeter, including the small courtways on the sides of the buildings. He noted that the landscape materials are part of the plans. Mr. Murray said that another issue of concern was establishing the primacy of the structural heights and facades, and how they will interrelate with the new construction and the existing buildings. He said that the drawings show the height of the new buildings in relation to the mansion, the coach house and its relationship to the mansion and the new construction. The ridge line height of the new construction has been reduced by T-0". They considered that with the grade differential and the height of the ridge line of the mansion at 45'-6" it will create a substantial obeisance of the new construction to the existing mansion, or at least establish that the mansion has the primary stature of all the buildings on the site. Mr. Murray said the coach house is relatively modest in its height (30'-0" to the ridge line). The coach house is a floor down from the proposed new construction and 18'-0" below the level of the main ridge line of the roof of the mansion. Mr. Murray discussed the identification of entries on the property. There would be two entries, the main house entrance and the new construction entrance on Ridge Avenue. Also, there would be a main entrance on the east side of the easterly building. Similarly, there would be the appearance of four residential entrances on Asbury, one on the west side of the westerly building, and the other at the north and south property lines. The two entries would access the residences within the coach house. Preservation Commission Special fleeting June H, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Murray discussed design elements and depth factors in the new buildings. He showed elevations of the buildings facing the street on Dempster Street and on Asbury Avenue, and the elevations facing the interior area of the development. He said that the two buildings on Asbury would have entrances facing the street. The facades between the buildings for the single family attached dwellings would be a combination of limestone like materials and masonry, and several areas of fenestration. The entries have columns and an overhang. The bands of limestone like material would be associated with the one-story garages. He also mentioned the detail work in reference to the fence, the interior entry areas of the proposed garages and Mr. Murray also said that demolition areas previously discussed had remained the same. Mr. Murray said that they intended to respond to suggestions or concerns that were expressed by the Commission, and that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Niazmand summarized the Commission's request about the proposed development: to narrow it, bring it down, and change the fagade. Susan Rundle asked if 6'-0" high fences are allowed. Mr. Murray said that the zoning ordinance would not allow it, but it would be part of the allowances in the planned development. Mary Brugliera said that the existing fence is 6-0", she asked if it could be replaced at the same height. Carlos Ruiz said that the fence could be replaced in kind, or it could be improved in terms of material, opacity and height. Improvement could mean lowering the proposed height. Mr. Prestangen said that the proposed fence is wrought iron with landscaping in front of it and brick pillars. The new brick would be very close to the color of the mansion. Chris Carey asked if the details of the window lintels over the limestone Iintels had changed to match that of the mansion. Mr. Prestangen said, no. Mr. Gerson noted that the keystones were missing. Mr. Prestangen said that they do not intend to duplicate the details of the mansion, but they are picking up some of the elements. Mr. Prestangen said that at the previous meeting there was a question about the fascia, soffits, downspouts and gutters. He said that they had indicated that those should be copper. The drawings reflect a logical fascia soffit and a board applied to the face of the brick under the soffit that would also be copper. Mr. Gerson asked about the depth of the front yards on Dempster Street. Mr. Prestangen said it is I Y-0" to 16-0". Mr. Ruiz asked if the land would be one parcel or several parcels to develop separate buildings on separate parcels. Mr. Murray said that currently, the site is made up of three separate parcels. Two of which made up the main body of the Dryden Estate. The ESSCA building is in a separate lot. Mr. Murray believes that it is appropriate to consolidate the lot and the ultimate decision is whether or not the buildings would be treated as town houses or condominiums. In order to control the entire property -- r and maintain it properly, a homeowner association or a condominium ownership is an essential part of the plan. Regardless of what it would be, there are issues of maintenance Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page 5 and landscape materials, and design elements that are visible from the exterior of the buildings. He believed that the condominium concept would be used because more people are familiar with that than the townhouse or homeowner association. Ms. Brugliera asked if they had considered applying for a tax freeze for the mansion and the coach house. Mr. Niazmand said that his accountant was working on that. He said that he was reluctant to have his hands tied down. Nir. Ruiz said that the tax assessment freeze is for owner occupants only. Chris Carey asked if the Commission should review the mansion and coach house as separate structures. Mr. Ruiz said, yes. Mr. Carey asked if for the new construction, the Commission should review it per address or as a whole. Mr. Ruiz said that the intent of the development is to complement the mansion and the coach house. The architecture of the new buildings is very similar if not the same. He said that the Commission could review all the new buildings under one construction review. The demolition of the ESSCA building is a separate issue. There is also the restorationfrehabilitation of the mansion and the coach house. Thomas Prairie asked if zoning considerations would come later. Mr. Murray said that the planned development application was not ready yet. The relief in the zoning aspects of the property needed some very careful consideration because they are only three methods by which to apply. One of them is rezoning the property for a particular purpose. That, in his judgement will not occur. The two remaining alternatives are to apply for a text amendment that would modify the existing planned unit development ordinance, in so far as it treats R-I property. At the present time the planned development ordinance does not permit allowances for a planned development submitted in a R-I district. Mr. Murray said that there might be political issues that would suggest that the R-I district ought not to have additional allowances associated with it in terms of number of units and areas because of its diverse location within the City. The attitude that is generally forthcoming from residents is that R-1 is to be protected. Mr. Murray said that leaves them to submit as a unique use combined as a planned development. Because of its unique status as a large parcel with a large residential component, there is not anything similar that could be drawn as an appropriate similarity. He said that they could establish that the likelihood of change of the zoning ordinance is reduced by virtue of an established R-I and the incorporation of the division of the mansion. He said they Nvould ask for alternative relief. Unique use is for an existing zoning district, which is different form other potential uses for the property, because the configuration, preservation issues, site and other matters sought to be protected. At this time Mr. Carey invited the audience to comment. Abel Smith of 1464 Asbury said he lived in the neighborhood for many years, and that .leis major conce=.-,were decreasirl-gproperty values, and increasing traffic o.% AjLu, j. Carlos Ruiz said that traffic is not under the purview of the Commission. The Plan Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page 6 Commission will address the issue of traffic through the planned development process. He also said that the Commission has advisory review per the Zoning Ordinance on special use, fence and zoning variations, He noted that the applicant is not seeking a zoning variation. He said that the question is, whether or not, the proposed development meets the standards for preservation, Mr. Niazmand said that between 60 and 70 people worked at the mansion. He said that the school district is renting two spaces and 15 trucks werc there. Nfr. Murray said there is a fleet of 8 to 12 delivery vehicles operating for the school district. Carlos Ruiz said that there would be a public hearing and a required notification to property owners for the Plan Commission meeting within certain radius from the site. The Plan Commission does not have the final say on the planned development either; the City Council approves planned developments. He reiterated that the Commission's role is to determine whether the restoration of the mansion and the coach house meet the standards of alteration. Also, whether the proposed demolition of the ESSCA building meets the standards of demolition, and whether the construction of the three structures on Dempster Street and the one structure on Asbury Avenue meet the standards of construction. Hari Matsuda of 1308 Asbury said that he lived across the street and that he did not see much traffic generated while the school district was still there. Eleanor Smith said that her concern was the egress and the exit on Asbury Avenue, the inability to exit on Dempster and on Greenwood. Her other concern was that there is no tangential discussion about traffic. She noted that there was no problem with traffic when people were working there. Ms. Smith said that she would like to see some consideration for traffic exits on Greenwood and more traffic exit on Ridge Avenue. She said that drivers speed on Asbury Avenue. Mr. Murray said that a traffic study would address the propose use of the parcel versus its previous use. He said that the report is in _ process. The report would address how the development would affect the roadways of Ridge, Dempster, and Asbury. Mr. Niazmand has no capacity to alter or arrange for _ traffic from his property to exit onto Greenwood. He said that it would have to pass through other private property, of which they could exercise no control. The Unitarian Church has indicated that the development may not use their driveways as a means by which to gain access or egress on the particular parcel. Hari Matsuda said that the new buildings project a massive brick wall on Dempster Street. He suggested moving the buildings [east] 15" to 20', to open Asbury at the corner for a nicer appearance. Mr. Murray said that the proposed setback on Asbury is 16'4' from the property line. The coach house setback is S'-0". The setback on Ridge Avenue is shown as 88'-0" from the Ridge property line to the new construction. The mansion is setback approximately 122'-0". Mr. Murray said that the entire consideration was the means by which several residents feel that the view of the mansion is desirable to maintain from Ridge and possibly from Dempster as well. Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page Mr. Murray showed pictures taken from the southeast and southwest corner of the intersection of Ridge and Dempster. The pictures showed the view of the mansion partially blocked by trees and other vegetation. Carlos Ruiz mentioned that at the neighborhood meeting called by the School District in late 2002, at which Alderman Steve Berstein was present, most people at the meeting wanted to preserve the integrity of the mansion and the openness of the mansion on Ridge Avenue. The plans that were in front of the Site PIan and Appearance Review Committee showed new construction further east on Ridge Avenue. But, because of the concerns raised by the neighbors, the Commission asked that the buildings be pushed further west, so that the view of the mansion would be unobstructed. Mr. Ruiz said that at the beginning when INir. Niazmand introduced himself to the Commission as the new owner of the property, a former Commissioner suggested multi- family structures with the hope of saving more open space rather than spreading out. He said that the Commission would do its best to consider all the concerns expressed by the neighbors and at the same time adhere to the standards. Mr. Carey pointed out that in response to the concerns from neighbors at the previous meeting, the buildings on Asbury were moved back another 8'-0" from the property fine. Mr. Matsuda said that he was talking about the corner, and suggested to move the new structures 50'-0" from the Asbury corner, or the end unit could be eliminated. Marie Torkelson of 131 S Asbury asked at what point, where, and why the single-family homes came back with a multi -family and dense development, not in sink with what is in the Ridge Historic District. She asked if it would be possible to get back to four or five single-family homes that would be more in concert with the neighborhood. Mr. Ruiz said that Mr. Niazmand is the most qualified to explain the change from one to the other. The Commission did not tell Mr. Niazmand what to do or how he should do it. Mr. Murray said that Ms. Gardner had indicated in some ways an answer to Ms. Torkelson question. He said that the particular design evolved as a result of a series of encounters with the City, the Plan Commission, and other members of the City's departments. Relative to what were the priorities of preservation that ought to be addressed and ought to be contextual in whatever development was to take place in this particular site. Consideration was indeed given to the number of single-family residences that could be built on the property. Whatever proposal of development would be submitted, it would be defaulted by some people who would prefer one aspect or one asset of the property be preserved over another asset of the property. In that eight -month conversation, the proposed plan has been to have appropriate balance between the more desirable elements sought by some and lessened the less desirable aspects opposed by some. Mr. Murray said that if the proposed plan offends everyone, then it is clearly an inappropriate plan. The plan balances the nature of the undertaking, the size of the property, the number of units that it could support, and the reviews that it has either formally or informally had held during the last eight months. Ms. Torkelson said that the response did not answer her question. She asked if Mr. Niazmand came with a proposal for four or five single-family homes, why now there are Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page S seventeen. She said it would be such adverse impact on the neighborhood. She said that there are ten children living on Asbury, and it is so dangerous to ride bicycles or do anything without fear of being hit by a car. Nis. Torkelson said there are 4.5 car accidents on the comer of Asbury and Greenwood every year. She said that the quality of life would go down considerably, and as a mother of two small children, she would move away if the proposal were built. Ms. Brugliera said that she remembered the introductory meeting with Mr. Niazmand. She did not remember him proposing a handful of single-family houses scattered on the site. She said that was never brought up or mentioned. What Mr. Niazmand wanted to know was what kinds of presmation issues the Commission was most concerned with, what kind of ideas the Commission would entertain for a planned development on the site. She remembered herself saying, when Mr. Sheehan (former commissioner), said the possibility of preserving green space might be enhanced by a group of attached homes. Mr. Sheehan and her had in their minds the houses on Alta Vista Terrace, and the houses on Fullerton Avenue at DePaul university (Chicago), the houses on Maple Avenue, and Elmwood Avenue in Evanston, row houses with very interesting Victorian era facades. She also said that at that meeting to put underground parking. Ms. Brugliera said that the Commission did not encourage him to come up with the proposal as against the single- family homes. Mr. Ruiz said that the reason he had mentioned the single family home issue, was because before the property was put in the market, the Zoning Division put together a potential subdivision of the land into single family lots. He said if that were possible, there were between eleven or thirteen properties that could be developed around, in front and behind the mansion. Nis. Torkelson said that during the meeting at the mansion Mr. Niazmand said that he came to the Preservation or some committee with a proposal for single-family homes, and he was giving feedback for the multiple units. Ms. Brugliera said that the person who commented at the meeting in the mansion was Ms. Kent who said that she always thought the property would be developed with a group of single-family homes. Ms. Torkelson asked if there was any possibility of putting single-family homes that would be more in concert with the rest of the neighborhood. Susan Rundle said that at the first meeting the Commission talked about that theoretically one can put fourteen single family houses on the site and around the mansion. She said that four of five single-family homes might not be financially viable. Ms. Rundle said that the Commission did not specify a number of homes. Ms. Torkelson asked why the Commission was not trying to preserve the integrity of what the neighborhood looks right now with homes valued over 1 million dollars and in large lots. Mr. Ruiz said the Commission has not even touched the standards for review. The Commission has only gathered information from the developer and the property owners. A person from the audience said that the question is the appropriateness of that size of the Presmation Commission Special Meeting June I 1, 2003 Page 9 building in a residential area. Mr. Ruiz said that there are ten standards of alteration, seventeen standards of construction, and five standards plus one of demolition. The Commission has not addressed the standards yet. He said that the Commission couldn't preclude the applicant from what he Nvants to tell the Commission. Nis. Srugliera said that this is the first step and that the Plan Commission is the next step. There is a public hearing, where an official notice would be sent to the neighbors. There is plenty of opportunity to make the neighbors concerns known. The Plan Commission would hear the traffic and the zoning issues. The Preservation Commission protects landmarks by taking into consideration the context of the district, and the context of the block. fir. Ruiz said that the Commission does not determine the use either, which is a zoning matter. The Commission determines whether the structures, regardless of their use meet the standards. Chris Carey said that the Commission is responding to what the developer has brought in front of the Commission. Mr. Niazmand said that he bought the property in July of 2002. He has Iistened to a lot of people, he has taking into account the economics, he has pushed back buildings from Asbury, and he has made inquiries about traffic. Initially he divided the lot into 7,200 square feet lots. He could put sixteen houses. He came to the Commission with that. He walked away with the idea the attached housing would be more preferred because then there would be more open space. He said that he has to combine the open space, and the land he is giving up front, so that there is a chance of breaking even on the project. He said that otherwise he would have to leave the mansion alone and board it up. Mr. Niazmand said that he could not do with four houses. Ms. Torkelson said that she did not agree that more is better. Maybe big homes with larger open space would draw more money instead of putting so many crammed in units. Ms. Torkelson said that the Commission has not definitely determined that Mr. Niazmand had to give up so much space towards Ridge. She said that there are far more residents on Asbury than there are on Ridge. 'sir. Niazmand said that the smallest unit of 2,500 square feet is in the mansion. The rest are over 4,200 square feet. The new units are 4,800 square feet. He said that he couldn't sell 8,000 square feet home. Tom Stafford of 1206 Croft Lane said he was pleased to see the changes that were made since the meeting at the mansion. He said that the extra walkway between the buildings is an improvement. Also, he complemented the wrought iron fence concept. He said the fence would make it a ]ot safer for children living in the development. He mentioned other neighborhoods in Chicago and other major cities that have similar developments that offer a very pleasing ambiance. He said that by combining that approach in the rear with the preservation of the open space on Ridge, it would help maintain the landmark status of the Dryden Mansion. Bill Schwimmer asked what kind of controls is in place to ensure that what is proposed is what is actually built. He said that the potential subdivision of the Iand into sixteen single family homes was misleading, because it does not take into account the Preservation Commission Special Meeting June l 1, 2003 Page io requirements to maintain Iandmari: status of that building and the sight Iine from Ridge Avenue. He said that combining the sight line requirement, the R-1 requirement, much fewer single-family horses would be actually allowed on the property. He said that it was important that the R-1 zoning and the landmark status be maintained. In response to the question from fir. Schw•immer, fir. Ruiz said that the Building Division takes care of building inspections and certificates of occupancy. Ultimately, the applicant has the responsibility to build as submitted. Mr. Ruiz said that he reviews building permit applications to make sure that the plans are substantially the same as those approved by the Commission, unless a change is required to address a building code issue. In response to a question from the audience Mr. Murray said that there are 34 parking spaces including the garages. He said that they have shown three spaces over the existing drive as a means to accommodate some visitors, but there are some 25 additional spaces that they have to be restricted by a condominium or landlord association requirements for temporary service and visitors. Those 25 spaces are in front of the garage doors of the various multi -unit buildings, and on the drive area. The calculation is approximately 1.2 parking spaces per unit or 24 parking spaces for visitors. The non -official response from the Unitarian Church was because of the nature of their schedules and some construction work. He said that they should not rely upon the capacity of that parcel to provide any visitor parking for the residences, and they do not intend to do so. Mr. Murray said that the driveways are 18% 6" wide on Asbury, and 10% 6" on Ridge. It is their intention that the Ridge driveway be right turn inbound, and right turn outbound. The driveway could not be widened in part due to the nature of Ridge Avenue, the grade separation between the sidewalk space and the road surface, as well as the presence of the stonewall on either side. Because this is a protected roadway, it was their understanding that the Traffic Department would not recommend its expansion. Betty Kaplan said that she represented the synagogue across the street on Dempster. She said that they have a problem with traffic going through their property trying to avoid Demspter Street during peak hours. Mr. Murray said that they will give that issue a serious consideration and that the City's traffic engineer would also address it. Mr. Niazmand noted that the District 65 employees used to park in the Unitarian Church parking lot. Mr. Murray said that part of the driveway going to a particular point of the existing properties would not be available to the development. That part of the driveway has to be utilized for storm water detention and movement. Mr. Murray also pointed out that the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council and the City Council itself would also review the proposed planned development, and ultimately either adopted or rejected. He said that there would be plenty of opportunity [for discussion] in that forum as well. At this time Mr. Ruiz asked Arthur Alterson, Assistant Director for Zoning, if the property was consolidated into one lot under the planned development, what would be the Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page t t role of the Commission as far as their advisory review on consolidation of the lot. He noted that the Commission in the past conducted advisory review on subdivision and consolidation, but those were not part of a planned development. Mr. Murray said that there are three separate legally described parcels that were consolidated by the ownership, but not by the zoning or building sense. .1vlr. Alterson said that he would need to look at the Preservation Ordinance to determine if the Commission has jurisdiction over consolidation. In State Statute there is not such thing as a consolidation. There are many counties in Illinois, where the County Recorder will not even accept a plat of consolidation, because such action is not recognized in the State Statute. However, divisions of lots are covered. Mr. Murray said that not recognizing consolidations is because the County turned it into one lot subdivision that includes the consolidation of several parcels. Mr. Ruiz asked if presumably there is a Iot consolidation, at what point the Commission should considered it, at this level or at the planned development stage. Mr. Alterson said that he could only guess that the developer is going to look for a plat approval in the planned development process. Before the City Council accepts the planned consolidation, the Commission should reN7ew it. Karen Bauer from the audience said that the neighbors did not have the opportunity to comment on a [detached] single-family development. She said that all that she saw was of high quality, but she had a problem believing that the proposed development is complementary with the environment. She said that she read all the preservation guidelines, and the environment is very important. She asked could not be possible to remove one of the three -unit buildings and develop in a large lot a big house and sell it for 5900,000. Mr. Murray said that the proposed homes are 4,500 square feet. They would cost in excess of $300,000 each to construct. Ms. Bauer said that then why not make higher end large homes on larger lots in a historic venue and still make it financially feasible. Mr. Niazmand said that in the case of the mansion, it is a 19,000 square foot house. He did not know how many buyers he could find for the mansion. He did not know how many buyers he could find for 6,000 or 7,000 square feet for the new homes. The coach house with the basement included is 9,000 square feet. Mr. Niazmand said that it have been much easier to subdivide the lot for detached single family homes and not have to go through a planned development. That type of development would not be financially feasible if the front [Ridge Avenue] had to be left opened. Anne Dienner said that the Lohr Estate on the northeast corner of Greenwood and Ridge was considerably cut up to build small buildings around the main building. It is an enclave that some people like and other people do not care for it. The Lohr Estate is not opened, but seclude and compact. She said that she has attended the previous sessions in which many people said that building out on Ridge was not desirable because it spoils the view of the mansion. She said the property is too difficult to deal with and the mansion is too exquisite to not take care of it and make use of it. Ms. Dienner said that there were many houses on the property that could start to look like the Lohr Estate or the Patten Estate on Greenwood and Lake. She said that something has to be done with the Presmation Commission Special Meeting June 1 1, 2003 Page 12 property, but she did not think that single-family houses would do it. Mr. Ruiz asked Mr. Naizmand what would be the chances of building a 2-unit structure on Asbury and Dempster, instead of the a three -unit structure. Mr. Niazmand said that he had been advised by lAr. Murray not to discuss economics. He said that when he bought the property he was never told that he must leave the Dempster side open. He understood that the only side to leave open was the Ridge side. fir. Niazmand said at this moment and without contingencies lie will be Iucky to make 94'0 over two years with the numbers he has. If he were to cut down [the number of units] he would not have a chance to make money, or sell it to somebody else. Brad White from the audience congratulated the developers, He said that this is a very difficult piece of property to deal with and both meet the preservationists and the development community. He said that it seemed that the developer did a lot of balancing and put attention to the design. From the site plan standpoint and trying to maintain what is historic on the site, the developer did a good job. He would like to sec that the buildings on Dempster are further moved west, although he understands the attempts to help the Asbury side. He said that he appreciated the challenges the developer has with the site. He said he looked forward to the Commission's decision. Commission's Findings 1314 Ridge Avenue - Restoration of the Dryden Mansion At this time the Commission began its discussion about the restoration of the mansion. At the request of Mr. Gerson, Mr. Prestangen summarized the changes to the south facade of the mansion to include: removal of a window and cutting the sill out, and providing a new door. On the west facade, the existing set of stairs going to a blank wall would be removed. The windows would be restored, and the clay roof tiles would be removed and relayed. Damaged tiles would be replaced with same tile from a reserved of original tiles. The brick would be cleaned and re -pointed. Ms. Brugliera said that the standards for review of alteration that apply to the restoration of the mansion are 1, 2, 4, 5, G, and 7. Ms. Gardner moved that the Commission approve the alterations to 1314 Ridge Avenue, for replacing a window to a door, removing some stairs [leading to nowhere], restoration of the roofs, repair of fagades, and full tuckpointing work. The alterations meet standard 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 because of minimal alteration; the distinguishing original qualities would not be destroyed but enhanced. Also, they are respecting changes that may have taken place, they are not destroying stylistic distinctive features, they are going to repair rather than replace deteriorated architectural features, and where replacement is necessary, they are going to match the material being replaced, and they are going to apply the gentlest cleaning of the structure. Clint Funk seconded and amended the motion to include the restoration of the windows. Ms. Gardner amended her motion further to include the restoration of the windows, and that the motion is being made based Preservation Commission Special fleeting June 11, 2003 Page I3 on the testimony given in the meeting of April 2003. Clint Funk seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 abstention. 1311 Asbury Avenue - Restoration of Coach House Mr. Prestangen said that they are restoring the coach house, removing the loading dock on the cast repair the wall to match the existing conditions, the chiller on the front would be removed on the west side terrace. The terrace would be restored. The roof tiles would be remo%-cd and relayed. All fascias, brick tuckpointing, stone pointing, details, and existing windows would be repaired. Two existing doors on the west side would be repaired. The garage door on the east side will be replaced with a door of similar character. Mr. Prestangen said that there is the potential that a new window will be needed on the north wall of the coach house for light and vent. Chris Carey said that standards for review of alteration 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 applied. Ms. Gardner moved that the Commission approve the alterations to the coach house at 1311 Asbury Avenue. The alterations include removing the loading dock and the air conditioning units and chillers, the restoration of the roof, fascia, brick and windows. Also, approve the addition of a window on the north elevation to match existing windows. The alterations meet standards 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 because it requires minimal alteration, the distinguishing original qualities would not be destroyed, changes that have taken place are being respected, distinguishing and stylistic features are being treated with sensibility, they arc repairing rather than replacing deteriorated architectural features, and if replacement is necessary it would match the existing materials. Surface cleaning would be undertaken with the eentlest means as possible. Clint Funk seconded and amended the motion to include the addition of a door on the east side. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 7 ayes, i abstention. 1321 Asbury Avenue - Demolition Nis. Brugliera said that in the past the Commission approved the demolition of non- contributing structures, such as a house in the Ridge Historic District. The house was never demolished. Ms. Bruglicra said that there is question whether this house was moved from the Osborn Estate; regardless the building is a contributing structure. She said that she was concerned with setting precedent if the building is demolished. She noted that if the building is rejected for demolition, there is the Special Merit provision in the Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Brugliera cited section 2-9-12 of the Preservation Ordinance. She said that under that provision, the demolition of 1321 seems doable. Ms. Anne Earle from the audience said that the Commission would set a precedent if the building at 1321 Asbury were demolished. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission should adhere to the standards for review of demolition. if the proposed demolition meets the standards then it should be granted the certificate. Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Murray said that there is evidence that the structure was added in the area of the garage space. \ir. Murray said that the engineering report says that the rehabilitation of the structure is too expensive for what the structure remains to be. In their estimation they could not restore the property and turn it into a %table current updated residential structure. Susan Rundle asked about the stucco finish on the building. Mr. Thomas Prairie said that if one compares the quality of the mansion and the coach house with the building at 1321 Asbury, there is a difference. Carlos Ruiz suggested the applicant consult with the Illinois Historic Agency in regard to Environmental Review - Section 106, because the building is within a National Register property. Section 106 is triggered when any state or federal permits or funds are involved to undertake a project affecting a National Register landmark or historic district. Mary Brugliera said that standards for review of demolition 1, 2, 3, and 4 applied. The Commission discussed the standards for review of demolition. Barbara Gardner said that if the answer is "no" to the questions: whether the ESCCA building is too expensive to renovate or restore; or the building is of such uncommon design and to replicate it would be cost prohibitive - then the determination would lean more towards demolition. But, if the answer were "yes" - then the determination would lean towards not approving demolition. Ms. Gardner thought that the ESCCA building does not qualify under standard 1. She said that she has most difficulty with standards 2 (%vbether it contributes to the district as a whole) and 3 (whether its demolition would be contrary to the objectives of the district). Carlos Ruiz referred to the Preservation Ordinance sub -section 2-9-1 (G). Regarding this sub -section, ibis. Gardner said that if the Commission would let the ESCCA building be demolished, and because the Commission was encouraging the development of the property, so as to save the mansion, then the demolition of the ESCCA building would be feasible. Chris Carey said that sub -section 2-9-2 (G) gives the opportunity, in a case -by -case basis, to look at the overall picture in order to make a determination. Ms. Brugliera read the definition of contributing significance: "classification applied to an area, property, site or object within a district, signifying that it contributes generally to the qualities that got the district historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance as embodied in the criteria for designating a district. An area, property, site, or object can be contributing, even if it has been altered, as long as it maintains the character defined for the district." She noted that Jarvis Hunt was the architect and that in her opinion the ESCCA building is at least historically significant. Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page 15 Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the building at 1321 Asbury Avenue, in the grounds that it does not meet standard 1 (that it is of historic and architectural significance - that it would be detrimental to demolish it), standard 2 (that it contributes the historic and architectural character of the district as a whole, and it should be preserved), standard 3 (that it would be contrary to the purposes and objectives of the Preservation Ordinance, standard 4 (it is not of such uncommon design that it could be reproduced without great difficulty), and standard 5 did not apply. The motion failed for lack of a second. Abbie Willard said she would like to preface a new motion with two assumptions: First, on the fact that the building at 1321 Asbury Avenue is a contributing structure and in a historic district, as opposed to a landmark structure itself. Because its presence in the vicinity of landmark designated buildings, it affects the future of those landmark designated structures. Second, the building at 1321 Asbury Avenue has indeed been moved from its original site, and therefore, its integrity in the general Ridge Historic District, is at least in question. Given those two statements, Ms. Willard moved that the Commission recommend a certificate of appropriateness for demolition [for the building at 1321 Asbury Avenue] because, its demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest or the general welfare of the people of Evanston. And, that given the preface statement, the historic district, as a whole would not be harmed by the demolition, and given standard 4, the building is not of such uncommon design, that its loss would not create irreparable harm to the district, and to the City of Evanston. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 2 nays, I abstention. Mr. Niazmand said that his partner and he rehabilitated and renovated many vintage buildings for over twelve years. He said that if they could preserve the building at 1321 Asbury Avenue, they would. Ms. Gardner said for the record that her vote of "no" was in pan for emotional reasons. She said that the ESCCA building is the last remnant of the Osborn Estate. At this time, Nis. Brugliera moved to table the review of the proposed construction of new buildings on the site to June 17, 2003. Ms. Rundle seconded the motion. Discussion Carlos Ruiz said that the neighbors need 48 hours notice if the Commission decides to table the review of the proposed construction of the new buildings. Mr. Murray said that the announcement of tabling the Commission's review at this meeting to the next regular meeting was proper notice and that the Commission can continue matters from the public meeting to another public meeting. Ms. Gardner suggested the distribution of a flyer announcing that the Commission's deliberation would be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting could be used. Ms. Brugliera offered to distribute the flyer to the neighbors. She also said that the neighbors should be notified that there would not be additional public comment on the project. Preservation Commission Special Meeting June 11, 2003 Page 16 The Commission did not vote on Ms. Brugliera's original motion. Mary Brueliera then moved that the Commission continue deliberation on the 1314 Ridge Avenue project at the Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting of June 17, 2003. Barbara Gardner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 abstention. After taking care of additional business, Ms. Gardner moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PlannerfPresma ' oordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMINIISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 17, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Susan Rundle, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Droll, Michael Girard, and Thomas Prairie, OTHERS PRESENT: Marian Tweedie, Renee Sprogis Marhon, Patrick & Freda Grosrenaud, Susan Regan, William Ng, Anne Earle, Michael Niazmand, Scott E. Prestangen, and James T. Murray PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERAIINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. II. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1415 Judson Avenue (LSHD) - Replacement of existing windows on north and east elevations, removal of existing door and stairs on north elevation, remove existing screen porch And build a one-story frame addition at rear [Demolition/Construction/Alteration] Marian Tweedie, architect, presented plans for the replacement of existing windows on the north and east elevations, the removal of existing door and stairs on the north elevation, remove existing screen porch and construct a one-story frame addition at the rear of the house at 1415 Judson Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Tweedie said that they will use in the addition wood siding and stucco finish on the foundation to match the existing materials. The windows are casement windows in the back. Commission's Findings Evanston Preservation Commission June 17, 2003 -Minutes Page 2 Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for demolition are: 1) whether the property, structure or object is of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the city and the state, 2) whether the property, structure or object contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the District as a whole and should be preserved for the benefit of the people of the city and the state, 3) whether demolition of the property, structure or object would be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the applicable District, and 4) whether the property, structure or object is of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture, and/or material that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense. Chris Carey moved to approve the demolition of the porch at 1415 Judson as it does not conflict with the standards for demolition. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction are: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 16. Clint Funk moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a one- story addition at 1415 Judson Avenue, based on standards for construction: 1) height shall be visually compatible, 3) proportion of openings are visually related, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, 7) relationship of materials and texture, 8) roof shapes are visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related, 10) scale of a structure, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed, 15) wherever possible, new additions to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) in considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said the applicable standards for alteration: 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10. Clint Funk moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the existing windows on the north and east elevations, and removal of the existing door and stairs on the north elevation of the house at 1415 Judson Avenue, based on: 1) every reasonable effort is being made to minimize alterations, 2) the distinguishing character is not being destroyed, 3) all properties are recognized as products of their own time, 6) deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner if there were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 820 Sheridan Road (LSHD) - Reframe existing roof and raise the ridge height on second and third floors, reconfigure dormers and repair existing flat roofs above bays ]Alteration] Patrick & Freda Grosrenaud, owners, and Renee Sprogis Marhon, architect, presented plans to Evanston Preservation Commission June 17, 2003 - Minutes Page 3 reframe the existing roof and raise the ridge height on the second and third floors, reconfigure the dormers and repair the existing flat roofs above bays of the house at 820 Sheridan Road. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Sprogis Marhon showed pictures of the house and its neighbors at each side and a photo of the street block. The house was built around 1913. The second floor is sagging and they would like to reframe and raise the roof. Thev would also like to raise the ridge of the front dormer with a hip roof and raise the knee wall;, replace the vinyl siding With stucco, and replace the vinyl windows with wood casement windows. Commission's Findings Chris Carey said that the front dormer should have a gable roof rather than the hip roof. Anne Earle, Commission's Associate member, said that part of the richness of the historic district is that a house next to another house is not identical. The Commission discussed in depth the appropriateness of the proposed dormer with a hip roof. Ms. Sprogis Marhon said that the dormers on the north and south elevations have vinyl siding. They will also like to raise the height of the ridge on those dormers and remove the vinyl siding. The proposed south dormer is wider than the existing dormer. She said that in the City files there is a photo that shows double hung windows on the second floor front elevation. The Commission requested a rendering showing gable roofs over the dormers. Chris Carey suggested a mass model of the roof line. Ms. Sprogis Marhon agreed to come back with revised drawings. The Commission did not take any action on this project. 3. 731 Monticello Place (`EHD-NR) - Screen porch addition to rear [Zoning Variation only] Ms. Gardner said that 731 Monticello Place is in the Federal historic district, and it is not in a local historic district. Therefore the Commission does not have binding review over the appearance of the porch addition. The Commission has the opportunity to recommend or to not recommend the Zoning variation. Marion Tweedie of Rockwell Associates explained that the proposed screen porch addition that will require a zoning variance for the lot coverage from 35.48% to 37.4%. Susan Rundle reported that the house at 731 Monticello Place is not a landmark, but it is in the National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District. Standards that apply are A and C. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission recommend to approve the variation for the screened in porch on the east side of 731 Monticello because it meets standard A (it does not adversely affect the historical architecture of the historic district) and C (it would not be materially detrimental to the public safety and welfare, as it does not impose no more restrictions on the neighboring houses than the existing house does now). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Evanston Preservation Cora:..ss:on June 17. 2003 -?Minutes Page 4 4. 830 Sheridan Road (LSHD) - Demolition of existing attached garage and enclosed porch. Construction of attached three -car garage and one-story addition, Installation of nev.- windows on first and second floors [Demolition/Addition/Construction] Susan Regan, architect, pr-.--,,_nted plans to demolish an existing attached garage and enclosed porch and construct a tree -car garage and one-story addition, and installing new windows on the first and second floors of the house at 830 Sheridan Road. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District_ Ms. Regan said that the re-%ised drawings of the garage now show three individual garage doors. Barbara Gardner asked if the neighbors are aware of the proposed work. his. Regan said, yes. Susan Rundle said that the spacing of structures -,vill be altered with the three -car garage. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson that the applicable standards for the demolition of the garage are: I, 2, 3, and, 4. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 830 Sheridan, because: 1) the structure is not of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the city and the state, 2) the structure does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the District, 3) the demolition of the structure would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the applicable District, and 4) the structure is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture, and/or material that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. In regard to the demolition of the enclosed porch, Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards are: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Chris moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the patio and family room (enclosed porch), in that it does not conflict with standards for demolition 1, 2, 3, and 4. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission agreed to review the three -car garage and rear addition separately. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for the construction of the three -car garage are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, I5, and 16. Mr. Gerson said that he was concerned with the mass of the proposed garage. Clint Funk moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the garage at 830 Sheridan Road, based on standards: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of fagade, 3) the proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids, 5) rhythm and spacing, 7) the relationship of materials and texture, 8) the roof shapes, 10) the scale of the structure, 11) the direction expression of the garage's front elevation, 12) the distinguishing qualities and character are not being destroyed, 15) the addition can be removed in the future, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single style. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 2 nays. Evanston Prescmanon Commission June 17, 2003 - Mimitcs Page 5 Stan Gerson said that the standards for construction of the family room screen porch and the raised terrace on the west elevation are all applicable except for 9, 13, 14, and 17. Mr. Gerson moved to approve the construction of the family room, screen porch and raised terrace at 830 Sheridan Road, in that it meets standards: l) the height is compatible, 2) the proportion of the facade, as well as 3) the proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids, 5) the rhythm of the spacing with the other structures is compatible, 7) the relationship of materials and texture, 8) he roof shape, 10) the scale of the structure, 11) the directional expression of the structure, 12) the distinguishing original qualities arc not destroyed, 15) the addition can be removed and the original structure will be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural style. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Regan said that the house had most of its wood double hung windows replaced about ten years ago with Pella aluminum clad windows. She said that the handrail will be aluminum and the columns will be wrapped in aluminum. The other replacement windows are on the second floor of the existing two-story porch structure; these windows have been replaced with single pane tilt turns. The new windows are aluminum clad casement windows. Also, the existing brick and salvaged brick will be cleaned. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for alteration are: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10. Susan Regan said that rear screen porch has wood post clad in aluminum, the screen frames are also aluminum. Clint Funk moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alterations of the windows at 830 Sheridan Road, based on meeting standards: 1) every reasonable effort being made to minimize alterations, 2) the distinguishing character is not being destroyed, 3) the house is being recognized as products of their own time, 6) deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced, 7) the surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible, and 9) contemporary is not being discouraged. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays, 2 abstentions. At this time Barbara Gardner announced that the Commission will review New Business III. NEW BUSINESS 640 Church Street (L) - Application for Special Use from Type 1 to Type 2 Restaurant (Special Use-Adv1sory Review) William Ng, restaurant owner presented an application for Special Use from Type 1 to Type 2 Restaurant requesting the Commission's advisory review. The restaurant is located at 640 Church Street, an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Ng said that he is opening a restaurd= The Commission had previously approved the green awnings. Mr. Ng said that the restaurant is a take out Sushi restaurant. The inside has a counter for receiving orders. Commission's Findings Evanston Preservation Commission June 17, 2003 - Minutcs Page G Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the special use of the Sushi restaurant at 640 Church because it does not adver_ely affect the architecture of the landmark building, it is necessary to provide a recoverable return, and it will not be detrimental to the public health. Susan Regan seconded the motion. The motion passed. Votes: 7 ayes, 0 nays. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1314 Ridge Avenue/1311 and 1321 Asbury Avenue Continuation of the Commission's deliberation regarding the proposed development of 1314 Ridge Avenue, 13I1 and 1321 Asbury Avenue The proposed development includes the construction of eleven new attached single family residential units, the restoration and rehabilitation of the mansion at 1314 Ridge Avenue (with four units) and the coach house at 1311 Asbury Avenue (with two units), and the demolition of building at 1321 Asbury Avenue. Michael Niazmand, property owner; James T. Murray, attorney; and Scott Prestangen, architect were present. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission %vas in the deliberation phase for the proposal. Carlos Ruiz suggested that the Commission look at the standards for review to get started. Mary Brugliera said she was troubled with the three parking spaces on the front yard adjacent to the mansion and located on the driveway leading to Ridge Avenue. Susan Rundle concurred with Ms. Bruglicra. James ;Murray said that the parking spaces are meant to accommodate the potential of conflict between exit and entry traffic movement. Michael Niazmand said that they could impose a time limit for parking. Scott Prestangen said that with landscaping around the parking spaces, they might not be as noticeable. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission has not approved front yard parking spaces, in fact they are not allowed in an R-I district by the Zoning Ordinance. He said that if the planned development changes everything that is required in an R-1 district, the question is, would that be appropriate. Mr. Ruiz said that the bottom line in all the review process that the Commission has, is to determine whether or not the standards for review are met. He noted that the applicant is not requesting a zoning variation but something different [a planned development]. Mr. Ruiz corrected his previous statement regarding front yard parking spaces by saying that the Commission had recommended a zoning variance for front yard parking space on an existing driveway for a garage that was converted into a family room. Chris Carey said that the Commission approved the parking lot for Garret Seminary, a landmark building. He noted that the landmark designation includes the property. He said that this case is the same scenario, where not only the building, but the property itself is a landmark. ' Barbara Gardner asked about the length of the area that is being widened for parking spaces. Mr. Murray said the length is 20-feet or 27-Feet times 3. The width of the driveway is 10'-9". The depth of the parking spaces is 8-feet. The Commission discussed possible scenarios of how vehicular WE traffic would work with the three parking spaces on the driveway. Evanston Presrn`ation Commission Lune 17, 2003 -Minutes Page 7 Barbara Gardner asked how long the parking space would need to be if it is strictly a pass by. Mr. Murray said that the length would need to be for two cars. Mr. Ruiz asked about the current traffic pattern of the driveway. Mr. `turrav said that there are no restrictions. Mr. Niazmand said that his aim is not to allow people to park there but to allow traffic circulation. Stanley Gerson said that he thought that the initial plans showed and exit only. Mr. Murray said that he believed that no representation made that it would not be an in bound and out bound traffic flow. Commissioners thought that initially there was an exit only arrow on the plans. Mr. Ruiz said that even though vehicular traffic was not the purview of the Commission he wondered what would prevent someone from making a left turn onto Ridge Avenue. Susan Rundle said that a length and a half would be sufficient for allowing a pass by on the driveway. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission could study the photograph of the area and determine what the impact would be if any. ;41s. Gardner said that one could see the driveway, but the car will stick up above the driveway, she said that it was not the width as so much as it is what is used for. Chris Carey said that what Ms. Brugliera did not want to see was cars obstructing the %7ew of the landmark. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommends a passing lane of about the length of one car and a half be created in the front driveway, either by widening the entire driveway at that point or by making a slight off set, so that cars that might need passage in or out the driveway could do so. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Mr. Gerson amended the motion by adding that there will not be provision for parking. Ms. Brugliera accepted the amendment to her motion. Ms. Willard seconded the amendment to the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. At this point Barbara Gardner said that the Commission was ready to rc%icw the townhouses. Stanley Gerson said that standards for review of construction IS and 17 did not apply. The Commission discussed standard 17 regarding signs since Mr. Prestangen said that some signage will be part of the project. The Commission determined that signage will be reviewed separately when the design is completed. 1321 Asbury Avenue Susan Rundle said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) determined that 1321 Asbury Avenue should be rei iewed separately from the Dempster Street town homes under the standards for review of construction. Mr. Gardner asked about the rational about R&TA's determination. Ms. Rundle said that 1321 Asbury Avenue impacts the site in different ways. She also said that there might be different issues that people may have from one over the other. The Commission determined that the following standard for review of construction applied to 1321 Asbury Avenue: standards 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16. Regarding standard 9 (walls of continuity - landscape masses) Mary Brugliera asked if there was landscaping for 1321 Asbury Avenue. Mr. Murray said there are two existing maple trees in the vicinity of the northern property line. The plans shows the trees as being removed, but they had promised to the neighbors immediately north on Greenwood Street that they will make every effort to Evanston Preservation Commissior. June 17, 2003 - Minutes Page 8 preserve the trees. Ms. Brughera asked if there were any plans of adding landscaping along Asbury Avenue and the fence on the north side along the fence. Mr. Murray said that the trees shown on the north property lire off of Asbury Avenue are all new planting. Susan Rundle asked if the Commission was considering the proposed fence as part of the whole development and not reviewing the fence separately, based on standard 9. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission will review the fence as part of the whole development. fir. Gerson asked if the proposed fence was located north of the north drive with the same 6-feet in height. In regard to standard 2 (proportion of front fagade) Mr. Gerson asked if the Commission was considering the west fagade or the south fagade of 1321 Asbury Avenue. Ms. Gardner said that the west (one unit) and south facades (two units) are subject to standard 2. Mr. Ruiz asked if there was a formal entry from Asbury Avenue and two formal entries on the south elevation. Mr. Murray answered yes. Mr. Murray said that the height of the new building is 38'- 6" to the ridge of the roof, where as the mansion is 41'- 9" tail, and the coach is 30% 0" tall. Ms. Rundle asked about the actual height of the mansion's gable on the front elevation from the ground that sits on. Mr. Prestangcn said that the height of the front elevation is approximately 36'- 9". Mr. Ruiz asked how the height of new buildings relates to the height of properties across the street on Asbury. Mr. Prestangen said that they did not have the exact heights of all the buildings, but they vary from vxo and half stories to three stories. Mr. Prestangen also said that there is a church and synagogue across the street (Dempster Street). Mr. Ruiz said that he would like the Commission address the concerns from citizens expressed in previews meetings, even without photographs of the structures across the street. Ms. Brugliera said that the building at the northwest corner of Asbury and Dempster was very high. Mr. Ruiz said that the new building at 1321 Asbury was not the tallest, nor the shortest building on Asbury. Standard 1: its height is visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visible related. Straw poll: Seven commissioners found that the proposed building at 1321 Asbury Avenue met Carlos Ruiz expressed concerns about the west elevation of 1231 Asbury; he said that it did not read much as a front elevation. Mr. Prestangen said that the west elevation has different depths allowing different shadows. He also said that there is a parapet wall as shown on sheet 2. Mr. Prestangen said that there is a parapet wall that gives a lot of depth behind it. Also, there is a prominent element that does step forward and it really creates the focal point. e, Regarding the bricks, Mr. Prestangen said that they are proposing a common bond with every 5 course getting a stretcher. Susan Rundle said that there were no windows on the upper level. Mr. Prestangen said that there are some windows on the south fagade, although Mr. Niazmand will not be Opposed to introducing some windows on the upper level of the west elevation. Evanston Preservation Conunission June 17, 2D03 - Minutes Page 9 Carlos Ruiz said that maybe by adding a treatment of the cursing of the brick or adding an entablature that would be more in the scale of the building as a whole would improve the Nvest elevation on Asbury Avenue. Mr. Niazmand agreed to make the suggested modifications. Mr. asked if there was any capping above the parapet wall at the balconies. Mr. Prestangen said that there will be Renaissance Stone. A discussion ensued regarding the four elevations of the proposed building for clarification. Mr. Prestangen said that because this building was unique, the principal entries to the building are on the south elevation. Chris Carey said that it appeared that the other formal entries are in the back yard. Mr. Prestangen said that they really are in this particular instance. He said that the Asbury Avenue building does have a more elaborate backside. Ms. Gardner clarified that on the Asbury Avenue building the north and south elevations are the opposite elevations on the Dempster Street building (at the corner of Asbury Avenue). Susan Rundle said that having two buildings with the same architecture was a missed opportunity. She said maybe people on Asbury Avenue will be happier to have a different house. She said how appropriate is to take the same house and flipped it for two totally different sites. Chris Carey said that the formal entries on Dempster Street are accessible from the sidewalk, but the formal entries on the Asbury building are facing the back yard. He said that it seemed inappropriate to have a formal fat ade facing the backyard and not being accessible from the street. Mr. Niazmand said that initially they were told not to treat Dempster Street as a backyard. The buildings on Dempster have a double face where there is no front and back. He said that for the building on Asbury Avenue, he did not want the neighbor to the north to look at the back of the building. Standard 2: Proportion of front fagade. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners found that the proposed building at 1321 Asbury met standard Standard 3: Proportion of openings. No discussion took place or comments were made regarding standard 3. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners found that the proposed building at 1321 Asbury met standard 3: Proportion of openings. Standards 4: Rhythm of solid to voids in front facades. No discussion took place or comments were made regarding standard 4. Straw Poll: Six Commissioners found that the proposed building at 1321 Asbury met standard 4: Proportion of openings. One Commissioner voted against. Standard 5: Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets Straw poll: Mary Brugliera said that there was separation between the two houses on Greenwood Street and the coach house on Asbury Avenue. 7 Commissioners found that the proposed building at 1321 Asbury met standard 5. Evanston Preservation Commission June 17, 2003 - Minutes Page 10 Abbie Willard asked why 1231 Asbury was recessed further than the coach house. Mr. Prestangen said that the coach house is too close to the street. The additional recess for the new building was in response to the neighbors who wanted more space. Standard 6: Rh5ihm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections, Ms. Gardner asked where is the new building in relationship the adjacent house and the coach house, and its relationship to the sidewalk. It Iooks Iike that the proposed building sits further back from the street than the coach house. 1t also looks like that is in a par with the house north of it. Abbie Willard asked why 1231 Asbury was recessed further than the coach house. Mr. Prestangen said that the additional recess was in response to the neighbors who wanted more space. Standard 7: Relationship of materials and texture. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners believed that the project met standard 7 with the caveat that a Flemish bond be utilized for the brick. Standard 8: Roof shapes. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners voted that the proposed building met standard 8. Standard 9: Walls of continuity. Susan Rundle said she was not positive that a 6-foot high fence was compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. She said that there are the historic fences from old mansions that are works of art and magnificent. She said that most of the houses in the neighborhood do not have 6-foot high fences. Mary Brugliera asked Anne Earle from the audience if she knew that a wrought iron fence was in place of the existing chain link fence. Ms. Earle said that she did not know, but that the chain link fence was erected in the 1930s initially without a permit prompted by the Lindberg's child kidnapping. It was noted that currently there is no fence on Ridge Avenue or on Asbury Avenue. Barbara Gardner said that the issue was about the fence was about the height of the proposed fence. Another concern was raised the height of the proposed fence on the side and rear yards. Also, Commissioners discussed about what fences were typically approved in terms of material, height and location. Carlos Ruiz said that he too was concerned about the proposed 6-foot high fence. He noted that privacy is an important consideration, but fences provide a visual delineation of privacy. He said that there are 2-foot high fences in the Lakeshore Historic District that provide a sense of privacy. Mr. Ruiz said that he was still confused about what the rear yard is and what the front Evanston Preservation Commission June 17, 2003 - Minutes Page 1 t yard along Dempster Street is. He asked what would prevent someone from leaving playground equipment on the rear yard facing Dempster Street. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission had said that they did mot want playground equipment on Dempster Street and that it was understood that the bylaws of the condominium association will not allow playground equipment on Dempster Street. Chris Carey said that the Commission was still discussing the Asbury Avenue portion of the proposal. He said that he was talking about lowering the fence on Asbury Avenue, but regarding the back side or the parking lot side he would keep the fence 6-feet high. Then when there is signage on the driveways the fence should be brought up to 5-feet high from 4-feet. Mr. Carey said that a 6-foot high fence gives a sense of a fortress and creates a perimeter that seems exclusionary. Barbara Gardner said that one of the criticisms of Laura Park is the feeling of a gated community. She asked if the Commission wants to create that perception. Chris Carey said, no. Ms Brugliera said that the fence could be 4' high on Asbury Avenue, 6' high on the parking lot and the fence could rise to 5' high at the two driveways and 6' high on Dempster. Ms. Gardner said that the front yard fences should be the same height all around, namely 4' high. Mr. Ruiz said that entry gates could be highlighted with higher gates. Ms. Gardner said that the fence post would be already high. Straw Poll: Ms. Gardner asked if the Commission were to say that the height of the fences along the street would be 4' Nvould Commissioners determine that standard 9 would be met. Seven Commissioners said yes. Standard 10: Scale of a structure. Stanley Gerson said that the proposed building does meet all the conditions in relation to the other buildings on the site. He asked about the buildings across the street. Mr. Gerson said that the standard 10 of construction applies when adding something to an existing structure. He said that standard 10 does not apply for something new. He added that for him it was very difficult to think about many of these standards in relation to new construction. Mary Brugliera disagreed and said that standard 10 applies for construction. Carlos Ruiz pointed out that for additions the standards for review of alteration do apply. Mr. Gerson asked about the houses across the street on Asbury Avenue. Ms. Gardner said that those houses were built in the late 1800s. She said that from that standpoint and compared to the mansion, those houses do not relate to the mansion either. Ms. Brugliera talked about the house at Greenwood Street and Asbury and how it relates to the end unit of 1321 Asbury Avenue. Mr. Gerson said that if the discussion was only about the houses on the site that he did not have a problem with that. Mr. Ruiz said that the applicant is trying to find a balance between the site, the structures on the site, and what one see within the context of the historic district. The mansion and the coach house are part of the fabric of everything, so in the context of things, do the conflict or do they complement [the district]. Mary Brugliera asked what would it an incompatible structure. Ms. Gardner said that there is an aluminum house on Main Street that Evanston Presmation Commission June 17, 2003 - Minutes Page 12 would be considered incompatible. Mr. Ruiz added that an incompatible structure would be one that perhaps does not have any projections, although the ESSCA building does not have any projections. Straw Poll: Six Commissioners concurred that the proposed structure met standard 10. One Commissioner did think so. Standard 11: Directional expression of front elevation. Chris Carey said that in the way the entry is on Asbury Avenue, there is an acknowledgement that there is an entry of Asbury Avenue. Mr. Ruiz said that the building has vertical expression %%ith the balcony where the main entry is, and the background of it is horizontal. He said that the verticality of the front elevation could be enhanced with a gable roof instead of a hip roof. On the other hand the hip roofs provide a book end effect for the side elevations, making the building look less imposing. Susan Rundle added that the reason why the Asbury and Dempster elevation are being reviewed separately is because what is good for Dempster might not be necessarily good for Asbury. In response to a comment from Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Bruglicra said that she did not think that the Commission had considered properties across the street in other cases when dealing with directional expression. Chris Carey said that the coach house does have a gable and utilizes brick as part of its directional expression. Ms. Brugliera argued that the Commission does not impose the style of a building. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission would not impose the style of the building. However, there are certain elements that should be incorporated into the design such as a gable roof. Mr. Ruiz said that the coach house with a gable roof gives it more the sense of a main entry. Scott Prestangen said that in Asbury Avenue they wanted to bring the scale of the new building down. He noted that the hip roof does that and it is a strong element of the design. He said that a gable roof might be more appropriate on the building at Ridge and Dempster. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners concluded that the proposed building met standard 11. Standard 12: The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. Chris Carey said that the distinguishing original qualities of the site are being destroyed, but that is inevitable. Susan Rundle concurred with Mr. Carey, and added the Commission could not say that the change is a bad thing. In response to a question from Ms. Brugliera, Ms. Rundle said that the original quality of the site is the big open space with a large house on it, and that would begone. Abbie Willard said that the open space on Ridge Avenue is being maintained. Mr. Carey said that his comment referred more to the Dempster Street side. Mr. Ruiz said that to build the new structure, existing building at 1321 Asbury has to be destroyed. Ms. Brugliera disagreed by saying that standard 12 refers to the site acid not the existing building. Straw Poll: Six Commissioners concluded that the new building met standard 12. One Commissioner did not agree. E%wilon Presmation Commission June 17, 2003 - %tinutes Page 13 Standards 13, 14, 15 and 17: The Commission determined that standards 13, 14, and 15 did not apply. Standard 16: In considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural stele or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Straw poll: Without further discussion, seven Commissioners concluded that the proposed building at 1321 Asbury met standard 16. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction at 1321 Asbury Avenue, as it meets standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Brugliera Amended her motion in regard to standard 7 to include the Flemish bond brick pattern [consisting of headers and stretchers that are laid alternately]. Also, the height of the fence at every section is to be 4', except in the back by the parking lot. Clint Funk seconded the amendment to the motion. Chris Carey further amended the motion to allow a 4' high fence along Asbury Avenue, and to increase the height to Y at the driveway. Clint Funk seconded Mr. Carey's amendment. The motion passed unanimously as amended. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Dryden Estate - Dempster Town homes The Commission reviewed the proposed three buildings on Dempster Street. Barbara Gardner said that with the previous review it should be easier to go through the standards for review. Standard 1: Height. No additional discussion ensued. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners determined that the proposed three buildings met standard 1. Standard 2: Proportion of front facades. No additional discussion ensued. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners believed that the proposed three buildings met standard 2. Standard 3: Proportion of openings. No additional discussion ensued. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners believed that the proposed three buildings met standard 3. Standards 4: Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. No additional discussion ensued. Straw Poll: Six Commissioners believed that the proposed three buildings met standard 4. One Commissioner did not. Standard 5: Rhythm of spacing and structures on stntm — -- Carlos Ruiz asked the distance between the proposed buildings on Dempster Street. Scott Prestangen said the distance is 12'. Clint Funk asked to identify the elevations between buildings Evanston Preservation Commission June 17, 2003 - Minutes Page 14 and at the end of Asbury Avenue and Ridge Avenue. Mr. Prestangen referred to the drawings and showed the respective elevations. Straw Poll: Six Commissioners indicated that the proposed buildings on Dempster Street met standard 5. One Commissioner did not. Standard 5: Rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections. Ms. Gardner said that for that particular block there is nothing there except for the parking lot across the street. Straw Poll: Six Commissioners indicated that the proposed buildings on Dempster Street met standard G. One Commissioner did not. Standard 7: Relationship of materials and texture. Carlos Ruiz asked about the type of windows. Scott Prestangen said that the proposed windows are wood with aluminum clad with simulated di%,idcd lights and with a spacing bar in between the glass. Mr. Ruiz asked if aluminum clad windows are compatible with the mansion's all wood windows. Chris Carey asked if there was a molding that goes around the windows. Mr. Prestangen answered no. Mary Brugliera referred to the apartment building on Lake Street and Oak Avenue and asked about the visual compatibility. Mr. Ruiz said that they had proposed a clad window, but the replacement was in kind with all wood windows. He said that the window replacement was for an existing building, whereas the proposed clad windows arc for new buildings. Mr. Prestangen said they would like to think of adding a brick mold to the windows. Mr. Niazmand said that he would like the mansion to be the focal point of the site. Ms. Brugliera said that to her the wood aluminum clad windows were not a problem because the new buildings are not a carbon copy of the mansion. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners indicated that the proposed buildings met standard 7 with the wood aluminum clad windows. Standard 8: Roof shapes. Ms. Gardner asked if the Commission would prefer at the end building a roof gable facing Ridge Avenue. Mr. Carey said that in his view the new buildings should be distinctive and they are not supposed to match the mansion. Straw Poll: Seven Commissioners concluded that the proposed buildings met standard 8 as proposed. Commissioners expressed no concerns if the architect would like to explore the gable roof on Ridge Avenue. Standard 9: Walls of continuity. Straw roll: Susan Rundle asked if the Commission was review the 4' wrought iron fence on Dempster and Asbury. Ms. Gardner said, yes. Six commissioners concluded that the proposed 4' high wrought iron fence, as revised, met standard 9. One commissioner had mix conclusion. Evanston Preservation Commission June 17, 2003 -Minutes Page 15 Standard 10: Scale of a structure. Stan Gerson said that size and mass of the new structure~= a= not compatible with the properties on Dempster Street. He appreciated what was presentee. but he could not vote yes on standard 10. his. Gardner mentioned the Myron Hunt house on Ridge across the street, that building is setback for at least 150 feet. The building has three stores a::d a full attic. Mr. Gerson said that buildine has some variation. Straw poll: 3 commissioners concluded that the proposLv.d buildings on Dempster met standard 10. 4 commissioners concluded that standard 10 was n.:,t me - Standard 11: Directional expression of front elevation. Straw poll: 6 Commissioners concluded that standard 1 I was met. 1 Commissioner did not. Standard 12: The original qualities or character of a prcnerty. structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. Straw poll: Susan Rundle said this standard was an issue for her. Mary Brugliera said that the development it does not destroy [the site or landmarks nuildyngsj, but is does change it. Susan Rundle referred to a photo of the mansion behind som: trees. and said that if the townhouses are superimposed on top of that, it is a total change. his. Brugliera described the characteristics of the site to further assist the commission in determinins the impact of the townhouses on the property. 2 commissioners concluded that standard I _ was met. 5 commissioners did not. The commission concluded that standards 13, 14, 15, =d 17 did not apply. Standard 16: In considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Straw poll: Seven Commissioners concluded that standard 16 was met. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission had determined that standards for review of construction 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 16 were met. Standards 10 and 12 were not. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of a::,progriateness for the Dempster town houses at 1314 Ridge, in that they meet standards 1, 2. 3, .1r, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (does not meet standard 10 nor 12). It does meet standard 11. Standards 13, 1-, and 15 are not applicable. It meets standard 16 and 17 is not applicable. Abbie Willard wonded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 2 nays. Mary Brugliera said that at least one commissioner if not more should attend the Plan Commission meeting. She requested that commissioners be put in the mailing list for the Plan Commission's agenda. E%mn_sram Preservation Commission June 17. 20D3 -Minutes Page 16 N'. ADdOUPMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planncr/Prese ' n Coordinator EVA.NSTON PRESERV ATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, Jule 15, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2I00 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Susan Rundle, and Thomas Prairie MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Droll, ?Michael Girard, and, Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Renee Sprogis Marhon, Patrick & Freda Grosrenaud, Joseph Mycyk, Gary DeStefano, Josh Glazier, Leslie Glazier, Michael Ramsey, Brian Kittle, Anne McGuire, Mary Gleason, Ellen GalIand, Eric Janssen, Ann & Avery Pham, and Mary McWilliams. PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERIMINATION OF QUORUM II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 820 Sheridan Road (LSHD) - Reframe existing roof and raise the ridge height on second and third floors, reconfigure dormers and repair existing flat roofs above bays [Alteration] Renee Sprogis Marhon, architect presented revised drawings to reframe the existing roof and raise the ridge height on second and third floors, reconfigure dormers and repair existing flat roofs above bays on the house at 820 Sheridan Road. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Sprogis Marhon said that the revised dormers showed the gable roof. The dormers were finished with stucco and they v ill be replaced the same. She also presented amass model of the existing and the proposed raised roof and new dormers. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the proposed new windows. Ms. Sprogis Marhon said that on the side elevations are double hung and the muntin pattern are not the same on the existing windows. The proposed new windows for the dormers are casement windows. Evanston Presmation Commission July I5, 2003 -- Minutes Page 2 Susan Rundle said that the applicable for alteration are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. Susan moved to approve the alteration of raising the roof height 2' and reconfiguration of the dormers and change material to stucco at 820 Sheridan Road because it meets standards: 1) they are asking minimal alteration, 2) the original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the alterations are not create an earlier appearance, 4) changes that took place over time are not significant on their own right, 5) the stylistic features were treated with sensitivity and were duplicated and made larger, 6) the deteriorated architectural features will be repaired, such as the stucco on the dormers, and 10) the roof could be brought back to the way it was originally built. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 111. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1, 2750 Broadway Avenue (Landman:) - Window replacement and infill of window openings with stucco finish jAlteration) Joseph A4ycyk, architect, presented plans for window replacement and infill window openings with stucco finish on the south fagade of the building at 2759 Broadway Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Mycyk said that are replacing some double hung windows and some other double hung to awning type windows. The new windows will be all wood painted windows not clad as shown on the plans. Mr. Mycyk said that the west elevation has narrow windows with trim. On the second floor west elevation, four windows will be replaced with double hung wood windows, on the south elevation, two windows will be replaced and infilling the middle window. On the north elevation they will replace in the bedroom the three double hung windows with three awning windows and filling in the rest of the window openings with stucco. The large double hung window in the bathroom on the north elevation will be replaced with an awning window and infill the window opening with stucco. The trim kvill match the existing trim. The house already has some awning windows. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie was concerned about the different width of the trim around the windows. Susan Rundle said that the single windows seem to be atypical; such is the case on the south elevation that is proposed to change from three to two windows. Mary Brugliera said that the closet window that not seemed typical for that type of house. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1 through 6, 9 and 10. Barbara Gardner said that on the south elevation second floor retain the three windows, on the north elevation three awning windows have the same trim work, and with the strong suggestion to replace the glass block. Also, for the other second floor windows being replaced have the same wide trim. Stan Gerson moved that the Commission approve the replacement of windows on the north, south and the west facades and to infill the existing window on the south fagade. On the south, Evanston Preservation Commission July 15, 2003 — Minutes Page 3 the middle window not to be removed, that the second floor windows on the north have the same trim as existing on the south fagade. The alteration meet standards: 1) require minimal alteration of the property, 2) the original distinguishing qualities of the structure are not destroyed, 3) all the changes on the structure are recognized as products of their own time, 4) changes are evidence of the house's history, 5) stylistics features of the structure are treated with sensitivity, 6) where possible deteriorated architectural features are being repaired, 9) no contemporary design is being proposed, and 10) the alterations could be removed if needed. Mary Brugliera suggested having the current glass block window match the other bathroom window. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1119 Judson (LSIiD) — Demolition of previous addition, new addition to rear, and alteration of the side of the home [ alteration/Addition[Demolition] Gary DeStcfano, owner, presented the demolition of an existing rehab done in the 1970s to restore the current roof line and character of the building. There is wood siding under the aluminum siding. The roof will be restore and reconstruct the new addition with the original materials such as the cedar siding with 5" reveal. The house at 1119 Judson is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. DeStefano said that the nc%v windows are aluminum clad windows with trim to match the existing. He said that the former owners of the house lived there for 45 years. The current addition and alterations done to the house over the years are not sympathetic to the original. The side stairs on the front porch are an alteration to the house. Mr. DeStcfano said that he will revise the plans to make a clearer distinction between the old and the new; particularly on the north elevation. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that all five standards for demolition applied. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the demolition of the existing rear addition at 1119 Judson in that it does conflict with any of the standards for demolition. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the alteration of the side stairs at 1119 Judson as it meets standards: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the original structure, 2) original qualities or character of the house will not be destroyed, 3) distinctive architectural features are not being removed, A) it does not seek to create an earlier style, 5) the distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 10) the alterations could be brought back to the original. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan said the applicable standards for construction of the rear addition at 1119 Judson are: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Clint Funk moved to approve the rear addition as meets standards: 1) height being compatible, 3) the proportion of openings are compatible width adjacent properties, 5) the rhythm of spacing on the street is compatible, 7) relationship of materials and Evanston Preservation Commission Juty 15, 2003 — .%iinu:--s Page 4 textures is matching the existing, 8) roof shape is visually compatible, 10) the scale of the structure is compliariL 12) the distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) if the addition were to be removed, the original integrity will remain, and I6) the Commission is not requiring a single architectural style. Chris Carey seconded. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Chris Carey clarified that there will be a V inset in the north and south elevations. Carlos Ruiz said that the garage drawings could go directly to him for review and approval. 3. 1518 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Raise rootline four feet on second floor of existing rear addition, install two dormers to existing addition, and add four wood windows to first floor of home [Alteration] Josh Glazier, and Leslie Glazier, owners, and Michael Ramsey, architect, presented plans to raise the roofline 4' on the existing two-story addition, install three dormers to the existing addition and add four wood windows to the first floor of the house at 1518 Judson Avenue. The House is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Glazier said there are two groups of proposed changes: on the first floor; north porch convert the single window to a two double hung clad window and same on the south front porch. At the rear addition there will be a new window in the kitchen looking the back yard. On the second floor on the rear of the house there will be a new bathroom; they will raise the roof of the addition about 4'. The addition on the northwest corner of the house is currently is 8" within the 5' side yard setback. Mr. Glazier said that the neighbor to the south is aware about the proposed work and he does is not opposed to the work. They will also construct dormers over the addition. Barbara Gardner suggested to find out what is under the aluminum siding and do the addition with that material with the hope that in the future the aluminum siding will be removed. Mr. Glazier said that he will accommodate to that suggestion. Carlos Ruiz said that if the project needs a zoning variance for the side yard setback then the applicant will need to come back to the Commission for advisory review on the zoning variance. Mr. Glazier said that if they need a variance they will come back to the Commission. Commission Findings: Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1 through 5, 9, and 10. Mr. Glazier said that most of the trim is clad, some of the windows on the house arc clad, and some are painted wood windows. Mr. Ruiz said that the one new window on the north elevation seems to be clad windows whereas the remaining windows are wood. Mr. Glazier said that his intention is to match the existing. Susan Rundle moved to approve the alterations to 1518 Judson with the condition that the addition will be finished in clapboard to match the material under the aluminum siding, and that the new windows will be painted or stained wood windows, as they will meet standards: 1) every reasonable effort was made to minimize alteration to the property, 2) the distinguishing original character and qualities are not destroyed, 3) the structures and alterations are recognized as Evanston Presmadon Commission July 15, 2003 —Minutes Page 5 products of their mm time it does not seek to create rn earlier appearance, 4) the addition does acquire significance on its right, 5) the distinctive stylistic features have been treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design has not been discouraged, 10) the alterations could be removed. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: ; ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1856 Orrington (Landmark/NEHD) — Replacement of existing windows [Alteration) Brian Kittle, of Northwestern University, presented plans to replace dilapidated single pane steel windows %%ith aluminum clad windows on the building at 1856 Orrington Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Kittle showed pictures of the building and said that is not visible from the street but from inside the quadrangle. Chris Carey said that there are already on the building replacement windows with the muntins between the panes of glass. Mary Brugliera said that the building to the south has steel windows restored of replaced. 'pis. Brugliera said that she found the proposed windows unacceptable. Mr. Kittle said that the proposed windows have applied muntins on the exterior only. Mr. Kittle said that it is the responsibility of the fraternities and sororities the maintenance of buildings. He thought that window replacements go usually through the University. Most of the new windows are Traco. Mr. Ruiz believed that some of the window replacements on some of the buildings were done without the Preservation Commission review. Mary Brugliera asked if the windows could be restored or replaced with steel windows. Ms. Brugliera said that this building is an important landmark designed by James Gallo Rogers, Mr. Kittle said that the cost of steel windows is high plus there is no thermo breaks. Ms. BrugIiera asked about interior storm windows. Barbara Gardner said that the Rockwood Apartments has restored steel windows. Carlos Ruiz suggested Mr. Kittle to provide the cost estimates for restoration. Mr. Kittle said that their experience is that restoration is expensive and it does not give any insulation value. Hope Windows makes a steel windott• u-ith 1.5 times more expensive than Traco. Susan said that Crittall Windows makes an insulated steel window. Mr. Kittle said that the second floor windows will be double hung windows. Ms. Garner said that the original windows are casement steel windows with a transom above. The proposed windows are double hung Andows. Ms Gardner said that she would like to see cost estimates for restoration. Mr. Carey said that if it is possible to respect at least the design integrity of what is there. Mr. Kittle agreed to come back to the Commission with the requested information. 5. 1213 Oak Avenue (RHD) - Alterations to the west and south elevations Including new bay window and enclosure of southern most porch (Alteration/Zoning Variation] Anne McGuire, architect, and Mary Gleason, owner, presented plans for alteration to the west and south elevations including a new bay window and the enclosure of the southern most porch of the house at 1213 Oak Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Evanston Preservation Commission July 15, 2003 — Minutes Pagc 6 Ms. McGuire said the house is very small; the alterations include a shallow protruded box bay window. They need a zoning variation for the bay window. The average setback on the street is 25.2', the house is Iess than 22' already; the bay is protruding 2'. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that standards for variation A and C apply for the proposed bay. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the zoning variance for the bay (protruding 2' into the front yard) at 1213 Oak, in that it meets standards: A) it is appropriate in the interest of the aesthetic integrity of the historic district, and C) it will not be detrimental to the public health. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1 through 5, 9 and 10. Carlos Ruiz asked if the neighbors were informed. Ms. McGuire said that will notify the neighbors. Ms. McGuire said that the house has vinyl siding; their intention in infilling the affected area the sheeting be setback, so that if the siding be remove, it will have the cladding in a flash plane. The windows have simple square casings with one over one double hung windows. Clint Funk moved to approve the bay window on the west elevation and the enclosure of the porch at 1213 Oak in that it meets standards: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property with minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 3) additions are recognized as products of their own time, 4) changes that have taken place through the course of time are not being affected, 5) the distinctive qualities of skilled craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the new structure could be removed. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 2000 Sheridan Road (NEHD) -- New concrete ramp located on the rear (west), new wood door in former window location, and signage directing visitors visible from the street [Alteration] Anne McGuire, architect, and Brian Kittle, of Northwestern University, presented plans for the installation of a new door in former window Iocation and new sign, and construction of a concrete accessibility ramp at the rear of the building at 2000 Sheridan Road. The building is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Ms. McGuire said that the entrance is on the Foster Street side and there is a handicapped parking space off the alley to the rear. The ramp is going out about 2V and will cut through an existing window opening that will have a new panel door. The railing for the ramp is pipe railing, and the ramp is concrete. Also, there is some landscaping and the trees will be retained. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10. Thomas Prairie moved to approved the addition of the concrete ramp to the building at 2000 Sheridan Road as meeting standards: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property with minimal alteration to the site, 2) distinguishing qualities or characters will not be affected, 3) it does not seek an earlier appearance, 5) it does not interfere with the skilled craftsmanship or Evanston Preservation Commission July 15, 2003 —Minutes Pace 7 character of the property, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the ramp could be removed in the future. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 707 Sheridan Road (Landmark/LSHD) — Demolition of existing garage and construction of new three -car garage in the rear, construction of a gazebo at the Lake front (Construction(Demolitioni Eric Janssen, owner, and Ellen Galland, architect, presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage, and the construction of a new garage at the rear of the house at 707 Sheridan Road. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Galland said that the garage location does not chance any views from the house to the north because of the existing brick wall. The garage has the column detailing of the house, the north side is up against the brick wall. The garage will have wood siding with copper roof. The gazebo also will have copper roof. Mr. Janssen said that the front and back porches will have shingles. The garage doors for the garage will be designer doors. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the standards for demolition apply, I through 5. Clint Funk moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 707 Sheridan Road based on standards: 1) its demolition is not going to be detrimental to the public health, 2) the garage does not contribute to the distinctive historical character, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the purpose or intent of the chapter or the objective of historic preservation, 4) its design is not unusual, and 5) the owner has plans to replace it. Stan Gerson seconded. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction of the garage are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 I4, 15, and 16. Mr. Janssen said that the vinyl windows are the ones removed from the house. Mr. Gerson moved to approve the construction of the garage at 707 Sheridan Road in that it meets standards: 1) the height is compatible with objects around it, 2) the front fagade is compatible with surrounding structures, 3) the same applies for the openings, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids viewed from the Lake is compatible with surrounding structures, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures on the street is compatible, 7) that the materials and texture are compatible with materials and texture of the house, 8) the same for the roof shapes, 10) the scale is proportional in regard to the main structure, 12) there are no original qualities since the garage is new, I4) is not a contemporary design, 15) it could be removed, and 16) the Commission is not imposing the requirement to use a specific architectural style. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay. Ellen Galland said the gazebo overlooks the Lake. The materials are cedar and copper roof. Clint Funk moved to approve the construction of the gazebo at 707 Sheridan based on: 1) the height being compatible, 2) its proportion of front fagade is appropriate, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids is appropriate, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures on the street is appropriate, 7) .R relationship—af materials and textures are appropriate, 8) the roof shape is appropriate, 10) the scale of the structure is appropriate, 11) the directional expression of the front elevation is appropriate, 12) distinguishing original qualities are not destroyed, and 16) the Commission is Evanston Preservation Commission July 15, 2003 — Minutes Page 8 not imposing a single architectural style. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 2949 Harrison Street (Landmark) — Five foot addition to attached garage on the north elevation [Alteration/Construction/Zoning Variation] Ann & Avery Pham, owners presented plans for a 5' addition to an attached garage on the north elevation of the house at 2949 Harrison Street. The house is an Evanston Landmark. The addition requires a major zoning variance. Avery Pham said the former owner is their neighbor and he is not opposed to their addition. Another neighbor could not be reached. The house is a legal non -conforming for lot coverage and the rear setback to the alley. The addition will require an additional variance on the side yard for a setback of 3' where 5' is required. The materials for the addition arc cedar siding. There are no changes to the east or south elevations. The changes will be on the north and west elevations. The addition is on the same plane as the existing house. The house is a 1937 Perkins & Will design. The proposed lot coverage is 34.5% and the proposed setback is 2.97', and the proposed garage from the rear property line is 20'. Commission's Findings In response to a question from Ms. Gardner, Mr. Pharr said that the garage will protrude 2'. The two -car garage has a 16' wide garage door. Ms. Gardner said that the addition represents to her a severe encroachment to the north lot line. She said that without knowing the neighbor's position she was reluctant to favor the variance. Ms. Pham said that there are tall trees that are 10' away and one can not see through the trees the garage, they had all the intention to contact the neighbor. The Commission discussed possibilities for the applicant for issuing a recommendation regarding the zoning variance. Chris Carey said that he visited the site and thought that the 5' addition to the elongated house looks out of scale. He suggested decreasing the addition to 4'. Thomas Prairie said that he was concerned about who unbalanced the garage door looks on the west elevation. Mr. Pharr said that he will center the location of the door if they reduce the addition to 4'. The Commission decided to review the construction of the addition first and if approved the issue their recommendation for the variance. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for the construction of the addition are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, I4, 15, and 16. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the construction of a 4' garage addition to the north with the garage door centered at 2949 Harrison Street in that meets standards: 1) the height is visually compatible, 3) the proportion of openings and the relationship of the,.vidth to height of windows and doors is visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which the building is visually related, 5) it is visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visually related, 7) the materials and texture of the facade are visually compatible with the Evanston Preservation Commission July 15, 2003 —Minutes Page 9 predominant materials used in the structures to which it is visually related, 8) the roof shape of the garage is visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related, 10) the scale, size and mass of the structures is appropriate, 12) original distinguishing qualities or character of a property, structure, or site will not be destroyed, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, I5) if the addition removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, I nay. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the variation for 2949 Harrison for the 4' garage addition in that it is: A) appropriate and it will affect the historic architecture or integrity of the Landmark, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to health, safety, or injurious to the property. Chris Carey seconded the motion. Discussion: Susan Rundle wondered if standard B applied in terms of recoverable rate of return. Ms. Gardner said that the variance would not provide the recoverable rate of return because somebody that will buy the house from the applicant whether has a second car garage or not. She said standard B does not apply. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. VII. CONINIENTS BY PUBLIC, CONIIIISSION NIENIBERS, STAFF Barbara Gardner informed the Commission that there is a proposed settlement of the law suit of Northwestern University against the City of Evanston. Ms. Gardner said that when she received the terms of the settlement she was told that the Commission could discuss it. Ms. Gardner said that that there were six counts. The Judge threw out the count that City did not have the right to establish a historic district. The Judge determined that Northwestern was treated no differently than any of the other home owners. He also established that including the houses in Sheridan Road, that was appropriate. The Judge established that the historic district was appropriate. Ms. Garner said the two counts left were: the count of animus by each and every alderman toward the University, and that Alderman Drummer tried to extort money from the University. Ms. Gardner listed the terms of the settlement: cutting from the district one contributing house on Emerson, west of Sheridan Road; all single houses on Shcridan Road, north of Foster, except of the first two houses. The house designed by Dwight Perkins, the Shield Catholic Center, one parking lot, one vacant lot, and three contributing houses on the north side of Colfax, between Orrington and Sheridan, are all excluded. One of these houses came in front of the Commission, and there are two other houses. This creates the door to Roycemore, which is believed Northwestern will be getting possession in 2005. All of the non-contributing property in the district will be cut including: Foster Walker, Bloomquist Gym, Transportation Center, Family Institute, and Searl Health Center. All Northwestern property excluded from the district will be exempted from any future binding review provisions passed by the City Council. Also, every Northwestern property east from Sheridan Road will be exempted from any future Site Plan Review and Appearance Committee Evanston Preservation Con=ission July 15, 2003 — Ntinutts Page 10 review. Current Landmark will still have to come in front of the Commission, but anything else would not. The settlement also includes not touching excluded property known as the green space on Foster Street for twenty years. Ms. Gardner said that what the proposed settlement does is to}zng with the historic district when the Judge said that historic district was legal. If the settlement is not accepted the law suit will most likely continue, which City attorneys say that the City has 95% to 99% chance of prevailing. tics. Brugliera said that if the lacy suit comes to an appeal it may be a whole new City Council. Mary McWilliams said that the proposed settlement sets a bad precedent for other zoning issues. She said that City Council discussed the settlement in executive session on Monday night; no vote has been taken yet. Ms. McWilliams said that she was invited by an Alderman to talk about it to as many people about it. Mr. Prairie said that the public perception is this law suit is costing a lot of money to the City for the legal fees and its eating into the City budget and some things might to be cut because of that. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Clint Funk: moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:20 p.m. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: ?ar�los D. Ruiznior Planner/Preserva o Coordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting . Minutes Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Michael Girard, Stanley Gerson, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Abbie Willard MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Gardner, and Stephen Droll OTHERS PRESENT: Norman Rubash, Nathan Kipnis, Pam Kendall, Brenda Pierce, Lloyd Gadau, Jeff Hickey, Annette Rehmke, Healy Rice, Jordan & Holly Schnoll, Henry Owen III, Ralph Bertrand, Charlotte Herzog, Jay Johnson, Steve Liska, Brian Kittle, David Wickwire, and Andrew Venamore PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Chris Carey, Vice -Chair, determined that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. if. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1333 Church Street (Landmark/RHD) - Construction of two -car garage [Constructionj, and corner lot fence [Construction/Fence Variation] Norman Rubash said that he was representing his son in law, James McAuley, the owner of 1333 Church Street. Mr. McAuley was out of State. hir. Rubash said the application spoke for itself and that he was available to answer questions. Regarding the pr2 osednew garage Mary Brugliem asked if the applicant had considered building a retaining wall Orr a driveway and a garage that would come out onto Wesley Avenue. Mr. Rubash said that the applicants had considered that option but there is a $10,000 additional cost and Wesley Avenue is full of parked cars. The garages of the houses across the street come Evanston Preservation Commission August 19, 2003 -Minutes Page 2 out onto Church Street. Ms. Brugliera asked about the required side yard setback on a corner lot. Michael Girard said that required setback was 5-feet. Nis. Bruglicra said that on that particular block there was no alley access for any of houses on the north side of Church Street. Mr. Gerson asked if there were driveways on the north side of that block on Church Street Mr. Rubash said that the house cast of 1333 Church Street had a dn'veway. Commission's Findings Ms. Brugliera said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee determined that standards for review of construction 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 applied for the construction of the new garage. Susan Rundle said that the garage gable on the south side had similar architectural vocabulan• to the gable on the house, but on the north side it does not. Mr. Rubash said that the north side is hardly visible, if at all. Ms. Rundle asked if the window on the north elevation would have muntins on it to match the existing window on the house. She asked if the garage door would have a trim as it occurs on all corner ends and the trim around windows and doors. Mr. Rubash said that he could not answer that question. Ms. Rundle said that the statement of significance of the house says that everything is trimmed out. Mr. Rubash said that additional trim would make it too cluttered. Chris Carey said that 4" of siding between the trim is fine. Mr. Thomas Prairie concurred. Mr. Carey said that the second -story windows on the front have a comer board, and then there is the casing on the window with clapboard in between. He said that there is a precedent for the trim. Michael Girard suggested moving the proposed garage further north. Mr. Rubash said that the back yard would be lost. Mr. Rubash said that the garage is set back further than the house next door. Mr. Carey asked if the applicants would be available to come to the Commission's meeting next month. He said that it was hard without the owners present to know what the design intent is. Susan Rundle asked if the plans had passed through zoning. Michael Girard said that the bay window is in violation of the 10' required separation between the new garage and the house. Carlos Ruiz said that the zoning analysis had been approved. Stan Gerson said that the east facade of the garage, facing the neighbor, is a blank wall. Mr. Rubash said that the neighboring house is also a blank wall. Ms. Brugliera said that the next door house has many windows on its west facade. Ms. Brugliera said that the Commission is in a bind when they cannot ask the owner any questions. Susan Rundle highlighted the relevance of the bay window on the east facade of the house as noted in the statement of significance. She said that the bay window is visible from Church Street, Ms. Brugliera moved to postpone the decision on the garage until the next meeting. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 2 nays. Carlos Ruiz asked if the Commission could give the applicant some feedback for the garage. Michael Girard said that the muntin pattern on the 'round' window should match the window on the front of the house, there should be a casing around the garage door, and the garage should be moved further back relative to front property line. In that regard, Staley Gerson emphasized that Evanston Presmation Commission August 19, 2003 -Minutes Page 3 the bay window is viewed from Church Street. Chris Carey said that the rear gable should be shingled to match the front cable on the garage. At this time, Abbie Willard moved that the Commission reconsider and review the [garage] tonight. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 abstention. The motion passed. Susan Rundle said that it looks like that the garage door is a flat panel door; she asked whether the door is made out of steel or wood. Mr. Rubash said that the garage door is wood and would be painted to match the house. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the garage as proposed with the following amendments: that the oval window in the south facing, gable end have muntin pattern to match the existing %vindow in the south gable [in the house], that the garage door be trimmed, and that the garage be set back from its proposed location further to the north, behind the line of the bay, and that the garage door be further clarified to Carlos Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz could render a decision on the garage door (material, texture pattern and style. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Discussion: Michael Girard said that proposed garage met standards [for review of construction]: 1) for height, 2) proportion of front facade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) for rhythm of solids to voids in front facades, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, 7) relationship from materials and textures, 8) roof shape, 10) scale of structures on the site, 11) directional expression of front elevation, 12) distinguishing original qualities or character of the property, 14) the Commission did not discourage contemporary design, 15) whenever possible new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that would not affect the integrity of the structure, and 16) the Commission shall not impose a requirement for a single use of architectural style. Mr. Carey called the question to vote for the approval of the garage with the four conditions previously stated. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, I nay. The Commission then proceeded to review the proposed fence. The plat of survey showed that there was fence along Wesley Avenue to the back of the house at some point. Mr. Rubash said that the proposed fence is consistent with the neighborhood. He said that the fence is being extended [along Wesley Avenue] for the protection of some basement windows. Ms. Brugliera said that she did not see how a 36" high opaque picket fence would prevent someone from jumping over the fence and going into the basement. Additional discussion ensued regarding the fence as to whether it was a true picket fence. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend to Zoning that the fence variation be granted for the Y-6" cedar picket fence, as shown in the drawing. This includes replacing the existing fence and then extending it to the south and west [of house] as shown on the diagram. Except that, if they follow the Commission's recommendation on the garage, the fence will be behind the garage [east side of house]. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion ensued as to whether the fence [on the east side of the house] should abut the rear E%-.mton Preservation Commission August 19, :003 -.'Minutes Page 3 northreast and northiwest comers of the earage or abut the front southeast and south/west comers of the garage. Carlos Ruiz clarified that there is a proposed gate between the house and the garage. Susan Rundle also said that the fence variation is only for the fence on the Wesley side. Mary Brugliera said that the standards for zoning, special uses and fence variations that apply are standards A and C. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay Finally, the Commission reviewed the installation of the fence. Ms. Brugliera said that standards of construction 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10 11, 14, 15, and 16 applied. Stanley Gerson said that he was concerned with the fence as proposed. He said that the fence would partially block the view of the bay on the west. He said that standard 12 did apply. Mr. Rubash said that there is a hill that is about 3-ft. to 3.541 high and also a foundation that is also 3-ft. to 3.5-it. The fence is only half of that height and it would not cause a visibility problem to that bay. Mary Brugliera said that having the fence stand in front of the rear line of the house troubled her. Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission approved the construction of the Y-6" high cedar picket fence at 1333 Church Street. The fence is to follow on the west line of the original fence, not extending to the south as shown in the drawing. The fence, with the stated conditions, meets standards for review of construction: 10 for height, 2) proportion of the front facade, 5) visually compatible with the structures and sites on the public way, 7) materials and textures are related, 9) walls on continuity, 10) the scale in relation to the property, 11) visual compatibility with the directional expression of the property, 12) the original qualities of the site and house arc not destroyed. Standards 14, 15, and 16 are advice to the Commission. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Discussion: Susan Rundle asked if the cedar fence would be left to age. Mr. Rubash did not know the answer. Nfs. Rundle asked if anyone had a concern about the rail going across the top of the fence. Mr. Rubash said that the old fence had a rail. Mr. Prairie said that extending, the fence on the side as proposed did not make any sense except as stated in the application for security reasons. However, he did not see a 42-inch high fence as keeping someone away. Mr. Rubash agreed but also said that the windows would not be exposed. Mr. Carey tailed the question for the vote of all of those in favor of the fence construction at 1333 Church Street, with the caveat that it only be built in the same location as the old fence was on the north and west property lines. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays 2. 1112 Hinman Avenue (LSHD/NQ - Demolition of existing garage. Construction of new detached t�;0-car garage [Demolition/Construction] Nathan Kipnis, architect, presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new detached two -car garage on the property at 1112 Hinman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Evanston Preservation Commission August 19, 2003 - Minutes Page 5 The new garage will have the same north/south dimension as the existing. The garage faces the industrial building on Chicago Avenue. It has gable roof with the ridge north/south. The siding (smaller on the bottom half and taller on the tap), brackets, a dormer facing the house breaks up the bigger roof mass, the window will have divided upper lights, all to match the house. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that all standards for demolition apply except for standard 4. Michael Girard moved to approve the demolition of the existing garage at 1112 Hinman as meeting the applicable standards. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Michael Girard moved to approve the construction of the proposed garage at 1112 Hinman Avenue as proposed as it meets standards for construction: 1) the height is visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, and public ways to which it is visibly related, 2) proportion of front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) rhythm of solids to voids in front facades, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, 7) relationship of materials and texture, 11) directional expression of elevations, 12) the new garage will match the qualities of the principal structure, 14) Guideline to the Commission regarding contemporary design, 15) the new will not be adversely affecting the principal building, and16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural style. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 222 Burnham Place (Landmark/LSHD) - Corner lot fence [Construction/Fence Variation) Pam Kendall, owner and Nathan Kipnis, architect presented plans for a corner lot fence on the property at 222 Burnham Place. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The proposed fence requires a fence variance. Mr. Kipnis said that the landmark property is on the southwest corner of Burnham and Michigan. There is an existing fence on the east side that is 6' and it has an opaque section about 4.6' and above is semi open. The property is 150' along Burnham and 72'on Michigan. The side yard is very limited for play area. The garage is located on the west. There is an existing neighbor's fence to the west that is 6' tall and out to the property line on Burnham. The need is for a hardscape area for three children. The fence is requested to the property line to maximize the hardscape and to align to the neighbor's to the west. The fence length is 50' and the height will align with the fence to the west. The opacity will match the neighbor's fence, and it also matches the fence on the east. Mr. Kipnis said that the wood fence will not block any views of the house, the height is in proportion to the house, and the fence can be removed in the future. Ms. Brugliera named three neighbors who opposed the fence variance but were not present at the meeting. Mr. Kipnis said that the owner at 1210 and 1220 is in support of the request. Ms. Kendall said that two neighbors on the east side Michigan are in favor. She said that they contacted a total of eight neighbors who are in favor. Commission's Findings Evarston Presmation Commission August 19, 2003 -Minutes Page 6 Commissioners agreed that tying the new fence with the neighbor's fence will read as a wall. Chris Carey said that a wrought iron fence may be a better solution. Mr. Kipnis said that they are asking for the variance for the setback, height, and opacity. He said that the fence is covering the house. Ms. Kendall argued that there are many properties in the neighborhood with longer fences and as tall. Stan Gerson moved to recommend the fence variations for the proposed fence as proposed as it meets standards for variation A and C. The motion was not seconded. The motion failed. Mr. Kipnis asked if the fence was 6' tall and not opaque but open would the Commission recommend the variance. Ms. Bruglicra moved to recommend the fence variance for a 5' high and 70% opaque fence at 772 Burnham as proposed on sheet ASKOS1903 because it meets standards: A) it is appropriate so is not adversely affecting the integrity of the landmark, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the property and the historic district. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion. The spacing between the vertical pickets will be less than 4", and the pickets are 1"x 2". The motion passed: Vote; 6 ayes, 1 nay. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the fence at 222 Burnham with the stipulation that it will be 5' high per plan ASK081903 version of the plan of the fence because it meets standards: 1) height, 2) proportion of the front facade, 4) rhythm of solids to voids, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, 7) relationship of materials and textures, 9) walls of continuity, 10) scale of the fence, 11) expression of the front elevation, 12) it preserves the original qualities of the house, 14) contemporary design has not been discouraged, 15) it could be removed with no harm to the landmark, and 16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay. 4. I231 Oak Avenue {RHD/NQ - Removal of wood deck at rear. Construction of one- story addition at the rear of house [Demolition/Construction]. Brenda Pierce, project manager presented plans to remove a rear wood deck and for the construction of a one-story story addition at the rear of the house at 1231 Oak Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Ms. Pierce said that the owners want to have a fire place and enlarge the back area of the house. Commission's Findings Chris Carey moved to approve the demolition of the rear deck at 1231 Oak Avenue as it meets all the applicable standards for demolition. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14 through 16. Ms. Pierce said that there are three double hung windows that will be replaced with casement windows. Those windows are not visible from the public way. The window in the kitchen will be raised to accommodate a sitting area in front of it. Evanston Presmation Commission August 19, 2003 - 4linutes Pag; 7 Susan Rundle moved to approve the construction of a deck and a one-story addition at 1231 Oak Avenue as it meets standards: 1) the height is appropriate to the rest of the building, 3) proportion of the openings, 7) the materials are the same, 8) the roof shape does follow the gable on the main house, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible, 12) it does not destroy or alter any of the character of the existing house or surrounding properties, 14) contemporary design has not been discouraged, I5) if it is removed it will not damage the house, and 16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 614 Judson Avenue (LSHD/NC) - Demolition of existing garage. Construction of four -car garage [Demolition/Construction] Lloyd Gadau, owner, presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new four -car garage at 614 Judson Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Gadau said the old four -garage was built on asphalt slab and he hopes to remove it and build a four -car about 2'- 4" wider than the existing garage. The material of the existing garage is 2.25" seemingly looking clapboard and the proposed new material is cedar clapboard with 6" exposure. The doors will be insulated metal doors. If he could get doors with panels he will. There are other kinds of doors in that alley. Susan Rundle said that the garage roof is not sympathetic to the roof on the house. Mr. Gadau said that he will prefer not to match the garage roof with that of the house. Commission's Findings: Susan Rundle said that all standard for demolition apply. Michael Girard moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 614 Judson Avenue as it meets all the standards for demolition 1 through 5. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for the construction of the garage are 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14 through 16. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the construction of the four -car garage based on its meeting standards: 1) height, 2) proportion of front facade, 3) proportion of the openings, 4) rhythm of solids to voids, 7) relationship of materials and textures, 8) roof shape: it does not meet this standard, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible, 11) visual relationship with the character of other properties and the house itself, 12) it does not destroy the original quality of the house, 14 through 16 are instructions to the Commission. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 1227 Maple Avenue (RHDINC) - Remove the existing single story addition and rear parch and build two-story addition. Rehabilitate existing garage. Considering removing on the main house the aluminum siding and fascia to restore original wood siding, soffit, fascia and trim. [Variation/Demolition/Construction/Alteration] Jeff Hickey, Annette Rehmke, owners, and Healy Rice, architect, presented a two-story addition at the rear of the home at 1227 Maple. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Evanston Presmation Commission August I9, 2003 -Minutes Page 8 There is currently a one-story addition to be removed and expand that space approximately 4' to the rear of the home for kitchen and family room. Geer the addition there will be two bedrooms. The existing rear porch will also be removed. In the rear there is a detached garage on the alley which will be stabilized. The house has aluminum siding which they would like to restore what they believe is 4" wood siding behind the aluminum siding. Ms. Rice said that the variation is needed because they exceed the 30% lot coverage. They are already over the lot coverage because of the garage. The lot coverage now is 39%. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the variation for the lot coverage for the addition at 1227 Maple in that: A) it does not adversely affect the building or the local district, and C) it will not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare or injurious to the district or the house. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Brugliera said that the applicable standards for demolition are I through 4. Ms. Bruglicra moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing rear addition at 1227 Maple in that: l) it is not detrimental to the public interest or contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City and the State, 2) the structure does not contribute materially to the district and it not need preserved, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the district, 4) it is not so old, unusual or uncommon design, texture, and/or material that it could be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense. Mr. Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Brugliera said that the siding will be restored and the applicants can do that through administrative approval; same with the garage restoration. Mr. Hickey said that the garage will have new three doors with a frame and panel design. In regard the wood siding, it will match the existing siding under the aluminum siding. Mr. Carey said that even though the house is not listed, it does still contribute to the district. _ Ms. Brugliera said that applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, CO, 12, and 14 through 16. Ms. Brugliera moved to approved the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the two-story rear addition at 1227 Maple it that: 1) the height is visually, 3) the openings are visually compatible, 7) materials and texture are compatible, 8. roof shapes are compatible, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible, I2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site are not being destroyed, 14) contemporary design for the addition is not being, 15) if the addition is removed, it will not compromise the house, and 16) the commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 2137 Sherman Avenue (NERD/C) - Remove existing stairway at rear and construct new stainvay. Rebuild second floor roof deck [Demolition/Alteration] Jordan & Holly Schnoll said they propose to replace an exterior stairway with a safer stairway and rebuild a deck on the second floor roof. The structural work for the deck includes the third Evanston Presmation Conunission August 19, 2003 -Minutes Page 9 floor of the house at 2137 Sherman. The house is «-ithin the Northeast Evanston Historic District, Mr. Schnoll said that the new stairway will match the existing deck on the first floor. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said all five standards for demolition. `Michael moved to approve the demolition of the rear stair at 2137 Sherman Avenue as it meets standards l through 5 of demolition. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Michael Girard moved to approve the construction of the new stairs to match the existing at 2137 Sherman as it meets all standards for review of alteration, except standard S. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. Discussion: ►1r1r. Girard said that photographs do not provide dimensions, elevation points, or any reference from grade. Mr. Carey said that the applicants are replacing what basically is there, but is not of top notch design. However, he is not objecting to it. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays, I abstention. 8. 716 Brurnmel Street (Landmark) - Replace existing windows on front elevation [Alteration] Henry Owen III, Vice -President of the 716 Brummel Park Condominium Association, Charlotte Herzog, condo owner and Ralph Bertrand, contractor, presented plans to replace wood windows with divided lights on the north elevation of the building at 716 Brummel Street. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Owen said in May 2003 the condominium board approved a proposal to replace the windows on the north of the building. In June Mr. Bertrand became aware of the landmark status of the building. The original proposal was for new vinyl window replacements. ARer contacting Mr. Ruiz they learned that the Commission will not approve vinyl windows. The revised proposal is for aluminum clad windows with the intent to maintain the appearance but use materials that will make maintenance less costly and easier in the future. Commission's Findings Mr. Bertrand said that there is water infiltration through the existing casement windows. The new windows are outward swinging casement windows with simulated divided lights. The 4" x 5" rectangular light pattern will be matched. The existing casement windows all suing in. Ms. Brugliera said that the pictures showed extensive deterioration on the exterior of the building. Charlotte Herzog said that the condo association had repaired the parapet wall in the past at a considerable expense. Mr. Bertrand said that they plan to remove the exterior jam which contains the rotted wood and exterior moldings. The carpenter will re -mill the moldings to match the existing and leave the interior trim in place, while removing the exterior portion of the window. The new A% indows will be sized to fit into the exiting opening. Mr. Bertrand said that they have contacted Restoration Works to inquire about window restoration. Restoration Works is either not interested or uncomfortable with casement windows Evanston Prescn-ation Commission August 19, 200= - Minutes Paee 10 since their expertise is to restore double hung windows. Nis. Rundle said that the #2 windows are single casement, but the proposed window is double casement. Mr. Bertrand said that it will be a French casement. The vendors do not make a •.%indow over 36". The existing windows are 44". Mr. Bertrand said that the light pattern will be maintained with the French casements. The color of the new windows is white as the existina. Ms. Brualiera asked about wood window replacements. Mr. Bertrand said that the same window company makes wood windows. The condo association prefer the cladding because requires less maintenance. Ms. BruQliera said that the applicable standards of alteration are 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and I0. Abbie Willard said that she understood the applicants' constrains, but she was very troubled with the proposal given standards. Susan Rundle said that the aluminum clad did not meet standards 2, 5, 6, and 9. She said that she understood the need of not having a 44" out swinging window. Mr. Bertrand said that the wood windows are less, but they have to be painted prior to installation, this adds the cost. The aluminum clad windows are more expensive, but they do not need to be painted. Mr. Girard moved to approve the project as proposed with the condition of installing all wood windows and the French casement windows for %vindow #?, as oppose to the true single casement window at 716 Brummel Street. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Girard noted that the cost of installation of wood versus aluminum clad windows is a wash, wood windows, if properly flashed and caulked, they are going to be no less effective than an aluminum windows. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Brugliera explained to the applicants the right to appeal, and the certificate of economic hardship and the rescission of the landmark designation. bir. Oven said that he understood that they could do the replacement of windows with all wood windows. The answer from Commissioners answered, yes. 9. 1741 Hinman Avenue (LSHD/NNC] - Overall rehabilitation of main house, replace non -decorative wood windows, expand garage to three -car garage, build retaining gall at the south side, and remove masonry fencing (Alteration/ConstructionlDemolitfon] Jay Johnson, owner, and Steve Liska, architect, proposed repair work as well as remodeling of an alteration of the exterior of the house at 1741 Hinman Avenue. Interior demolition is already underway. The house is in the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Susan Rundle said the project is for the demolition of the brick and stone wall in the back, the construction of a new will. Also, alterations to the existing house include restoration of the windows and the chimney, and new window additions. The project also includes the construction of a three -car garage. E Evanston Presen•ation Commission August 19, 2003 - Minuses Page l t hir. Liska said they are remodeling the back of the house that includes the kitchen, mudroom, and a breakfast room. With that they are changing the locations of windows and doors. On the second floor, they are changing locations of windows. The sun porch windows will be reworked. The third floor has windows on the south cable are being chanced to accommodate fire exiting requirements. The existing windows are three double hung windows to be changed to two decorative casement windows with muntin pattern to match the existing On the third floor of the east elevation, there is a casement «indow to be replaced with authentic divided light wood windows. The stucco will be repaired to match the color and texture. They found that there is 2.25" clapboard siding underneath the stucco. The roof shingles will be replaced with standards three -tab shingle. The color of the paint on the clapboard siding is a deep charcoal grey. The roof will be dark color. The second floor sun porch has a lot of weight so they are enlarging the window openings to make a little bit lighter. Commission's Findings Chris Carey moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the exterior alterations in that it meets standards for alteration: l) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property shall not be destroyed, 3) the property shall be recognized as product of its own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, 7) surface cleaning of structures and objects shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting shall not be undertaken, nor shalt other cleaning methods that will damage the historic materials of the structure, 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged, 10) wherever possible, new additions or alterations to the structure shall be done in such a manner that if the alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that all standards for demolition apply. Chris Carey moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the retaining wall and brick wall at 1741 Hinman Avenue in that it meets all five standards for demolition. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for construction are 1, 2, 7, 9, and 12 through 16. Michael Girard moved to approve the proposed concrete base Mth wrought iron above, adjacent to a concrete driveway, and wrought iron with tears at either end at the rear of the property at 1741 Hinman as it is in compliance with standards 1, 2, 7, 9, and 12 through 16. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that applicable standards for construction are I through 4, 7, 8, 10 to 12, and 14 through 16. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the construction of the garage and addition at 1741 Hinman in that it meets the standards: 1) height, 2) proportion of the front fagade, 3) Evanston Preservation Commission August 19, 2003 - Minutes Page 12 proportion of openings 4) rhythm of solids to voids, 7) relationship of materials and texture, 8) roof shapes (not met), 10) scale of the structure, 11) directional expression, 12) distinguishing original qualities are being preserved, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) if the addition is removed, the integrity of the structurekill remain, and 16 the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. Abbie Willard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 10. 619 Emerson Street (NERD/C) - Build ramp on the south and west elevations of the building to provide wheelchair accessibility. Replace front doors. [Alteration] Brian Kittle, of Northwestern University, and David Wickwire, architect, presented plans for the construction of an ADA accessibility concrete ramp on the south and west elevations of the building at 619 Emerson Street. The property is a contributing structure within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Wickwire said that there will be one new exterior door, the ramp and stairs have aluminum railings. There will be also landscaping in front of the brick foundation. The ramp is even with the veneer brick wall. Mr. Wickwire said that a wheelchair bound individual will be able to use the same main entry to the building as everyone else. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the ramp at the south and west of 619 Emerson Street since it meets standards of alteration: 1) its been done with minimal alteration to the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities are maintained, 5) the distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) if the ramp is removed, it will not damage the building. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay (Abbie Willard had left the meeting earlier). At this time the Commission decided to continue with Unfinished Business III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1856 Arrington (Landmark/i EHD) -- Replacement of existing windows [Alteration] Brian Kittle, of Northwestern University, said showed the price quotes for the restoration and a price for aluminum window replacement of Illinois Sash for the Traco Windows. Mr. Kittle said that Restoration Works from Kankakee and another restoration company is based in New York. Restoration is cheaper than new windows $204,000 versus S243,000 dollars for window replacement. The restoration estimate does not include storm windows. Another estimate was for Hope Windows for $251,000 dollars. A representative from Traco said that there are two different model windows; the narrow openings 18" to 20" will have casement windows. Anything more than 20" will have double Evanston Preservatior. Corrsnission August 19, 2003 - NIL-utes Page 13 hung windows, but they are currently casements windows. The steel windows are very expensive. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the reason for changing from casement to double hung windows. Mr. Kittle said because of maintenance and because the building is a dorm with heavy use. They want broken window easily to repair. Also, security is an issue. Traco representative said that the new windows have the grid in between the panes of glass and they are easier to clean than windows with applied muntins. Mr. Kittle said that the existing windows do not match and they are installing new insulated glass windows. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Mary Brugliera said that she %vas opposed to the double hung windows although she understood the practical aspects of double hung windows. Chris Carey was not in favor of the muntins between the panes of glass. He will like to see the exterior applied muntin bars. The applicant noted that proposed windows include 35 casement windows and 46 double hung windows. Michael Girard and Thomas Prairie said that they did not favor the double hung windows. Mr. Ruiz offered to assist Mr. Kittle looking for other alternatives for the windows. Mr. Kittle said that he will do what he can, but he was running out of time. Chris Carey moved to continue reviewing the windows for 1856 Orrington to the September, 2003 meeting. Mr. Ruiz will investigate another manufacture. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. At this time the Commission returned to II. Committee Reports 10. 1916-18 Maple Avenue (Landmark) - Remove existing rear open porches. Build enclosed structures to provide access to roof deck [Demolition/Construction/Zoning Variation] Thomas Prairie moved to table the review of 1916-18 Maple Avenue due to the lack of time until the next meeting on September 16, 2003. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. IV. ADJOURN?WEI\T The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:10 a.m. on August 20, 2003. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D Ruiz Senior Planner/Presen�ati Co dinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting,1linutes Tuesday, September 16, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSEN—T: Mary Brugliera, Stephen Droll, Thomas Prairie, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Robert & Judith Herbert, Jenny Lerum, Rick Nemec, Ryan Nestor, Susan Hope Engel, Gary R. Wgjtowicz, Brian Kittle, Eric Mullendore, Seymour Turner, Andrew Venamore, James McAuley, Steve Liska, Philip Stepherd, G. Guszkowski, John Cromin, Mary Lofquist, John Malarky, Susan Morse, Bethye J. Palmer, Joe Kent, B. J. Palmer, Mary McWilliams, and Anne Earle PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETER UNATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was ptesettt. 11. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 719 Milburn Street (NI EHD Federal) - Install 36" high fence within front yard, perpendicular to front lot line, parallel and adjacent to east (alley) lot line [Zoning Variation) Stan Gerson said that 719 Milburn is requesting a zoning variation for 98' long fence along the alley, 30" high and rising to 36" high. R&TA reported that standards for variation A and C for zoning variation applied. The house is within the Federal Northeast Evanston Historic District. Robert & Judith Herbert, owners presented the plans for the proposed fence. Ms. Herbert said that the proposed fence will bring a visual focal point and the proposed landscaping will improve the overall appearance of the property. Evanston Presmation Commission September 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 2 Commission's Findings Mr. and Mrs. Herbert said that none of their neighbors oppose the fence variation. Stan Gerson moved to recommend approval of the fence variation in that it meets standard: A) it does not adversely affect the historic architecture or integrity of the district, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, welfare or injurious to property. Susan Rundle seconded the motion_ The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 615 Clinton Place (NEHD Federal) - Installing a 30" high stone/masonry seat wall in the Front yard [Zoning Variationj Susan Rundle said that the applicant is requesting to build a 30" high masonry wall on the front yard of the property at 6I5 Clinton Place. The property is within the Federal Northeast Evanston Historic District. The applicable standards for variation are A and C. Jenny Lerum, owner said that there will be a break on the seat wail. She said that the house is a Ranch house with Lannon stone pavers going to the front door. The half the portion of the house is also Lannon stone. The proposed Iow wall %; ill give a dimensional feel to the property and in the winter give the property a nice presence. Ms. Lerum said that she talked to her neighbors who support tier project. Susan Rundle moved to recommend approval of the construction of the masonry wall at 615 Clinton because it meets standards: A) it does not adversely affect the architecture of the neighborhood, and C) it will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 639 Central Street (Landmarkf7NEHD Local) - Remove existing exterior wood steps and landing. Install new and expanded wood deck And steps. [Demolition/Constructionj 15-:7- Rick Nemec of Northwestern University, and Ryan Nestor, architect, presented plans to remove existing concrete steps and landing and construct a new expanded wood deck and steps on the east elevation of the house at 639 Central Street. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Local Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Nestor said that the application denotes concrete steps and landing where in fact is wood. The deck will become more part of the house and blend in with the existing landscape. Some of the detailing from the house are incorporated such specific planting areas. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for demolition are I through d. Mr. Gerson moved to approve the demolition of steps and landing in that 1) the demolition will no be - detrimental to the public interest, 2) nor detrimental to the architecture or historic significance of the building, 3) the demolition of the deck and stairs will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of the District, 4) and the desk and steps are of such old, unusual or uncommon design. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. =- - Evanston Presen-ation Commission September 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 3 Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for the construction of the deck are 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 through 16. Mr. Gerson moved to a -drove the construction of the deck and stairs in that: 1) the height of the proposed deck is compatible with other structures, 2) proportion of front fagade, the width and the height of the front elevation of the proposed structure is compatible with properties viewed from public way, 7) the materials and texture are compatible with the predominant materials present in the house, 10) the scale of a structure is compatible with the house and other properties viewed from the public way, 11) the structure is visually compatible with other structure to which is visually related, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of the structure are not destroyed, 14) the design is not contemporary, IS) if possible, the addition could be removed, and 16) the commission is not imposing any requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays 4. 221 Dempster (LSHD) - Remove existing rear deck and construct a screened wood frame porch at rear jDemolitionlConstructionj Susan Engel, owner, presented plans to remove an existing rear deck and construct a screened wood frame porch at the rear of the house at 221 Dempster Street. The house is %Nithin the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Engel said the house was built in 1892. The house 11 years ago, when they bought the house, it had discolored aluminum siding and a big cement stoop in front. Tw-o years later they refurbished the stucco and the wood and restored the front porch. They now want to take down the back deck and making it into a screened porch. CommIssion's Findings Susan Rundle said that all five standards for demolition apply. Michael Girard moved to approve the demolition of the rear deck at 221 Dempster because: 1) the deck is not of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition would be detrimental, 2) the deck does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the District as a whole and should be preserved for the benefit of the people of the city and the state, 3) the demolition of the structure is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, 4) the deck is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, 5) the owner has plans to build and addition. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for the porch construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14 through 16. Stan Gerson moved to approve the construction of the porch as it meets standards: 1) the height is visually compatible with other objects to which it is visibly related, 3) the proportion of openings, the relationship of the width and height of screens are compatible with other structures to which the porch is visually related, 7) the of materials and texture are compatible with the materials of the house, 8) the roof shapes is compatible with the roof of the house, 10) the scale of the porch is in keeping with the mass of the house, 12) the original qualities or character of a property are not destroyed, 14) contemporary design is not being proposed, 15) it is possible that the porch could be removed, and 16) there is no imposition of Evanston Preservation Cornmission September 16, 2003 - Minst_s Page A any single architectural style. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. At this time the Commission event ahead with Unfinished Business III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 11856 Orrington (Landmark/NEHD) — Replacement of existing windows (Alteration) Gary R. Wojtowicz and Brian Kittle of Northwestern University presented plans for the replacement of existing windows on the building at 1856 Orrington Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Kittle said that the building was not visible from the street or any public way. There is only one window visible from Emerson Street that they will leave as is and put an interior storm window. They proposed to install the Traco windows with the exterior angled muntins W wide. Mr. Kittle said that they will like to install the double hung windows with the same divided Iight configuration as the casement windows. They look the same but they will operate differently. Ms. Gardner said that she would like the new windows look the same as the casement windows. Mr. Kittle said that double hung windows are less expensive; casement windows allow the rain into the rooms more than double hung windows. They have installed double hung windows in the past within the quadrangle. Mr. Kittle said they would entertain some of the buildings that are not done and try to get a standard for those buildings, and come up with a scheme or plan for the buildings for the buildings that have not been restored that are visible from the public way. He said that the subject building is totally interior and there is no public way. Mr. Ruiz said that there is one window that is visible from the public way. Mr. Kittle had explained to him that the subject building is attached to the building on Emerson Street. Mr. Kittle said that they have discussed with Mr. Ruiz how the other buildings should be done. Mr. Ruiz said that if the proposed windows are approved because they are not visible from the public way, he did not believe that the same reasoning will apply to windows that are visible from the public way. Ms. Gardner said that there are other buildings which are part of a cohesive unit; there is a need to set a standard for those buildings visible from the public way. She said that the visible windows will be held to the preservation standards. She asked, why not set the standard now. Ms. Gardner said that her issue is replicating the casement style. Mr. Wojtowicz said that they are sensitive to the Commission's concerns about standardizing the windows in the Quad. They are willing to work with their customers to come up with a standardized window that w711 be acceptable to the Commission, specially, on buildings that are viewed from the public way. Right now the windows at 1856 Orrington are in disrepair. They are willing to keep the window that is visible from the public way as is. It is going to take time to convince the occupant that the casement windows are as secure as double hung windows. Mr. Wojtowicz said that safety in the Quad is a major concern. Residential Life is responsible for housing on campus, they have expressed to Facilities Management that their preference is Evanston Presmation Commission September I6. 2003 - Minutes Page 5 double hung N% indov.-s. Mr. Wojtowicz said that they have time to work with the Commission and with their Design and Construction group to come up with a standard, particularly now that they are aware of the sensitivity from the public way is as high as it is invol%zng casement versus double hung. Mr. Kittle said that is «•hv they are offering to come up %vith a master plan for the future. Mr. Ruiz said that in the past he had spoken with University officials about developing a master plan for all University landmark buildings. Mr. Wojtowicz said that internally that will be an advantage to them as well. - Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for the one window visible from the public way are 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Michael Girard moved that the existing stair window that is visible from the public way at 1856 Orrington be approved as far as refurbishing the w; indow and maintain its appearance and integrity as it meets standards: 1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities and character be maintained and not be destroyed, 5) the distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, 9) contemporary design, alterations and additions shall not be discouraged, and 10) wherever possible, additions or alterations shall be done in a manner that if it were to be removed, would not damaged the integrity of the structure. Mr. Girard as part of his motion included a recommendation to coordinate with Northwestern University to create a master fenestration plan for the courtyard, as Northwestern has expressed the desire to unify the windows within the courtyard itself, many of which will be visible from the public. This to facilitate a smoother process in the future there is a need to come up with a standard where Northwestern and the preservation standards are in agreement with the Preservation Commission. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. At this tine the Commission retunred to Committee Reports S. 1501 Asbury Avenue (Landmark/RHD) - Part 1 not visible, Part 2: One-story connector between the existing main house rear wall, and the face of the existing coach house. [Construction] Eric Mullendore, architect, presented plans for a one-story connector between the existing main house rear wall and the face of the existing coach house on the property at 1501 Asbury Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Stan Gerson said that the proposed connection is visible from the street. The applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14 through 16. Mr. Gerson moved that the proposed connection be approved in that: 1) the height is visually compatible with the property itself and others in the area, 2) that the proportion of width and height of openings in the connection are compatible with the openings in the house, coach house and other buildings in the area, 7) the materials and texture that are proposed are compatible with the materials of the materials and texture if the house and coach house, 8) the roof shape is visually compatible with the shape of the two roofs, 10) the scale of the proposed connection is compatible with the scale Evamton Preservation Commission September 16, 2003 -Minutes Page 6 and the mass of the house and coach house, I 1) the original expression of the front elevation is compatible with the house and coach house, 12) the distinguishing original qualities and character of the structure are not destroyed, 14) it is not a contemporary, IS) the connection could be removed, and16) the Commission is not imposing the use of a single architectural style. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. .4t this time the Commission svent back to Unfinished Business 2. 1916-18 Maple Avenue (Landmark) - Remove existing rear open porches. Build enclosed structures to provide access to roof deck (Demolition/Construction/Zo]3ing Variationf Seymour Turner and Andrew Venamore of Airoom presented plans to remove existing rear porches, and build in their place enclosed structures «tith access to the roof deck of the building at 19I6-18 Maple Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Seymour Turner of Airoom representing Robert Taylor, owner, said that the proposed zoning variances are for two tandem parking spaces and one parallel parking space for the four existing units. The zoning variation involves location, size, and setbacks to the rear. There are two enclosed stairs with access to the deck on the roof top. The enclosed stairs have been pulled back; and the bay projection has been eliminated. Parking spaces 1 and 2 are tandem and accessed from the alley. Parking space 3 is accessed from an easement. Parking space 2 is land locked. Mr. Taylor owns the property where the proposed easement will allow access to either parking space. Stan Gerson moved to recommend the zoning variation for the proposed parking in that it meets standards: A) it does not adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the Landmark, B) it is necessary to provide the owner with a recoverable rate of return, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and will not be injurious to the property. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Ruiz asked if the applicants have heard from any of the neighbors. Mr. Turner said no. Mr. Taylor, the owner, has contacted the neighbors before. The motion passed: Vote 4 ayes, 1 nay, and i abstention. Mr. Turner said that the existing porch is a greater encroachment into the required rear yard than =- what they are proposing and the existing back wall of the light well enclosure is a further - encroachment than what they are proposing. What they rebuilding is going to be less than what is there now. What is increasing is lot coverage by 44 S.F. The enclosure in the light well is about 54 S.F. because the porches are smaller by 10 S.F. The building is significantly over right now or 44.2 S.F. increase from the existing lot coverage. Stan Gerson moved to recommend to the Zoning Board that the variations being request be approved in that the variations (setback, lot coverage, and the enclosure of part of the interior space): A) do not adversely affect the historic architecture or aesthetic integrity of the structure, Evanston Preservation Commission 5ept.,;.ixr I6, 2003 - Minutes Page 7 B) the variations are necessary to pro,% ide the owner with a recoverable rate of return on the property, and C) that the variations .rill not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to the property. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Discussion: Some Commissioners thought that standard B applied because the owner bought the property as is. Michael Girard amended the motion as proposed so that standards A and C apply and not C. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Michael Girard moved to approve the demolition of the existing porches because: 1) the existing rear porches are not of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance, 2) that the structures do not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the district or the prope.ny. 3 )demolition would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and historic property, 4) the structures are not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture, and/or material that they could be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense, 5) the owner currently has plans to build new structures in their place. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle to the front of the building are: to change the one window in the bay to a door and the existing double door reduce it to a single door. Mr. Seymour said that double door serves an entry vestibule that goes straight ahead to the second floor apartment and it turns to the lefl into the first floor unit. There is a spiral staircase now as secondary means of egress. The window is change into a door to provide direct access into the first floor unit. Susan Rundle said that the front elevation has a symmetry that should not be affected. Mr. Seymour said that they will make the necessary revisions but it will be difficult to eliminate the door from the bay, because it is the access to the first floor unit. Chris Carey said that the proposed alterations to the front elevation do not work for him. Ms. Rundle and Mr. Girard concurred with Mr. Carey. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. Ms. Rundle moved to not approve the alterations to the front of the building at 1916-I8 Maple because: 1) it is more than a minimal alteration to the front of the property, 2) it does destroy the distinguishing original qualities as stated in the statement of significance, 5) some of the stylistic features are not being treated with sensitivity, 9) the Commission has not discouraged contemporary design, and 10) the alterations could be removed. The application does not meet standards 1, 2, and 5. Mr. Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. The motion denying the approval passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Seymour said that in the rear elevation, the two gables to the outside are at the same plane as the porch. The middle gable is setback and it is the gazebo. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for the enclosed stair and porches are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14 through 16. Mr. Seymour referred to plans dated August 22, 2002, and according to Mr. Taylor those plans were approved -on " ovember 19, 200Z.�,%Is =x4Qn. Mr. Seymour said that the height is lessened, as well as the depth. The enclosed additions are projecting 8' from the back of the building and replacing the existing porches. The other back Evanston Preservation Conarnission September 16, 2003 - Ntirtmtes Page 8 wall is setback about 10" from the back brick wall of the existine building. The materials are consistent with the materials approved in 2002 including vinyl siding, the vinyl windows, vinyl clad patio doors with the Juliet railing. glass block units along the alley and sliding windows. Trim boards for brick moldings appearance around all the Mrdows, vinyl shake for the little gables. The last plan showed vinyl siding all the way up. Mr. Seymour said that they are willing to explore other materials such as a fiber cement board, composite trim boards around the windows altd comer boards. Ms. Gardner said that she had a problem ,%ith the structures above the porches. Mr. Carey suggested Iooking at the front bay and incorporating the design into the rear. Mr. Girard moved construction of enclosed rear stairs up to existing roof parapet height of 26.5' indicated to tic in the architecture detail kith the ribbon course, and that the material of the outside be a cement board with the wood grain texture with 3" exposure or as recommended by the manufacture, and that the trim boards be composite material. The motion does not include the portion above the enclosed stairs. The project as amended meet standards: 1, height shall be visually compatible with properties, and stmctures, 3) proportion of openings, the relationship of the width to height of %vindo%vs and doors to be visually compatible, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 6) rh)lhm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections to be-6sually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, 7) the relationship of the materials and texture, 8) the roof shape should be flat. 10) the scale of the structure: The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches and balconies shall be visually compatible, 14) contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged, 15) when possible, new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards are 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 14 through 16. Mr. Seymour said that the maximum height above the enclosed rear stairs is 9'-6" including the gazebo. The materials are vinyl windows with the cement board siding. The roof as proposed is a gable, but if changed to a hip roof will be not visible from across the street. Susan Rundle moved to not approve the construction of the structures above the existing roof line at 1916-18 Maple Avenue because: 1) the height is not compatible with the structure, 2) the E proportion of the front fagade is not compatible with the structure, 3) the openings have nothing to do with the structure, same with 4) thee rhythm of solids and voids, 5) the spacing of the structure from the street, even though the east elevation is the front elevation, the shape and massing is not compatible, 7) relationship of materials and texture, is not visually compatible even though the Commission said that what is proposed is better than on the drawings, 8) the roof shape has nothing to do with the existing building, norl0) the scale of the structure, directional expression of the front elevation was covered before, the original quality and character of the building, the rhythm that it is maintained and its height has been drastically changed, 14) the Commission did not discouraged contemporary design, it does meet standardI5), and 16) the Commission did not impose a style. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Presmation Commission September 16, 2003 -Minutes Page 9 3. 1333 Church Street (Landmark[RHD) - Construction of two -car garage [Constructionj, and corner lot fence [Construction[Fence Variation] James McAuley, owner presented revised plans for the con_truction of a corner Iot fence along the cast and north property line, and the construction of a n-M two -car garage on the east side of the property at 1333 Church Street. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. The Commission discussed the previously recommended fence variation and the approval of the fence and the garage with conditions. Mr. McAuley said that he had erected a mock up fence and showed photos of it to the Commission. He also showed pictures of a mock up of the garage he had erected. Mr. McAuley said that he understood that the issue raised by the Commission about the garage was its visualization, not the fence itself. He said that he would be replacing a 6-ft. barricade fence. He said that he would prefer to place the fence south of the bay on the west elevation of the house. He said that the fence would not obstruct the xiew of the bay. Mr. McAuley acknowledged that the proposed fence would not provide high security, but it would provide a barrier between the ground level access and the building. Barbara Gardner asked if the fence shown in the photograph was the fence proposed. Mr. McAuley said that after building the mock up fence he thought that a picket fence would look better. Commission members agreed with :fir. McAuley. The Commission discussed the type of fence typical for the Victorian era. Chris Carey said that the picket fence could have 2" x 2" pickets with spacing in between. Michael Girard said that the question now is the location of the fence. Mr. McAuley said that he did not see the proposed fence obstructing the view of the house, based on the layout of the house and the land. He said that he would like the fence south of the bay because it would cover a window, it •vould give more of interior garden space in a high traffic area, and it was symmetric to what he had proposed on the other side of the house [two -car garage]. Mr. McAuley said that the Commission was concerned %%ith the garage blocking the side view of the house. Mr. Girard clarified that the Commission's concern was the relationship of the front of the garage relative to the house, and also, architecturally, the garage relationship to the bay. Mr. McAuley said that his rationale for his request of location was that the garage would be 17- feet behind the front of the house, it would mostly not obstruct the view of the bay, therefore, it would not detract from the visualization of the house. The location of the garage allows the only private yard space behind it, because of the corner lot situation. It would not obstruct the kitchen windows, and it would not sit in front of the neighbor's dining room windows, and it allows more gardening space, and less paved property, Mr. McAuIey said the further back the garage is moved the more property that would be paved and the less gardening that would be available. Mr. McAuley said that the garage access from Wesley was not feasible and that it would cost $10,000 more. He said that the City engineers told him that certain things could be done, but they were not sure if it would work. He said that he would have to drop the garage 3-ft. into the Evanston Preservation Com n-dssion September 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 10 ground, going 1-inch per foot drop. 'Mr. McAuley said that because of the setback requirements he would end up with a one -car garage. Nis. Gardner said that Mr. McAuley could apply for a zoning variation. Nis. Gardner asked about Mr. McAuley's neighbor's reaction to his plans. Mr. McAuley said that his neighbors would like to finish the exterior of their house before his fence is erected. He said his neighbors did not comment that the garage was a problem. Regarding the location of fence, Chris Carey felt that the location the Commission proposed was probably the best location behind the bay. He said that the Commission would prefer a different design. Susan Rundle asked if the bay should be setback 10-ft. as well. Mr. McAuley said that he did not know and that the zoning analysis did not require it. Regarding the garage, Mr. Girard said that the Commission's original motion indicated that the rear of the garage should be in alignment with the rear of the house, or that the rear of the garage could be a little bit forward from the rear of the house, and that the front of the garage be behind the bay. In response to a question from Mr. Carey, Mr. McAuley said that the two -car garage with access from Wesley Avenue would require a zoning variance for the setbacks. If the garage Nvere pushed to the either comer, it would take too much garden space. Mr. Girard said that the issue was the relationship between the garage, the bay, the house, and its relationship to the front. He said that primarily it is the relationship of the garage itself and its positioning with the main body and geometry of what was happening with the house itself. Ms. Gardner said that she had a problem with the garage anywhere along that sweep, except in that back corner. She looked at it as a garage in the front yard from a visual standpoint. Susan Rundle referred to standard 5 of construction and asked Ms. Gardner if she did not think that the garage was back enough. ',Nis. Gardner said that she had a problem with a garage door facing the street. She noted that across the street there is a garage facing the street, but that was the only place to put that garage. Susan Rundle said that to dig out the dirt on Wesley Avenue for a new garage would be at a considerable expense. Chris Carey asked about the driveway. Mr. McAuley said that he was exploring paver stones as opposed to asphalt or concrete. Ms. Gardner asked about the height of the fence. Mr. McAuley said that the fence would be 42- inches high. The Commission concluded that the proposed fence at 42-inches high would not obstruct the view of the bay. Ms. Gardner said that she did not have a problem with the proposed location of the fence. Fence Variation: Stan Gerson moved that the Commission recommend granting the fence variation on the Wesley Avenue side, so that the southern extent of the fence is the same place as the southern boundary of the bay on the west elevation. The proposed fence does comply with standards for review of special uses, zoning and fence variations: A (it does not adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark house), and C (it is not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property). Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays. Evanston Preservation Comrnission September 16, 2003 - Minutrs Page l 1 Fence Construction: Clint Funk moved to approve the construction of a 3'-6" wood picket fence to the south side of the bay window (west elevation) and establish a picket style. The proposed fence meets standards for review of construction 1) appropriate height- 2) fa;ade is visually compatible, 5) rhythm of spacing on the street is visually appropriate, r) relationships of materials and texture are visually compatible. 9) walls of continuity are visually compatible, 10) the scale of the structure is visually compatible, 11) the direction of the elevation is compatible, 12) the distinguishing original characters are not being destroyed, 1.3) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the fence could be removed, and 16) a style is being imposed. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. Susan Rundle moved to amend the motion so that ,%Ir. Ruiz faxes the fence design to three Commission members for approval. Michael Girard seconded the amendment to the motion. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Construction of Garage: Michael Girard moved to approve the construction of the two -car garage between the rear of the bay (east elevation) and the rear of the house within the 22.2-feet. Also, install a trim around the panelized garage door. The garage with the required conditions meets standards for review of construction i (The height is visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visibly related), 2 (Proportion of the front fagade. The relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related), 3 (Proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of windows and doors shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which the building is visually related), 4 (The rhythm of solids and voids in the front fagade), 5 (Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets), 7 (Relationships of materials and texture. The relationship of the materials and textures of the fagade to be visually compatible with the dominant materials used in the structures which is related, primarily the main house), 8 (Roof shapes to be related), 10 (Scale of structures, its size, mass in relation to open spaces, windows, doors, porches and balconies shall be visually related to properties, structures, sites, and public ways), 11 (Directional expression of front fagade), 12 (Distinguishing original qualities or character of the property shall not be destroyed), 14 (Contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged), 15 (New additions to structures to structures or objects should be done in a manner that if it were to be removed they would not harm the integrity of the principal structure), and 16 (The Commission shall not impose the requirement for the use of single architecture style). Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay. Carlos Ruiz asked for clarification regarding the location of the garage. Mr. Girard said that the location of the garage should be between the rear of the bay [east elevation] and the rear of the house, within the 22.2'. At this time the Commission returned to Committee Reports Evanston Presm3tion Commission September 16, 200: -Minutes Page 12 6. 1741 Hinman Avenue (LSHD/LocaFFederal) - Repair of roof, ivindows, stucco, chimney, wood trim, jams. sills and heads. Replace non -decorative windows with all wood windows and trim to match the existing. Remove stone steps and portion of existing stone terrace. New concrete deck and metal railing. Construction of new detached t-wo-car garage. [Demolition,'alteration/Construction] Steve Liska, architect presented plans for the repair of the roof. windows, stucco, chimney, wood trim, jams, sills and heads. Also, replace non -decorative windows with all wood windows and trim to match the existing. Remove stone steps and portion of existing stone terrace. Construct new concrete deck with metal railing and detached two -car garage at 174I Hinman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Liska said that the previously proposed underground garage no longer is part of the project. The amount of concrete was immense. This means more yard area and landscaping at the rear. The new garage is a frame sided garage at the back of the lot. The siding is 2.5" cedar which is behind the stucco on the house. The deck is now smaller with a ne«• stairway configuration. At the first floor family room, a portion of the terrace is being removed; they will use the salvaged stone to build a foundation wall underneath the bay. A new wood fence will be build at the back of the lot. The existing partial brick wall will be removed and the brick salvaged to fill in the garage door on the existing garage to be used as storage space. At the back of the window they will use a salvaged window on the second floor. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for the demolition of the steps are 1 through 5. Clint Funk moved to approve the demolition of the steps at 1741 Hinman because: 1) its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive historic, and cultural, 3) it would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, 4) it is of such old, unusual or uncommon design, and 5) there is plans to replace then in five years. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, Mr. Gerson moved to approve the replacement of %%indows as presented and the alteration of the below grade garage to become storage in that meets standards: 1) the property is adapted requiring minimal alteration, 2) the original qualities or character of the structure are not destroyed, 4) changes that may have taken place in the course of time are treated with respect, 5) distinctive stylistic features of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the property are treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features will be repaired or replaced with - sensitivity, 9) contemporary design has not being, 10) the alterations if removed in the future, the form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The applicable standards for the construction of the garage and wail are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1], 12, and 14 through 16. Stan Gerson moved to approve the construction as described for 1741 Hinman in that meet standards: 1) the height of the garage is visually compatible with the structure and adjoining properties, 2) the proportion of front fh+ ade is visually compatible with the house and other structures on the alley, 3) the proportion of openings in the garage, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in front facades is compatible with properties and structures that face Evamton Presmation Commission 5cptembrr 16, 2003 -Minutes Pzge 13 the public way, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on streets is compatible, 7) relationship of materials and texture to be used in the garage are compatible with the already existing materials of the house, 8) the roof shape of the earage is compatible with the shape of the roof of the house, 9) the picket fence is visually compatible with the house, 10) the scale of the garage, the size and mass are compatible with other structures, 11) directional expression of front elevation is visually compatible, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property are not being destroyed,14) no contemporary design for additions is being proposed, and 15) it is possible to remove the garage and the fence in the future, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays 7. 423 Greenleaf Street (LSHD) - Storage of boat and trailer [Zoning Variation] Philip Stepherd, owner, presented an application for a zoning variance to storage a boat and trailer at 423 Greenleaf Street. The property is ►vithin the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Stepherd said all the houses that have frontage on Hinman and on Judson are in an east/west direction, they are stock in the back alley of these homes. He said that he leaves the boat on the street. The City Ordinance allows parking of a boat on a truck on private property so long as it is not on a front or side yard. They are seeking to park the boat temporarily. He spoke to his five immediate neighbors who are not against the proposed variance. Mr. Stepherd said that they do not have a back yard to park the boat. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle moved to recommend the variation be granted to 423 Greenleaf Street to allow the owner to store his boat and trailer in his drivewav in the side yard because: A) it does not adversely affect the aesthetic integrity of the district, and C) it is not materially detrimental to the public safety, and welfare of the vicinity. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Girard said that part of the reason for the motion is the tight constraints of the existing property where there is no rear or side yard. He amended the motion by including that the variance also be tied to the boating season and that during the winter months the boat be stored off site. Ms, Gardner Amended the motion further adding parking the boat from May 15 to October 15. Mr. Girard seconded the amendment. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, I nay. S. 2320 Pioneer Road (Landmark) - Construction of addition to Landstrom Building, new four-story Independent living building with parking behind, and new three- story independent living building. (Construction - Advisory review onlyl G. Guszkowski, John Cronin, Mary Lofquist, John Malarkey, Susan Morse, and Bethye J. Palmer presented revised plans for the construction of a new four-story independent living building at 2320 Pioneer Road. Mr. Malarkey, attorney said that there were from the Commission three suggestions to the original proposal of April 15, 2003: relocate the wing on the southeast corner, open up the grounds and keep the green area and the view, and provide a volumetric model. Mr. Malarkey Evanston Preservation Corrm,ssion 5cptember 16, 2003 - Minu-cs Pace 14 said that his clients are having financial difficulty because they are not able to provide services that people need Codayr. G. Guszkowski, architect said that the Commission's concerns from the original proposal include the construction of a nnv building at the southeast corner of the property for AIzheimer's care, the neighbors are concerned with having service coming in onto Colfax Street, and the apartment building addition does not seem to be the right typology for multi -family apartment in the Evanston area. Mr. Guszkowski said that the revised plans respects the layout of the existing site, develop something more formal, and create something that is more in the typology of multi- family apartments in the Evanston area. Ile noted that these types of moldings are frequently U- shaped buildings, with courtyards in between them. G. Guszkowski said that they are adding to the Landstrom building with an addition that would be 3-stories high, establish a new point of entry along McDaniel Avenue by developing a 3-story structure, using the building as a canopy and drive under it to create a new front door. The 2- story element would be a roof garden that would serve the people that are living in the Skilled Nursing facility. It would have a trellis work to provide a safe outdoor environment for residents up to the third floor. They want to create as many as 90 independent living apartments. To do so, they would use a 3-story, t-shaped form and a 4-story U-shaped form that would be tied together with elevators. Under that complete form there would be 100 cars of enclosed parking, accessible off of McDaniel Avenue. All of these buildings are tie together by a 1-story element that would serve as the common facility. Mr. Guszkowski said that they would have the ability to come into the building, having a central lobby area, where people would be directed to go to different parts of the building. He also said that the alley would disappear and that the area would be a more defined for delivery and ambulance access into the site through a traffic pattern coming off of Pioneer Road. Mr. Guszkowski said that they had a neighborhood meeting last week, and the concept was very well received. Another Preservation Commission concern was the better use of the open space. Mr. Guszkowski said that they would create a mini -park on the comer (southeast) and reinforce some of the axis that are already developed through the site by bringing another intersecting one to help define that area as a park. Also, they would take the spaces in between the buildings to create courtyard areas. He noted that the Alzheimer's function would be handled inside of either an existing building or new building. He also mentioned that the dark areas on the plan are parking areas or 'motor courts' for residents, and guests. The underground parking is access through a ramp. John Cronin showed study elevations of the proposed buildings to illustrate the massing and building materials. He said that the original Pioneer Road building has cut stone and brick and a flat roof parapet. The new building would incorporate the same ideas regarding building materials and introduce more stone such as on the base or `cast' stone with three dimemional details to break up the mass and provide more human scale and architectural elements. Barbara Gardner said that as opposed to the first proposal, the new building seems to relate more to the landmark building. Mr. Cronin said that the idea is to identify the campus us such. Evanston Pres_•nyation Commission September 16. 2003 - Minutes Page 15 Guszkowski said that they are in front of the Commission in the spirit of dialogue and with the understanding that this is a process where the community needs to get involved. Susan :Morse said that they need to talk to the school about the bus drop off new location. She noted that the neighbors were extremely positive. Mr. Guszkowski said that there would be some interior remodeling in the landmark building not affecting the exterior of the building. Chris Carey said that he was concern with the Alzheimer's building in the original proposal because it was disconnected and it was taking a lot of the park space. He seems that now everything seems compacted together with underground parking thus eliminating asphalt areas that are present now. He said that preserving the park like atmosphere of the site is important. Mr. Cronin said that they are also interested in preserving the space because that is both for the community and the Swedish Retirement Association. He said that good architecture, good use of the land is very important. Chris Carey asked if there was any reaction from the neighbors in terms of the height of the structures. Susan Nforse said that they have not heard even one comment in that regard. Mr. Guszkowski said what they tried to do is push the massing to%yards the center of the site, and that four stories feels right and one does not have to go to far to find four story buildings. Mr. Carey said that it was nice the green space leading into the buildings.: iichael Girard appreciated the elevation studies and the building materials. He was concerned with manufactured stone; he would like to see how the entrance canopy works out, specially, its relationship on Colfax Street, relative to the existing structure. Overall, he said he liked the project and considered an improvement over'was it was there, and keeping the park corner open was appreciated. Susan Morse said that the pitch roof on the new structures was designed to match the residences originally, but in fact they needed to match the campus with flat roofs. his. Gardner said that the four-story buildings not haying a pitch roof would not seem as tall. fir, Guszkowski said that the rhythm of the height in the Landstrom building is probably 11-feet, the new buildings would have 10-feet height between floors. Carlos Ruiz expressed concerned with the perspective rendering versus the model. He said in the model there is a clear separation between the taller and landmark building with the one-story connector building. In the perspective drawing there seems to be no space between the new building and the landmark building. Mr. Cronin said that the rendering was a quick sketch and that the model shows that there is more space between the buildings. Mr. Ruiz said that it was very important to maintain the landmark building as the most significant building from the preservation perspective. Mr. Guszkowski said that they feel that the distance between the buildings is respectful. Mr. Ruiz said that his concern is that the new buildings do not become dominant. Mr. Girard said that the model illustrates the separation than the quick study does. Regarding the proposed materials, Mr. Ruiz said that the manufacture stone is not going to work as well as cut stone. Mr. Girard said that the current applications are just a Renaissance stone or solid cement type stone or block or a finished CMU split face with any age detail. He said that with stone what it is important is how the stone is detailed and its scale. Mr. Cronin said that it comes to it that they %%ill bring samples to the Commission. Evanston Preservation Commission September 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 16 Mr. Ruiz asked if the project requires a Plan Development. Mr. I Ialarkey said yes. Mr. Ruiz asked if the AIderman of the Ward has been informed and if the Alderman had any concerns about the project. Susan Morse said that they had met with Alderman Tisdahl and Alderman Moran, both Alderman are very supportive. IV. NEW BUSINESS 51h Ward Moratorium - An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on the Issuance of Building Permit for Certain Residential Construction in the Fifth Ward Anne Earle made a slide presentation about the Fifth Ward architectural, historical resources such as Garnett Place, and North Shore Community House, Ebenezer A M E. Church, the oldest black congregation in Evanston, the Mayfair Triangle. She described single family homes on the 1900 block of Asbury Avenue such as 1913 Asbury. Ms. Earle talked about C-2 zoning north of Green Bay with the only remaining African American houses. The houses on the west side of Asbury Avenue include three Landmarks. In 1914, two African American physicians, Dr. Isabella Garnett and her husband, Dr. Arthur Butler founded the Evanston Sanitarium because neither Evanston nor Saint Francis hospitals would routinely admit African American patients, neither allow any African American staff in any capacity. Dr. Isabella Garnett was the first African American physician in Evanston, her husband Dr. Butler was the second African American physician. The houses at 1916 and 1918 Asbury Avenue are Evanston Landmarks and are historically the most important buildings still standing in the Fifth Ward. Ms. Earle wondered if Evanston is about to loose rich African American heritage to R-5 zoning. Alderman Joe Kent said that a lot of the historic, cultural, and architectural resources are not known. Garnett Place has magnificent homes but they have been converted to student housing. Many of these houses are zoned R-5 and are subject to change, not for the better. Barbara Gardner said that the Commission is aware of the problems with the Fifth Ward, she though that a Conservation District is a good idea, but it seems that the problems highlighted - tonight are more of a zoning problem. Mary McWilliams said that the problems are more than zoning issues. She talked about rhythm of structures on the street as an example. Alderman Kent said that two -flat owners will not oppose a Conservation District because their properties will be protected. He said that there is not one parcel zoned R-1 in the Fifth Ward. Alderman Kent said that is important to know how many single family houses have been converted to two -flats and three -flats in the Fifth Ward. Mr. Kent said that they have 90 days to propose a Conservation District. He said that they have the information and what they needed are the people to form a committee. Alderman Kent said that at the end of the moratorium in the Fifth Ward he would like to propose to the City Council the down zoning of the R-5 properties including Garnett Place which is R-4. Ms. Earle said that the area she surveyed was 1,200 buildings. ,She said.1hat the R-5.aregJ,.-uthe.M1 ayfau triangle. Evans= Presmation Commission September 16, 2003 -Minutes Page 17 Ms. Earle said that the Plan Commission is talking about demolishing everything on Garnett PIace, maybe leaving Ebenezer Church, and treating it as an extension of the Research Park. Carlos Ruiz said that he has obtained information about Conservation Districts in other communities. He suggested developing a proposal based on the goals of Conservation Districts rather than just focusing on the Fifth Ward problems. AIderman Kent believed that when they go back to the City Council they will have the support from the community. V. ADJOURNNIElr'T The Commission adjourned the meeting at approximately 12:10 a.m, on September 17, 2003. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner. EVANSTON PRESERVATION CONUMISSION Meeting .Minutes Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MENIBERS PRESENT: Mary Bruglicra, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle IN EINfBERS ABSENT: Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: John GOITeau, Mark Roscn, Richard Miller, Joan Miller, Mike Peterson, Diane Skomski. Tom Skomsk7, Mike Peterson, Laurie Murphy, Jim Torvik. Tom and Diana Skomsid, Gary DeStefano, Andrew Venamore, and Ramo Peroce,-ich PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERAfi'NATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:40 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. I1. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) Ms. Gardner said that the Commission did not have a quorum at the regularly scheduled meeting of October 21. Five Commission members reviewed then the projects scheduled on the agenda. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission would vote today on each project based on the straw poll results of October 21. 1. 2241 Sherman Avenue (N EHD local/federal) - Replacement of deteriorated windows on the front porch [Alteration] Susan Rundle summarized the project by saying that the building at 2241 Sherman was a two-story stucco residence and listed as a contributing structure to the Northeast Evanston Historic District. The project consists of the replacement of the front porch windows and a new door. The applicants would use four wood casement Margin windows. She said that standards for alteration 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 10applied. The straw poll vote for approval was 5 ayes, 0 nays. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the windows and door at 2241 Sherman, in that it meets standards (of alteration] 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 and 10. Particularly, the new windows 1ranston Preservation Commission October 28, 2003 — Minutes Page 2 would match the old windows on the porch. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1833 Asbury Avenue (Landmark/RHD) - Demolition of garage, construction of a MO -car garage (Demolitiom/Constructionj John Govreau, owner, was present. Susan Rundle said this is a wood and stucco with a hip roof two-story Queen Anne landmark house in the Ridge Historic District. She said Mr. Go1Teau would like to demolish the existing two -car garage that was damage by a tree and it is structurally unsound. The straw poll for demolition was 5 ayes, 0 nays. Nis. Rundle said that .Nir. Govreau applied for the construction of a two -car vinyl sided garage with a gable roof. The applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and I2 through 16, The straw poll for the demolition was 5 ayes, 0 nays. However, there were varying opinions about the vinyl siding. Commission's Findings Ms. Brugliera said that she spoke to an Associate Commissioner about tearing down a later addition that did not relate to the house and replacing it with a new structure. Because the landmark designation includes the entire property, the garage should try to relate to the house in some fashion such as the roof shape. In her opinion vinyl siding was not appropriate. his. Gardner disagreed and explained that even with the tax freeze program, where projects are reviewed by the State, they can't make you do something to an earlier time. For example, if the existing roof is asphalt shingle, one can replace it with asphalt shingle. Ms. Gardner said that applicant is building a new garage but is not by choice. She thought that the Commission could, from the style point of view, have the garage relate more to the house. Mr. Goweau said that the house has a hip roof and dormers are gabled. Ms. Gardner said that she did not think that the Commission could require higher materials that what was there. Ms. Bruglicra said that if the owner were to repair the garage the Commission would not ask him to replace the vinyl siding. Mr. Govreau said that the existing garage does not relate to the house at all. There is a house in the 1800 block of Asbury that has a garage that relates to the original house; 7 of 9 garages have vinyl coated metal 16" garage doors that are much greater improvement over his wooden door. Five garages are already vinyl clad, and his proposed garage is the best looking of all of them. He said that he is only asking replacing in kind. Mr. Govreau said that the garage doors will be metal panel doors. Carlos Ruiz said that he approves routinely replacement of materials in Lind. He encourages property owners to improving building materials when possible. Ms. Brugliera said that the Commission did not ask residing a vinyl sided landmark house with wood siding after a fire. Mr. Ruiz said that it is important to make the distinction that it not appropriate replacing original material on a landmark house with synthetic material. Clint Funk moved to approve the demolition based on standards I through 5, and particularly, there is no architectural significance [«tith the existing garage] and that demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest. He noted that an act of God cause this situation. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16, Clint moved to approve the construction of the garage at 1833 Asbury based on standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and Evanston Prese:-ation Commission October 28, 2CC.-: - Minutes Pace 3 13 through 16 -x-ith particular point to standard 12) the distinguishing original characteristics of the property have not been destroyed, and that the replacement is in kind or a better looking garage than what it %vas before. do one seconded the motion. The motion railed. Thomas Prairie moved to not approve a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 1833 Asbury because it does not meet specifically the requirements of standard 7) Relationship of Materials and Texture: The r:lationship of the materials and texture of the facade shall be % isually compatible with the predominant rmterials used in the structures to which it is visually related. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays. Carlos Ruiz said that he will be happy to work with Mr. GONTeau for an alternate solution. He asked the Commission give some direction to Mr. Govreau about -what would be appropriate. He informed Mr. GOI-Teau that he has 30 days if he swished to appeal to the City Council the Commission's findings. Nis. Gardner suggested hardi-plank as a siding material. Air. Go%Teau said that the he asked three contractors about this product with no results. Mr. Carey said that Nardi -plank is a standard product. Mr. Go%TeaU said that the cost of wood siding is S5,000 higher than vinyl siding. Mr. Govreau said that he cannot afford what the Commission is asking him to do. His insurance will not pay for a cedar sided garage. Nis. Brugliera asked Mr. Govrcau if he would agree to Mr. Ruiz and Air. Carey inspect the garage. Mr. Govreau agreed that they come to his house. Mr. Ruiz and Carey agreed to visit the site on Thursday, October 30, 2003. Mr. 60%Te3u thanked the Commission for the suggestions and consideration. 3. 2119 Sherman Avenue (NEHD locallfederatfUnknown) - Demolition of garage, construction of a two -car garage (Demolition/Construction) Susan Rundle said that the straw poll was 5 ayes 0 nays for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new two -car cedar siding garage at 2119 Sherman Avenue. The shingles on the gable and roof match that of the house. The house is not a landmark and it is in the Northeast Evanston Historic District. The house is a two-story frame residence with shingle gable roof. Nis. Rundle said that the standards for construction are. The standards for demolition are 1 through 4. The new garage will have (one over one) double hung windows to match that of the house. Chris Carey moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the existing garage at 2119 Sherman Avenue in that it does not meet: 1) demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general .welfare of the people of the City and the State, and 2) distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the district as a whole would be at loss with the tear down. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Clint Funk moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the garage at 2119 Sherman based on the standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 13, particularly with standard 7) Relationship of Materials and Texture is visually compatible with the structure to which it is visually related. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1207 Maple Avenue (Landmark/RHD) - Demolition of garage, construction of a two -car garage [Demolition/Construction] Evanston Preservation Commission October 28,1003 — Minutes Page 4 Susan Rundle sa-d that the house is a two-story frame house with shingles and gable roof. The proposed garage is identical. The straw• poll for demolition 5 ayes, 0 nays, and the straw poll of construction was tabled. Commissioner-, had suggested for the new garage wood windows and mitered comers. Mark Rosen, owner said that his contractor provided estimates for wood doors: S 5,400 for a plain wood door and S 7,000 for arched door. Chris Carey moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the garage at 1207 Maple Avenue, in &iat it does not conflict with standards of demolition 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The demolition of the garage would not be detrimental to the public interest: the demolition would not be detrimental to the character of the historic district. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion ensued about the garage door and its material. Mary Brugliera asked the rationale of allowing 1833 Asbury to have a non wood garage door and require 1207 Maple to have a wood door. Barbara Gardner said that the reason was that a mansion like home would probably have a budget to afford a 55,000 garage door. Nis. Brugliera said that even though the Commission is not supposed to consider financial elements, and yet, it does consider it. She thought the standard for doors is unrealistic. Carlos Ruiz said that the Preservation Ordinance deals with economic hardship, where a property owner could apply for economic hardship after denial of the certificate of appropriateness. Thomas Prairie asked how binding the garage standards were. Nis. Gardner said that the purpose of the garage standards was that if those standards were met, then the owner would not have to appear in front of the Commission and that the Preservation Coordinator could approve. Should someone wanted to put a door other than wood (for a landmark) then the person would have to come in front of the Commission. It never was intended to be a hard and fast rule. It was noted that the garage standards mentioned fiber glass, but not steel paneled doors. Mark Rosen said the structure is much nicer than what the existing garage and the cost of an electric wood door would be more expensive. Mr. Prairie said that for him a non wood door was acceptable if it was facing the alley, but it was facing the street he would be more inclined for a wood door. Ms. Gardner agreed. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the garage at 1207 Maple based on its meeting of standards [for review of construction] 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Particularly standards: 7) relationship of materials and texture to the house, 8) roof shape, 10) the scale of the structure, and 12) the distinguished original qualities. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay 5. 2338 Bryant Avenue (Landmark) - Removal and replacement of a 1948 addition with a rivo- story addition and a one-story covered porch on the west elevation of the house (Alteration/Constructionj Richard Miller, loan Miller, property owners presented plans to remove an existing addition and construction a two-story addition and a one-story covered porch on the west elevation of the house at 2338 Bryant Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Miller said his 1923 house, which had a shed dormer rear addition in 1948, and has a summer porch that has been modified several times. Mr. Miller would Iike to remove the 1948 addition, move the kitchen wall out l 1' and improve a small room and half bathroom into a more appropriate room with a Evanston Presen'ation Cor.=ssion October 28, 2O03--Minutcs Page 5 closet and'/. bath and rru&oom. The existing rear entrance would be reproduced in the same relation at the corner of the house of the original. None of the existing originat facades would be altered, except a small window on the sou h fagade to be removed and replaced with a more appropriate window to match the fenestration of the house. The new cedar siding would match the original, the asphalt shingles would be replaced with architec-turzi shingles simulating the texture of cedar shingles. Commission's Findings Mr. Miller said that the new south elevation would have a small skvli¢ht on the dormer roof and it would not be visible from the public way. Susan Rundle said for the most part the addition complements the house and it is setback. However, the gable ridge on the new cast elevation is higher and is visible from the front. Mr. Miller said that the pitch of the roof and the width of the wails determined the height of the ridge. Ms. Rundle asked if the higher ridge was necessary of is it more to the detriment to the aesthetics to the existing house. Mr. Miller said that to get usable space underneath with 8' high ceilings the high roof peak is necessary. The east facade has as proposed a sloped roof. Susan Rundle moved to approve the demolition of the second story shed dormer to the rear of the building at 2338 Bryant because it meets standards: 1) the demolition would not be detrimental to the public, 2) it is not of such historic or architectural content that should be preserved, 3) the demolition of that piece of the building would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, and 4) it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture, andfor material that it could be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense. Ms. Bruglicra seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Miller said that he has been studying windows for years and wzote a paper about in 1999, a copy of which is being submitted tonight. They obtained approval in 1999 for an alteration on the north side of the house which they did not carried out. At that time the Commission urged him to use wood windows as opposed to aluminum clad. He said that he would like to replace somewindows on the house and the windows on the addition should match the original windows as closely as possible. Wood milled trim will be used with aluminum clad windows, matching the sheen and color. If the color is match, the question whether it's an aluminum clad product or wood painted surface, does not really determine the difference in the look. The problem is in the function of a lot of other details, like flanges, grooves, lapping of joints, width of muntins, and also sizing to the original rough openings. Mr. Miller said that he is leaning towards Pozzi windows because they have the color, they can produce in W' increments to fit the space, and the muntins are'/:' in vertical dimension. The profile of the muntins is different. Pozzi windows are available in wood or aluminum clad. The profile on the old windows is an elongated profile, the new ones arc flatten. Mr. Miller said he spend more time with the windows than anybody he knows. The house next door is a brick Colonial house has replaced the wood «dndows with aluminum clad windows, and they cannot tell the difference. Susan Rundle said that the alterations arc putting a window in the south side and another on west side of the house. Mr. Miller said that those windows arc not visible from the street. Ms. Rundle said that the proposed aluminum clad windows is an issue on a landmark house. Mr. Miller said that he is requesting approval of aluminum clad windows if he can make it work visually. He said that they have not been able to get a quote from any window rehab people to restore their windows. Ms. Gardner recommended Adams Architectural [Wood Product] in the Quad Cities [Iowa]. Mr. Prairie suggested Lee Lumber of Chicago on Pershing Road. Mr. Miller wants to use the new windows on the addition as the future replacement windows on the house. Evanston Preservation Commission October 28, 2003 — Minutes Page 6 Carlos Ruiz explained that if Mr. Miller wished to apply for the Property Tax Freeze, the State will allow window replacements on the sides and rear with different material than the original windows on the front elevation of a building. The new windows should match the design and style of the original windows. Front elevation windows should be restored or replace in kind. Susan Rundle asked if the Commission should review alterations. his. Gardner said that alterations are mute because they cannot be seen from the public way. Mr. Funk moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the addition at 2335 Bryan Avenue based on standards [for construction] 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 through 14, with particular emphasis on standards: 7) relationship of materials and texture is visually compatible, 10) the scale of the structure, the size and mass and relationship to open spaces is appropriate and,.isibly compatible, and 2) the front is proportioned with the rest of the structure. hoary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 1041 Ridge Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) - Construction of a two -level wooden rear deck [Construction] Barbara Gardner called 104I Ridge Avenue. Mr. Ruiz said that the applicants were not present since they are reconsidering their application. 7. 1315 Church Street (RI{D1\C) Partial demolition, exterior alterations and the rehabilitation of the building [Demolition/Alteration/Construction] Mike Peterson, owncr, brought examples of artificial siding for the sides and rear of the house at 1315 Church Street. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Peterson said that the State is concemed with the front fagade for the Tax Freeze Program. The front fagade will have cedar siding. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the straw poll was demolition, alteration, and construction. Demolition includes the second floor shed dormer. The foot print of the house is staying the same. The straw poll for demolition was 5 ayes, 0 nays. The alterations include the removal of the t%vo-story area at the back of the house. The straw poll was 5 ayes, 0 nays. The construction is for the two cedar decks at the back of the house. The straw poll was 5 ayes, 0 nays. There was change in the back; the transom over the doorway is now rectangular as oppose to the arch. The artificial material for the siding and the aluminum clad windows were not discussed. Where there are wood windows they will be replace in kind and the comer boards are wood. Mr. Peterson said that all the windows on the front will be wood, the side windows will be aluminum clad. Clint Funk moved to approve the demolition of the addition on the house at 1315 Church Street, based on standards 1 through 4. Particularly, the addition does not have distinctive historical, cultural or architectural character that needs to be preserved. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that alterations include removing the two-story area at the back of the house. Mr. Peterson said once the shed dormer is removed the gable roof will be extended over; the side walls will stay in place. There is also a roof deck. The standards for alteration are I through 6, 9 and 10. Clint Funk moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the alteration at I315 Church Street based on standards I through 6, 9 and 10; with particular attention to standard 1) every reasonable effort is being Evanston Preservation Commission October 28, 2003 -- Minutes Page 7 made to adapt the properr, structure that requires minimal alterations to the property. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Rundle the applicable standards for construction are 1, 5, 7, I0, and 12 through 16. Clint Funk moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of two decks (east and north) at 1315 Church based on standards 1, 5, 7. 10, and 12 through 16; with particular attention to standard 10) the size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, is �7sible compatible with the property, site, structure to which are visually related, and 7) relationship of textures and materials is compatible. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 1611 Simpson Street (Landmark) - Installation of a metal gate on the main entry of the building [Alteration] Tom and Diana Skomski, ow-ncrs presented plans for the installation of a metal gate on the main entry of the building at 1611 Simpson Street. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Skomski said that he would likc to reinstall the glass on the front entry door, but for security reasons he is proposing a custom metal gate on the main entry to the building. Mr. Skomski showed a model of the proposed gate. The gate will be painted in bronzclgreen patina color. Mr. Skomski showed pictures of other buildings with security gates. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that standards for alteration 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 applied. Chris Carey moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the custom metal gate at 1611 Simpson in that it mcets standard 9) contemporary design for alterations shall not be discouraged when such alterations do not destroy significant historic, cultural or architectural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, and material of the neighborhood and environment, and 10) whenever 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. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said that the City of Evanston discourages the installation of security gates such the ones'Mr. Skomski showed to the Commission. 9. 736 Michigan Avenue (LSHDI\C) - Removal of an existing deck, and construction of a one- story rear addition with a railing on top of the building. The proposed addition requires a zoning variation for the north side yard setback. [Demolition/Construction/Zoning Variance] Laurie Murphy, owner, and Jim Torvik, architect. presented plans for removing an existing deck, and the construction of a one•story rear addition at 736 Michigan Avenue. The project requires a zoning variance for the north side yard setback. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Susan Rundle said that the straw poll for demolition was 5 ayes, 0 nays. The variance was 2 ayes, 3 nays. The alteration was 3 ayes, 2 nays. There was no straw poll for construction. Mr. Torvik said that they measured the distances between the houses. They took pictures of the front and rear of the house. They made adjustments to the size and placement of side windows and the proposed windows on the south fagade. The issue of side yard setback issue is between 736 Michigan and 740 Michigan. They are asking for 3.25' in lieu of the 5' side yard setback required. The distance between Evanston Preservation Commission October 28, 2003 - Minutes Page 8 the houses is 9.6'. The lots are 40' ride. Tr,-. distance at the front of the house is 12.7'. Mr. Torvik said that they also added windows on the north side as well. On the south elevation the new stained windows are smaller, where the existing windows are not very attractive. They also adjusted the head height of the windows. hir. Ruiz said that he visited the site and he concurred with Mr. Torvik's assessment. Commission's Findings Mr. Carey asked about the proposed materials. Mr. Tonik said that the new windows are wood windows with divided lights, the exterior finish is stucco; the roof is flat with a deck and railing around. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for zoning variance are A and C. Thomas Prairie moved to recommend the variance for 3.25' side yard setback at 7361%iichigan as it meets standards A) it is appropriate in the interest of historic preset -anion, and C) it is not detrimental to the health, welfare of the public or injurious to property. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that applicable standards for demolition are 1 through 4. Clint Funk moved to approve the demolition of the existing deck as meeting standards I through 4; in particular standard 1) the deck is not of such historic, cultural, or architectural significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City and the State. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed_ Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for demolition are 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. She moved to approve the alteration of indows as proposed at 736 Michigan as meeting standards: ))every reasonable has made to adapt the structure in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property, structtn•e, or site and its environment has not be destroyed, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the property, structure, or will be treated %%ith sensitivity, 9) the Commission did not discouraged contemporary design for the alterations, and 10) the alterations can be removed in the future, and the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction arc 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Clint Funk moved to approve the one -stop• rear addition with and deck top at 736 Michigan as meeting standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 12 through I6; with emphasis on standard 10) the size and mass of the addition in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches and balconies is visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public Rays, objects and places to which it is ---ismIly related, and 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property, structure, or site and its environment are not being destroyed. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. At this tine the Commission moved on to Neu- Business III. NEW BUSINESS 1119 Judson Avenue (LSHD) -- TlM story addition to rear, and alteration of the side of the home [Advisory Review on Zoning Variation] Evanston Presmation Commission October 28, 2003 — Ntinuics Page 9 Gary DeStefano, owner, presented and application for a zoning variance for a 34% lot coverage of previously approved plans for a two-story addition to the rear of the house at 1119 Judson Avenue. The house is nithin the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie moved to recommend the zoning variance for 34% lot coverage for the two-story addition at 1119 Judson Avenue as meeting standards for variation: A) it is in the interest of historic preservation, and C) it «ill not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the historic district. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. 6 ayes. 0 nays At this time the Commission returned to Committee Reports 10. 19I6-181laple Avenue (Landmark) - Revised application for removal of an existing open rear porch, the construction of a tivo-store enclosed stairs at file rear of the building, and an open roof deck. The proposed addition requires zoning variations for the lot coverage, rear yard setback and parking [Construction/Alteration/Zoning Variance] Andrew Venamore of Airoom presented revised plans for the removal of an existing open rear porch, the construction of a two-story enclosed stairs at the rear of the building, and a rooftop deck at 1916-18 Maple Avenue. The building is an Evanston landmark. The project also requires zoning variations for parking, lot coverage and rear yard set back. Mr. Venamore said that the Commission had previously expressed interest in joining the two elements that the addition had across the top of the building providing access to the rooftop. He said that approach would make the lot coverage issue worse by approximately 60 S.F. from the zoning standpoint. Mr. Venamore passed around newly revised elevations for the rear addition mirroring the architectural style that is on one of the parapet -valIs at the front fagade of the building. He said the entrance to the rooftop deck is now centered. The new design reduces the bulk of the addition and ties the features apparent in the front elevation v6 ith the rear, providing continuity. The height of the addition is about the same as before. The parapet type feature allows them to get access to the rooftop deck and the architectural roof shingle would be visible. The stairs are along the side and terminate at the center of the rooftop. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked about the exterior finish material of the addition. Mr. Venamore said that it is hardi- board. The detail at the top of the addition is intended to mirror the dentil work that is visible in the front. Mr. Carey said it would be better to use a gable detail rather than trying to imitate the front elevation. his. Gardner and Mr. Funk concurred with Mr. Carey's suggestion. Mr. Carey also suggested eliminating the dentil work and minimizing unnecessary ornamentation. Mary Brugliera liked alternate (A), finding it as a very clever solution to the problem. Mr. Funk asked about the zoning variances. Mr. Venamore said that zoning s-ariances were for parking, lot coverage, and rear yard set back. his. Rundle said that they reduced the parking from three to two spaces at the back of the building. The straw poll on 10/21/03 was 5 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Venamore said that the City's traffic engineer is more accepting of two parking spaces. Ms. Rundle moved to recommend approval of zoning variance for the lot coverage, rear yard set back, and reduction from three to two parking spaces. The proposed variation meets standard A, as it does not adversely affect the architecture of the building, and standard C, as it would not be detrimental to the Evanston Preservation Conurdssion October 2S, 2D03 —Minutes Page 10 public safety and welfare. Ms. Brugbera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Regarding the construction of the addition, Mr. Venamore proposed to submit drawings for an addition that would remove the parapet wall, have a gable end instead (right angle sections would be removed), maintain the window, remove the dentil work, and continue the banding around the addition at the parapet wall height. Chris Carey said that the applicant should proside a detail drawing showing the fascia's width in the gable. The siding should be hardi-board (not vinyl siding) with a narrow reveal (weather exposure). Carlos Ruiz will approve the new drawings administratively. Thomas Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the rear addition at 1916-18 Maple, contingent on a submittal of a design as discussed during this meeting. The drawings must be submitted to Carlos Ruiz for review. The project as revised meets the following standards: 1) the height is compatible with the existing building, 3) proportion of openings, 7) relationship of materials and texture, 8) roof shape is visually compatible, 10) scale of the structure is compatible, 12) does not destroy original qualities or character of the property, 14) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design, and 15 the addition could be removed. (Standards 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 17 do not apply], Mr. Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Note: No rooftop deck was approved as this time. 10. 904 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) - Window replacement (Alteration) This alteration for the most part has been executed without a Certificate of Appropriateness. Applicant is requesting now a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ramo Perocevich, owner, said that he had made a mistake by replacing the windows of the building at 904 Hinman Avenue. He said that he did not know that it was historically protected. He said that Carlos Ruiz had come and stopped the work. Mr. Perocesich said that nothing else was done, but 98% of the windows were down. He said that from his point of view the windows were old and 50% of the screens were missing. He said that he had complaints that the windows were not sealing, the hardware was missing, and there was another problem of putting the air conditioning units on the windows. He said that he replaced the windows with aluminum windows and matched the grids. Mr. Perocevich said that he was sorry and that did not know what he seas doing. He said if he had known Mr. Ruiz before, he would probably have done it cheaper. He said that he did not even have all the money and that he raised some of it from family. Mr. Pcrocerich said that three apartments were not done. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked if the three apartments were on the front or the back of the building. Mr. Perocevich said that he started on the west -side of the building, and now, the building is ready on the Main Street and Hinman Avenue sides. He said that the second and third floor hallway windows were not done yet. Mr. Perocevich said that the building was not touched. The storefront on the corner was done before him. The Main side is changed with black boards. He said that he did a lot of work in the courtyard. Two to three hundred pieces of the Mediterranean We were replaced, as well as the gutters. Chris Carey asked if an inspection was conducted when the building was bought. Mr. Pcrocerich said that he did have an inspection. Mr. Carey asked if Mr. Perocevich knew that there were problems. Mr. Perocevich said yes. He said that regarding the windows that he thought that he could paint them, but after carefully looking the windows from apartment to apartment he realized that 50% of the screens were Evanston Preservation Commission October 28, 2003 — Minutes Page 11 missing. Then he though doing something from the inside, but late: he brought an individual who replaced windows form one of his buildings in Chicago. Those windows worked great for few years and then he replaced the windows on the building at 904 Hinman. Susan Rundle said that the original windows were all steel casement windows and that they were replaced with double-hune aluminum windows. Mr. Perocc%ich said that the aluminum windows match the grid of the steel windows. He said that maybe there is a better product. but that was what he could afford. He said that he hand spoken to Mr. Ruiz about it; Mr. Ruiz was very nice and helpful. He said that he did not touch anything from the time Mr. Ruiz came to the building. Mary Brugliera asked if Mr. Perocevich bought the building directly from the previous owner. Mr. Perocevich said that he bough it through a real estate company, Marcus and Milochev. Ms. Gardner said that it was her understanding that Mr. PeroccNich new that the building was a landmark, but that he thought that it only apply to demolition. Mr. Perocevich said he really did not answer the question. He said that there is a sign on the side of the building indicating that the building is an award winner of architectural design. He said that he is not from this area and that he did not know the law. He said that he has worked all his life as a janitor through Evanston and the north side of Chicago. He said that he really did not know that that was the case. He said that if he knew that he had to go through this much trouble, he would have probably spent 515,000 to paint the windows. He said that the windows maybe of historical value, but he has to meet the demands from tenants and rent the units, and cover the bills of the building. Mr. Perocevich said that with the old windows, one could not put the air conditioning, the screens were messing, there were no handles, single string windows, and he tried to match the grids because he liked the design of the French windows. He said that he could put 510,000 to 515,000 cheaper vinyl windows. He said that he did not look in the market for steel windows, Barbara Gardner said that that perhaps Mr. Perocc�ich misunderstood that one cannot replace windows in a historic building, but one does not replace casement windows with double -hung windows. There are replacement windows that are made to replace steel windows to keep the look the same. Mr. Perocevich said that he did not know that, and he wished that he knew it. He said that he does not need this trouble. Thomas Prairie said that it gets a little bit cloudy, and if a building is not a landmark, windows are just being replaced in kind and one does not need a permit. But if it is a landmark building you do need a permit. Man' Bruglicra asked if Mr. Perocevich owned a landmark building in Chicago. Mr. Perocevich said no. He said that his building is on Touhy and Ridge. He said that the same contractor did the same work on that building two years ago. Mr. Perocevich said this time that the windows of two apartments were not replaced. Susan Rundle asked when Mr. Perocevich bought the building and knew that it was a landmark, did he not ask the realtor, or did the realtor did not tell him the ramifications of buying a landmark Mr. Perocevich said that he was told nothing repeatedly, and that he did not asked either. He knew that one wanted to change the storefront perhaps something was needed. But, as far as the windows, he though that he was doing something good. Thomas Prairie said that the casement style windows was what gave that particular style of building its character from the beginning, now its character has bcrn completely changed. Mr. Perocevich said that he understood, and that he was present at the meeting. The Commission has to do whatever they think. Mary Brugliera suggested that the Commission apply to have the building decertified, even though it is by a very well known firm from that period, and a lot beautiful buildings in Chicago. But the comments that its excellent integrity, except from some of the shops on the ground floor, one could maintain, but it has Evanston Preservation Commission ih,ober 28, 2003 — Ntinutes Page 12 lost its integrity. Mr. Ruiz said what it is happened is not irreversible, he believed that the managers for the building or the realtors that sold the building must have krossn. Because two other interested buyers contacted and met him at *7c site and they wanted to know e:cactly what to do with the building. Nls. Gardner said that her next door neighbor was looking at buy7ng the building and he knew of the landmark. Diary Brugliem said that she did not know what the solution was. except tell Mr. PeroceNich to take all the new windows out and put in ones that would be acceptable. fir. Perocevich said that he could not do that, maybe in 15 years from now. Thomas Prairie said that if the Commission does not approve the certificate [of approprtateness], Mr. Perocc%lch could appeal it to the City Council and make his case to them. Mr. Ruiz then would take a look at the circumstances that Mr. Perocevich went through beyond what is the Commission's authority to review. He said that the Commission only has the standards for review in order to make a determination. The Commission cannot use fir. Peroce-Och reasoning behind the change and overlook the standards. Mr. Ruiz said that there is a process that if the Commission does not approved what Mr. Perocevich submitted for approval; then fir. Pcrocevich could apply to City Council to reverse the Commission's decision so he could keep the windows. He said that, the Commission, based on the standards that they have, could not approve (the new windows). Barbara Gardner said that She had a problem with decertifying the landmark, because it opens the door for anybody to willfully destroy a landmark just to get unlandmark it, it would set a precedent; she said the Commission could not do it. Ms. Gardner said that she felt bad for what happened to Mr. Perocevich, but it does not make the building any less important than it was before. Some character has been destroyed, but it is no less than important building. Mr. Prairie said it has been altered only. Air. Carey said what all the Commission could do is applying the standards and render a decision. Mary Brugliera said that if the Commission denies Mr. Perocevich's application, he could appeal the Commission's decision to City Council. There is also the certificate of special merit, which acknowledges special circumstances. ltilr. Ruiz clarified that special merit is when the proposed project would have greater benefits to the community. Air. Ruiz said that the Commission would review the economic hardship application not the City Council. Ms. Brugliera quoted the Preservation Ordinance; "The Commission shall only approve an application for a certificate of economic hardship upon a determination that the denial of the certificate of appropriateness has resulted in the denial of all reasonable use of and retum from the property." Susan Rundle said that the standards for review of alteration that apply are: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Susan Rundle moved to deny the alterations that have already been done to the building at 904 Hinman, because it does not meet standard 1) there was no effort made to do minimal alteration to the property, 2) the distinguishing original quality of the windows, which was an important part of the building, has been destroyed, 3) alteration with no historical basis, 5) one of the distinctive stylistic features was not treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. She said that there was not any discussion on that because the windows were replaced without looking into the repair. Standard 9 is a directive, the Commission has not discouraged contemporary design, and 10) has been met because the windows could be removed at any time, without destroying the integrity of the structure. Thomas Prairic seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Gardner moved to amend the motion by adding to standards 6 that in the event window replacement is necessary, that the material should have been replaced with material that was of the same composition, Evanston Preservation Commission October 28, 2003 — Minutcs Pagc 13 design, color. texture and visual quality. Chris Carey seconded the amendment. The amended passed. Vote: 6 ayes. 0 nays. Nis. Brugliera made a comment that this meant that Mr. Perocevich may not replace the remaining windows. The Commission members concurred with Nis. Brueliera. Ms. Bruglicra called the question in denying the certificate of appropriateness. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Nis. Brugliera said that if Air. Perocevich wanted to follow the standards in repairing or replacing the remaining windows, he could come back and proposed what he has in mind. Ms. Gardner said t that Mr. Perocc,.ich could replace the remaining windows with a historically appropriate window. Ms. Gardner reiterated to Mr. Perocevich that if he would like to restore the remaining windows, or if they need to be replaced, he could talk to Mr. Ruiz about where to find appropriate replacements. Then Mr. Perocevich could come back to the Commission for a certificate of appropriateness for those windows, Mr. Ruiz said the Commission had denied the current [new] windows. He asked what the next step is for Air. Perocevich. Mr. Ruiz the Commission has to ask Mr. Perocevich to replace the [original] windows in kind. He sugeested that the Commission make a motion to ask Mr. Perocevich to replace the [originall windows in kind. Susan Rundle asked what was appropriate. Mr. Ruiz mentioned the replacement [of the windows] in kind to address specifically, standard 6. Nis. Gardner quoted the Preservation Ordinance section 2-9-9 (A) 6: "In the event that replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Mr. Ruiz recommended that the Commission should take some action as far as what is Mr. Peroce4ich alternative, Mr. Ruiz asked if the Commission was asking Mr. Perocevich to rcvcrse the replacement of the windows or not. Ms. Brugliera said that —hat the Commission is sa%ing is that Mr. Perocevich could nut complete the job with the remaining windows. Nis. Gardner said that the Commission is saying that Mr. Perocevich cannot leave the vndows the evay they are without an overriding action from the City Council. Mr. Prairie said that Mr. Pcrocc%ich is in violation [of the Presmation Ordinance] because he did not get a building permit and to get a building permit he needs a certificate of appropriateness. Ms. Bruglicra said that Mr. Perocc%ich did not need a permit. Air. Ruiz said that Mr. Perocevich needed a permit. Mr. Prairie said that was what it needed to be rectified. Ms. Gardner said the Mr. Perocevich has the choice to replace the windows and he would need to come back to get approval for an appropriate window, or he could appeal to the City Council. Ms. Brugliem said that she had asked before if the Commission was asking Mr. Perocevich to correct the error, or just not complete the rest of the windows. Mr. Prairie said that de facto, that yes, the Commission is asking Mr. Perocevich to correct the error. Mr. Carey asked if %ir. Perocevich should consult with Mr. Ruiz again and discussed what his options are. Mr. Prairie asked if Mr. Perocevich was going to replace rectify the error. Mr. Perocevich said that he would not touch the remaining windows. Mr. Ruiz clarified that Mr. Perocevich could just not leave the new replacement windows. He said that there is a penalty involved that if Mr. Perocevich does not comply with the Commission's ruling, Mr. Perocevich would be subject to pay up to S500.00 for each day of the violation. Air. Ruiz said that Mr. Perocevich needs to try to work something out. He said that, otherwise, if Mr. Perocevich did not comply with the Commission's ruling he would be fined. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission does not regulate the amount of the fine, but the judge of administrative adjudication of the City would. Ms. Brugliera said that Mr. Perocevich best interest would be to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council. Mr. Perocevich said that he did not have any choice, because he could not close the building down. He said that he did not have any money and that he just mortgaged the building. Mr. Perocevich said that he did not his oAm money to put up the Evanston Pr-eservation Commission October 2S. 2()}3 Page 14 replacement windows. Mr. Perocc%ieh said that he could appeal the Commission decision, come back to the Commission, or do whatever was necessary. He said azzin that he would not touch the remaining windows. He said that he could paint those windows next -.�mmer and leave those two apartments. Ms. Rundle said that the Commission is not sa,,ing that he could not replace the remaining windows, but Mr. Perocevich needs to replace them with something appropriate. Mr. Perocevich said that he has 98 percent of the windows replaced, and do 2 percent with windows that would not match. Mr. Prairie said that Mr. Perocevich had mentioned the installation of air conditioning on the windows. He said that it would not look good casement windows that would have to be adapted for an air conditioner. %fr. Perocevich said that there were 10 to 12 apartments where the old windows were sawn for the air conditioners. He said those air conditioners are gone now. 'pis. Gardner said that there are air conditioner for casement windows. Mr. Perocevich said that a casement window has to be ruined to put that kind of air conditioner. Mr. Perocevich said that the replacement windows look better that the original because the original windows were in really bad shape. Mr. Ruiz cited for the record the Preservation Ordinance section 2-9-I 5: PENALTIES: "(A) Fines for Violation: Failure to perform any act required by this Chapter or performance of any act prohibited by this Chapter shall constitute a violation. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to a fine of up to five hundred dollars (5300.00) for each day on which a violation exists. (B) Penalty for Willful Violation or Gross Negligence; In addition to the fines authorized by subsection 2- 9-I5(A}, a person who willfully or through gross negligence violates the provisions of this Chapter by participating in alteration, construction, demolition or relocation affecting a property, structure, site or object nominated or designated as a landmark or located in a nominated or designated district without complying tsith the required procedures in this Chapter for rc%7esz• of such alteration, construction, demolition and relocation, shall not be issued building permits, certificates of occupancy, licenses and curb cut permits for alteration, construction, demolition or relocation affecting such property, structure, site or object for a period of five (5) years following the date of the violation except to correct structural defects affecting the foundation, roof, .walls, partitions, floor supports, ceilings and chimneys of the nominated or designated landmark or property, structure, site or object located in a nominated or designated district. (C) Other Remedies: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections 2-9-15(A) and Lab the City may institute appropriate proceedings in Iaw and equity to prevent or remedy any violation of the provisions of this Chapter. In the case of willful violation or gross negligence by any person, the City may seek reversal of the prohibited work without regard to economic hardship. (Ord. 12-0-94), and 2-9-16: SEVI;R.A.BII. M': If any provision or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions are declared to be severable. (Ord. 12-0- 94) " Mr. Prairie asked what would put Mr. Perocevich in violation. Air. Ruiz said that Mr. Perocevich did apply for a permit or a certificate of appropriateness. Once, Mr. Perocevich applied for the certificate of appropriateness, Mr. Perocevich did not meet the standards. fir. Prairie asked hoty Mr. Perocevich continues to be in violation, by not coming back to the Commission. Mr. Ruiz suggested that the Commission passed a motion to ask Mr. Perocevich to either reverse [the replacement windows] so he could meet the standards within so many days to do it. He said that Mr. Perocevich has only thirty days Evanston Prescrvation Commission October 28. 2003, — Minutes Page 15 to appeal the Commission's decision. Mr. Ruiz said that he cited the sections mentioned above to make sure that were no loopholes. Mr. Prairie said that what the Commission had done was to deny the certificate of appropriateness. Ms. Brugliera said that the Commission did so retroactively and that Mr. Perocevich is technically in violation of the Preservation Ordinance, because he did the work without a certificate of appropriateness, and even though the Commission was voting after the fact, the Commission denied the certificate of appropriateness. %fr. Prairie asked if it was implicit then that Mr. Perocevich has to correct the error. Ms, Gardner said that she would think that the fine would kick in after the thirty days. \ir. Perocevich has thirty days to file an appeal. Mr. Ruiz said what was so hard to make a motion requiring Mr. Perocevich to replace the windows in kind. Mr. Prairie said that he did not know if the Commission could do that specifically. Ms. Brughera said that she did not think that the Commission needed to do anything, but do what the Commission had just done. She said that from what she saw in the ordinance the Commission had done its work. It was up to Mr. Perocevich to decide what he wants to do next. Mr. Perocevich said that was to appeal. Ms. Rundle said that Mr. Pcrocc%ich did not have to appeal in thirty days, and replace the windows. Mr. Ruiz said that %ir. Perocevich could do that, but has told the Commission that he could not do that. Ms. Brugliera said that Mr. Perocevich asked for a period of time to reverse the windows, bit by bit, the Commission could vote on that. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission would then have to enforce that. Mr. Perocevich said that he would like to seek legal counsel. Commission members thank Mr. Perocevich for attending the meeting. IV. MINUTES Chris Carey moved to approve the following minutes: April 14, 2003 May 13, 2003 June 11, 2003 June 17, 2003 Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention V. ADJOURNIN ENT Clink Funk moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m... Stuart Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Presmatt oordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMINIISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Barbara Gardner, Stan Gerson, Michael Girard, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Funk, Thomas Prairie, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: John Govreau, Nathan Kipnis, Bill Becker, Dave Dwyer, Joyce Romanoff, Vera Chatz, Gerald Gordon, Judy Fiske, Mary McWilliams, Debbie Hillman, Anne Earle, Ann Dienner, Andrew McGonigle, Anne McGuire, Ted Benson, Virginia Holbert, Joyce Romanoff, Paul Janicki, Wendy Kendrick, Mary Mc Williams, and Anne Earle. PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, James Wolinski, and Keith Fujihara I. DETER,IIINATION OF QUORUAI At approximately 7:40 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Il. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1833 Asbury Avenue (LandmarWRHD) - Construction of a two -car garage (Demolition/Construction) John Govreau, owner, returned to present plans for the construction of a two -car garage at 1833 Asbury Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Chris Carey said that he visited the site and that in his opinion the damaged garage has many structural problems. The Commission approved last month the demolition of the existing garage. Mr. Govreau said that he obtained the estimate for hardi-board siding; the cost of this material is 27,027, cedar siding is 29,000 and vinyl is I2,500 of which the insurance will cover 6,000. Mr. Govreau explained that the cost of hardi-board is a considerable economic hardship because he Evanston Presers•ation Commission November 18. 3003 Page 2 has experienced in the recent past a dramatic reduction of his annual income due to the events of September 11, 2001. Ms. Gardner said that she still believes that the Commission cannot require the upgrade of the existing vinyl siding on the damage garage with a more expensive material. Carlos Ruiz said that he does approve replacement of materials in kind. He said that there are other standards for construction other than standard 7, that the Commission could determine its decision. Mary BrugIiera said that she was uncomfortable in relying only on the cost of the material to make a decision. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission approved in the past vinyl siding for vinyl sided structures that had suffered fire damaged, In some case the vinyl was far better that was on a particular structure. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission approved structures with vinyl siding but asked to install wood corner boards and trim. He said that lie would have similar concerns as some Commissioners if the existing garage was original to the Landmark house. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for Construction are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Mary Brugliera moved to approved the construction of the garage at 1833 Asbury with the vinyl siding based on standards 1) height, 3) proportion of openings, 5) rhythm of spacing in the structures, 7) it does not meet, 8) roof shapes, 10) the scale of the structure and relationship to the main building, 12) the original qualities of the structure, she said not applicable, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 15) if it were removed the house will not damage the house. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays. III. CON14NUTTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1220 Michlgan Avenue (7Iew/LSHD) - Addition of 5 wind turbines to top of roof ]Alteration] Dave Dwyer, owner, Nate Kipnis, consulting architect, and Bill Becker, architect and industrial designer at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) presented plans for the installation of wind turbines to the top of the roof of the house at 1220 Michigan Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Kipnis said that the Commission had previously approved the construction of the house and that now they were asking for a modification that involves the installation of 5 wind turbines to the fagade's roof ridge. Mr. Kipnis said that these are not windmills, but something different, and they are quiet. Bill Becker, the inventor of the system played an audio/video presentation about the wind turbines. The presentation emphasized the properties of the "Aeroturbine" that produces electricity from the wind in urban settings. They are low profile, noise and vibration free, relatively inexpensive, low maintenance and safe. In the CD Mr. Becker hopes that the wind turbine would be part of a new architecture. Each turbine is enclosed in an appropriate cage or framework, sometimes in combination with solar panels. Because of their cylindrical shape, the turbines operate safely in any weather condition and are virtually silent. The turbines could be Evanston Preservation Commission November 18, 2003 Pip 3 integrated into a new form of architecture called by Mr. Becker "Aerotecture." It incorporates other forms of renewable energy such as passive and active solar. Aerotecture could begin to shill entire cities from their current role as consumers of massive amounts of conventionally produced energy to creators of renewable energy th,_y need to function. fir. Becker believes that a new kind of architecture that brines wind energy into its design from the very beginning, instead of adding to old architecture that is not that efficient_ New building could become energy productive. Air. Becker said that the video did not show the full integration of the turbines into the architecture of a building. He said that they have an opportunity non- to fully integrate to a point where one would not know that, if one did not look very closely, that there is this kind of energy addition. Mr. Kipnis said that this is the best solution they could think of to integrate the turbines into the existing ridge line. The building is north/south ridge and the wind is predominantly west. The west roof is optimized to catch the %vied. The street front edge is to the east, the roof line is being extended up the east, so it's mainly in the back of the building. Mr. Kipnis said that a mock-up was already on the roof. The color would match up the structure with the cedar -gray color of the roof, and the Lexon blade would also be in a similar color. Mary Bruglicra asked James Wolinski if any power generation equipment comes under the purview of the Zoning Department. Mr. Wohnski said that when this proposal was brought to him that he was initially skeptical about it because he did not want anything that would be offensive to the neighborhood. He said that now he is impressed with what he was shown. There are no zoning issues with the proposal. It peaks out at 35-feet and they are within the height limitations. One of his concerns was the noise aspect, but as seen in the video presentation, the noise is negligible, below what is permitted by code, as far as decibels. He said that there is a lot of pressure right now, from the Environment Board, the Energy Commission, and even the City Council is looking at reusable sources of energy. Mr. Wolinski said that the applicants have been in the forefront of geothermal heating and cooling in Evanston %ith a couple of buildings. He said that the data submitted to him shows that the energy reduction would be 75 percent overall through a 12-month period. Mr. Wolinski said that this is a preservation issue, and that he was very concerned about the appearance and how this would affect the neighborhood. Mr. Wolinski said that he and his staff have reviewed this proposal and are in support of it. They think that it is a way that we could save some of our depleting energy sources and if the Commission could see its way to have them meet the standards they would be in support of it. Barbara Gardner asked if this proposal was taken to any of the neighbors that are around the house. Dave D;vyer said that they have mentioned it to all of their neighbors at one time or another; they have talked about, but not in specific terms. %Ms. Gardner asked if the neighbors know that the applicants want to install the turbines and if they have received an explanation of seen the CD presentation. Mr. Dwyer said, no. Stanley Gerson asked if the neighbors know how it is going to look like. Mr. Dwyer said that they put up the model so that everyone could see the shape that the design is going to take. He said that they hope to put an actual section of the turbine out if the weather permits it. Mr. Dwyer said that their goal is to achieve zero emissions «ith their heating and cooling system. He said that solar panels were incorporated into the initial design that was always Evanston Preservation Commission November 18, 2003 Page 4 intended for use in the house. Mr. Becker said that this project v.-as the last installation %%ith a two-year grant from the Illinois Clean Energy Foundation. This would be the first one in a single family home and perhaps of historical precedent. Mary Brugliera asked about interference from television signals by the turbine's magnetic field. Mr. Becker said the turbines do not spin %,cry fast helping with noise and vibration. The alternators are permanent magnets, meaning less interfering than a car alternator, and their radio frequencies are not large. fir. Gerson said that it would be useful to have a meeting with neighbors where all what has been discussed is demonstrated. Mr. Dwyer said that it was his intention to meet with the neighbors, but he thought they had to go through the Commission first. Mr. Dwyer said as far as he could tell, there are no zoning or code regulations at issue with the project. He was not sure that having a block meeting would be the proper venue. Chris Carey a::ked if the Alderman of the Ward was contacted. lir. Dwyer said that he had called Alderman Melissa Wynn, but had not talked to her yet. He mentioned that he met with James Wolinski, Walter HalIen and Roger Crum (City staff). Ms. Brugliera said that under powers and duties in the Preservation ordinance, the Commission could hold meetings and public hearings to review applications for certificate of appropriateness, if the Commission chooses to do so. Susan Rundle said that it has been the Commission's experience that even though a project may not need a zoning variance, if neighbors do not like it or something was done without consulting them, neighbors would feel snubbed. A meeting with neighbors beforehand to show them what the project is all about would be helpful. fir. Dwyer said that he was not saying that they should not meet with the neighbors, but he is the one that would be living in the house. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission has the standards for review of alteration, and the Commission had previously approved the design of the house. He also cited standard 9: Contemporary designfor alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Ms. Brugliera said she was not concerned with the preservation elements, but she was interested in the timing of it and the neighborhood involvement. She said that despite the Commission sticking to the preservation standards for the 1314 Ridge development, the neighbors are mad because the Commission approved it. Mr. Carey said that this property is not a landmark, but part of it is that it impacts the character of the historic district, in that sense; one could say that it is important to have the neighbors participate. Mr. Ruiz said that public participation is important, but if neighbors oppose something, it does not mean that the Commission should deny it. Commissioners concurred. Mr. Gerson said that at least neighbors would have a chance to express their views. Michael Girard said that he would like the opportunity to review it integrated with the house to have a feel how it works with the rest of the district. Ms. Gardner thought it was a good concept, _ but if they could cover it up from the front side of the house and not having it open she would Evanston Presenation Con=.ission November 18, 2003 Page 5 feel better. Mr. Kipnis said that this block of.%Iichigan is a boulevard, when looking up at the turbines; one is very close to them and can not see them. From the other side, all the trees are blocking the view of the turbines. Mr. Ruiz asked if installing a screen would camouflage the openings and still allow the wind to go through. fir. Becker said that they are counting on the wind building up and rushing over the roof, and the more things that are put in the way of that flow; the more it would reduce the percentage expectations. They will look at ways to equal or improve the wind and reduce the visibility, which is part of %vhat the grant would also seek to achieve. Mr. Becker said that a significant quotient would be from the lake, the northeast and east. Mr. Dwyer said that there are at least two or three contemporary houses across the street; his project is also of contemporary design. From his point of view the proposal adds to the design and quality of the house. He added that the reason they were in front of the Commission is because the area has history, and what he was proposing was history in the making with combination of wind, photovoltaic, and geothermal systems has not been done an}lvhere. Ms. Gardener suggested installing the wind turbine on the roof for the Commissioners to take a look at it. She said could see the potential concept in a house, but not here. Mr. Dn,yer said that the mock up would be able to convince most people, but not everybody that this is a good solid design. Mr. Kipnis said that what is interesting about this project is how integrated it is with the design of the house. He elaborated on the design by saying that the turbines would be shifted to the west of the ridge line, and that the void shown in the drawings would be different because it would be tinted ven• similar to the roof color. Ms. Gardner said that it would be very helpful for the Commission if the applicant could wait for a month and put a mock up of the roof, so Commissioners could take a look at it. Mr. Becker said that they could spray paint the turbines to match the roof color. Michael Girard moved to table the alteration to 1220 Michigan Avenue for further discussion for allowing the mock up to be built until the next meeting. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2, 121011ichigan Avenue (LandmarkfLSHD) -Demolition of previous one-story addition, restoration and addition with attached garage) [Demolition/Construction/Zoning Variance] Dave I)A yer, owner and Nathan Kipnis, architect presented plans for the demolition of an existing addition and the construction of a ne%v two-story addition and attached two -car garage at 1210 Michigan avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Kipnis said that there are two separate buildings that were joined together. The addition is to the western end. The addition consists of an attached garage, and a master bedroom suite above it. The first floor has a family room, reconfiguring the kitchen and the mudroom connecting the garage to the family room. Mr. Kipnis said that there is a zoning variance involved for the required rear yard setback. He said that one of the reasons for the proposed requested variance is Evanston Preservation Commission Novembcr 18, 2003 Page 6 the presence of a large tree that they would like to preserve. Also, there is no alley access to the property. Mr. Kipnis said that they did not want to move the garage forward or to be in line with the edge of the existing jog in the building because they wanted some light and view to get out from the family room. He said that the house to the south has some windows that would be adversely affected if the garage were located too far forward. Mr. Kipnis said that the materials would match what is existing (wood siding), but not the color. Commission's Finding Stan Gerson asked what was new on the east elevation. Mr. Kipnis said what is new is the garage and the portion directly to the north. On the south elevation the two roof forms to the west (left) are new. Susan Rundle clarified that the zoning variance is also for a three-story addition where the maximum allowed is two and a half stories. David Dwyer said that the one-story addition on the south'west elevation would be demolished. Mr. Dwyer said that around IS 80, the two houses were brought from two different locations and joined together. A fireplace on the south elevation was also built and the east house fireplace was moved from its original location to its current location. Interior walls were also moved without any additional support. The existing one-story addition was built later. Mr. Dwyer said that the plans were shown to Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois (LPCI) for their approval because the previous owners had obtained a facade easement through LPCI. In their opinion removing the one-story addition would enhance the view from the public way where the two houses join. In response to a question from Carlos Ruiz, Mr. Dwyer said that the roof gables change at the point where the new addition is proposed. Ms. Gardner asked why the addition next to the garage is so tall. Mr. Kipnis said that the addition is covering a large floor area and the pitch of the roof is the same as the existing roof pitch of the house. Susan Rundle said that the proposed roof pitch does not meet standard 12 of construction as it destroys the distinguishing original qualities of the main structure. Mr. Dwyer agreed to lower the pitch of the roof. Chris Carey asked about the radius top of the new windows and doors on the second floor of the addition. Mr. D►vyer said that LPCI advised them to make the addition not look like the main house. Ms. Gardner asked if LPCI would not approve the project if the Commission would require square tops for the doors and windows. Mr. Ruiz said that LPCI adheres to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation. The applicant is not altering the front elevation, which is LPCI's concern. Mr. Dwyer said that they have requested LPCI approval of what could be done in writing. He noted that the south elevation has more historical value than just the front elevation. In regard to the south elevation Mr. Ruiz said that the arched door _ reflected the new design of the addition. Mr. Dwyer said that the door would be squared off. Mr. Carey asked if LPCI had any concern with the attached garage rather than the detached garage, which is more typical in the historic district. Mr. Dwyer said no. He noted that LPCI i recommended putting the addition as far west as they could. Ms. Gardner said that the curved tops of windows and doors should be square to mimic what is on the main house. Mr. Carey said that round top windows delineates the addition more than Ekanston Preservation Commission November 18, 2003 Page 7 being different from the existing structure. tiir. Ruiz asked about the square footage of the house and how much is being added to it. Mr. Kipnis said that on the first Floor they are not adding that much. On the second floor they are going over and beyond the existing one-story addition. Mr. Kipnis said that the addition is 1,200 S.F. He noted that they are not doubling the size; they are probably in the 1/4 to 1/3 additional square footage. Mr. Dwyer said that in the current structure there is no functional master bedroom at all, there are two pretty decent size bedrooms and the third bedroom is not functional. Mr. Ruiz said that for the Commission's benefit it would be good to know how much is being added so that the context and integrity of the landmark itself is not overwhelmed by the addition. Mr. Carey moved to table the discussion allowing the architect and the owner to seek out further design alternatives. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Ms. Gardner amended the motion indicating that the applicants pursue having square top windows and doors on the addition with LPCI. Michael Girard added that there are questions about the square footage, the roof height (ridge versus slope), the windows not arched on south and east elevations. Stan Gerson seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously as amended. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. Ridge Avenue & Isabella Street/Sheridan Road (NEHD Federal) - Revamping intersection and use of must arms signals per IDOT mandate [Alteration] Keith Fujihara, Deputy Director of Public Works presented plans for traffic signals on the State of Illinois right of way. He said that the Ridge and Isabella is a Village of Wilmette project. The end of this project is the intersection of Isabella and Sheridan. This project is a one hundred percent funded by a construction grant through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Mr. Fujihara said that this project is a jurisdictional transfer. Mr. Fujihara noted that the project is in a preliminary stage and designed with mast arms. He said that the southeast intersection of Isabella and Sheridan borders the Northeast Evanston Historic District (National Register]. Wilmette has indicated that they could put decorative mast arms or quarter mast arms. Mr. Fujihara said that whatever the Preservation Commission decides on this project, it needs to notify IDOT. He said that there is a Wilmette/Evanston agreement on this project. The engineering phases of design and study get eighty percent IDOT funding, and twenty percent is local funding. The construction phase is one hundred percent IDOT funding. Mr. Fujihara said that the project area is residential and that all mast arms would be to the north in Wilmette. Susan Rundle said that it appeared that in order to see the mast arms from the road, trees would need to be trimmed. Barbara Gardner recalled that in the 2002 Ridge Avenue project there would be the post tops and the mast arms or two light posts on every corner. 'Mr. Fujihai rmid that mast arms are considered safer in a heavy traffic intersection such as the turn onto Sheridan. He said that ]DOT is concerned with the traffic volumes as well. Chas Carey asked if there were records of traffic accidents on that intersection. Mary Brugliera said that during the Ridge traffic lights project meetings, it was mentioned that the traffic studies applied to highway entrances in a rural setting and not exactly in suburban towns of 70,000 1:v=ton Preservation Commission Novcmbtr 1S. 2003 Page 8 people. Mr. Fujihara said that for this traffic volume, the IDOT standard is mast arms. He said that he would need to determine what process Wilmette has to go through. Mr. Fujihara noted that the tree canopy might not be quite as significant as lower Ridge on the Isabella/Sheridan location. He said that the issue is that IDOT is paying one hundred percent and because the volume of traffic warrants the safest design. Mr. Fujihara mentioned that the head of IDOT for this section does not want to start an exception or precedent, where lie would no longer have the decision -making in any other community for any other signal. Carlos Ruiz noted that the Isabella/Sheridan intersection is within the Federal Northeast Evanston Historic District and that the Commission's review is advisory. Mary Brugliera said that there is a question if Federal funds are involved that Section 106 would be involved. fir. Fujihara said that he has written a letter to Anne Haaker of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) because he wanted to know 1) if there is Federal money; 2) if there is just State money; and 3) if there is just local money. Also, he ,.would like to know if public hearings would be required. Ms. Gardner said that the IHPA would like to hear the Commission's opinion as well. At this time members of the audience had the opportunity to speak. Vera Chatz of 1430 Ridge said that for the Ridge traffic lights projects they could not find in any of the studies a rational for putting the mast arm signals, other than what MOT had decided what to do. Gerald Gordon of 1228 Lake said if MOT traffic signals are installed. Evanston would resemble other suburban communities, traffic signal wise. He said that Evanston is more historic and picturesque than that. Mr. Gordon mentioned that none of the City's accident reports show that accidents were caused for lack of visibility of the traffic signals; he said that it is not known if mast arms are safer than post top, or if mast arms are even required in Evanston. Finally, he said that Mr. Fujihara mentioned that Wilmette would design the intersection of Isabella, Sheridan and Ridge; Mr. Gordon believed that the Village of Wilmette's design of Green Bay with one lane going each direction is flawed. He suggested that Evanston should take note of that. Mr. Fujihara said that Wilmette would do the same on Sheridan with three lanes, with a turning lane in the middle. Judy Fiske said that when they were working on the Northeast Evanston Historic District (NEHD), the area of Ridge that is south of Central was not included, because it told a different story than the NEHD. She said that the Ridge area, south of Lincoln, is the earliest part of Evanston. That area is Ridgeville, where the Buckeye Tavern was located, and where the first log cabin school was located west of Ridge. The area is really a historic part of Ridge that is overshadowed by the south part of Ridge, where the big mansions were built. Ms. Fiske said that the north area of Ridge is all historic area that is lower in scale and that still has a lot of the -_ original frame dwellings along Leon Place and the Civic Center. Ms. Fiske said that the mast arms are not appropriate for Ridge Avenue. She said that the Isabelia/5heridan and the Central/Ridge intersections are the entryway into the National Register Northeast Evanston Historic District. Ms. Fiske noted that the traffic volume or speeds in these intersections do not required mast arms. She said that mast amis would harm the historic district. In response to a question from Mary McWiIliams in the audience, Mr. Fujihara said that jurisdictional transfers are funded with State money and he did not know what the procedure was at this time. Anne Earle said that about twenty five year ago the entire community citywide Evanston Preservation Commission November 18, 2003 Page 9 opposed the replacement of the Tallmadge street light poles with davit arm poles. Ms. Earle said that in the end the poles «•ere replaced with new Tallmadge poles modified with the current kind of light. She said that IDOT's requirements are not enough reason to allow highway fixtures in a residential area where the speed limit is 30 mph and not 65 mph. Debbie Hillman said that she worked on the Chicago Avenue project for the strectscape design, which the City of Evanston paid for, and ,%-hich included an attempt to make Chicago Avenue more beautiful than it is. Ms. Hillman said that the mast arm traffic lights would make it look like another suburban community, she said that mast arms are not what neighbors want for Chicago Avenue or Evanston. Mary Bruglicra said that one of the suggestions made for the Ridge project was the larger traffic lights on the post tops than would make them even more visible. She said that the Commission's position for the Section 106 regarding the larger traffic lights on the post tops was that it was not a problem. Keith Fujihara said that the fixtures proposed for the Isabel Ia/Sheridan project are made by the same manufacturer of the Tallmadge lights. He said the Iights are going to look the same as the Evanston Tallmadge streetlights, made of wrought iron, decorative at the side with some wrought iron at the top. He said that if post tops were installed, there would be tree trimming. Jean Lindwall said that where there are tree canopies, she did not think that mast arms are necessarily the safest traffic signals. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the standards for review of alteration that apply for the project at Isabella and Sheridan are 1 through 6, 9 and 10. Susan Rundle made a motion recommending not to install the mast arm traffic lights at Ridge, Isabella and Sheridan intersection because such fixtures do not meet standards for review of alteration: 1) it is not a minimal alteration to the site; 2) it would harm the distinguishing original qualities of the environment; 3) it would try to create an earlier appearance of the contemporary mast anus; 6) the deteriorated traffic lights are not being repaired, 9) the Commission is discouraging the contemporary design; and 10) removing the fixtures could be done, but at considerable expense. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. A, Sheridan Road and Main Street (LSHD) - Replace signal with mast arm signals per IDOT mandate Keith Fujihara said that the project has been designed and bid; it is a City project with one hundred percent City funds. Ann Dienner in the audience said that any kind of an armature at Main and Sheridan would be .,very awkward. She found out through Citv staff that.1hue arg about three accidents per year at that intersection. Ms. Diener believed that a fancy new huge signal was unnecessary because people are used to that intersection. She said that the top post signal was sufficient. Evanston Preservation Commission Novrail-er 18, 2003 Page 10 Mary Singh in the audience said that the intersection of Main and Sheridan is in a residential area and in a historic district. Ms. Singh said that the first time she saw a mast arm signal was at Asbury and Dempster. She said that the mast arm design suggests to her scaffolding that does not belong anywhere in Evanston. Ivis. Fiske said that at a City Council meeting Alderman Melissa Wynne said that she did not want the mast arm fixture at Main and Sheridan. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera moved to not approve the certificate of appropriateness for the traffic Iights at Sheridan and Main (Lakeshore Historic District), because the mast arms lights do not meet standards for review of alteration: 1) minimal alteration of the environment; 2) distinguishing original qualities of the environment shall not be destroyed, the traffic lights are not in harmony frith any of the elements of most of Evanston; 3) does not apply; 4) does not apply; 5) does not apply, 6) deteriorated features shall be repaired rather than replaced - mast arms do not meet this standard; 9) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design; and 10) it could be removed only with great expense. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Chicago Avenue & Grove Street, Chicago Avenue & Lake Street, Chicago Avenue & Greenwood Street -.bast arms signals Keith Fujihara said that Chicago Avenue is different from the previous locations because it is a commercial boulevard. Mast arms would be installed to the north and south sides of these intersections all the way down to Howard. The project would be designed in 2004 and built in 2005. Mr. Fujihara noted that tilere would be mast arms to the south, and to the north, and that mast arms are already installed on South Boulevard. He explained that from the safety concern mast arms were necessary; a driver may miss a post top signal to the side when mast arm signals were in front for the last ten blocks. Mary Brugliera asked if the City could reconsider its position about mast arms, knowing that the citizens do not want them anywhere in the City. Mr. Fujihara explained that the State of Illinois owns the right of way, the street and the signals. He could not tell IDOT what to do. Ms. Brugliera said that one of the suggestions regarding the Ridge project was to take back Ridge Avenue. Mr. Fujihara said that the City and Jan Jankowski office met with the new head of [DOT in Springfield who is trying to find the 4 million dollars for the jurisdictional transfer to recto Ridge. Susan Rundle said that she understood Mr. Fujihara's argument about the change from mast arrn to post top signals. However, driving up Western in Chicago looking at mast arms and then arriving in Evanston, the area has a totally different character. Ms. Rundle also noted that the southern part of Chicago is certainly different than the downtown part of Chicago. Ms. Rundle said that the area in Evanston where the three street signals are being discussed contains the oldest public structure in Evanston. There is also the park [Raymond Park], the churches, and the Music Institute. That area has definitely a different feel, and it is special. She said that the mast arms would have an adverse impact in the affected area. Evanston Preservation Commission November 18. 2003 Page 11 Mr. Gordon said that ?Michigan Avenue, Wacker Drive and the Loop in Chicago do not have mast arms, his point being that the Mayor of Chicago and the businesses did not want them. Ms. Fiske said that she understood where the Engineering Department was coming from, but in this particular location there is Raymond Park that is surrounded by the churches and this area is designed to look the way it does. Mast arms would break up the gathering of buildings around that central location. Anne Earle said that those are three blocks in a row on Chicago Avenue and the area has a different feel from the commercial aspect to the south and the business area that centers around Davis and Church. There are even single family houses still on Chicago Avenue within those three blocks. Debbie Hillman said that three blocks in a row would have mast arms, and the block from Grovc to Lake is a very short block, mast arms would only compound the ugliness of the mast arms. Also, the neighbor groups have been trying to persuade City staffs perception of Chicago Avenue throughout the Chicago Corridor project; that is not a commercial strip. There are businesses, but they are neighborhood shopping areas, and they are not an extension of downtown. She found that the proposed installation of the mast arms without a public hearing appalling. Commission's Findings Chris Carey moved to deny the installation of the mast arm fixtures at the intersections of Chicago Avenue and Grove, Chicago Avenue and Lake, and Chicago Avenue and Greenwood in that they do not meet standards [for review of alteration): 1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the site in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the site of its environment; 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the site or its environment shall not be destroyed; 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced; and 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. Central Street & Ridge Avenue Intersection - Replacing traffic signals with mast arm signals per IDOT mandate Keith Fujihara, referring to Central Street and Ridge, said that there are two intersections, Central/Ridge and Central/Girard at the Evanston Northwestern Hospital. When the hospital built its parking lot they agreed to pay for the two signals. Mr. Fujihara said the reason why mast arms were designed for these intersections has to do with the Fire Department and ambulance dispatch due to preemption purposes. When a fire truck or ambulance approaches a signal, a button is pushed to change the signal. The preemption is better if the device is located in the middle of the intersection, than if it is sitting on the side where a tree or something else may disturb the signal. Mr. Fujihara said that mast arms are on Girard because it leads to the emergency mom. He noted that in this particular instance there are safety concerns. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner said that there are preemption signals on Dempster and Ridge on top of the post top signals. Mr. Fujihara said that he was told that the preemption signals work better if they are located in the middle of the intersection. Susan Rundle said that the approaches to the CentralfRidge intersection are up hill and the post tops are clearly visible. Ms. Gardner said that Evanston Preservation Corrunission Novembcr 18, 2003 Page 12 coming west on Central in the late afternoon, the sun Iieht blocks the view of the mast arm signals. Judy Fiske said that Ridge -Central is a very important intersection. Coming cast on Central and arriving at Ridge, one looks into the NEHD. The character of the street changes dramatically, and right down in the middle of the street is the Gross Point Lighthouse. The mast arm fixtures would be visible from the lighthouse looking east to-xards Ridge. Ms. Fiske said that the mast arms are totally inappropriate for the Central/Ridge intersection. She said that the hospital worked with the neighborhood to build their large addition. Ms. Fiske believed that the hospital would not like to offend the neighbors with the mast arm signals. Stan Gerson moved to not recommend the installation of mast arms signals at Central and Ridge in that (referring to standard for review of alteration]: 1) it does require more than minimal alteration of the area; 2) the qualities of the site would be destroyed with mast arm signals; 6) the architectural features should be repaired rather than replaced; and 9) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. 405 Church Street (Landmark/LSHD) - New concrete ramp on the tivest side with landscaping [Construction[ Andrew McGonigIe, of Northwestern University, and Aime McGuire, architect, presented plans for an exterior to provide accessibility to 405 Church Street. The building is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. McGuire showed pictures of the house and the re -roofing activity. The ramp is on the west side towards the back of the site. There is a coach house west of it connected by a canopy which will come down. Ms. McGuire also showed several elevations of the building with the proposed ramp. The handrail picks up some of flavor of the handrails in the house. There is also lighting on the sidewalk area. The canopy on the house at the adjacent side entrance has a light that «rill be replaced. Ms. McGuire also submitted a revised landscape plan that soflens the impact of the ramp. Mr. McGonigle said that the landscaping will obscure more the base of the ramp. Mr. McGonigle said that they explore locating the ramp on the front, but that will obscure the porte-cochere. Ms. McGuire said that they are using an existing window opening to put in the door, and a toilet window w7I1 be re -glazed with obscured glass. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction are 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 through 16. Michael Girard moved to approve the accessible ramp at 405 Church Street as it meets standards; 1) height is visually compatible «zth the front elevation, 2) relation of the width and height elevation; the ramp is significantly setback from the front elevation, 4) rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front facade of a structure shall be visually compatible with properties. structures, sites, public ways, objects and places, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections, 7) relationship of materials and textures, 1) scale of the structure, 1 I) directional expression of front elevation u-iIl remain unchanged, 12) any historic or E%-anston Presmation Commission No%-cmber 18, 2003 Nge 13 material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible, 13 through 16 are advisory standards for the Commission. Mary BrugIiera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 1209 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) -Add a roof over existing porch deck at rear of house [Alteration] Ted Benson, contractor, presented plans for the construction of a roof over an existing porch deck at the rear of the house at 1209 Hinman. The house is %within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Benson said that there is a deck with cedar siding and they will build a roof over it to resemble the roof on the house. The roof has low profile skylights over the low pitched roof. The exiting railing will remain and the floor will be replaced. Mary Brugliera said that applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Stan Gerson moved to approve the alterations at 1209 Hinman to the existing deck for replacing the deck floor and adding a roof and screens as meeting standards: 1) there will be minimal alteration of the property, 2) the property will not be destroyed, 5) the house is going to be treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 10) the deck could be removed in the future, and the essential form and integrity of the house would be unimpaired. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 9. 1243 hlaple Avenue (CILSHD) - Subdivision from one lot to tNvo lots [Subdivision] Virginia Holbert, owner presented a proposed subdivision from one lot to two lots at 1243 Maple Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mary Brugliera said that she would like to use this case as an example for the rest of the City, particularly in the Sixth Ward because of their concerns of neighborhood change. She said that since the Commission is able to conduct public hearings on this kind of issues, she recommended to doing so for this case. She noted that neighbors were not present, reason why she made her request. Ms. Holbert said that the people south of the proposed new lot are aware of the plans. She said that she a hard a time applying the standards for the proposers subdivision. Ms. Brugliera said that getting rid off open space was a concern. Susan Rundle said that the Commission will be reviewing standards (B) 1. (a), (c), (d), and (e) are all relevant. Ms. Holbert said that (a) the subdivision preserves, adaptively uses, or otherwise protects the landmark; (b) is not applicable because there is no new structure; (c) not applicable at this time. She said that the standards of subdivision were not all applicable. Stan Gerson said that (a) refers to the open area of the district. Ms. Holbert wondered if the appropriate time for a public hearing is when there is a proposed structure to be built. She said Evanston Presmation Commission November 18, 2003 Page 14 that all she is asking know is the proposed subdivision and there is nothing that could block anything. A recorded subdivision does not affect open versus not open space. Ms. Brueliera said that she was thinking use this case as an example of how this process works to control neighborhood change. She though that Ms. Holbert had a good point in that the building of the house on the subdivided lot is the issue. Barbara Gardner said that issue is that Ms. Holbert cannot construct another house, and so, the subdivision is the most important part of this process, because it will virtually guarantee the construction of a new house. Ms. Holbert said that she did not see how the standards for subdivision apply. The actual subdivision will not affect any of the standards. She said that she does not want to be used as an example when there are issues that other people are having in other parts of Evanston. She also understands that the Commission's review is advisory. Mr. Gerson said that this process could guarantee the preservation of open space. Anne Earle, Associate Commissioner, said that is one of the loveliest blocks on Maple Avenue. She measure in a Sanborn map indicates that the proposed lot to be cut off of the one with the house will narrower than any other front footage on the block, except for the row houses. Ms. Halbert said that the operative in her neighborhood is how close the houses are together, and if a house were to be built on the new lot, that will not present a departure from the spaces of the houses. There are some houses that are significantly closer than 10'. The narrowest lot of the cast side of the strect is probably 50' and on the other side of the street is 41'. The proposed lot is 43'. She said that she plans to stay in her house and she will not build the new house. Ms. Brugliera said that her concern is that by the time the Commission will presumably review the construction of a new house on the new lot, neighbor will be asking how come they were not notified. Mr. Gardner said that she shared the same concern and she had a problem approving anything without neighborhood notification. Mary Brugliera moved to table the proposed subdivision until the December meeting and hold a public meeting on the issue of the subdivision of 1243 Maple. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays. 10. 149 Burnham Place (LSHD) - Two Additions to existing residence, east Addition of a den, west addition to existing master bedroom [Construction] Joyce Romanoff, owner, said that she would to do one addition to the back and another to the east side of her house at 149 Burnham Place. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Romanoff said that on the east side they proposed a one-story den. The windows are Andersen or Pella windows, exactly the same as the windows in the back of the house. The portion facing Burnham does not have any windows. The roof line and the brick are the same. Ev=ton Prescrvation Commission November 18, 2003 Page 15 The addition will be behind the fence. All the nindows NAII be on the north side of the house and a few on the east side, and there is no alley. The existing house has wood windows. Commission Findings Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 through 16. Susan Rundle was concerned with the blank wall that does not relate the rhythm of the rest of the house. Michael Girard moved to approve the proposed additions as presented at the east side of 149 Burnham Place with the understanding that the architect will provide drawings of the south elevation for approval by Carlos Ruiz to indicate a window within that south elevation portion of the addition, and that as presented meets: 1) height, 2) proportion of front fagade, 3) proportion of openings: looking to be met (does not meet as presented), 4) rh)2hm of solids to voids (same as 3), 50) rh%'thm of spacing and structures on streets, 7) relationship of materials and texture, 8) roo(shapes will be continued, 10) the scale of a structure will be maintained, 11) directional expression of front elevation will be maintained, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property shall not be destroyed, and13 through 15 are advisory as far as design of additions go. Stan Gerson seconded the motion the motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 11. 1427 Judson Avenue (LandtnarkfLSHD) - Adding bay window on rear elevation to match existing side bays, relocate double hung windows on south elevation, remove existing, pyramidal top on existing canopy and re -trim [Alteration] Paul Janicki, architect, presented plans for the addition of a bay window on the rear elevation to match existing side bay, relocate double hung windows on south elevation, remove pyramidal top on canopy and re -trim the house at 1427 Judson Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Janicki said that the house was originally on Ridge Avenue. Mr. Gerson said that the Chicago Architectural Foundation version is that the House was on 405 Church Street. Mr. Janicki said that they arc taking out the rear kitchen and make it into a family room. There are two bays on the north and south of the house. The proposed bay will be visible from the alley. He will remove an existing I960s canopy over the flanking door at the rear. He said that the existing leaded glass windows with transoms above will be pulled down about 1.5'. Two leaded glass windows will be in the kitchen and the other two will be in the mudroom. The butler pantry is a bathroom now with a new A indow facing north. The windows on the bay are double hung windows to match the windows on the existing bays. They vdil also match the brick. Barbara Gardner said standard of alteration 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are applicable. Chris Carey moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 1427 Judson in that it meets standards: l) every reasonable effort %vill be made to adapt the property, in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property shall not be destroyed. The alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible, 3) the property and site are recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be treated with sensiti%dty, 6) deteriorated architectural features Evanston Preservation Commission November 18, 2DO3 Page 16 shall be repaired rather than replaced. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities, 9) contemporan• design is not being discouraged, and10) if alterations were removed in the future, the integrity of the main structure would be unimpaired. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. IV. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing 1120-1 122 Oak Avenue - nomination for designation as an Evanston Landmark Barbara Gardner called the public hearing to order at 11:20 p.m. with a quorum being present. Wendy Kendrick, owner, of 1122 Oak Avenue presented a nomination for the designation of the house at 1120-1122 Oak Avenue as an Evanston Landmark, Ms. Kendrick said the house was built by Connor and McCann in 1898. Connor and McCann were builders, who she believed build the Noyes Cultural Center. The house was built for the niece and the nephew of lames Connor, owner of the hardware store on Davis Street from the 1850s. The mason for the foundation of the house was James Wigginton, who built his house across the street at 1118 Oak, a Landmark house. Ms. Kendrick said that in 1922 the house was turned into a two flat by one of the McCanns and the Connor family owned the house from 1898 until it was sold in 1955. Ms. Kendrick said that hers is the fourth family to have lived in the house. The house is still a two flat and no additional change to it has occurred since 1922. In regard to standard 3: exemplification of an architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship; the house is a good representation of that area. A picture from 1955 shows an attic window was changed in the early 1990s. In regard to standard 2: Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological or related aspect of the development of the City, State, Midwest region or the United States, the Connors lived in the house. The niece died inl901. Then brothers and other relatives lived in the house until 1939 according to City directory. The McCanns were in the house for a while. Lenora McCann sold the house in 1955. Mr. Gerson asked if the Connors built other buildings. Ms. Gardner said that James Connor built many buildings including a house in the 1200 block of:viaple on the west side of the street. Anne Earle mentioned 1564 Ashland in I909, 1220 :Maple in 1883-84, I411 Maple �in 18 73; and I223 Oak. These are buildings that are already Landmarks. James P. McCann was principal of Connor and McCann contracting firm. Ford Connor came to Evanston in 1854. The JC Connor hardware store which was in downtown Davis Street was founded by a descendant of James Connor; not connected with the house. He died 16 days before the building permit was issued Evanston Preservation Commission November 18, 2003 Page 17 (October 18, 1897). The house at 1220 Maple is a Landmark of architectural significance. James Connor lived there and his family lived there for generations. There is not much information about Bridget Connor and her two brothers were employee,, of their cousins' firm. his. Earle said that this is a good story and they are good people. They are not the hardware store owners or the construction company owners. By 1912 Bridget had died and the brothers moved out. No Connors Lived in the house until the 1920s. Eventually other Connors came back. Ms. Earle said that 1120-22 Oak has had hardly individuals of importance in the house. Ms. Brugliera said that she was considering the historical significance of the house. Ms. Gardner said she thought the standard 4 relating to the builder an architect would apply. Ms. Earle said, no. It was built by the family, but as Larry Perkins said at a Commission meeting some years ago, just because Perkins and Will built a building, does not mean it should be designated. The Commission did not designate the building he thought the Commission fought against, although it was a Perkins and Will. 1120-22 Oak had originally had an entrance on the south side of the fagade with a porch around the corner. The other entrance is a Iater addition. Mr. Carey said that what he is getting is that the people lived there are not truly that significant and that architecturally and construction wise is not that significant. Ms. Brugliera said that she was sorry to say that she did not see that the house met any of the standards. Ms. Kendrick said the other standards were 3 for craftsmanship as for a 1922 two -flat rather than the original building, but more of an alteration. Ms. Brugliera said that the boundaries of the Ridge Historic District go around 1120-22 Oak. Ms. Earle said that edge buildings must be strong buildings. Ms. Kendrick said she could see her house within the historic district because the house typifies the whole area, under standards 3. Mary Brugliera asked about standard 10: Its e,remplif cation of a patters: ofneighborhood development or settlement significant to the cultural history or traditions of the City; it -hose components may lack individual distinction. Ms. Kendrick said that in the 1900s there were not whole lot of houses on Oak, but there s there other houses on a row and a space and then 1120- 22 Oak, then the alley behind and the alley stop at her house and then it went up back to Crain with the other three houses that are similar to her house. They are part of the beginnings of the Union Addition, the subdivision of the time. Crain was the north end of it, it went south of Greenleaf and over on Maple. There is a plaque on the sidewalk on the other side of Greenleaf from James Wigginton who is the mason, who paved the area. Ms. Earle said that this block was the southern edge of the Village of Evanston, and the block south of that was the building in South Evanston when they were two separate villages, prior to being united. Ms. Kendrick said that the house fell in disrepair. She has painted the house, they found one of the hopefully the ornginal-e:47..r- T'�,^ .house had a green trim, and yellowish siding. The house in the 1960s and 1970s was dilapidated and fell in disrepair. She believes that when the Ridge Historic District was submitted the house looked very bad. Evanston Preservation Cor—ssion tiovcmb:r I8, 2003 Page 15 Commission's Findings Ms. Brueliera moved to not designate the building at 1120-22 Oak Avenue as a Landmark and it does not meet standards ?: Its identification ivith a person or persons who significantly contributed to the historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological or related aspect of the development of the City. State, Nfidivest region or the t;nited States; standard 3: exemplification of an architectural npe, sn-le or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship, standard 4: identification as the ivork of an architect, designer, engineer or builder whose individual work is significant in the history or development of the Cim the Stare, the Midwest region or the United States; and standard 10: exemplification of a pattern of neighborhood development or settlennent significant to the cultural history or traditions of Evanston. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 aY es, 0 nays. The Commission thanked Ms. Kendrick for her nomination. V. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, CONINIISSION 1IE}IBERS, STAFF Nominating Committee Barbara Gardner said her second term will expire in four months. She volunteer to serve in the nominating Committee and asked for more volunteers. Michael Girard volunteered... 904 Hinman — Window Replacement Mary Brugliera asked about 904 Hinman. Mr. Ruiz said that he has notified the applicant about the deadline for the appeal. He said that the applicant has about 10 more days to appeal the decision's Commission. Commissioners said the Commission has asked the applicant to remove the windows if he does not apply for an appeal. Ms. Brugliera asked to remind the applicant about his deadline. VI. ADJOURNMENT Mary Brugliera moved to adjourn the meeting at l 1:55 p.m. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, Respectfully Submitted: Car Ser E r 4W -WWW- EVANSTON PRESERVATION CO�L%fISSION :Meeting ?Minutes Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:30 P.M. - Room 2403 Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Ginny Holbert, Jim Goldberg, Joel Litofl', Nate Kipnis, David Dwyer, Linda Johnston, Kim Lesher, Brenda HesseIberg, Chuck Zenn, Mark Miller, Liz Beckman, Robert Heibcrger, George Prosiliakos, Tom Gemmel, Michael Kleannan, Andrew McGonagle, Sue Budinsky, and Anne McGuire PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Chair, determined that a quorum was present. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing 1243 Maple Avenue (RHD) - Subdivision from one tot to two lots [Subdivision] Barbara Gardner, Chair determined that a quorum was present and called the public hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. Virginia Holbert, owner, presented a proposed subdivision of 1243 Maple Avenue from one Iot to two lots. Ms. Holbert said that her property could be subdivided to conform to the zoning requirements for a buildable lot. She said that her intention is to subdivide, create a buildable lot and then sell it. Ms. Holbert mentioned a friend who is an architect and builder, who would like to purchase the lot, build a home and then sell it. She said that the architect has developed a plan that later would go through a binding review with the Preservation Commission. Evanston Pres- nation Commission December 1 b. 300= -Minutes Page Ms. Holbert said that her proposed subdivision is an acceptable use of the property, that it would cause no adverse changes in the neighborhood, that something could be constructed that would be harmonious on that street, and a new home could be an asset and not a liability on Maple. She said that this would be an adaptive use of the property, it is changing the property, but it is using it in a way that is compatible with the Preservation Ordinance. Regarding the location and design of the new structures Ms. Holbert said that the new home would conform to the setbacks as required and that would allow it to blend into the neighborhood_ Referring to the preservation standards Ms. Holbert said that the new structure should not block any critical features of a landmark, area or property. She said that there are no critical features on any of the nearby properties that would be blocked by the new structure. Ms. Holbert said that her proposal preserves and protects the critical features of the streetscape, which is a block of mostly turn of the Century homes that are all fairly close together. There are twenty-three properties on both sides of the street on the 1200 block of Maple; three of them including her property are double lot. The width of lots in the block ranges from 19-feet (townhouses) to 47-feet (smallest of the single family home lots), and to 108-feet (west side of the street). Ms. Holbert said that there are a fcw larger Iots, but the typical lot for the area is not the double width. She said that two houses on her lot would not be out of the noun. She also did not believe that a single family home would adversely affect traffic patterns or the general harmony of the historic district. Ms. Holbert said a single family home constructed with sensitivity and high quality could be an asset to the neighborhood. Joel Litoff of 1223 Maple said that while the proposed subdivision conforms to the zoning ordinance, there is an issue regarding the character of the street. Mr. Litoff said that Maple is an exceptional street in Evanston because of the trees, the setbacks, and the feeling of space. He said that while it is hard to look at one specific project in a vacuum, it needs to be looked at in the context of 'what if.' He asked what if all the double lots on the street chose to subdivide and build. Mr. Litoff said that there are 18 single-family homes and a group of townhouses. The single-family homes sit on lots, the largest of which is 108-feet; most of the lots are 50-feet in width. Mr. Litoff said that the proposed lot is an irregular Iot; it requires the side property lines to angle, to comply with the zoning ordinance requiring a certain amount of open space around the house. He said that the proposed house sitting on the proposed 41-feet wide new lot would look disproportioned to the remainder of the houses in the block. He said it would comply with the zoning, because of the additional land behind it, but the rear is not visible from the street. Mr. Litoff said that the property has presently two trees that tower over the existing houses; the trees would have to come down. He asked the Commission consider not this individual project, but the'what if.' How would this street look if there were no more double lots; how would the street look if everyone took down some of the trees on their property; how would the street look if two smaller lots less than 50-feet wide are created and a house is built that is disproportioned to the lot size. Commission's Findings i Stan Gerson asked about the irregular side yard property line. Ms. Holbert said that the zoning ordinance requires in R-1 zoning 7,200 S.F. lot area. She clarified that the proposed lot width is Evanston Presen-ation Comrrission December 16, 2003 -.Minutes Page 3 43-feet and the narrowest on the block that is a single family is 41-feet. Across the street there arc two 108-feet wide lots. Thomas Prairie asked if the existing property is one zoning lot. Ms. Holbert said yes, although originally there were two zoning lots. The present lot width is 97- feet. Ms. Holbert said that her home is very large, and that is the reason why she could not subdivide the lot in half. Susan Rundle said the proposed lot is 43-foot lot and the proposed house if34-feet wide. She asked about the space between the rest of the houses on the block. Ms. Holbert said that she provided pictures showing the distance between houses. Ms. Gardner asked how far the house at 1239 Maple is from the lot line or side yard. Jim Goldberg, architect said that it is approximately 2-feet at the closest point. He said that Ms. Holbert's house would be setback 5-feet to the bay and there is another 3 to 5-feet to house. Ms. Holbert said that she sent a letter to the people on her block. A number of people met with her as well. Her neighbors at 1239 Maple arc also aware of the plans. Commission's Findings Barbara Garner asked about the location of the proposed garage, which would be hanging over the perceived lot line and would be visible from the street. Mr. Goldberg said the major rear entrance is on the side of the garage, also there is better existing vegetation on the south side than there is on the north. Ms. Holbert added that there is a concrete path on the side of the new lot that would be created. Mr. Goldberg clarified that the existing vegetation is on the westerly portion of the proposed garage and there are a couple of Birch trees, shrubs and there is an evergreen tree on the north. Ms. Holbert said that the visibility of the garage could be addressed with the landscape plan and could be done in a graceful way. Mary Brugliera said that the garage Iocation was not a concern to her. Mr. Goldberg noted that the proposed house is 30'-6" wide and because overhangs can only project into the side yard setback ten percent of the side yard dimension, which is 6-inches, the house is narrower that what they could have with zero overhang. The house is 34-fect from the outside of chimney to outside of chimney. Mr. Prairie said that there would be 8'-8" between the neighbor's house and the new house. Ms. Gardner referred to the Preservation Ordinance subsection 2-9-12: Rey cw of Applications for Subdivision, Resubdivision or Consolidation: (B) The Commission shall review the application for subdivision, resubdivision or consolidation based on the following standards: 1. The design of the subdivision, resubdivision or consolidation shall: (a) Preserve, adaptively use, or otherwise protect the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district; and (b) Provide the location and design of new structures and objects that are visually compatible with the landmark or areas, properties, structures, sites and objects in the district; and Evanston Preservation Commission December 16, 2003 -!Minutes Page 4 (c) Not result in blocking or otherwise obstructing, as viewed from a public street or public way, the critical features of the landmark or area, property, structure, site or object in the district; and (d) Preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district; and (e) Not adversely affect traffic patterns, Municipal services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District. Ms. Gardner said that all standards in (B) under 1. (a) through (e) have to be met. Ms. Brugliera said the Commission's focus should be more on the effect on the overall historic district as expressed on the 1200 block of Maple. Susan Rundle referring to standard 1. (a) said that her concern was on the east side of the street where the majority of lot widths is 50-feet and the proposed lot width is 43-feet. Ms. Holbert said that she could not take more from her side of the lot because of the existing two bays of the house. Michael Girard referring to the rhythm of spacing on the street relative to the entire block said that the new house as proposed would have the tightest condition on the block with exception of the house adjacent to the to%%mhouses. Isis. Goldberg said that the required lot width in an R-1 zoning lot is 40-feet. Thomas Prairie asked if other lots on the block could be subdivided. Ms. Holbert said it would depend where the existing houses are located on their lots and their size. Referring to standard 1. (a) through (e), Ms. Holbert said it was confusing because one could subdivide a lot with no intentions to build on it a sell it to a neighbor who may want a larger side yard. Mr. Ruiz said that previous subdivisions reviewed by the Commission also involved the construction of a new house. Michael Girard clarified that the porches between the houses at 1223 and 1227 Maple are very tight up against each other. Mr. Goldberg said that the porch on the proposed house is equal to or generally in back of most of the other porches or major parts of the structure of some of the other homes. In response to Mr. GoIdber's comment about the front porch relative to the other porches Mr. Girard said that his concern was the massing of the proposed house design relative to the street and most of the massing that happens on the street and its relationship to its neighbors. He said that the front fagade with an overhang over the porch reads in line with the rest of the properties on the street. Ms. Gardner cited again standards for review (B) 1: (a) Presence, adaptively use, or orheni se protect the landmark- or area, property, structure, site or object in the district, and Discussion: Ev amton Preservation Comr.=ssion December 16, 200? - Minutes Page 5 Michael Girard said that without the proposed structure he did not have an objection. He did not see the subdivision in conflict %with standard 1. (a) Susan Rundle said that th.e subdivision does not protect the property in the area because the proposed lot is so skewed to get the square footage. If everybody starts taking diagonal chunks out of their properties, it would set a precedent for the future. Thomas Prairie said that the diagonal slice in the back technically meets the zoning requirements. Mare Brusliera asked 4is. Holbert if she did not have to have the required square footage, would she prefer a rectangular lot. Ms. Holbert said yes, because then it would not be an issue. Ms. Brugliera %vondered if the City would ever grant a variation for the required lot size. In regard to the diagonal side yard lot line, his. Holbert said that she followed the sun•eyor's recommendation to do it in that way. Mr. Goldberg said that %vith the intermixture of landscaping there would be the minimal perception that there is a diagonal side yard Iot line. ?sir. Ruiz said that might be true, unless there is a fence that would angle off to the side. Ms. Holbert said that a fence would start behind the house and would not be as visible if at all, plus there would be vegetation. Straw Pole: the subdivision meets standard 1. (a): 6 ayes; 2 nays (b) Provide the location and design ojne v structures and objects that are visually compatible with the landmark or areas, properties, strictures, sites and objects in the district; Discussion: Ms. Gardner said that she had a problem with 1. (b) because it would seem that everything would be squeezed in the site. She said that most of the lots to the south are at least 50-feet wide, except the one lot at the corner that is 47-feet. Mr. Girard in reference to the to%rnhouses on the same block said that they are a different construction type of a single-family house. Ms. Gardner said that the townhouses are at one end and then the single-family houses continue to the end of the block. Susan Rundle asked if the rhythm of the structures across the street was being considered as well. Ms. Gardner said the rhythm of houses across the street is even wider. Ms. Holbert said that if the issue was the rhythm, then the open lot is what departs from the rhythm. A house on the open space would be more typical of conforming to the rhythm of the block. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission was talking about the rhythm of 50-foot wide lots all the way to the townhouses. Ms. Holbert said that the townhouses are one of the nicest features of the block and they do not detract from the block. She said that her proposal is a change that she would not see it necessarily as a negative. Straw Pole: the subdivision meets standard I. (b): 4 ayes; 4 nays Commeats: Evanston Preservation Com.-nission December 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 6 Mr. Gerson said that he voted yes, because the important words in standard 1. (b) Are "visually compatible." Standard 1. (b) does not say absolutely compatible, if that were the case he would have voted no. Ms. Gardner said that she voted no, because having the proposed house on a much narrower lot that everyone else, it would squeeze the house in the lot. Susan Rundle and Thomas Prairie concurred. hfs. Gardner said that the proposed lot it is 7-feet narrower than the adjacent lots. In reference to Mr. Girard's illustration of open space between structures in the block, Mr. Goldberg said that highlighting the mass of the buildings would change the perception of the block. He said that the townhouses are an attractive mass, which influences the feeling of the block. He suggested to take the width of the proposed house and measure that against the houses at 1239, 1223, 1219 and 1207, he said that the width of the proposed house is within a foot or so, larger or smaller than those houses. He said that the feel of the structure that is proposed is totally consistent with the feeling of the block. Ms. Gardner suggested narrowing the width of the proposed house by 4-feet. Mr. Goldberg said that a 26 or 25 wide house would be very much out of character with the neighborhood. Ms. Holbert said that perceiving a 4-foot difference in the proposed lot width would be difficult. Mary Brugliem believed that the subdivision and new house would not harm the fabric of the street and the historic district. She said that the townhouses and the large Iot across the street and the smaller lot in the middle of the block, that is all in evidence of the history of how Evanston has grown over the years and is still growing. Mr. Carey concurred with Ms. Brugliera and noted that on Dempster there is a large brick apartment building, indicating that there is a variety of structures. (c) Not result in blocking or otherwise obstnrcting, as viesved from a public street or public way, the critical features of the landmark or area, property, structure, site or object in the district; and Discussion: None. Straw poll: the subdivision meets standard 1. (c): 8 ayes; 0 nays Comments: Mr. Prairie said that standard 1. (c) would apply more to a larger piece of property such as the former District 65 property [at Ridge and Dempster] or the property of the Swedish Retirement Home on Grant Street. (d) Preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the landmark or area, property, structure, site or object in the district; and Discussion: Mr. Ruiz asked if the open space (being private property) is a critical feature of the block as much as the presence of the large mass of the townhouses. Mr. Carey said no, because he is Evanston Prescnation Corrmssion December I6, ?Cr]_ - Minuxs Page 7 more drawn to the structures that are on the block and the open space is not the main focus of the block. Mr. Gerson said that the overuhelmine feature on the block are all the existing structures and not the open spaces. Straw poll: the subdivision meets standard I(d): 4 ayes; 4 nays (e) Not adversely affect iraffic patterns. ;kfunicipal services, adjacent property vahtes, or the general harmony of the District. Discussion: Mr. Girard said that the proposed subdivision would not affect standard 1(e). Straw poll: the subdivision meets standard I(e): 8 ayes; 0 nays Mr. Gerson moved that the Commission recommend the subdivision of 1243 Maple Avenue, in that it meets the objectives I (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. Discussion: Michael Girard clarified that the Commission would review the proposed house design as submitted, and if the Commission finds that it meets (B) I then (B) 2 would be reviewed separately. The motion failed. Vote: 4 ayes; 4 nays. Mary Brugliera moved to continue the public hearing and consider the proposed structure on the site as it may affect a possible reconsideration of section (B) I(b). Chris Carey seconded the motion. Discussion Ms. Gardner said that the motion is for continuing the hearing to take a cool; in detail at the proposal, and determine if whether or not it would change somebody's vote in terms of the subdivision. Ms. Holbert said that the Commission's vote on the proposed subdivision was evenly split and consequently there is no favorable recommendation. Ms. Gardner said that the Commission could send a report to City Council that says the Commission is split and that is the Commission's derision. The report should state the reason why the Commission could not recommend for or against. Ms. Brugliera then withdrew her motion. Mr. Goldberg asked if they should wait to make their submission to get in the Commission's agenda after City Council acts. Ms. Gardner said yes. Ms. Gardner closed the public hearing for the proposed subdivision at 9:00 p.m. Evanston Preservation Commission December 16, 2003-'-finutes Page 8 2. 1210 Michigan Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) - Demolition of previous one-story addition, restoration and 2-1/2 story addition with attached garage) [Demolition/Construction/Zoning Variance] Nathan Kipnis, architect and David Dwyer, owner presented revised plans for the construction of a 2 1/2-story addition to the house at 1210 Michigan Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Kipnis said that the revisions include lowering the roofline in the addition, and squaring up the window openings. He said that some shutters were added as well. Susan Rundle said that the zoning variation is for the rear yard setback only. Mr. Kipnis said that the roof height was not a zoning issue, but nevertheless they agreed with the Commission's determination to lover the roof height and it Iooks much better. Ms. Rundle said that standards A and C for zoning variation applied. She said that the applicants are asking for a 1 T-4" rear yard set back instead of the required 30'-0" set back. Mr. Kipnis said that the second story floor area is under the maximum allowed. Ms. Gardner referred to the standards for advisory review on zoning variations: "(A) Is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic consen-ation so as not to adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts", and (B) Is necessary to provide the owner a recoverable rate of return on the real property where the denial thereof would amount to a taking of the property without just compensation; and (C) INII not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and we fare or injurious to property in the district or vicinity where the property is located. " Ms. Gardner said that standard (B) did not apply because the denial of the variance for the addition would not amount to a taking. She noted that the property has always been saleable. Susan Rundle questioned whether the applicant could claim that he could not make a recoverable rate of return without a variance because he could not build the garage. Chris Carey said that Mr. Dwyer could still build the garage by moving it further to the front of the property. Mr. Kipnis said that was something they did not want to do. Mr. Dwyer said that moving the garage to the east would eliminate a tree and it would obstruct the existing section of the south facade, which has most historical significance. He mentioned that LPCI asked them to move the addition as far west as they could. Thomas Prairie asked if there was something that showed the property to the west. Mr. Kipnis said no. Mr. Dwyer said that the garage of the property line is on his property line, and that there is no set back at all between the end of his lot and the beginning of the neighbor's garage. Evanston Preservation Commission December 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 9 Thomas Prairie moved to recommend the change of the rear lot line set back from the required 30'-0" to 17'-0" as it meets standards A and C. The addition does not adversely affect the historic, architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of the historic district, and it 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. It would have set backs, and as negative as an impact as it can from the street, and is not going to impact the neighbor to the west in any major extent. Clint Funk seconded the motion. Discussion: Chris Carey asked if there was any concern about the garage being accessible from the front. Iris. Rundle said that she would agree, except that there is no alley. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle referring to the proposed demolition of the existing one-story addition said that standards for demolition I to 4 applied. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the demolition of the one-story addition to the south of 1210 Michigan, as it does not conflict with standards for review of demolition:1) its demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive character of the district as a whole, 3) the demolition would not be contrary to the purpose of the historic presmation of the district, and 4) t is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, that if they wanted to, they could put it back without great expense. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the proposed construction includes a two-story addition to the rear and south, including a two -car garage. The standards for review of construction that apply are I through 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16: The Commission found that the exterior materials would match the existing material, that the garage doors would be wood and panelized, that there is a precedent for shutters, although the proposed shutters would not be historically accurate. Susan Rundle moved to approve the construction of the two-story addition to 1210 Michigan, as it meets standards: 1) the height is compatible with the existing structure, 2) the proportion of the front fagade more closely relates to the existing, 3) proportion of openings is the same as the spacing of the existing windows and doors, 4) rhythm of solids to voids in front facades (same as above, 5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets: It does not apply because the garage doors face the front, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, Storefront Recesses and Other Projections: The rhythm and entrance porches are appropriate, 7) Relationship of materials and texture: The same materials and texture would be used, 8) Roof shapes: The roof shape is a repeat, but the height of the roof is lower, 11) Directional expression of front elevation: The front elevation if repetitious of the existing, 13) Archaeological resources: When they dig, they would be careful to presme any archaeological resources that they may find, 14) Contemporary design: Is a direction to the Commission to not discourage contemporary design, 15) New additions: If it ever became necessary, the addition could be remove without affecting the existing house, and 16) New construction: [In considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility] Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay. Evanston Prescr•agon Con_nissioo December 16, 2003 - tfimutes Page 10 Thomas Prairie moved to remove the shutters unless LPCI wants them to remain. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, I nay. 3. 1220 Michigan Avenue (Ne►w/LSHD) - Addition of 5 wind turbines to top of roof (Alteration] Dave Dwyer, owner, and Nathan Kipnis, architect presented plans for the addition of S wind turbines to the roof of the building at 1220 ;Michigan Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Michael Girard asked about the wind diverter shown on the drawings. Mr. Dwyer said that according to Bill Becker, the inventor, the diverter might not be necessary. However, if in a later time Mr. Becker thinks is necessary to install the diverter, they would be back in front of the Commission. Susan Rundle reiterated that the application in front of the Commission has no diverter. Mr. Kipnis concurred with his. Rundle. Ms. Gardner asked for anyone in the audience to comment on the proposal. No one came forward. Ms. Gardner noted that when she drove by the property and saw the mock up of the cage for the wind turbines, she did not see the turbine, but it was there. Other Commissioners said that they had a similar experience. Mr. Kipnis said that the appearance of the turbines is very subtle from the front, and would be difficult to view them from the back. Mr. Dwyer said that when its constructed it would be even less visible. Ms. Gardner noted that what is the plywood now, it would be the same color of the roof. Mr. Dwyer said that it would be more of a frame than a plate, so it would be less visible from the street. Mr. Kipnis said that there would a rhythm with the additional turbines. Chris Cary asked if the roof design would be changed where the dormer comes out. Mr. Dwyer said that they could change the structure of the frame to accommodate changes into the roof. Mr. Carey asked if [the frame) in the back side of the roof would be large. Mr. Dwyer said that it - would be [an open frame), and the perimeter would be large, but it also be opened like framing a house without sheeting or plywood on it. Mary Brugliem asked if the front would be opened as well. Mr. Dwyer said yes. Mr. Kipnis referring to a photo said that it would very hard to see the turbines from the street. 'pis. Gardner said that she was amazed that it looked like in the drawing but it did not stuck up further. fir. Kipnis said that was because it is following the roof sloped up. Mr. Carey asked if painting the turbine in a smoke gray like the roof color would further R minimize its visibility. Mr. Kipnis said that the turbine is pretty invisible being clear. Mr. Ruiz said that he did not see the turbine until it started moving. Thomas Prairie asked about the faith of the trees on the front yard that seemed to be blocking the wind. Mr. Kipnis said the turbines would be higher than those trees, and it also is predominantly a western wind that would be driving the turbines. Evanston Presetvation Commission December 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 11 Michael Girard moved to approve the proposed alteration at 1220 Michigan as it meets the following standards of alteration: 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, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the propem., neighborhood or environment, 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. Standards 3, 4. G, 7, and 8 do not apply, Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays III. COhIAIITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1503 Chicago Avenue (Landmark) - Blade sign [Alteration] Linda Johnston, Kim Lesher, and Brenda HesseIberg, business owners, presented an application for the installation of a blade sign on the building at 1503 Chicago Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. A representative of the building owner (Evanston Bond and Mortgage) was also present. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. Linda Johnston said that they already have the permit for the installation of the sign. The Sign Board approved the blade sign. Barbara Gardner said that the sign Ail] hang from the existing bracket. Thomas Prairie said he was concerned that the blade sign will affect the clean look of the building's fagade. his. Johnston said that they are proposing a classy sign and they hoped other business will follow. Susan moved to approve the blade sign for 1503 Chicago Avenue because meets standards: 1) a reasonable effort was made for minimal alteration of the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property will not be destroyed as the sign size and character is kept to a minimum and unobtrusive, 5) distinctive stylistic features of the building were treated with sensitivity, 9) the Commission did not discouraged contemporary design, and 10) it is able to be taken off without damaging the integrity of the original structure. Clint Trunk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay. 2. 1700 Sherman Avenue (Landmark) - New electric sign below the existing entrance canopy, pole banners, re -skin all existing Panera awnings with new fabric material [Alteration] Chuck Zenn, of Olympic Sign Company, presented plans for the installation of an electric sign below the existing entrance canopy, pole banners, and re -skin all existing Panera awnings with Evanston Preservation Commission December 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 12 new fabric material on the building at 1700 Sherman Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Zenn said that thev want to install a I' tall, routed single face electric sign, and wrapped around under the building entrance canopy. The face of letters light up the sign does not. Panera wants to put flags on the existing flag poles flanking the main entrances on Church and Sherman. Lastly, they want to change the fabric material of the existing signs. The type is changed and in white. Commission's Findings Barbara Gardner asked about the sign under the canopy. Mr. Zenn said that visibility will be improved with an illuminated sign when coming from the west on Church. The Commission discussed matching the color of the signs. Carlos Ruiz said that the existing under the canopy sign for the bank it does not work aesthetically. He said that now that the impact of the sign can be experience in the real world, the Commission does not have to approve something that is not working. Mr. Ruiz said that the history of alterations to the building is relevant. It took a great deal of negotiations to leave window openings leading to the entry doors to Panera on Sherman and Church blank to maintain the rhythm of solids and voids. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. Michael Girard moved to approve the proposed flags at 1700 Sherman Avenue as: 1) a reasonable effort was made for minimal alteration of the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property will not be destroyed, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design for alterations to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations do not destroy significant historic, cultural, or architectural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, and 10) wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done so that if they were to be removed in the future, the integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Either proposal is fine, but proposed awnings must match the existing color of 4637 forest green. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Mr. Girard amended his motion saying that the sign under the canopy is not included with this recommendation. Chris Carey seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 137 Burnham Place (LSHD) - Alterations to previously approved drawings for alterations and a second story addition [Alteration] Mark Miller, owner and Liz Beckman, architect, presented previously approved plans for alterations and a second story addition to the building at 137 Burnham Place. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. E%-4wton Prese;z-awn Corrrnission December 16. 2C-)_ -Minutes Page 13 Mr. Miller said that the existing 1952 Ranch house is not historically significance. He is proposing a hip roof instead of the center gable roof on the front, regrouping the windows below to allow a bay rather than a full projection of the second story. Susan asked if the proposed bay had been built already. Mr. Miller said, yes. He said that overall the revised design is better than the original design. Ms. Gardner said that the garage doors have changed too. Ms. Beckman said that they removed the Colonial elements of the original design; the shutters, the Colonial paneled garage doors, and other features that were a mix. They will apple a wood trim and tie that in to the wood trim that is going to be happening along with the shingles and the fascia boards. The main change on the front porch is adding the low garden mall about 12" high as a landscape feature. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Susan Rundle asked if anyone had an issue with standard 3) all properties, structures, sites, and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. 41terations that have no historical basis and ghat seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. Ms. Gardner said that the house fits better in the neighborhood with the revised design than the original Ranch house. Mr. Prairie said that the proposed design is an improvement to the original design. Chris Carey said that as he reads the standards, he believes that none of the standards apply for this particular case. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the revised alteration to 137 Burnham Place in that it meets standard 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, I abstention. 4. 720 Colfax Street (P1EHD) - Enclose existing alcove entrance on the rear, new stairs, landing and roof covering [Alteration] Tom Gernmell, owner and George Prosiliakos, architect, presented plans for enclosing an existing alcove entrance to the kitchen at the rear of the house, with new stairs landing and roof covering. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Gemmell said that the existing window would be changed to casement windows that are compatible with the doors on the back porch. The overall design is a minimal change to the existing house. The windows are Semco windows, all wood with true divided lights. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked if the proposed balustrade design was original to the house. Mr. Gemmell said that the existing balustrade has many layers of paint and he believes that it is original to the house. Mr. Gemmell said that the house is a Colonial style with a "W" dormer on the front. The house is finished in stucco with a centered entry way. There is a metal handrail in the front of the house. Evanston Preservation Corn.:.ission December 16, 2003 - %ftr: ncs Page 14 Mr. Prosiliakos clarified that the height of the proposed balustrade is higher than the existing to meet the building code. Chris Carey said that he did not believe that the balustrade did snatch the style of the house. Ms. Rundle reported that standards for review of alteration 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 applied to the proposed project. Stan Gerson moved that the Commission approved the alteration to 720 Colfax Street in that: 1) it causes minimal alteration to the property, 2) that distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed, 5) that skilled craftsmanship is being treated with sensitivity, 9) that the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design, and 10) that the changes could be done without impairing the original structure. Ms. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. S. 1114 Hinman Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) - New bay addition on north elevation, new windows for new kitchen at rear of house [Construction/Alteration] Michael Kleannan, owner, and John Kelly, architect, presented plans for the construction of a bay on the north elevation and new windows for the new kitchen at the rear of the house at 1114 Hinman Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark %vithin the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Kelly said they are proposing a side addition and at the rear of the house they proposed a family room and kitchen area with a side bay addition. The proposed materials are siding and window trim to match the existing and style of window. The side bay will have the lower profile pitch. Mr. Kelly said that they are proposing now brackets under the bay and eliminate the originally proposed foundation. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz suggested on the first floor west elevation the pair of double hung windows with a larger single double hung v.-indow and enlarge the double hung window; both to a size opening similar to the second floor window openings. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Michael Girard moved to approve the proposed project at 1114 Hinman Avenue kith the bay window supported by brackets rather than concrete foundation. On the west elevation, the side by side double hung windows, be replaced with a single double hung window and up sized along with the proposed double hung window to match the size of the second floor double hung windows. The project meets standards: 1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure, in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities or character will not be destroyed, 3) alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged, 4) changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of 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, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged, 10) wherever possible, new additions or alterations shall be done in a manner that if they were to be removed, will not damage the Evanston Preservation Commission December 16, 2003 -Minutes Page 13 essential form and integrity of the structure. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 aves, 0 nays. At this lime AndrLnv ,%fcGoWgle and Sue Budinsky. of �Vorthuvesten: Universims and Anne A&Guire, architect, presented plans for the follotiring projects: 6. 1810 Hinman Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) - \env concrete ramp at rear of existing addition, new windows on side elevation [Alteration] The construction of a new concrete ramp at the rear (west side) of an existing addition (Butler Building), and the installation of new windows on the north and south side elevation of the existing one-story addition to the building at 1810 Hinman Avenue, which is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. McGuire said that the ramp is minimal and has a hand rails. Two metal clad windows on the north and one on the south will be added matching the existing windows. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle explained that the ramp is such a foreign element to the Butler Building that the standards for alteration apply; in this case 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. For the windows: 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. Michael Girard moved to approve the project at 1810 Hinman for construction of new ramp as shown and the addition of three windows to the north south of the existing Butler Building, attached to the historic house, in that they meet: 1) for ramp and windows: every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, or structure in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) ramp and windows: the distinguishing original qualities of the structure and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible, 4) ramp only: changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a property, and may have acquired significance in their own right, and this changes shall be recognized and respected, 5) ramp and windows: distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity, 8) ramp: very reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project, 9) ramp and windows: contemporary design for alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historic, architectural material, 10) ramp and windows: wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if they were to be removed, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 1818 and 1812 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) - New wood and concrete ramp to enter both buildings at the side. Modifications at 1818 Hinman include changes to the existing windows enclosing the side of the porch, new front steps and door to existing enclosed porch. Modification to 1812 Hinman include new entrance door from ramp at side of porch and alterations to porch at side where ramp enters the building, and new lighting fixtures [Alteration] E%=ton Prescrvation Commission Deccmtir_r I6, 2003 - Minutes Pagc 16 The buildincs at 1818 and 1812 Hinman Avenue are within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District.:Izme McGuire said the objective was to come with a predominantly wood ramp from the parking at the rear to the enclosed porch. The existing front stairs at 1818 Hinman will be rebuilt with a landing and knee wall, The ramp will come on the south side of the building. On the IS 12 the ramp will be coming in on the porch and not affecting the front of the porch. There are steps down from the top landing of the ramp toward the street for a continuous path from the street to the back. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked about putting the ramp at the back. Mr. McGonigle said that they did, but because the circulation inside the building will be dramatically altered. Susan Rundle said that the ramp will take away the spacing between the houses. Mr. McGonigle said that they modeled design after the porch at 1812 Hinman with the wooden balustrade. They orchestrated carefully the solid to the void. They also wanted to avoid two ramps. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. Clint Funk moved to approve the ramp at 1818 and I8I2 Hinman, based on standards: 1) Every reasonable effort is being made to do minimal alteration of the property, 2) the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, 3) all properties are products of their own time, 4) changes in the course of history have acquired significance in their own right, 5) stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 8) every reasonable effort is being made to protect and preserve archaeological resources, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the ramp if were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 1940 Sheridan Road (NI EHD) - Wood and concrete ramp at rear of building, with new entry door and modifications to existing rear entrance [Alteration] The building at 1940 Sheridan Road is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Anne McGuire said this is a predominantly wood ramp at the rear of the building. There is a landing at the top of the ramp that has stairs to go down, there also a new door into the building. The materials match the existing wood siding, wood door, wood window and trim. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for the ramp are 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10; for the new entry 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10. Clint Funk moved to approve the ramp and entry at 1940 = Sheridan based on: 1) every reasonable effort is being made to adapt the property, 2) the existing_ structure is not being destroyed, 3) all properties are recognized as products of their own time, 5) distinctive st-distic features arc being treated with sensitivity, 8) very reasonable effort is being made to protect and preserve archaeological resources, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and I0) if the ramp, windows, and door are removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Presmation Commission December 16, 2003 - Minutes Page 17 I�'. hfI\'UTES Thomas Prairie moved to approve the October 28, 2003 minutes for 904 Hinman Avenue. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. N'. NEW BUSINYESS Nomination of 2004 Preservation Commission Officers Barbara Gardner announced the slate of officers for 2004: Chris Carey, Chair; Michael Girard, Vice -Chair; and Susan Rundle, Secretary. ♦rI. CONIhIENTS BY PUBLIC, COMhfISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Susan Rundle said that volunteers are needed for the Review and Technical Assistance Committee. The meeting is on Thursday. Carlos Ruiz thanked Commission members for their hard work all year around. He also said that agendas and minutes will be available via internet. Also information about the Commission will be available in the City's web site. Mary Brugliera suggested having a retreat in January 2004. Regarding the Georgian, Ms. Gardner said that the building is a co-op. The building could qualify under Suburban Apartment Buildings. The question is why the Mather was not included in the Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Gardner said that she will consider nominating the Civic Center as a Landmark after her term expires. Carlos Ruiz distributed a copy of the application for appeal regarding 904 Hinman VII. ADJOURNMENT Michael Girard moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: "wo, Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Prese A n Coordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION CIvlc Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois City Council Chambers Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:30 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Barbara Gardner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle AIEINIBERS ABSENT: Abbie Willard, and Clint Funk OTHERS PRESENT: James Murray, Michael Niazmand, Scott Prestangen, Virginia Holbert, Charles Hackley, and Tom Bassett-Dilley PRESIDING: Barbara Gardner, Outgoing Chair and Chris Carey, Incoming Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, and Herb Hill I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION At approximately 7:35 p.m. Barbara Gardner, Outgoing Chair, called the meeting to order, a quorum was present. II. ELECTION OF 2004 PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFFICERS Ms. Gardner said that the following Commissioners were previously nominated: Chris Carey, Chair, Michael Girard, Vice- Chair, and Susan Rundle, Secretary. The Commission elected the new slate of offices for 2004 as presented. The vote was unanimous: 7 ayes, 0 nays. III. MINUTES APPROVAL Mary BrugIiera moved to approve the November 18, 2003 minutes regarding the proposed traffic mast arm lights/signals at four locations: Ridge Avenue & IsabelIa Street/Sheridan Road; Sheridan Road and Main Street; Chicago Avenue & Grove Street, Chicago Avenue & Lake Street, Chicago Avenue & Greenwood Street; and Central Street & Ridge Avenue. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 7 ayes, 0 nays. Barbara Gardner moved to approve the December 16, 2003 minutes. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. IV. COMMUNICATIONS The Ridge Dempster Asbury Alternative Subdivision Plan Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission received a request to subdivide the property at 1314 Ridge Avenue. James Murray, attorney said that the property at 1314 Ridge Avenue is subject to a request for review of a revised proposal. He said that the Commission had approved the initial proposal and that it has been in front of the Plan Commission. Mr. Murray had advised the Plan Commission that the proposed development as configured and designed would be politically impossible to implement. Nir. Murray said that they are requesting that the Preservation Commission review a subdivision plat. The informal layout has been submitted to Mr. Ruiz, and a formal application In support of that request has been also submitted. Mr. Murray requested that the Commission schedule a public hearing on the matter of the proposed subdivision, which changes the entire complexion of the proposed development, from one of a combined row house and restoration of the mansion and coach house to one of a subdivision of seven single family lots. These lot would be for individual development, upon the site around the perimeter, preserving the set back around Ridge. Mr. Murray requested the public hearing be conducted before February 11, 2004. The Commission announced that it would hold a public bearing for the proposed subdivision of 1314 Ridge Avenue on Monday, February 9, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. subject to a quorum being present. V. Unfinished Business 1243 Maple Avenue - Subdivision (Approval of Report) Carlos Ruiz presented a draft of the Commission's report regarding the proposed subdivision of the property at 1243 ;Maple Avenue. The property is u7thin the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission had a split vote 4 ayes, 4 nays on a motion recommending the approval of the subdi4zsion. The motion failed. Mr. Ruiz said that the report and minutes of the public hearing would be submitted to City Council. Barbara Gardner moved to approve the report regarding I243 Maple Avenue. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. VI. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) - (approximately 10 to 15 minutes per project) _ 1. 1145 Asbury Avenue - Demolish rear enclose porch and construct a new 1-story addition requiring a zoning variation for the setback from the north property line [Zoning Variation/Demolition/Construction] Charles Hackley, architect presented plans to demolish an enclosed rear porch and construct a one-story addition requiring a zoning variation for the set back from the north property line at 1145 Asbury Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Hackley said the design of the proposed addition is in scale, character, design, detail and materials to the existing house. He said that they were replacing a structure that is rather inappropriate. Mr. Hackley said that the new addition would be similar to the existing front porch details, such as the siding exposure, the Mee wall construction on the foundation, the banding around the base, and the cave details overhangs. Stan Gerson said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) determined that standards for zoning variations A and C would apply. Mr. Gerson said that 15' set back is required on the side yard. The application asks for 9% 9" set back. (,t) Is necessart, and/or so as not to adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts; or C) Will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or ityitrious to property in the district or vicinity where the propern, is located Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked if the current set back is 4%3". Air. Hackley said that the existing structure is legal non -conforming. He noted that his clients decided to bring back the proposed addition in order to relieve the set back condition even more. Barbara Gardner moved to recommend approval the zoning variance as it meets standard (A) that it is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation, where the set back is being increased from the main house. Standard (B) is not applicable, and standard (C) in that it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the district. Mary Brugliera secondcd the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said that standards for review of demolition 1 through 4 were applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve the demolition of the existing one-story framed porch to the rear of 1145 Asbury because it meets standards: l) the structure is not historically significant enough to be detrimental to the public interest, 2) the structure does not contribute to the distinctive historic character of the district, 3) demolition of the structure would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter [and to the objectives of the historic preservation for the applicable district], 4) the structure is not unusual or uncommon enough that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense, ands) does not apply. Mary Bruglicra seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays Mr. Gerson said that all standards for review of construction applied except for standards 9 and 17. Barbara Gardner moved to approve the project at 1145 Asbury as it meets standards for review of construction: 1) Height: The height of the addition is compatible with the properties that is visually related, 3) Proportion of Openings: The proportion of opining is visually compatible with the rest of the house and to other properties that it relates to 4) Rhythm of Solids, 5. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets, and 6. Rhythm of Entrance Porches, Storefront Recesses and other Projections are all visually compatible with the property and other properties that it relates to, 7) Relationship of Materials and Texture: They are using the same materials that are on the rest of the house, 8) Roof Shapes: The roof shape is compatible with the porch on the front of the house, 10) Scale of a Structure: The scale of the addition in all its elements is visually compatible with the rest of the house and to the other properties that it relates to, 12) Original Qualities: They are not destroying any of the distinguishing original qualities, 14) Contemporary Design: The Commission is not discouraging contemporary design, 15) New Additions: They could take the addition off and it would not destroy the integrity of the rest of the house, and 16) New Construction: The Commission did not impose a requirement for a style. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 2026 Orrington Avenue - Construct 1-story addition at rear of house and construction of a new 2-car detached garage [Construction] Tom Bassett-DiIley, architect presented plans for the construction of a one-story addition at the rear of the house and the construction of a new 2-car garage. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Bassett-DiIley said that his client requested adding a family room and kitchen remodel at the rear of the white stucco Arts and Crafts house. The existing floor is a little unusual in that the first floor is entirely given over to lh ing room, dining room and entry. There is no way to accommodate a family room in the existing footprint. They decided to construct a 1-story addition at the rear of the house. The existing house is a 2.5-story gable structure with a I -story porch in the front. The existing construction is plaster stucco with wood trim. The new 1-story addition at the rear will have the same character and scale as the one-story porch at the front. The windows will be painted wood to match the existing; ail the finishes are to match existing (stucco and painted wood trim, shingle roof, and painted wood windows and doors). The second floor includes only interior remodeling. Mr. Bassett-Dilley said that they are removing the 1-car garage built around the 1950s or 1960s and replace it with a I -story hip roof structure that will have the same materials as the rest of the _ buildings in the property. There will be two separate garage doors, painted wood with painted wood trim and the same shingle roof and stucco finish. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked about the proposed fenestration and the relationship with the existing fenestration. Mr. Bassett-Dilley said that they found two vocabularies in the house. One, the porch read as a glazed in post and beam structure and two, the house itself which is primarily double hung «7ndows (Y x 5') and on the rear of the house, they tried to articulate the addition into two portions. One will have the same reading as a glazed in porch and the other being more than the existing home. The new breakfast area is transitional, is not porch reading and it is not the double hung. They tried to create a ledge feeling and a glassed in bay. r Chris Carey asked about the west elevation and the big plate glass window between the two doors. Mr. Bassett-Dilley said that they are opening the family up to the rear yard, they tried to avoid an over repetitious fenestration where everything was continuously divided in the same ` rhythm. �= Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for demolition of the garage are 1 through 4. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 2026 Orrington because: 1) it is not a structure that is of such historic, cultural or architecture or archaeological significance that its demolition will be detrimental, 2) the property does not contribute to the distinctive historical, cultural, architectural or archaeological character of the district as a whole, 3) its demolition would not be contrary to the intent and purposed of this Chapter, and 4) the structure is not of such unusual or uncommon design, texture or material that it could not produced without difficulty or expense. Barbara Gardner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction for the two -car garage are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16. Mr. Prairie raised the issue of windows on the garage not being compatible. Ms. Gardner suggested using the pattern of the front porch on the garage windows. Mr. Bassett-Dilley proposed use the pattern of the front porch in casement windows. Nis. Gardner moved for approval of the construction of the garage at 2026 Orrington with a change in the windows to mimic the muntin patter of the front porch as it meets standards: 1) height, the garage is compatible to other structures to which it is %isually related, 2) proportion of the front fagade, and 3) proportion of openings are visually compatible with the other structures that it relates to, Also 4) rhythms of solid to voids in front facades, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on the street are compatible to other properties to which is visually related. Also meets 7) it matches the materials and texture of the house, 8) the roof shape is compatible with the roof shape on the porch of the house, 10) the size and mass is compatible with the other properties that it relates to, 11) the directional expression of front elevation is visually related in terms of its vertical and horizontal character, 12) is not met because it %%z11 not be a garage there, 13) they will protect any archaeological resources, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 16) a single architectural is not being required. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed- Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Rundle said that the standards for construction of the addition are: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Ms. Gardner asked for suggestions to make the Nvindows more compatible. Michael Girard said that from the south elevation there is the new breakfast room bump out; then further is the family room. He said that there is no rhythm in the fenestration that ties it together, particularly in the breakfast room. Mr. Bassett-Dilley proposed to do away the wrap around and do a pair of double hung windows on the south of the south of the breakfast room; that will match the windows immediately to the right. Mr. Girard suggested three windows on the south elevation. Regarding the plate glass said that it was intended to create a datum line for the rear. Barbara Gardner moved to approve the project at 2026 Arrington for the addition with some changes submitted to Carlos Ruiz and three Commission members for final approval, as it meets the standards for: I) height, it is visually compatible with the height of the porch on the front, 2) it does meet the proportion of front fagade, is visually compatible with the rest of the house and the other houses that it relates to, 3) the relationship of the height and width of the windows and doors is visually compatible. Also, 4), 5) dealing with rhythm of solids to voids and spacing and structures on the street, are compatible with the properties around it, 7) the relationship of materials and textures; they are using the same materials for the addition as they are in the house, 8) the roof shape is the same as on the house, 10) the scale of the structure is visually compatible with the properties it relates to, 11) the directional expression is also visually related, 12) there are not destroying the distinguishing original qualities of the property, 13) archaeological resources will be preserved, 14) contemporary design is not being discourage, 15) the addition could be removed and it will not have any impact on the rest of the house, and 16) a requirement for an architectural style is not being imposed. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Girard asked about standard 3 as being met. Ms. Gardner said that standard 3 is not met now, but it will have to be met before the certificate of appropriateness is issued. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. At this time the Commission took a recess in preparation for the scheduled public !tearing. VII. NEAN' BUSItiESS — PUBLIC HEARING 422 Davis Street - nomination for Evanston Landmark Designation (Public Hearing) A verbatim transcript of the public hearing is available at the City Clerk's OIce and the ofce of the Preservation Coordinator. VIII. STAFF REPORT No staff report at this time. IX. COMbIENTS BY PUBLIC, CONWISSION hfEMBERS, STAFF No public comments. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next regular Commission meeting is on February 17, 2004. The hearing for 422 Davis Street was continued to January 27, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Also, special meeting to consider the new subdivision proposal for the District 65 property is scheduled on Monday, February 4, at 7:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Emily Guthrie moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz ' Senior Planner/Preservati n rdinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston. Illinois Room 2403 Monday, February 9.2004 7.30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING hlIN`UTES Commission members Present: Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Barbara Gardner, Michael Girard, Susan Rundle and Thomas Prairie Others Present: James Murray, Michael Niazmand, Scott Prestangen and members of the audience Presiding: Chris Carey, Chair Staff: Carlos D. Ruiz 1314 Ridge Avenue —Proposed Subdivision Chris Carey called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m., a quorum being present. Mr. Carey said that the Commission's findings are advisory to the City Council. James Murray, attorney with offices at 1033 University Place, Evanston, Illinois spoke on behalf of the Evanston Ridge, Limited Liability Company (LLQ. Mr. Murray presented a revised plan for the ultimate development of the Asbury, Dempster, Ridge site known as the Dryden Estate. The applicants provided a proposed plat of subdivision and a proposed set of guidelines for review. The guidelines are intended to develop a certain design criteria, so that there can be a sense of continuity, unity, and integral elements of design for the proposed subdivision. Mr. Murray said that what the Commission does not have is a document from the Zoning Division indicating that it has found that the subdivision itself is legally constituted. The issue then before the Commission is, will the Commission accept and recommend the plat of resubdivision, as a substitute for the plan by which the applicant had originally intended to develop the property, with the four or five new structures, which could contain as many as three units in an attached configuration. Mr. Murray noted that each of the proposed lots meets the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, in that it has at least 7,200 S.F. lot area. The dotted line on each lot represents the footprint or building outline with the appropriate setbacks that are required by the Zoning Ordinance for R-I development. The major parcel represents no change of the original submission. The intention is to restore, renovate and subdivide the main residence into four E-,anston Preservation Cc=r scion February 9, 2DO4 - tiirz�-s s Page 2 individual residential units, and the coach house would be divided into two residences. This matter is before the Plan Commission in the context of a unique use and/or planned development The actual application form was also submitted to the Commission as well as a detailed drawing of how it is expected that various lots would be attached and what kind of easements would be necessary in order to move through the property and gain access to various individually developed residential'lots. iir, NSurray said that Michael Niazmand, one of the principals of Asbury Ridge LLC, Scott Prestangen, architect, and Anne McGuire of tiScGuirellgleski, a firm specializing in restoration projects were present to respond to any questions relative to the proposed plan of subdivision. Ms. McGuire, who developed the design criteria, stated that the proposed design guidelines are intended to provide a set of criteria upon which the Commission could voice an opinion and suggest to a potential property owner of one of the seven single family lots, the essential elements the Commission would find appropriate for a single family residence on that site. The individual lots are designed in a fashion to maintain or maximize the setbacks and elements that were considered of significance to the Commission in April of 2003. The Asbury and Dempster setbacks for the street side facades of the single family residences represent the full 27'setback the R-1 residential zoning district requires. Mr. Murray said that would attempt to respond to the Commission's inquiries relative to bow the various single family residence lots relate to the structures that are to be historically preserved. Commission's Findings Chris Carey asked how the proposed design guidelines are supposed to -work. Mr. Murray said that in his opinion, Mr. Niazmand has an obligation to pass on information to the potential purchaser of one of these lots, such as the historic site designated by the City of Evanston and the Federal Government. It is intended that the development of any of the individual lots be consistent with the proposed design guidelines that the Commission may adopt for the applicant to communicate to a potential buyer. Mr. Murray thought that it would not be appropriate to record the design guidelines as deed restrictions, but they could be part of the transfer and the Tight to develop the lots. A statement on the face of the resubdivision plat could indicate that development of any of these seven lots was to be conducted pursuant to the approval or recommendation of the Presmation Commission. %IT. Murray said that it's their intention that the design criteria be indeed part of any marketing program and distributed to any person who would enter into a contract. A statement element would be included with the design guidelines within the sales contract of each lot. Chris Carey asked about the variation and structure type, and exterior finishes. Mr. Murray said that he was not persuaded to submit the guidelines as covenants. The guidelines acknowledge that there is a design rcN iew process as an initial step within the application for obtaining a building permit for the development of each of the proposed lots. The design guidelines would be part of the contract document as a means to advise any potential buyer that there are some considerations for the presmation of the site. - Mr. Murray said that the main property of 53,000 S.F., of which 23,000 S.F. is to remain open, would be submitted to condominium ownership. He said that there is a necessity to have a series Evanaton Preservation Commission February 9, 2004 — Minuc.-s Page 3 of ingress and egress easements in order to allow access to the residential space, as well as other things such as refuse removal. Each residence would have to have its own interior garage, and the access drive is intended to provide the means by which to obtain access to any residence. Barbara Gardner asked about the proposed distance to Ridge Avenue. She wondered why lot 7 is so much larger than the rest. ?sir. Niazmand said that the setback is larger than the previously approved plan. Mr. hfurray said that then the setback was 88.8 feet. In the new proposal the building is setback an additional 20-feet. The net gain to visual space is in excess of 10 to 12- feet. Mr. Prestangen said that lot 7 would provide space for a house size in balance with the other structures within the block. fir. Prestangen said that a new house on lot 7 has to maintain, per the zoning code a 20-foot setback (side yard). The outline of the lot line of lot 7 is within 5-feet of the Dryden Mansion. Mr. Prestangen said that there is the rear setback where nothing could be built. Also, there are easements along the road in the rear of the lots, where there could be some restrictions. Mr. Murray mentioned the access to lot 7 where potentially a garage would be built in the vicinity. He said that those areas would be landscaped rather than fenced and would appear to be a part of the entire grouping of buildings on the site. :1�fr. Murray said that the easement would enter tot 7 and become a driveway. Chris Carey asked about the proposed brick pavers on the driveways. Mr. Murray said that brick pavers were originally proposed. However, McGuire & Igleski Associates have suggested to not consider exclusively utilizing pavers but also asphalt or concrete roadways as a means to distinguish from the existing concrete block and brick pavers that serve the main residence. Mr. Prestangen said that the setback from the rear fagade is 15-feet. Ms. Gardner said that if 5- feet were taken back from the Ridge side, the building footprint would be 2,233 S.F. which is still larger than the footprint of the other buildings. She suggested moving the lot line further west by 5-feet and still maintain the I5-feet setback. Mr. Murray said that with the current proposal there would be a greater degree of open space and separation between buildings. The design guidelines call for a unified plan of landscape improvements. Thomas Prairie expressed concerns with the proposed guidelines. He said that he would prefer additional review of the guidelines. Mr. Murray referred to the Preservation Ordinance Section 2-9-12 which states that the applicant's obligation is to provide the Commission with a design of the subdivision, concept of the location and design of structures. They thought that by means of guidelines they would provide an incentive for the new mmcr. Mr. Niazmand said that what he would like to do is to get on with the mansion and the coach house. He is not walking away from the development of the individual houses. He would like to build to order or build based on the criteria that they have presented. Mr. Niazmand said that if he sells the lots, the new owners would have to come in front of the Commission anyway. The proposed guidelines could be part of that process. He said that his intention is to build the houses. Mr. Murray said that the Commission acts as a recommended body in terms of the subdivision. If the Commission finds that there is some value in having a unified system by which to create the initial steps or the design of an individual residence, that that could be Evanston Preservation Comrrission February 9, 2004 -- Minutes Page 4 recommended. If the Commission finds that the design guidelines do not meet what the Commission considers being a sufficient security device for the Commission's future work or provides too large a leverage to an individual owner, the Commission does not have to approve the guidelines. The guidelines provide the Commission with the means by which to speak directly to a new owner in the very initial process of acquisition. Michael Girard referring to the proposed guidelines and regarding height asked «-hat "not compete" meant. Mr. Niazmand said it means not being higher than the mansion. Mr. tiiurray said that the guidelines are basic but need to be taken into account. fir. Carey said he was not sure whether the Commission should accept the proposed guidelines. Mr. Niazmand said that they had three choices: One, submit seven different designs, which would take probably another two years; two, submit nothing and let whomever submit a design - which would not be his preference; and three, come up,,;•.-th some guidelines. Ms. Gardner liked the idea of the guidelines, because it establishes that new construction should be compatible with the mansion. Mr. Prairie said that the language in the guidelines needs further review; he cited the use of the word "may" in some instances where it should be "shall" instead. He quotes: "Privacy Fences (solid stockade or board fences) may not be appropriate." Ms. Gardner asked if the Commissioners agreed with the basic premise of the subdivision and the guidelines with some tightening up of the wording, could the Commission not go ahead with the subdivision subject to changing the wording in the guidelines. She asked further if the guidelines would go to the Plan Commission. Carlos Ruiz thought the guidelines would not go to the Plan Commission unless they are part of the Preservation Commission's recommendation. Mr. Murray said that mandatory guidelines could be imposed by City Council, but in the area of design issues the general difficulty is how to present guidelines which are rational and yet do not mandate (a particular design or material]. Mr. Prairie said that he did not object to the owner providing guidelines to a purchaser, but he was concerned that it would be assumed that the guidelines have the Commission's imprint. Mr. Carey said that the guidelines could be viewed as advisory guidelines to a purchaser, but he did not want the Commission being in a situation where someone would accuse the Commission of approving the guidelines but not approving a design that supposedly had followed the guidelines. Carlos Ruiz suggested adjusting the guidelines' language so that it would be clear that the final decision is from the Commission. That the Commission bases its decision on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Preservation Ordinance that has 17 standards of construction. The Commission would have the discretion to adjust the guidelines according to the standards contained in the Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Gardner thought that the subdivision should be kept separate from the design guidelines. She suggested that the Commission could say that it agrees with the guidelines in principle, but the Commission could not say "yes" or "no" on each particular thing until the Commission see plans as a whole. Michael Girard said that section 2-9-12: Review Of Applications For Subdivision, Resubdivision Or Consolidation: (B) 1. (b) "Provide the location and design of new structures and objects that are visually compatible with the landmark or areas, properties, structures, sites and objects in the district", was also debated on another proposed subdivision on Maple Avenue. In that instance the Commission had plats of survey for the proposed Evanston Preservation Conunission February 9, 20o4 -- Minutes Page 5 subdivision but no design guidelines. He asked what the Commission thought about that circumstance. Mr. Ruiz said that he had discussed with Brad White, the author of the Preservation Ordinance, the issue of subdivision. Mr. White's opinion is that standard (B) 1. (b) applies when plans are available. If not, the Commission still has the authority to review design plans when they become available. Recommending a subdii-ision does not mean that the Commission is automatically approving construction. Mr. Ruiz said that it is the responsibility of the applicant to submit plans that would adhere to the standards of construction. Nis. Gardner said that had the owner of the lot on Maple brought a foot print without plans for the house, she thought that Commission would have come to the same conclusion. Ms. Gardner noted that the proposed subdivision at hand has a logical foot print that the Commission could make a decision on. Mr. Murray said that they provided a sense of how the lots would work, showing drives, ingress and egress. He viewed the design guidelines as an adjunct to the subdivision, and not as an essential element of the subdivision, but to give an idea of their thought process in presenting the subdivision to the Commission. Ms. Gardner said that if the subdivision and design guidelines are kept separate, the Commission could set up a committee to talk about a tighter version of the guidelines. Mr. Prairie asked how it would work if the Commission recommended the subdivision tonight and work on the guidelines later. Ms. Gardner said that the guidelines are for construction, and if they are more in keeping with what the Commission would like, then when the guidelines are presented to the buyers, the guidelines would be more in accordance with the Commission's desires Michael Girard asked why not just have the Preservation Ordinance standards [for construction] instead of the proposed guidelines. Mr. Carey proposed to establish in a motion that the guidelines would be subject to the Commission's standards and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and leave it at that. He thought that is not the Commission's place to establish design guidelines at this particular point. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission still has its own guidelines [standards for review of construction] even without any design guidelines to consider at this point. The Commission could encourage Mr. Niazmand to mention to future purchasers that he has developed design guidelines that he discussed with the Commission and that the Commission did not object. That would confirm the Commission's purview under the Preservation Ordinance. He said that it was not necessary to adopt a motion accepting the proposed design guidelines as part of the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Carey said that a motion could indicate that the Commission would consider the standards for review of construction at the time that it is presented with such a case. Susan Rundle asked if the previously approved townhouses obscured part of the front of the mansion from the corner. hir. Niazmand said no, but the townhouses were closer to Ridge Avenue. Ms. Gardner said that the townhouses were closer to Dempster and Ridge. Mr. Ruiz said that the new proposed front yard setback is increased from 15' to 27'. Chris Carey asked if the setback between the proposed homes and the mansion was the same as before with the town homes. Scott Prestangen said that the setback would be similar to the setback with the town homes. Evanston Preservation Commission February 9, 2004 —Minutes Page 6 Carlos Ruiz asked about the distance between the proposed new homes in comparison to the existing homes in the district along Dempster and Asbury. Mr. Sfurray said the lots [in the district] generally are larger than the lots which are proposed for the mansion subdivision. The structures on those lots are separated by some greater distances than the proposed distance between the single family residences along Dempster and/or Asbury. Ms. Gardner thought that the homes on the 1300 block of Dempster, west of Asbury, are fairly close together. PUBLIC COMMENTS Peter Coladarci of 1335 Asbury said that he lives at the corner of Greenwood and Asbury, and that his property would be affected by the development because the proposed setback is 5' from his property line. The development would require the removal of two Maple trees that protect his property from the ESCCA building. His understanding of the Commission's role for the proposed development is to determine whether the Maple trees should stay or go. He was disappointed that something could not be worked out for the unified plan for the whole parcel. Mr. Coladarci said that the ESCCA building demolition would be difficult and expensive. He thought that the cost could be absorbed throughout the greater plan. He noted that the guidelines established the minimum criteria for the development, but they do not address landscaping issues. Mr. Coladarci would like to see some amendments to the guidelines for maintaining trees and natural vegetation in the area. He said that there are I5 to 20 hardwood tress that would come down. The plan calls for saving the Elm tree in the back of the mansion. Mr. Coladarci said that the current proposal is much worse than the previous proposal where the setback was I4' as opposed to 5' from his property line. Lisa Shuldiner of 1413 Wesley was concemc-d that the proposed subdivision setbacks and foot prints were shown as typical. Her understanding was that the Commission would recommend or not recommend the subdivided lots only, and not the particular footprints. She said that the proposed guidelines should be treated completely separate from the subdivision. Kristine Frieman of 1326 Asbury said that she was happy about fewer units, that they are single family homes and setback 27' from the front property lines. Her concerns were about the houses = along Dempster. She did not see any backyards. She asked Mr. Murray what "legally constitute" meant. Mr. Murray said that the zoning analysis found that the subdivision itself in terns of the lots being suggested is approvable and it conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. The issues about setbacks and others were at least looked at, but were not considered as elements of the subdivision. Mr. Murray said that the setbacks as shown would not be there as final E configurations because of the potential legal implications of those setbacks, in the context of Zoning Ordinances, which are dynamic and change from time to time. The easements relative to ingress and egress, pathways and drives would be there, as well as utilities. Ms. Frieman said that the building envelope of the new construction does not exceed any further east than it did with the town homes. She said that trying to push the new homes further west did not make sense to her. Regarding the guidelines, she said that they would require further scrutiny, although she applauded Mr. Niazmand for his intention. Eti-anston Preservation Commission February 9, 2004 —Minutes Page 7 Myra Janus of 1222 Greenwood was concerned with the 5' side yard setback because her house was built to face south. She said that mature trees could be killed along that line. Ms. Janus was also concerned about the height, the size and the footprint of the buildings. Compared to the existing houses, the proposed house(s) on lot one is/are bigger than the Coladarci's house and her house, which is the smallest one. Ms. Janus mentioned that her house has almost no windows facing north. Bill Schwimmer of 1319 Greenwood said that he was concerned with the proposed guidelines. He would want the Commission to have control over the final product. He noted that there have been recent projects approved by City Council that ended up eery different from what was proposed and approved. He said that whatever is built on the proposed location should be compatible with the Dryden estate and the mansion. Donna Gritton of 1430 Asbury said that the guidelines have to be more specific to move the development along, and that a buyer should be informed of those specific guidelines, because there would be considerable investment for each lot as far as the cost of the lot and the building. She said that the guidelines should, for instance, establish the maximum roof height, and everything else. Ms. Gritton favored establishing specific design guidelines at this time. Bob Reeder of 1334 Asbury believed that Mr. Niazmand had been treated very shabbily. In his opinion it started with the Commission that in his view came up with the idea of the row houses. Mr. Reeder said that the Commission only cares about Ridge and not the other areas around the mansion property. He said that the Commission needs set guidelines. He said that the row houses were against every zoning thing it was and Evanston. Mr. Reeder thought that Mr. Niazmand desmed a break and to let him develop the land with the single family homes. He said that there should be some specific "yes'es and noes" and also provide for green space. Mr. Reeder mentioned that there is a lot of green space on Asbury. He agreed with Mr. Prairie about having specific guidelines. Mr. Reeder thought that the Commission could approve the mansion and the coach house and work on the guidelines. Mr. Carey clarified that the mansion and the coach house were already approved. Mr. Ruiz said that the notice for the hearing mentioned the mansion and the coach house, but the plans for these buildings are the same as before. Mr. Murray said that the lines drawn on the plat of subdivision represent the setback requirements and not the buildings' foot prints. He clarified that a residence could be constructed within those areas. Tliere are issues that deal with the size of the residences that are posed by the Zoning Ordinance in terms of floor area ration (FAR), height requirements, and among those regulations are the setbacks. He said a home could be constructed anywhere within those lines, so long as it conforms to the other regulations that are imposed by zoning and the design criteria that would be approved by the Preservation Commission. Chris Carey asked Mr. Murray if it would be helpful to establish what the Zoning requirements would be in an R-1 zone. Mr. Murray said yes. He said that building height, FAR, lot coverage, setback requirements (front yard, side yard, and rear yard), side yards and rear yards that might be adjoining a street were taken into account when the hatched lines were developed (except for E%vuton Presmation Corrrnission February 9, 2004 — Minutes Pace 8 height and FAR of 1.5). Mr. Murray corrected that there is no FAR requirement in the R-1 district. He noted that the requirements are 30 percent lot coverage, 27' front yard setback, 30' rear yard setback, 5' setback side yards (except those which are on street fronts, requiring 15' setback), and the maximum height is 35' to the mid -point of the roof. Mr. Murray said that the height of the mansion is 44' at the ridge, ►with a 38' median height. Mr. Murray said that the 44' height of the mansion was taken relative to ground zero or the sidewalk. Mr. Carey asked if ground zero would be the bench mark to determine the height of the new houses. Mr. Murray said yes, because the grade is typically taken by cast/west dimension of the lot. There is a 4.5' to 5' differential between the area that comprises the single family residences along Dempster compared to the grade level of the main house. Harold Bauer of 1215 Greenwood said he was concerned about the use of the word compatibility. He asked if the proposed guidelines were literally accepted, could many different styles of architectural design still be envisioned? Mr. Prestangen said yes. Mr. Bauer wished that the project was not so driven by financial considerations. He was concerned about the density of the property and he wished that there could be five or six single family homes and more green space on the property. Seven homes puts the development into a category where it is not going to have the kind of natural beauty that it could have. He was relieved to know that even if guidelines are accepted, it does not necessarily mean that the design of individual homes would necessarily be very similar. Torn Stafford of 1206 Croft Lane was concerned about the variances that could possibly be developed in a project such as this. He wished that Mr. Niazmand would have been allowed to develop the town houses, which had more green space than the single family houses. Mr. _ Stafford said that if single family homes are allowed there would a variety of architecture with heterogeneous group of buildings. He noted that 90 percent of variations for construction are approved by the Zoning Board. Mr. Stafford regretted that a fence would no longer be erected along Dempster. He liked the iron work and brick masonry fence on Dempster as proposed for the town houses. The Commission discussed the possibility of having a fence under the current proposal. Steve McMillan of 1220 Crain said that the proposed subdivision and construction of the single family homes would be determined to standard 10 (of construction) 10. "Scale of a Structure: The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches and balconies shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects == and places to which they are visually related." This means that the proposed houses should be compatible with the ones that are already there across the street on Asbury. He disagreed with the alleged compatibility of the proposal because of the closeness of the houses as far as setbacks, and there are no yards for landscaping. Mr. McMillan predicted that the new houses would be built to the side yard property line, with 10' between houses that is not compatible with _ the myriad of houses in Evanston. At this time the Commission took at 10 minute recess. Evanston Preservation Commission February 9, 2t4 —Minutes Page 9 Mr. Carey continued the hearing, and declared the public comment portion of the hearing closed. Carlos Ruiz read: "2-9-12: RE17EIV OFAPPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISION, RESUBDI11SION OR CONSOLIDATION" in its entirety. Ms. Gardner referred to the plat of subdivision showing the locations for egress. She asked if it was necessary to have two driveways, and noted that taking out the northern driveway would give more green space. Michael Girard said that would force all the traffic to exit closer to the intersection. He asked what would be the impact of removing one driveway. Mr. Prestangen said the principal impact would be on emergency vehicle access or larger vehicles going in and out, Mr. Murray said that Traffic Engineering suggested having an alternative means by which to gain access to one of the road ways in the event of an accident or an event blocks one of the exits. Mr. Prairie asked about lot 3 (the southwest corner) shown facing Dempster, if it could face Asbury. Mr. Murray said yes, but it would have greater difficulty in accommodating the side and rear yards. Carlos Ruiz asked if the lines shown on the plat of subdivision with the hatched area represented the 30 percent lot coverage. Mr. Murray said the lines show the setback requirements. The 30 percent lot coverage has to still be accommodated within the building envelope as shown. Mr. Prestangen said that except for lots 3 and 4 (which have an easement) the remaining lots would have 30' rear yard setbacks. Regarding the proposed guidelines, Mr. Girard felt that the Commission has the Preservation Ordinance guidelines for review of construction and that they are sufficient. The proposed design guidelines need some adjustment. Chris Carey asked if the Commission members felt comfortable with the standards for review of construction and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as stated. Ms. Gardner said that without taking on the guidelines, there could be a Shingle house, a Queen Anne house, a Prairie house or with the guidelines then all the houses would be more in relationship in design to the mansion. Mr. Carey said that one of the standards is not to impose an architectural style. The Commission decided to separate the proposed guidelines from the proposed subdivision. Carlos Ruiz noted that recommending the subdivision does not mean that the Commission would automatically approve something on a particular lot. Clint Funk referred to lots 3 and 4 and asked if the proposed driveway is an easement so that the backyard goes across the driveway. Mr. Gardner said yes. Commission's Findings: Susan Rundle read the standards for subdi dsion: 1, The design of the subdivision, resubdivision or consolidation shall. - (a) Preserve, adaptively use, or otherwise protect the landmark; or area, property, structure, site or object in the district; and Finding: Mr. Carey said that for him the operative words were `adaptively use.' Evanston Presmation Commission February 9, 2004 —Minutes r Page 10 Straw poll vote finding that standard (a) is met: 5 ayes, I abstention. (b) Provide the location and design of nex= structures and objects that are visually compatible with the landmark or areas, properties, structures, sites and objects in the district; and Finding: Standard (b) does not apply since no design of new structures has been provided. (c) Not result in blocking or otherwise obstructing, as vie ved from a public street or public wad; the critical features of the landmark or area, property•, structure, site or object in the district; and Finding: The coach house and the mansion's primary facade are not obstructed. However, the property could not be adaptively reused and not obstruct some view. Straw poll vote: 5 ayes, 1 abstention. (d) Presen•e and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the landmark, or area, propertt•, structure, site or object in the district; and Finding: (I) Primary streetscape is the east facade of the mansion and the west facade of the coach house. (2) What is directly to the north and south of the mansion (a parking lot and two houses to the north) and a temple to the south and the properties on Asbury. The distances between the properties on Asbury. The side yard setbacks not comparing Dempster to the west side of Asbury where there is some open space. Trend to maximize the lot coverage. On lot I the foot print of the house is going to be significantly less than the envelope that show a 5' setback off of the property line. Building on lots 1 and 2 the 12,000 to 13,000 S.F. difference would get close to 25' more for the back yard if a house is pushed to the front and maximizes the width. The difference of lot 3 is 369', and on tot 4 is 696'. The Asbury lots have more flexibility as far as what could be placed on them ,vithin the envelope. Lots 3 and 4 are tight, Iot 5 is loose, and lot i is not as squared but has more area. Lot 6 not figured out. The critical features are the streetscapes associated with the landmark or area. A larger lot would give a wider rhythm than is shown in reference to the setback lines for lots 1 and 2. Carlos Ruiz asked if any Commissioner had a concern with the subdivision not meeting standard (d). Mr. Carey said that it was hard to tell how the houses would be sited on the lots. He was concerned with the spacing and the rhythm on the street as opposed to the rhythm and spacing of the houses that might be on Asbury. He acknowledges that the houses on Dempster (east and west of Asbury) are tighter and closer together. He said that does not mean there is a need to cram this many houses on that amount of space particularly on Dempster. Carlos Ruiz asked if not having so many houses on Dempster would also benefit Asbury. Mr. Carey said that he understood that there has to be compromise in development. Looking at the older developments around the mansion, the houses are spread all across the front. It could not be distinguished where the mansion was and was not obstructed from the front. Susan Rundle said that the proposed subdivision looks pretty good compared with the existing houses across the street on Asbury. _ Evanston Preservation Conunission February 9, 2004 —;Minutes Page I t Straw poll: 3 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention. Thomas Prairie noted that the worst scenario could be that the new homes are 10' apart; still that is what the minimum zoning requirement is. (e) Not adversely affect traf c patterns, Municipal sen,ices, adjacent property vahies, or the general harniony of the District. Finding: Nfichael Girard said that as long as two routes of egress are maintained as shown there would not be an adverse effect. Susan Rundle said that the new proposal is less dense that the townhouses. Mr. Girard asked Mr. Murray if the garages tivould be contained within the houses. Air. Murray said they would because of the limited available area. Mr. Niazmand said because of the egress there is no space for detached garages in most of the proposed lots. Mr. Carey reiterated that the driveway out to Ridge would be in one direction only. Mr. Murray thought that it could not be restricted to a one-wav drive because the restriction would be violated. Carlos Ruiz said that the turn around was not meant to be a parking space. Chris Carey asked about guest parking. Mr. Murray said that there are very modest visitor parking spaces that would serve the condominium ownership property. As far as any individual land owner, it would probably be the driveway portion which accesses the garage. Carlos Ruiz asked Mr. Niazmand if there was a consideration about property values. Mr. Niazmand said that it would be positive, especially with the type of building that he expects to build and that would sell. He said that if the property is too big, the market shrinks beyond reach of many people. Ms. Gardner as a former real estate agent thought that the house on the comer of Greenwood and Asbury and the other on Greenwood would have a positive effect. She thought that the property values on the west side of Asbury would not be affected at all. Straw poll 'Vote: 5 ayes, 1 abstention. Barbara Gardner moved to recommend approval of the subdivision with a change to lot 7, that the east lot line of lot 7 be located 5' further to the west, as it meets standards (la) [it adaptively uses the area of the landmark structure in the district], (lc) [does not block or obstruct from the public way any of the critical features of the landmark primary facades], (ld) (protects the critical features of the strectscape associated with the landmark and the district), and (Ie) [it does not adversely affect traffic patterns or municipal services or adjacent properties negatively]. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion: Clint Funk asked about the addition 5' setback condition (for lot 7). Ms. Gardner said that she would prefer pushing everything back 5' because it would open up the view (of the mansion] a Iittle bit more on the front. Susan Rundle said if there was no requirement to move the east lot line 5' to the west, it would not preclude the Commission from asking for better sight line when a building comes. Mr. Ruiz concurred. The Preservation Ordinance has language about rhythm of solids and voids, where 5' setback might not be appropriate for a particular area where the setback is larger than 5'. Chris Carey said that in his opinion, the proposal should be taken on its merits as to what it is that the Commission is considering now. Evanston Preservation Commission � February 9, 2004 —'Minutes Pap 12 Barbara Garner said that her motion was to recommend approval of the subdivision with the change that lot Ts east Iot line be pushed 5' to the west, giving a front lot dimension of 96.32' and having the cast lot line of lot 7 be located 89. 89' from Ridge. Vote: 3 ayes, I nav, 2 abstentions. The motion failed. Michael Girard moved to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision as presented for the Asbury/Ridge development as it meets standards (I a), (I c), (I d) and (1 e) as stated above by Ms Gardner. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Vote: 4 ayes, I nay, 1 abstention. The motion passed. Susan Rundle moved that design guidelines presented with the proposed subdivision are not part of the Commission's recommendation for approval of the subdivision. Michael Girard seconded. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 abstention. Michael Girard moved to close the hearing at approximately 10:40 p.m. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. L Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation C ordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COIN51ISSION Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 7:30 p.m. .'1'IINiITES NIENIBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Barbara Gardner, Stan Gerson, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Funk, Michael Girard, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Paddor, David Raino Ogden, Ginny Holbert, Jim Goldberg., Fred Biliter, Drew Heindel, Andrew Martin, Maria Concervich, and Foster Dale PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., a quorum of six members being present. 11. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1031 Ridge Avenue (C/RHD) — Remove screened porch and deck at rear of house and build two-stom addition [Demolition/Construction] Robert Paddor, owner, and David Raino Ogden, architect, presented plans for the demolition of an exiting deck and screened porch below and the construction of a screened porch at grade and a sun mom above it with bay window and exterior stucco finish at 1031 Ridge Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Paddor said that the stucco finish and wood trim match that on the second story. The sun room has a shed roof. The side stairs and deck will be painted, There is storage under the stairs. Evanston Presrn•ation Commission February 17, 2004 —Minutes Page 2 Commission's Findings Thomas Prairie and Chris Carey said that the stairs could be broken down. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for demolition are 1 trough 4. Barbara Gardner moved to approve the demolition in that: 1) the deck and sun porch are not historic, cultural or architecturally significant, 2) they do not contribute to the district, 3) their demolition is not contrary to this Chapter, and 4) they are not of such unusual or old, Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are: 1 height, 3 proportion of openings, 5 rhythm of spacing on structures, 7 material, 8 roof shapes, 10 scale, 12 original qualities, 13 archeological resources, 14 contemporary design, I5 removal of additions, and 16 imposition of style. Barbara Gardner moved to approve the addition to 103I Ridge as it meets standards: 1) the height is visually compatible to properties and structures to which is related, 3) the proportion of openings; the windows and doors are compatible with other windows and doors on the property, 5) the rhythm of spacing on structures on the street is visually compatible with the back side of the house to which relates, 7) the materials and textures match the existing, 8) the roof shapes; shed roof on the addition matches the roof above it, 10) the scale of the structure; the new construction will be visually compatible in size and scale with the other properties to which it relates to, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property are not being destroyed, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the addition could be removed without destroying the integrity of the rest of the house, and 16) the Commission is not imposing the use of a single architectural style. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1112 Asbury Avenue (Landmark/RHD) -One-story addition at northwest corner of house And remove and replace roof structure over the existing two- story wing at the southwest corner of the house [Al teration/Construction) Applicants were not present at this time. Chris Carey called on the next item. 3. 1232 Maple Avenue (Laudmarlt/RHD) — Reconvert two -flat house to single family house. Demolish porch enclosure and restore original wraparound -- porch, reestablish front bay window and door to porch, replace kitchen window with 3 wood casements, relocate door to family room, convertwest bedroom to family room and install larger double hung window, and remove exterior stairs to apartment [Demolition/Alteration] Mr. Carey called on the next item, since the architect for 1232 Maple was not present yet, Evanston Presrnation Commission Febtuary 17, 2004 — Ntin,t.s Page 3 4. 1243 Maple avenue (RHD) — New single family residence on vacant property being subdivided (south of existing home) Preliminary review (Construction] Ginny Holbert, owner, said that the Commission did not recommend the subdivision of the vacant lot at 1243 Maple. She said that the subdivision -mill go through City Council. In the interim they are seeking a preliminary review of the proposed construction of a two-story single family house. The proposed subdivided lot is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Jim Goldberg, architect, said his company will purchase the property if it is subdivided and if the Commission approves the design. The new home will fit in the neighborhood and will be contextual with the adjacent houses as well as the block. There is a mixture of architectural styles in the neighborhood; the proposed house design does not copy any of the existing houses, rather it takes the characteristics of them and interprets them into a Mission or Arts and Crafts style architecture. Mr. Goldberg said showed an illustration of the proposed house between the two existing houses. He noted the roof shape, the height, the scale, front porches, the windows, the materials such as brick chimneys. Mr. Goldberg said the new house has a peak height of 35'; striking a balance between the house to the north which has a peak height of 40' and the house to the south that is 30' high. The average setback of the block, or 50% of the houses, is more than 27'; the new house is setback 35.47'. The house is 30.5' wide, while the building block would be 34' wide. The house is 3' less than the zoning would allow. Mr. Goldberg showed a drawing of the footprints of existing house to illustrate the current setbacks of these buildings and the setbacks of the proposed house. Carlos Ruiz asked Mr. Goldberg to point out (lie differences between the proposed house and the house design presented during the subdivision hearing. Mr. Goldberg said that there is no difference in the setbacks, the main change is that the chimneys are brick chimneys now, other than that, the designs are virtually identical. The materials are 4" wood cedar siding and 1"x 6" cedar trim. The trim color will be slightly different than the color of the siding; the windows will be aluminum clad wood windows. Carlos Ruiz said that public notice is not required for the certificate of appropriateness, even though one person opposed the subdivision. Also, one Commissioner was concern with the proposed setback of the house. Everything so far is the same except that the chimneys are now brick. Mary Brugliera asked Mr. Goldberg if they considered an Art Modern, or International Style, or Prairie Style design style instead of the Tallmadge- esque style. Mr. Goldberg said that the proportions and scale of the proposed design seemed to relate to the neighborhood, yet not totally copied it. Ms. Holdbert said that if had they proposed those styles, they would have received more opposition than one neighbor. Ms. Gardner said that she still have a concern with the proposed setbacks. Ms. Holdbert said that she prefers to have the proposed house than an International Style house. Evanston Presmation Commission February 17, 2004 — Minutes Page 4 Carlos Ruiz said that his impression was that the house appears more horizontal than vertical, particularly with to the two bays. Mr. Carey said that the house front fagade looks too heavy. hfs. Gardner said that Mr. Goldberg could come back with a design that does not look so broad and squished on the site. Mr. Goldberg said that the projecting porch needs a roof. He said that the broad appearance of the house was intentional to catch the interest of potential buyers. Mr. Carey said that adjusting the mass of the fagade and keeping the same interior spaces is feasible. Mr. Gerson aereed with Air. Ruiz's comments regarding the perception of horizontality of the front fa;ade. Mr. Carey said that it appears that the majority of Commissioners are okay with the setbacks, but there is concern with the front fagade and the massing of the front fagade. Mr. Gerson suggested that the applicant provide other front elevation designs. He said that the third floor of the proposed design appears too overpowering. Mr. Goldberg thanked to Commission for their feedback and said that he will return in March, 2005. hts. Holdbert said that the proposal for subdivision is going through the review process and will go to the Planning and Development Committee before going in front of the full City Council. 2. 1112 Asbury Avenue (Landmark[RHD) — One-story addition at northwest corner of house and remove and replace roof structure over the existing two- story wing at the southwest corner of the house jAlteration/Constructioni Fred Biliter, owner, and Drew Heindel, architect presented plans construct a one-story addition with a gabled roof form and reconstruct the roof on another area of the Talimadge and Watson gabled frame house at 1112 Asbury Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Heindel said that the addition is on the northwest corner of the house. They also proposed to tear off the roof on the two-story enclosed porch and reconstruct the low profile gabled roof. The new windows are all wood casement windows. Mr. Heindel said that they have not decided on in -swing or out-s -ing casement windows yet. Commission's Findings__ Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Chris Carey moved to approved the certificate of appropriateness for the alteration of the — roof at 1112 Asbury, in that meets standards: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the structure with minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities and - character of the property will not be destroyed, 3) alterations that have no historical basis and seek and earlier appearance shall be discouraged, 5) distinctive stylistic features and craftsmanship will be treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repair rather than replaced whenever possible,, 9) contemporary design shall not be discourages, and 10) whenever possible new structures, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired. Barbara Gardner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.— E%mmton Presmation Commission February 17, 2004 —Minutes Page 5 Susan Rundle said that applicable standards for construction are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 through 16. Regarding two proposed decks, Mr. Heindel said that the details have not been fully developed yet, but the idea is for the decks to flow into the yard, Barbara Gardner moved to approve the construction at 1112 Asbury it meets: 1) the height is visually compatible with the house and the other properties, 2) the proportion of front fagade and 3) proportion of openings are %isu: Ily compatible with the house and other structures to which it relates, 5) the rhythm of solid and voids on front facades facing structures on the street, entrance porches and other projections are visually compatible ,vith other properties it relates to, 7) the relationship of materials and textures match that on the house, 8) the roof shape of the addition will be similar to the existing, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible with other properties it relates to, 11) the directional expression of the front elevation is compatible with the rest of the house and other properties in the neibhborhood,12) the distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed, 13) archeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, I5) they could remove the addition without destroying the rest of the structure, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1232 Maple avenue (Landmark/RHD) -- Reconvert two -flat house to single family house. Demolish porch enclosure and restore original wraparound porch, reestablish front bay window and door to porch, replace kitchen window with 3 wood casements, relocate door to family room, convert west bedroom to family room and install larger double hung window, and remove exterior stairs to apartment (Demolition/:alteration] Andrew Martin and Maria Concervich, owners, and Foster Dale architect presented plans to demolish the porch enclosure and restore original wraparound porch, reestablish front bay window and door to porch, replace kitchen u indow with 3 wood casements, relocate door to family room, convert west bedroom to family room and install larger double hung window, and remove exterior stairs to apartment at 1232 Maple Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Martin said the 1887 house was converted into a two -flat in the 1920s. They proposed to punch out the porch to add a room and the addition to the back of the house. They want to take queue from what is happening inside. The living room has been considerable altered; the ceiling was lowered. Some -a indows and doors in the back of the house will be altered. They propose restoring the porch, remove the door and move it to where a window is facing south, windows in the kitchen in the side and windows in the back. Also, they would like to install a fence at the rear yard. Mr. Dale said that the rear entrance on the second floor will be removed A window will be enlarged and triple double hung windows will be installed on the rear of the house. All the windows and door are wood. The windows have simulated diiided lights. Mr. Martin said that all the windows on the back will match the existing. The windows in the E-,w=n Preservation Commission February 17, 2004 — Minutes Paze 6 kitchen on the south elevation are triple casement windows. AIso, they will re-establish the u-rap around porch. The bay,.vindow has a transom. Carlos Ruiz said that the proposed new window on the south elevation is totally different from what is on the house. He said that there is already a window ,kith a transom on the side to take a queue from. Mr. Martin said that there are many different types and styles of windows, Ms. Concervich said that the windows were probably picture windows and not double hung windows. The Commission discussed at length the logic behind the proposed windows and which windows are original to the house. Nis. Concervich said that they felt to do a window that evokes the original windows, yet it is not exactly the same. Commission's Findings Mr. Dale summarized the project by saying that it consists of removing the exterior stairs at the rear, install triple double hung windows on the west elevation, and on the south elevation they have the triple casements in the kitchen. Relocate the door, modify the deck, the ramp and deck. Also, eliminate the addition that got rid off the %',Tap around porch, re-establishing the porch columns and railings on the east elevation, .and replace the small window on the south elevation. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for demolition are 1 through 4 (remove exterior stairs and the porch enclosure, landing steps, and ramp). Barbara Gardner moved to approve the demolition at 1232 Maple as its demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest, do not contribute to the distinctive character of the district, is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the district, is not of such of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture or material that could not be reproduced. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle the alteration includes the restoration of the original porch, re-establish the front bay and the front door, replace kitchen windows with three wood casements, and relocate south kitchen door to family room and the three double hung windows in the family room. The applicable standards are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Barbara Gardener moved to approve the alterations at 1232 Maple as it meets: 1) it is requiring minimal alteration to the property; restoring one of the most significant features of the property, 2) it is not destroying any of the original qualities or character of the property; the porch is being restored, 3) it is not seeking putting any old time appearance on it, but to have an appearance that is compatible with the rest of the house, 4) changes that took place in the course of time are being recognized and respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features arc being treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) at least some of the alteration if removed in the future, will not destroy the integrity of the house and the porch is restoring the integrity of the house. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay. Carlos Ruiz suggested consulting with the State for the Property Tax Assessment Freeze. Ms. Concervich said that the State will probably pay attention to the front window._ Evanston Prescrsation Commission Fcbnary 17, 2004 —.Minutes Page 7 III. CO�i.%iENTS BY PUBLIC, CO.WHISSION MEINIBERS, STAFF Chris Carey acknowledged Barbara Gardner's last regular meeting and thanked her for her ser% ice. Carlos Ruiz said that Pamela Sundell and Neil Vogel had applied for appointment to the Commission. Another person is Ann Dienner. Mr. Ruiz asked Commissioners to provide more names to the Mayor's Office. Mary BrugIiera moved to elect Barbara Gardner as an Associate Commission with a term beginning in `larch, 200.4. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays, l abstention. IV. ADJOURNMENT Chris Carey moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:45 p.m. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: b ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: oxt/� Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation oordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COT►DUSSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2402 Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:30 p.m. tiIII`WTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Stan Gerson, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Morgan, Eric Mullendore, Anne McGuire, Nevin Belser, and Karl Sponholtz PRESIDING: Chris Carey STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order «ithout a quorum Straw poll will be taken tonight and a vote will be taken the following Tuesday, March 23, 2004. II. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1621 Judson Avenue (Landmark/ LSHD) — Demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new two -garage [Demolition/Construction] Scott Morgan, owner, handed out material stating why he thought it was necessary to tear down the current garage, and the characteristics of the proposed garage that make it an acceptable structure in the historical district. He listed many things that were causing the collapse of the garage including that the garage was not built with a legal foot print, the ceiling was constructed with 2 x 4's and many of those rafters have rotted pushing the walls out somewhat, the floor of the garage is below alley level causing the studs and the plates to be rotten, etc. Mr. Morgan said that there will be gables on the both the east and west elevations of the new garage. The main difference is that there are four gables on the current garage with a 4/12 pitch and the new garage will have an 8/12 pitch. The height of the ceiling of the current garage is 9' and he would like the new garage to also have a high ceiling. The west elevation will look E%2mton Presma6on Corr.-nission lurch 16, 2004 —Minutes Page 2 exactly as the current west elevation. The south elevation of the ne-w garage will have two windows. He added that the eaves will match the current eaves; the roof will match the roof of the house. The 16' garage steel door has panels, eight panels per section. When asked if he would have gutters on the new garage, he said that if they are needed he would have them put on the garage. In reply to a question, fir. Morgan said that he was not using smart siding; he is using a product called Hardy Plant: which is a concrete kind of product and comes with a 50 year warranty. It is a smooth finish and will look exactly like the siding on the house. He added that he would keep divided windows on the top with no divisions on the bottom. Questions were asked regarding windows in the new garage and Nfr. Morgan said he will keep divided lights on top and no divisions on the bottom. Demolition standards that apply are all of them but 5. Clint Funk moved and Mary Brugliera seconded that the Commission approve the demolition of the garage at 1621 Judson. Straw poll: 4 ayes, I abstention. Standards that apply for new construction are 1 — the height; 2 the portion of the front fagade that is on the alley; 3 — for portions of openings; 4 — rhythm of solids to voids in front facades within the; 7 — materials and texture; 8 — roof; I0 — scale; 11 — directional expression of front elevation; 12 — original quality of the environment; 13 — archaeological resources; 14 — contemporary design; 16 — requirement for a single style. Stan Gerson moved and Clint Funk seconded that the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new garage at 1621 Judson Avenue. Motion passed unanimously. Straw poll: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 310 Church Street (LandmarkfLSHD) — Partial demolition, alteration and construction of h►•o-story rear addition [Demolition/Alteration/Construction] Eric Mullendore, architect, presented plans for the partial demolition, alteration and construction of two-story rear addition at 310 Church Street. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. in response to a question regarding whether there will be any distance in height between the two dormers? Mr. Mullendore replied that there would not. When asked about the brick to be used., Mr. Mullendore replied that he planned on using a combination of old and new brick. in reply to a question from the Commission Mr. Mullendore replied that the coach house needs the same sort of repairs as the main house. The tuck pointing, window restoration, the the will be restored as well the wood windows. Discussion ensued regarding the restoration of the windows. Mr. Mullendore was asked to bring a model to the next Commission meeting. Mr. Mullendore said he would make a model of the dormers. The existing two story addition will be extended out. Commission member said he understood that the demolition was of a one story door, the concrete terrace and the cast stairway. Susan Rundle moved and Mary Brugliera seconded that the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition at 310 Church of the one story rear addition, concrete terrace and the east stairway because none of Evanston Preservation Commission {arch 16, 2004 —Minutes Page 3 the are significant cultural, architectural or historical significance. They also do not contribute to the historic district or the house. Their demolition would not be contrary to the Preservation Ordinance and they are not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that they could not be produced without great difficulties. Motion passed unanimously. Approval of the alterations will wait until a model is brought to the Commission. Standards that apply to the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Stan Gerson moved and Clint Funk seconded for approval of the construction that is proposed for 310 Church Street which includes a two story addition on the south, and the east. Objects to which it is visually related, the height of the new construction just described, the proportion of openings in the nev-- construction as just described, relationship of materials and texture related to materials and texture of the house itself, the roof shape of the new construction, the scale and mass of the additions relating to the house itself, the original qualities and character of the original structure are not destroyed, we are sure that every reasonable effort will be made to preserve architectural resources. A straw poll to grant Certificate of Appropriateness for Construction to 310 Church was taken. Straw poll vote: 5 ayes, nays. 3. 1914 Sheridan Road (NEHD) — Construction of a concrete and stone ramp with metal and wood railings at the north side of the building [Alterationf Ms. McGuire, architect, presented plans for the construction of a concrete and stone ramp with metal and wood railings at the north side of the building at 1914 Sheridan Road. The building is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Ms. McGuire said that the drawings tonight were design/development drawings and that she would bring the full construction documents when the Commission was ready. Repairs are being madc at the same time the ramp is being introduced. The porch roof is remaining, one ornamental column will remain but the others will be new and made to match. Ms. McGuire said that it is a concrete ramp between two university buildings. On Sheet One it says new wood landing, this is all wood construction with limestone to replicate the porch, and beyond that it turns to concrete. Standards that apply are 1 -- 6 and 8 -- 10. Clint Funk moved and Mary Brugliera seconded to approve the ramp addition at 1914 Sheridan based on every effort is being made to minimally alter the property, distinguishable qualities are not being destroyed, the property is being recognized at their own time, we are not discouraging earlier different occurrences. Changes that are taking place in the course of history aren't being changed, the same stylistic features and qualities aren't being destroyed, and they are repairing architectural features and taking every reasonable effort to preserve archaeological resources that we are not enforcing any type of design. A straw poll vote was taken to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness. Straw poll vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commission March 16, 2004 — Minutes Page 4 4. 708 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new two -car garage. [Demolition/:alteration/Construction] Anne McGuire, architect, presented the plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new two -car garage at 708 Judson Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District_ Ms. McGuire said that the current garage would be demolished and a new garage built on the north side of the rear yard_ She explained that the idea was to do the hipped roof with shingles to match, to do the roof overhang in stucco, pick up the gutters, do some trim. The gang three windows shown on the garage are similar to a bay that is on the north side of the house. The garage is 22' x 24. Mary Brugliera moved and Clint Funk seconded to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage at 708 Judson Avenue. Motion passed with one abstention. Standards for review of construction: 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16. Mary Brugliera moved and Clint Funk seconded a motion for a straw poll to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a garage at 708 Judson Avenue as the height is compatible, the height in the front of the garage is compatible, the optnings in relationship to windows and doors are compatible, solids to voids relationship is appropriate, materials and textures are visually compatible, roof shape is compatible, the scale of the structure is compatible. Straw poll vote: 4 ayes, 1 abstention. 5. 836-838 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark) — Exterior alterations and a zoning variation for the conversion of the basement in a fifth dwelling unit, [Alteration/Zoning Variance] Nevin Belser, of Reba Place Development (owner), presented plans for exterior alterations and a zoning variation for the conversion of the basement into a fifth dwelling unit at 836-838 Elmwood Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Carlos Ruiz reported on his visit to 836-838 Elmwood Avenue. Mr. BeIser said that there would be new shingles on the existing roof exactly the way they have been. Mr. Belser said he represented Reba PIace Development Corporation, a not -for -profit affordable housing organization. He said he is here tonight because they need a variance because the lot is just a little shy of being big enough. Mary Brugliera moved and Clint Funk seconded to advise the Zoning Administrator to approve this variation for 836-838 Elmwood in that it does not adversely effect the historic architecture of the landmark and it does not detrimental to the property. Motion passed unanimously. Straw poll vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. Clint Funk moved and Susan Rundle seconded that the Commission approve the alterations for the aforementioned window at 836-838 Elmwood Avenue based on the fact that developer does seem to be made that its an environmental alteration, distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, properties are being recognized as products of their own time. Changes over the development and over the gross of time aren't being affected by this. A straw poll for granting a Evanston Preservation Conunission March 0, 2QOt — Minutes Page 5 Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations including new window at the north elevation passed. Straw poll vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 1240 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Advisory review for zoning variation for the Installation of an air conditioning unit [Zoning Variation] Karl Sponholtz, of the Stephen Cole Company, and representing the owner said that he had put an air conditioning unit along side the old unit. During inspection he was notified that he would have to get Certificate of Appropriateness. Mary Brugliera moved and Stan Gerson seconded that the Commission approve the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator for a variation for the second air conditioning unit. Motion passed unanimously. 7. 831 Clinton Place (Federal NEHD) — Advisory review for zoning variations for the Installation of an air conditioning unit, and the construction of roofed canopy over the front door [Zoning Variation] Karl Sponholtz, of the Stephen Cole Company, and representing the owner presented the plans for the installation of an air conditioning unit, and the construction of a roofed canopy over the front door at 831 Clinton Place. After discussion, it was strongly recommended that the canopy over the front door should be removed. Mary Brugliera moved and Clint Funk seconded to recommend a variation for the installation of the ac units, construction of a roof canopy over the front door and exception to the lot coverage at 831 Clinton Place and recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the canopy and Air Conditioner installation and lot coverage for 838 Clinton Place in that it does not adversely affect the architecture of the house: in the district and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety ordinance of the house. The air conditioner has a 12 SEER rating which is much quieter, it will also have a cedar fence around the air conditioner. Straw poll vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. III. MEMBERSHIP The Commission discussed what was needed to get more people appointed to the Preservation Commission. IV. NEW BUSINESS Preservation Commission Retreat Preservation Commission Retreat (Set Date). After discussion, it was decided to hold the meeting on the 23'u at 6 p.m. Ms. Brugliera said she would like everyone to write down one troublesome standard. E%inston Presmadon Commission March 16, 2004 -Minutes Pa,- 6 Carlos Ruiz suggested that all Commissioners write down their questions and he would collect them and send them to Brad White and ask him for answers. V. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, CONMUSSION MEMBERS, STAFF Mr. Ruiz mentioned that Ellen Szymanski has offered to meet with the Commission and look at the ordinance from a legal point of ,iew and she has some suggestions that would make the Commission stronger. After discussing the windows, Mr. Brugliem said that the Commission should set up a subcommittee of 3 or 4 members to develop a strategy for negotiating with the lawyer and the owner on how their going to handle this. After developing a strategy the Commission should develop a strategy to negotiate, then get together with them and negotiate and also find a way the Commission's decision can be enforced. 4'l. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation ordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION CO}LiIISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PRESIDING: STAFF: I. CALL TO ORDER Evanston Chic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, IIlinois Room 2402 Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:30 p.m. `UNNUZTES Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle Clint Funk, and Abbie Willard Members of the audience Chris Carey Carlos D. Ruiz Meeting was called to order at approximately 7:45 p.m. with a quorum being present. II. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) Carlos Ruiz said that only five Commission members were present at the March 16, 2004 meeting. He said that all applicants for the following projects were present: 1. 1621 Judson Avenue (Landmark/ LSHD) — Demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new two -garage [Demolition/Construction] 2. 310 Church Street (Landmark/LSHD) — Partial demolition, alteration and construction of two-story rear addition [Demolition/Alteration/Construction] 3. 1914 Sheridan Road (NEHD) — Construction of a concrete and stone ramp with metal and wood railings at the north side of the building [Alteration] 4. 708 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new two -car garage. [Demolition/Alteration/Construction] 0 Evanston Presmation Commission March 23, 2004 — Minutes Page 2 b. 1240 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Advisory review for zoning variation for the installation of an air conditioning unit [Zoning Variation], and 7. 831 Clinton Place (Federal NNEHD) — Advisory re%iew• for zoning variations for the installation of an air conditioning unit, and the construction of roofed canopy over the front door [Zoning Variation] Mr. Ruiz said that all the above projects were given a straw poll and all received a favorable vote. He requested the Commission to vote as a consent agenda the above mentioned projects. Mr. Carey asked for a vote of all those in favor of approving the consent agenda. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 abstention. Also, the Commission announced that the April 20, 2004 meeting has been rescheduled to Tuesday, April 27, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center. III. PUBLIC HEARING 422 Davis Street -- Nomination for Evanston Landmark Designation A verbatint transcript of this hearing is mailable in the City Clerks Office and the Preservation Coordinator (Planning Division) IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservati Coo dinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, IIlinois Room 2403 Tuesday, 312y 18, 2004 7:30 p.m. MINUTES A1EAiBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Clint Funk, Stan Gerson, Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Neal Vogel OTHERS PRESENT: Kenneth Coe, PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting to order at approximately 7:35 p.m., a quorum of six Commissioners being present. II. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation) 422 Davis — Recommendation to City Council to designate the building at 422 Davis Street (Tire Georgian) as an Evanston Landmark Chris Carey called the public hearing to order at approximately 7:40 p.m. Carlos Ruiz submitted the draft of Preservation Commission's recommendation to designate the building at 422 Davis Street as an Evanston Landmark to the City Council. Mary Brugliera moved to set up a subcommittee to review the draft of the Commission's recommendation to designate the building at 422 Davis Street as a Landmark and continue the hearing to June 15, 2004, to approve then the draft and sent it to City Council. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion: Carlos Ruiz said that a quorum is needed in order to adopt the report on June 15, 2004. He said that the Legal Department should receive the draft prior the Commission's adoption. The next Council meeting is on June 28, 2004, The Commission will submit its recommendation through the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council (P&D). E%mwton Presmation Commission May 18, 2004 —Minutes Page 2 Mr. Ruiz said that in addition, the Commission has to approve the resolution directing the City Manager to send the report to the City Council. The property owners and the nominators will receive a copy of the Commission's report azthin five days after its adoption. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz announced that the hearing will continue on Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at 7:30 p.m., Room 2403, Civic Center. Chris Carey, Mary Brueliera, and Carlos Ruiz will prepare the final draft. Ill. COMMUNICATIONS Holly 0. Reynolds, letter regarding 207 Lake Street. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Consent Agenda — Approval of projects reviewed on April 27, 2004. 1. 1236 Hinman Avenue —Two and a half -store addition to the west of the rear Susan Rundle said that the proposed work needed a variation for exceeding the allowable lot coverage and the building height. The applicants already demolished the one-story addition to the rear of the house. The straw poll vote for approving a certificate of appropriateness and recommending the zoning variance was 5 ayes and 0 nays. Susan Rundle moved to approve the straw poll. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1423 Elmwood Avenue— Zoning Variation for a two -car parking pad Susan Rundle said that the parking pad %%iIl be used for two parking spaces, though the square footage is less than requires. The straw poll vote recommending the zoning variance was 5 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle moved to recommend approval of the zoning variation. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 312 Keeney Street — Zoning Variation for the relocation of condenser units to the east side of the house Susan Rundle said that the condensers will be closer than the required 10' setback from the side yard property line. The straw poll recommending the variation was 5 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle moved to recommend approval for the variation at 312 Keeney Street. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. E i— Evamton Preservation Commission May 18, 2004 —Minutes Page 3 B. Projects tabled on April 27, 2004 {approximately 10 to 15 mituues per project) 1. 1115 Lake Street -- Construction of one -car garage requiring zoning variance Kenneth Coe, owner, presented revised plans for the construction of a one -car garage at 1115 Lake Street. The garage requires a zoning variance. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Coe explained that he had moved the proposed garage ---- feet back from the front property line. The garage exterior is cedar siding with a paneled garage door. The garage height is 14' with a gable roof. Neighbors spoke against the zoning variance. Katy Pilot of 1112 Lake, Al Hurd of 1457 Ridge, Ann 1107 Ridge, and Ronald Karzen of 1461 Ridge, all spoke opposing the proposed garage. They maintained that the lot is too small for the garage and that Mr. Coe bought the property }snowing that it did not have a garage. They were concerned that the garage will obstruct the view of some of the units of the apartment building immediately east. Another objection was that if the garage was approved it will set a bad precedent for the historic district. Mr. Coe said that the garage will not block any window's view from the apartment. He also said that he had originally proposed a garage at the rear of the property. However, the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee had objected to that plan because it will eliminate green open space at the rear of the property. Mr. Coe said that the existing bay window on the east elevation was an obstacle for the proposed garage to be moved further towards the rear. Commission's Findings Commission members said that despite the revisions for the location of the garage further back from the front yard property line, it was still too tight and too much for the lot. Chris Carey moved to not recommend the proposed variance at 1115 Lake Street, as it did not meet standards The motion passed. Vote 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention. 2. 207 Lake Street — Two story rear addition Mary Dooley, owner read a letter in response to their neighbors' comments at the last meeting. Ms. Dooley said that her home is not the creation of one architect, because through the years it became from a shack to what it is today. The second floor and the third floor are later additions. Myron Hunt designed the dining room and the front entrance. The house was divided into five boarding rooms. They purchase the house in 1988 and went through a three-year renovation. Ms. Dooley said that their proposal blends the old and the new and it does not require a variance. Their neighbors currently enjoy the open space on their property. Finally, the neighborhood will be improved. Evanston Pr=nation Commission May 18, 2004 —Minutes Page .t Seymour Turner, of Airoom, said that, previously, the second floor and the porch were added to the house. The addition will allow the reconfiguration of the kitchen and needed bedroom space on the second floor. He also presented a mass model of the proposed addition. Mr. Turner said that the roof matches the height and pitch of the existing roof, the new gable matches the existing gable. Setting back the addition behind the main plain of the house and away from the front porch; the Sheridan side fagade of the house is not adversely affected. The materials and textures will match the existing as well as the windows. The original quality will be maintained, the addition will easily be removed. Mr. Turner said that the proposed addition will be beneficial to the existing house. Commission's Findings Mary Brueiiera asked about why not building the addition to the west. Mr. Seymour said that zoning would not allow it as it is considered the rear yard. Susan Rundle asked about the allowable height. Mr. Seymour said that the allowable height is 35' to mean of the roof. his. Rundle referred to standard 12 regarding the distinguishing qualities of the house. She said that after careful consideration she has changed her mind about the proposed addition. Ms. Brugliera thought that standard 10 regarding scale, and 5 for rhythm of spacing of structures on streets were not met by the design under its current location, size and mass. At this time Chris Carey asked members of the audience for their comments. David Reynolds of 204 Davis Street, said that it is the of property owners' responsibility to maintain the integrity of their homes and neighborhood. The proposed addition does not respect the integrity of the house nor the neighborhood. The addition is contrary to standard 1 regarding minimal alteration to the house. Mr. Reynolds read a letter from Janet and Frank Cicero of 222 Lake; they also opposed the addition at 207 Lake citing the inappropriate alteration of the roof line and the rhythm of spacing between the existing structures. Holly Reynolds said that the proposed addition was not appropriate for the existing space. She said that the neighborhood is important for Evanston and its residents. She said that the proposed addition does not meet standards 5 and 10 for construction. Ann Jennett of 216 Lake said that she was not immediately affected, but the addition is too large. She said that home owners have the stewardship of the historic district. Ellen Galland of 408 Lake said that the proposed addition will cause a permanent significant change to the neighborhood. John Chapman of 215 Lake said that the addition is totally inappropriate and urged the Commission to reject the project. In response to the neighbors concerns, Seymour Turner said that the addition has a roof that follows the same slope of the existing roof and that they will remove the gable from the north elevation; limiting significantly the ridge of the roof on the house. These changes will affect the floor plan and remove the attic space, but they are willing to explore further these proposed changes. Evanston Prtsm-ation Commission May ls. 2004 — Minutes Page 5 Chris Carey asked if they considered bringing the addition partly behind, not crowding the dining room and the bay, but where the stairs are in the back. Mr. Seymour said that approach limited the use of the inside. He referred to the model as the actual proposal and not the drawings. Susan Rundle and Thomas Prairie asked that the applicant provide more detail drawings for the existing house. Stan Gerson moved to continue the re%iew of the proposal. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 abstention. 3. 1118 Lake Street (RHD) — Kidd second floor to existing one -store entryway. [Variation/Construction] Charles Austin, owner presented plans for a second story addition over an existing one-story entryway at 1118 Lake Street. The proposed work requires a minor zoning variation for a side yard setback of 3.6' where a 5' setback is required. Mr. Austin said that the Commission had concerns about the materials and the pitch of the roof. He said that the exterior finish will be stucco «rich the trim banding, the new windows will have divided lights to match the existing, and the roof will have a pitch. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the straw poll for the variation was 5 ayes, 0 nays. The straw poll for the construction was to come back with revised dra-A ings. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the zoning variance at 1118 Lake for the side yard setback of 3.6 `in that: A) it does not adversely affect the architecture or aesthetic integrity of the district, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or injurious to property in the district. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Clint Funk moved to approve the construction at I i 18 Lake based on: 1) the height is visually compatible, 3) proportion of openings is visually compatible, 7) the relationship of materials and textures is compatible, 8) the roof shapes are compatible, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible, 12) the distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the addition could be removed in the future, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. The motion was seconded. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, I nay. V. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) - (approximately 10 to 1S minutes per project) 1. 110 Kedzie Street (LSHD) -- install AC condenser unit closer than 10' from lot line. [Variance] Evanston Presmation Commission May 18, 2004 — :Minutes Page 6 Pam Daniels, owner presented an application for the installation of an AC condenser unit setback 3. V from the property east property line where a 10' setback is required. The property is at 110 Kedzie Street within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Daniels said that the location of the AC condenser will not adversely affect her neighbors as supported by their neighbors' written statements not opposing the proposed AC condenser. The reason for the variance is because their house is closer than 10' to the lot line on the east side. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for variance are A and C. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the variance for 110 Kedzie for placing the AC condenser at a 3.1' setback in that it meets standards A and C. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1112 Greenwood Street (Landmark / RHD) — Remove existing west porch, replace It with one-story powder room. [Demolition/Construction] Paul Janicki, architect presented plans to remove an existing west side porch, and replace it with a one-story powder room at 1112 Greenwood Street. The property is a landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Janicki said that the house had originally an open porch that wrapped around and a porte- cochere that was demolished sometime ago. He believes that the existing porch is not original to the house; his clients would like to have the powder room in its place. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked about the existing columns. Mr. Janicki speculated that the columns could have been part of the porte-cochere. The powder room will be setback I V from the front fagade of the house. The base will match the existing limestone base. The powder room encloses the stairs going down to the basement. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for demolition are 1 through 4. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the demolition of the screened porch at 1112 Greenwood because: 1) its demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest, 2) it is not of such historic or architectural significance, 3) the screened porch does not contribute to the distinctive architecture or character of the district or the house, 4) the demolition is in keeping with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and the historic preservation of the District, and 4) it is not so old or unusual or uncommon that it cold not be reproduced. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passer!. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. Clint - Funk moved to approve the alteration at 1112 Greenwood base on: 1) every effort is being made to minimize alteration to the property, 2) the distinguishing qualities are not being destroyed, 3) the property is being recognized as product of its own time, 4) the changes that have taken place - through the course of time are evidence of the development of the property and its environment, 5) distinguishing stylistic characteristics are being treated with sensitivity, 8) every effort will be Evanston Preservation Conunission May 18, 2004 — Minutes Page 7 made to preserve the archaeological resources, 9) contemporary design is not being enforced, and the 10) the proposed addition could be removed. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay. 3. 645 Judson Avenue (Landmark / LSHD) — Build tivo-store addition on rear elevation (east side) of house. [Variancel Alteration/Construction/ Demolition] Ohme and Winslow Soule, owners, and Steve Liska, architect, presented plans for the construction of a two-story east rear addition to the house at 645 Judson Avenue. The house is a Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The projects requires zoning variance for: lot coverage of 33% where 30% is allowed, 4.28' north side yard setback «,here 5' is required, and 9.2' setback on the south where 10' is required Mr. Liska said that the project includes a family room, kitchen, and breakfast room on the first floor, an office and expansion of the master bedroom on the second floor. A wooden a deck and a stone terrace with stucco planters are proposed as well. They also propose a modified entry vestibule and a new back stair to access the basement. Along the back of the house and portion of the side, they will remove windows and doors in the area of the existing kitchen. The north east corner of the house is affected by the addition with a new foundation. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for zoning variance are A and C. Mr. Soule said that their house is the only one on his block «�ithout a rear addition. The houses were built with 3' setbacks. Their neighbors do not oppose the addition. Susan Rundle asked if the addition could be done Niithout the variances. Mr. Liska said that they tried, but garage takes considerable space. He explained the MDO product which is a composite wood product for exterior applications and to be painted. The MDO panels will be used on the second floor addition as well as stucco. Carlos Ruiz said that the addition is contiguous, and it tivill be helpful to clearly define the addition from the existing. Ms. Rundle said that the applicant may not need the variance if they provide a setback for the addition. Mr. Liska said that the back stair is driving the design of the back of the house. The circulation is very good with the staircase proposed location. Ms. Soule said that they arc also reinstating the original vestibule -foyer. Commission members discussed how to differentiate the addition from the main body of the original house; that may mean to eliminate some of the zoning variances. Ms. Soule said that appreciated Mr. Ruiz's suggestions for the construction of their garage and that they will like to continue working with the Commission for the proposed addition. Stan Gerson moved to continue the review of 645 Judson to the meeting. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1203 Alaple Avenue (RHD) — Install 4.5' picket fence on corner lot [Variance/Construction] Evanston Presmation Cotnmission May 18, 20G4 —Minutes Page 8 Barbara Wallace, owner presented plans for the construction of a comer Iot fence at 1203 Maple Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. The fence requires variations for: no fence shall be permitted in any street side yard of a corner lot in any residential district, fences Iocated in street side yards of comer lots, must have a maximum opacity of 70%, and fences shall not exceed four feet (4') in height when located in a street side yard of a comer lot in a residential district; the proposed height is 4.5'. The fence is located along the south side property line from the existing side stairs to the southwest comer of the existing garage. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked about the need of the proposed fence and the 4.5' height. Ms. Wallace said that she has two children and a dog. Ms. Wallace said that the height of the yard is higher that the grade. Also, she would like a fence that will give them a sense of enclosure. Susan Rundle moved to recommend all three variations (presence, height, and opacity) for the fence at 1203 Maple with the stipulation of no more than 50% opacity because: A) it does not adversely affect the historical integrity of the district, and C) nor will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, and ld. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the construction of the fence as stated in the recommendation for zoning variance at 1203 Maple because: 1) the height is compatible with structures around it, 9) the walls of continuity are also visually compatible, 10) the scale is compatible, 12) it does not harm the original qualities of the neighborhood, 15) it could be removed, and 1 G) there is no a single architectural style. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 2100 Ridge Avenue — Proposed wireless communications antenna on the Civic Center. (1HPA's request for comment from the Preservation Commission concerning National Register eligibility for the Civic Center at 2100 Ridge Ave.) [Advisory Reviesvl Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission received from Tri-Leaf to install communication antennas on the Civic Center, and a letter from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency asking the Commission's opinion on whether the Civic Center is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Mary Brugliera said that she has heard that there are people working on the nomination of the Civic Center. In her opinion the building is eligible for listing in the National Register. Mr. Ruiz handed out to Commissioners the criteria for the National Register. Evanston Presmation Commission May 18, 2004 — :Minutes Page 9 VI. STAFF REPORT Carlos Ruiz said that he has an application for a fence at 905 Colfax. The property has chain link fence and wood fence on the side yard. He asked feedback from Commissioners regarding the proposed chain link fence. VII. CO3INIENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION NIENMERS, STAFF Mary BrugIiera handed out proposed changes to the Preservation Ordinance. She moved to submit proposed the changes to the Rules Committee of the City Council. The changes are: A quorum shall consist of 6 members to a quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the current sitting Commissioners. Also a corresponding quorum change in the reconsideration section of landmarks; instead of a vote of 8 Commissioners, is at least 2/3 of the sitting Commissioners. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. VIII. ADdOURNIII(ENT Michael Girard moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:15 p.m. Clint Funk seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation oo ' ator EVANSTON PRESERVATION C0113%IISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:30 p.m. NUiv'UTES NIEN BERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stan Gerson, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle NTEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, and Abbie Willard OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Mullendore, Belinda Yeomans, David Singer, Charles Austin, Val Markov, Geoffrey Bushor, Steve Knutson, Mary McWilliams, Judy Fiske, Jean Lindwall, Kenneth Coe, Frank Cicero, Holly and David Reynolds, John Chapman, Ann And Bemard Jennett, Seymour Turner, David Karnes, Holly Briggeman, Morton Kaplan, and Rachel Bomgaars PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF PRESENT: Carlos Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting to order at approximately 7:45 p.m. with no quorum being present. II. OLD BUSINESS 310 Church Street {Landmark[LSHD) - Expansion of two existing east and west dormers [Alteration] Eric Mullendore, architect presented revised plans for the expansion of two existing east and west dormers on the house at 310 Church Street. The house is a Landmark m0thin the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Mullendore said that he appeared in front of the Commission last month; at that time the Commission held its decision regarding the 4-foot expansion of the existing east and west dormers. He said that they build on the existing roof muck ups of the dormers for vievdng. After vie,,;ping the muck ups, Susan Rundle thought that the expansion of the dormers changed the massing of the roof. Mary Brugliera said that the dormers disturbed the symmetry of the George Maker's landmark house. Stan Gerson and Chris Carey also felt that the massing of the roof was altered. Eianston Pmmation Commission April 27, 2004 — Minutes Page 2 Mr. Mullendore said that they could reduce the dormers' overhang to reduce the mass. He asked if the Commission will consider such approach. Chris Carey said that it seemed that the general opinion was; why altering the original design. Mr. Mullendore agreed to e-mail the revised design to the Commission for their further review. 111. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1423 Elmwood Avenue (Landmark) — Advisory review for a zoning variation for Interior coach house renovations and to meet parking requirements. (Zoning Variation/Alterations] Belinda Yeomans, owner, presented her application for zoning variance for parking requirements at 1423 Elmwood Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Susan Rundle said that the zoning variance is for a two -car parking pad required for an office in the coach house Nis. Yeomans said that they would like to rehab the coach to use the extra space. She found out that per zoning, single family homes are required to provide two parking spots. Their parking pad is short for two parking spaces; therefore zoning considers the coach house the other parking space. They cannot do anything to the coach house unless they pro -vide the required parking spaces. Ms. Yeomans said that they are replacing the original ginger bread which is under the house and painting it. They are also installing the skylights. Carlos Ruiz said that the contractor applied for installing new windows on two elevations to match the existing windows and the skylights facing the alley. Ms. Yeomans said that the coach house has been used as a studio and will continue to by used as such. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for the variance are A and C. ;Mary Brugliera moved for a straw poll recommending the zoning variation for the property at 1423 Elmwood for the parking pad as it: A) does not adversely affect the architecture of the landmark or the district, and C) it will not be detrimental to public health, safety or injurious to property in the district or vicinity. Straw poll: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 312 Keeney Street (LSHD) — Advisory review for a zoning variation for the relocation of an existing air condensing unit from the rear yard to the east side yard. [Zoning Varlationj David Singer, owner, presented an application for the instal lation/relocation of an existing air conditioning unit from the gear yard to the east side yard on the property at 312 Keeney Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The zoning variance is for an 8.5' setback where 10' is required. Evanston Pmervation Con=ission April 27. 2004 — tii=Ltes Page 3 Mr. Singer said that the Commission previously approved the construction of a deck on the back yard. As part of that they will like to move an air conditioning unit to the side of the house. Mr. Singer said that his next door neighbor wrote a letter in favor of the variance. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for variation are A and C. Mr. Gerson moved for a straw poll to recommend the variance for the air conditioning unit at 312 Keeney Street because: A) it does not adversely affect the historic architecture or aesthetic integrity of the building, and C) it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Straw poll: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1118 Lake Street (Ridge HD) — Construction of a second story addition, requires advisory review for zoning variation. [Construction/Zoning Variation] Charles Austin, owner, and Val Markov, contractor, presented plans for the construction of a second story addition requiring zoning variation. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Austin said that the project is for the expansion of a second floor bedroom onto a 1993 addition on the first Boor. The zoning variance is for a 3.5' setback where a 5' is required. The style of the addition is consistent with the style of the existing addition and it is complementary to the existing structure. CommIssion's Findings Chris Carey asked about the lack of wood trim around the proposed windows given the Tudor Style of the house. Mr. Austin said that in 1993 addition is complementary to the house and the second story follows the same design. Carlos Ruiz said that prior to 1994, the Commission review projects affecting landmarks only. Chris Carey asked about stepping back the second story addition to reduce its mass. Mr. Austin said that the addition «-ill not visible from Ridge or Lake and it is consistent with the foot print. Thomas Prairie said that it made sense to continue with the same materials and window style on the proposed second story addition as the existing one-story addition. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for zoning variance are A and C. Ms. Rundle moved for a straw poll to recommend the zoning variance 3.6' setback on the west side for the second story addition because: A) it does not adversely affect the district, and C) it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the vicinity. Straw poll: 5 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16. Ms. Rundle said that she had a problem with the roof shape (8), the scale of the structure (10). Mr. Carey had a problem with the lack of trim detail and the dryvit cornice (7). He said that having the cornice out of wood will help. The contractor said that they will finish the first and second story addition with stucco. The windows are Andersen clad windows. Evanston Preservation Conunission April 27, 2004 —Minutes Page 4 Chris Carey said that the flat roof could be reconsidered for a small gable roof. Mr. Austin said he will bring revised drawings for the May 18, 2004 meeting. 4. 318-320 Dempster Street (LSHD) — Designation of a rehabilitated coach house as a contributing structure. (Designation as a Contributing structure) Geoffrey Bushor, owner, and Steve Knutson, architect, discussed the physical condition and potential use of the coach house at 318-320 Dempster Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Knutson explained that they were seeking the Commission's support to list the coach house as a contributing structure to the historic district. Mary Brugliera asked about the requested advisory review. Mr. Knutson said that technical aspect of zoning is beyond the purview of the Commission. However, this is an interesting building representative of the horse and buggy days of Evanston, and right now there is no mechanism to save it. It is too big of a building to simply restore it for four cars; the building is in real danger. Mary McWilliams, Associate Member, said that in 1988 the standards for contributing structures had changed. The Commission requested then that 318-320 Dempster be considered as a contributing building, because of its integrity. The Commission back then conducted a Certified Local Government survey and determined that 318-320 Dempster was a contributing structure. The nomination for the National Register listed significant, contributing, and non-contributing structures, but did not include 318-320 as a contributing structure. The State prepared the nomination, it is the first nomination but it is the least complete. Stan Gerson said that if someone would like to demolished the building, it still have to come in front of the Commission. Thomas Prairie said that the owner could apply for landmark designation of the structure. Geoffrey Bushor said that the building is 40' x 50% 2,000 S. F. on each floor. The structure predates the Daniel Burnham duplex house built in 1892. He said that last May they obtained the National Park Service certification for historic preservation on the house. The barn predates the house at ]east 22 years. Mr. Bushor said that the barn probably was used for commercial purposes. Mr. Bushor said that he had contemplated doing a four room apartment on the second floor. The highest invest use for the property will be to make it a residence, which will justify the expense in order to do the restoration. The lending institutions cannot deal with the property in its current state because there is no comparable property in the neighborhood or in Evanston to the duplex, because it is not a condominium, it is still zoned as an apartment (the house). The barn at 4,000 S.F. overwhelms the house. Now the barn needs work. Carlos Ruiz asked about subdividing the property. Mr. Knutson said that the barn is 58% lot coverage where 30% is allowed in R-1 zoning. If it were a residence, there will be two principle uses on that lot, which it does not apply. It does not meet the minimum standards to subdivide it. Mr. Knutson said that they may come back to the Commission and ask for support and finding an exception to do this, or with a demolition permit. He said that the structure of 4,000 S.F. cannot be restored to park six cars. Evanston Presm-adon Commission April 27, 2004 — Minutes Page 5 Ms. McWilliams said that a planned development for a condominium may be the solution. Mr. Knutson said that was an ownership issue, it's not a land issue. Judy Fiske said regarding the Kendall College property, there is the possibility of the "Unique Use" issue which is being considered by City Council. Mr. Knutson said that the concern with the Unique Use is that, for instance, that all the houses on Forest will turn into four -flats. He said that that fear has to be addressed. Mr. Knutson said that in the 1940s these structures were in danger and some of them probably condemned. He said today a 2-milIion dollar house is worth more as a house than as an apartment building. Mr. Knutson said that any lobbying from Commission to support them will be appreciated. 5. 1115 Lake Street (Ridge HD) -- Construction of a one -car detached garage, requires advisory review for zoning variation. iZoning Variation/Construction) Kenneth Coe, owner, presented plans for the construction of a one -car garage at 1115 Lake Street. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. The proposed garage requires zoning variances for the front yard location, 2' separation to the nearest wall of the principal building where 10' are required, and ON setback from the east property line where 5' are required. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for advisory review on zoning variance are A and C. Mr. Coe said that he spoke to neighbors about his proposal. The Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee asked him to leave the rear of the lot open for green space. He said that he prefers a garage rather than a parking pad for safety reasons. Susan Rundle said that this is rare occurrence because of the apartment building to the east and the alley in the back. Mr. Coe said that the garage will be sided with wood siding and the roof %%-ill have a pitch. He said that he could increase the separation between the garage and the house to 36". Thomas Prairie moved for a straw poll to recommend the stipulated zoning variances for the detached garage in the front yard at I I I5 Lake Street with a 3' separation from the house, a 0.5' setback from the east property Iine in that it meets: A) it does not adversely affect the historic architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of the district, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to the property, district or vicinity. Straw poll: 4 ayes, 1 nay, Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for construction are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, and 16. Mr. Coe said that the trim is wood, and the garage door is paneled. Mr. Carey said that the proposed garage may not meet standards 4, 11 and 12. Mary McWilliams suggested that if the Commission were to approve the garage that it is because of the extenuating circumstances. Stan Gerson moved for a straw poll to approve the construction of the garage at 1115 Lake Street in that it meets the following standards: 1) the height is compatible with the fi-ont fagade, D-anston Preservation Commission April 27, 2004 — :Minutes Page 6 7) materials and texture and compatible with the house, as is 8) the shape of the roof, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design not imposed, 15) the garage could be removed, and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Approval of the garage is because the extenuating circumstances related to the structure, and the garage door will be wood. Strau- poll: 4 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 207 Lake Street (LSHD) — Construction of a t►vo-story addition on the north side. [Construction] Seymour Turner of Airoom asked for a continuance to May I8, 2004 to make a presentation of the proposed two-story addition to the house at 207 Lake Street. The Commission decided to hear from people who wanted to speak about the project. Frank Cicero of 222 Lake Street said the proposed construction will be a massive addition to the house because this is a three-story addition. The ridge line of the roof will be extended by 70%; whereas the existing roof line is cut short on the north side leaving open space. The west elevation will be filled with the addition. He said that his observations were done from the public way perspective. Mr. Cicero said that Alexander Hassler, a prominent pre -Civil War and Civil War photographer built at least two houses in the block. Holly Reynolds of 204 Davis said that there is no more of a historic district than their neighborhood. Ernest Mayo built 144 Greenwood for Robert Scott; 202 Greenwood designed by Joseph Silsbee; the Dawes House (225 Greenwood) is one block away. The house immediately west of 207 Lake is the first architect designed home in Evanston by Asa Lyon in 1881; 210 Davis Street was designed in 1902 by Ernest Mayo. Most houses in this two block area are landmarks. Ms. Reynolds said that this area has remained pretty much intact. She also said that the area is frequently visited by many people all year around. Ms. Reynolds said that the construction of a McMansion type addition will bring an abrupt interruption to the graceful block. The proposed addition is 6' from the lot line visually covering that side of the street. The house at 207 Lake is much taller than its three neighbors and will visually overwhelm those houses (standards 1, 2, and 10). Ms. Reynolds maintained that the proposed addition is too large for its site and it will eliminate the open space and alter its environment. David Reynolds of 204 Davis Street built in 1883. He read a letter by Sue and John Miller who wrote about a house next to theirs Mr. Reynolds said that property owners are the stewards of their homes. The proposed addition is a substantial three-story addition which will almost reach a height of 35' and fill the open space between their home and 207 Lake which is in conflict with standards 5 and 10 for new construction. He urged the Mr. Mrs. Dooley to find a solution within the confines of the existing home or with a smaller addition. John Chapman of215 Lake built in 1881-82 by Asa Lyon, the first house construct by an = _ architect in Evanston. Mr. Chapman said that a very important corner in Evanston will be Evanston Preservation Commission April 27, 2004 --Minutes Page 7 dramatically changed by the proposed project. He said that home owners have the responsibility to protect their neighborhood and he urged the Commission to turn the project down. Ann and Bernard Jcnnett of 215 lake said that the addition's mass will be out of proportion to the size and the scale of the neighborhood and the other houses. She said that she believes in the stewardship of home ownership. Judy Fiske of 2019 Sherman said that the critical features of the district are it makes the district. The rhythm and the spaces between the houses, and the streetscapes are important. Chris Carey said that since no one else .vanted to speak that the meeting for 207 will be continued to May 18, 2004. 7. 1228 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Demolition of existing garage and construction of same. [Demolition/Construction] David Karnes, owner presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new garage at 1228 Hinman Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Karnes said that the existing garage is a 22' x 22' structure built on a slab and is not structurally sound. The new three -car garage will be 22' x 32' with a reversed gable with an 8 to 12 pitch to match with the roof pitch on the house, the siding has a 4.5" reveal similar to the house. The "Smart Siding" is a pressed npe wood and it is factory primed. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked about other three -car garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Karnes said that the house at 1226 Hinman just built a three -car garage. Mr. Prairie asked if Mr. Karnes will consider a three -door garage. Air. Karnes said, yes. Mr. Carey asked about the garage doors. The garage doors will be metal, he did not know whether they were paneled or not. Ms. Rundle felt that there was not enough information about the design of the garage. Mr. Karnes said that the windows will be multiple pane windows; he did not know the material. The double doors will be wood doors; the side door will be metal. The roof shingles are Timberline. The Commission and the owner agreed to table the review of the proposed project until May 18, 2004. 7. 1236 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Demolition of rear addition and construction of a 2.5-story addition. [Zoning Variance!Demolition/Construction] Holly Briggeman, owner/architect, presented plans for the demolition of a rear addition and the construction of a 2.5-story addition at 1236 Hinman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Briggeman said that they are currently doing the interior renovation of the house and removing the exterior asbestos siding. They would like to remove the rear one-story pantry and E-vwwon Preservation Commission April 27, 2004 — Minutes Page 8 stairs that go to the basement. She said the design is complementary to the house; the roof line to the third floor is 37% 6" high to the ridge. The variance is for the lot coverage and the mean height of the roof. All of the square footage over the allowable 300;a lot coverage is for the one- story portion of the addition, which helps break down the mass of the addition. Ms. Briggeman said that they already have a three -car garage that is in good condition. Commission's Findings Ms. Briggeman said that her neighbors to the north and south are aware of the project. Regarding the allowable height, Mr. Ruiz said that zoning now measures the height from the grade to the mean of the roof. Ms. Briggeman said that they are lower than the next door house. The foundation of the addition will be finished with wood siding. Mr. Ruiz said that the portion of the house that is being restored might be eligible for the Property Tax Assessment Freeze. Nfs. Briggeman said that on the west elevation, the center window is a salvaged unit from the former first floor. The rest of the dormer front will be filled with glass. All the new doors and «7ndows will be wood. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for zoning variance are A and C. Mr. Carey moved for a straw poll to recommend the zoning variances for the proposed Iot coverage of 33.5 % and the proposed building height to 37.5' in that: A) it does not adversely affect the historic and aesthetic integrity of the landmark or the district, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property in the district or vicinity. Straw poll: 5 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards of demolition are 1, 2, 3, and 4. Thomas Prairie moved for a straw poll for the approval of the demolition of the existing addition in that meets standards: 1) it is not of such significance that its demolition will be detrimental to the public interest and welfare, 2) it does not contribute to the significant historic and distinctive cultural or architectural character of the district as a whole, 3) its demolition will not be contrary to the _ purpose and intent of this Chapter, and 4) the addition is not of such unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty or expense. Straw poll: 5 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Mr. Gerson moved for a straw poll to approve the addition as it meets standards: 1) the height is compatible with the height of the original house, 3) the portion of openings and the =_ relationship of the width and the height of the windows and doors is compatible with what already exists, 7) the materials and textures proposed are compatible with the predominant materials of the house, 8) the roof shape of the addition is compatible with the roof shape of the house, 10) the scale of the addition is compatible with the structure, 12) the addition is not going to destroy the character of the quality of the house, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) it will not destroy any historic or cultural architectural material in the house, 15) the addition could be remove without destroying the essential form and integrity of the house, and 16) the Commission is not imposing the requirement for a single architectural design. Straw poll: 5 ayes, 0 nays. E,62nston Preservation Commission April 27. 2004 — Minutes Page 9 9. 843-849 Ridge ?►venuel1014-1020 Main Street (Landmark) — Exterior alterations and construction of additional parking spaces. [Alterations/Construction] Morton Kaplan, owner, and Rachel Bomgaars, architects presented plans for exterior alterations and construction of additional parking spaces at 843-849 Ridge Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Kaplan said that in 1979 he renovated the building at 431 Ridge Avcnue; he is currently working on a building in Chicago as well. He said that the building at 843-849 Ridge has large rooms and he plans to retain the interior spaces with the exception of adding bathrooms and rooms as needed. The existing windows are wood casement windows with exterior storm windows. Nfr. Kaplan said that he would like to replace the windows. fir. Ruiz said that restoration of the existing windows should be considered. Mr. Kaplan said that he was prepared to replace the existing windows in wood. He was also prepared to look into window restoration. Mr. Kaplan said that they will like to replace the chain link fence with a «nought iron fence. Commission's Findings Regarding the back porches Susan Rundle said that there are no elevation drawings. Ms. Bomgaars said that the reason that they are redoing the porches is because of the parking. Mr. Kaplan said that they are 9 parking spaces for 21 units. Ms. Bomgaars said that the poaches will be relocated to add stairs to two units, also they will increase parking by two parking spaces. Mr. Kaplan said that they would also like to propose a front yard fence. Mr. Ruiz said that front yard fences are not allowed by zoning ordinance. Commissioners felt that a front yard fence is not a good idea. The Commission agreed and Mr. Kaplan agreed to table the review of the project to May 18, 2004. IN% ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Rutz Senior Planner/Preservation rdinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION C0:1LMISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:30 P.11. NI NUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Susan Rundle and Neal Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Funk-, and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Fiske, Torn and Jenny Gemmel, Ohme Soule, Steve Knutson, Steve Liska, David Karnes, Jean Lindwall, Pat Fuller, John and Ronnie Walker, Barbara Wallace, Pamela Sundcll, Mr. and Mrs. Sneider, Richard Hansen, Mary Koberstein, Jordan Cramer, Anne Earle. PRESIDING: Chris Carey STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:38 p.m., a quorum being present. Mr. Carey welcomed new Commissioner Neal Vogel. II. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation) 422 Davis Street — Recommendation to City Council to designate the building at 422 Davis Street (The Georgian) as an Evanston Landmark Adoption of Resolution and Report Chris Carey said the next item of the agenda was the continuation of the public hearing for 422 Davis Street to review and adopt the Commission's resolution and report recommending the Landmark-: designation of 422 Davis Street. Carlos Ruiz said that if the resolution and report are approved, he will request that the report be in front of the Planning and Development Committee on June 28, 2004. Mary Brugliera read portions of the report and suggested some revisions in accordance with continents from the Legal Department, Mr. Ruiz also referred to the Commission's resolution requesting the City Manager to direct the Commission's Report to the City Council. Evanston Preservuion Commission June I5, 2004 — !Minutes Page 2 Stan Gerson moved to adopt the Commission's report [recommending that the building at 422 Davis Street be designated as an Evanston Landmark] as amended on June 15, 2004. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Michael Girard moved to adopt the Commission's resolution for the City Council as amended [June 15, 20041. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson commended the committee (Carey, Brugliem and Ruiz) for the good job on preparing the resolution and report. Mr. Girard moved to close the public hearing for 422 Da ---is Street for designation as a Landmark. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. III. ADVANCED REVIEW (request from applicant for early review due to scheduling conflict with Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing) 720 Colfax Street (NEHDj — Addition of mudroom, landing and stairs/ramp to rear of home. (Zoning Varian ceJAlteration) Tom and Jenny Gemmel, owners, presented an application for a mudroom addition, and a ramp to the rear of the house at 720 Colfax Street. The propem. is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District). Mr. Gemmel said they arc asking approval for a modification of a project that the Commission had approved in December, 2003. Ms. Gemmel said that the reason for the modification of the plans is because his father in law is in a wheel chair. Mr. Gemmel said that the small portico will be extended 2' to align with the house; they will close the walls of the portico. The door, the windows, materials, and structural elements stay the same. The proposed ramp is wood. Mr. Gemmel said that the zoning variance is for a 2.5' side yard setback where 5' is required. His neighbors agreed with the proposed variance. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for zoning variance are A and C. Ms. Rundle - moved to recommend the zoning variance because: A) does not adversely affect the architecture of the local district, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health safety and _ welfare of the district. Also, the neighbors have all consented to the proposed variance. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10 (mudroom landing and stairs). Michael Girard moved to approve the alterations to previously approved project for 720 Colfax as: 1) every reasonable effort to adapt the property, and structure has been made in manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities and character of the property are not being destroyed, 5) distinctive stylistic features and examples of skilled craftsmanship are going to be treated with care, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the addition could be removed and not unimpaired the original structure. Ms. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. E%amlon Preservation Commission June 15. 2004 — Minutes Page 3 At this lime Chris Carev acknowledged Ju4v Fiske who had waited to speak regarding 422 Davis Street Judy Fiske of 2319 Sherman Avenue said she was one of the nominators for the landmark designation for the Georgian (422 Davis Street). She thanked the Commission for its consideration of the landmark nomination. She hoped that the Mather Foundation recognizes that the Georgian deserves to be presmed as part of the cultural and architectural heritage of Evanston. if Mather works within the envelope of the building, it can create a wonderful rebirth for this desming building that has given so much to both the Mather Foundation and the larger community. She hoped that the Commission will reach the :Mather Foundation to work together. She also mentioned the National Register nomination of the Georgian. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Projects tabled on previews meetings (approximately 10 to IS minutes perproject) I. 207 Lake Street (Landmark / LSHD) — Construction of a two-story addition on the north side. [Construction) Carlos Ruiz said that the applicant requested to move the review of this project to the July, 2004 meeting. 2. 645 Judson Avenue (Landmark / LSHD) — Build two-story addition on rear elevation (east side) of house. [Variance / Constructionj Ohme Soule, oumer, Steve Knutson and Steve Liska, architects, presented revised plans for the construction of a two-story addition to the rear of the house at 645 Judson Avenue. The house is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Knutson submitted an additional drawing of the north elevation (exhibit C, revised north elevation, 06/08/04). Mr. Liska said that now the overhang on the east side was extended to project out 30". Mr. Knutson referred to drawings of the eastern wall of the house; there is a wing that extends beyond the main rectilinear block of the house. There is no foundation under it leading them to believe that it was a porch of some kind. Neighbors report that the second floor was a sleeping porch. They do not know if that originally aligned with the house or if it was stucco. Mr. Knutson said that they could distinguish between the rectilinear body of the house with a reveal, with a larger roof overhang, and with a change of materials in the panels on the second floor. On the main body of the house those panels are stucco; they are proposing to use wood panels and paint them with trim color. He said that it is problematic to offset the north wall for the programmatic interior functions of the house. Mr. Knutson said the houses at 650 Forest, 646 Forest, and 641 Judson have additions approved by the Commission vdthout reveals where the original stops and the new begins on either the north or south side. He asked approval of the addition with the proposed reveal. Evznston Preservation Commission June 15, 2004 — Minutes Page 4 Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that they are asking for 4.28' setback from the north side yard instead of 5', and the lot coverage is 33(;11 exceeding the allowed 30%, and the air conditioning unit is 9.2' setback and not 10'. The applicable standard for variance are A and C. Ms. Soule said that her neighbors are not opposing the proposed variances. Ms. Rundle moved to recommend the approval of the variances for 645 Judson in that: A) it does not adversely affect the historical integrity of the district, and C) it will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare of the district and vicinity. Chris Carey seconded. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the demolition if for the deck and the applicable standards are 1 through 4. Michael Girard moved to approved the demolition of the deck at 645 Judson as: 1) it is not of such historic, cultural or archaeological significance; it %,,U not be contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City, 27) it does contribute the distinctive historical, cultural, architectural or archaeological character of the district, 3) its demolition will not be contrary to the purpose and intend of this chapter, and 4) it is not of such old or uncommon design that could not be reproduced. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that alterations include for windows on north, south and west sides, and doors on the west and north side. The applicable standards are 1 through 5, and 8 through 10, Mary Brugliera moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for alterations at 645 Judson because: 1) it is adapting the structure vvilI minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the structure are not being destroyed, 3) it not seeking to create full historical appearance, 4) its honoring the changes that occurred in the house over time, 5) it is sensitively treating the stylistic features and skilled craftsmanship, 8) archaeological resources will be protected, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) if the additions were removed; the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said construction includes the rear addition and the wood deck. The applicable standards are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through I5. Michael Girard moved to approve the rear addition at 645 Judson in that it meets: 1) the height is visually compatible to structures to which is related, 3) proportion of openings, relationship of width, height of windows and doors it is compatible to properties to which is related, 5) there is no change in the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, 7) relationship of materials and textures is � isually compatible with materials used in the structure, 8) the roof shape is compatible, 10) the scale is compatible to the original structure, the incorporation of the reveal allows it to be compatible with the structures in the district, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of the property shall not be destroyed, 13) every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the addition as proposed will not significantly alter the original structure, 16) the Commission is not imposing the use of a single architectural style. Neal Vogel seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Conunission June 15. 2004 —Minutes Page 5 3. 1228 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Demolition of existing garage and construction of same. (Demolition/Construction] David Karnes, owner, presented plans for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new garage at 1228 Hinman. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Karnes said that he had now the completed plans for the new garage, a sample of the "SmartLap" siding, the passage doors will be wood, the windows will be wood, and the ser,.rice garage door is metal. Commission's Findings The new three -car garage is larger that the existing two -car garage. The higher roof pitch is more in line with the roof pitch of the house. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for demolition are I through 4. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 1228 Hinman because: 1) its demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest, 2) it does contribute the distinctive historical, cultural, architectural or character of the district, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the purpose of historic preservation, and 4) it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced with great difficulty. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Neal Vogel had a problem with the embossed wood grain on the SmartLap product. Mr. Karnes said that the product according to the contractor was used in the historic districts. He did not know the cost difference between cedar siding and Smart Lap siding. Hardi board cement siding was mentioned as another alternative. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 10 through 16. Michael Girard moved to approve the construction of the garage at 1228 Hinman as it meets: 1) the height is compatible with the structures to which is related, 2) the proportion of fagade is compatible, 3) proportion of openings is related to structures immediately adjacent, 4) the rh)ihm of solid to voids in the front fagade with two garage doors, 5) rhythm of spaces of structures on the street (alley) are compatible with the adjacent properties, 7) materials and texture: the Commission is encouraging to consider alternatives to the SmartLap, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible with adjacent properties, 11) expression of the front fagade is keeping with the character to structures to which is %isually related, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not going to be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the garage could be removed, and 16) a single architectural style is not being imposed. Final approval of the certificate will be given by Carlos Ruiz, based on the selection of materials with preference towards cedar, pine or hardi plank. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote. 5 ayes, I nay. V. CONIAIUNICATIONS Judy Fiske and Jean Lindwall formally submitted the completed nomination for designating the building at 2408 Orrington Avenue as an Evanston Landmark. Carlos Ruiz said that the public hearing for the nomination is tentatively scheduled on July 20, 2004. E,.w=n Presen-ation Commission Jane 15, 2004 — Nfinstes Page 6 VI. Ir-EW BUSINESSIREPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) - (approximately 10 to 15 minutes per project) 1. 2252 Orrington Avenue (NEHD) — Construction of wood balustrade at front terrace, installation of iron fence and an iron gate at the back of the house. [Alteration] Pat Fuller, owner, Steve Knutson and Steve Liska, architects, presented plans for the construction of a mood balustrade at the front terrace of the house at 2252 Orrington. The house is %vithin the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Knutson said the balustrade will have an altered profile. The formal entry door is on the north side of the house; there is a French door faces Omngton. The 1914 original drawings show a balustrade that never was built. There are stone steps separating the house and the balustrade. Carlos Ruiz said that the fence and gate will be approved administratively. Commission's Findings. Mr. Knutson said that the balustrade is less than 36" high. Mr. Stan Gerson said the applicable standards for alteration are 1 (minimal alteration to the property), 2 (the characteristics of the major building are not going to be affected), 3 (the property recognizes products of its own time), 9 (no contemporary design is being requested), and 10 (the demolition of the balustrade is possible w7thout affecting the house). Mr. Gerson moved for approval of the alteration. ?Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 823 Clinton Place (NEHD-Federal) — Construct an addition to front entrance and construct two-story addition with rear deck [Variance] John and Ronnie Walker, owners, presented plans for the construction of a two-story addition in the back of the house and minor modification to the hunt entry. The project requires a zoning variance. The property is within Federal Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Walker said that they reviewed with their neighbors the plans and they are in agreement. The variance is for the overhang that encroaches into the side yard. The lot coverage is 31%; they are proposing 36% lot coverage. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that applicable standards for variance are A and C for the lot coverage and the overhang. Stan Gerson moved to recommend the zoning variances in that: A) it is appropriate and it does not adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the house or the district, and C) it will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. Michael Girard seconded and amended the motion to include that the property is only in a Federal district; and the Commission' purview is only the zoning aspect regarding the side yard setback and lot coverage and not pertaining to the design. Susan Rundle seconded the amendment. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. E%awton Presmation Commission June 15,2=4—Minutes Page 7 3. 1203 ,Nlaple Avenue (RED) — Kitchen addition and screened porch at rear of house [ConstructionNariance] Barbara Wallace, owner, and Pamela Sundell, architect, presented plans for the construction of a screened porch on the rear of the house at 1203 Maple Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. hts. Sundell said that the one-story addition on the southeast house that will partly be under an existing second story; then beyond that there is a 10' x 13' screened porch. The materials will follow the materials of the existing house such as stucco, wood trim, soffits and eaves. Ms. Sundell said that they are applying for a side yard variance of 10.63' setback where 15' are required for a comer lot; then the lot coverage from 37.33% to 39.5%. The maximum allowable lot coverage is 301 o. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for variance are A and C. Mr. Gerson moved to recommend approval of the requested variations in that: A) it will not adversely affect the historic, architecture or aesthetic of the building, C) the additions will not be detrimental to public health, safety, welfare, or injurious to the property. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Michael Girard suggested that the screened porch use paneling instead of stucco below the screens. Michael Girard moved to approve the construction of rear porch and kitchen addition/renovation at 1203 Maple as meeting standards: 1) height, 3) proportion of opening, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches are all compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways and places to which are visually related, 7) the relationship of materials and textures are compatible with those predominantly used in the structure, 8) the roof shape, and 10) mass and scale of structure are compatible with properties immediately adjacent within the district, 12) distinguishing original qualities and character of the property are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the new addition if it were to be removed, it will impair the existing integrity, and 16) the Commission is not imposing any single architectural style or period. Stucco will not be used on the porch, instead use a material that will relate more to a porch Iike vernacular. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote 6 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz will forward revised drawings to Nir. Girard for approval. 4. 1049 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Install air conditioning unit [Variance] Ms. and Mr. Sneider presented plans for the installation of an air conditioning unit for the house at 1049 Hinman Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Sneider said that there is group of four houses that are very close to each other. They proposed the installation of the condenser as far as possible from everybody and surrounded by landscaping. Evanston Presenation Commission June 15, 2004 —Minutes Page 8 Commissions Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for variance are A and C. Chris Carey moved to recommend the installation of the condensing unit at 1049 Hinman in that: A) it does not adversely affect the historical, architectural, or aesthetic integrity of the local district, and C) it will not detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to the property or the district in which the property is located. Mary Brugfiera seconded the motion. Mr. Girard amended the motion saying that the recommendation for the location of the condenser is based on the constrictions of the site and that there is no other viable location and that plantings will be maintain to minimize its ,.isibility from the sidewalk.. Mary Brugliera seconded the amended. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 2401 Lawndale Avenue (Landmark) — Replacement of steel casement windows [Alteration) Richard Hansen and Mary Koberstein, owners presented plans for the replacement of steel windows on the house at 2401 Lawndale Avenue. Ms. Koberstein said that they would like to replace casement windows in two second floor bedrooms. The windows are deteriorated and without any storms and the screens are built into the wood framing above them. The screens and the windows are probably original to the 1928 house. The screens have holes and they no longer run along the tracks. During the winter they experience a lot of ice built up in the inside of the window on the north side of the house. The other similar windows are on the south elevation in the entry tower and they have storm windows. Ms. Koberstein said that contractors were unable to proxide a bid or an acceptable solution (Gerotech, and All Sash Restoration); both could not fix the roll down screen. Ms. Koberstein said that they want to replace the steel windows with aluminum clad casement windows and the lead tape application. Commission's Findings Neal Vogel suggested replacing the steel windows with Crittall steel windows. Mr. Hansen said that they will look into other window replacement possibilities. Ms. Koberstein said that they will be willing to install Marvin windows with true divided lights. Chris Carey moved to continue the review of 2401 Law ndale to the next schedule meeting, and that the owners look into other options for the windows; whether be a Marvin with simulated divided lights or Crittall or another possible manufacture. Michael Girard seconded the meeting. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. At this time Chris Carey acknowledged Jordan Cramer, newly appointment member to the Commission. Mr. Cramer, an attorney, said that he specializes in real estate. Commissioners welcomed Mr. Cramer. EN=ton Preservation Conurdssion June 15, 200 S -- Minutes Page 9 6. 2100 Ridge Avenue — Proposed wireless communications antenna on the Civic Center. (Illinois Historic Preservation Agency's (IHPA) request for comment from the Preservation Commission concerning NR eligibility for the Civic Center at 2100 Ridge Ave.) [Advisory Review) Mr. Ruiz said that Trileaf Corporation has submitted a request to install an antenna on the Civic Center tower. AIso, the Illinois Historic Preservation Office (IHPA) has requested the Commission's opinion on whether or not the Civic Center is eligible for the National Register of Historic PIaces. Nick Dorochoff, preservation intern, has submitted a report indicated that the Civic Center will not qualify for the National Register at this time. Mr. Ruiz suggested that the Commission should investigate further, before a final decision. Mr. Ruiz suggested considering Trilears proposal as if the Civic Center was a local landmark. The Commission directed Mr. Ruiz to draft a letter not opposing the installation of the antenna as proposed for future consideration. VII. STAFF REPORT Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that Ann Dienner and Emily Guthrie were nominated for appointment to the Preservation Commission. VIII. ANNOUNCENIENTS Carlos Ruiz announced. the Commission's special meeting on June 22, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT Michael Girard moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: &Lro,lf - n4w,�� Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation C ator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COM;MIISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois City Council Chambers Tuesday, dune 22, 2004 7:30 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Bruglicra, Chris Carey, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Susan Rundle and Neil Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Clint Funk and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Koberstein, Hans Friedman, Scott Walker, Rob Walker, Giney Holbert, Jim Goldberg, Nancy Hoppa, Donnalee Floetcr, Morton Kaplan, Rachel Bomgaars, Tim Murphy, Rod Schanz PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. CALL TO ORDER) QUORUM DECLARATION At approximately 7:40 p.m. Chris Carey, Chair, called the meeting to order, with a quorum being present. II. COINDIV ICATIONS Carlos Ruiz informed that the Commission received a letter from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (H PA) dated June 14, 2004 regarding 422 Davis Street (The Georgian). The Georgian has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, and the WA is asking for comments from the City of Evanston's Chief Elected Official and the Commission by September 6, 2004. The nomination is scheduled for the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council (IHSAC) meeting of September 17, 2004 in Highland Park. Mr. Ruiz said that the letter indicates that the City of Evanston, as a "Certified Local Government" has an opportunity to review, comment and solicit public remarks on the nomination as provided by 36 CFR, Part 61. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission would submit to the PIanning and Development Committee of the City Council (P&D) and make them aware that they have an opportunity to comment on the nomination before September 6, 2004. E«nston Presen-aaon Commission Jane 22, 2004 — Minutes Page 2 Mary BrugIiera noted that the Commission also has the oppomutity to comment. Mr. Ruiz said yes, but ultimately the City Council has the authority. tiir. Ruiz said this nomination will go under `communications' for the P&D meeting of June 28, 2004. IIl. OLD BUSINESS A. Projects tabled on June 15, 2004 I. 2401 Lawndale Avenue (Landman:) — Replacement of steel casement Nvindows [Alteration] Mary Koberstein, owner presented plans for the replacement of steel casement windows on the house at 2401 Lawndale Avenue. The house is an Evanston landmark. Ms. Koberstein said that previously the Commission had asked them to investigate the price of the simulated divided light (SDL) on the Marvin windows_ They also had a quote of an extra 5600 a window or S6,300 to replace the six windows. his. Koberstein said that the reference person that was provided to her no longer represents Crittall Steel Windows from England. She was told that she would have to contact directly Crittall to order steel windows, which she was reluctant to do. Neal Vogel said the other steel window manufacturer that he was aware of is in Brooklyn, New York. They make the Series 100, which is for residential. He was surprised that the Marvin windows seemed so costly. The Series 100 does not provide thermo-pane glazing. Ms. Koberstein said that the freeze -thaw cycle and the lack of screens on her steel windows are a problem, and it becomes a costihenetit over function versus the exterior appearance and character of the house. She believes that the steel windows are not the distinguishing feature of the house although they may add to the character of the house. She noted the distinguishing features of her house are the large Ieaded windows. Three of the steel windows are located are on the north side yards and could not be seen from the street. The windows on the front are visible in the winter. Mary Brugliera said that she receivers information from a carpenter regarding roller screen at Evanston Lumber. The roller screens attached to the window from the inside. Neal Vogel said that magnetic energy panels are also available for steel windows, but he conceded that it all becomes too complicated. Ms. Koberstein said that the Marvin v indows are anodized aluminum clad with eight panes with simulated divided lights (SDL). Mr. Vogel though that the Marvin windows are a reasonable = compromise in this situation. -= Susan Rundle cited the applicable standards for review of alteration: I, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10. Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission accept the proposal for Marro (SDL) clad %indows for the upper windows at 2401 Lawndale, since every effort has been made to provide minimal alteration to the structure; the distinguishing original qualities are preserved as much as possible; COME there is no attempt to put in other historical products; skilled craftsmanship is being treated with sensitivity; the new material in the replacement windows is matching the composition, design, color, texture, and visual qualities as close as possible; contemporary design is not being discouraged; and windows could be removed without compromising the integrity of the structure. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. Michael Girard amended the motion to include Evanston Preservation Commission June 22. 2004 —Minutes Page 3 that while the Commission is approving replacement windows that are not the same manufacture for this particular project at 240I Lawndale, that residential metal window replacement is difficult proposition when installers, manufacturers, and suppliers ,%ilI not even come up to see six %windows, as oppose to a larger structure with thirty or more windows. Susan Rundle seconded the amendment. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed as amended. IV. NEW BUSINE SSIRE PORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1501 Hinman Avenve1425 Grove Street (Landmark) — Window replacement (Alteration) Hans Friedman presented an application for the replacement of seven wood double -hung windows with aluminum clad double hung wood windows. Mr. Friedman said that he has lived in Evanston since 1965 and he has been involved in historic preservation activities since 1975. He was a member of the Evanston Preservation Commission from I978 to 1985, and Chairman of the Commission in 1981 and 1982. He is now a member of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee since 1995. Mr. Friedman said that as an architect he did numerous historic preservation projects in Evanston, Kenilworth, Joliet, and Oak Park. From 1965 to 2000 he owned and nominated to the National Register and restored the house at 1024 Judson Avenue. He purchased and moved into the Raymond Apartment Building (I501 Hinman) in December of 2000. After he moved to the building, a 35' x 5' brick panel fell from the parapet to the sidewalk. This failure was caused by decades of inaction by the building's various boards to properly maintain the exterior envelope of the building. Since then, the building's 28 share holders have spent S1.5 million to rehabilitate and restore the building. Mr. Friedman said that he managed to persuade the board to withdraw an earlier objection to listing the building in the National Register, and to get the building listed in 2001. Since then the board has tried to establish a degree of consistency in the building's window replacement that had developed into a chaotic system. A great variety of sizes of windows, storm windows and screens were placed into the existing masonry op:-nings with windows of various manufactures and quality. He noted that he mentioned his preservation history because in a sense he is not in favor of what has been done to the building, but, they are beyond a point of no return. He said that there are 450 windows on the building, over the last 2 or 3 decades 40 percent of them have been replaced, and at various times they have been poorly replaced, by manufacturers that could not fit the window masonry opening %when stalling two windows where there was one window initially. They have started a program in 2001 where the board controls the replacement of windows rather than the individual share holders. They have selected a standard Marvin window and have installed 38 Marvin windows since 2001 at a cost of S70,335. These are no cheap windows but they are doing the job for their building, and there is no way for them to retreat back to the Evanston Prs_—nation Commission June 22, 20rA —Minutes Page 4 original wood single glazed double hung windows. This year they ordered 7 windows at a cost of S12,358 including installation. Chris Carey asked why the Commission did not receive an application before now. Mr. Friedman said that he was not aware that the City was interested to that extent. He said that prior to 2001 a great number of windows have been replaced, causing them to take the step to have the Board control window replacement. Ms. Brugliera pointed out that the building is a local landmark and in a local thematic historic district since 1994. Mr. Friedman said that since he moved into the building in 2000 there was no indication that the building was either in the National Register or landmark building. He said that the building was neglected in the past and its being maintained now and there is no point of no return for them. The new windows are first class aluminum double glazed windows with interior removable muntins. Mr. Friedman said that he became aware that a permit is required for high rises at a Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. He noted that the ornamental windows on the building would not be replaced. They are replacing double hung windows, single glazed, true divided lights. Susan Rundle said that there are enough of the original windows still left. She said that the simulated di% ided light (SDL) muntins are more appropriate. Mr. Friedman said that there are windows on Hinman, Grove and the interior court yard. Mr. Carey said that it was a positive gesture that Mr. Friedman was in front of the Commission and involved in the Co-op Association and bring to the building a consistent appearance. He said that windows with SDL and with a spacing bar between the glass are more appropriate. Ms. Brugliera said that the new proposed 7 windows should not be installed. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1 through 6, and 10. Mr. Friedman said that over the years 40 to 50 percent of the windows have been replaced. He said that all they are trying to do is bring some order to the existing conditions. Mr. Carey said that the applicant is requesting that the Commission establish a standard and consider the 7 windows. Neal Vogel said he was not sure about clad windows on a building of this scale. He said that if 50 percent of the windows have been replaced, 260 windows on the primary fa;ade are still = original. He would be inclined to require that the replacement windows are wood to match the _� original windows. He would not approve clad windows without seeing where they are at and how are they going to impact the existing windows now. Secondary facades could be treated differently. Carlos Ruiz who visited the building said that there are many types of windows including the original windows. Mr. Friedman is requesting approval of the 7 windows that have been ordered and the Commission could require windows that meet the standards for future replacements. Evanston Presmation Con=issiou June 22, 2004 - 4iinu-_-s Page 5 Neal Vogel said that he is looking at 60 percent that might still be original and if of those 80 percent are still on primary facades; suddenly the remaining 20 percent is not a problem. Susan Rundle said that she would not vote for windows with muntins in between the glass. Mr. Friedman said that out of the 7 windows some on them on the Grove side; one is in the court yard side. Carlos Ruiz suggested to the Commission to find out the location of the 7 windows and determine if their Iocation would have an adverse effect on the building. The Commission discussed what information should a window survey include such as: Elevations showing all the windows in greater detail, indication of which windows are still original, windows that have been replaced over the years, how many window sizes and types, cut sheet of the proposed windows. Mr. Vogel said that he would visit the site before the next window. Chris Carey asked that the window distributor provide a sample window. Chris Carey suggested a motion to continue the review be contingent upon the owner doing a window survey, gi%ing Commissioners the time to look at the building and see the windows that were replaced with the snap on muntins. In the future the Commission would develop a standard for this property in terms of what would be acceptable. The Commission would continue with this application on July 20, 2004. Michael Girard moved to continue the review for a certificate of appropriateness for 1501 Hinman for the replacement of 7 «windows as well as further discussion and creation of guidelines for the remainder of windows on the building with strong recommendation to provide a survey tied to elevations, indicating which windows are original, which windows have been replaced, what kind of replacement are they, and their location, and cut sheet or sample of the windows, and that the 7 v6ndows not be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. Neal Vogel seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 2405 Lincoln Street (Landmark) — One-story rear and side addition and rear terrace [Construction] Scott Walker, owner and Rob Walker presented plans for the construction of a one-story side addition and rear terrace to the house at 2405 Lincoln Street. The house is an Evanston landmark. Scott Walker said they are proposing is an addition to the rear of the house. The house was built in 1906, a Dwight Perkins house. S. Walker said that the house has had additions in the 1930s (rear three-story addition) and in 1968 when two screen porches (northeast comer) were enclosed. The house is viewed from all four sides. There is a brick patio on the northwest side of the house and the deck would be removed for the addition. Mary Brugliera asked about the mansard roof on the northwest comer of the house. S. Walker said that roof is original to the house and that is what he is going for with the addition and keep Evanston Preservation Commission June 22, 2004 — :Minutes Page 6 that element of style all around the first floor addition to the rear. S. Walker said the basic stucco structure is in good shape, all the windows will remain, there is one window called "the Chicago tripartite" on the front elevation and one on the rear that would be removed. Susan Rundle referring to the east and west elevations asked about the brick being built up to the windows of the sun room and the kitchen. S. Walker said that he was trying not to match the existing S' of stucco around the house and build a brick skirt all the way up to the window sill instead. The brick carries through the terrace as well. The screen porch would be a three season room. The mudroom on the west side has stucco finish. The whole house would be rc-roofed with cedar shingles. Chris Carey asked about the design philosophy of bringing the brick below the windows on the rear addition. S. Walker said the reason was to making it different, and there is also red brick on the chimney. Ms. Rundle asked about the mansard type roof. S. Walker said that he is trying to tic the addition to the house with the horizontal trim band around the house. Michael Girard said that maintaining the brick wall (capped with blue stone) on the terrace seemed appropriate. Scott Walker said that the new windows are Marvin aluminum clad wood with simulated divided lights (SDLs). Neal Vogel said that the mudroom looks like an appendage; he suggested narrowing the mudroom or changing the roof to a shade roof or bring that mass to the second -story level. Mr. Vogel suggested that the mudroom should work proportionally and should not compete «7th the front entrance. He said that the front facade is still a `tight package' and why disturb it now. Michael Girard moved to continue the project at 2405 Lincoln requesting to the applicant further study of the scale of the mudroom relative to its proportion to the front facade, the hip roof versus mansard roof on the rear addition, and the relationship of stucco under roofed areas versus brick for the terrace. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1243 Maple Avenue (RHD) — Preliminary review of new hvo-story house [Construction] Gincy Holbert, owner and Jim Goldberg, architect presented plans for a new two-story house on a newly created lot at 1243 Maple Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Ms. Holbert said that City Council approved her subdivision. Jim Goldberg would like to purchase the lot from Ms. Holbert and build a home. Mr. Goldberg said that they were in front of the Commission about three months ago. Carlos Ruiz had recommended coming back in front of the Commission after the subdivision was approved. The house as originally drawn received some objections like the double gables, single horizontal gable over the porch, and that the perception of the house was as being too wide. Alter consultation with Mr. Ruiz over four designs, he has submitted the design now under the Commission's consideration. Mr. Goldberg E,-=* r Pres--nation Conunission June 22, 2004 —Minutes Page 7 said that the materials are wood siding, wood trim, brick chimney, Marvin wood windows, wood garage doors, asphalt shingles, and aluminum gutters. Commission's Findings Air. Goldberg said that the house conforms to all the R-1 zoning requirements and they are not asking for any zoning variances. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction are 1 through 8, 10 through 16. Mr. Ruiz asked if the neighbors were aware of the new design. Ms. Holbert said that the neighbors also wanted a brick chimney, the materials was important to them. Mr. Goldberg said that the-xindows will have simulated divided lights. The height of the house is approximately 35' from grade to the ridge. The dormers) are finished with wood siding. He also said that the two windows on the front elevation will be of identical size. Michael Girard moved to approved the construction at 1243 Maple for a new house on a newly subdividers lot in that: 1) the height, 2) proportion of the front fagade, 3) the proportion of openings ,-;ithin that fagade, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids, 5) the rhythm of the house itself and spacing and structures on streets, 6) its front porch, 7) its materials and texture, 8) the roof shape, 10) the size and mass, 11) the directional expression of the front elevation are in relation to the properties, structures, sites, and public ways to which it is visually related, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged. In addition to these standards for construction part of the motion is to require that prior to any issuance of certificate of appropriateness, that all materials discussed at this meeting that are not indicated in the drawings, for both the garage and the main house, be shown on the drawings. The garage door will be wood, the whole of the house is to be trimmed out and sided in wood (masonry chimney complete to the ground) and the windows are also wood. Neal Vogel seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 330 Greenwood Street (LSHD) — Build new two -car garage lConstruction] Jun Goldberg, architect, presented plans for the construction of a two -car garage at 330 Greenwood Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. J. Goldberg said that zoning analysis established the front yard of the property on Greenwood, and the proposed garage conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. He said that the house was built in the late 1800s and it has undergone a number of additions and modifications, but there never has been a garage on site. The former owners have had notified to the neighbors that the new owners will be applying for the construction of a garage. The new garage will be located on the southwest comer of the property. The design of the garage takes all of the elements of the house, such as: the brick, the quoins, dormer, and roof pitch to match the house in terms of materials and color. J. Goldberg said that the only change to the original plans will be the size of driveway access, which has been revised to protect the existing tree in the public way. The driveway %011 be located 13' from the property line. There Evanston Presen-ation Commission June 22, 2004 —Minutes Page a is also a junction box for the street lighting, therefore placing the driveway where it is. The location of the garage remains the same. J. Goldberg said that the current brick wall is beginning to deteriorate and it will be rebuilt with a 22.5' opening for access to the garage and the driveway will be 12' wide. Michael Girard asked if the plans were shown to the neighbors to the south, because that house is tight. J. Goldberg said that he did not know. The neighbor to the south is separated by the driveway leading to a detached garage. Stan Gerson said that the south blank brick wall was insensitive to the neighbor. M. Girard said that there is an existing 6' high brick wall against the property line on the south. Stan Gerson asked about the proposed wrought iron fences and brick walls. J. Goldberg said that there is a low brick wall not visible from the public way because the brick wall is so high. They will continue the general design of the wrought iron fence from the existing low brick wall. Carlos Ruiz asked if the reconstruction of the 6' high fence will need a zoning variance. J. Goldberg said that he will check into that. Neil Vogel referring to the south wall said that it is not known if the wall will always be there. One way to resolve that is to put recessed brick to keep the rhythm of openings on a fagade by putting a reveal to reflect the windows on the north elevation. M. Girard asked how far the garage from the wall is. J. Goldberg said 15'. Chris Carey asked if anyone else had the concern about the 26' wide opening and the 26' wide driveway and then is down to 12', but is that other 14' that seems awkward. Regarding the driveway from the sidewalk and the garage, J. Goldberg said that it will probably be asphalt, and that they have not determined if there will be brick edging on it. M. Girard asked Commissioners for their comments in regard to the height of the garage (22'-4") to the peals and it sits in front of every other house. Chris Carey said the garage is going to read as a coach house. Neil Vogel said he did not have a problem with it either because of its steep roof pitch. Carlos Ruiz asked if there is a height limitation for garages. M. Girard said that there is, but historic houses under the Building [Code] get a higher allowance. Susan Rundle said that standards [of construction] that apply are: 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10 through 13, and 16. Chris Carey asked if standards 9 for the fence should be included. C. Ruiz said that if the fence were to require a Zoning variance that the applicant will have to comeback in front of the Commission. Standard 9 was included because the fence was discussed during the review. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the proposed brick garage as presented at 330 Greenwood, in that: 1) its height, 2) proportion of front fa;ade, 3) the openings in that front fagade, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids, 5) the structure itself in relation to the rhythm and spacing and structures on the street, 7) the materials and texture, and 8) the roof shape are compatible, 10) the size and mass are compatible with the property, and the adjacent structures, 11) its directional front expression is related to the properties immediately adjacent to it, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property are not going to be altered and it will be treated «tith sensitivity, 13) every reasonable effort will be made to protect and preserve the archeological resources, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a specific style of architecture or period for this project. Some of the points where the project deviates from the way it was Evanston Prmn-arion Cormiission June 22, 2OW — Minutes Page 9 presented, such as the final location of the driveway within the public setback between Judson Avenue and the sidewalk will be determined by the City's Civil Engineer. Also, approval is contingent upon the fence variation for the proposed new iron fence that would provide restrictive access between the existing brick wall and the proposed new garage structure and on the front fagade of the main house, which is to the east and fronting Greenwood Street. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 610 Callan Avenue (Landmark) — Construct a roof over existing front porch [Alteration] Nancy Hoppa, owner, and Donnalee Floeter, architect, presented plans for the construction of a roof over the existing front porch at 610 Callan. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Ms. Hoppa said that the roof will not obstruct any of the architectural features along the roof. Ms. Floeter said that the porch and railing are already there, and the Commission approved them previously. The new posts are 6" x 6" and the railing will stay. The roof shingles will match the shingles on the house. The fascia board and trim on the house are wood, but the house is sided with vinyl. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1 through 5, 9 and 10. Mr. Gerson moved to approved a certificate of appropriateness over an existing porch at 610 Callan in that: 1) requires minimal alteration to the property, 2) the character of the property is not going to be destroyed, 3) the alteration does have historical basis, 5) the stylistic features and skilled craftsmanship of the house will be treated with sensitivity, 9) no contemporary design is being proposed, and 10) the roof could be removed. Also, the rafters under the roof will be exposed. Mary Bruglicra seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 843-849 Ridge Avenue/1014-1020 plain Street (Landmark) -- Exterior alterations and construction of additional parking stalls. [Alterations/Construction] Morton Kaplan, owner, Rachel Bomgaars, architect, Tim Murphy and Rod Schanz of Lee Lumber, presented plans for the exterior alterations to the building and the construction of additional parking stalls at 843-849 Ridge Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Kaplan said that at the last meeting they were asked to explore the condition of the existing windows. Ms. Bomgaars said that the sun room windows are maybe the original windows, the rest of the windows have been replaced. They proposed to replace those wtii doves with new Marvin wood windows to match the existing wood windows. Tim Murphy said that the new windows have simulated divided lights, the brick mold and sill details are similar. Mr. Murphy said that restoring the windows on site will not achieve to the same performance as the new windows. Taking the windows to the shop is something they do not do now. Chris Carey said that he was pleased with the proposed new wood windows. Mr. Rod Schanz said that the new windows are custom made. Evanston Presmation Conunission Jane 22, 2OW —Minutes Page 10 Ms. Bomgaars said that regarding parking they have increase the driveway isle from 12' to 19.3" as a result from moving the porches from the rear of the building to the sides. On the south property line the required setback is 3', for the porch on the cast side they need a 3' variance also. They also need variances for the lot coverage, the front and side yard setbacks. Also, they want to be able to convert the existing commercial space into a residential unit Regarding the existing wrought iron fence, they propose to remove part of it and install new electronic 6' high gates for parking area. Neal Vogel asked about the downsizing of mullions and the increasing the frame are. '%1r. Schanz said that the glass area will be virtually the same as well as the mullion size. The neu' door at the back will be steel doors the front doors will be solid wood. Mr. Girard said he would prefer that the spindles on the railing be inside rather than the outside. Neal Vogel said that he was bothered by replacing windows to match the windows that are not original to begin with. He advocated for restoring the existing windows. Mr. Kaplan said that he discussed restoration with other individuals and was told that restoration was not recommended. Mr. Vogel said that restored windows will perform. Mr. Carey noted that the porches have to be roofed. Susan Rundle said that the zoning variances are for eight parking spaces, the porches, and the Iot coverage; the applicable standards for parking are A and C. Chris Carey moved to recommend a variation for the parking spaces in that: A) they will not adversely affect the historic architecture or aesthetic integrity of the Landmark, and C) they will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property in the district or vicinity where the property is located (parking space 8, spaces I through 7 for the 3' setback, spaces I through 7 for maneuvering isle, and 1 through 7 for single module where 42' is required). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Regarding the lot coverage, they can only have 21 units, there are already non -conforming with 22 units, they want to add one more unit with the existing lot and foot print. Mr. Carey moved to recommend the variance for the lot coverage in that: the owner will be providing a 23`d unit on the same existing lot size, and in that: A) does not adversely affect the historical, architectural or aesthetic integrity of the landmark since the space already exists within the existing foot print of the structure, C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or injurious to the property or district in which the property is located. Mary Btugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. For the 3' setback for the porches, the east porch is not in compliance. Mr. Carey moved to recommend the variation for the porches in that the east porch will be built on the existing lot line aligning with the existing building in that: A) it will not adversely affect the affect the historical, architectural or aesthetic integrity of the landmark, and C) will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or injurious to the property or district in which the property is located. Mary Brughera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention. F Evanston Prn ation Co-_--nission June 22. 2004 — hiinutzs Page 1 I Susan Rundle said that the alteration is to replace all windows to replicate the existing with custom Marvin windows that have the same brick mold, back door will be steel, and one set of windows becomes a door, and one set of doors becomes a window. The applicable standards for alteration are 1 through 6, 9 and 10. Mr. Vogel said that he advocates window restoration because the impact on the environment, the investment in local labor instead of a material or product that comes from somewhere else. Mr. Kaplan said he would like to supplement a report from Nir. Murphy to substantiate the proposed window replacement. Mr. Vogel said that his issue was not appearance but the environment and local labor. Mr. Girard moved to continue the review for certificate of appropriateness on the windows and get a cost evaluation to restoring the windows, general condition and feasibility of restoring the windows. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote:.5 ayes, 1 nay. Susan Rundle said that construction of the stairs with a roof identical to the existing roof. The applicable standards are 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Mr. Girard said that the drawings do not Show the proposed roof. Ms. Rundle moved to continue the discussion of the stairs at 843- 849 Ridge to the next meeting. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for construction of the fence are 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 16. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the installation of the wrought iron fence as shown at 843- 849 Ridge because: 1) the height is the same as the existing and it is visually compatible with the building, 5) the spacing on the alley is visually compatible with the rest of the objects surrounding it, 7) the material and texture is appropriate as it is relatively an open fence and replaces the similar existing fence, 9) the wall of continuity is replacing the existing, 12) because of its openness it does not detrimental to the character of the property, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 16) a single style was not imposed. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. V. STAFF REPORT A. 1031 Ridge avenue (CMHD) —Variance for installing an air conditiontng unit Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission approved back in February, 2004 the Commission approved the enclosure of a screened porch. The applicants also asked for a zoning variance for a 6.5' side yard setback where 10' is required for the installation of an air conditioning unit. The zoning analysis now is complete and there are no objections from neighbors. He requested the formal approval for the zoning variance and installation of the air conditioning unit. Mr. Girard moved to approve the proposed air conditioning unit at 1031 Ridge as: 1) it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the City. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, I abstention. E%-anston Preservation Commission June 22, 2004 — Minutes Page 12 B. New Application for Certificate of Appropriateness and Advisory Review for Zoning Variance The Commission reviewed the proposed new application for Certificate of Appropriateness and Advisory Review for Zoning Variance. Commissioners agreed to send comment to Carlos Ruiz. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION NIENIBERS, STAFF A. Review Process Michael Girard said that he will like to give a determined period of time to each applicant. Also, getting completed information is crucial for conducting an efficient and swift review of projects. He also suggested considering consent agenda for those projects that meet the standards. Carlos Ruiz said that the Legal Department would like to have the findings stated in the minutes. Citing only the standards by number may not achieve that. 1`1r. Girard said that the reasons for approval should be stated in the motion. Mary Brugliera proposed that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) send a list of those projects that could fast track. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission has only the standards for review to make decisions and they should be consistent in their review. Mr. Carey said that the legal standard is what the precedent on a similar case was. Mr. Girard said that if the precedent was a bad decision, the Commission should not continue making the wrong decision. The Commission agreed to test fast tracking through the R&TA, send an email to Commissioners with the proposed projects for fast tracking. B. 422 Davis — Landmark Nomination/ Commission's Report Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's report is going to the Planning and Development Committee on Monday, June 28, 2004. C. Kendall College — Landmark Nomination Carlos Ruiz suggested if the nomination is submitted the Commission should considered hearing the presentation of the applicants first and then continue the meeting to a date certain. VII. ADJOURNMENT Michael Girard moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 1 I:30 p.m. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservati �Cdinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COhLNUSSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:30 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Neal Vogel. MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, and Clint Funk OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Fiske, John Malarky, Seymour Turner, Richard Dooley, David Reynolds, Holly Reynolds, Hans Friedman, Rick Erickson, Rod ....... James Murray Rachel Bomgaars, Bud Schanz, David Roberts, Keith Block; Penny Block, Peter Gluck, Mary McWilliams, and Anne Earle PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER! QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting to order at 7.40 p.m. a quorum being present. Mr. Carey announced that tonight there is a long agenda and he would like to conduct the meeting until 11:00 p.m., and if necessary continue the meeting to another time and date in July. The Commission announced that the next special meeting is Tuesday, July 27, 2004 in room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. II. PUBLIC HEARING 2408 Orrington Avenue — Presentation by Applicant of the Nomination for Designation of the building at 2408 Orrington as an Evanston Landmark. (transcripts are available from the Preservation Coordinator Office) III. OLD BUSINESS A. Projects Previously Tabled 1. 207 Lake Street (Landmark / LSHD) — Construction of a two-story addition on the north side. [Construction] Evanston Preservation Commission July 20, 2004 —Minutes Page 2 Seymour Turner, of Airoom and Richard Dooley, owner presented re%ised plans for a two-story addition to the north elevation of the house at 207 Lake Street. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Turner referring to the revised drawings said that they tried to address most of the concerns raised by some of the neighbors pre%iously. They redesigned the roof on the north elevation by removing the second stony large dormer with a flared cable roof. Also, on the cast eIeti-ation the second story gable was removed and instead they incorporated a small dormer in the same design as the existing dormers on the house, and a smaller dormer over the attic space, Mr. Turner said that on the west elevation they added a shed dormer over the attic space. The exterior finish would be stucco and the roof would be finished with asphalt shingles. The new windows are all wood windows. At this time Chris Carey asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak. David Reynolds of 204 Davis Street said that although the roof line had been modified, he still had concerns about the ground coverage of the addition. He noted that the massing along Sheridan Road would be adversely affected. Mr. Reynolds pointed out that the addition did not meet standards for review of construction 2-9-9 (B) 5 (the rhythm of spacing and structures on streets), and standard for review of alterations 2-9-9 (A) I regarding adapting the structure in a manner that requires minimal alteration. Also, Air. Reynolds said that other neighbors including Jane and John Chapman, the Jennetts, and the Ciceros had previously spoken against the addition as proposed. Finally, Air. Reynolds said that Sul; and John Miller and Ellen Galiand (Evanston architect) had sent letters to the Commission not in favor of the addition. Holly Reynolds of 204 Da,.is said that the addition as proposed did not meet standards for rc%iew of construction 2-9.9 (B) 1, 2, 5, and I0. The addition would occupy a space disturbing the rhythm of structures on the street. She noted that the house at 210 Davis Street dwarfs their property at 204 Davis. This occurred before the Preservation Ordinance was enacted, which is supposed to prevent this circumstance from happening again. She concluded by saying that the proposed addition would be incompatible in both streetscapes (Lake Street and Sheridan Road) and would alter the harmony and equilibrium on both strectscapes. Richard Dooley said that has done everything that the Commission asked him to do with the design, and that he tried to come up with a compromise with his neighbors. He asked the Commission to consider his application in the merits of the design. Susan Rundle said that the following standards for review of construction 2.9-9 (B) applied: I, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. The Commission found the height of the addition being compatible with immediate structures (standard 1); the relationship of the width to height of %indows and doors being compatible with adjacent buildings (standards 3); the addition conforms with the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street (standard 5); the addition's entrance porch and other projection are visually compatible with adjacent structures (standard 6); the stucco finish and all wood windows arc compatible with the existing house (standard 7); the roof shapes are compatible with the main = house (standard 8). Ms. Bruglien said that said that the roof slopes on the addition are an improvement from the previous design and it is compatible with the roof shapes. In regard to materials and textures, Chris Carey said that they are going use the same materials. WE Susan Rundle said that the new windows are all wood windows and painted on the outside. In — Evanston Presersation Commission July 20, 2004 -- Minutes Page 3 regard to standard 10, Sus —an Rundle asked if anyone in the Commission thought that because they are matching the design of the house, that the massing is a replication that becomes part of the structure as opposed to an addition to the structure. NIs. Brugliem said that the addition is setback functions to set the addition off from the house. Anne Dienner said that the house did not originally have the sun porch which was added later. Regarding the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property, structure, site should not be destroyed. Mr. Carey said that there was discussion of the impact the addition on the overall district as well. He asked if any Commission member thought that the addition would change the character of the neighborhood or the historic district. Neal Vogel said that it seemed that the large corner lot is the anchor on the block. He said that if the addition meets zoning, he did not sec it as an advcnc effect. Ann Dienner asked about the overall Iot size. Mr. Turner said the lot is 9,300 S.F., not counting the parkway. Mr. Ruiz asked about the difference between the first and the latest plat of survey. Mr. Turner said the latest plat of survey shows that the lot is 96 S.F. smaller, and that they are confident that with that reduction, the addition is still in conformance with the zoning, and that the setbacks are not affected by that change. Ms. Dienner asked about the location of off street parking. Mr. Turner said the parking is located underneath the front porch element. Ms. Brugliem said the addition met standard IS, because if removed, the house would be by itself. Stan Gerson moved that a certificate of appropriateness be approved for the addition at 217 Lake Street, in that it meets standards for review of construction in regard to: height; the proportion of openings; rhythm and spacing of structures on the street; the rhythm of entrance porches, recesses and other projections; the addition is visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites to which it is visually related; the materials and textures are visually compatible with the materials used in the original structure; the roof shapes are visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related; the scale, size and mass of the addition is compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public Rays and places to which it is visually related; the distinguishing original qualities or character of the original structure are not being destroyed; if any archaeological resources arc found that they would be treated as they should be treated; contemporary design is not being proposed; presurrubly, if the addition were to be removed, the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired; and the Commission is not imposing a requirement for any single architectural style or period. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. Mr. Gerson amended his motion to include that any windows in the addition shall be compatible with the existing %,, indows. Neal Vogel seconded the amendment. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstentions. The motion passed. 2. 1501 Hinman Avenue/425 Grove Street (Landmark) — NNIndow replacement (Alteration) Hans Friedman, member of the board of Raymond Park Building Corporation and Rick Erickson presented a standardized window replacement for 7 windows and future window replacements on the building at 1501 Hinmaa/425 Grove. The building is an Evanston landmark also listed in the National Register of Historic PIaces under the Suburban Apartment Buildings -Thematic Resources, 1984. Mr. Friedman presented a ,%indow survey where it was determined that window replacement started in the late 197Os, where some new Pella windows were installed in 1985. According to the survey 60 percent are original windows, 40 percent of the windows have been replaced. Of Evanston Preservation Commission July 20, 2004 -- Minutes Page 4 those 40 percent, the majority are Pella windows. The most recent 30 or so windows are Marvin Windows. Slarvin Windows are now the standard to be used. Regarding the location of 7 windows proposed for replacement, one large window is on the court side, one of the 4 of the smaller vindow-s on the Hinman elevation cannot be seen and 2 windows are on the Grove elevation. Chris Carey clarified that the applicants want to establish a program of one consistent window type. 'sir. Friedman said that previously the Commission did not have the background information and that they wanted to see where the windows were located. The replacement windows arc spread all around. The Hinman elevation has a higher percentage of new windows than the Grove elevation. Neal Vogel said that in his view this is one of the finest apartment buildings in Evanston. His issue was that the wood windows that are still there would not be compatible with the clad finish of the new windows. He was hopeful that the window survey would show that the higher percentage of replacements were on the rear and court yard side of the building and allow further replacement on those ele�-ations. He was hoping for restoration of the windows on the primary facades, because the building is such a fine Co-op building. Mary Brugliera referred to Mr. Friedman's letter to the Raymond Park Board dated July S, 2001 (when the Board was made aware that the Commission needed to approve new windows) and said that she would like to know how many windows have been replaced since 200I or since 1994. Mr. Friedman said that 38 windows had been replaced since 2002. Ms. Brughera asked why in the revised Raymond Park Building policy and procedures was there no mention of the necessity of coming to the Preservation Commission. Mr. Friedman said that the building was nominated under the Thematic Resources Apartment Buildings back in 1994. U`hen he moved into the building in 2000, there was no one that had any idea that the building was even nominated for it. Ms. Brugliera said that this situation is identical to another landmark-bui I dine when windows were replaced without a certificate of appropriateness and where the Commission is talking to that particular building owner about taking out a number of those replacement windows and installing new windows that meet the Preservation Ordinance standards. Mr. Friedman said that in 2001 they had a major problem with the building parapets that were falling down onto the stints. Chris Carey said that in his view the applicants arc trying to make a good will effort in correcting the problem and standardizing what they are doing as they come aware of the situation. He said that on the other case, there was a blatant disregard of the Preservation Ordinance. He said that Mr. Friedman is showing a cooperativeness not seen on the other case. They arc interesting in - controlling a very important issue on the building which is standardizing what rmterial should be used. He said that in this case is commendable that the applicants are in front of the Commission with a program. He said that last time he had an issue with the snapping muntins as far as a replacement window. Mary Brugliera said the Commission should determine whether the proposed windows for future replacement meet the standards, or whether the Commission would suggest a different replacement or restoration. Also, whether any of the replaced windows {since the Board had been Evanston Preservation Commission July 20, 2004 —:Minutes Page 5 clearly made aware that the Commission needed to approve), should be removed and replaced with windows approved by the Commission. Chris Carey said the first issue is: why is Mr. Friedman in front of the Commission? Part of Mr. Friedman's presentation is to show the Commission the proposed window, and then the Commission would asses whether those windows would meet the standards for appropriateness. Mr. Friedman said that he has been involved in historic preservation in Evanston for 35 years. He said that he was song that they overlooked something under the stress of a collapsing masonry 692de, but they cannot undo it now. Jordan Cramer asked if the Board of the Co-op bylaws talks about how they are going to address windows. Mr. Friedman said that they tried to do that. They have 359 windows and they cannot at this time, ask their share holders to go back and replace those windows again. Mr. Friedman said that they are asking if the Commission would accept the Marvin Windows that would show the muntins on the outside (SDL). He noted that original windows have storm windows and the muntins cannot be seen. The new windows are double glazed and have screens. Rick Erickson described an aluminum clad window with 7/8" interior removable muntin. The window tilts in and is easier to clean. Mr. Erickson described a second aluminum clad window with simulated divided lights (SDL). He also described a window with SDL without the spacer bar in between the glass. From the distance there is no way to tell that it does not have a spacer bar. The cost difference between the last 2 windows is around 5 percent. Mr. Friedman said that they are proposing the window without the spacer bar. Mr. Erickson said that to install the new windows they arc removing material to the actual sash opening dimension, and there is an aluminum cladding to cover the existing wood. The sightline is %:" to YV wider than the window frame itself and they are installing a panel over the existing brick mold. Mr. Erickson said that they have replaced wood windows with aluminum products on landmarks in the city of Chicago. Mr. Erickson said that Martin Windows has a muntin bar that could be applied at the field after installation of a window. That could be done to the proposed 7 windows. Mr. Friedman said that 4 of those windows are in the court yard and would be hard to be seen. Susan Rundle said that since she has been in the Commission, window replacement on landmarks have always been in kind. She said that when looking up at the windows and if there is not a spacing bar, one can see through the gap. Mr. Rundle said that the window replacements should be wood with SDL and the spacer bar. Mr. Rundle said that the 38 windows installed since 2002 should be replaced over time. The 2 windows on the front should be the right kind of window as the Commission would determine. Chris Carey said that he concurred with the wood windows with SLD and the spacer bar. Mr. Friedman said that they are requesting to install Marvin aluminum clad windows with SDL. Carlos Ruiz said that the Preservation Ordinance has always required a certificate of appropriateness for window, door, storm window and storm door replacements. W. Friedman said that he learned about the permit requirement for window replacement on multi -family buildings at one of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meetings. Thomas Prairie concurred with Ms. Rundle regarding the appropriateness of using wood windows with the SDL and the spacer bar in between. He said that the windows that had been installed Evanston Prescnation Commission July 20, 2004 -- Minutes Page 6 since the Boa d was aware that they should have been reviewed by the Commission should be replaced. %fr. Friedman said that they are being asked to replace $75,000 worth of windows. Ms. BrugIierz said that the Commission could discuss about a replacement schedule and also discuss about tie_ 4 windows that are barely visible in the court yard. Mr. Friedman said that everybody has somt view to the court yard. Ms. Brugliera asked if there was a sample of a wood window. Mr. Erickson said that the sight lines of a wood window are very similar as a clad window•, unless the existing wood frame is removed. Man -in has a number of different casins to match existing brick molds. Mr. Friedman clarified that tl:e agree windows are actually 3 separate windows. Mr. Erickson said that they are not replacing &.c interior trim. Neal Vogel moved that the proposed windows be rejected by the Commission, that the Commission set a standard for a wood window with simulated divided lights and a spacer bar, and that this be set as the standard for this building. Mary Bruglicra seconded the motion. Discussion: Thomas Prairie asked: do the muntins need to have same profile? Rick Erickson said that the muntins have the putty bead. Neal ti'ogel added to his motion that the new windows match the existing windows and respect the shadow line of the brick mold and casings on the exterior. Mary Brugliera seconded the amendment. Neal Vogel moved that the Commission approve a wood window replacement at 1501 Hinman with simulated divided lights and a spacer bar that does not alter the configuration of any existing windows, brick molds or casings (as the standard). This applies to primary facades only (west, south and east elevations). F� Chris Carey reiterated the motion to establish a standard for the window replacement, and that standard being a wood window, with simulated divided lights with the spacer bar, and that the new window does not alter the configuration of the existing windows, brick molds and exterior casings. This would apply to the exterior primary facades (west, south and east. Mary Brugiitra seconded the motion as reiterated: =M Chris Carey called the question from all those in favor of the motion of granting a certificate of appropriateness for the standardized window replacement at 1501 Hinmanl425 Grove, in that the window be a wood .Marvin replacement with simulated divided light with the spacer bar, in that the window dots not alter the configuration of the existing windows, brick molds, exterior casings, and it is to be used on primary fagade (west, south and east) only. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Mary Brugliera moved that the 38 windows that were replaced since 2002 be replaced with the aforementioned standard windows if they are on primary facades of the building, over a period of time to be mutually determined between the Commission and the Board of the Co-op. Neal Vogel seconded the motion. Discussion: Thomas Prairie asked if the Commission wished to be that open about the time (for the replacement). Many Brugliem said the Commission would have to agree to the time period, she added that it was not going to be 25 years. The applicants would have to come back to the Commission with a plan for the 38 windows. Evanston Preservation Commission July 20, 2004 — Minutes Page 7 ;Mary Bruglicra reiterated her motion that the 38 windows that have been replaced since 2002 be replaced with the aforementioned standard windows on all primary facades that apply (west, south and east), and the Board of the Co-op reach an agreement with the Preservation Commission as to what time period would be acceptable for replacing those windows. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Discussion: Jordan Cramer asked Mr. Friedman if the Co-op required anybody who wants to make any changes to the exterior windows, seek approval of the Board first. Mr. Friedman said yes. He noted that that was the provision he had added to the rules of the Co-op, prior to that, everybody made their own decisions. Chris Carey called the question from all those in favor of the motion of requiring the replacement of the 38 windows (for those that have been replaced from 2002 to the present) and replacement with the new standard that was just previously approved by the Commission, a wood replacement window, simulated di%ided lights with a spacer bar, and that the Co-op Board teach an agreement with the Preservation Commission on a replacement scheduled for those windows. Vote: 8 ayes, I nay (Chris Carey). The motion passed. At approximately 10:20 p.m. Mr. Carey told the audience that the Commission would review two more projects that had been previously tabled and 110 Greenwood as new business. He said that after that the Commission would not be able to review the remaining projects in the agenda given the late hour. He announced that the Commission has set up another meeting on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 to take up the remaining projects in tonight's agenda. He said that applicants are welcome to stay however they are also welcome to come back next Tuesday. David Roberts said that he represented his clients at 2330 Orrington and that he will be out of tovm for the next two weeks. He said that his clients currently live in London and he asked if the Commission could re-6cw 2330 Orrington tonight. Mr. Carey said that the Commission would do its best to consider his request. James Murray said he represented 715 Sheridan for a subdivision plat in the historic District. He wanted to know if the Commission would review that project tonight_ Mr. Carey said if it was convenient for Mr. Murray and his clients they could come back on July 27, 2004. Mr. Murray agreed. 3. 843-849 Ridge Avenue/1014-1020 Main Street (Landmark) — Construction of new porches and window replacement. JAlterations/Construction] Rachel Bomgaars, architect and Bud Schanz presented plans for the construction of new porches and the replacement of windows on the building at 843-849 Ridge Avcnue/1014-1020 Main Street. The building is an Evanston landmark. Ms. Bomgaars referred to pictures showing the location of the Rood porches behind the building. Also, she mentioned the new elevation drawing showing the roof over the new porches, and the guardrails being inside the rail. MI a1 Vogel moved to approve the revisions of the new stair elevation as designed. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. Discussion: Evanston Presen-ation Commission July 20, 2004 —Minutes Page 8 Jordan Cramer rccused himself from any discussion swing that he represented the owner of the property (Mr. Kaplan) in another project. Mr. Carey called for a vote on Mr. Vogel's motion. Vote: 6 ayes, and 3 abstentions. The motion passed. Mr. Vogel asked about the 447 windows with the standing pine, and he taIIied 237 windows. Mr. Schanz said that they showed the number of window openings not the number of windows. He said that are proposing to replace every window except for the 39 basement windows. Mr. Vogel said that the cost of restoration is over 5400,000. Mr. Schanz said that everything would be taken out including the old jams. They will install custom sized and made moldings; simulated divided light windows to match the profile and with the spacer bar. Mr. Vogel said that with the information provided to the Commission, that he did not have a concem with the replacement of windows. Ms. Brugliera said that Mr. Kaplan was concerned with the guarantee of restored windows. Ms. Bomgaars said that restored windows are guaranteed for ten years. The nc%v windows are guaranteed for twenty years. Ms. Schanz said that the new windows arc all wood windows with primed exterior. Chris Carey asked about the window muntin dimensions, Mr. Schanz they could use 718" or 1- 118" muntins. The current windows have 718" muntins, although there is a difference between the casement and double hung windows, and there was some sash replacements over the years. Mr. Schanz said that the majority of windows are double hu-tg windows. He mentioned that the existing light patterns would be matched. Neal Vogel moved to approve the wood windows replacerricnts for the building 843-849 Ridge Avenue with 118" muntins and match existing confirmation and operation of the original windows, and with the recommendation that the applicant investigate the original window finished color and match that color. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 1 abstention. IV. NEW BUSINESSIREPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) - (approximately IS-30 minuses per project) 1. 110 Greenwood StreetlVacant lot Immediately east of 144 Greenwood (LSHD) — New two-story house [Construction]-PrelimrnaryReview Only Peter Gluck, architect, Penny and Block presented plans for the construction of a new 2-112 story single family house on the property at 110 Greenwood Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Gluck said that his architectural firm is in New York City and that they do modern architecture. They have also done renovations and additions to modern historic buildings. They have consciously tried to conform to scale, proportion and material with those historic buildings. He said that they did additions to a Meis van der Rohe house in Connecticut, he noted that there are only three such houses in the country; they did an addition to the Business School at Evanston Presen-ation Commission July 20, 2004 —!Minutes Page 9 Columbia, and a couple of additions to Eighteen Century farm houses, and an addition to Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian-style house, in Pleasantville, New York. Mr. Gluck said that they have experience with trying to make modem buildings fit into historic context. He said that at the same time that they feel conceptually opposed to mimicking the appearance and the style of the building. He noted that the Evanston preservation guidelines indicate that style is not dictated by the code. He said that they would like to get some reaction from the Commission Nvith the preliminary review. Mr. Gluck said that they had a preliminary meeting with eighteen of the neighbors, and there were one or two people who were not in support of the design. According to Mr. Gluck, the most affected neighbor is immediately to the west, and she is categorically opposed to a modern building, she would like to see a traditional building. He said that with the exception of this and another neighbor, the remaining neighbors were highly in favor of the project. He mentioned that a couple of neighbors were in the audience, but could not stay any longer. Mr. Gluck said that what was unique about the property were the walls (facing cast). He said that they would like to continue the wall and build on the design of the house. Another unique feature is that the property is a corner site, which also is the end of very long green axis. Mr. GIuck said that they would present a very minimal facade to the street and to try to open from the park and the historic building nearby, as much of the view to the Lake as possible. They tried to minimize the impact of the site on the corner. He noted that by using a flat roof, they are several feet lower than a pitched roof building. The actual impact/massing on the site is considerably less than they would be able to do. Regarding the lot coverage, Mr. Gluck said that it is Iess than what is allowable. He noted that they are trying to leave views for the house immediately west. In terms of material, they are using a brick like material, which will relate to the Chicago brick and several of the buildings around. Site material could be a face brick or clay or a quarry tile of brick size. Mr. Gluck said that they tried to look at the proportions, and the scale of the houses in the neighborhood. He said that the scale of the houses in the neighborhood varies tremendously, and there is no consistent scale. Thry tried to place the scale of the house in the middle or at the lower end of ail of those buildings. He said that they are trying to mitigate the scale and the shape of the house, and at the same time they are trying to provide the kind of views and living that make sense to the owners. Penny Block said that they live in a historic house at 162I Wesley for twenty years, but they really love 'superb' modern architecture. In 2004 they want to do something that is respectful in the neighborhood, but is a new statement. Mr. Glick noted that there are modem houses in the neighborhood. Stan Gerson said that there are two modern houses on Michigan Avcnuc north of Lee Street, Mr. Gluck said that trying to replicate old houses completely devalues the original old houses. He said that they arc willing to come back to continue the dialogue. Mary Brugliera said that Marion Hunt's houses arc vitally modern and they were built around the Victorian houses. She said that her only non -preservationist comment was that Mr. Gluck and his clients are being too cautious; she thought that the building looks like a school as presently conceived, and with that blockbuster location they should go for broke. She said she would like them to make a statement on that location. Mr. Carey noted that Ms. Brugliera's comment is only one Commissioner's comment. Ms. Brugliera clarified that she made her comment as a citizen. Evanston Preservation Commission July 20, 2004 — �iinutcs Pagc 9 Columbia, and a couple of additions to Eighteen Century farm houses, and an addition to Frank Lloyd ZVright's Usonian-style house, in PIeasannille, New York. Mr. Gluck said that they have experience with trying to make modern buildings fit into historic context. He said that at the same time that they feel conceptually opposed to mimicking the appearance and the style of the building. He noted that the E%anston preservation guidelines indicate that style is not dictated by the code. He said that they would like to get some reaction from the Commission with the preliminary review. Mr. Gluck said that they had a preliminary melting with eighteen of the neighbors. and then were one or two people who were not in support of the design. According to Mr. Gluck, the most affected neighbor is immediately to the west, and she is categorically opposed to a modern building, she would like to see a traditional building. He said that with the exception of this and another neighbor, the retraining neighbors were highly in favor of the project. He mentioned that a couple of neighbors were in the audience, but could not stay any longer. Mr. Gluck said that what was unique about the property were the walls (facing east). He said that they would like to continue the wall and build on the design of the house. Another unique feature is that the property is a comer site, which also is the end of very long green axis. Mr. Gluck said that they would present a very minimal fagadc to the street and to try to open from the park and the historic building nearby, as much of the view to the Lake as possible. They tried to minimize the impact of the site on the corner. He noted that by using a flat roof, they are several feet lower than a pitched roof building. The actual impact/massing on the site is considerably less than they would be able to do. Regarding the lot coverage, Mr. Gluck said that it is less than what is alloi%mblc. He noted that they are trying to leave %icws for the house immediately west. In terms of material, they are using a brick like material, which will relate to the Chicago brick and several of the buildings around. The material could be a face brick or clay or a quarry tile of brick size. Mr. Gluck said that they tried to look at the proportions, and the scale of the houses in the neighborhood. He said that the scale of the houses in the neighborhood varies tremendously, and there is no consistent scale. They tried to place the scale of the house in the middle or at the lower end of all of those buildings. He said that they are trying to mitigate the scale and the shape of the house, and at the same time they are trying to provide the kind of views and living that make sense to the owners. Penny BIock said that they live in a historic house at 1621 Wesley for twenty years, but they really love `superb' modem architecture. In 2004 they want to do something that is respectful in the neighborhood, but is a new statement. Mr. Glick noted that there are modem houses in the neighborhood. Stan Gerson said that there are two modern houses on :Michigan Avenue north of Lee Street. Mr. Gluck said that trying to replicate old houses completely devalues the original old hoes-s. He said that they are viiling to come back to continue the dialogue. ?Mary Brugliera said that Marion Hunt's houses are vitally modern and they were built arotmd the Victorian houses. She said that her only non -preservationist comment teas that W. Gluck and his clients are being too cautious; she thought that the building looks like a school as presently conceived, and with that blockbuster location they should go for broke. She said she would like them to make a statement on that location. Mr. Carey noted that Ms. Brugliem's comment is only one Commissioner's comment. Ms. Brugliera clarified that she made her comment as a citizen. Evanston Preservation Commission July 20, 2004 - Minutes Page 10 In response to tits. Brugliera's comment, Mr. Gluck said that the shapes and fan -as as they are now presented need to be elaborated and they need a lot further design consideration. Ms. Brugliera said that she liked the way the building was arranged and how it relates to the Lake. Carlos Ruiz mentioned comments of two neighbors that he is aware of and who are very concerned with the proposal. They indicated that not everybody was welcoming the design of the house. Mr. Gluck noted that they pulled the house back away from the street as much as possible to further respect the setback that is required. Chris Carey asked about the Iandscaping and the proposed stucco wall. Mr. Gluck said that he would like the new wall appearance be similar to the existing stone or concrete wall. Ann Dienner said that the boulder type stone wall is on Greenwood, and the aggregate concrete wall is along the Lake. Mr. Gluck said that the proposed wall is not allowed by zoning, but whoever builds on the lot should try to build a wall as the one proposed. The wall would serve as transition between the privacy of the back yard and the public space. Keith. Block said that they talked to their neighbors (the Rosenblooms, the Hendersons, and Vicky Truack). All of them arc all fine with the project. He said that he and Mrs. Block respect the landmarks, and what they arc trying to do is how one develops a Twenty First Century landmark. Ann Dienner said that the Robert Scott property (immediately west of 110 Greenwood) it had had riparian rights. Mary McWilliams said that the property was subdivided sometime in the 1980s. It was recognized then that the subdiNision would be a problem to the owners of the Scott house. Chris Carey asked if any Commissioner objected to modern architecture. Jordan Cramer said he would like to have a better idea the materials are like. Mr. Gluck said that they put emphasis on the proportion and the way they wanted to divide the windows so they relate to the others. Most of the glass cannot be seen from the street. The windows on the east elevation would have wood shutters which would move. Mr. Gluck mentioned that the immediate neighbor to the west is concerned if she is going to see the top of a roof, she was reassured that she would not see the top of the roof, but she will see a wall. Carlos Ruiz noted that when the applicants hear from Commissioners that they do not object to — contemporary architecture, it does not mean that what is being proposed has met the standards. Susan Rundle said that in order to get approval not all standards need to be met, but the most important standards such as the roof shape should be a consideration. She said that she was not persuaded with some of the reasoning presented in the booklet in regard to some of the standards. At this time Mr. Ruiz suggested that Commissioners could make additional comments to him and he would be happy to let W. Gluck know about them. Mr. Gluck and Mr. and Mrs. Block thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present their project and indicated that they look forward to return in front of the Commission. Evanston Presen-ation Commission July 20, 2004 —Minutes Page t 1 2. 2330 Orrington Avenue (NEHD/LocalTederal) -- Demolition of rear porch under 2id floor at crest side, 2-story addition, and new 2-car garage. [Demo Iition]Construction] David Roberts, architect said that the house is at the corner of 2330 Orrington Avenue and Colfax Street. The project is a one-story addition to the rear of the house. The addition is off set from the house and it is setback 15' from Colfax. The project is for a kitchen a dining room, a family room and a mudroom. Mr. Roberts said that the proposed building materials are the same as the house materials such as brick on the first story and stucco on the second story, and stucco gables. The stucco on the second floor has a half timber effect with a decorative design built into it across the back. The addition has the same details including brick sills. The corner of the building on the front elevation has brick pilasters; the design of the addition carries that pilaster feel around to the back of the house to form the comers of the addition as it comes around. The existing house has a wide variety of windows including leaded glass windows, casement windows, double hung windows, French windows and transom windows, and Prairie style windows on the second story in the back of the house. Mr. Roberts said that all the existing windows would remain, he will put new windows in the addition and reuse two of the present Ieaded glass (diamond patterned) windows (flanking a fireplace) of the house that are in the living room in the back of the house on the south side. A French door is also being added on the first floor of the south elevation, and one window relocated on the second story. Carlos Ruiz asked why not leave that window where it is. Mr. Roberts said the bedroom on the second floor is being expanded and two windows would provide additional natural Iight. tiir. Ruiz said that relocating the second story window will bring the second floor off balanced with the first story. Susan Rundle said that the standards for demolition that apply are 1 through 5. Chris Carey moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the existing garage and porch at 2330 Orrington, in that it is not of such historic, cultural or architectural significance; that the demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest; the garage does not contribute to the distinctive historic or architectural character of the district as a whole; and would not be contrary to the intend of the Prescirvation Ordinance, and the garage is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that could not be reproduced with great difficulty. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Susan Rundle said the following alterations are being proposed: relocation of a window on the second floor south side and the new door on the south elevation. The standards for alteration that apply are: 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 & 10. Ms. Rundle moved to approved the alterations to the house at 2330 Orrington with the window left in the closet, because it meets the following standards: minimal alteration is being done to the property so it does not destroy the distinguishing original qualities of the property, the alterations do not create an earlier appearance; the craftsmanship of the items that are being duplicated or relocated are treated with sensitivity; the Commission has not discouraged contemporary design; and if those alterations were taken out the integrity of the original structure would remain. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Vote: 9 ayes, o nays. The motion passed. Ms. Rundle said that the standards of construction for the one-story addition at the west side of the house are: 1 through 5, 7 and 8, and 10 through 16. Mr. Vogel moved to approve the Evanston Prescnation Commission July 20, 2004 — Minutes Page 12 certificate of appropriateness for the construction at 2330 Arrington Avenue, since its height is -visually compatible with property, and structures; the proportion of the front fagade is visually compatible with the properties and sxuctures in the district; proportion of openings are also compatible with property, and structures; the rhythm of solid and voids in the front fagade and rhythm of spacing of structures on the street -visually relates to its neighborhood; the relationship of materials and texture arc consistent %4ith the existing building; the scale of the structure and its directional expression of front cle-vution -v-vithin the character of the site of the neighboring . structures; the distinguishing original gVsalities of the property shall be retained; every reasonable effort would be made if any aret.acclogical resources arc uncovered to preserve and protect those resources; the contemporary design of the addition is not being discouraged; the new additions would be completed in a manner that do not permanently alter the from and integrity of the structure; and the Commission is not imposing for the addition a requirement for single architectural style. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passcd. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. V. ADJOURINNIE1'T Stan Gerson moved that the Commission continue the meeting to Tuesday, July 27, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center; 2100 Ridge Avenue. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Vote: 9 nays, 0 nays. The motion passed. The meeting -vvas adjourned at approximately 11:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Date Approved: October . EVANSTON PRESERVATION CONDIISSIOti Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois City Council Chambers Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:30 p.m. SPECIAL INtEETLNG.NMI 1JTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stanley Gerson, Jordan Cramer, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle htEhtBERS ABSENT: Ann Dienner, Clint Funk Michael Girard, Neil Vogel OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Walker, Don Jeffers, Rob Paddor, Susan Lloyd, Stephen Knutson, James Murray, Susie O'Connor Creevy, Mary Daley, Andrew McGonigle, Anne McGuire, Jim McGuire, Jackie McGuire, Vic Nelson, Donnalee Flocter, Meredith Lownes, Irene Vasquez, Michael Vasquez, and Gordon Glauser PRESIDING: Chair and Chris Carey STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting to order at approximately 7:35 p.m., a quorum being present. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2405 Lincoln Street (Landmark) — One-story side addition and rear terrace [Construction] Scott Walker, owner presented revised plans for a one-story side addition and rear terrace to the building at 2405 Lincoln Street. The building is an Evanston landmark. Mr. Walker said that the Commission previously requested the following revisions: changing the stucco and brick skirting from the roofed structure to the terrace: reducing the mudroom addition from 9' to 6.6% and looking into roof changes that did not seem so flat. Susan Rundle asked about the stucco wall on the cast elevation. Mr. Walker said the original proposal for that wall was brick, now it has been changed to stucco finish. He noted that the rear gable is an addition from the 1930s. Stanley Gerson asked how the rear elevation relates to the windows. Mr. Walker said that the second floor hip roof would go up and then come back again creating a saddle that would not be seen. The second floor windows are not affected by that roof. Evanston Preservation Commission Special Meeting !dinutcs - July 27, 2004 Page 2 Chris Carey asked if any Commissioner objected the brick knee wall and the stucco skirting. No one objected. Regarding the rear roof, Ms. Rundle said that as much as she objected the roof in the first proposal, she had greater objection to the current roof design because it blocked the view of two windows. Mr. Walker said that the roof did not block the windows. his. Rundle asked f a gable roof was considered. Mr. Walker said that a gable roof would knock out those %indows. Stanley Gerson said the height of the proposed roof was his concern. Mr. Walker said that there is a 12/12 roof pitch everywhere in the house; he did not like mixing roof pitches on the house. diary Brugliera thought that the proposed design was an interesting solution to the problem. Chris Carey asked if NIT. Walker would consider going back to the original design. Mr. Walker said he would, but he liked more the revised roof design. Ms. Brugliera said that being the rear elevation, the revised roof adds some playfulness element to a house that has been added onto and she did not have a problem with it. Thomas Prairie said that the revised roof does not worst very well with the house and maybe the addition should not be done at all. Ms. Rundle said that her concern on the original design was that the roof read more like a mansard roof, which was not on the same vocabulary as the rest of the house. Ms. Brugliera asked what standards would apply to the proposed roof on the addition. Mr. Gerson cited: the height, roof shape, and the scale. Air. Carey said that the Commission did not reject the original hip roof design, but it asked the applicant to look at other options, and it looks like the first roof design probably is the best option. Mr. Gerson, Mr. Prairie, and Mr. Cramer agreed with Mr. Carey's assessment. Ms. Brugliera said that one could make a case to find that the revised roof does not meet the standards, but she Iiked the playfulness of the revised roof. his. Brugliera moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for construction at 2405 Lincoln with the changes that have been proposed by the owner since the last presentation, including the reduction in size of the mudroom, the brick and stucco wall changes, and the addition of a hip roof over the rear as it meets standards 1 (height), 2 (proportion of the front fagade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids in front facades), 5 (rhythm of spacing of structures on the streets), 7 (relationships of materials and textures), 8 (roof shapes visually compatible with structures to which is visually related), 10 (the mass and scale of the structure is compatible), i I (directional expression is compatible), 12 (distinguishing original qualities have not been destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources), 14 (contemporary design not being discouraged), 15 (the _ additions could be removed if necessary), and (not imposing a single style). No one seconded the motion. The motion failed. Ms. Brugliera amended her motion saying that her motion would just apply to the mudroom downsizing [on the west elevation) and the knee wall materials and the correction in the screening, and she withdrew the parts affecting the roof. Mr. Gerson seconded the motion. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Ms. Brughera moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction on the rear elevation at 2405 Lincoln that follows the original submittal; that is with a hip to flat roof on the rear as it meets the same standards as indicated above for the mudroom and the knee wall. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. 2. 1031 Ridge Avenue (REID) — Convert existing rear open deck Into screen porch (Alteration], Install a second air conditioning unit on south side yard (Zoning Variation]. Evanston Preservation Commission Special Nletting Ninutzs - July 27, 2004 Page 3 Don Jeffers (representing the architect) and Rob Paddor, owner presented revised plans to convert the existing rear open deck into a screen porch, and add a second air conditioning unit on the south side yard of the property at 1031 Ridge. The propcm• is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Jeffers said that the Commission had approved original plans in February of 2004. The rc%ised plans maintain the first floor the same as before. The second air conditioning unit on the south side needs the Commission's review for the zoning variation. He said that the new condenser would not be visible from the stint since it would be located behind a fence. Mr. Paddor said that his neighbor had not originally objected to the new condenser, but now he is not in support of the zoning variance. Mr. Paddor said that his neighbor's condensing unit is immediately adjacent to his house. Mary Brugliera said that the neighbor ha,-ing a condensing unit on the same side [area] of Mr. Paddor's proposed condensing unit, that to her is rot a problem. Ms. Bruglien moved to recommend to the Zoning Board the second air conditioner at 1031 Ridge because it does not adversely affect the integrity or architecture of the [historic] district, --rid it would not be detrimental to the district or vicinity. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. Vote: 6ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. 3. 715 Sheridan Road (Landmark L SHD) -- Subdivision of one lot into two lots, construction of two-story house on new lot, and demolition of existing garage. Susan Lloyd, owner, Stephen Knutson, architect, and James Murray, attorney presented a proposed subdivision of the property at 715 Sheridan Road from one lot into two Iots. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Chris Carey said that the Commission's pun-iew is advisor~• regarding the subdivision. Mr. Murray clarified that the application for certificate of appropriateness includes the demolition of the existing wood frame garage. Updated information regarding the existing garage was submitted at the meeting. Thomas Prairie asked why the new two-story house was referred to as a coach house. Mr. Murray said that it was because it's coach house like and it's relationship to the main house. Mr. Murray submitted a survey of the entire lot, topographical survey, certificate of zoning compliance and zoning analysis done for the proposed subdivided property. Mr. Murray said that the subdivision would contain certain easements for ingress and egress over the mutual properties that would utilize the existing driveway. The second lot is 21,000 S.F., where the existing lot is 57,000 S.F. The resulting two lots would be approximately 1.5 (one and a half acre). Regarding the easement, Mr. Murray said that it has to be recognized as part of the plat of subdivision and recorded against both properties in that respect. Mr. Murray said that after the proposed subdivision goes through the City's staff review process, then it goes to the Cook County Clerk for determining outstanding taxes, then the matter is brought to the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council, where if approved it goes in front of the full City Council for approval, and then it is recorded. Carlos Ruiz asked if there were any concerns from the neighbors. Mr. Murray said that neighbors are more than pleased to have the property subdivided and look forward to having a new residence on the new location. Mr. Ruiz asked how the proposed 35' front -yard would be treated in terms of landscaping. Mr. Murray said that it would not change significantly except for landscape materials. Mr. Knutson said that they intend to keep the existing driveway. Mr. Murray said that the new house would be approximately 215' away from the front property line as the terrain slopes down. Mr. Knutson said that I,, Evanston Preservation Con nission Special Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2004 Page 4 sheet A-1 of the application shows how the driveway for the garage is today. The dotted line shows the way it was before (a terrace with a garage underneath). Mr. Knutson said that they hoped to make the new house in a supporting role to the large house on Sheridan Road. The new house from Sheridan Road and the Lake would appear narrower to preserve the views of and from the big house. Chris Carey rc,'=ed to the blank walls on the new house west elevation and asked if the existing house had walls that have that type of treatment_ Mr. Nfurray said that the garage door is virtually identical to those of the existing residence. The pitch of the roof, chimney treatment, the elevations above the end walls take their key from the main house. He also noted that there is a 5' grade differential between the side walk element Ievel and the siting of the proposed residence. Mr. Knutson said that the bottom of the proposed garage doors would be 5' lower than the grade of the sidc%valk. Chris Cagey asked about the roof materials. fir. Knutson said that the new house would have asphalt shingles, the existing house has tile, but the existing sun porch and screen porch have asphalt shingles. Susan Rundle said that with the proposed subdivision, the new house would not truly be a coach house, but a freestanding house. Mary Brugliera said that the coach house term for the new house indicates a subsidiary role in relation to the existing house, but in fact it would be a nety Iot and a new house. Mr. Knutson said that they wanted the Sheridan Road house to remain in a staring role, and the new house to be in a supporting role. Stanley Gerson said that it would have been very useful to be able to sec the existing house and the proposed house on the same west elevation. James Murray said that because of the trees, the new house would be almost invisible from the street. Thomas Prairie concurred with Mr. Gerson and added that a composite elevation also from the east would have been helpful. because the Lake is a public way. In response to a question from Susan Rundle, Mr. Knutson said that the windows on the existing house are white. They would Iike to use white clad windows on the new house. Mr. Gerson asked what proportion of the new house west elevation could be seen from the street. Mary Brugliera asked how close the house is to the south property line. Mr. Murray said the distance was 20' to 25', Stanley Gerson said that what is visible from the street starts from above the upper Ievel of the windows of the garage and a small portion of the north elevation would be cut off as well. Chris Carey asked, other than the casement, if no other zoning issues were pending. Mr. Murray Confirmed that being the case. Susan Rundle listed the standards for review of subdivision and noted that aII the standards apply. Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend to the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council (P&D) the subdivision of the property at 715 Sheridan Road, in that it meets standards 2-9- 12 (B) L(a) (the proposed subdivision protects the landmark building), L(b) (the new structures are visually compatible with the landmark and the district), L(c) (the new structures on the proposed new lot do not block the view of the landmark from the stint or the public way), L(d) (the proposed subdivision preserves the critical features of strcctscape), and I.(e) (the proposed subdivision does not adversely affect traffic patterns, municipal services, adjacent property values, or general harmony of the district. Chris Carey seconded the motion. Discussion: Stanley Gerson said that he would vote against the motion, because he did not think the proposed subdivision meets standard 1. (b) in that the design of the new structure is not %7sually compatible with the house, and it presents a blank wall to the streets He noted that the west facade of the existing house has substantial fenestration. Susan Rundle said she would vote against the motion, not because of the house, but because of the district as a whole (standards 1. (a) and 1. (b) and because the mass as a whole. Evanston Preservation Corurtission Special Mccting Minutes - July 27, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Gerson said that standard 1. (b) talks about new structures. Susan Rundle said that a factor for her decision w•as the partial view of the structure that is seen from the street, as opposed to what is seen now and the rhythm of the other structures. Mary Brugliera asked tics. Rundle if her decision was because she felt that the subdivision does something to the streetscape that is negative, even though the site slopes down, and less of the new elevation would be seen, than the whole elevation. Susan Rundle said, yes. Stephen Knutson said that the new house is very far back from the typical fagade of Sheridan Road. Susan Rundle said that as she drove down Sheridan Road, she could see so= houses that were built back from other houses (houses built behind them) and she could see them as she drove down Sheridan Road, and it does set up a kind of a different rhythm. Stephen Knutson asked could one make a point that there is already that rhythm because there are others. Ms. Rundle responded by sa%ing that two wrongs to not make it right. She noted that that she held that view on the Lake Street subdivision. She wondered if subdivisions resulting in odd shaped lots should be allowed. She said that she did not know if she could agree with that. Carlos Ruiz clarified that the subdivision referred by Ms Rundle was on Maple Avenue. Chris Carey called the question for the motion to recommend the subdivision of 715 Sheridan. The motion failed. Vote: 3 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention. Mr. Ruiz asked Mr. Prairie if he could elaborate on his decision to abstain. Mr. Prairie said that he was torn, because on the one hand, the character of the district, especially along Sheridan Road, is these large homes on open lots going down to the Lake. He said that the subdivision does some `violence' to the district, in the sense of splitting up the property. On the other, hand it does sort of meet the letter of the law, and they have taken pains trying to make it fit in and neutralized it. Carlos Ruiz said the (with a split vote) the Commission will not make a recommendation in favor or against the subdivision. Instead the Commission will have a report stating the split vote. Mr. Carey clarified that the Commission is not recommending the subdivision. Mary Bruglicra said the Commission would then hold the certificate of appropriateness on the construction until the City makes a decision on the subdivision. James Murray asked how they would become aware that the Commission would be taking up the proposal again. Carlos Ruiz said that the applicant could come back in front of the Commission as soon as the decision of the Planning and Development Committee and the City Council is known. 4. 743 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) —1-story kitchen addition to rear [Demolitlon/Constraction] Susie O'Connor Creevy, architect and Mary Daley, owner presented plans for a 1-story kitchen addition at the rear of the house at 743 Michigan Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ibis. Creepy said they plan to remove a 35 S.F. mudroom and replace it with an approximately 150 S.F. breakfast room in the rear of the house. The house was built in 1910 and it has a brick base and stucco on the top. The rear of the house has been added with a 2-story stucco addition and a i-story mudroom. There is also a deck. They would remove the mudroom and a portion of the deck and add a new deck that ties into the rear of the house and construct a breakfast room. The existing rear addition is stucco and it does not have the brick base as the original house. Ms. Creevy said that the new doors and windows would be all wood, and the roofing materials would match the existing roof materials. Susan Rundle cited the standards for review of demolition 1 through 4 for part of the deck and the mudroom at the east rear elevation. Mary Bruglicra moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the mudroom and portion of the deck at 743 Michigan in that it meets standards [for Evanston Preservation Commission Special Meeting Nlinutcs - July 27, 20N Page 6 demolition]: 1 (demolition is not detrimental to the public interest), 2 (the mudroom and potion of deck do not contribute to the distinctive historic or architectural character of the district), 3 (the proposed demolition would not be contrary to the purpose of this chapter and objectives of preservation for the district), and 4 (the property is not so old nor unusual that it could not be reproduced without difficulty or expense). Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Ms. Rundle cited the standards for construction for the 1-story kitchen addition at the rear and the new portion of the deck: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the 1-story addition at the rear of 743 Michigan as [meeting standards] 1 (the height is in keeping with the rest of the structure), 3 (the proportion of the openings is a repetition of what already exists), 5 (the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street will not be greatly affected), 7 (materials and texture are the same as the existing), 8 (the roof shape is the same as existing), 10 (the scale of the structure and the mass is appropriate), 12 (the distinguishing original qualities of the site would not be destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources would be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 15 (the addition, if removed in the future, the essential integrity of the structure would not be impaired). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. S. 1902 Sheridan Road (NEHDILocal) —New accessibility ramp, new entry landing and stairs, new concrete paving, signs and lighting for ramp [,alteration] Andrew McGonigle, (Northwestern University) and Anne McGuire, architect presented plans to construct a new accessibility ramp on the south elevation, a new entry landing and stairs on the east elevation, new concrete paving, new signs and lighting for ramp, and landscape plan. The property is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Susan Rundle asked if they had explored accessing the building from the parking area. Mr. McGonigle said the parking area (between 619 Emerson and 1092 Sheridan) is technically an unofficial parking lot, and it does not appear in the Northwestern University parking because it is not a paved lot, but a gravel lot. The current condition of the area does not meet the ADA accessibility standards either. Carlos Ruiz referred to sheet 2 of the drawings and asked if the access to the building could be redirected to an existing window opening. tics. McGuire said that opening does not have enough width for the push side of the door. Mr. McGonigle said that there is an office at that location. Also, the room sizes preclude interior alterations. NIT. McGuire indicated that there was a lot of effort looking into alternatives and coming off the rear was not their original solution. Mr. McGonigle referred to the Iandscaping plans and said that along the south side of the property there is a 6' high hedge that is overgrown. He said that they arc visually expanding the area in front of Cahn Auditorium by banking on to the ramp and open it up with a sweeping vista to give a visual anchor to the comer of that property. The landscaping would partially hide the ramp to reduce its mass and maintain its residential feel. There arc also three new trees. The front of the house had a porch facing Sheridan and turning onto Emerson. The ramp balusters are almost mimicking the balusters of the original porch. The material for the balusters is treated timber to be painted and the guard rail is wood. The hand rail portion is steel because of the building code. The bottom part of the ramp is concrete. Thomas Prairie noted that the spindle design seemed too dense. Mr. Carey concurred and added that the spindles do not have much reference with the rest of the house. Ms. McGuire said that they tried to keep the design to Iook as early porches. Mr. Carey said that perhaps there are other spindle designs that would be more relevant to the architecture of the house. Evanston Preser%ation Commission Special hiecting .kiimnes - July 27, 2004 Page 7 Susan Rundle asked if they had looked at bringing the ramp up to a double window on the west side of the house. Ms. McGuire said that location has a stair and there is a fire escape above. She added that if it is possible she advocates for bringing ramps to the front door, specially, on small buildings. Most students who use the ramps are without cars. Mr. McGonigle mentioned that there are safety issues with rear entrances into buildings-. Mr. Prairie asked if the;: had considered in putting stucco below ti•,c concrete ramp. Mr. McGonigle said that with a wooden fratre cracking is likely to occur. Also, wood could be replaced when needed. Mr. Prairie said that the ramp design seems to be the least expensive to do. but not necessarily appropriate for the house. Stan Gerson cited the applicable standards for review of alteration: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Mr. Gerson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the ramp and replacement of the porch and stairs, in that it meets standards: 1 (every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the structure that requires minimal alteration of the property), 2 (the di✓-driguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed), 5 (distinctive stylistic features or example of skilled craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible), 8 (azchaeological resources would be protected), 9 (contemporary design is not being proposed or being discouraged), and 10 (if necessary the new ramp could be removed as well as the porch and stairs). Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Mr. Gerson amended his motion to include the landscaping. Ms. Rundle seconded the amendment. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay (Prairie). The motion passed. 6. 1813 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — New• accessibility ramp, new entry landing and stairs, nely concrete paving, signs and lighting for ramp [Alteration] Andrew McGonigle, (Northwestern University) and Anne McGuire, architect presented plans for the construction of a new accessibility ramp on the north and west sirs , a new entry landing and stairs on the west side, new concrete paving, signs and lighting for ramp and landscaping at 1813 Hinman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Stan Gerson cited the standards for review of alteration: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Mr. Carey noted that the landscaping plan is similar to the project at 1902 Sheridan. Mr. McGonigle said that the stair case leading up to the front porch deck area is in line with the front door and the actual correct shape is a straight line as per the architectural drawings. Mr. McGonigle said that the north side is grass. Susan Rundle moved to approve the alterations to 1813 Hinman with a ramp on the north side of the building, and a modified front porch and landscaping plans as it erects the standards of alteration: 1 (every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property, structure, site or object requiring minimal alteration), 2 (the distinguishing original dualities or character of the property, structure or site are not being destroyed), 5 (any sldllcd craftsmanship on the building has been treated with sensitivity), (deteriorated architectural features are being replace in kind), 8 (archaeological resources would be protected and preserved if found), 9 (contemporary design his not bxrt discouraged), and 10 (if the alteration mould be removed, the integrity of the original building would be unimpaired). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. Vote: 5 ayes, i nay (Prairie). The motion passed. Evanston Preservation Commission Special !Meeting Minutes - July 27, 2004 Page 8 7. 711 Emerson Street (LandmarWr'EHD-Fed eral/Local) — Two-story additions to the cast and west elevations and window replacements [Construction] Jim and Jackie McGuire, owners and Vic Nelson, architect presented plans for the construction of two- story additions to the east and west elevations of the house at 711 Emerson Street. The building is an Evanston landmark within the Federal and local Northeast Evanston Historic District). Mr. McGuire of 2241 Sherman Avenue said that he recently purchased the house at 711 Emerson and they would Iike to restore it inside and out and construct two additions on the east and west elevations respectively. He said that they are trying to keep the character of the house and the front is staying the same. Mr. McGuire exhibited a model of the house with the proposed additions. He noted that the house is flanked by apartment buildings on either side and there is no alley behind the house. The house was built circa 1878-1880. An addition was probably built in the early 1900s. The porch has a standing seem roof that would be repaired and wood siding would be used on the additions. Vic Nelson said that the new windows on the additions would be all wood double hung windows with no muntins. The bay has an existing fixed horizontal window; the two new ones would be the same as the existing. Susan Rundle found the model very helpful to understand the impact of the two additions. Mr. McGuire said that the driveway will remain because off the street parking is needed. They would come back with plans for a new garage. Also, the roof shingles would match the existing shingles. Stan Gerson cited the applicable standards for review of alteration for the replacement of windows on the southeast and west elevations: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Chris Carey moved to approve the replacement of the windows on the south, cast and west at 711 Emerson in that it meets standards: I (every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property, structure, site or object requiring minimal alteration), 2 (the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property, structure or site are not being destroyed), 3 (all properties shall be recognized as products of their own time), 5 (any skilled craftsmanship would be treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated architectural features would be replaced), and 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged). He noted that standard 10 does not apply. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Stan Gerson cited the applicable standards for review of construction: I through 5, 7, 8, and 10 tltrough 16. Stan Gerson moved to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of two 2-story addition at the east and west at 711 Emerson in that a number of the standards relate to their being visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is related, in that regard meets standards: 1 (height), 2 (proportion of the front fagadc), 3 (the proportion of the openings), 4 (the rhythm of solid and voids in the front facades), 5 (the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street), 7 (relationship of materials and texture are the same as the existing house), 8 (the shape of the roofs are visually compatible with the house), 10 (the scale of the structure and the mass are visually compatible), 11 (directional expression of the front elevation is visually compatible), 12 (the distinguishing original qualities of the house are not destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources to be protected and preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged nor proposed), and 15 (the additions are done in such a manner that they could be removed in the future, and if they were to be removed the essential form or integrity of the house would not be impaired), and I6 (the Commission is not imposing a requirement for a single architectural style. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Evanston Presen-ation Commission Special' �leetinz'•iinutes - July 27, 2004 Page 9 8. 207 Burnham Place (LSFID) — Tear down and rebuild one-story family room addition [DemolitionfAiteration) Donnalee Floeter, architect and Meredith Lownes, owners presented plans to tear down and rebuild a one- story family room addition to the house at 207 Burnham Place. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Floctcr said the existing family is in very bad shape with mold in the ceiling and it has to come down. They are proposing to rebuild the family room in the same size and with the same materials as the existing on the same foundation. The new windows on the one -stony east elevation are added. The drawings for the addition had windows but they were not installed when it was built. The new windows are clad casement. The corrugated metal on the second floor is original to the house. The portion being demolished has vertical red wood siding and that is what is going back. Susan Rundle cited the applicable standards for review of demolition: 1 through S. Chris Carey moved to approve the demolition of the one-story addition at 207 Burnham in that: is not of such historic, cultural or archaeological significance that the demolition would be detrimental to the public interest; it does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological character of the district; that it would not be contrary to the purpose of the preservation chapter, and it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture or material that could not be reproduced without great difficulty. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Susan Rundle cited the standards for review of alteration: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. Chris Carey moved to approved the reconstruction of a one-story addition at 207 Burnham in that it meets standard: I (every reasonable effort would be made to adapt the property in a manner that requires minimal alteration), 2 (the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property would not be destroyed), 3 (any addition that has no historical basis would be discouraged), 4 (that any changes that took place over time in evidence to the history and development of the property shall be respected), 5 (distinctive stylistic features and examples of skilled craftsmanship would be treated with sensitivity), 6 (repair or replacement of missing architecural features should be based on accurate duplications), and 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 10 (whenever possible a new addition or alteration to the structure could be removed and the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. 9. 1000 Ridge Avenue (RFD) — Replace concrete roofing tiles with asphalt shingles [Alteration) Irene Vasquez, Michael Vasquez, and Gordon Glauser, contractor presented plans to replace the existing concrete tiles on the roof ofthe house at 1000 Ridge Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mrs. Vasquez said that she was representing her father the owner of the house. She said that the house is leaking badly from two areas: the northeast and the northwest sections of the home are in bad repair. The roof has been repaired in the last twenty years three times unsuccessfully and the damage is escalating to the point where the back stair on the northwest side of the house pours when it rains down into the basement. The first floor bedroom, where her father resides, leaks every time it rains. Evanston Presernati= Carr^.. lion Special hleeting'Niim =ts - haiv_ 27, 2004 Pace 10 Stan Gerson asked v.7n• ti,e deterioration was allowed to get to the current stage. Ms. Vasquez said that the second page of t!!_ir a-.plication shows that there have been repairs three times. Her parents spent thousand of dollars to rep-- the roof no to their satisfaction. Her parents did not have the resources to keep up with the repass. NL-s. Vasquez said that the cost of the repairs would be covered by her siblings and her. Mr. Vasquez said that the cost of repairing the roof is way over their heads, Mr. Glauser said that the concrete red (it has a concrete top to the tile itself) also called Ha►vthom Concrete S tile. Mrs. Vasquez said tie cost to repair the roof is enormous to them. The lowest estimate was S45,000. Mr. Glauser said that the _nderia%-ment of the roof is gone which is causing the problems. The Iabor cost is the most expensive. Mr. Glauser said that he took some of the tiles off, he found the paper course is broken, and they do not repa-ir something Iike that. He said that his company does approximately 25 percent of residential work out of which I0 to 15 percent is tile repair and replacement. Mr. Glauser said they try to replace tilt because repairs do not last. Air. Glauser said that the cost is 519,000 for shingles versus 533,000 to S40,000 for tile, which includes complete removal and ins'-:iiation. The new asphalt shingle is an imitation slate shingle. The homes nearby in the historic distr-.ct have three tab shingles on them. Ms. Brugiiera said that the house was built in 1925 and Maurice L Bein was the architect and it is considered a contribu.-_�ng house in the Evanston Ridge Historic District. She said that the the roof is a key feature of the Mediterranean style house. Ms. Bruglicra said that the Commission understands the circumstance in which the applicants are in every respect. Mr. Vasquez said that if there is precedence of other similar buildings in the district why not allow the asphalt shingles. Mr. Carey said that he has been in the Commission for three sears and the Commission has not come across a case where someone was trying to remove a corw.Tete tile roof and put in an imitation slate roof. He did not know if there was a precedent that has been set by this Commission in terms of roof tiles. Ms. Brugliera said that if in a historic district one could not argue that because all of the rest of the houses on the block have asph Jt shingles, therefore that is permissible for the Mediterranean style house for which a tile roof is so rote=-..] to the nature of the style. Mrs. Vasquez said that they cannot afford to replace the roof in a manner that the Commission might dictate, and that they v. e�, a IooLdng for a solution that may work for them. Mr. Ruiz mentioned the appeal process in place and thw the Commission does not make arbitrary decisions nor the Commission is unsympathetic to the applicant's situation. He also mentioned the economic hardship provision of the Preservation Ordinance. The Commission has to adhere to the process in place to snake a legal determination. Mr. Ruiz said that he had e-mailed information to Robert Navarro about a roofing company that apparently does a lot of the roof work in southeast Evanston. Mrs. Vasquez said that the repair option is expensive, and that they cannot afford 520,000 worth of repairs if it does not work. Mr. Glauser showed an imitation polymer man-made the with a transferable 50-year warranty as an alternate to the concrete tile. He said that he had good results installing that type of roof. Some Commissioners indicated tint they would consider the mars -made tile but they would like to see an installation on a house. 'pis- Br ugliera said that water leaks are difficult to trace and it could be that rather than removing the whole roof that only smaller areas need repair. Mr. Glauser said that the north side of the roof should be repla=d immediately. He also said that reclaimed tile could be used. There are leaks on the south side of the roof as well. Mr. Vasquez said that on the southwest corner, all the comer tiles are cracked. Evanston Preservation Commission Special Meeting Minutes -July 27, 20043 Page I I Mr. Carey asked if the applicant had an estimate to remove the concrete tile, snake the roof repairs, and install new tilt ice and water seal, and resetting the tiles. Mrs. Vasquez said that they did not ask Mr. Giauser for an estimate for repairing the roof. The Commission asked the applicant to further explore the possibility of repairing the tile roof rather than replace it. Nir. and Mrs. Vasquez agreed to do so. They requested to come back in front of the Commission until the next meeting. VIII. ADJOUILNINIENT At approximately 10:45 p.m. Thomas Prairie moved to adjourn the meeting. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Vote•. 6 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PIanner/Preservation EVANSTON PRESERVATION'CONDYISSION Evanston Chic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 "Tuesday, August 17, 2004 7:30 p.m. NHNUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Girard, Mary Brugliera, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gcrson, Emily Guthrie, Thomas Prairie, and Neal Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey, Clint Funk, and Susan Rundle OTHERS PRESENT: James Murray, John Clad:, and Peter Dolberg PRESIDING: (Michael Girard, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Michael Girard, Vice -Chair called the meeting to order at 7:43 p.m., a quorum being present. Mary Brugliera said that she spoke With Ellen Szymanski regarding abstaining from tinting. Ms. Szymanski told her that the only time that is legal to do so is if one has a conflict of interest. Ms. Brugliera said that if one cannot abstain for not being able to make up your mind. 11. OLD BUSINESS 1. 715 Sheridan Road (Landmark(LSHD) — Revisiting the proposed subdivision of one lot Into two lots and construction of new two-story house on new proposed lot (Subdivision Advisory/Construction] Carlos Ruiz said that he had previously sent a recommendation to the Commission to perhaps revisit the proposed subdivision, since the Preservation Ordinance requires that the Commission send to the City Council written findings with recommendations by majority vote regarding subdivisions. On July 27, 2004 the Commission had a split vote (3 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 abstention). Consequently, the Commission did not fulfill that requirement. Mr. Ruiz said that after talking with Mr. James Murray, the attorney of the applicant, he would like to request a legal opinion from the City's Legal Department to clarify whether or not the Comm. ission should revisit the subdivision request and allow tlr Commission members who were not present at the July 27, 2004 meeting, to rote on the proposed subdivision. Mr. Ruiz said that Mr. Murray has requested participation in the process in the issue is revisited. Mr. Ruiz said that if necessary the issue could be placed in the September 21, 2004 Commission's agenda. Mr, Murray said that his client Mrs. Lloyd is out of the State. In the event that this matter is sent for some additional hearing by the Commission, it would be appropriate for his client to participate. Mr. Murray stated his position that the Commission acted officially and they would like to proceed on that basis until such time where they are advised otherwise. Evanston Preser%ation CoT=fission August 17, 2004 -Minutes Page 2 Mr. Ruiz said he will contact the Legal Department and any information will be submitted to the Commission, the owner and Mr. Murray. 2. 1000 Ridge Avenue (RHD) — Replace ceramic roofing tiles "ith asphalt shingles (Alteration) Mr. Ruiz informed the Commission that since the current agenda was sent, he has received a communication from the contractor for the roofing project. Mr. Ruiz said that he received via fax the application for the repair of the existing roofing system, by remo% ing all the roofing material, including the concrete tiles; replace all the damaged wood underneath and reinstall 75 pment of the original concrete tiles and utilize sah-aged concrete tile on the remaining 25 percent. The salvaged tile will match the color and style of the existing concrete tile. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission's rules allow administrative approval of such type of rehabilitation. The contractor mention to Mr. Ruiz that potentially there is 55,000 to 510,000 in savings to the owner from the original estimate for new roof with asphalt shingles. III. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation) Continuation of the Public Hearing of the Nomination for Designation of the building; at 2408 Orrington as an Evanston Landmark - Presentation from representatives of the property owner. (Transcripts are fried kith the City Clerk's Office and Preservation Coordinator'.v office) IV. NEW BUSSINESS 310 Church Street (Landmarl:/LSHD) — New landscaping in front yard with retaining wall John Clark, landscape architect and Peter Dolberg, representing the owner preunted plans for new landscaping with a retaining wall in the front yard of the property at 310 Church Street. The property is an Evanston landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Clark referred to pictures of the existing landscaping conditions. He mentioned the overgrown shrubs and the existing concrete planters that were at grade. The planters come in into the walkway in front of the house, constricting the movement Across the front yard, the view and the access to the house physically as well as visually. Also, the planters hide a lot of the details that are around the columns of the front porch. In response to a question from Thomas Prairie, Mr. Clark said that he did not know if there was any historical relevance to the planters or if they were original to the house. Mr. Clark said that the proposed plan eliminates the two concrete planters; v6dens the walk to create more of a grand entrance; keeps the space between the two columns at the front porch; and creates a walkway that is more in scale with the size of the building. Mr. Clark said that they are tr)7ng to open up the fagade of the house, and highlight some of the detail in the front porch such as the brick work that comes down to the grade on the columns that the terns sit on. 'They are also proposing the addition of a small retaining walI (12" to 15" high) on the front yard, and continue the same look of the brick and limestone caps that are on the columns of the front porch. They would like to tic all the landscaping together and extend the look of the home out to the street_ Michael Girard asked how the retaining wall would be terminated against the stairs and also to the neighbors to the west. Mr. Clark said that in plan, the retaining wall runs along the front sidewalk and terminates at the top of the steps and turns back into the yard at the steps, and turn back on the west side at the top of what is now the existing slope. The retaining wall extends on the alley side and connects to an existing masonry screen wall. Peter Dolberg said that the 5' high wall on the alley side on the cast elevation is in for a Permit. Mr. Clark said that the new landscaping would open up the dews of the house. Mr. Girard summarized the plan that includes the retaining wall at front and west and east sides; and on the cast going to the Evanston Preservation Commission August I7, 2004 - Minutes Page 3 existing brick wall (12" to 15" high); the rear screen wall is a 6' high cedar wood screen fence at rear; the Spruce tree in front of the house sho%,m in the plan is out. Carlos Ruiz said that the applicable standards for review of alteration are: 2-9-9 (A) 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the landscaping and retaining wall plan for 310 Church Street with the changes as noted (a 12" to 15" high retaining +%-all; a 6' high fence at the rear of the property, that the Spruce tree designated in the front yard is out; and that the brick size and texture will match that of existing brick). The propose plan meets standard 1 (it is adapting the property with minimum alteration to the site); standard 2 (the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed; standard 8 (archaeological resources would be protected); standard 9 (contemporary designed is not being discouraged); and standard 10 (the new addition could be removed in the future without harming the landmark structure). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. The motion passed. V. CO.NMIENiS BY PUBLIC, CO`ENIISSION INIEMBERS, STAFF 422 Davis Street — Nomination of the Georgian to the National Register of Historic Places Regarding the nomination in the National Register of the Georgian at 422 Davis Street, Mary Brugliem asked Carlos Ruiz why the Commission did not get the information before. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission had received a letter (from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency), Mr. Ruiz said that one of the issues that has transpired since the City Council took a final vote on the local nomination the night before (August 16), is whether or not, the Citywould like to make any recommendation on the National Register nomination for the Georgian. He referred to the Preservation Ordinance Section 2-9-3 (G) 7. ' To participate in the "certified local government" program of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency; and carry out any responsibilities delegated to the Commission under that program, including review and comment on any National Register nomination submitted to the Commission upon request of the City Council," Jordan Cramer said he did not view that as being exclusive or as the only way that [National Register nominations] could be reviewed. He said that the issue is whether or not the responsibility that is delegated to the Commission would include reviewing National Register nominations submitted by somebody else, because the [422 Dais Street) nomination is not coming from City Council. Carlos Ruiz said that the way he interpreted the Ordinance is that if the Commission receives a nomination, then the Commission would have to send it to the City Council, and then City Council would direct the Commission whether or not the Commission would comment on such nomination. Mr. Ruiz said that he submitted the [National Register] nomination with the Commission's original report regarding the Georgian's nomination for Evanston landmark designation to the City Council through the Planning and Development Committee (P&D). Mr. Ruiz said that he had expected directions from P&D to proceed. Ms. Brugliera thought that was not the usual route for National Register nominations and noted that the Commission does not send to City Council National Register nominations. She said that the Mayor gets it and she send her comments and the Commission gets it and the Commission sends its comments. Mr. Ruiz said that with the Northeast Evanston Historic District National Register nomination, the Mayor sent her letter in support of the nomination, but the City Council was in disagreement with the Mayor. The City Council sent a letter to [IHSAC] indicating that the City Council did not take official action on the nomination. Ms. Brugliera said that City Council is not mentioned in the WA letter as a body that takes official action, but the Commission and the Mayor are. Mr. Ruiz emphasized not to get confused with what the Preservation Ordinance says versus what the State may allow the Commission to do; the Commission still has to adhere to the Preservation Ordinance which basically says that the Commission reports to the City Council. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission is an arm of the City Council and it cannot act independently from the City Council in any issue. Mr. Ruiz said that the P&D did not take any action on the Georgian nomination to the National Register, he noted that the night before (August 16) he reminded members of P&D that they had received from his office the National Register nomination. P&D's position on the issue was that they were rejecting the Evanston Presenation Commission August 17, 2004 -Minutes Page 4 Commission's reconurncndation for local Landmark status [designation], and that would be their answer to the National Register nomination. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission does not have to respond, but it has an opportunity to do so. After talking with the IHPA, Mr. Ruiz learned that many communities do not respond at all to a nomination. He explained that even if the City of Evanston would not find that the Georgian meets the criteria for the National Register, it would have to be the Mayor and the Commission to make that finding. fir. Ruiz said that what he is trying to do is to adhere to the Preset-dtion Ordinance. Just because the Commission had sent its comments and the Mayor had sent her letter [regarding the Northeast Evanston Historic District National Register nomination) independently from the City Council, it does not mean it was right. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission acts as the arm of the Cir: Council, and that P&D does not want to send any recommendation regarding the Georgian. Ms. Brugliera asked what would be the appropriate thing to do about the Georgian. Mr. Ruiz said that in his opinion is that if the Commission wants to review the Georgian's National Register norrirrtion, the Commission should do it, but the Commission should not sent its recommendation directly to the IHPA, but sent it to P&D so that they could approve the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Ruiz said that the City of Evanston is the certified local government, not the Commission. his. Bruglicra said that the IHPA called upon the Commission to make a recommendation. Ann Dienner said that even if City Council turned down the Landmark designation of the Georgian, the Commission could still go ahead with the National Register nomination and it would be up to the State or the National entities. Mr. Ruiz asked it the Commission would like to be in a position where as an arm of the City Council, the Commission is perfanning things against the will of the City Council. Emily Guthrie said that the Council's position would not be known until they vote on it. Nis. Brugliera asked a legal opinion to clarify what the Commission's role is in regard to National Register nominations. Ms. Dienner said that the Commission had made a recommendation [for Evanston landmark designation) and P&D held a special meeting and they voted against the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Ruiz said that since P&D rejected the Commission's recommendation for Evanston Landmark designation, P&D would not change its mind and support the National Register nomination. Jordan Cramer questioned that now that the Commission has the Georgian National Register nomination, what should the Commission do at this point. He wondered whether is it incumbent upon the Commission to do something or to do nothing. Ms. Brugliera said the IHPA's letter was addressed to the Commission and the Mayor, not to the City Council. She said that the Commission could take a position that would be directly contradictory to the Commission's vote on the standards for local norninatien [the Commission was evenly divided on the architectural criteria] or the Commission could append a short summary of the Commission's review and criteria and sent that to the UPA without any comment. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's action in regard to the National Register nomination is not going to affect the local designation. He said that if the owner of a property objects the National Register nomination, it puts the building as "eligible" for listing in the National Register. The owner then is affected by the Federal nomination if they have to use Federal or State funds. Neal Vogel said the Commission should state its position in regard to the National Register nomination. Mr. Ruiz said that the Ordinance states that the Commission could comment on National Register nominations upon request -- of City Council. Jordan Cramer said that clause is not excluding anything else, that is one action that has been delegated to the Commission, but if there are others, it does not exclude them or they come by another means. Ms. Brugliera maintained that the IHPA has asked the Commission for its comments and to whether oppose it, not say anything or support it. Neal Vogel moved that the Commission rctiicw the National Register nomination. Jordan Cran= seconded the motion. The Commission scheduled the Georgian's National Register nomination for September 14, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center. Evanston Preservation Comr Wion August 17, 20044 - Niim=s Page 5 NT ADJOMN-.N E.NT Mr. Girard adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Presenation C rdi for EVANSTON PRESERVATION CON51ISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 Tuesday, September 21, 20G4 7:30 p.m. ..' MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Emily Guthrie, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Neil Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer OTHERS PRESENT: Purav Shah, Terry Boyle, Tony Hurtig, Fred Biliter, Tom Schell, Drew Heindel, Jim Blake, Ellen Galland, Kent Swanson, John Malarkey, John Cronin, Ed Kelly and Susan Morse, Mary McWilliams, John Cronin, Ed Kelly and Susan Morse, Mary McWilliams, Keith and Penny Block, Peter Gluck, John Cunningham, Kathryn Stallcup, Tom Mustoe, Brian Utley, Vicki Truax, Barry Alberts, Robert Gordon, and Gail Ettinger PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey tailed the meeting to order at approximately 7:35 p.m., a quorum being present. II. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) regarding the nomination of the Oakton Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission received a letter from the IHPA regarding the nomination of the Oakton Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. The City of Evanston has the opportunity to ad,6ise why the nominated Oakton Historic District does or does not satisfy the National Register Criteria and explain the reasons of the advice. The IHPA must received the Commission's written recommendation and that of the Chief Elected Official by November 8, 2004 or the nomination will be automatically placed in the IHSAC agenda for December 10, 2004 meeting. A copy of the Commission's comments will be furnished to IHSAC with the nomination. Dmiston Preservation Conurission September 21, 2004 —Minutes Page 2 Mr. Ruiz said that according to the Preservation Ordinance, the Commission has the power and duty to review and comment on the nomination upon request from City Council. B. 422 Davis Street (The Georgian) Mr. Ruiz said that Judy Fiske send an email earlier in the afternoon, indicating that IHSAC had voted unanimously to include 422 Davis (The Georgian) as an eligible structure to the National Register. The owners of the property had objected to such decision. The building will be subject to Section 106 review if Federal and State funds are to be used for the building. If the objection is removed, then the o%%mers could benefit from any available incentives. Mr. Ruiz said that the Planning and Development Committee and the City Council had rejected the local designation of 422 Davis as an Evanston Landmark. The National Park Service makes the final decision in terms of the eligibility. C. 100 Greenwood Street John Henderson sent a letter regarding the project at 100 Greenwood Street. Mr. Ruiz said that the letter will be referred to later in the meeting. III. OLD BUSINESS A. 310 Church (Landmark/LSHD) — Two-story rear addition, some window restoration and window replacement (Construction/Alteration] Mr. Ruiz said that project was for the extension of the dormers in the attic at 310 Church Street. The Commission persuaded the architect not to proceed with the proposal. The architect agreed not to expand the dormers. The applicant formally withdrew its application for the dormers expansion. The final drawings show the dormers remaining the same with no alterations. Also, in two occasions the Commission without a quorum, but with a straw poll, voted favorably for a two-story rear addition, some window restoration, and replacement of windows. Mr. Ruiz said that the architect provided a statement saying that all the windows to be replaced are all wood windows. Mr. Ruiz requested a formal approval of the proposed project as submitted to finalize the review. Mary BrugIiera moved to approve the project [at 310 Church]. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. B. 715 Sheridan Road (Landmark/LSHD) — Legal Opinion regarding the Preservation Commission's split vote on proposed subdivision. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission received a memorandum from the Legal Department regarding 715 Sheridan and the Commission's split vote on the proposed subdivision of the existing lot at 715 Sheridan Road. The memorandum indicates that the Commission does not need to revisit the subdivision proposal. A report with the Commission's split vote of 3 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 abstention should be prepared for City Council. Evanston Preservation Commission September 21, 2004 —;Minutes Page 3 The memorandum advises that abstentions are appropriate when there is a conflict of interest, otherwise the Commission should vote either way. IV. NEW BUSSINESS — Committee Reports A. Review & Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1611 Sherman Avenue (Landmark) - Replacement of awning in kind for new ice cream shop. Requires advisory review for special use. lAIterationlZoning Special Use] Stan Gerson said that the standards for special use are A and C. Purav Shah, applicant, he and his business partner are opening a new ice cream shop at 1611 Sherman that requires a special use. Neil Vogel asked if there is any effort to restore the storefront of the building. Thomas Prairie said that the existing and proposed awnings are 4" to 6" higher that they need to be, obscuring the trim of the building. Mr. Ruiz said that he understands that there is a unified sign plan that was provided at some point, in terms of the material and appearance of the awning. The new awning is trying to adhere to that plan. W. Vogel said that if what they are proposing is one step further back from restoration of the front fagade. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson moved to recommend approval of the application for Type II restaurant at 1611 Sherman Avenue in that: A) it is in the interest of historic conservation, does not adversely affect the historic architecture or aesthetic integrity of the building, and C) it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or injurious to property. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 727 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — Demolish frame of aluminum sided garage. Build new two car brick garage. [Demolition/Construction] Carlos Ruiz said that the applicant had called earlier informing him that he will arrive to the meeting by 8:30 p.m. 3. 90 Kedzie Avenue (LSHD) — Remove failed sliding door and glazed roof system, extend first floor with L-shaped addition. [Demolition/Construction] Terry Boyle, owner, and Tony Hurtig, architect, presented plans to remove a sliding door and a glazed roof system, extend the first floor with L-shaped addition on the south elevation. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Hurtig said sliding door and glazed roof system needs replacement and they also would like to added the L-shaped one-story addition and eliminate the diagonal roof system with a conventional roof application. The French door system will replace the sliding door system. Commission's Findings Mr. Carey said that the project is viewable from the Lake. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for demolition of the existing glaze system are 1 through 4. Susan Rundle moved to approve the demolition of the glazed wall and roof at the southeast comer of 90 Kedzie because it meets standards: 1) it is not of such historic, cultural and architectural significance that would Evanston Preservation Commission September 21, 2004 — Minutes Page 4 be contrary to the general welfare of the City, 2) it is not a distinctive historical character of the district, 3) demolition of the dazed roof wall and roof %;711 not be contrary to the purpose of this Chapter, and 4) the glazing is not of such unusual or uncommon design that it can not be reproduce without great expense. 4lary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for the construction of the one-story addition to the southeast corner of the house are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Mr. Hurtig said that the materials for the addition are wood, brick, French wood doors. Michael Girard moved to approve the construction of the addition at the southeast cornet of 90 Kedzie as it meets standards: 1) height, 3) proportion of openings, and 7) relationship to materials and textures are visually compatible with predominant materials used in the structure to which are visually related. 8) The roof shapes, and 10) scale of the structure are visually related to the original structure. 12) Original qualities and character of the property are not going to be destroyed, 13) every reasonable effort will be made to protect and presme the archaeological resources, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, IS) the addition shall be done in a manner that if removed in the future, the original integrity and form of the structure will be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style or period. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays 4. 1112 Asbury Avenue (Landmark-1111D) — Demolish deteriorated garage and construction of two -car parking pad. [Demolition] Fred Biliter, owner, and Drew Heindel, architect, presented plans for the demolition of an existing one -car garage at 1112 Asbury. The main house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Heindel said that the garage has been cited by the City for demolition. They propose a two - car parking pad. Commission's Findings _ Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for demotion are 1 through 5. Neal Vogel moved to approve the application for demolition [of the garage at 1112 Asbury Avenue] since: 1) the garage is not of such historical or cultural value that its demolition will be detrimental to the public interest, 2) the architectural and archaeological character of the district as a whole shall be preserve, even with the loss of the garage, 3) the demolition [of the garage] will not be contrary to the purpose and intend of the historic district, and 4) the structure is not of such age, _ unusual or uncommon design that could not be reproduce. Standard 5 is not applicable because the owner indicated that they have plans to build a garage within a year. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1225 Judson Avenue (iSHD) — Remove aluminum siding, restore windows, install _ new Marvin windows. Also, construct rear addition on the north side, and replacement on non -original rear porch. Requires zoning variance. [Zoning Variance Demolition/Alteration/Constructionj Jim Blake, owner, and Ellen Galland, architect, presented plans for removing the aluminum on the house, restore the siding and windows, install new clad wood Marvin windows. Also, construct a two-story rear addition on the north elevation and demolish rear porch and construct - a one-story porch at 1225 Judson Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore OMP Evanston Preservation Commission September 21, 2004 — Minutes Page 5 Historic District. The project requires zoning variance for the proposed 4.1' setback from the north property line where 5' is required. Nis. Galland said the house was designed by Holabird & Roche, and built in 1890. The existing two-story addition was built in 1911. They propose an addition to the north that requires a minor variance. They will take off the aluminum siding and restore the 2" exposure wood siding underneath. The house does not have comer boards. The house has unusual extended head casing. The existing windows will be restored with triple -track 'Sugar Creek' storm Nvindows. In the rebuilt porch they will use new Marro windows. Ms. Galland said that the biggest change is the new porch above the rear porch and open up the half -story attic. The neighbors have been informed about the project. Mr. Blake said that they are trying to restore the house as much as possible and making it energy efficient. He said that the 1911 porch was done in a Prairie style and obscures the look of the house. The new porch is 5' less than the existing. The south elevation Juliet porch will be restored and the leaded window in the living room will also be restored. Mr. Blake said that they are restoring the interior of the house. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera asked if the applicant was aware of the Property Tax Assessment Freeze. Mr. Blake said yes. Neal Vogel asked if a color analysis was conducted. Mr. Blake said that they know the colors that were on the house. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for variance are A and C. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the zoning variance to the Zoning Board for the property at 1225 Judson in that it meets standards: A) it will not affect the architecture integrity of the house or the local historic district, and C) is not materially detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or injurious to property in the district or vicinity. Neal Vogel seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for demolition are I through 4 for the demolition of two floors on the northern aspect of the east elevation and the 2.5 floor on the southern part of the east elevation. Susan Rundle moved to approve the certificate appropriateness for the east side demolition of 1225 Judson because: 1) the porch and east kitchen fagade is not of such historic, cultural, or architectural significance that its demolition will be detrimental to the public interest, 2) the fagade does not contribute to the distinctive historical nature of the district, 3) the demolition is not contrary to the purposes of the this Chapter, and 4) it is not of such old, unusual, or uncommon design that it could not be reproduce with great difficulty. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction of the 2.5-story addition on the northern aspect of the east fagade, and on the southern aspect of the east fagade a 2-story addition are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Ms. Rundle asked if the storm windows will cover the trim on the windows; the use of aluminum clad windows on the addition, and the massing and rhythm and scale of the windows on the south and east elevations. Ms. Galland said that she did not know if the storm windows will cover the trim. Mr. Blake said that they chose aluminum clad for energy efficiency. Ms Galland said that they want to have more glass area and a feeling of a porch to the addition (casements with transoms above). Mr. Gerson moved to approve the proposed additions on the east fagade be approved in that with regard to properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visually E%-Awton Preservation Commission September 21, 2004 — Minutes Pagc 6 related: 1) the height, 3) the proportion of openings, I0) the scale of the structure, 7) materials and texture, and 8) roof shapes are visually compatible to structure to which they are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities of the property will not be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources i%ill be preserved, 1.1) contemporary design is not being proposed nor discouraged, 15) the addition could be removed, and I6) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for a single architectural style or period. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 2 nays. Mr. Gerson said applicable standards for alteration are I through 7, 9 and 10. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 1225 Judson as: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to do minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the building will not be destroyed, 3) alI of the objects are recognized as products of their time; alterations will not create an earlier appearance, 4) changes that occurred throughout the building's life time have been respected, 5) the distinctive stylistic features are treated %Kith sensitivity, 6) the deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced, 7) surface cleaning will undertaken u7th the gentlest means possible, 9) contemporary design has not been discouraged, and 10) should the alterations and additions could be removed in the future. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays 6. 1127 Asbury Avenue (RHD) — Addition at rear above existing family room.. [Alteration] Michael Girard recused from the Commission's discussion and vote regarding 1127 Asbury Avenue because he is the architect of It 27 Asbury Avenue. The project is for a rear addition above the existing family room. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Girard said that the project is for a larger bathroom and add a bedroom. The late 1970s addition was for the conversion of the garage into a family room %with the construction of new garage. The project now adds a family room over the deck over the existing addition. The north and south elevations illustrate the proposed addition. The existing addition is setback from the primary south facade. Visibility of the proposed addition is minimal. lair. Girard said that the roof is cedar, the windows are wood Marvin windows, and the siding sill be the same dimension as the existing siding. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration are 1 through 5, 9 and 10. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for alteration at 1127 Asbury in that: 1) it will require minimal alteration to the house, 2) the distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed, 3) the house is recognized as product of its own time; they are proposing any historical additions, 4) changes are not being deleted, 5) skilled craftsmanship is being treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) if it needed to be removed the alteration could be removed. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 1 abstention. 2. 727 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — demolish frame of aluminum sided garage. Build new two -car brick garage. [Demolition/Construction) This project was scheduled for review earlier as item 2. The owner was now present Evanston Preservation Cornn ssion Sc.pternber 21, 2004 - Nftrutcs Page 7 Kent Swanson presented plans to demolish the frame of the aluminum sided garage and build a new two -car brick garage at 727 Forest Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Swanson said he will renovate the existing garage. The existing garage was added about thirty years after the house was built. They removed then the garage that was in the main body of the house front. The house has basement or attic; the new garage will provide some storage above. The new garage exterior finish is brick and limestone. The siding portion will break up the brick on the garage. The existing garage is aluminum sided. The new foundation is 3.5' wider than the existing garage. He said that even though the elevation does not show, he proposes a paneled ga..rage door. CommIssion's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for demolition are I through 4. Neal Vogel moved to approved demolition of the garage as it: 1) does not have such historic or cultural significant that demolition %vill not be detrimental to the public interest, 2) the garage does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural, or archaeological character of the district, 3) demolition x ill not contrary to the purpose and intent of the historic preservation Chapter and district, and 4) the garage is not of such old, unusual, or uncommon design that it can not be reproduced. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are I through 5, 7, S, 10 though 14, and 16. Thomas Prairie moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the new garage at 727 Forest Avenue as shown in the drawings with the proviso that the garage door be a wood paneled door in that: 1) the height is visually compatible with the adjacent properties, 2) the proportion of the fagade is in relation to the width and height of the front elevation is visibly compatible, 3) the proportion of the openings, the height of the windows and doors are compatible, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in the front fagade is visually compatible, 5) rhythm in spacing and structures on the streets are compatible, 7) the relationship of materials and texture are visibly compatible with the materials used in the structures to which is visually related, 8) the roof shape is visually compatible, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible, 11) the direction expression of the front farade is visually compatible, 12) the distinguishing original character of the property, structure, site or object and its environment will not be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be preserved, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 16) and a single architectural style is being imposed. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion: Mary Brugliera said that she had a problem with the required garage wood door. Mr. Vogel said, referring to standard 7, if the Commission is concerned about small areas such as the sash being wood instead of clad; large surfaces such as a garage door and the range of colors that are available in aluminum or vinyl, compared to a custom color, he believed that a metal door is not at the same standard that the garage is being built to. The metal door will not relate to historic materials in the district. Susan Rundle said that for landmark houses the garage doors are always wood. The Commission has allowed metal doors in non -landmark houses, particularly when a lot of the doors along the alley are metal. Mr. Vogel asked if there is a chance to restoring the existing door. Mr. Swanson said that the lower panels are deteriorated. He said that he will look into restoring the door but he will like to have the flexibility on the material. He said that he will install a paneled door. Mr. Prairie Evanston Preservation Commission September 21, 20U4 — Minutes Page 8 amended his motion for a paneled door. Chris Carey seconded the amendment. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 2 nays. 7. 2320 Pioneer Road (Landmark) —Construction of 92 Independent Living Units facing McDaniel Avenue. Applicant is also seeking a Plan Development (The Preservation Commission has the authority to review the proposed planned development and provide advisory review to the Plan Commission). jConstruction/Planned Development] John Malarkey, attorney; John Cronin, architect; Ed Kelly; and Susan Morse with Three Crowns formally known as the Swedish Retirement Home presented plans for the construction of 92 independent living units (facing .%icDanieI Avenue) at 2320 Pioneer Road. The property is an Evanston landmark. The project requires approval of planned development. Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that the project was in front of the Commission on September lb, 2003. The applicant submitted then preliminary revised plans with the removal of a previously proposed structure on the southeast comer of the site. The revised plans also showed the proposed four-story brick and stone building with a one-story link between the landmark building and the proposed residential structure. The Commission then had a question about the building height; the applicant said that the neighbors for the most part supported the project. Another question was if the Alderman of the Ward was aware of the project. The applicant told the Commission that Aldermen Moran and Tisdahl were aware and supportive of the project. Another question was about the man-made stone at the base of the building. The Commission was also concerned with a perspective drawing showing the four-story building overwhelming the landmark building. However, the model was useful by clarifying how the one-story Iink worked as a transition between the new building and the landmark building. The revised drawings then showed less surface parking and an underground parking area for 100 spaces. The revised plans also showed improvement of the campus appearance with landscaping and maintaining the park like feature of the site by removing the originally proposed one-story building from the southeast comer of the site. John Malarkey said that they came back with essentially the same plan of 2003. At this time Chris Carey asked if anyone from the audience wanted to speak on the project. No one came forward. John Cronin, architect presented a model of the project. He said that the footprint was E the same as before, they worked out the detailing of the exterior skin of the building. The model = showed two areas of construction of three -stories and a center piece of four-story construction connected to the landmark building by a one-story structure. John Cronin said that there are six kinds of brick on the landmark building, which indicate constructions that were done over time. Mr. Cronin said that any facade of the one-story building that is interfacing with the landmark building will be done with a stone product. No brick will touch what it is on the Landstrom building or the Pioneer building. Mr. Cronin said that the new building form takes its forth after the Pioneer building in that the tri-part composition of the facade of the building is incorporated into a thrce-story building. The base of the building will have some brick and banding that sets off the first floor. The Pioneer building meets the ground on a small stone plinth which is then separated by brick and then there is a _ stone band. Mr. Cronin said that what he proposes is to bring the stone out of the ground and make it become part of the facade of the new building to break up the feel and the mass. He said that the scale of the three-story building is in scale with the Pioneer building. �_ Evanston Preservation Commission September 21, 2004 — Minutes Page 9 In response to a question from Stan Gerson, Mr. Cronin said that there are 105 parking spaces underground. Mr. Cronin said that they created a new front door to Three Crown Park on the west side with an entrance to the underground parking. Parking is also being provided for visitors and the service court is being maintained. Regarding the stone product Mr. Cronin said it is min made and they need to do value engineering to determine the cost between naturally cut stone and a manufactured product. The standard module of manufactured stone is 1' x 2'. fir. Cronin said that they will work with a standard modular brick in keeping with the scale of the brick that is in the Pioneer building and the Landstrom building. His dra% ings indicate a 13" course block and an 8" course block with a chamfered "V" groove. This approach may increase the cost of the project. About the cornice Mr. Cronin said that it could be EIFS or plaster lath to be more historically sensitive. Chris Carey asked about the windows. Mr. Cronin said that the windows would be aluminum and the rough opening would 6' high and 6' wide for the most part and mold together. Thomas Prairie asked if the proposed windows would have some detailing and profile. Regarding the bridge, Mr. Cronin said that it would remain. Mr. Carey asked about any exterior work on the landmark building. Mr. Cronin said that only interior work is planned. Mr. Cary asked if there would be Alzheimer patients. Susan Morse said that was the original plan. Ed Kelly said that originally at the [southwest corner] there was an Alzheimer wing, and because of the blocking of the Liews of the Pioneer building, that structure was removed. Instead, the center section was increased with a fourth floor to get the same space. The ground floor of the Landstrom building is being removed, and redone into the ground floor link. The new units would be for independent living with a combination of one and two bedrooms. Susan Rundle asked if the applicant went back to the neighbors again with the current plan. Mr. Kelly said yes. He noted that the fourth floor was not a main concern for the neighbors. Mr. Kelly said that the only place that the fourth floor would be prominent would be from the school across the street. Mr. Kelly said that they did not have negative comments from the neighbors. He noted that the center courtyard would be for patient delivery and all visitors and independent living persons would come in off of McDaniel into the new port cocher. Mr. Carey asked about the zoning of the property and what were the advantages of going for a planned development [the current zoning is R4]. )4r. Nalarkey said that the planned development is because of the special use in R5 and because of the additional height. Carlos Ruiz asked about the benefits to the community that the planned development may bring. Mr. Malarkey said that people want to keep the open space in the front. Now all the buildings are put in the back. The plans call for a complete landscape plan. Mary Brugliera asked about the proposed RS in th: middle of an RI district. Mr. Malarkey said that on the map will stay as planned development, and it would not affect the surroundings. Carlos Ruiz referred to the Zoning Analysis that requires the project for a new special use, the proposal violates the two -story -and -a -half permitted height (3 and 4 stories were proposed). The parking area along McDaniel are prohibited in the front yard (all streets on this site are front lot line), open parking shall be within 30' of the rear lot Iine or alley (for a total of 125 off street parking spaces, where 5 handicapped parking stalls must be provided (only one was proposed), no plans were provided to determine compliance with the off street parking stall width, depth and module width. The proposed addition would increase the off street loading berth dock requirement from one to two short berths. Also, a plat of consolidation must be approved by the E%=ton Presmation Commission September 21, 2004 —Minutes Page 10 City and recorded with the County. The impervious surface calculations must be provided to show compliance with the 55% maximum limit. Mr. Ruiz recommended, in regard to the planned development, that the Commission address the height from two -stories - and- a -half to three and four stories. He said that in regard to density the Commission has deferred this issue to the experts in the City staff and the Plan Commission. Mr. Ruiz said that this is an opportunity for the Commission to comment and make a recommendation to the Plan Commission in regard on the proposed planned development, and its effect or no effect on the landmark property. Susan Rundle said that the Commission could also comment on the proposed parking on the front yard. Michael Girard applauded the underground parking. Michael Girard noted that the closest the four story facade is to McDaniel Street is about 27'. Chris Carey asked whether the height of the Pioneer building was three stories or two -and -a -half stories. In response to a question from Thomas Prairie, Carlos Ruiz said that the purview of the Commission is under the Preservation ordinance Section 2-9-3 (G) Powers and Duties. Chris Carey asked if anyone thought that the proposed project adversely affects the landmark or the site that the landmark sits on. Stan Gerson felt that the southern most aspect of the proposed building cuts off part of the view of the Pioneer building. Ann Diener said that green space is being lost. Mr. Gerson said that a similar concern to his was raised with the Dryden Mansion [at 1314 Ridge]. Mr. Ruiz asked if the south portion of the new building could be further reduced. Mr. Kelly said that they are attempting to preserve the campus and the buildings arc old, outdated, and inefficient. The endowment fund of Swedish Retirement Home has decreased from double digits to single digits. Mr. Kelly said that to sustain the campus the redevelopment of it as independent living is needed. By freeing up the southeast corner they effectively lost apartments for dementia care. Any large change to the project would probably make the project unfeasible because of the high quality of the materials. Chris Carey said that the Commission needs to reach consensus taking into account comments made by Commissioners. Mary BrugIiera said that the Dryden Mansion has a great deal of space on either side and it is located in an important intersection of Evanston, unlike the Pioneer building which has neither. She noted that this is a retirement home in the middle of a residential neighborhood, with lots of green space on the property and across the street. Neal Vogel said that the Pioneer building is not as significant as the Dryden Mansion either, and if the new building could be built with high quality materials it could be more attractive than the original building. Thomas Prairie said that to make possible a project like this, there has to be some compromises. He said at the Dryden Mansion the Commission allowed the development of townhouses which blocks some of the view of the Mansion. What he liked about this project is that it is still open and it is a campus like setting. Chris Carey agreed with Mr. Thomas. Michael Girard was pleased with the discussion about the quality of materials. He said that Renaissance stone when compared to cut stone is not the same to cut stone in terms of the read, the scale, and the detailing which is in a whole another level. Natural cut stone will add more credibility to the facade of the new building. Mr. Girard applauded putting the parking below grade and encouraged natural materials for the facade. He did not have a recommendation for the windows. Chris Carey said that the project does not adversely affect the landmark because the integrity of the landmark is maintained. It may take away sight lines from one angle, but the physical - integrity of the landmark is still there. He noted that they have located the institutional use of the -= Evanston Preservation Comadssion September 21, 2004 — Nti:.ates Page 11 building where on the other side of the street there is the institutional use of the school, complementing each other. At this time Carlos Ruiz suggested, since there were people still waiting for the review of another project, that the Commission address the issue of the planned development and schedule for later the review of the standards for construction. Mr. Girard and Nis. Rundle concurred with Mr. Ruiz's suggestion. Mr. Malarkey agreed to come back in front of the Commission to address the building materials and construction. Mr. Girard was curious about the cost of manufactured stone versus natural cut stone. Ed Kelly said that they appreciated the comments made by the Commission members and also said they could come back to address the building materials and construction. At this time Carlos Ruiz read the answers provided by the applicant in their application for advisory review of Special Uses and Variations: "(A) Three Crowns seeks to preserve the landmark and surrounding grounds by moving the intended addition to the west of the existing landmark (C) It will not create significant traffic, it will accommodate all necessary parking needs, it will maintain compatibility of the neighborhood and respect the character of the landmark, it will allow for efficient service of a residential retirement community needed in the City of Evanston, and no historical resources would be disturbed." Michael Girard moved that the Commission recommend to the Plan Commission, in regard to the consideration of a planned development for 2320 Pioneer Road, approval of the addition to Three Crowns retirement community, as: (A) it does not adversely affect the historical architecture or integrity of the landmark; (B) it is necessary to provide a recoverable rate of return on the real property where the denial thereof would amount to a taking of the property without just compensation; and (C) will 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. Also, the Preservation Commission will retain the right for binding design review of materials and construction for the historical property and additions to it. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 9 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that although he still opposes the location of the new addition, he approved of the motion because he felt that it was necessary for a recoverable rate of retum. 8. 100 Greenwood — Construction of a 2-1/2 story house and construction of a brick wall requiring fence variance Keith and Penny Block, owners, and Peter Gluck, architect, presented plans for the construction of a 2-1/2 story house and construction of a brick wall requiring fence variance. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Gluck said that they tried not to design a large house; rather they designed the house thinking about the scale relative to all the buildings in the area. They tried to preserve open space as well, setting the house 50-feet from Greenwood Street. Regarding the style Nir. Gluck said that he designed a modern building that fit the elements, scale, and all of the issues addressed in the requirements [standards for review] without imitating an old building or an eclectic traditional building. Mr. Gluck said that the building materials include a thin set brick, because the house would be panelized; meaning that the brick walls Evanston Preservation Commission September 21, 2004 — Minures Page 12 would not go to the ground level. The house would not be constructed with a cavity wall -brick wall. The appearance of the house is meant to maintain a similar material to other buildings. The brick would receive a raked joint. Mr. Gluck said that they have not yet selected the brick because there are other colors and other sizes. The brick walls go from the second floor up. Mr. GIuck said that they have conversations m ith the neighbors to the west to accommodate their concerns. They moved back the driveway where currently is on the east side and relocate the garages to the south. The neighbors to the west will not look at an entrance, a driveway and the garages. Also, the parking on the front yard has been deleted. Mr. Gluck said that originally the neighbor to the south had requested moving the driveway to the west, because he wanted to put his garage on the west side of his house. Ann Diemer noted that with the revised driveway, the wall on Greenwood would remain. Mr. Gluck said that what could also be built is a large house. He said that from a planning point of view that the continuation of the park was important, and the proposed site plan made possible the transition to the park, rather than being a large statement building on the site. Chris Carey asked where the front door to the house was. 4ir. Gluck said that the front door is on the west elevation. Mr. GIuck said that the reason why they wanted to leave the wall on Greenwood was because this is a strong public space, and it would allow some privacy for the house by having a more appropriate placement of the house relative to the public. Ann Dienner asked about the wrought iron fence on the driveway. Mr. Gluck said that there is an iron fence with high plantings where they are suggesting the wall continue. Emily Guthrie asked about the sight lines from the house to the west. Mr. Gluck said that the house is setback 50-feet, the computer renderings show what could be seen from the house to the west. Ms. Dienner said she worried about the wall to the west. Mr. Gluck said that there is no wall to the west now, and that the Blocks and the neighbors would share some landscape planning between the houses. He said that now there is more glass and more residential facade on the west elevation. _ Ms. Dienner said that the other walls in the vicinity are made of aggregate material, particularly on Dempster Street. She wondered if that effect could be incorporated on the east wall. Mr. Gluck showed a sample of cast stone and said that the appearance of it was close to the aggregate appearance. Another material considered for the wall is stucco. Carlos Ruiz asked about the zoning for the project. Mr. Gluck said that lot coverage is less than _ the maximum allowed. He said that the Zoning [Department] has all that information. He said that the setback from the rear property line is 30-feet. Mr. Gluck said that as far as he understands, there are no zoning issues. Mr. Gluck said that the windows «•ill be Mahogany wood %indows. Carlos Ruiz noted that one of the key issues is that the Commission may not impose a single architectural style, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Mr. Gluck said that the owners are very much interested in good contemporary design. He also said that the house is not max out and one _ could build a much larger house on the site. - Preservation Co=iission Sc:,x-.r'rr 21, 20W -- Minutes Pry- t' TbQmas Prairie said that since the drivewav is now shifted to the east, he asked if the elevations have been changed as well. Mr. Gluck said that the rear elevation has changed in that the garage is no longer there. The garage is now on the lover structure on the south side. He also said that the plan has changed. At this time Chris Carey asked for comments from neighbors. John Cunningham of 228 Greenwood said that he did not have any issue with a modem style house. In regard to the lot size, he was concerned about the fence and how it will affect the streetscape. He also was concerned with the position of the house on the lot as it relates to the beach and the reflection of the sun on the glass into that environment. He said that once there is a house behind the wall, the chmcter of it will change. K=hr►n Stallcup of 144 Greenwood said that she would like to apologize to the Commission for submitting materials at the last meeting. She said they got materials to work from a week ago. Nis_ Stallcup said that there have been some substantial changes in the design to which they are responding. For them a key issue was the old brick v.,all along Greenwood. The new design leaves the driveway where it is and that is much better for her property directly to the west. Ms. Stallcup said that as she reads the standards it is very difficult to see how the standards are met by the design. She said that the public will be perplexed by the design as well. Tom Mustoe also of 144 Greenwood concurred with Ms. Stallcup and added that the view from the beach, which is public space, will be glass. He did not think that was appropriate. Brian Utley said that he was not an immediate neighbor, but he was interested in the property as a fraquent user of the lakefront recreation. He said that he was also involved with the Historical Society located across the street. Mr. Utley said that the proposed design does not belong in the area_ He was also concerned with the impact on the strcetscape; the house projects some 30-feet in front of the other homes. This will change the dynamics of the street. He also was concerned about the use of glass and the reflection that %ill impact the users of the beach and the environment. Mr. Utley said that the proposed house does not fit the neighborhood and adversely affects the public open space. Vicki Truax of 133 Dempster said that one sees what goes on in the neighborhood and it is completely different from what one expects. She said the Blocks are not maxing out the propcm,-, they are doing something different. She said that she does not have a problem with a modern house there. Ms. Truax said that some of the neighbors are all shaken up because of the hou:P that had two stories put on it. She said that if the BIocks were to maximize what they could build there, it is going to be more visual constraints on that spot. She had the opinion that we do not have to have all the houses look alike. Barry Alberts of 200 Dempster said his house was built in the late 1930s. He said that at the time his house was built, the design evoked the kind of response that this design has evoked among the neighbors. He said that his house is an Evanston landmark and that he supports this moment of the birth of the first landmark of the Twenty First Century. He said that this is a moment that ought to be embraced with enthusiasm and hospitality and encouragement, even as the effort unfolds as it is, to accommodate reasonably the legitimate sensibilities with respect to E,.-amton Presm-ation Con unission September 21, 2004 —Minutes Page 14 the details that the neighbors are in dialogue with the architect. Mr. Alberts said that he supports the vision and general undertaking to find in the neighborhood, yet another landmark, this one of the Twenty First Century. Robert Gordon of 202 Greenwood said that he restored 1039 Forest, and Evanston landmark. He said that to look at the streetscape and integrity of Greenwood as a "T". Going down Greenwood, there is the Lake, and there is a jogging and biking path. There are three houses on the left, a house that has been altered by siding and oriental thrills. The next house is a Joseph Silsbee house and finally the Dawes House opening to a park. On the right side of Greenwood there are two houses that were built over an original Daniel Burnham design, with the garage of it still being used as a house on Forest. Then there is a 1928 house at 228 Greenwood, then the Tudor house, next the house at 202 Greenwood, and the 144 Greenwood house. All of those four houses are historical landmarks. Mr. Gordon said that authors of recent books on Frank Lloyd Wright have discovered that his house at 202 Greenwood may well be, while attributed to Silsbee, the first house that Frank Lloyd Write ever designed. He noted that Greenwood is a very historic block. Mr. Gordon said that when passing the Dawes House, there is an infinite setback through the park. Across the street, after 214 Greenwood, which has 50-foot setback, there is 202 and 144 Greenwood, and they have an 80-foot setback. The proposal to pull back into 50-feet means that there will be a 30-foot extension from the existing strectscape. Mr. Gordon said that the last point is putting a modern structure adjacent to a beautiful Tudor structure. Mr. Gordon invited the Commission to go down to 1010 Michigan on the northwest corner of Michigan and Main, and took at the incredible square white stucco structure [1014 Michigan), that is 5-feet away from the porte cochere of one of the most beautiful Tudor buildings in Evanston. He said that is what the Commission is about, stopping that square stucco structure right next to a beautiful Tudor [1010 Michigan]. Mr. Gordon passed around photos of the buildings he mentioned. John Malarkey, attorney said a list of the people of the Friends of the Lakefront Historic District on which behalf the packet was submitted. He asked at what stage of the review process was the proposal. Chris Carey said that this is a continuation of their proposal. Carlos Ruiz said that the applicants had an advisory review last time [July 20, 2004]. Because there is no final zoning analysis, he believed that the Commission was not ready to make a decision tonight. Mr. Malarkey said that the "Friends" have an architect that they will like to have made a presentation, but he was not able to make at last notice changes to the plans. Mr. Carey said that he did not have a problem with continuing the meeting to another date or to the next meeting. Peter Gluck said that after listening to the comments said that the street would be better without a house where proposed. Unfortunately, it is a piece of property that somebody owns. He said that he was trying to open up the site with the site plan. Given the fact that there is going to be a house there, and that this is not a public park, the proposed design is a proper way to configure the house. In regard to the continents about the glass, they have a whole series of wood shutters that have to be further developed on that glass fagade. Mr. Gluck pointed to another house with glass in the vicinity. The fact that something seems different or strange to someone, it is not enough of a reason not to consider something because is not common. Evanston Preservation Commission September 21, 2004 — Minutes Page 15 Mr. Gluck said that the question is not whether it's different or whether does not blend into the landscape. The question is are the precepts by which it was put together, do they make sense, and is this a good building? He would like to be judged on that basis. Susan Rundle asked if the 6-foot fence runs across and around the property. Mr. Gluck said that the fence makes the separation between another lot and the property. He suggested leaving the brick wall and continuing it. Stan Gerson asked about landscaping. Mr. Gluck said that every trcc that is not within the footprint of the house will stay. He said that for the next meeting they will show the wall and further develop the east elevation. fir. Gluck said that they are as concerned with the east wall to be all glass, because there is no way to have a house all glass, there has to be some way to mitigating that glass. He noted that they have a series of sliding Mahogany louvers. Keith Block said about the setback that if they setback the house based on the size of the property, there is no house. They already have a 50-feet setback and to come any more to be in line with the adjacent house, then they -611 have a 15-foot wide house. Mr. GIuck said that the front yard setback per Zoning is 27-feet; they are at 50-feet. Nfr. Block said that another house of 2.5-stories will tower over the biking path. Mr. Gluck said that he was able to convince his clients to site the house away from the public area. Penny Block said that they are trying to create something that will not be an imposition on the neighborhood. Mary Brugliera said that the Commission's job is to decide whether the proposed building is going to fit according to a number of standards, and to the overall context of that historic district, and a modern house could do that, if it does it right. A modern house could be horrible as well; an old Queen Anne or Revival modem house could also be horrible. She said that when the Marion Hunt houses were built, people reacted negatively, because they are not Victorian. Ms. Brugliera said that life moves forGvard and architectural styles and designs change. The Commission is here to try its best to make sure it fits in the historic district. Keith Block said that the green area to the east is full every weckend with people. If there is no fence there, they might as well move people into the house, because there,,ti7lI be no yard. Mr. Gluck said that the Blocks had a meeting with many people at their house, and there were 10 or 12 people who though that the project was fine. Ms. Stallcup said that she was at that meeting and several other people who were present at this meeting had expressed concerns about the design. At this time Mary Brugliera moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:15 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted: AM4A�-,� ar%s D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation oo inator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:30 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stan Gerson, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard, Thomas Prairie, and Neal Vogel OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Lloyd, Stephen Knutson, James Murray, John Hershey, Lina Loutfi, Paul Janicki, Jean Chapman, John Chapman, Marian Tweedie, Ann Earle, Mary McWilliams, Jack. Weiss, Barbara Gardner, Ryan Kettelkamp, George Pontikes, Sandra Nagel, Kay Weisman, Tom Waterloo, Barnet Bullock, Michael Lock, and Bill Stiles PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair, called the meeting to order at approximately 7.40 p.m. a quorum being present. II. MINUTES APPROVAL July 20, 2004; July 27, 2004; August 17, 2004 Minutes Ann Dienner made a correction to the July 20, 2004 minutes, on page 10, fifth paragraph, first sentence to read: Ann Dienner said that the Robert Scott property (immediately west of 110 Greenwood) it had had riparian rights. Jordan Cramer moved to adopt the minutes for July 20, July 27, and August 17, 2004 with the correction as noted by Ann Dienner for the July 20, 2004 minutes. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Presmadon Carr=ssion Minutes — October 19, 2004 Page 2 III. OLD BUSINESS 1. 715 Sheridan Road (Landmark/LSHD) -- Construction of new two-story house on new lot [Construction] Susan Lloyd, owner, Stephen Knutson, architect, and James Murray, attorney, presented plans for the construction of a new two-story house on a newly subdivided lot at 715 Sheridan Road. The property is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Murray said the subdivided lot was approved by City Council on October 11, 2004. Preciously, the Commission made suggestions about the proposed two-story house. The preliminary revised plans are dated October 7, 2004. Mr. Knutson said the house has only evolved somewhat since last time the Commission saw it in July 2004. They added a window at the garage, and there two wti indows at the larger portion of the house. They have referenced the larger existing house with the gable ends that are parapet; end in limestone. The house will be brick veneer and the garage must face west. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle asked what will be visible on the west fagade from Sheridan Road. Mr. Knutson referred to a photograph taken from Sheridan and said that the northwest corner of the garage is 211' from the west property line. The face of the garage of the new house is more than 200' east of the property line. Stan Gerson said that that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) questioned whether the front fagade is facing west on is it facing north where the main entrance is. Susan Rundle said that R&TA came to the conclusion that the front fagade is facing west where the street address is. Mr. Knutson said in Winnetka the definition of front fagadc is the narrowest dimension of the lot. Winnetka is very particular about street facing garages with the exception of property on the Lake. Mr. Murray said that one of the conditions imposed by the City Council was that a single -access driveway remains for both properties. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16. Mr. Murray said that the view from the Lake must be considered as public area. Ms. Brugliera asked about the dropping grade. Mr. Murray said about 4.5. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new house on the new lot at 715 Sheridan Road in that it meets standards for review of construction: 1) height, 2) proportion of front facade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) rhythm of solids to voids in front facades, and 5) rhythm, of spacing and structures on streets; all five relate compatibly to the structures and other aspects viewable from the public way. Also, 7) relationship of materials and texture is visually compatible, S) roof shapes are also compatible with the main house to which it relates, 10) the scale of the structure is compatible, 11) directional expression of front elevation is compatible with its related buildings on the block, 13) archaeological resources will presumably be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for a single architectural style or period. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. `Dote: 5 ayes, 2 nays. Evanston Presen-ation Commission Minutes — Octobcr 19, 2004 Page 3 Stan Gerson said that he voted no because the west fagade is almost a blank wall, even with the couple windows. Susan Rundle said her no vote was because the solids and voids in the street, it is enough of an infill that tips the balance. IV. NEW BUSINESS/REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 7141iilburn Street (Landmark/NEHD) — One-story addition at rear of house [Demolition/Construction] John Hershey and Lina Louth, architects, presented the plans for the construction ofa one-story addition to the rear of the house at 714 Milburn Street. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Mr. Hershey said they propose is to expand an existing room at the rear of the home. The exterior finishes are in keeping with the existing finishes and detailing. They proposed a rear entry to the family room; the addition is approximately 232 S. F. He said that a preliminary landscape scheme was submitted for the Commission's consideration. The windows are with simulated divided lights and wood exterior. The roof is aluminum standing seam. There is built in gutters incorporated into the soffit. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for demolition of the existing roof porch on the south side of the house and the south wall are I through 4. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the demolition for 714 Milburn because it meets: I) the structure is not of such historic significance that its demolition will be detrimental to the City, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive historical aspect of the house, 3) demolition of the structure is not contrary to purpose and intend of this Chapter, and 4) it is not of such unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduce with great difficulty or expense. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said the applicable standards for review for construction are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the construction of the addition at 714 Milburn as it meets standards: 1) the height is compatible with the rest of the building, 3) the proportion of openings mimics the existing openings, 5) the rhythm of the spacing of structures on the street (alley), 6) the entrance porch is compatible with the rest of the building, 7) the materials and texture match the existing as 8) the lower roof shape matches the other lower roofs of the house, 10) the scale of structure is appropriate, 12) the original qualities of the property are not destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be preserved, 14) contemporary design was not discouraged, 15) the addition if removed in the future the essential integrity of the structure is not impaired, and 16) the Commission did not imposed a single architectural style. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preserti•ation Commission Minutes — October 19, 2004 Page 4 2. 1021 Greenwood Street (RHD) — Demolish existing rear addition; construct new 1.5- story addition at rear of house [Demolition/Construction] Jordan Cramer recused from discussion and vote on this project because he is the owner's attorney on other property. Paul Janicki, architect, presented plans to demolish an existing rear addition, and construct a 1.5- story rear addition to the house at 1021 Greenwood. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Janicki said they are adding a kitchen, family room, mud room, new- rear porch, and a new finished basement. The addition has leaded glass casements and double hung windows and limestone base. The back porch emulates the front porch including the cohtmns and materials. The leaded glass windows «ilI match windows on the existing leaded glass windows. Mr. Janicki said that they are taking off a 1970s addition and building the addition in its place. On the west elevation there is a new door going into the basement. There is also a wheal chair lift and a gate on the new deck %with a railing and balustrade that matches the front porch. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for demolition are 1 through 4. Mr. Gerson moved to approve the demolition of the one-story addition at the rear north of the house at 1021 Greenwood in that: 1) the structure is not of such historical, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition would not be contrary to the general welfare of the City and the State, 2) the distinctive cultural, historical, architectural and archaeological character of the house will not be affected by the demolition, 3) the demolition of the addition will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, 4) the addition is not of such uncommon design, texture or material that it could be reproduced . Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction for the addition at the rear are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 though 16. Nfr. Gerson moved to approve the proposed construction in that: 1) the height, 3) the proportion of the openings of the addition, 5) the rhythm and spacing of the structure of the addition, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches and other projection, andl0) the scale of the structure are all compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which they are visually related. In regard to standards 7) the relationship of materials and textures, and 8) roof shapes are visually compatible with the structures to which they are visually related. With regard to 12) the original qualities and character of the property are not going to be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) it is not a contemporary design and is not being discouraged, 15) the addition could be removed if needed in the future, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for a single architectural style or period. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, I abstention. Evanston Presenation Cotnrnission Minutes —October 14, 20+34 Page 5 3. 215 Lake Street (Landmark/LSHD) — Remove 1-stork• frame rear porch and basement stairs and construct a l-story frame addition at rear of house [Demolition/Zoning Variance/Construction] Chris Carey abstained from this project discussion and voting. John and Jane Chapman, owners, and Marian Tweedie, architect, presented plans for the demolition of a I -story frame rear porch and basement stairs and covering and the construction a 1-story frame addition to the rear of the house at 215 Lake Street. The house is a Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Tweedie said that the proposed addition requires a zoning variance for the lot coverage. The current lot coverage is 32.72%; they are requesting 34 22% where a maximum of 30% is allowed. Also, they proposed a 17. P rear yard setback where 30' is required. The proposed 1- story addition will be constructed to match the height of the existing first floor, will reuse an existing window on the west. The exterior trim and siding profiles and roof color and material will match the existing. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for variance are A and C. Ms. Rundle moved to recommend the variances for 215 Lake Street because: A) is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of the historic district, and C) they s,.rill not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the district. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for demolition are 1 through 4. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the I -story rear porch, the basement stairs, and stairs covering at 215 Lake as meeting standards: 1) they are not of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that their demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest, welfare of the people of the City, 2) the structures do not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological of the historic district, 3) their demolition will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of historic preservation, and 4) they are not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, texture or material that they could be reproduced without great difficulty. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention. Ms. Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 though 16. his Rundle moved to approve the construction of a 1-story frame addition to the rear of the house at 215 Lake because: 1) the height, 3) the proportion of openings, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on streets (alley), 6) the rhythm of the entrance rear porch, and 7) the relationship of materials and textures, 8) the roof shape, 10) the scale and mass in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, and porches; are all visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually related. Also, 12) distinguishing original qualities of the main structure will not be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be preserved, 14) contemporary design has nor been discouraged, Evanston Preservation Conurission Minutes — October 19, 2D04 Page 6 I S) the addition could be removed in the future; the essential form and integrity of the main structure would be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural style. Mr Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, I abstention. V. NATIONAL REGISTER N O.IINATION — PUBLIC HEARING Review of the Nomination of the Proposed Oakton Historic District for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places Perbatint transcripts of this public hearing are available in the office of the Presen ation Coordinator. VI. STAFF REPORT New Application for Certificate of Appropriateness and Advisory Review for Zoning Variance Carlos Ruiz presented the revisions of new application for Certificate of Appropriateness and Advisory Review for Zoning Variance. He said that the new application will be available at the Permit Desk and at the office of the Preservation Coordinator. Susan Rundle mentioned adding thematic apartment, page numbers, and supplemental information as the last revisions to the form. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the new application for Certificate of Appropriateness and Advisory review for Zoning Variance as re-vised. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. VII. ADJOURNMENT Stan Gerson moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. - Respectfully submitted: NNOW Carlos D. Ruiz_ Senior PlannerlPresmatio ordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:30 p.m. 1%IINXUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Ann Dienner, Emily Guthrie, Thomas Prairie, Susan Rundle, and Neil Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer, Stanley Gerson, and Michael Girard OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Remollet, Lynn Cole, Anita Philipsbocn, Peter Gluck, Penny Block, Peter Gluck, Katie Stallcup, Eileen Henderson, Chris Mikus, Amy Ryker, Ed Kuczmarski, Barry Albers, Bernard Citron, Judy Fiske PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair, called the meeting to order at Approximately 7:35 p.m., a quorum being present. H. COMMUNICATIONS 2408 Orrington Avenue — Landmark Nomination Regarding the nomination of 2408 Orrington, Carlos Ruiz asked the Commission to schedule a special meeting no later than December 7, 2004 to approve the Resolution and the Report to City Council. This item will be scheduled for the December 13, 2004 City Council meeting. The Commission set tentatively a special meeting on December 6, 2004 to adopt the Resolution and approved the Report to City Council recommending Landmark designation of the building at 2408 Orrington. III. REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) Evanston Preservation Commission November 16, 2004 —Minutes Page 2 1. 1620 Orrington Avenue (Landmark) — New signage for ice cream shop requires special use [Alteration/Special Use] Michael Remollet, ov.-ner of Cafe Ambrosia, presented plans for the installation of an awning for his cafe business at 1620 Orrington Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Remollet said that the ne%v av,-ning is in color green and it will not change the storefront. The name of the business will go on the edge of the awning. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for special use are A and C. Thomas Prairie moved to recommend the special use for 1620 Orrington to change the signage of the awning as it meets standards: A) is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and it does not adversely affect the architecture or integrity of the landmark, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1319 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — demolish existing pool house, construct new pool house and an in -ground swimming pool [Demolition/Construction) Lynn Cole, owner, presented plans to rebuild a cabana/pool house and an existing in -ground swimming pool at 1319 Forest Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Cole said the materials are the same materials that are on the house; and that they had simplified the roof line to not compete with the house. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the standards for demolition of the existing fiber glass pool house are 1 through five. Neal Vogel moved to approve the demolition of the existing structure since: 1) it is not of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural or architectural character of the district, 3) its demolition will not be contrary to the purpose or intent of this Chapter and the objectives of historic preservation, 4) the structure is not of such old or unusual or uncommon design that it can not be reproduced, and 5) the owner has plans to replace the structure. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Brugliera said that the applicable standards for construction of the new pool house are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 16. Ms. Cole said that she did not talk to the neighbors about the project. She mentioned that the height is slightly higher than the existing pool house. Mr. Vogel moved to approve the construction at 1913 Forest Avenue because: 1) the height is visually compatible with the adjacent properties and structures, 3) the proportion of openings and the relationship of window heights and doors is compatible with the existing property and structures, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street is compatible with adjacent properties and structures, 7) the Fm choice of materials used for the new construction is compatible and relates to the existing home,° Evanston Presma6on Con=iission November 16, 2004 —Minutes Page 3 8) the roof shape also follows the same profile and it is %isually compatible to the existing home, 10) the scale of the pool house and the massing of it is in relation to the existing structure and well scaled and proportioned to the home, 12) the original qualities or character of the property will not be destroyed by the new construction, 13) the archaeological resources will be preserved, and 16) the Commission did not impose a requirement for a single architectural style. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1217 Maple Avenue (Landmark) — Demolish rear entrance and rebuild entrance, new parch and stairs and lower bottom of existing windows [Demolition/Alteratioul Susan Rundle recused from discussion and vote on this project since she is the architect. Anita Philipsbom, owner, and Susan Rundle, architect presented plans to demolish a rear entrance and rebuild the entrance, construct a new porch and stairs and lower bottom of existing windows at 1217 Maple Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Ms. Rundle said that her client has the end unit of the row houses on Maple. The porch detail, except for the dentils is similar to what is being proposed for the back. The back porches are severely deteriorated. The proposed porch is going a foot more in each direction; the same materials are being used, wood windows, the same style door, and the same detail. The window in the kitchen is the same, except taller. There will be peers under the deck. Mary Brugliera said that the applicable standards for demolition are 1 through 5. Ms. Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the rear entrances and porch at 1217 Maple in that it meets standards: 1) they is not of such historic and architectural significance that their demolition will be detrimental, 2) they do not contribute to the historic and architectural character of the district, 3) the demolition is not contrary to purpose of this Chapter and objectives of preservation of the district, 4) they are not unusual or of uncommon design that they could be reproduced, and 5) the owner has plans for replacement. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, I abstention. Mary Brugliera said that the standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Ms. Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 1217 Maple for the lengthening of the east kitchen window and construction of new rear entrance porch and stairs an that it meets standards: 1) adapting the property in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) distinguishing original qualities are not destroyed, 3) alteration that have no historical basis are discouraged, 5) distinctive stylistic features are treated uith sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced when possible; necessary replacement should match the material, composition, design color texture and other visual qualities, 9) contemporary design is not discouraged, and 10) the additions could be removed without harming the integrity of the building itself. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention. E%-azuton Preservation Commission November 16, 2D0 f — Minutes Page 4 4. 925 Edgemere Court (LSHD)— Demolish existing house (advisory review requested) [Demolition] Realtor said that the property has been in the market for a year. John VasiIian, architect addressed the five standards for demolition: 1) The structure does not possess any historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance. There is no information on record as to the architect or the builder 2) The structure does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the district. In evaluating that point, they looked at the houses in the neighborhood as well as the stzndards for new construction; that shed some light on the intent of the ordinance. The height and proportion of the building's fagade; it is a low horizontal home and it creates a definite break in the otherwise fairly uniform rhythm of the size and massing of homes on the street as illustrated in the provided photographs. The horizontal proportions of the building's openings are unique for the house on the street. Some of the windows on the house have high window sills, whereas the window sills of other houses are lower. Mr. Vasilian said the house is a 1950's modern house with flat low line roof, the only house like that on the street. It is not particularly a good iteration of that design style. Other houses on the block have third level spaces, a variety of roof shapes, steep roof pitches. The demolition of the house it would not be the removal of anything integral to the fabric of the street. 3) Everything that is known about the purpose and intent of the Evanston Historic Preservation ordinance is consistent with the removal of the house, and 4) The structure is not unusual or does not consist of any examples of craftsmanship; nothing about this home could not be reproduced by contemporary means and methods. There is no art glass, special wood work. It appears to be a rather plain interpretation of the 19505 modern = design. They feel that this house is not an important part of the fabric of Edgemere Court or the historic district. Neal Vogel moved that the Commission's opinion is that the house at 925 Edgemere Court is not a historical, cultural or architectural significance. There is no apparent distinctive historic, cultural or architectural significance, unless research proves otherwise. Demolition of the structure will not be contrary to the objectives of historic preservation or the Lakeshore District. The proposed demolition would not eliminate any unusual or uncommon design or texture or material as to compromise the character of the district. There are plans for replacement on such prime piece of real estate within the next five years. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioners concurred that they will not object to the demolition of the house at 925 Edgemere Court. Chris Carey asked for a straw poll for the demolition. Straw poll: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Prese ation Commission November 16, 2004 —Minutes Page S IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 100 Greenwood Street (LSHD) — Construct new 2-112 story single family home and brick wall rewiring fence variance [Construction/Fence Variance] Peter Gluck, architect presented drawings for the construction of a two-story and a half single family home at 100 Greenwood Street. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Gluck presented drawings showing more materials, also pictures of the type of windows to be used, and a model showing what they were proposing and what might be built on the site. Nfr. Gluck said that his firm has done work in sensitive areas and that his firm is of modernist architects. He said that they spent a lot time tr}ing to make a sensitive building that would fit into the community. Mr. Gluck said that they are aware of the objections to the project because of the modern style of the house. Mr. Gluck referred to the drawings and model to explain the concept of leaning the corner of the site open. He referred to a Japanese concept of "steal the view" allowing the public steal the view up as people come down the street. Mr. Gluck pointing to the model said that the proposed house is smaller than what might be built on the site. He said that a traditional style house would not be a better solution than what they propose on the site. Peter Gluck talked about the proposed brick wall on the eastern and northern sides of the site that would continue an existing wall on Greenwood Street. Mr. Gluck said that the mostly glass wall on the east fagade of the house would have a series of shutters that would move to adjust the sun light. Mr. Carey asked if the shutters would be operated with a timer. Mr. Gluck said no. He noted that the shutters would stack on each other and would be on tracks. The proposed design showed the shutters on the exterior, but they could be in the interior. Mr. Gluck said that they had not detailed the shutters to that degree, but the shutters would be wood. The glass on the windows would be as clear as they could make it depending on the energy code. They tried to use as little reflective glass as possible. Mr. Gluck showed an elevation of the house viewed from Lake Michigan. The proposed design provides a semi-public space between the public beach area and the brick wall. Mr. Gluck said that in response to a comment about reflectivity of glass, there is an existing house nearby that has a huge glass fagade. He said that the proposed design is similar to that house. Continuing with his presentation, Mr. Gluck showed photographs depicting the proposed house in the winter without foliage and one photograph in the summer with the foliage. Other elevations of the proposed house showed the west wall with additional windows on the first floor. Mr. Gluck referred again to the model and elevations to emphasize what they proposed and what might be built in accordance with the zoning regulations which in their opinion would not be beneficial to the community. Peter Gluck said that the proposed Mahogany windows Showed the warmth of that kind of an expression on the proposed building. He also showed the proposed windows on an addition to a Evanston Presen-ation Commission Notiembcr 16, 2004 —Minutes Page 6 traditional house. Chris Carey asked about the materials on the north fagade. Mr. Gluck said that the grid pattern on the north fagade is face brick, the brick walls could be built in panels or in place. He said that the walls are a veneer system done with either clips or with mastics. The house could be either steel or wood frame, most likely steel frame. Mary Brugliera asked about the material on the lower west elevation. Mr. Gluck said that the material would be stucco. Susan Rundle asked about the fence. Mr. GIuck said that there was a wall where the new wall is being proposed. Mr. Carey noted that the fence variations are for the height, the opacity and the distance for the front yard setback. Ms. Rundle clarified that the front yard is the Greenwood side. Mary Brugliera asked about the differences in grade between the former Lakeshore Boulevard (now parking lot), the grassy space, and the 3' elevation on the brick wall (west of it). Mr. Gluck said that the wall and the driveway will stay at the same elevation. There would be a berm there that will go all the way back to the lot line of the adjacent house where there would be an additional berm. In response to Ms. Brugliera's comment, Mr. Gluck said that one would not see the house from the cast side, except the upper floor because the wall is in the way. Anne Dienncr asked about the proposed flat roof. Mr. Gluck said that there are different types of houses on the same block and at different scales. They chose to show the one existing house in the vicinity that has a flat roof to illustrate that they were trying to make the scale and the proportions of the new house conform as much as possible to the surrounding community, giving the fact that it varies tremendously in terms of scale and proportion. Mr. Gluck noted that there is a huge variety among the existing traditional and eclectic buildings. Emily Guthrie said that what is being proposed is about 70 percent of what might be built on the site. Mr. Gluck said with a pitched roof building one could go a lot higher than with the proposed flat roof. Mr. Gluck said that they have been trying to accommodate to the immediate neighbor, noting that he would not be happy with a house being built in front of him either. He said that it was understandable the neighbor's concerns. Mr. Gluck said that they would like to —_ get an indication as to how the Commission feels about the proposed house. Susan Rundle said that the issues in front of the Commission are: the variance for the fence, construction of the fence, and construction of the house. She asked if the Commission would like to discuss the fence or hear from, the public first. The Commission agreed to hear from the public. Katie Stallcup of 144 Greenwood said that even though she was not happy with the proposed house, it is the owvner's right to build the house. She said that they are looking forward to welcoming new people to the neighborhood. She said that on the other hand, it is a historic district; it is a very important part of an important historic district. The very different structure that is being proposed needs to be seriously considered. She found interesting that the discussion is on the agenda right after the proposed demolition of 425 Edgemere Court, which was described as a flat roof, horizontally oriented house that did not fit with the neighborhood, and that the Commission agreed. Evanston Preservation Commission November 16, 2;;< — Minutes Page 7 Nis. Stallcup said the proposed house has a flat roof, horizontally oriented house. In her opinion the house is not compatible in ten of the thirteen standards (there are seventeen standards for new construction]. Regarding the proposed wall, his. Stallcup said that for the thirteen years she has been living in her home, she has never seen any incursion into what is an empty lot, or any one crossing over the existing wrought iron fence. Nis. Stallcup assumed that owners of the property immediately south of the proposed house would continue to be satisfied with the wrought iron fence. She said that on Edgemere Court there is a house that borders Lee Street Beach and they have a wrought iron fence, separating their back yard from a public beach. Ms. Stallcup said that the point of the historic district is to preserve the fabric of the neighborhood. Essentially all of the neighbors on Greenwood Street and Dempster Street and many people from around Evanston who use the lakefront feel that the proposed house would severely disrupt the continuity of the neighborhood. When the Blocks bought the lot, they knew the requirements and obligations of being in a historic district, and they live in a historic district now. They new of the proximity of the public beach and the parking area and they knew the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which is strictly enforced in terms of walls in the front yard of houses. Ms. Stallcup mentioned some of her friends who wanted to build front yard fences and not allowed to do so because Evanston has a strongly enforced policy of not being a town of walled compounds. She said that allotting a wall in front of the house would be out of the character of Evanston. Ms. Stallcup said that if there is a wall built along the eastern edge of the Block's property, then it would look pretty "funky" walking down the beach front, because there is no intention of building a similar wall in front of the Rosembloom property. There would be 100' plus of wall and then reversing to a wrought iron fence. The Friends of the Lakefront Historic District distributed at the September Commission's meeting a response to the Block's booklet. Eileen Henderson of 115 Dempster Street recommended that they be in touch with the architect that did their house. his. Stallcup introduced Chris Mikus, architect, who has worked with the Commission. Mr. Mikus has done contemporary and historic type work and he would speak to some of the standards that the Commission will consider for the proposed house. Chris Mikus, architect said that he worked with the Hendersons on the design (addition) to the Emest Mayo house at 115 Dempster Street. Regarding the standards of appropriateness he said that while the Commission may not impose a particular style or period, it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Mr. Mikus said that the proposed house is not compatible with the other houses in the Lakeshore Historic District. He mentioned that the proportion of the front facade of the proposed house is 24' wide and it is 35' high. The neighbor to the west is 60' wide and 45' high. He wonder where is the compatibility. On the subject of proportion of openings, the proposed house has panelized with similar size openings of glass and brick. Most of the housed in the historic district are punched openings in large massive walls of masonry. Regarding the rhythm of solid to voids on the front facade, the proposed house has an asymmetric ribbon type window that is located on the third floor. The rest of the facade that faces Greenwood is brick, and glass wraps around on the west elevation, and it looks to be recessed from the rest of the facade of the house. In most of the other houses in the historic district, the windows are divided lights. It is hard to tell from the information provided tonight whether the windows are compatible with the other houses in the neighborhood. The standard Evanston Preservation Commission November 16, 2004 — Minutes Page 8 addressing the rhythm of entrances, porches and other projections, states that the relationship of entrance shall be visually compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Mikus asked how is this achieved on this house? The front door is Iocated at the back of the house. How is the house compatible with the neighborhood if the front door is at the back, he asked. Chris Mikes referred to the standard for roof shapes, noting that the proposed roof is flat. The majority of houses in the neighborhood are pitched roofs, he said. Referring to the issue of preserving the integrity of the Lakeshore Historic District, Mr. Mikus said that when he presented the Henderson's addition, Commission members expressed concern over the proposed addition. They asked then: are the glass lights truly divided or are they simulated; what is the color of the windows; what is the color of the glass; and what is the material of windows. Is proposed brick running bond or is it stacked bond? Even the mortar was discussed for the Hendersons project. Every detail was discussed so that the character and integrity of the historic district is preserved. Mr. Mikus said that the Henderson's addition was part of the original design of the house. Ms. Brugliera asked if the addition being mentioned was to an existing landmark. Mr. Mikus said yes. He said that the addition was based on sketches done by Ernest Mayo back at the turn of the century. Mr. Carey asked if the Commission was focused more on the materials as they related to the Mayo house or were they talking about those materials as they related to everything else in the district. Mr. Mikus said that it was a combination of both. Ms. Brugliera said that her opinion was that the Commission then was focusing on the house as it was an addition to a landmark. Mr. Mikus said that his point is that there is not enough information as presented today to talk about the level of detail that the Commission has gone into in the past. He said that the Commission does not know whether the louvers would be in the outside or the inside. That has a tremendous impact on what the character of that house would be. Mr. Mikus said that this may be the perfect home for Mr. Gluck's clients, but he did not believe that it is the appropriate site for it. Amy Ryker said that she is an architect who lives in Evanston and practices in Chicago. She spoke in support of the proposed house. She said that it is easy to extrapolate from some of these requirements about the compatibility issues of a certain design of a building. In her opinion the standards have a greater openness to a variety of styles. The points made earlier (by Mr. Mikus) drive to a very specific kind of design solution. Ms. Ryker said that she was impressed by the proposed house because is being designed by Peter Gluck whose reputation from various - journals and publications on architecture is of someone who is sensitive to the needs of landscape, neighboring buildings, and communities. His work experience is from urban =_ _ residences to rural settings. Mr. Gluck is proposing a special kind of siting on the comer of the Lake, probably the only one of its kind in Evanston. Ms. Ryker said that compatibility has to do both with the overall scale. The proposed house is very modest as most of Peter Gluck's work is. The proposed house relates to the neighboring buildings contextually, not in an imitation of the - rhythm of windows or an exact copy of roof lines, but it relates with the materials such as glass, brick, wood framed windows, and stucco. Ms. Ryker said that the proposed house is perfectly compatible with almost every one of the neighboring buildings. Even though the rhythm of _ windows and the roof line may not be echoing exactly the neighboring buildings, part of the - interest of the historic district is that it evolves over time, and the variety of buildings represent E%inston Preservation Cor=nission November 16, 2004 -- N int t_-s Page 9 historic buildings at different points in time. She said that we are living in the early part of the century, modem architecture is being around over 100 years and they are many successful examples of buildings that respond to almost in a dialogue with their neighbors rather than any land of cartooning or mimicking the forms that were built in the past. Nis. Ryker said that Peter BIock's architecture has impressed her not only because it's kind of sensitive and sometimes challenging relationship to its immediate context, but he is also a really high quality architect. There are projects where the overall form seemed to echo almost in a ca,rtoony way neighboring buildings, and mimicking in form but not in detail. Mr. Gluck has a high degree of control over the construction process and Ms. Ryker was confident that the proposed house will be beautifully built building. At this time Mary Brugliera quoted standard 16: "In considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility." Ed Kuczmarski of 1430 Sheridan Road said the site in question is directly on their view and that the issue is about style. He said that he appreciates the historic district and he referred to an area by Forest Avenue where a mansion was torn down and two houses went up perhaps in the 1950s. He said that they are opposed to the style of the proposed house and it does not fit with the style of the neighborhood. He said that this area is almost a gateway for people that come down to the beach and the park. Mr. Kuczmarski said that it is nice to have the integrity of the district and not to have a building that is jarring and modern sitting there. He believed that other neighbors had the same opinion. Ms. Brugliera asked if a new house has to be an old looking house to make Mr. Kuczmarski comfortable. Mr. Kucsmarski said yes. `real Vogel said that he did not hear that. He said that there seems to be a lot of issues being raised about what the alternative to this is, if this house is not built. What is the alternative for the house that is going to be accepted or whether it matches the Tudor or Queen Style? He said that he did not think that is what was on the table at all. The Commission does not know what the alternative is. Mr. Vogel said the Commission should focus on what the proposal is. tiir. Carey called additional names but Ms. Stallcup said that the neighbors did not want to speak but show their opposition to the project. Barry Albers of 200 Dempster read his letter in support of the application for approval. He noted that he admired Evanston as a community of landmark homes. The Blocks contemplate a new home, one of contemporary design conceived by the nationally acclaimed architect, Peter Gluck. It may become a landmark of the twenty-first century. The design of the house does specifically reprise the nineteen century and the twenty century designs of the neighboring residences. That is the reason to respectfully submit to the Commission to embrace the Gluck design, not to abort its birth. Mr. Albers believes that the Commission will diminish itself if it were to lend its discretion and authority to the effort to confine the Blocks vision of the twenty first century residence to the formulas of past centuries. He noted the dynamic nature of Evanston's architectural tradition call for the opposite approach. Mr. Albers said that his own home might had inspired the same sense of unease that the proposed uew house has. E%-anston Preservation Commission November 16, 2004 - Minutes Page 10 Mr. Albers urged the Commission to approve the BIocks application and in doing so, to preserve Evanston's tradition of celebrating landmark historic residences as we move fully now into the twenty first century. Penny Block said that one of the reasons why they «-ere fortunate that Peter Gluck was willing to undertake the project was because they had fell in love with the architecture that Mr. Gluck has done along the Lake in the Chicago area as well as other parts of the United States. Aside from the aesthetics, they appreciated Mr. GIuck's respect of the surrounding homes, the site and the public access. Ms. Block said that they have done a number of changes in order to make it less difficult for people to feel that it could be abs�orbed in the neighborhood in response to some of the neighbors' concerns. Isis. Bloch said that there were two people who could not to come this evening in support of the application. Keith Block said that they have two entrance ways, one is on south side and one is on the north side which is the main entrance to the house. fir. Block said that they were very careful to not overwhelm the public area. The property could have a house that completely overwhelms the bike path, the walk/running path. The house could be 45' high instead of 35' high and it could take up considerably part of the property and overwhelmed it. Mr. Block said that the fence is not in the front yard, it is in the side yard. The brick wall is to add some privacy for the yard; othenvise they would have surf boards right on their side yard. Mr. Block said the idea of copying a style that was done 100 to 200 years ago, will look and feel just like that, not adding anything to where architecture has gone; nor does it add an)Ihing to the public access to the property. Mr. Block said that they have tried to work with the neighbors, but building a larger house would work against Evanston. Chris Carey asked how the house would be accessed from Greenwood. Mr. Block said that there is an entrance way along the fence. Susan Rundle clarified that earlier she did not vote for the demolition of 925 Edgemere because it was a flat roof or because it not belong in the neighborhood. Her vote in favor of demolition was because the house is not a great example of that kind of architecture nor is a contributing structure to the neighborhood. Mary Brugliera said that it was the architect that referred to the horizontality of the house and the flat roof, not the Commission. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the fence issue is well knoivn. Regarding the house she said that she still had many questions such as the north elevation, she did not understand the front door location. Carlos Ruiz recommended that the Commission review the house first as the primary issue, then the fence. Mr. Carey said that the applicant will not build a fence if they do not have a house. Neil Vogel said that he found interesting what he heard from all angles saying that the standards cannot be met, that one could not create cutting edge architecture and meet the standards at the same time. He said that the standards did not mean that to him. He believed that the standards can be met and still come up with cutting edge architecture. Susan Rundle said that the standards for the Mayo house were standards for something that needed to match, and on this case, there is Ev=ton Presma6on Commission November 16, 2004 — Ntinuzes Page 11 a new house. She said that the standards for contemporary architecture are a little more subjective than they would be for a traditional house. Mary Brugliera said that the Commission should look at what the evolved elements of contemporary architecture are. Contemporary architecture tends to be horizontal, quite rectangular, flat roof, asymmetrical, entrances tucked into the house, rather than in the middle, and more windows rather than fewer. Susan Rundle said that because the house is in a historic district, the Commission has the standards for review. Mr. Brugliera said that she was referring to the common elements of contemporary architecture. fir. Vogel said that he has not seen continuity in contemporary design since the advent of the International Style. Mr. Vogel said that the standards can be applied effectively to a modern designed structure in relation to a historic district, and achieve a design of cutting edge architecture. One could find something that it would be compatible to the historic district and acceptable to most of the neighbors and at the same time do something that speaks of 2004 and 2005 and set itself apart. The real question is if the proposed house does that or not. Mr. Vogel said that he keeps thinking of the Guggenheim Museum (New York. City), he loves the Guggenheim but it is on the wrong corner. Mr. Carey referred to standards for review of construction: (1) Height. Height shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visibly related. Mr. Vogel said that they have shown that the building is not too high and it reasonably relates to the neighborhood height wise. He said that all the standards would be difficult to apply on such interesting design. He said that the design has gotten better every time. Thomas Prairie said that he was not unhappy vdth the height and the siting. The building is held back from the corner and it is low enough that is not going to be a massive entity on the corner site. One would get continuity of view from the park along the Lake. Anne Dienner said that the footprint is a good idea. (2) Proportion offront facade. 21 e relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation shall be i sually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related. Mr. Vogel said that the challenge was identifying the front elevation. The neighbors seem to have that difficulty. It was mentioned that there are two entrances to the home. Commissioners discussed the relationship of the proposed house with the house immediately to the south. Ms. Dienner said that there appears to be a kind of a jolt between the proposed house and the neighboring house to the south. Ms. Dienner considered the open lawn area as the front of the house. Mr. Carey said that the one structure that is closer to the street is part of the front facade, and as it turns then that section becomes part of the front fagade. (3) Proportion of openings. The relationship of the width to height of windows and doors shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which the building is v7sually related. Evarsoa Presrn-at on Commission \orembcr 16.2004 -Minutes pas- 12 Mr. Vogel said that the project has been improved from its initial design but he still sees a glass building. Nir. Carey said that the standard is unfriendly to modern architecture. Mr. Vogel said that between the fence and the walls of the house that there seems to be a contradiction between wanting to gain privacy by building the fence and yet there is a glass house. Ms. Brugliera said that the fence provides physical privacy from wonderers into the yard. 4ir. Vogel said that he was concerned Nvith the relationship of the fenestration to the majority of houses that form the district and gave the district the quality that is part of its nomination and designation. He said that there are good arguments on both sides, he said that if one of the Commissioners could come to the defense that the project is in proportion of openings he would like to hear about it. Mr. Prairie said that there is a house on Greenwood to the west, and the fenestration of the proposed house does not look that off in proportion compared to that house. Mr. Vogel said that there is no roof plane once one looks above the cave line. He said that tips the scale to a greater proportion of window opening to wall or lack there off. Ms. Dicnner was concerned about the flat roof because of the climate of the area. Mr. Gluck said that fiat roofs have evolved and they are fine. \fr. Prairie said that the he found that the m-indows were compatible with the neighboring structures in an individual basis. Ms. Brugliera and Ms. Rundle agreed. Mr. Vogel said that he had a problem with the louvers (because they are movable). Ms. Rundle referring to the north elevation had a problem identifying the front door of the house. Mr. BIock showed the main door on the north elevation. Ms. Rundle said that as it appears now, the design meets standard 3. Emily Guthrie referred to the elevations and said that it appears that there is a band across the top of the exterior material. The Commission agreed that the windows seemed to be full height. Mr. Vogel said that the elevations soften the window sizes more graphically than it would be in real life. Mr. Vogel asked Mr. Gluck if the windows are floor to ceiling and the dimension of the mullions.:Nir. Gluck said that the mullions would be 2.5" to 3" by 4" or 5" deep in plan. Mr. Gluck said that the windows height including the transoms above would be 9.5' high. Mr. Gluck said that the idea is that it would be a dynamic facade that will change from time to time. Some of the louvers would be fixed and some of them would not be fixed. Mr. Gluck said that as proposed the louvers would be on the outside. Mr. Vogel said that if the louvers are moved inside it would be disastrous in terms of the relationship of glass. Mr. Carey said that it also adds another texture in terms of the wood windows and its relationship to Tudor houses. (4) Rhy-thm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in thefront facade of a structure shall be visually compatible ivith properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related. Emily Guthrie said that the west elevation has benefited from the additional fenestration. Mr. Carey said that it is difficult to apply standard 4 because the opposites between traditional and modem architecture. Mr. Vogel said that standard 4 is about cadence, that there would not be a solid wall, or three windows off balanced on the side of a house and a big massive wall. There should be some kind of cadence and Iogic to it, does not have to have symmetry, but there is a proportion with an opening with an equal proportion of mass. Mr. Vogel referring to the proposed louvers as a solid said that they are very transparent solid. He did not feel that the louvers were solid. Mr. Vogel said that the rhythm is whether one Evanston Presewation Commission Itiovcuber 16, 2004 —Minutes Page 13 accepts the louvers in relationship to the glass, and whether the louvers are.accepted as a solid to a void or not. Nfr. Vogel said a front fagade is a primary fa;ade, a street fagade. He would consider the east elevation also a front fagade. Mr. Carey asked if the front door could be seen on the north elevation. Mr. Block said that the entrance is in the inside of the "L" but on the north facing wall. Mr. Gluck said that the standards do not make accommodation to a comer house. Mr. Vogel said that it was a very good point. Mr. Gluck said that it is a design problem throughout. They have considered that this is a corner site, and trying to make a corner building the same as a mid block building does not make any sense. Mr. Vogel agreed. Mr. BIock said that he considers the property a corner site and it has to be interpreted as being a corner site and there are two front elevations. Mr. Carey said that the Commission could take into consideration the cast and north elevations. Mr. Carey said that it was interesting that the three-story section is right on the street where it should have been setting and stepping back.:,fr. Gluck said that the reason for that is that a normal entrance is often a tall area if one looks at the adjacent homes. Mr. Block clarified again where the two entrances were on the north and south elevations. Mr. Vogel asked his fellow Commissioners if standard 4 was met by the proposed house. There was no consensus one way or the other. (5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space bent-een it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the properties, strttctttres, sites, public ways, objects, and places to tivhich it is visually related. Ms. Brugliera said that standard 5 was met. Ms. Rundle concurred adding that the house does address the corner, it is consistent of how is spaced in relationship to the neighboring properties. The house is open to the corner and the Lake. Commissioners agreed that standard 5 was met. (6) Rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sideivalla shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which it is visually related Mr. Vogel said that the standard refers to some change in the wall. Traditional doorways project announcing their presence, or recess back for coverage from the elements. In this particular case, the owner had to show the Commission where the door is because the illustrations available don't show where is the front door. He said that the project does not meet the rhythm in relationship to other homes in the area. Mr. Gluck said that is not the case, because there are many of the houses where one could not find the front door. Mr. Vogel said that the problem is comparing the proposed house to its very immediate neighbors, instead of looking at the full scope of the district. Mr. Prairie said that to him "visually related" means houses that are visible in the proximity or contiguous to it. Mr. Gluck said that the north wall is equivalent to the entry figure and it does have an overhang. He said that he would not make a whole on a historic wall to access the front door. He would go around the wall to access the front door. How one enters a corner building is always complicated. Evanston Preservation Commission November 1 b, 2004 -Minutes Page 14 Mr. Carey said that there is not an accurate elevation of the house. Mr. Vogel said that the Commission is having a hard time applying the standards because of it. Mr. Gluck said that there is a lot of work to be done in the house; they would spend about a year designing and detailing a house. He said that relative to the kind of projects that are presented, the Commission has a good idea of what the building is going to tool: like. Mr. Vogel said that a major characteristic of a historic district is that is embracing a cultural lifestyle. Commissioners noted that there are other homes that do not have always the main entrance on the front elevation. Mr. Prairie said that he would like to see a little more delineation of what the north elevation is going to look like. 7) Relationship of materials and torture. The relationship of the materials and terture of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the structures to which it is visually related. The Commission agreed that the building materials met standards 7 (brick, glass, wooden windows, and stucco). Mr. Vogel asked a question about the metal railing on the top of the building. Mr. Gluck said that the railing has to be detailed. Mr. Vogel said that he has not seen any other metal railings on roof tops. Mr. Gluck said that the railing would not be bright reflective or white. The Commission concurred that the predominant materials would relate to the structures to which is visually related. (8) Roof shapes. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the structures to which it is visually related. Mr. Vogel said that in his view the flat roof has the most dramatic impact and that the house did not have a pitched roof. Although the applicants have identified a couple exemptions that do relate to it, the bulk of the district by far does not. Ms. Guthrie said that the modem structures have flat roofs such as the ones on Sheridan Road, and the house at I014'.liichigan is flat. Mr. Prairie agreed that the house does not meet standards 8, but at the same time, he was not concerned about it. He said after the house is built people arc going to look at the house and not concentrate on the flat roof. Mr. Carey said that if walking down the street one gets an overall sense of the district for that area. Mr. Vogel said if the house was in Miami, it would fit right in. (9) Walls of continuity. Facades and property and site structures, such as masonry walls, fences, and landscape masses, shall, when it is a characteristic of the area, form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street, to ensure visual compatibility with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which such elements are visually related. (The Commission determined that standard 9 does not apply to the design of the house] (10) Scale of a structure. The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches, and balconies shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually related. Mr. Vogel said that the proposed house is smaller, but is doing a favor to its neighbors, and its being gracious to its neighbors by being smaller. Ms. Rundle said that site plan shows the "U, Eramton Presen•ation Con nission November 16, 2004 — :Minutes Page Is the length of the mass that is there is certainly compatible to the rest. Commissioners agreed that the proposed house met standard 10. (11) Directional expression of front elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible xith the properties, structures, sites, public brays, objects, and places to which it is visually related in its directional character, whether this be vertical character, hori:ontal character, or nondirectional character. Ms. Brugliera said that it is compatible, and the question is what direction the elevation was expressing itself. Ms. Dienner said that the proposed walkway it may provide more emphasis to [he main entrance. Mr. Vogel said that for a corner site the house %isually expresses itself to two different directions and that is what a corner building should do. The vertical emphasis and horizontality are counter balancing each other, the mass feels right. The verticals counter act the horizontal creating a nice balance. (12) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. 77ie alteration of any historic or material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided x,hen possible. [The Commission determined that standard 12 does not apply to the design of the house] (13) Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. [The Commission did not discuss standard 13 at this time] (14) Contemporary design for additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural or architectural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. [The Commission determined that standard 14 does not apply to the design of the house] (15) ik7zerever possible, new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. [The Commission determined that standard 15 does not apply to the design of the house] (1 S) In considering new construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. The Commission concurred that this was a direction to the Commission and that they did not impose a single architectural style for the new house. (17) Signs. Any sign that is readil}• visible from a public street shall not be incongruous to the historic character of the Landmark or the District. Recommendations regarding signs are advisory only and may be referred to the Sign Review and Appeals Board for consideration. [The Commission determined that standard 17 does not apply to the design of the house] Evanston Preservation Commission November I6, 2004 -:Minutes Page 16 .\Is. Brugliera said that the Commission agreed that the project meet standards 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 and I6. Mr. Carey said that this is an attempt to deal with a difficult project. The standards should not be considered a score card. Any Commissioner could make a motion to either approve or not approve an application based on one or all criteria. It there are standards that are not met, a Commissioner making a motion does not have to use those in a motion. tiir. GIuck said that he assumed that there vas some possibility of passing the project, but it does require more time and more work and there is some encouragement for it. If there is not encouragement they would really like to be discouraged about the project. Ms. BrugIiera said that it Iooked to her that there is some information that the Commission needs in certain portions and that is what the Commission .vould want. She did not think that there was any major change that the Commission has proposed in terms of the house. Mr. Carey asked what direction the Commission was trying to give to the applicant. Mr. Vogel said that the proposed house has come a long way from the first time he saw it, but he did not like it at all. Now he is starting to like the house a lot, but he still does not like it on the site and in the district. He wished the house was a few blocks away and not in a historic district. He though that the owners and the neighbors have a valid case. He said that the house does not belong in the district. Mr. Prairie said that he did not agree with Mr. Vogel. He was not ready to say that he would vote for it, but at the same time he would not say that he would vote against it. He would like to see more detail on it. `ghat the Commission typically sees for additions and new construction is more detailed than it was given to the Commission. However, the Commission knows what the materials would be, and how they relate well. Mr. Gluck said that all they asked is the candor that the Commissioners had just shown. Susan Rundle agreed with Mr. Prairie and disagreed with Mr. Vogel. Mr. Vogel said that a contemporary house could be located in the historic district. He disagreed with the notion that a cutting edge design could not be built with the current standards. But the house still does not — feel like it belongs on the particular site. Ms. Diener concurred with Mr. Vogel. Ms. Guthrie said that she like the house better than when she did first. She does not like modern structures. In her opinion is not realistic to expect that all people Kill think the way she does. She noted that the owners came with a different approach. The proposed house is austere and quite stark and it is a contrast, but that is what modern houses are. She said that the Commission _ could demand a house that would look old. She noted that she liked the louvers and there could be more things that the architect could do that will bring the design further along. Ms. Diener said that the siting of the structure on the lot was great. Mr. Vogel agreed with Ms. Dimmer. Mr. Carey said that he does not oppose modem architecture; he does not doubt the quality of Mr. Gluck's work at all. Mr. Carey said that the issue is how the house is visually related to the neighborhood and the district. He said at this time he could not see the house fitting in. Evanston Preservation Commission November 16, 2004 —?Minutes Page 17 Mr. Ruiz noted that standard 16 "In considering nest, construction, the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural snde or period, though it may impose a requirement far contpatibilifJ,. " He said that the Commission may require compatibility. The standard is very flexible in that regard. fir. Vogel said if the Commission did not impose compatibility here, where the Commission would impose it. He said that this is a very important site. Mr. Carey said that he would not favor a traditional design as shown on the model. He said that the massing was close but is not compatible enough «ith the other part to which is visually related. Mr. GIuck said that it is very difficult to do the massing as proposed with traditional shapes and forms. Mr. Gluck said that he could not conceive a project meeting the standards and not being a representative of styles or not being a postmodern re -interpretation of an amalgam of styles. Mr. Gluck asked the Commission consider the design as a legitimate perspective in terms of the Commission's view of the historic district. The value of buildings in historic districts is de -valued by trying to recreate those shapes and forms in this time. He said that he could design a house that would look like as a traditional house but the level of detail would not be achieved. He said that there is an alternative to design a good building in its own terms that respects the scale, the shapes, the site planning in Evanston, and it would encourage good things to be built. Mr. Vogel asked if it would be possible for the applicant to tall: to the three Commissioners not present tonight to get a general feel from nhere they are at with the project. Mr. Ruiz said that it would have to be in a public forum. They would also need the minutes. Mr. Vogel said that the strong opposition of the neighbors has had an effect on him. If there was strong support of the house throughout, he would reconsider where he is at now. Ms. Guthrie said that [the neighbors' opposition] is not part of the standards. Mr. Vogel asked how the general public interprets the standards without professional help. Mr. Carey said that is why there is public comment. Ms. Brugliera noted that in 1902 when Catherine Grey hired Marion Hunt to tear down a Victorian house at the corner of Ridge and Dempster and built a double house, a very modern house. Can you imagine what the neighbors thought of that, she asked. Today that house is a landmark. The same thing is with Bertrand Goldberg's building on Harrison Street that today is a landmark. Mr. Vogel said that if the proposed house is built and over the years other houses are lost, slowly the continuity and the harmony that is in the district is changed. When people would look at the proposed structure they would think that is allowed, then they would think to do this and that. All of a sudden, the cohesiveness, the reason that the historic district was designated is no Ionger there. If it is defined that is part of Evanston, part of the reason the Lakeshore Historic District exists, are we helping to diffuse it or are we helping to contribute to it, he asked. He continued asking, does the proposed house contribute to it, and is it compatible, does it elevate the district or does it pull something away from its character. Ms. Brugliera said that all of the non-contributing houses that were in the district before it was designated were examples of buildings that were too young or did not have good integrity as a building. Mr. Carey asked if the proposed structure would be considered non-contributing. Mr. Vogel said that for a district, boundaries are defined because there is some kind of cohesiveness within those boundaries. Mr. Vogel said that the proposed building is a reconstituted building; he said that he did a survey for Chicago public schools, and he went to three buildings that look Evanston Preservation Corm; . ssion November 16, 2004 — Minut_-s Page 18 like the proposed house. Ms. Dienner said that there is certain harshness with the design of the house. She felt that there needs to be some softness somewhere in the design, noting that the louvers helped the design. tics. Dienner said that she was not against modern architecture, but in the historic district is another thing. Mr. Gluck said that from what he has heard that there is some hypothetical modem building that possibly in Never Never Land could be designed by some architect. He said in reality the code should say that the Commission does not like modern buildings. fir. Carey said that to the point, modem buildings are not liked in historic districts. He said that he liked the building, but if he did not have to use the standards for the district to assess the house... Ms. Brugliera and Mr. Prairie disagreed with Mr. Carey's point of view. They have the opinion that modern buildings can be in historic district✓. Mr. Gluck said that they surveyed the neighborhood, took the photographs, and they did not make a building with [a pitched roof]. Mr. Gluck said that they tool: the Commission at face value, that the building w-as well conceived and it was making a serious attempt to relate to the neighboring buildings, and that the Commission was not opposed to any particular style. That is what the Ordinance says, but he does not think that is the truth. Mr. Gluck said that as an architect he feels that the building would fit in, in terms of scale and materials, and in many ways it's going to contribute to the block more than what is going to be there. Mr. Vogel asked Mr. Gluck if he has pulling a,vay from the design after the Commission's previews comments. Mr. Gluck said no. He said that all the comments of the community have to do with style. Mr. Vogel asked Mr. Gluck if the site was not in a historic district and with the same budget to work with and the same clients to work with, how that structure would differ from the proposed house. Mr. Gluck said it would not differ because he is always interested in the context, whether the context is in a nasal site or the city. Mr. Vogel said that the standards were then irrelevant. Mr. Gluck said that the standards were not irrelevant, and what was relevant was that the site is in this particular historic district, and it had to do with a multitude of buildings and scales, and all the things already talked about. He said that the standards are very difficult to talk about and they are subjective. Mr. Vogel said he did not visualize on the site a Queen Anne home, a kit home, or a lot of things that could be approved that he would like better that the proposed house. He noted that his personal opinion was that he did not like it on the particular site. ,.is. Brugliera said then that one could have a cutting edge contemporary that Mr. Vogel would like on that site. ',fr. Vogel said that can be done. Mr. Gluck asked Mr. Vogel if he could give him an example of a type of building or a type of architecture that has done that. Mr. Vogel said that he would give it some thought. Mr. Vogel said that if Mr. Gluck were to put the right spin on his design, things that feel restrictive put a greater challenge on what he could do to create. Ms. Guthrie asked if the Commission should review the fence. Mr. Gluck said that from their perspective the fence is mute. Mr. Carey asked if the Commission should take a vote to give the applicants some direction. How much more information is Mr. GIuck going to provide that is really going to change anyone's mind, he asked. Mr. Gluck asked for a vote. Evanston Presmation Commission November 16, 2004 — Minutm Page 19 Mary Brughera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the new house at 100 Greenwood, in that it meets standards I (height), 3 (proportion of openings), 5 (the rhythm of spacing of structures on the streets), 7 (the relationship of materials and textures, all of which are compatible with the structures to which it is visually related), 10 (the scale of a structure), I 1 (the direction on the expression of the front elevation), 13 (protection of archaeological resources), and I6 (the Commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style and the Commission is imposing the requirement for compatibility). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Discussion: Peter Gluck said that they were willing to keep working with the Commission on the design issues previously discussed. Mr. Carey reiterated the motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed new construction of a house at 100 Greenwood and called for the vote. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 3 nays. Mr. Carey said that the motion passed by simple majority vote, and that at this time the Commission, based on its vote, has approved granting the applicant a certificate of appropriateness for the design (of the proposed house]. Mr. Gluck said they would like to keep working and make people as happy as they can be, and continue working in good faith with the community. Mr. Carey said that they still need to deal with the fence variation. Mr. Gluck said that they will come back for the fence in another time, because they will deal with some of the issues with the fence that they were talking about. B. 2408 Orrington; 725 Colfax; 735 Colfax; 2351 Sherman; 2344 Orrington; 2340 Orrington (NEHD) -- Demolition of six structures and construction of new residential structures [Demolition and Advisory Review on Proposed Planned Development] After a brief recess, Mr. Carey announced that Mr. Bernard Citron agreed to continue the hearing for this item to November 30, 2W4 at 7:30 p.m. Regarding the latest distributed plans, Mr. Citron said that there is not going to be a'B' house. The `C' house is in effect the house turned in the other direction. Mr. Citron said that they have been in front of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (SPAARC), but they need to go back to SPAARC because they changed the plan. The new plan is their PUD proposal. Ms. Rundle said that the Commission needs the elevations that are visible from the public way for the November 30 meeting. Mr. Ruiz said had requested a Iegal opinion, if the Commission the Commission did not have enough information to review the demolition that there will not be a reason to continue the meeting. In regard to reclassification of the zoning, the demolition application itself could be dealt because the Commission would have to determine whether not a building meets the standards of demolition, regardless of the zoning. The suggestion to continue the meeting after the City Council's final determination on the proposed Landmark nomination of the building was discussed with Mr. Citron whom agreed with the opinion as far as the demolition is concerned. This is because the Commission has 45 days from the time the application is received to make a E%-anston Presmation Commission November 16, 2004 — :Minutes Pagc 20 determination on whether it meets the criteria. Right now it has been agreed that the date is October 26, 2004, Mr. Citron said that there can't be a final determination of the zoning until the Commission acts and makes its recommendation. Their request is to rezone the property to R4 with a planned unit development. Until the Plan Commission gets the Preservation Commission's recommendation they can't act. The City Council will not rezone the property independently from the PUD. Mr. Ruiz cited Section 2-9-3 (G) 13 and 15 of the Preservation Ordinance and said that the Commission has the power and duty to pro%zde advisory review on PUDs and rezoning cases. Judy Fiske referred to the Cove School PUTD. She said that the Commission and the City Council worked together with the developer in that development. They are asking to divide the Smithfield's project into its components. She emphasized that R-4 rezoning does not have support from the community. She noted that the Commission also has to review over the rezoning of the property. Mr. Citron said that he was not prepared to answer those questions and requested that the hearing be continued to November 30, 2004. At this time Emily Guthrie provided information about property values in the vicinity of Kendall College. V. ADJOURNti1ENT Emily Guthrie moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:15 p.m. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation CbSrdinator I HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF EVANSTON 2100 RIDGE AVENUE EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 60204 November 30, 2004 17 )n P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CHRISTOPHER CAREY, CHAIRMAN MARY BRUGLIERA, MEMBER JORDAN CRAMER, MEMBER ANN DIENNER, MEMBER STANLEY GERSON, MEMBER 1 2 CHAIRMA14 CAREY: We're going to start the meeting. Good evening, everyone. The time is 7:55; p.m. Today is Tuesday, November 30, 2004. I'd like to welcome you to the Evanston Preservation Commission meeting. I'd like to call the meeting to order. We do have a quorum of seven members this evening, and we're going to proceed with old business. First item, actually two items on the agenda, the approval of the Preservation Commission's report recommending to the City Council the desianation of the building at 2408 Orrington as an Evanston landmark and the approval of a Resolution requesting the City Manager transmit the Commission's report regarding the Commission's recommendation to designate the building at 2408 Orrington as an Evanston landmark. We are going to actually continue, or I would like to ask the Commission to make a motion to continue our review of the approvals as there are some conditions that have come up, and I'd like to ask Ellen Szymanski to articulate on that. MS. SZYMANSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I am Ellen Szymanski. It's S-Z-Y-M-A-N-S-K-I, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Evanston. This afternoon I was consulted by Mr. Ruiz on several matters regarding this evening. I reviewed among other things the notice for tonight's meeting as it relates to the approval of the Preservation Commission's report and its companion item, approval of the Resolution asking for the transmission of the report to the City Council. The Open Meetings Act, which the City is subject to, imposes =_ certain restrictions and requirements on all public bodies when it comes to public meetings. The city is a public body. This is a public meeting. Therefore, those requirements must be followed. And the section citation for those who -- it's 5 Illinois Compiled Statutes 120/2.02A. More specifically, with respect to October 26th meeting of the Preservation • Commission, that is when the landmark application was last on the agenda, and I note that the Commission properly continued the meeting because 11 3 it had not yet concluded its task in making a decision. The meeting was continued to November 16th of 2004. On November 16th that item was not on the agenda. Now I understand that it may have been because the report was not ready. That does not matter. The item. was cant:nued from October 26th to November 1-6th. 1't was not on the agenda. Therefore, a person desiring to follow this all the way through would have had no notice as to when the item would have been on the agenda next. Also, it runs contrary to the Open Meetings Act which provides that there had to have been an announcement of the time and puce of the reconvened meeting at the original meeting and there was no charge in the agenda. Well, from October 26th to November 16th there was an announcement of the reconvened meeting, but nothing happened on the 16th, and for that reason I conclude that the notice of tonight's meeting did not meet the statutory requirement, and for that reason, Mr. Chair, I am asking you to make a motion to continue the meeting to a date certain for the completion of your tasks. MR. CITRON: If i can respond in brief. This item appeared on the agenda. This agenda was published I believe more than 48 hours prior to this meeting. With all due respect, I do not agree with Corporation Counsel. This is a properly constituted meeting. The statutory notice that is required for this type of proceeding has been met, and T_ ask therefore that this matter go ahead today, i_' you can show that that agenda was published more than 48 hours. This is not bound by statute as zoning variations and the like are bound. It doesn't require public notice. There was not going to be any public hearings on this matter. This was strictly for you, this Commission, to review and approve the Resolution. That can be done. The interested parties are here today because it's a part of the rest of it, with the companion notice was received. The interested parties are here. That was published more than 49 hours prior to this meeting, therefore the statutory requirements have been met. Thank you. MS. SZY14ANSKI: The information that I have was that public notice was not posted in City Hall. And according to the way I read the Open Meetings Act that is 120l2.02B, it says that, "Public notice be shall be given by posting a copy of the notice at the principle body of the office holding the meeting -- office of the body holding the meeting." That is city hall, and I understand from Mr. Ruiz that no such posting was made. is that correct, sir? MR. FUZZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER DIENNER: Was notice published in the local paper at all? M.R. RUIZ: No, no. C014MISSIONER DIENNER: Okay. CHAIRMAN CAREY: We are speaking specifically about the items 1 and 2 on our agenda? MS. SZYMANSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Which is the approval of the Commission's report? MS. SZYMANSKI: This is on the agenda for the Commission to review and determine whether it .:ill approve. There is -- I think what Counsel was saying was that it was a forgone conclusion, if I understand him correctly. Whether it is or not, it still had to be noticed properly in accordance with the Public Meetings Statute of the state law. CHAIRMAN CAREY: So in effect then we would need to establish a special meeting to review and approve these two items, Commissioners. C01I14ISSIO14ER GERSON: Or it could be on our agenda for the next regular meeting? CHAIRMAN CAREY: It could. The hope is that we could get these issues taken care of in early December so it could get to the City Council for their December 13th discussions. COM14ISSIONER GERSON: I see. MR. RUIZ: If I may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Yes. MR. RUIZ: The original intent was and still is to have this in front of the City Council as an introduction item on December 13th. And because of the public notice requirements, I will ask the Commission to consider having a special meeting for those two items before that meeting is to take place. And further to look at the calendar, to fulfill those requirements, I have here the date of or the week of December 5 6th. If we could have a special meeting on that week or sooner -- but I think that we would require a special notice reouirement, if we could meet on Monday the 6th or Tuesday the 7th, we could still meet the deadline for the December 13th for the City Council. COMMISSIONER BRUGLZE RA: I can do the 6th. COMMISSIONER DIENIJEP: I can do any time. COMMISSIONER BRUGLIERA: What, are you retired? COMMISSIONER GERSON: I'm not available the 6th or the 7th. COMMISSIONER CRAMER: I'm available. CHAIRMAN CAREY: I'm available. COMMISSIONER GIRARD: I think I'm available the 6th. CHAIRMAN CAREY: So Monday is better than Tuesday? COMMISSIONER BRUGLIERA: I can't come Tuesday. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Let's set it up for Monday, December 6th, 7:30 in this room, Room 2403. MR. RUIZ: I don't have the calendar in terms of meeting space. So we will have the continuation of the hearing for the landmark nomination of 2408 on December 6th at 7:30 p.m. in this room, 2403, unless otherwise announced. CHAIRMAN CRAMER: I take it we need a motion? I move that we continue the hearing for the nomination of 2408 Orrington Avenue as an Evanston landmark to a special meeting to be held on Monday, December 6th at 7:30 p.m. COMI-IISSIO14ER BRUGLT_ERi:: Second. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Any discussion? All those in favoz of continuing the meeting to approve the Preservation Commission's report and the Resolution for the nomination of 2408 Orrington as an Evanston landmark say aye. (Chorus of ayes.) All those opposed? Any abstentions? COMMISSIONER DIENN£R: Now, does this cover item 1 and 2? CHAIRMAN CAREY: 1 and 2. MS. SZYMANSKI: Mr. Chair, can you 0 specify by reading it into the record which ones they are. CHAIRMAN CAREY: The following are the two items that have been continued to Monday December 6th, Room 2403 at 7:30 p.m.; the two pieces of business are the approval of Preservation Commission's report recommending to the City Council t^e designation of the building at 2408 Orrington Avenue as an Evanston landmark; and number 2, approval of a Resolution requesting the City Manager transmit the Commission's report regarding the Commission's recommendation to designate the building at 240E Orrington as an Evanston landmark. (Whereupon the public hearing was continued to December 6, 2004, 7 :30 p.m.) 7 STATE OF IiiINOIS ) } S.S. COUNTY O: COOK } T_, DENISE A. ANDRAS, being a Certified Shorthand Reporter doing business in the City of Des Plaines, Illinois, County of Cook, certify that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the foregoing hearing of the above --entitled cause. And I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of all my shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid and contains all the proceedings had at the said meeting of the above -entitled cause. )j At I A 0 eA. AENISE A. ANDRAS, CSR CSR NO. 084-003437 M L SEAL ANDUSTA I OF �jjpupmeto�,m I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO1*11TTEE CITY OF EV NSTON, ILLI&NOIS November 30, 2004 7:30 p.m. CO1414ISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: MR. CHRISTOPHER CAREY, CHAIRMAN MR. MICHAEL GIRARD, Member MS. MARY BRUGLIERA, Member MR. THOMAS PRAIRIE, Member MS. ANN DIENNER, Member MS. SUSAN RUNDLE, Member MR. CRAMER, Member STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: . CARLOS RUIZ, Director of Preservation - RE: 2408 ORRINGTON 2 I CHA IRM:-11 CAP 7-Y . 2408 Orrington, 725 735 Colfax, 2351 __�:zan, 2344 Arrington, 2340 t 2 _-=-ngton, Northeast Evans _sn Historic District de=;lition of six structures and construction of new 3 residential structures, the demolition and advisory review of proposed plan development. 4 C014.14ISSI01JER D=ENITER: Mr. Chairman, the zoning on this property has not been se_. It's still 5 U-1. I don't know why we should discuss anything about this property now until that zoning matter is settled 6 because the appellants are coming in for an R-4. The neighbors seem to want R-1 and it seems to me for us 7 to keep reviewing their plans for what they think, the assumption is they'll get R-4 plan development. I 8 think you are doing things in reverse order. Now, if I'm wrong, somebody correct me. 9 CHAIRMAN CAR EY: Well, we've also discussed that it's difficult to review demolition on 10 a building that is currently nominated as a landmark and subject to review by the City Council and their 11 determination, which may in fact or would in fact effect anyone's review of demolition and the 12 structures on the property. I think it would be best that we continue this hearing and allow City Council 13 to take on our motion for landmarking 2408 Orrington and at which time we will have a clearer .rview of what 14 it is that we are actually reviewing. Ellen, do you have any comment on that? 1s MS. SZY14ANSKI: Yes, Mr. Chair. I would have made the point that you just did. The other 16 point I had is that Mr. Ruiz informed me this afternoon that the Preservation Commission had asked 17 the applicant for additional information, that that information came in some time afternoon last 18 Wednesday. I suggest to you that given it was a holiday weekend, and we've just had two business days 19 since that information was received, that members of the public have not had a full and fair opportunity to 20 review the matters submitted so that they can determine whether they will appear at additional 21 meetings, whether they will advance any argument, whether they will support the applicant, whether they 22 wish to speak in objection to the application. So on that ground also, I believe that a continuance is 23 appropriate to give the public their chance to view the documents which are available in City Hall. 24 MR. CITRON: Mr. Chairman, if I can respond to both matters. On the first one of having -- 25 to do the demolition of 2408, this was first discussed at the October meeting when we started to move forward 3 1 on the Ce_t_:icate of mppropr_ateness. At that time the view wac _aken properly so that since 2408 was a 2 structure located in a historic district, regardless of whether ch_s Commission recor.:nended to make it a 3 landmark or not, it must be treated as if it was a landmark hui?ding. And you said that. And we can 4 pull the transcript. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Let's get the 5 transcript out because I don't recall saying that. MR. CITRON: And the decision was made 6 since it would be treated as a landmark any way whether or not this Commission recommended and in fact 7 on the 26th they did, someone made a motion and it was recommended, and what's being approved now is the 8 report and the resolution that it should be treated as a landmark_. That is the way we understood this was 9 going to go forward on 2408, and that would be the way it would be re.�iewed as if we were demolishing a 10 landmark building. By your own ordinance looks at it that way that if you are demolishing a building in a 11 landmark district that is the way it is treated. So whether or not the City Council acts or doesn't act on 12 the 13th or sometime in the future is regardless is irrelevant as to review of this body as to 2408. As 13 to the second issue as to the zoning, that would put us in a catch twenty-two. The fact of the matter is 14 that we have asked, as I repeated at the last two hearings, we have asked for R4 PUD. They go together. 15 Your own ordinance requires this Commission to make a recommendation either positive or negative on the PUD 16 before the Plan Commission concludes their hearing so we could moveforward. If you decided to wait until 17 the zoning was settled, we would be stuck in stasis. Nothing would move forward because our request isn't 18 for R4. It's for R4 PUD. We wouldn't have asked for R4 without a PUD. 19 CHAIRMAN CAREY: You don't have R4 at this time. 20 M. CITRON: It doesn't matter. That is what we have asked for. That's what we've applied 21 for. This commission is charged with the duty of and is required to hear the PUD, and that's what we're 22 asking you to do and this is very common to go forward pending it and your recommendation would be positive 23 or negative on the PUD, but otherwise we will be stuck in stasis. You will prevent us from exercising our 24 rights not to get approved but to ask for and have the requisite hearings because we will be stopped in our 25 tracks. Because the Plan Commission will say I can't review it because this Commission won't review it. So 4 1 asking, and we have counsel here and _ think it's r. - _cp=late that we ha.-s co.... zel here, is :ie can't ' 2 mc% _ forward. We've been stcppsd because it is one p=?ication. it is not tw:, applications. It's not 3 rezoning and then we go back a :d do PUD. That isn't h —e. it's done. You do bc_.. .ccether. 4 On the thizd is -Vie, 1.41th all due respect to the public, One the Commissioners were directly 5 ,finished with those additional documents. The additional documents were so=e side elevations of some 6 of the buildings that are tasically almost the same as the front elevations which everybody saw. So I don't 7 think that in and of itself is a reason to continue this hearing for that. I ask to move forward today. 8 Thank you. CO1414ISSIONER RUNDLE: Mr. Chair, could 1 9 speak to that? CHAIRMAN CAREY: The chair recognizes 10 Susan Rundle. C01414ISSIONER RUNDLE: I was actually the 11 person who asked to continue last meeting because it was late, and I was the person who asked Mr. Citron to 12 provide side elevations of the buildings. Now there are three house types that I understand we received 13 elevations. One side elevation from two of the house - types, not of the third, and that I explained to him 14 that whatever we see from public way we have to review. 15 Now, I've spent a lot of time today, because we got the elevations, I spent a lot of time 16 sitting and looking at these and have found, for instance, not only did we not get all the side 17 elevations that we need, but for instance if you look at sheet E1.3(£), for instance take Orrington Avenue, 18 they have the house type A, E, D. You look at the plan, and it is -- even though the roof is totally 19 different from what we see in elevations -- there are two houses that could be constructed as A because of 20 the footprint. But then we' -re got -- if this is E then, the next one is E, even though this elevation is 21 D. So there are a lot of inconsistencies, and I don't know, do we go by the elevations? Do we go by the 22 plan and the front elevation of E is inconsistent with the side elevation of E, if I'm reading it right. And 23 I'm confused. CHAIRMAN CAREY: What page are you on? 24 CO1414ISSIONER RUNDLE: If you look at the y section R. If you look toward the end, sheet E1.3(e), 25 and if you compare it to the next sheet which is E1.3(L), it's -- you know, there are inconsistencies. 5 1 CHAIRMAN CAREY: What section are you on? MS. RUNDLE: I'm in seccnd R. ` 2 MR. RUIZ: elhat page are you looking at E1 .3 (e) and the next page E1 .3 (L). 3 Ci?A1R14A.N CAREY: Okay. I've got it. COMMISSIONER RUNDLE: There were 4 inconsista_cies in the plan elevations don't match is basical l,r hat I'm saying. 5 CHAIRMAN CAREY: Ellen, .chat is your feeling of the due process issue of having information 6 available to the public? MS. SZYMAITSKI: I think the public, 7 although the applicant does have a right to file it pursuant to application, the public does have a right 8 to due process. I can appreciate what theory counsel is advancing, and yet if I understood it, was that the 9 materials submitted were not substantial or material, but I think that is a decision for the public to make. 10 And, again, they haven't seen it. The; cannot address the Commission tonight as to whether or not they think 11 these things are material. If they wish to ask the Commission to obtain more information, I think that 12 allowing the public more time is essential. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Susan, what are the 13 issues or things that you feel are missing and need to be part of this application? 14 C01414ISSIONER RUNDLE: Well, missing are some of the elevations. But more so than that is a 15 consistency. I mean, we have, for instance, okay, house type A and then you look at the plan and house 16 type A. either has three dormers or two dormers, but in the elevations they have no dormers. And then where 17 it's shown as A on the streetscape, it isn't consistently shown on the plan. So I feel to talk 18 about it I need a little more consistency in the plan and elevations. Like house E should look like house 19 E, no matter where we see it, and the front elevation of house E, I'm not quite sure if it follows what the 20 side elevation of house E. So I just -- I felt that, you know, and I spent -- I did spend a long time with 21 this. I felt that I needed some consistency so I knew what we were looking at. And whether we were to 22 believe the plan or elevation. And we had no side elevations, for instance, for house type D. And since 23 all the houses are far enough apart, we can see three elevations from the public way. Not the alley to 24 alley is a private drive. CHAIR14AN CAREY: So is there a house type 25 D? MR. CITRON: First of all, if you can 1 briefly -- ;` there a house type D? CI S 5-5 11- 0? 1 EF R U I I D L E : Right now, if 1 z 2 understand it right, we have a house type 5, which is the same as E. We have a house type A, which is the 3 same as C, and then we ;-a:re a house type D. :d.'.. CITR011: Carl, maybe you can, instead 4 0= -- COMMISSIONER. RUNDLE: Do we have three 5 house types? MR. LINDER: There are three house types. 6 There are variations in ,material. COMMISSIONE.. RUNDLE: Sometimes it's 7 called B and sometimes it's call called E and sometimes it has gone by one letter and then the B other. CHAIRMAN CAREY: First of all, can you 9 identify yourself to the rest of us please. MR. LI11DER: Carl Linder. I'm with 10 Hansen Architects. MR. CITRON: And can you walk through 11 first so we can at least get this part clear, what are the actual different houses based on the new plans 12 that have been submitted. !-. CHAIRMAN CAREY: This is the plan where t(—�f 13 there are 16 single family houses and 37 town homes. - MR. CITRON: Yes, it's the 16 single 14 family houses, 32 single family attached houses. CHAIRMAN CAREY: 32 or 37? 15 MR. CITRON: 36 actually. CHAIR1AII CAREY: And one of those single 16 family is an existing house? MR. CITRON: That is correct on the 17 corner of Orrington and Colfax. CHAIRMAN CAREY: What's the address on 18 that? MR. CITRON: 2340. 19 COMMISSIONER DIENNER: 2340? CHAIRMAN CAREY: Orrington? 20 C01414ISSIOIIER DIENNER: Colfax. MR. CITRON: I believe it's 2340 21 Orrington. C01•1MISSIONER DIENNER: They can choose 22 whatever they want. CHAIR14AII CAREY: There are 15 single 23 family, new single family houses. C01•1MISSIONER RUNDLE: Oh. Mr. Citron, 24 just to satisfy my curiosity, the project team, f section M of the project team -- and it didn't mention 25 anything about Jacob's Homes, and they are the developer and the project team had Smithfield as the 7 1 developer. ' C01•11l7SZ:011Er. CIT..=Ij. --= this poi-- 7 have been designing _i-:e ~ reject and we have been processing the prejec, and designing the homes on 3 behalf of Smithfield. Jacobs may come in in the future a_ this point. 4 C0I.1i•fl..Z_C�NER FUNDbE. VD Jacob's is not in. So on the drawings Jacob's should not be there. 5 MR. CITRON: They are not formally on this. We are processing the design of the houses. 6 MS. K1E-ER: May I ask a question. CHAIR'.•i:.ji CrREi . If you can state your 7 name and address. MS. KIEFER: Paula Kiefer. My husband 8 and I are here tonight. We live at 2505 Orrington, the corner of Orrington and Milburne. We're sort of 9 the newcomers to these meetings, and we are, we wanted something clarified. If you are going to be claiming 10 that the Kendall College property is a historic landmark, how can you even go so far to say that you 11 are going to allow demolition of it? I mean, this is 12 CHAIRRAN CAR£Y: That's part of what we are talking about right now and debating, is exactly 13 that point. If we are saying that Wesley Hall which has been nominated as a landmark is going to be or 14 will be an Evanston landmark, we feel that we need a decision on that aspect of the nomination before we 15 can really proceed with or attempt to proceed with reviewing demolition of the property, and that is one 16 of the reasons for wanting to continue to allow City Council to receive our nomination or receive our 17 approval and our resolution and let them decide in the process of how they felt about that. 18 MS. KIEFER: So it is designated as a historic landmark, then demolition cannot be done on 19 the property; is that correct? MR. RUIZ: IFo. The way the ordinance 20 works is that in order to demolish a building within a historic district or landmark district, it has to meet 21 certain criteria for demolition. It doesn't automatically preclude somebody from applying for 22 demolition or landmark approval. The standards have to be met. 23 MS. KIEFER: So it's frivolous whether it is deemed a historic landmark or not? 24 MR. RUIZ: In a historic district the standards apply the same. 25 MS. KIEFER: It doesn't matter whether it is or not, demolition will still be done on it? 8 1 14y. RUIZ: Right. If the standards are me- =cr the demolition. 2 CH IFIMAN CrR-71. The Chair recognizes Jim WolznsKi. 3 MR. WOLIIISKI. James "lol_nski, City Di -rector of Cor,.raunity Development. If I can make a 4 couple comments. I'm not an attorney, so I'm not going to speak as one, but as the head of the S department that oversees preser-:ation, I do want to make a couple comments if I may. I believe Mr. Citron 6 is right when we tall: about the designation of the zoning. If this project were to wait until the zoning 7 was actually established by the City Council, this project could be sitting out in cyberspace for quite a 8 long time. So on that point I do agree. I think this Commission certainly has the right to recommend zoning 9 to the Plan Co=ission whether they felt R4 or R1 or U1 was the appropriate zoning for this area. However 10 --- and that is a decision for the Plan Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council -- the 11 applicants have applied for a PUD for R4, and that is under review now. We do not have a response on that 12 at this time. But another point that I .rant to make is 13 that it is difficult for me to Zook at the fact that the Wesley building is in for nomination as a landmark 14 which would require it to be standing and for this commission to review a plan that Smithfield has 15 submitted which doesn't show that building at all on it. Now, I think you know probably what you could do 16 is you could quickly dismiss it and say this doesn't entertain the possibility of this building even being 17 here, so therefore we can't approve this. However, I think that would be doing a disservice to the 18 applicant at this time. Obviously, they feel or hope that the Council will not agree with the commission 19 and not designate the building a landmark or perhaps even if the Council designates it a landmark, perhaps 20 they can apply for demolition for the recently nominated landmark. So in my opinion, my humble 21 opinion, I would recommend that at the very least that -- and I'm in agreement with you Mr. Chairman that -- 22 wait until the Council makes a determination on the 2408 Orrington building as a landmark or not a 23 landmark, plus that gives you a signal back as to as far as how the Council feel this is critical to the 24 city's landmark district, is that an integral part of it or not. That may influence the plan. The plan as - 25 I see it does not show the building on it, and if the Council approves it as a landmark and it stays a I landmark, I t::_nk -_;-_-finitely the plan that Smithfield is going _o be presenting has to change. Z CAR-Y. The chair recognizes Tom Prairie. 3 ?F:.IRIE. I tend to concur with that. :!y ,.o::ce_n with movincr ahead with and 4 reii.ewina i; for demolition at this meeting is either whether or no_, regardless w:;ether we said we would 5 review the Wesley property as a landmark, if it does get designated a landmark and we did not approve a 6 Certificate of zcvropriateness for demolition and it was appealed tr.r_ugh the Cite Council that doesn't 7 mean that they are going to review it. Let me put it another way. Take that back. I put myself in a trap 8 here. If it- was already landmarked, then they would be considering the landmark. I was concerned that 9 the City would not review the landmark even though we for our purposes now would be. That's fine. They 10 will have decided presumably whether it's going to be a landmark.. 11 MR. CITRON: Mr. Chairman, I believe my client Mr. Buono has some remarks which could draw 12 this meeting quickly to a close. MR. B ONO: For the record, my name is 13 Robert Buono, Smithfield Properties, the owner of the property. 14 While I frankly find the process disappointing and confusing and don't necessarily 15 agree with some of the positions taken tonight, rather than go through what is obviously difficult and 16 uncertain territory for you and to take up the time from everybody here in the community tonight who I 17 know largely entirely disagrees with our plan, we're certainly prepared at this point in order to help 18 expedite the matter and hopefully simplify the matter for everybody, if we simply go forward on whether or 19 not the building ultimately is designated as a landmark. While we have no sense of whether or not 20 that will ultimately happen, I think the statement previously stated by Mr. Wolinski is correct. Our 21 current plan dens not reflect that to the extent the building is ultimately landmarked we would have to 22 modify the plan. And given the time frame that's been set out with the December 6th hearing which, from what 23 1 understood earlier, would provide you with the opportunity to make, to approve the resolution, I 24 understand as the recommendation of the landmark to the City Council whether or not the City Council hears 25 it on December l3th or some time thereafter is certainly not ray decision. But at least we have for 10 1 all of our sake some clarit%, as to which. direction we are going in which at lea= - will mane _•re -:body's job 2 here I hope a little bit 'el hile _ t ra-_: not change anybody's opinion, _ least we car. all be on 3 the sane page procedurally3, because tires _rocess has be-_sme a little bit unruly _`rankly, very __me 4 consuming --- for most of you T_ know are al volunteers -- and I thin: the same holds true for residents. So 5 if that helps facilitate _::,ur decision, that's essentially our position f.._ the mo:ient on this. 6 C0M14ISSIQ1:7-,R D7E1111ER: Mr. Chairman, may I respond. Mr. Buono. Yes, we are volunteers. This 7 is Evanston. We have a peculiar way of doing things. It is not like Chicago. We don't go by Chicago rules, 8 and you have homeowners here that are very unhappy with the situation. And I think that -- I still think 9 that until the zoning matter is settled, it's to discuss all of this, except for the historic 10 preservation of a building or any other buildings that in that block, we are wasting our time. rnd our 11 process is peculiar, Mr. Buono, this is Evanston. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Well, I'd like to thank 12 Mr. Buono for his comments because I do appreciate the fact that he appreciates the situation that we are in. 13 14S. SZYMANSKI: Mr. Chairman, are we not proceeding on the plan? 14 MR. CITRON: I will make it very simple. Yes, we are agreeing with -- Mr. Buono agrees with you 15 that the only thing that should go forward at this point before the Commission is approval of the 16 resolution and report and resolution. I know they follow in that order on 2408 Orrington, Wesley Hall, 17 and if that should go to City Council before this commission undertakes our remaining questions. We are 18 agreeing to continue our request for hearing on the Certificates of Appropriateness of demolition and for 19 review and recommendation and review on the PUD. We agreed with you. Don't hear it now. Suet the 20 landmarking go forward. The City Council will either agree with you, at which case we will be revising our 21 application in all likelihood to come forward showing a plan with Wesley Hall, and that was Correct -- and I 22 guess Jim without being a lawyer came out with a very common sense view of this -- or they won't. Again, we 23 don't know what they are going to do any more than you do or don't. And then we will be able to proceed 24 forward on the plan. So we agree with you. Therefore, this will be in abey, and I understand we - 25 are agreeing to this continuance until the City Council either reviews and either approves or 11 i disapprs e_ the landmark at 2408. T.-at I agree with. -, again, just fcr _?-:� ra_ord, ha -re to 2 respect1:fu :: -- Conmissioner, I respect the fact that you are here right after I understand Medical issues, 3 and I very :auch appreciate the de.!__'_on that you have. Again, we `aYe to hear the coning ;We have to hear 4 the :;hol e plan that we have to d:�, _ _h=_r:aise -- I think Mr. Wolinski agrees with rya -- we are stuck. We 5 have the classical catch twenty-trro, that nothing happens. 6 CHAIRMAN CARET: The Chairman will recogni=e Judy Fiske. 7 I4S . FISKE: Thank you •rery much, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that's very 8 complicated .or all of us is that we do have our R1 zoning on the table in front of City Council on the 9 table right now and feel that that is an issue that needs to be dealt with as well. The other thing that 10 we do not understand is at what point the planned development application is not complete and we 11 understand that the zoning analysis will not be completed until January. And do ;;you as a Commission 12 go forward and review a plan development application that isn't complete? And if you do, what other city 13 bodies do that? I assume the Plan Commission does not go forward with a plan development application 14 until it is complete. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Well, we've just said 15 that at this point the only thing that we are going to consider is our report to City Council regarding the 16 designation of 2408. MS. FISKE: I understand that, but we've 17 just heard them talk about meetings in the future and that those meetings are obviously not referring to 18 times when there's going to be a completed plan development application, and what I would like to know 19 while we have Mr. Wolinski and Ms. SZYI4AIlOWSKI here, do you actually go ahead and review a planned 20 development application before it is complete? So that's one issue I would raise. 21 CHAIR14_;N CAREY: vet me ask you this, and I'm not familiar with this, but what makes 22 completed PUD application? MS. FISKE: What it says in the zoning 23 ordinance is that the zoning administrator determines that the application is complete. And what we've 24 heard from the zoning administrator is that the application is not complete, and so it's very hard for 25 us. CHAIRMA31 CAREY: So does that mean there 12 1 has to he a zc•nina decision made at that point or he deems t:-:_= _he , _ 1_ca_..cn is comr)"t _e? _ISKE. He deems the application is complete =z iar as _ +sr=c_rstand. 3 Commissioner, can -:ou clarify-- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CITRON: With all due respect to Mr. PJolinski, this is the first I have heard it is not complete. We have had no conversation with Mr. Alterson. We have also never been told that not the zoninc analysis won't be done until January. So this is all news to me. MR. W0LIItSX_: To Ms. :iske's comments to Mr. Alterson who is the zoning administrator is under my super-rision, and to the best of ray knowledge he has not begun the zoning of the property, the zoning analysis of the PUD. So to say that it is complete or incomplete, I don't know that we have that information yet. We will determine that in the near feature whether or not it's complete or not. If it is not complete, we will send it back to you. But I don't know that it's not complete at this point. MR. CITRON: And, again, since we are continuing the review of the PUD, that is not even an issue at this point. it is not reviewed when it is appropriate to review after, as we agree to the decision as to the Council as to Wesley Hall, and we assume by that point if it is not complete, I'll hear about it. We'll hear about it. And we will supplement it, whatever needs to be done, and it will be in that shape for you to review. CHAIRMAN CA REY: Thank you. 14S. FISKE: The other problem is that as you review this, and I've tried to listen to Mr. Wolinski very carefully, and I understand that SPARC, for example, has to review this application that this is a new application and must go before SPARC again, as residents who are untutored in this process and given the fact that I believe this is the first planned development application that the Commission has ever done, we would like to just determine what the steps are from here on out. Do they go to SPARC first? Must they have a completed zoning analysis? Do you wait and hear SPARC'S recommendation? The Plan Commission obviously waits to hear your determinations. And so just to share that with us would be, I think, at this point very helpful. The problem that we have is that as we review the application, the underlined zoning makes a 13 1 huge difference in :;ha_ the Ulti. at—s- buildings are going to look like. _ :jean, he are _cot:ing at town 2 houses on that proper-- =hat are ~c_nY to be no wider than the average gar ?_ that _•ru at right now, 3 and that's under R; zs ._ng. But if „ aces to the City Council and ar. ..1 cone iS de__rnined, a very 4 different plan is g=i:g to _=srg-. k_ requires a lot o' time trcm all cy uc. I r!=_an, '.•rr. Citron and I will 5 absolutel_r agree on _hat, but wre are t ing to do the best that we can tc understand where everything is 6 headed. z.nd so cou_d you help us. C HA IRM:-21 C.RCY. :e=, we will. Chair 7 recognizes Ccmmissisner Brugliera. C0I41•SISS:OI7 R $P.t3GLI?R.j-:: 'low I'm getting 8 brain fatigue over this business, but if -- how is the decision made that is now tabled at the City Council? 9 Would City Council look to Plan Commission for guidance on whether to do PA or R1? Would they look. 10 to our recc mendation to the Plan Con_nission before they decide on it. Would they just look for comments 11 from the citizens and the comments from the applicants? How is that decision get to? Maybe Jim 12 could talk to that. CHP.IRM211i CARRY: j i m could probably 13 answer that. MR. WOLINSKI: The property as we know it 14 right now is zoned l . There was a recommendation by the City Council to the Plan Commission to look at the- 15 zoning on the property and the recommendation the Plan Commission :Wade, a recommendation of nonspecificity 16 other than -- I guess that is a good word to use -- other than it was going to be R1 through R6. That is 17 right now sitting on the back: o: the Planning and Development Committee agenda and is not an action item 18 at this time. In answer to Mary's question, ultimately the decision is the City Council's how it 19 is zoned. The way you work towards that is this body will be making a recommendation to the Plan 20 Commission. Now, you can make a reconu.endation for zoning. You don't have to make a recommendation on 21 the zoning. However, if you were to, say, recommend the plan that you have in front of you from 22 Smithfield, I think it would be appropriate for you to say we think R4 is appropriate zoning here. If you 23 were to deny the appellant's planned development based on the fact that you felt it should be all single 24 family, then your recommendation would be R1 to the ( Plan Commission. Now, through the planned 25 development process, Smithfield, as the applicant, appears before the Plan Commission. And as I 14 1 understand ?fir. Citron said ton_ah , they are going be asking for an R4 FU--, .:-_ch wou__ .,_ rezoning the 2 property. That, c_ would through ;he normal process that _.__ : _an Cc-..._ssian twould have a 3 hearing, the Plan would make a recommendation to the _i_.: Council, and the ultimate 4 decision on both of t _ _=ssible rezoning of the site and the apprlval or .,_..-. - roval cf the planned 5 development is ulti-,=e - in Cit: Council's decision making powers. 6 Now, if _ can answer iud_r's question. We have -- it's always difficult when there's a number of 7 bodies reviewing a pr:je=t at virtually the same time, and it's difficult tc,, say on the sequencing of events. 8 Just let me say this. 7-he Site Plan and :appearance Review Committee has -:oted against the proposal that 9 we have seen in several different variations, but more or less a combination of town houses by single family 10 houses. SPARC has voted aaainst that. However, when the planned development application has been reviewed 11 and determined to be co=pleted, SPARC sets up what we call a preapplication conference where the chairman of 12 the Plan Commission and the Alderman of the ward are invited as well as neighbors to vieor and comment on 13 the proposal, and the ?reservation Commission. And there is no decision =ads by SPARC. It is not voted 14 on. It's just there fir information. And hopefully the comments made by people who attend the meeting, 15 either the SPARC committee member, the Alderman, the Plan Commission chair, the Preservation Commission 16 chair, citizens, whoe.-er, the applicant will take that under review at least and then hopefully come back to 17 ultimately to the Plan C=r_ission with those changes. They don't have to, but it certainly helps pave the 18 way a bit. So once the preapplication conference, because this is a planned development, it really takes 19 away a lot of the power of the SPARC committee, okay, if you will, because the planned development process 20 puts all of the approvals in the hands of the Plan Commission and ultimate_!_; the City Council. In other 21 words, in other projects the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee, if we don't approve something, we 22 can stop a project. Ax.d _he only way it can be started up again is if 'it's appealed to the city 23 manager or the circuit court. With the planned development process though, SPARC is simply more of a 24 recommending body, and we also set table if you will for others to come and view and look at it. And we 25 have had one other project that was in, that dealt with landmarks which was the Dryden Estate. Not 15 1 spec' fical _ to this, but .re have had that same type of confus:. _ e.Tent happen, and I can't lay it out for 2 you exac_i_ except that we will t-zy keep all folks informed cf the process. fir. Gemmel' and I have 3 talked freuuentl_, and Jud_, and I ha•,e talked frequent:!-,, and we will t_.r to keen _:eryone posted. 4 nd hopefu-' y you will let: folks in the neighborhood know what is aoina on. 5 MR. CITRO1 : We actuall_: had another hearing meeting scheduled before SPA?.,, and we asked 6 to he withdrawn from the agenda to await this body's recommendation. So, again, we would e•.en be 7 requesting to go back: to SPARC until a: least the 2408 designation issue has been dealt with by City Council 8 so we can solidify again as Mr. Buono said. Whatever we agree or disagree, we are all on the same page. So 9 we are not going to go back to SPARC even on a preappiication conference until City Council has 10 reviewed and approved or disapproved that. 5o, again, we can have the site plan and that aspect of it tied 11 down. So I 'think that should add some clarity to this process and the zoning issue. I hope we're not going 12 to go back into that anymore today. I think we've all accomplished a lot today. We've agreed to some things 13 to move forward. We appreciate all the time and consideration and taking time on all these issues. 14 CHAIR14AN CAREY: We have a number of people in the audience who had their hands raised. 15 I'd like to recognize the gentleman in the back please. Could you state your name and address. 16 MR. KIEFER: I am Mr. Kiefer. I live at 2505 Orrington. I learned years ago having been with 17 the goverment and real estate, the "kiss principal". I think we are all familiar with that, Smithfield and 18 company et al. They purchased the property apparently to make some money, much to the dismay of the 19 neighborhood in what they anticipate doing. Arbitration would be a wonderful process if they were 20 to possibly sit down with representatives of the neighborhood, which I don't think they've done thus 21 far. But in sitting down with the neighborhood, you might serve a couple purposes to go on with your 22 project, to go get a feel for what we want and what we would be satisfied with, and therefore when you do 23 your presentation to the City Council or whether it is the zoning, etc., you would have two groups on your 24 side, not only yours looking to make the extra dollar -- which there is nothing wrong with that --- and 25 people from the neighborhood saying, hey, we are in favor of that, let's do it. So, I mean, I think at PRO _ 1 this s=aoe cf the game it wcuic ehoove you to make that _r.- ._a' eftenV_on reach_a:, ,:our hand cut to 2 Lf :he neighhcr::zod and saving, hey, 7 let -le: ..F'n J F fiG can resolve t a_... issue. :hank you. 3 CHAIRIIA1 rrsREY. Thank you, sir. The chair reccgn_zes ycu, sir. ?lease stand up and tell us your 4 nar..s. MR. GE1.?IELL: 'Tor: Ge= ell, 6720 Colfax. 5 Just to mate a fec•r real quick c.:rnents, just to commenz on what %Ir. Holinski said, I just want to fill 6 in one step that was left out. actually, the Planning and Development Committee did pass an ordinance or has 7 drew up an ordinance to rezone the property from U1 to R1, and it was going to City Council for decision on 8 January 26th, although it was not just a general R recommendation. There actually is a proposed 9 ordinance that was tabled at the citizen's group request because we were asked to sit down with the 10 developers and try to come to a collaborative plan. So that is tabled sitting there now for R1. 11 CHAIR14_zJ1 CAREY : At Planning and Development? 12 14R. GE1414ELL: It passed four to one in favor of an R1. --j 13 CHAIR147-JI CAREY: At what point would it be released and forwarded on to City Council? 14 MR. GEM24ELL: We need to talk to the City Council about that. I have talked to a couple of the 15 Alderman and they would like us to give our understanding of what we would like to have that 16 released and then they would like to go forward. Their recommendation and their vote was to rezone it 17 from U? to R1, and we are the ones who stepped in and asked to be tabled in a good faith effort to deal with 18 the developer. The second issue is with respect to SPARC, 19 the withdrawing from SPARC. That happened literally about an hour before the SPARC meeting was supposed to 20 occur. This was not a pre -planned thing out of good will for the developer to give us an opportunity to go 21 to the City Council on the landmarking issue. They were going to SPARC, and they told you at the last 22 meeting they were going to SPARC the very next day to show them this new plan and to continue the process 23 going toward. So I disagree with Mr. Citron's after the fact characterization of that. 24 We, again, this is just a comment about Mr. Kiefer, the process that he's asking, as I've 25 mentioned before has already been addressed. We've already sat down over a period of a year and three 17 1 months 'rim h he de -,eloper, _cur long =eetinoS, over two to three -eeyings 'r:-_.._n our task force 2 representati•,e a_cup of 12 neighbors, over _700 people signed the P _ _it_on for ..1 ..nitiall y. "le acreed to 3 sit down at t.e request of _he Planned Deveicnment Committee to :alp: to the de--loper. : nd during our 4 conversations with the de -.eloper before ;.he last meeting, we found out that they essentially went to 5 SPARC. They continued wit:a their plan withcut telling us, and their vent forward with their plan w_thout any b discussions an', more with us. At that ver_r next meeting the_: told us they don't have to deal with us 7 any more. HAIRMAN CFREY: Thank you. Please stand 8 up and tell us who you are. :SIR. NERENBERG: I'm Jean Nerenherg from 9 2307 Arrington. I have been at Moth the meetings with SPARC, and I :yonder now why this developer is trying 10 to sound to me, he is trying to circumvent SPARC by trying to go into a Planned Unit Development. A 11 Planned Unit Development, my understanding of that, was not originally part of his application. Why now 12 are they doing a Planned Unit Development as part of this? 13 MR. CITRON: From the first day we applied we've discussed and applied for a PUD. It's 14 part of the process to go to SPARC. As Mr. Wolinski said, we have circumvented no one. We are going to go 15 back to SPARC. If Mr. Gemnell wants to characterize why we continued it, I told you why we continued it. 15 We made the decision. Whether it was the day before or the hour before, we made the decision the day of, 17 that it would be better to not go back to SPARC until we've run through the process. It was in good faith 18 or not in good faith. It was no different a decision in effect that was presented to you today. I'm sorry 19 that it was made an hour before. The fact is that we decided that it would be better to go more through 20 this process, and now I've even refined that decision on the record. So there's no question about it. 21 However anybody wants to characterize it, I think on this issue, we are sort of -- at least on this issue 22 -- we're on the same page with what we understand to be the feelings of this Commission. Let's at least 23 deal with 2408. The zoning issue is not properly before you. I can tell you that even if the Council 24 decides to rezone it R1, that doesn't prevent us from asking to be rezoned to R4. We have a right to ask 25 for that. That's what we are asking for. That's what is ultimately going to be before someone. Before, 18 1 after, or later. Call us stupid, headstrong, ehatever you .'ant tc call us. That's what our request is we 2 thought we were going to draw a close this =ve:.ing by agree i na t;_ th the sentiments at least to on_:r co 3 forward on the 2408 issue. mnd then howe•ier that lends cut, .tie may revising the FUD. We are :lot 4 circumtientec. We will ccntinue to go to what=rer hearings and public hearings we need to go to. 5 COMMISSIONER CR;U-!E:.. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me at this point there really is nothing for 6 us to decide or discuss here. E•:erybody has expressed some opinions on the subject. I thin: we ha:*e got a 7 better understanding, e•ierybod_, of how this is going to progress. So at this point I don't know if it 8 would be out of order to make a motion. Carlos has something to tell us. 9 MR. RUIZ: I just want to clarify for the Commission's benefit the issue that was raised earlier 10 about having a -- Mr. Citron is your expectation that -- I'm just asking because I want to make sure the 11 Commission understands and I want to understand -- as far as your application for the plan development, it 12 is your expectation that it would be deemed complete once the zoning administrator completes his review? 23 MR. CITRON: I'm afraid to raise any expectations because clearly discussions were held 14 that I wasn't a party of, whenever the zoning administrator who works for Mr. Wolinski deems it 15 complete, it will be complete. Whether it takes the 2408 ruling or the zoning analysis, I didn't know it 16 was going to take until January. That's another new one on me. Whatever it is going to take to be 17 complete, it will be complete. If there are additional items, we will furnish them. It will be at 181 that point pursuant to ordinance that we will move forward. So I have no presumption, none. 19 MR. RUIZ: The other question I have is in order for the Commission to move forward with the 20 review of the plan development, then we need to make sure that the zoning administrator has deemed the 21 application is complete. I think that's very important. 22 MR. CITRON: I would agree with that on the record. So there's no question. You don't review 23 it until the zoning administrator says our application is complete. I don't want there to be any 24 misunderstanding. Whatever he indicates we have to add to it, we'll add to it, if at all. 25 CHAIRMAN CAREY: That doesn't mean he's made a decision on the zoning itself. 19 1 MR. CITROr1: rI_, it's just the app' ice -ion being_ cc=lete. 2 CC-22a?SS'ION7R BFUGLT;7F_? . I'd like to read the section frcm our standards sheet on determination 3 of soecial uses and-.ariations, and if I'm not mistaken a plat, development is a special use, correct? 4 (REr-DING:) "Whene-rer an application is made for a special use or variation relating to a historic 5 landmark or property located i^ federal or local historic districts, the application shall be referred 6 to the Preservation Commission. They shah have the authority to make the recommendation to the 7 appropriate decision making body relating to lot coverage, yard requirements, parking, building height, 8 fences, and/or landscaping based upon its determination as to whether the special use or 9 variation meets the three standards." So that seems to directly point toward a 10 plan development application as one of the things that we would make a recommendation on, and if it's 11 complete, then we would be recommending in this case to the Plan Commission, right, rather than to the 12 Zoning Board. This recommendation would go directly to the Plan Commission. 13 MR. WOLINSKI: The Zoning Board is not involved in this. 14 C014MISSIONER BRUGLIERA: So am I wrong in thinking that's the route we would go and not consider 15 any demolitions and not consider any replacement properties, review first and foremost and only this 16 for the plan development, and then it goes on its way, and then we come back and depending on what happens 17 with that and then talk about demolitions; would that process work? 18 MR. WOLINSKI: I think that the way the ordinance is written because your Certificate of 19 Appropriateness for demolitions is basically tied to what's going to be built on the site, if you are going 20 to permit that certificate, if you are going to grant that Certificate of Appropriateness, the two are tied 21 together. You can't have one without the other. You can't approve the plan development and not approve the 22 demolition and vice versa. So in my mind they do run simultaneously. And I think it behooves you to view 23 both the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition and the planned development as a whole. 24 14R. CITRON: That was my understanding based on the discussion that was brought up I think 25 again on the 26th, that you couldn't review the Certificate of Appropriateness without reviewing the 20 1 PUD because olf _.ne _r:._sion that says unless -- and I'm paraphrasing _.._ s_ __nar.ce -- unless the 2 individual apply4. _ fir :he Certif4.ca:e of Appropriateness as .. z-an= tc replace the building 3 within five years, _rU-_ can't review, the Certif_=atee Appropriateness u.^._ec_ _r,u oo}: at the PUD. I :pink 4 con verse is true. c.. have 4c review the whole China. 5 C AIR.!_11i C REi : Before I get to the audience members, Jim, we've talked about this process 6 where in a regular application it would go to SPARC or the preapplication :meetings, for the PUD, that sort of 7 pushes that aside. So are we really in the first step in that process then. 8 MR. i+OL1NS1-. This Commission and SPARC really are at the same rung of the ladder, if you 9 will. That's the way it has been approached. They have come to SPARC and they have also come before this 10 commission. They ha:*e not been to any other commissions that I ar.- aware of at this time. So, yes, 11 you are the first, and the preapplication process is part of the plan derelcpmeat. I am sure that's 12 certain. SPARC on an application does not involve preservation or variations or anything like that. --� 13 SPARC has a three -tie -red approval process. They have approval of concept and then they have final approval. 14 The plan development supersedes this as with the Plan Commission and the City Council. 15 C01-24ISSIONER GIR_kRD: I don't want to belabor any of these points needlessly. What I want 16 make sure now sure, because we have had a lot of discussion, Mr. Citron, your client suggested that he 17 would be -- he didn't suagest -- he said that he would find it acceptable if we Mere to take item number, 18 what should be listed as item number 3 on the agenda and postpone until the rlderman and the City Council 19 makes their vote up or down? _ MR. CITRON: Yes, we were agreeing that 20 irrespectively for the time frames for review of _- Certificate of Appropriateness and review of Planned 21 Unit Developments that those time frames should in fact be stayed. We would not be asking the Commission 22 to move forward on either of those two matters until after the City Council has acted on 2408 Orrington. - 23 COMMISSIONER GIRARD: So on the record I'd like to male a motion that item number, any 24 discussion of item number 3, 2408 Orrington, 725 I Colfax, 735 Colfax, 2351 Sherman, 2344 Orrington, and 25 2140 Arrington, 2340 Orrington, be postponed until the aldermen and the Council have a chance to either vote 21 1 for or against cL:r reccrmendG`iJ.: of the proposal recommending thA-7 2406 Orrinatcn be desiana`_ed as an 2 Evanston landmar:.. CC".24IaSIG:;ER ... Second the motion. 3 Mr. Chairman, I'd like the gentlemen to give us _cane clarity on the 4 process whether we do it now on this discussion or take the vote afterward, I don't want to close out the 5 meeting before to chance -- CH , 7?j4AI1 CARE*-,': hh_f don't we -- I think 6 that -- why don't we take vote on the motion and then we'll take time under staff report to discuss a little 7 more detailed process. COM24ISSIONER PRAIF.I7: Okay. 8• MS. SZY147-IISKI: Mr. Chairman, do you wish to continue this to a date certain in January on the 9 theory that your regular meeting would be after the first City Council meeting? 10 CHAIRMAN CARE`:: Yes. MR. CITRO14: I would appreciate that. 11 Thank you. Because if it hasn't been heard, you could continue it at the meeting. 12 COM14ISSIOIIER BRUGLIERA: The 21st is our -. next meeting in December. 13 MS. SZYM ANSKI: The City Council meeting is January 10. 14 C0I4MISSIONER GIFARD: So I'd like to amend my motion. So we will rather than assuming that 15 they will vote in December or January what is the other? 16 MR. RUIZ: I think they will vote in January. It will be introduced in December. 17 COMMISSIONER GIP R. D: Okay. It will be introduced in December and then they vote by January, 18 assuming that we consider this in our regularly scheduled January meeting, which is January 18th, the 19 third Tuesday of the month at 7:30 in this room, 2005. C01414ISSIOIIER CRAME.R: Second. 20 CHAIPMAN CAREY: All those in favor of continuing the hearing until after the City Council 21 meeting to the second date of Tuesday, January 18th, 2005, please say aye. 22 (Chorus of ayes.) Those opposed? Abstentions? Motion 23 passes 7 to 0. CHAIRMAN CAREY: We are going to public 24 meeting of the Evanston Preservation Commission. I would like to recognize this gentleman. 25 MR. GRAY: My name is David Gray, and I'm at 2430 Orrington Avenue. Just to make sure that I 22 i understand what's aci. g on, if you are going to �OiStdl cZ - =`.;BR SRliGLI7-r-_. You'd be the 2 or.!-: cn=_ v.*ho does. MIR GF._.':. IL I could make a ccn_tructive 3 sugggestion, pC=ent_a_l; . Since you are continuing this matter -_prcpriatel_ = believe t^ January, you just 4 voted _o do s , it seems to me th..t at the same time that you Need to schedule what chat natter is going to 5 be cn the agenda, the question about this Commission's recomraendatic: as to whether or not this property 6 should be R1 or not because the two are going to ao hand in glove, and if God forbid you were to have the 7 City Council =o deny, for example, the landmark status that this Co=ission is recommending, you would then 8 have on your agenda the demolition issue without first or at the same time having before you on your agenda 9 the question what kind of zoning do you believe this should be. Understanding you don't have the final 10 say, but it's been fairly clear, and I believe that the section that, you read was very clear on that 11 point, that you have the responsibility to make a recommendation in that regard. So any questions that 12 go on to the next stage of this process, are going to have to contain within them, not just consideration of 13 the piecemeal approach in terms of demolition or anything like that, but in terms of looking at as to 14 what your viers are, as to what the property should be in terms of zoning, because that's a recommendation 15 that you do have to make to the Planning Commission. And so my only; point is constructively I would suggest 16 that at the same time, that the next time that this issue comes up on the agenda, that part and parcel of 17 that be a recommendation by this Commission regarding the nature of the zoning for that property because I 18 thin}: that it is your responsibility. 24R. CITRON; With all due respect, what 19 my suggestion to the Commission is that you have counsel and you have staff and I believe it's for 20 counsel and staff to make recommendations for this Commission as to what their review process is or 21 isn't. What Commissioner Brugliera read is bereft of any mention of the word "zoning". It talked about 22 building types. It talked about lot coverage. It talked about building heights. It talked about 23 materials. No where in it did it use the word "zoning". But it is not my business nor is it with 24 all due respect this gentleman's business to direct this Commission as to what they should or should not 25 do. You have counsel who has made recommendations today. You have Mr. Wolinski. I trust that they 11 23 I will tell _•^u what = s..ould and should not review under yrcur swn- ordi_..c..c_Z. Ss _..__'s what my belief 2 is . It is nor- fo_ :.e . _ _ is .:: t for him,. You have an crdin ,r.ce . If it says 3 "zoning,"`_'_• as part of the PUD. r_21ti=Swl�:;£:. - GL_�..... Variances and 4 so_ ecial uses c:.-ne under the zc ni. c code. C_.. I,. That's not the zoning of 5 property per Se. It com=s under .he zoning code. It doesn't say. You read ;chat vcu are looking at. I am 6 only taking _`_ o:n ghat ,,ou read into the record. It doesn't sal "z:ning district des'_?nation". That is 7 what this gentleman is asking yamu, to do. If your counsel believes that that's part and parcel, then you 8 will do so. .f it doesn't, ther. you won't. It is not for the neiuhbors to tell you what to review, as it is 9 not for me. That is not .chat I am saying to you. I am saying whatever it says in your ordinance, that's 10 what you should re•riew. Whatever that is and I'll live by whatever that is. Because you'll be directed 11 appropriately. CHAIRMAN C AREY: You have the ability to 12 make a motion or approving or recommending approval of the PUD or not in that motion can be further - 13 instructions or recommendations regarding R1 versus an R4 zoning; is that correct? 14 C0i_2dISS_IOIdER BRliGLI= RA: Well, all of these things that I enumerated in here are dependant is upon the zoning categories of the property, lot coverage, yard requirements, parking, building 16 heights, fences, all of that is determined on the zoning of the basic parcel. And that is why we have 17 an easier time in a certain sense with 1314 Ridge, because it was R1, period. So :;e knew what we were 18 dealing with. CHAIRMAN CAREY: We'd like to move on to 19 some issues here, but I don't want to not allow someone to make public comments. If it's something 20 that's new information that we haven't heard before, that's not in the record, please feel free to make it. 21 MR. GE-1-DIE'LL: One thing is that I want to make sure that it says under section 2.9.3 22 Preservation Commission subsection G15 "To review plan development applications, zoning amendments 23 application of conditions of use, application for zoning variances, or applications for'........ And in 24 my letter that I sent to you this afternoon I asked to have written in the record, I :could like to do at some 25 point, I would submit that this a variance. This a severe variance in a sense in numerous respects. One 24 I is -rou are talking about cur =.. _ _ U? property, you are talking about changing _re =• -__re under •Zng 2 zcn_.-c _c R4. That is a se•,-_r= criar.cA. -6atever ycu d^, whether it is the p; =--. :__ -r it's an R4 we 3 ara t=_?ing abcut variat_ons c::d z-1-ey have teal supposz_ion in this regard. .�n_uher thing is all of 4 their application, all of their plans show, for example, you require 27 foot set back under all of 5 these residential standards, o:sc you have to have that under every residential z:ning_ category and you 5 can't vary that in a PUD. They are looking for a variance on that. That is a :-ar:ance. That is a 7 variance. And all of this underlying is dependant on zoning. 8 I would like to read my letter into the record as I requested before or take it into the 9 record as submitted and the court reporter can type it in without having to read it. 10 CHAIRMAPI CAREY: I think that would be okay. 11 CO1414ISSIONER GIRARD: I thought a PUD was asking basically for exceptions to the standard zoning 12 practices within a community; is that correct? - MR. WOLINSKI: r planned development is 13 a form of Special Use where because of special circumstances of either the characteristics of the 14 property that instead of coming in and asking for a dozen variances to build what you want to build, you 15 come in for the Special Use for a punned development, and what that allows you to do then is sort of a give 15 and take proposition. Planned Development Ordinance — requires that there be some type of public good/give 17 back by the developer, you know. That comes in various forms. It could come in the form of a 18 garden, fountains, you know. You name it. COMMISSIONER BRUGLIERA: All of 19 them. _ CO1414ISSIONER GIRARD: So 20 Mr. Gemmell's comments regarding setbacks and how if it is going to be residential they have to maintain a - 21 certain minimum, would the PUD rewrite that for that — project? 22 MR. WOLINSKI: Well, under a PUD there are allowances that we can call them variances — 23 if you want -- there are allowances. For instance, _ one of the things they could request is instead of 24 27 foot front setbacks, they would request a 20 foot set back, and this is again a reason why you 25 use the plan development tool as opposed to asking for=- tons of variances. 25 i MR. This is essentially moaltinle variances. That's -n•; mcint. 2 C01•iMISSIDI:ER GIRAP.D. I':� sorry you can go through a Arocers frr each property and 3 ask. for .ariances, %rcu :now, i f _;r'u -:wn five houses in a row, and if you -ranted to gc c.-, ns at a time, you 4 can do that. This ;s w1hile it's :o'_ng by some of the similar mechanisms c_ a ,ariance, is a different 5 animal altogether. wt's called a PUD, a Planned Unit Development. It is a different process. They have 6 different allowances that they can make. There is a 27 foot front yard setback, that is handled differently 7 within a PUD. MR. WOLINS1I: If I can add too, the 8 board or recommending board that you would go before is different if you are seeking variances or seeking a 9 Planned Development. Variances be it one, five, ten, whatever, would go in -front of the Zoning Board of 10 Appeals. Of course, the Planned Development goes in front of the Plan Commission with the thought that the 11 Plan Commission works under the city's comprehensive plan so that the overall good of the community is 12 viewed as opposed to the ZBA, which is, I would call a lot starchier than the Plan Commission. Even though 13 they are meeting tonight, don't tell them I said that. It's more specific. Whereas as a Planned Unit 14 development is site specific. CHAIRM:-i CAREY: Sir, we haven't heard 15 from you. MR. ERINBACH: I want to put some 16 perspective on this. Bruce Erinbach, 802 Clinton. The property under consideration here is surrounded by Rl. 17 Surrounded by R1. To ask for zoning other than R1 is a stretch in and of itself. 18 COMMISSIONER GIRARD: But it's still our right. 19 MR. ERT11BACH: But it is a right. To ask for something R2 is a big stretch. To ask for R4 is an 20 incredible stretch. To ask for a PUD on top of the R4 is an unbelievable stretch. What Mr, Wolinski eludes 21 to and the PUD requires is that we are not getting any benefit. A PUD requires benefit back to the 22 neighborhood. There is no benefit here. There's none. So this is going way too far, way too far and 23 Mr. Gray's suggestion that zoning needs to be determined in advance is absolutely correct. 24 MR. GP -AY, The suggestion is that they make a recommendation. 25 CHAIRMPI7 CAREY: Thank you very much. One last comment, then we would like to 26 ? continue our public . . _ � 7: _ think. i1e actually do 2 un dens to :d : lamed . _ : slapaaentz and the -llo.rances, and is sns : :he reasons :•r .• the zoning ? analysis is wall,; Sc _-_ __ _ar,t because the zoning administrator actually ____rmires ti:n__ those 4 allowances are _nd wc.ere _e de -eloper is seeking to exceed thos_ a_1owanc_... _';or:, my understanding at the 5 present time and wi_hout Seeing the Zoning Analysis is _hat they are lookina tc exceed the allowances under a 6 Manned Develop::.ent, under =4. CE IRZ-IAIT C :._:. We don't know that right 7 now because ..e don't ha-:e an application. MS. FISKE: 3ust looking at it myself. 8 CHAIR247U1 CA:.4'i : That's speculation. MS. FISKE: It appears that way. So I 9 think that's why it is important for everyone to look at the zoning administrator's analysis because the 10 approval of a variation in combination of the plan development is expressly prohibited, which would 11 probably mean at that point it goes on to ZBA. MR. GF.MIAELL: :sere it is. 12 MR. CITRON: It is not the development allowances allowed you tc ask for increases in lot 13 area. They allow you to increase density. They allow you to decrease setbacks. They allow to you increase 14 floor area ratios. E-zersthing Mr. Wolinski said. They are not treated as variations. The law provides 15 for you to go through the PUD process. it's not a circumvention as Commission Girard pointed out. It is 16 just a different process. iF you don't agree with it -- but the part that I find difficult is that I am not 17 arguing my zonina case or my PUD case in front of this board. I specifically decided that it's inappropriate 18 and everybody else seems to be doing this. This board has enough on its plate to just review what it's 19 charged to review when it comes back here appropriately, we have all agreed on when the 20 appropriate time frame is, we are all in agreement on this one, that is what everybody wants to do. I don't 21 know why we are arguing ah-out zoning at this time in front of this Commission. 22 MS. FISKE: Could I finish my comments? CHAIR1-UU1 CARE'_': Please finish. We need 23 to move on. MS. FISKE: Right. Section 6-2-5--9, and 24 it is the approval of a variation in combination with the Plan Development is expressly prohibited. 25 CHAIRMAN CF_REY: Which are you reading from, the Zoning ordinance or the Plan Development? 27 1 MS. tISKE. --rdinance, 5-3-5-9. CHAIRMAN T.__._z . Under what, .he 2 Prese=.-_ion Ordinance"' r"flT.%!Tf ZCTrN7Z =Zrrf_i._7n1.. 11r� the Plan.. — - r .. 3 Develocment. MR. GEMMELL. I der "Coordination of 4 review of special uses and variations," and of course 5 COMMISSIONER GIF-.RD: Is that the Preservation Ordinance? 6 COI24IaSI027EP_ BRUGLIERA: It's the Planned Development. 7 COMMISSI0II ER BRr.?GL=ERA . It's under the Plan Development. 8 C01.11•1ISSTONER GE'..rZELL: It's under Plan Development Special Categories. It says "The 9 approval" -- it is talking -- it says "The approval of a variation in combination with the Plan Development 10 is expressly prohibited." That is what it says. MR. CITRON: I want to make a comment. 11 The one thing we all need to remember, this is a very difficult topic for many reasons, our purview is 12 preservation. Now, your issue about setbacks could be better addressed through preservation methods than it 13 can be by attacking the issue of variations or the PUD. Preservation has pretty well outlined criteria. 14 Judy is very familiar with them for streetscape, setbacks, you know, how you present a project, what 15 kind of spaces should be between a building, how you keep a rhythm. There are a lot of preservation 16 issues. I suggest you deal with preservation and stop 17 MR. GE1414ELL: And preservation issue does talk about zoning variations and allowances. 18 COMMISSIOIIER GIRARD: We are going to judge this by the criteria, and part of our criteria 19 is going to fall on the Department of Interior guidelines of --- 20 MR. GE1.24ELL: It's under Preservation. COMMISSIONER GIRARD: I understand that, 21 but the arguments that you use, rather than using zoning arguments, because we are not, it may reference 22 zoning, but we are not really equipped to handle zoning. We can talk about preservation, I think, and 23 if anyone else has a different opinion ---- 001414ISSIONER BRUGLIERA: We have a 24 responsibility to make a recommendation to the Plan Commission on this Planned Development. 25 C01-R4ISSI0NER GIRP.RD: Right. CO1-24ISSIOIIER BRUGLIERA: And that's a 28 I Special Use, and that's on cur zoning sheet. CO2•11diGSIQNLR G=.__?.L: We must pus z make a 2 recorr,=ie sdaticn, and lot �= t_me we talk abo-,t the Zoning Board of preservat?:;n. 3 CO242.iS--n—INER .._UGLIERA That's a view and that should be the .Case of decision. 4 CO2•i2•i75:. -0NER That's the base of our derision. So let's ac_real to our base. 5 2.1S. :ISFE. The ,erorry is -- I'm sorry this is taking so long and it's rally ccmpli.cated and we 6 are trying to work cur way through it as we are -- CHAIRMAIN CAREz: Thank you. That's not 7 it. We need to move on. 1 think we've heard -- there's lots of discussion about the zoning issue. I 8 think they are going to be Laken up in the next few weeks when their application is heard, but really I 9 think we've heard everything and we really need to move on. 10 Mary, do you have a comment? C0I-114ISSIONER BRUGL-TERA: Is it 11 appropriate to make comments now or do you have another agenda? 12 CHAIRMAN CARE t : No, we are going to discuss some part of the process as Tom had requested 13 so we can discuss that and maybe we can -- CO14:4ISSI0r1ER BRUGLIERA: I just wanted to 14 say to the neighbors and to the developers, we as a body are bound by the Public Meeting Act, and we can't 15 all go for coffee and have kind of a conversation you had tonight. We can hear all these different opinions 16 from each other so this is of value to us. It may drag on forever. It may frustrate everybody. It may 17 seem like we are going on around in circles, but we are figuring this out, and it is a complicated issue. 18 Everyone in the room admits that. So I think it's generally in the long run helpful to everybody that we 19 hear from Mr. Citron, Mr. Buono and from neighbors and from our staff and counsel. 20 The other thing I would like to say is I would really -- we've had meetings in the past where 21 we've said to an applicant who wanted a zoning variation, for example, have you talked to your0 22 neighbors. Well, no. And we always say that's the thing you should do first. So I would really --- 23 there's a couple months bad time of the year, but if the developer could get together with the neighbors 24 and just talk about the whole thing and assume that ( both of you are acting in completely good faith, have 25 a lot of wane at the meeting and see what you could come to an agreement on, I would love for you to win a C 29 ? preser:-ation award for t is terrific development that just is spec_acular. _..__'s what I'd like. It could happen. 5u- it sounds like you are butting heads. CH AIR1� Ali C =_.CY: Do you want to read the 3 procedures> COMMISSIO!1EP ?'RAIRIE: _ think we did y leave one thing out. ?1-:is letter from Mr. Ratliff. Accept it into the minuz = s . 5 COM141SSIO:?£A CAREY: That's the same with you, Mr. Gemmell. Wou_d you have -- do you have a 5 letter. Could you bring that letter forward? MS. SZYId. }+S::I : Do you have a copy for 7 counsel? We need to gi:-e one to Mr. Citron. Can you identify the letters for the record, the date from to 8 and the subject matter. CHAIR14AII CAP ' EY: We've received the 9 following letters to be put in the record, first is from the Kendall neighbors, 720 Colfax Street, 10 Evanston, regarding the Planned Development Application, Kendall College site, date is November 11 30, 2004. The second letter from Michael Ratliff of Ratliff, Durham, Duff, and Atler, 542 South Dearborn 12 Street, suite 1310, Chicago, Illinois, regarding the Planned Development Appl_cation, Kendall College site 13 and that is dated November 30. MS. SZYI.I.!ISKT : I think the Kendall 14 neighbors was dated November 15. CHAIRMAN CAREY: I have November 30th. 15 MR. GEMMELL: The last one we sent before the prior meeting we sent two letters. 15 MS. SZYM ANSKI: Are they different? MR. GEMMELL: Yes. 17 MS. SZY1&.=;�iSK1 : Then I haven't received that. 18 CHAIR14AII CA REY: I think Carlos can forward that on to you. 19 COMMISSIONER BRUGLIERA: I don't have either of those, either. 20 CHAIRMAN CAREY: I also received a letter from Dave Ballman president of the Landmarks 21 Preservation Council of Illinois, dated November 30, 2004. It is regarding the demolition of the 22 contributing structures in northeast Evanston Historic District and the specific properties of 2340, 2344 and 23 2408 Orrington dated November 30, 2004. COI�!MISSIONER BRUGLIERA: Could we see a 24 copy of that one too at ,your convenience. MR. RUIZ: I will make a copy for every 25 member of the Commission, and I will make a copy for our court reporter. 30 1 C HA 1 R1.1AN Cr.R :_ a S u s a n. COMMISSIONER RUN'r E. I just erarit to ask 2 1Sr. Boc-_ , :he arch-itect, :^ _'ou ha'.! ar.y questions about ,.e asked you ear_ier: 3 ?•SR. BOOTH: :i.. COZ-iidISSIGII-R RUNDLE: Lid .,ou ask the 4 gentleman fro:a Mr. Citron soup tha_ we have city MR. CITRON: 'rie just decided we are going 5 to sit 3c :r cver a meal and wall: through the applica=icn, the concerns that were raised here since 6 we do have -his time and recoordin3t_ e•.erythinq We agreed. We understand the confusion. We will 7 recoordinate everything, male sure whatever elevations are necessar,, will be there. We will provide them to 8 whoever wants them, and if someone `ro= this community -- and I rill put this again on the record -- if there 9 is a point person, I can't send this to 200 people, if there is a point person from the community who would 10 like us to directly send to them what -,aver we submit or resubmit to this Commission, I am happy to do so. I 11 will overnight it to them directly at the same time I send it to this Commission so we don't have the other 12 issue that Ms. Szymanski raised earlier today. I'm happy to do that. I can't do •-- if there's two 13 people, I'11 do it to two people. I can't do it to two hundred people. If there's two point people, I 14 will give them my cards after the meeting. At the same time I'll submit it to this Commission, I will 15 submit to them directly so everybody has the information and material. 16 CHAIRMAN CAREY: Would someone that is attending this meeting this evening could approach 17 Mr. Citron and give him the information: he needs to forward that information. 18 CO141-1ISSIONER DIE14NER: I think we ought to know who that might be too. 19 MR. GEMI4ELL: I'll take the application. MS. FISKE: Judy Fiske, far Northeast 20 Evanston. MR. CITRON: Whatever you .rant to e-mail 21 me, it's on there, I will get the information to both of you. There are no questions. 22 CO1414ISSIONER PRAIRIE: Part two. This is back more directly to the review process then, and 23 hopefully m:: thoughts are a little clearer than before. My concern is, we are given -- we are 24 reviewing this as a Planned Unit Development and let's say we decide affirmatively in favor of the Planned 25 Unit Development, are we defacto approving this, the design as presented here, the materials and so forth, 31 I or are we going to be reviewing individual building, type buildings separately at a later time? 2 CCMIMI.SSIOPIER GIFARD: I don't think so. We can't make -ha_ determination vet. Carlos? 3 2i:.. RUIZ: Accord-ing to :he standards that ,.e have, when you are looking at a Planned 4 Development, and it was already stated before but I want to make sera that it's repeated again for S clarification, that information would be -- we will make the appropriate recommendations to the decision 6 making body, yard requirements, parking, building heights, fences and/or landscaping based on this 7 determination as to whether Special Use or variations meet standards r, B, or C. It doesn't tall: about 8 design. CO1.U41SSIONER PRAIRIE: Except in review 9 for new construction. I.I.R. RUIZ: A separate process for 10 standards of review, construction, alteration or demolition or relocation. So that in itself is a 11 separate process. MR. CITRON: Do I have to file, a 12 separate application? It was my understanding that since the design of the buildings, including materials 13 were A, specifically requested by this commission, and B, is part and parcel of the PUD review process, that 14 you would be reviewing the design of these buildings at the same time you are reviewing all those things 15 that you just read. MR. RUIZ: You are correct. Because if 16 you look at the application, these four pages, the last one, if you are applying for a special use, which 17 in this case with. a Planned Development -- MR. CITRON: So I'm assuming you are 18 reviewing everything. MR. RUIZ: What I'm trying to clarify is 19 if they approve the Planned Development or not, they will be looking at the point, it says here in 20 particular what they should look at. Then if they recommend the Planned Development, they can move 21 forward to the review of the construction standards for the proposed new structures. 22 MR. CITRON: You can't approve a PUD without looking at the design of the buildings. We 23 are back into another catch 22 because that's part in parcel what we are required to submit for the PUD 24 process. So you have to look at the design of the buildings. That is what I understood why we are 25 submitting, why the question was raised that we may be missing some of these elevations is to make sure that 32 1 what's beina re7iewed zs everything that's there. r OchAr:;ise, t:.e missing ele: a _ions wouldn't matter 2 because of w at eras read on rha; sheet. MR. RUIZ: But 7ou also have -- the same 3 standards would apply, if ycu would you apply for the demolition where the Commission has to re.riew the 4 design. So that's what we're trying to establish. 14R. CITRON: So you are looking at both. 5 MR. RUIZ: You are looking at both, but it's A, B, C. 6 COId1IISSIOIIER RUNDLE: We have different standards. Do you have the different standard sheet? 7 MR. CITRON: Yes. So everything is in front of you; however, you review it in what order, 8 everything is in front of you and it will all be looked at before this recommendation, whichever way 9 the recommendation is, goes to Plan Commission. C0141•IISSIOITER PR.�_IRIE : If we indeed, if 10 what I'm hearing and if I am interpreting correctly is basically, we would be simultaneously reviewing this, 11 just FYI, the plans I have here would not be sufficient for me to review them. I would want more 12 information on things like you have a note here stucco veneer is that true plaster, stucco plaster or is that 13 a EIFS product. Those are the things we really want to know and look at. 14 C01414ISSIONER BRUGLIERA: We got a sheet on that. 15 COMMISSIONER PRAIRIE: I'm using that as an example. I would want to see that depth of 16 information when we review it. MR. CITRON: I thought we did spell that 17 out, what materials what are they going to look like. We thought they were spelled out. We used the word 18 "stucco" in the classical sense of the word. C01414ISSIONER PRAIRIE: I'm saying, be 19 prepared to answer questions. MR. CITRON: We will walk through this 20 and make sure this is spelled out in absolute detail. That's what we are going to do. 21 CHAIRI•1AN CAREY : Any other questions regarding procedure? 22 MS. SZYMANSKI: Mr. Chairman, just one thing. Although Mr. Citron has offered to send 23 information to the members of the public who are interested in this, I would strongly urge members of 24 public to stay in touch with Mr. Ruiz to see if there is an any additional application on file they would 25 wish to come in to see it in person or ask Mr. Ruiz a question, so we avoid any situation that we had 33 1 tonight- ahsut the surprises. :5:.. RUIZ . :c - sot: as T_ ha -re something 2 availabi s, _ :+_11 '. e happy; :c share it with the public. Yc I _hink that _ _ ,.ould be hest- for the 3 applicant __ g; .7e us tine to have thi.. requirement for the nc _ice and sc sne. So it's _mpor`_ant that 4 we ce_rdina-_ MR. CITRON: We ,.ill coordinate that. S GFi?.;R24APF C RE.. In the case :here we recei .,ed this additional el e:-ations, how is it that 6 you gc about nctif_ring the public that you received additional elevations? 7 IMF.. RUIZ: There is no requirement for notification. The only requirement for the public is 8 when we re.-iew application for nominating landmark, of historic districts. We don't have an_1 other 9 requirement in our ordinance. What Ms. SZYMANOWSKI is talkinc about, the due process for public notice or 10 the public to be able to review documents, if they want to participate in a public meeting, and that 11 requires at least 48 hours for them to look at before the meeting takes place. 12 MR. CITRON: Ind prior to at the earliest that any of these other issues are going to be heard, ` 13 I believe it was the 18th of January. They will be more than sufficient time prior to that date for 14 everybody to review this, and we will core up with a schedule, Mr. Ruiz and I, to make sure that everything 15 is here, and I hope that Commission doesn't have a problem with our directly sending things, only because 16 we thought that would make it more time efficient so Mr. Ruiz so you get it earlier. This is not 17 criticizing Mr. Ruiz, it just gets you the material in shortest time and gives you more time. 18 COMMISSIONER GIRARD: That's fine. 24R. CITRON: We are taking the cost. 19 It's not coining out of the City's coffers. C01414ISSIOIIER DIENNER: F edEx and you are 20 good folks. MR. CITRON: People eat off my FedEx 21 bills. COMMISSIONER BRUGLIERA: We can go on to 22 the City's site and download the plan development section of the ordinance, right? 23 MR. RUIZ: It's the city code. COMMISSIONER BRUGLIERA: Okay. I've been. 24 sitting here reading this, and I want all of you to read this because it's not anything simple. : 25 MR. RUIZ: What section? COMMISSIONER BRUGLIERA: 6--3-6-3-5. 34 1 ;.:.. ?.?,-Z. Slower, please. �r'fit 7TZT1:' 1 T D =ZF.+J==.:7RA: 6--3 _ =,r plan 2 develonments a.s Znc=- se-tion . _.. gces all the way t:4rot:z a so%._ _� the things - Want you 3 a I I to 1c•ok• a_ a_ _ .. _aterient.. -_i:e this, r.sW; ,r :;hat do we ha-Te on ,._r -, 3 0: cC 7e=- _S. 4 It ,.rot:_: ce nice to have the corre'sp:ndence. 5 CC::1:aSS1017ER BP.UGL_7EFA Build-.-,: lot coverage, that _Z one of the things on our sheet, and 6 6-3-6-5_F says tu__dina lot cc-.Araae, "Increase will be granted in the mazinum building lot co-rera:e over 7 the otherwise perfitted .in the underlying :on:nq district, as an _acentive for providing the :cnefit of 8 a planned development." How do we rule, Make a recommendation Cr -hat? 9 C0,4-2-113SIONER DIENNER: I said it sounds as though it is a matter of reconciling the PUD 10 ordinance and our blue sheet on our standards. CGMI� ISSIGNER GIRARD: I still think as I 11 made a comment earlier, we need to look at, he Preservation Commission, we need to review this from 12 the basis of preservation and not try to re.-iery this from the Planning De7elopment Committee, the Z:,ning 13 Review Board, you :::pow. That's too many hats. We l have a very specific task here, and a. lot times we get 14 off track because some of the issues get cowplicated, and I thin): if we review it from basis of preservation 15 and what our guidelines are as they relate =o Zoning, zoning talks about lot coverage, zoning talks about 16 setbacks. Preservation talks about presence of street, density of structures on a lot, maintaining 17 your street facade, all sorts of things that are tangentially related to zoning, and look at it from 18 this perspective and not look at it and say zoning says 27 feet, because we review projects that are 19 asking for variations to front _yard setback, ::hat do we say look at the street, how does the street relate 20 to what you want to do. So we're able to address zoning issue, but we are looking at it through 21 preservation set of criteria. I think as long as we do that, we'll be fine. The minute we start going what 22 is zoning going to say or what should we say to zoning, that confuses the issue. 23 C01414ISSIOITER BRUGLIERA: That's very true. I think you are absolutely right. The problem 29 is in all of those cases we are dealing with a fixed zoning and here we are recommending about the zcning 25 in addition. COMMIS5IONE.R GIRARD: We never decided 35 1 zonina. the are advisory only. .nd we advise f=or" the perspecti._ of preservaticn. So for us zon_nc can ` 2 have 27 fee-, and a lot of times we' lI say, you kn�:w what, we knew ;.chat the zoning ordinance say5 fcr this 3 house, is 'cu take it in relationshiz to all ot..er houses that ,.,,ere maybe grandfathered in and are 24 4 feet, we nay say we recommend that this house he allowed _o be at the same offset cf the remaining of 5 the house because it meets preservation guidelines. COM14ISSIONER BRUGLIER.?: No, I agree. 6 C01414ISSIONER GIRARD: So I think we need to keep our head straight on that. 7 C014MISSIOITER ERUGLIERA: I'm trying. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Any other comments? Are 8 there any other staff reports, Carlos? MR. RUIZ: No. I just wanted to make 9 sure that the meeting is December our regular meeting is December instigation 19th, and we are go to 10 emphasize that we do have a special meeting for the landmark nomination of 2408, December 6th, Monday 11 7:30 p.m. Right now we have this designated room, 2403. 12 CHAIRMAN CAREY: And the purpose of that meeting is to review -- 13 MR. RUIZ: The proposed report recommending to the City Council to landmark status to 14 2408 Orrington and to approve the resolution requesting the city manager to transmit my the report 15 to of the Commission to City Council. CHAIRMAN CAREY: Do the commissioners have 16 any comments regarding your report, should they call you? 17 MR. RUIZ: I have received only one comment which we'll incorporate an we'll distribute to 18 the members of the Commission. C01414ISSIONER RUNDLE: I have comments 19 too. You want to hear them before we meet and talk about them? 20 MR. RUIZ: Yes, the sooner the better. COMMISSIONER GIRARD: I move we adjourn. 21 COM14ISSIONER DIEN14ER: Second. CHAIRMAN CAREY: All those in favor of 22 adjourning this evenings meeting say aye. (Chorus of ayes.) 23 (Meeting adjourned.) 24 t 25 J r. 1 STATE OF ILLIII07S } } S5. 2 COUNTY OF COOK } 3 4 I, DENISE A. zJ;DRAS, being a Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter doing business in the City of Des 6 Plaines, Illinois, County of Cook, certify that I 7 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the 8 foregoing hearing of the above -entitled cause. And I 9 certify that the foregoing is a true and correct 10 transcript of all, my shorthand notes so taken as 11 aforesaid and contains all the proceedings had at the 12 said meeting of the above -entitled cause. 13 14 15 16 NISE A.--ANtrkAS CSR CSR NO. 084-003437 17 18 19 20 == 21 22 23 24 t 25 EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue -Evanston, Illinois Room 2403 Tuesday, December 21, 20D4 7:30 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Emily Guthrie, Thomas Prairie, and Neil Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Brugliera, and Susan Rundle OTHERS PRESENT: James Murray, John Malarkey, Katie Stallcup, Aileen Henderson, Robert Gordon, Penny Miller, Tom Mustoe, Doris Rudy, John Henderson, Paul Janicki, Ryan Nestor, Rick Nemec, and Leonard Davis PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., a quorum of eight Commission members being present. II. MINUTES APPROVAL Carlos Ruiz submitted the partial minutes of November 16, 2004 regarding 100 Greenwood. Chris Carey deferred consideration of the minutes until later. III. CO.MN UNICATIONS 100 Greenwood Street — Letter from John D. Malarkey representing Friends of the Lakefront Historic District requesting the Preservation Commission to reconsider approval of COA for the construction of a new single family home at 100 Greenwood Carlos Ruiz read a memorandum from Ellen Sz)manski, Assistant Corporation Council regarding the Preservation Commission's Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 100 Greemvood Street. The memorandum was a response to a legal opinion request from Carlos Ruiz in regard to a letter from John D. Malarkey representing Friends of the Lakefront Historic District requesting the Commission to reconsider approval of a certificate of Eruuton Preservation Commission December 21. 2004 — Minutes Page 2 appropriateness on November 16, 2004 for the construction of a new two -and -one-half story contemporary design home. Ms. Szymanski opinion states that the Commission's four to three vote granting the COA could be reconsidered under Council Rule 22.1 at the next regular meeting held after November 16, 2004 upon a motion a) made by a Member who voted for granting the COA and b) approval of that motion by a majority of the quorum present. A motion to reconsidered, if made, must be made and voted at the December 21, 2004 meeting. Mr. Ruiz noted that two Commission members who voted for the COA were present at the meeting: Ms. Guthrie and Mr. Prairie. He also said that Keith and Penny Block, the applicant/owners, were not present. Mr. Ruiz recommended that if there was a motion to reconsider the approval of the COA that the Commission set a date when the owners could be present for further review. Jordan Cramer said that evidence is taken if there has been substantial change in the facts, evidence or conditions relating to the application. He said that unless there is new evidence, he was not sure what it is that the Commission would be reconsidering. Mr. Ruiz said that the letter from Friends of the Lakefront Historic District indicates %vhat the Commission should have done. Neal Vogel said that he had conversations with people afterwards that felt that the vote was rushed and pressured. He asked Commissioners who voted approving the COA to reconsider for that fact alone. He said that the main problem was that not all the details were presented, and there still were open-ended things that were not resolved. Mr. Vogel was shocked when the vote went through without at least leaving an open door to the Commission to come back and review. He said that the Commission has not seen samples of materials, there still a lot of discussion on materials, whether the louvers would be on the inside or outside. Mr. Vogel said that there was further information that was left open. He encouraged again one of the Commissioners to reopen the application for reconsideration. He said that there were contradictions between the drawings and the model. James Murray, attorney for Keith and Penny Block said that the Commission's Chair should be concerned about limiting the scope of whatever discussion occurs to the very issues dealing with reconsideration only. Emily Guthrie said that she understood Mr. Vogel's concerns, but she was not sure, given the limits of the discussion for the property, that the Commission does not have much impact on the Blocks or the architect according to the standards the way she read them. Mr. Vogel said that his score card never came close to Mary Brugliera's, as the discussion went forward it felt like there were a lot of issues and that the house did not meet the standards. At the end Ms. Brugliera had enough of persuasion to push it through and the Commission had a quick vote, Thomas Prairie said that the depth of analysis of the materials was appropriate as it would NOV be for an existing home. He said that as an architect he perhaps can envision how the house may end up and he thought it would probably better than it shores on the drawings. He said at end of the evening he was prepared to vote affirmatively and he would do it again. Thomas Prairie moved to suspend the rules to allow the public testimony on 100 Greenwood. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. (Vote: 7 ayes, I nay). Katie Stallcup of 114 Greenwood submitted a petition signed by 61 people asking the City of Evanston to re-evaluate its unconditional approval of the building (100 Greenwood]. Ms. Stallcup asked the Commission to reconsider the vote to approve the 100 Greenwood Street_ project. She said that there are additional 17 people who were not able to sign the petition. Ms. -- Evanston Presrn-ation Commission December 21, 2COrs — Minutes Page 3 Stallcup noted that only 7 Commissioners voted and 3 Commissioners were absent. She said that the structure being proposed would have a dramatic and permanent impact in the neighborhood and the lakefront. Isis. Stallcup requested to use highest level of consideration and care to make the process open to the input and judgment of the largest possible number of Commission members. She noted that the people who signed the petition live primarily within visual and walking distance of 100 Greenwood. There are also many people who live in other parts of town such as the Northeast Historic District and people associated with the Evanston Historical Society, and people who use the beach. Aileen Henderson of I I5 Dempster Street said that the proposed house is inappropriate for the Lakeshore Historic District. She said that there is a compatibility standard that should be reconsidered. Stan Gerson asked, does compatibility mean that a new structure had to be in a historic style, or compatibility means that it is compatible in the sense that the spaces between the houses and the height are similar to what they are [visually related]. Neal Vogel compatibility is about not diminishing or taking away from a whole when talking about a district. The issue of compatibility is: does it take away from the character of the district? Robert Gordon of 202 Greenwood said that had new evidence about compatibility. He said that he was the author of the letter sent to the Evanston review [December 9, 2004], emphasizing the incredible responsibility of the Commission to preserve the integrity of the Evanston Lakeshore District. He supported the statement that the Commission does not want to approve something that is going to detract from what is already there. Mr. Gordon encouraged Commissioners to visit a new house on the south side of Linden Street (Wilmette). That house it adds to the neighborhood and it does not detract, such of a house could be designed for the 100 Greenwood site. He noted that on this particular block of Greenwood each house is setback, so the lakeshore is opened up. Mr. Gordon said that the proposed house is going to project out in front of the line of the design of Greenwood. Mr. Gordon said that it would be a disaster of putting a modern house so close to a beautiful 1915 Tudor stvlc house. He mentioned 1010 Michigan and 1014 Michigan, as an example of a contemporary design house next to a historic house. Mr. Gordon said that 1014 Michigan is a square, rectangular modern house with no slope to the roof and with materials that are starkly modern. He distributed photos to illustrate his example. Ann Dienner said that evergreens hide the house. Stan Gerson said he lives across the street and that he was never bothered by it. Emily Guthrie said that said that she represented the seller of the house and sold it. The house was built in 1986. The evergreens are not there to hide the house, but to create a pocket garden in the front of the house. The house is designed in the International style by a fine architect of Skidmore, Owens and Merrill. The house is internationally Down because of its style. Penny Miller of 1310 Hinman said that her main concern was that there were so many unanswered questions and that if someone wanted to put a similar house next to her house she would be not pleased. Tom Mustoe of 144 Greenwood said that the issue is the louvers on the house. He said that when looking at the drawings one would think that the louvers are perhaps in the outside of the house. However, the architect said at the time that he was undecided as to the louvers would be inside or outside. Mr. Mustoe said that if the louvers are inside, one would see a glass wall, a Evanston Prescn-ation Co=nission December 21, 2rX"—Ni::._tes Page 4 glass house with glass windows that are 12' high. What the pictures show are wooden shutters that are in front of the ►►indo►vs that do ameliorate the glass wall fagade. He noted that what was the focus of the Commission at the last meeting was the front door, and that the architect told the Commission said that he had not got around the front door. fir. hiustoe said that even the Commission accepts the house as compatible ►vith the neighborhood, that the issues that concerned the Commission in the past are germane of the issues he had mentioned such as the louvers, and building materials. Mr. I'viustoe said that he ►vas concerned because one could not determine Whether the house will be brick, tile, stucco or concrete. He said that if the Commission does not reconsider its approval, the Commission could at least say that it would approve the process, but it deserves the right to reconsider issues like the louvers; are they going to be inside or outside, because issues Iike that address directly the issue of compatibility. Jordan Cramer said that the Commission had spent a lot of time with the applicants for the Kendall College property; they gave the Commission great details about materials. He was concerned ►pith consistency and how the Commission looks at things. Thomas Prairie said that he agreed with fir. Cramer, but he disagreed that the Commission was completely Iacking in information of what the materials are. heal Vogel said that the three key things were unresolved: the glass walls or where the louvers were going to be, the masonry materials, and the metal railing on the roof top. He said that it was unknown the size of the brick, how the railing is going to weathered, the exterior could be dryvit. Michael Girard said regarding Kendall College that the Commission questioned the applicant's coordination of the drawings, plans and elevations, and what their intention was. He noted that the applicant for 100 Greenwood had a drawing where they indicated where the front door and access and it relate to the street. Ann Dienner asked about the Commission's purview regarding landscaping. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission has purview on landscaping to the extent that it relates to land altering activity. NcaI Vogel asked if there was a consensus whether the louvers will be inside or outside, because he brought the issue of maintenance. The louvers will be a lot easier to maintain if they are in the inside. Mr. Vogel read the minutes noting that Mr. Gluck said that the proposal shows the shutters in the exterior, but they could be in the interior. Mr. Vogel said that at that meeting he mentioned that the design kept evolving and getting better, by the third time it was the best version yet, and the shutters made a big difference for him. Later he realized that the shutters were not a sure thing; that is when he was surprised with the Commission's vote of approval without any contingencies. Mr. Prairie said that the shutters were not a big concern for him. Mr. Cramer pointed out that if the Commission is not consistent then it would not have the type of integrity needed as a Commission. Doris Rudy of 321 Greenwood said that there seems to be significant questions that still have not been answered. She was concerned by a decision of this magnitude made by four members of �_ the Commission. 'Nis. Rudy read a letter from, Thomas O'Brien of 210 Davis Street. Mr. _ O'Brien wrote that he %vas concerned with the precedent setting nature of the proposed house. He felt that there should be more details and further deliberation. Mr. O'Brien wrote that the Commission needs to have explicit standards, complete information and a good process to ensure that this and all future projects do not degrade the historic district. Mr. O'Brien requested that the Commission consider one more hearing and revote. James Murray said that it would appear that there has not been one grain of additional or new evidence presented that would have impacted upon the decision as to whether or not that this particular item should be reconsidered. Mr. Murray said that there seem to be an assault on the Evanston Preservation Commission December 2t, 2004 —Minutes Page 5 integrity of the decision made by a duly constituted majority of the Commission. Mr. Murray said that those who spoke for reconsideration do not Iike the project, but that is not new evidence. He said that some people have signed a suggestion that they don not like the idea either, and clearly Ms. Dienner and Mr. Fogel do not like it either, but that is not sufficient reason for reconsideration in the absence of some activity by a party who voted in the prevailing side. Mr. Murray disagreed completely with the argument of the never, never land conclusions of the Law Department with reference to how a matter for reconsideration is to be undertaken when there is clearly attention to reconsideration given to a question of change in substance by the applicant. He said that cicarl}, no intention to include a person who objects. The suggestion is if the Commission opens this door by reconsideration, there are no rules. %Vhatever the rules were or what the Commission could have adopted, have not been. The Commission did not adopt the rules for reconsideration established by the City Council. Mr. Murray found it unavailing the position that has been espoused with reference to new evidence, he found it unfounded to suggest that there is a method by which an objector can request reconsideration because is not there now. Mr. Murray urged the Commission to reject the concept for reconsideration. John Henderson of 115 Dempster said that architectural integrity is an important issue that always should be considered. Mr. Henderson said that he came in front of the Commission four to five times before he received approval from the Commission for projects he did over the last ten years in his property. This meant that they needed to work very hard to meet the expectations of the community to live in a preservation district. He said that in a project like this it should be understood all the details; have a thorough knowledge of how is being built, where are things located and how is it going to fat in the existing environment. Mr. Henderson said that the Commission should reflect on the decision made and perhaps reconsider with additional knowledge which will be given by the architect as to what they really want to do there. He requested that the Commission reconsider what they have done in the previous meeting and give additional thought as to how the new house should fit into the preservation district. Chris Carey at this time said that if a motion to reconsider the Commission's approval is made, it should come from one the Commissioners cvho voted for approval. Thomas Prairie said that he did not hear new evidence, nor he heard anything new that he had not heard in previous meetings. He said that he sat through the meetings, thought about it, came to an affirmative vote, and if he would vote again tonight, he would vote affirmatively again. He found disturbing that the Commission is being asked to revisit the project, as if there was something improper about a 4 to 3 vote. There have been many other important issues that have passed or rejected on just as a narrow vote' and the idea that the Commission should have all ten members here is difficult. Emily Guthrie said all that is needed is a quorum and the Commission had a quorum, and a majority of a quorum and the Commission had that. Mr. Prairie suggested that if it had gone the other way, those who are not happy with the vote would not be questioning the 4 to 3 vote. Neal Vogel said that would not be true for him. If someone wanted more information because so many things were left unresolved he would like a motion for reconsideration. He said that the Blocks may still build what they want. Chris Carey said that Peter Gluck, the architect said that he will come back and bring the drawings to show the changes and that they will also be reconsidering the fence. Carlos Ruiz said that Mr. Gluck has offered to come back. Mr. Carey said that there was no motion coming forward. He then moved on to the next item in the agenda. Evanston Preservation Commission December 21, 2004 —Minutes Page ti IV. NEW BUSINESS/REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 320 Lake Street (LSHD) — Exterior alterations and construction of a rear addition to the house requiring zoning variation [Alteration/Constru ction/Zon Ing Variationj Paul Janicki, architect presented plans for exterior alterations and the construction of a rear addition to the house at 320 Lake Street. The proposed addition requires a zoning variance, The house is Iocated withir ,Le Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Janicki said that the house is in a small lot and it already is legal non -conforming zoning wise. The project is a 98 s. f. addition to include breakfast, informal eating area off the kitchen, a mudroom and new entry to be more compatible with the style of the house. Also, at the gable end there are three new windows, and on the west side of the house there is a nc%v dormer. The materials are the same as the house: stucco, matching the eaves brackets, the windows are casement, and leaded glass panels that will match the existing leaded glass. Mr. Janicki said that there are casement windows in the front and other locations of the house and the garage. The west elevation dormer window is a double hung window as shown on a revised perspective drawing. The dormers will have double hung windows with stucco and the same roof pitch as the existing. Also, the shed dormer in the back of the house will remain. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie asked how close the bay will be from the fence to the south. Mr. Janicki said it is 2.6'. Mr. Carey said that the R&TA committee determined that standards A and C for zoning variation apply. He said that the one-story addition requires a major zoning variation. The propose lot coverage is 37.7%; allowable Iot coverage is 30%. Allowable impervious surface is 45%; proposed is 56.8%. Required rear lot setback is 30% proposed is 9.4' and the existing is 14'. Carlos Ruiz asked if the neighbors have been informed. Mr. Janicki said yes, but not all of the neighbors. Michael Girard moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that they approve the major variation and allow for the construction [of the one-story addition] as it does not affect adversely the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the local historic district, and it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare to the property in the district or vicinity. Stanley Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stanley Gerson moved to approve the demolition of the one-story structure on the south elevation at 320 Lake Street, in that the demolition would not be detrimental to the public interest, and would not be contrary to the general welfare of the people of the city and the state. The structure [addition] does not contribute to the distinctive historical and architectural character of the district. Demolition would not be contrary to the purpose and the intent of this Chapter and the objectives of the historic district. The addition could be reproduced if so Evanston Presmation Conunission December 21, 2004 —Minutes Page 7 desired. The owners do have plans for replacement of the addition that is to be demolished. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Chris Carey said that the alterations include a new dormer for attic at west elevation and two double hung windows on east elevation. The R&TA Committee determined that standards for alteration (1), (2), (5), (9), and (10) applied. Stanley Gerson moved that the proposed alterations at 320 Lake Street consisting of a new dormer on the west elevation, and two double hung windows on the east elevation be approved, in that these alterations meet the standards for review of alteration: (1) minimal alteration to the property; (2) these additions do not alter the character of the original property; (5) examples of skilled craftsmanship that are involved in the structure are to be treated with sensitivity; (9) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design, the proposed design does not destroy the architectural character of the building and it is compatible w;th the property and the neighborhood; and (10) the new addition could be removed in the future if the owners so desire. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Chris Carey said that the project also includes a one-story rear addition with deck on the roof. The R&TA committee found that standards for review of construction (1), (3), (7), (8), (10), (12), (14), (15), and (16) applied. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the proposed addition to the rear at 320 Lake Street as it meets standards for construction: (1) the height is visually compatible with properties to which it is visually related; (7) the relationship of its materials and textures; (8) its roof shape; (10) the scale of the structure in relation to open spaces is compatible with the properties which is visually related; (12) the original qualities and character of the property are not to be destroyed; (14) the commission is not discouraging contemporary design, and the addition does not destroy significant historic, cultural, or architectural material; (15) new additions if were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired; and (16) in considering new construction the Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1212 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Exterior alteration and addition of dormers to a coach house [Alteration] Paul Janicki presented plans for exterior alterations and the addition of dormers to a coach house at 1212 Judson. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Janicki said that the owner wants to make a luring unit above the garage (coach house) by adding a knee wall, built a stair going up inside the garage and take the existing roof and move it up as high as zoning would allow or the mid span of the roof being 17.6', and add one dormer facing the house and another facing the alley. The materials will be the same as the existing including the wood shakes, same double hung windows with simulated divided lights and the spacer bar. The overhead garage wood door will stay the same. Mr. Janicki said that the ceiling joists are being lowered inside the garage. Evanston Presmation Commission December 21, 2004 — Nfinutrs Page 8 Chris Carey asked if the neighbors were aware of the proposed work. Mr. Janicki said that he thought that meeting with the neighbors was a good idea. Commission's Findings Chris Carey said that the project is removing the existing roof of the garage, replacing it a new roof with the original pitch, add dormers on each, east and west elevations. The Review and Technical Assistance Committee found that the following standards for review of alteration apply: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Thomas Prairie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed work at 1212 Judson as it meets standards of alteration: 1) minimal alteration to the property, 2) the qualities or character of the property are not being destroyed, 3) the alterations are appropriate with the style of the home, 5) the existing character is being treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features will be repaired, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the essential integrity will remained unimpaired. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 2251 Sheridan Road (Landmark) — Door replacement and construction of accessibility ramp [Alteration] Ryan Nestor, architect and Rick Nemick of Northwestern University, presented plans for the replacement of a door and the construction of an accessibility ramp at 2251 Sheridan Road. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Nestor said that on the south elevation of the building there will be a ramp with a concrete retaining wall which will be tinted to match the existing pavers. The railing system is the only portion above grade will be the metal railing. The door affected is aluminum to be replaced The existing stairs will be reduced in width to accommodate the landing of the ramp. Landscaping will be provided as well. The light fixtures on the ramp are recessed into the wall. Commission's Findings Mr. Carey said that applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Mr. Gerson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed ramp, guardrails, handrails, light fixtures and new door at 2251 Sheridan Road in that: 1) it requires minimal alteration of the structure, 2) the original qualities of the structure are not being destroyed, 3) the alterations are not seeking to create an earlier appearance, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of slalled craftsmanship that characterize the structure and site will be treated with sensitivity, 6) the door has to be replaced to meet the requirements of the Disabilities Act, 8) archaeological resources will be preserved, 9) contemporary design is not being proposed, and 10) the ramp could be removed without destroying the integrity of the building. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1243 Maple Avenue (RHD) — Construction of lhvo-car garage [Construction] Leonard Davis, presented plans for the construction of a two -car garage at 1243 Maple Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Evanston Prescn•ation Commission December 21, 2004 - Ntinutcs Page 9 Mr. Davis said that the Commission had previously approved the existing two -car parking pad at the rear of the property. The overhead door is steel. The windows are wood to be provided by the owner. Commission's Findings Chris Carcy said that the applicable standards for construction are Neal Vogel moved to approve the garage at 1243 'Maple with the contingency that the overhead garage door, windows, and man door be wood. The project meets standards: 1) height, 2) proportion of front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) rhythm of solids and voids, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, 7) relationship of textures and materials (with the contingency), 8) roof shapes, 10) scale of the structure, 12) original qualities, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Discussion: Nir. Davis said that all the previous projects he worked on with the Commission had steel doors. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. After a brief recess the Commission continued it th the meeting. 5. 1578 Sherman Avenue (Landmark) — installation of new double Bung windows on currently bricked up window openings [Alteration] Remored from agenda at the request of the applicant 6. 1741 Asbury Avenue/1800 Ridge Avenue (RHD/Landmark) — Replacement of fence and pavement of surface parking and advisory review on proposed planned development (affected area Is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District and It is the western portion of the property at 1740 Ridge Avenue, an Evanston landmark). The proposed planned development is for 1800 Ridge. [Alteration/Advisory review on planned development] James Murray, attorney, said that the application is for a wooden board on board fence [for a parking lot at 1741 Asbury Avenue]. He said that there was a discussion of a wrought iron fence with the Plan Commission and that there was no request for a change. Mr. Murray said that they consider the fence to be an open item with the original design being a cedar board on board fence. Mr. Murray said that this is a project that involves a planned development that is being proposed for 1800 Ridge. He said that the western parking lot [at 1741 Asbury] is within the Ridge [Historic] District. Also, he noted that 1740 Ridge is a designated historic building. The rest of the project is on Ridge and it is not part of the historic district nor is it a designated landmark. Mr. Murray said that the subject lot and the central portion of the east lot will total approximately 50 parking spaces outside, plus 2 spaces on the interior of the 1800 Ridge building, and it will serve the parking requirements of the proposed residential planned development, that will take Evamton Preser•adon Commission December 21, 2004 — NSirstes Page 10 on the existing automobile dealership (1800 Ridge) and convert it to 34 residential units. The 52 parking spaces are what it is required. Mr. Murray said that they propose to modify the circulation to a loop without the crossing of vehicles in the center, from the existing entry from Ridge through the west aspect of the east lot then through and around, in a clock wise direction, and out through 1740 Ridge. They propose to resurface the lot, install two double light standards, and add substantial landscaping. Mr. Murray said that there was some discussion of a %wought iron fence, but from their point of view, the neighbors deserve to have the parking lot screened and that is why the selection of the board on board [6-feet tali] fence. It minimizes the transfer of light from headlights, and it is a structure element for different types of plant materials that might be grown. Ann Dienner asked about the lighting affecting the neighbors on the west side of Asbury. Mr. Murray said that there is a question of security and a question fitting the lighting standard fixtures to the particular height and size of the lot. They are not allowed to have more than 0.5 foot candles at the perimeter. The proposed light fixtures were designed to achieve that result. The board on board cedar fence further reduces the transfer of light. Mr, Murray also noted that the Iot in question has been a parking area since I959-60. He also noted that the existing cyclone fence is not a significant preservation issue. Neil Vogel said that it would be nice to screen the parking lot with landscaping with hedges or shrubs so it does not feel like a 6-foot tali wall across Lyons. Mr. Murray said that side along Lyons is a public easement. In regard to the application, Carlos Ruiz, said that the applicant has applied for a planned development, which is considered a special use. The parking lot is part of the planned development. Mr. Murray said that the parking lot was done by variation dating 1959-60. Initially, the 1740 Ridge building utilized that parking lot. The proposed parking spaces will be utilized to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed residential units. The balance of some _ 56 to 59 spaces will continue to exceed the requirement of the 1740 Ridge structure. Mr. Murray said that there will be 23 units on the first and second floors and 11 additional units on the third and fourth floors. Carlos Ruiz asked if there is a fence on Asbury. Mr. Murray said that there is a cyclone fence now and there will be a wooden fence behind the row of landscape materials. Mr. Ruiz said that, if he is not mistaken, the proposed fence is a front yard fence. Mr. Murray said that the proposed _ fence is not a front yard fence; the front yard is 40-feet, even if the fence were at 27-feet they will not need any kind of fence variation. Mr. Ruiz asked if that analysis had been confirmed by Toning. Mr. Murray said, yes. fir. Ruiz asked if the neighbors had any concems. Mr. Murray said that they were surprised by the neighbors' outpouring of support. Commission's Findings Ann Dienner moved that the replacement of a chain link fence with a board on board wood fence, the resurfacing of the parking lot, the installation of two light fixtures, and the new landscaping at 1741 Asbury/1800 Ridge, meets standards for advisory review on special uses: A) is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not adversely affect the historic E,6mmton Presen•ation Commission December 21, 2004 — Minutes Page I architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or character of local historic districts; B) is necessary to provide the owner a recoverable rate of return on the real property where the denial thereof would amount to a taking of the property without jest compensation; and C) wiIl 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. Neil Fogel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Neil Vogel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for replacing the existing chain link fence to cedar wood fence at 1741 Asbury/1800 Ridge. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. V. STAFF REPORT A. Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Carlos Ruiz indicated that he had disuibuted earlier under communications a letter from Judy Fiske regarding a proposed amendm-ent to the Zoning Ordinance. He said that Alderman Ann Rainey (Wh Ward) has proposed an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove the Commission's advisory review on National Register Historic Districts. The Aldermanic reference has been referred to the Plan Conunission. The Plan Commission tabled the matter to January 5, 2005. The proposed amendment would remove the Commission's advisory review on zoning variances, fence variations, and special uses on properties %%ithin National Register Historic Districts only. This would affect properties north of Lincoln Street in the Northeast Evanston Historic District and properties in the recently recommended Oakton Historic District to the National Register. Ann Dienner asked about an example to which this ad% isory review would apply. Chris Carey mentioned as an example an air conditioning condenser that may need a minor variation to be installed closer to the property Iine than the minimum setback required by zoning, and it is in a National Historic District. The Commission would recommend directly to the Zoning Board of Appeals; with the proposed change the Commission would not see it. Jordan Cramer asked how often this review has come up in the past. Mr. Ruiz said he tabulated the cases for Ald. Rainey when the Oak -ton Historic District was in front of the Commission. Aid. Rainey had asked him to Iook at properties that were in the National Register only. He recalled that there were 10 or so recommended cases within the last five years. Mr. Ruiz said that a significance case was north of Lincoln Street where a property owner was issued erroneously a building permit to build a garage addition on the property line. Chris Carey said that in considering the proposed amendment the one thing that comes to mind are fences. Zoning is not sensitive regarding how a fence might look next to a landmark or district, because there is no one who is commenting in the appearance of the fence. Thomas Prairie moved that the Evanston Preservation Commission would like to go on record opposing the proposed amendment to the Evanston Zoning Ordinance to delete references to Preservation Commission review in Federal Historic Districts. The Preservation Commission feels that it is not a burden on the Commission to review such projects, and that the Preservation Commission has a unique position in the City of Evanston in the oversight of these projects. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. 12 Evamton Preservation Commission December 21, 2004 —:Minutes Page 12 Discussion: Stan Gerson suggested including in the motion the oversight of these projects to retain the character of the Federal Districts. Mr. Carey amended the motion by including in the motion "to retain the character of said districts.." Michael Girard seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. B. Appointment of Nominating Subcommittee for the 2005 Preservation Commission Officers Stan Gerson, Michael Girard, volunteered to the Nominating Subcommittee to report back to the Commission in January 2005 with the names of nominees to sen•e as Chair, Vice -Chair and Secretary of the Preservation Commission. The Commission will vote on the nominees on January 18, 2005. C. 2005 Preservation Commission Retreat The Preservation Commission selected Saturday, January 29, 2005 as the date for the 2005 Preservation Commission retreat. The Music Institute of Chicago was suggested as a possible location for the retreat. VL ADJOURNMENT Thomas Prairie moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: 6os D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation erdinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Public Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 18, 2005 7:30 p.m. — Room 2403�( Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Pam Daniels, Alene Boyer, Judi Diamond -Falk, Susan Gallun, Sig Froelich, Steven Zecker, Bernard Citron, Larry Booth, Robert Buono, Kerl LaJeune, Jeanne Lindwall, Tom Gemmel], Barbara Janes, Susan Hughes, Bill McClure, Nick Agnew, Bruce Enenbach, and Judy Fiske PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz and Andrew Huckman I. CALL TO ORDER./ QUORUAi DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. with a quorum of eight members present. II. COMMUNICATIONS Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that he had received late this afternoon copies of letters from Schain. Burney, Ross & Citron dated January 25, 2004 to Roger Crum [then City Manager] regarding the proposed rezoning of the property known as Kendall College and January 14, 2005 to Judy Aiello [Acting City Manager) regarding the Kendall College property. Bernard Citron, Attorney for Smithfield, said that the January 14, 2005 letter has to do with the continuing discussion about the zoning of the property. The letter argues that the proposed rezoning to RI it is not at a point legally where it can be brought forward to the City Council. The proposed rezoning is defective in many respects. The Plan Commission's recommendation was that it should be residential. The Plan Commission has to comc up with a specific set of recommendations and findings which they did not do. The recommendation went in front of the Development Committee, but the City Council cannot act on it. III. OLD BUSINESS Report of Nominating Committee and Election of the 2005 Preservation Commission Officers Evanston Preservation Conry:>=ssio= January 18, 2005 - %tinu*cs Page Z Stan Gerson of the Nominated Committee presented the following slate: Christopher Carey, Chair, Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair; and Diary Brugliera, Secretary. Emily Guthrie seconded the slate of the 2005 Preservation Commission Officer. The Commission approved the slate of 2005 Officers unanimously. Tote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. IV. NEW BUSINESS[REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&T?►) 1. 110 Kedzie Street (LSHD) — Demolition of existing one-story rear addition and deck. Construction of new one-story rear addition and concrete stairs with railing [Zoning VarinncelConstruction/Demolition] Pam Daniels, owner and Alone Boyer, architect, presented plans for the demolition of an existing one-story rear addition and d_cl:; the construction of a new one-story rear addition and concrete stairs with railing requiring a zoning variance. The property is in the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Daniels said they would like to remove the one-story extension to their house, which was last modified in the 1960s, and replace it with a larger extension with a first floor bathroom and kitchen remodeling. They would add four windows in keeping with the style of the original 1910 house. The zoning variance is for the side yard setback of 4' and the lot coverage that currently exceeds the maximum 300"o lot coverage. The neighbors are in favor of the zoning variance. Susan Rundle said that the lot coverage is 36.1 % and setback 4.3' from east property line. The applicable standards for variations are A and C. Mary Brugliera said that the lot coverage is a 20% increase and the impen•ious surface ratio is )2%. Ms. Daniel said that the deck will be removed, and there will be more grass area. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Administrator approval of the lot coverage and surface ratio and setback, asserting that the proposal does not adversely affect the building or the character of the local district, and that the houses on either side of the lot are clearly non -conforming; the one to the east corers most of the lot; the one to the south has a parking pad taking up the entire back yard. Lastly, the addition will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the district. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimoush•. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Regarding demolition of the one-story addition and deck at the rear of the house, Susan Rundle said that all five of the standards applied. Stan Gerson moved that the proposed demolition be approved in that the removal of the one-story addition would not be detrimental to the public interest or contrary to the general welfare of the people, the City or the State. T1ie structure is not of such architectural significance that it should be preserved. The demolition of the structure will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter and the objectives of historic preservation. The material on the structure is not unusual and it could be reproduced without Evanston Presmation Corrursission L January 18, 2005 — Minutes Paec 3 great difficulty or expense, and the owners do have plans to replace the structure. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the standards for construction that applied are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Mr. Carey added that the windows on the house are vinyl windows, the proposed windows are wood. He asked Ms. Daniels what *pe the new windows will be. Ms. Daniels said they will be double hung windows to match the original front fagade windows with the same pane pattern on the top of the windows, matching the existing dining room windows, per photos from the Historical Society. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the construction of the one-story stucco addition to the rear of 110 Kedzie as it meets the standards for construction: the height of the addition being visually compatible with the existing residence; the proportion of openings vill be more compatible than they are now; the materials are the same and .vill match the house; the roof shape is appropriate; the scale and proportion of the structure are appropriate; the original qualities of the original house are not being destroyed; any archaeological findings will. be preserved, and they could remove the addition keeping th_ essential form and integrity of the house. Mary $rugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 5 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 644 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) -- Construct new cantilevered bay and enclosed mudroom on west rear elevation. Alter window openings on first floor south elevation (kitchen area). Replace windows on third floor attic (north & east elevations) lAlteration) Judi Diamond -Falk, architect, and Susan Gallun, owner, presented plans for the construction of a cantilcvered bay and mudroom on the west rear elevation of the house. Also, they sought to alter the first floor window openings on the south elevation and replace the windows on the third floor attic on the north and east elevations at 644 Michigan Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Diamond -Fall: said the project includes the remodeling of the unfinished third floor, the kitchen and family room, and the construction of a cantilevered bay off the family room. She said that the lot coverage will not be increased. They are replicating an existing bay on the south side of the house original to the house and duplicating the roof line on the south side and enclosing a back porch entry into a mudroom. Ms. Diamond -Falk said that they are moving the powder room and removing the kitchen casement windows. Stan Gerson asked about the new windows. Ms. Diamond -Falk said that they are aluminum clad. The dormer windows are being replaced v6th the same size aluminum clad windows. The exterior of the addition will match the existing stucco. Nis. Diamond -Falk said that there is aluminum on the exterior of the Douse. The new windows have simulated divided lights with the same muntin pattern. The attic «rindows are falling apart. They are single glazed and leak and are not in good condition. Evanston Presen-ation Commission January 13. 204: —Minutes Page 4 The Commission determined that all replacement windows and all new windows should be all wood windows, not clad. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the alteration at 643 Michigan Avenue as presented and as meets the standards of alteration: (1) every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the structure in a manner that requires minimal alteration; (2) the distinguishing original qualities and character of the property are not going to be destroyed; (3) the addition is not seeking to create an earlier appearance; (5) distinctive stylistic features that characterize the property are being treated with care; (6) deteriorated features such as the windows in the third floor dormers would be replaced with matching windows and recreating the existing muntin pattern; (9) contemporary design for alteration are not being discouraged and (10) whercver possible new additions and alterations to a structure shall be done in such a manner that if they were to be removed in the future, the central integrity of the structure shall not be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Mr. Girard amended his motion by saying that new windows shall be all wood, and not wood clad windows. Emily Guthrie seconded the amendment. Mr. Girard made a second amendment to his motion to include the simulated divided lights with the spacer bars in the glazing for the new windows in the upper sash. Mary Brugliera seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: S ayes, Onays 3. 635 `Iichigan Avenue (LSHD) — Removal of north and south attic dormers. Construction of four new dormers with hip roofs (north, south, east, and west) [Demolition/Construction] Sig Froelich, architect, presented plans for the removal of the north and south attic dormers and for the construction of four new dormers with hip roofs, one on each elevation of the house at 635 Michigan Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Froelich said that his clients would like to build out the attic and finish it and by doing so add four dormers for additional light. The dormers arc in keeping with the same vocabulary of the existing house. He said that the house was moved to its existing site in the 1940s. A copy of the blue print shows the outline of a dormer on front elevation. Mr. Froelich said he will match that dormer on the east and west elevation of the house. He said that he took verticaliy the lines = of the projecting bay on the north side of the house. The dormer(s) look as they were part of the original house. The dormers incorporate the Colonial Revival and American Four Square styles of the house. Emily Guthrie said that the windows of the house were replaced from double hung to casement sometime ago. Mr. Froelich said that the existing casement windows are clad with simulated divided lights. He did not know the material of the existing double hung windows. Mr. Froelich said he tried to stick with the casement windows for egress requirements, because that is the vocabulary of the house. Commissioners discussed the existing clad windows. Susan Rundle said that in this case because the majority of windows are clad that she was not as concerned with the proposed new clad windows. Emily Guthrie said that she would prefer all wood windows to remain wood so that in the future the clad windows could be replaced with wood windows. She was also concerned Evanston Press- adon Commission January 18, 2005 — Mimtcs Page 5 with the laree size of the dormers. Other Commissioners were not as concerned and felt that the size of the proposed dormers was appropriate. Mar. Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness to demolish the north and south dormers at 635 Michigan Avenue, in that the dormers are not of such architectural historical significance that the demolition would be detrimental to the public interest or contrary to the general welfare of the people. The property does not contribute to the distinctive historic or architectural character of the district; demolition is in keeping with the purpose of this chapter and the objectives of preservation for the Lakeshore district. The structure is not of such old or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced, and there are plans to replace the dormers. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the standards for alteration that applied were 1 through 5, 9 and 10. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the alterations at 635 Michigan Avenue for the construction of four new dortners; one on each elevation at attic level as they meet standards: (1) every reasonable shall be made to adapt the structure in a manner that requires minimal alteration; (2) the distinguishing original qualities and character of the property shall not be destroyed; Q) all properties, structures, sites or objects shall be recognized as products of their own time, alterations that have no historical basis and seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged; (4) the Commission has not found evidence of changes that had taken place over time or are evidence of the history and development of the property, these changes may have acquired significance in their own right; (5) distinctive stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity, the brackets are being maintained; (9) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design; and (10) wherever possible new additions and alterations to a structure shall be done in such a manner that if they were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the stricture shall not be unimpaired, the dormers could be removed. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. Mr. Girard amended his motion adding that the new windows should be all wood windows and muntin pattern to be as shovm in the drawings. Emily Guthrie seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimoush•. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 2103 Ridge Avenue (Landmark) —Demolition existing second floor half -story rear addition. Construction of new second floor full -story addition [Zoning 'Variance!Demolition/Alteration ] Steven Zecker, owner presented plans for the demolition of an existing second floor half -story rear addition and the construction of a new second floor full -story addition at 2103 Ridge Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark. The proposed work requires a zoning variance. Mr. Zecker said that they are in need of a fourth bedroom that will seat on top of the kitchen at the back of the house. The house was moved from 2103 Sherman to the present site in 1916, the kitchen was added at that time. The addition will require the removal of two windows in an existing bedroom and moved around to the north side of the home. The window at the top of the stairway will be moved 3' south. The addition seats on top on the existing kitchen which is 4.4' from the north lot line, the required setback is 5'. Evanston Preservation Commission I January 18, 2005—,iinutes Page 6 Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend the zoning variation for the setback at 2103 Ridge in that it will not adversely affect the architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark and it would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the public. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the standards for demolition that applied are all five standards. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the rear second floor closet and the associated roof elements as the portion to be demolished is not: (1) of such historical, cultural, architectural or archeological significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and the general welfare of the people the City or the State; (2) it does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural or archeological character of the district as a whole; (3) the demolition of this portion of the structure is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter or the objectives of historic preservation; (4) it is not of such old or unusual or uncommon design, texture or materials that could not be reproduced without difficulty or expense; and (5) there are plans to build within five years. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Zecker said the new windows will be all wood windows, cedar siding, replicate the cedar fish scale on the front on the back of the house. Susan Rundle said standards for alteration that applied are I through 5, 9 and 10. Stan Gerson moved that the Commission grant the certificate of appropriateness for the second story addition as described in that: (1) the second -story addition requires minimal alteration of the entire property; (2) the structure does not alter the distinguished original character of the entire property; (3) the addition is not intended to have a historical basis; (4) there are no changes that are evidence of the history and development of the property and the structure; (5) examples of skilled craftsmanship are going to be treated «7th sensitivity; (9) the addition does not destroy significant architectural character of the propert} * and (10) in the future will be possible to remove that second story addition and it will not affect the form and integrity of the structure. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. At this time the Commission took a 10 minute recess. 5. a) 2408 Orrington Avenue (NEHD) — Proposed Planned Development A verbatim transcript of this hearing is available. The following is a summar)• of the hearing. - Bernard Citron, attorney, from the law firm of Schain, Burney, Ross and Citron representing Smithfield Properties, LLC said that the Plan Development application was made in October of 2004 with supplemental information thereafter. He said that the property is approximately 3.5 acres and it is located on Orrington, Sherman, Colfax and Lincoln. Mr. Citron said that what is being proposed is to rezone the property from U1 to R4, with a special use of a Planned Development. Evanston Preservation Com-nission 7anuary 18, 2005 —Minutes Pare Mr. Citron said that they propose 36, 3-story to%,,m homes, and 16 single-family homes. One of them is being retained, is an existing house at the corner of Onington and Colfax. The site plan shows the basic row house or single-family attached homes with an 1 S' by 40' foot print. The single-family detached homes vary in sizes. The total number of parking spaces is over 2 for 1. Each single-family attached home has two interior parking spaces and each single-family detached home has two interior parking spaces. The site has an open space designated as a park open to the community. Another benefit to the community is that the property will be put back to the tax roles. Mr. Citron said that the town homes and the single-family attached homes are located on the interior of the site and they are surrounded by single-family detached homes. The R4 district would require approximately 170,000 S.F. The site has 152,000 S.F. The Plan Development increases the density IS percent whereas 25 percent increase could be wanted by City Council. The project does not exceed the site coverage. The height allowed in R4 is 34', they are asking 35'. The proposed setbacks generally are along Lincoln 19'- 6' ; along Orrington 20'; along Colfax 15' as oppose to the existing setbacks along Orrington 29'- 10"; at the corner of Colfax and Sherman 19'; the second house from Sherman 28'. Mr. Citron said that the Planned Development process allows the City Council to grant allowances so long as no building is closer than 15' to the peripheral of the property. The Planned Development provides very small rear yards for the single family homes. These homes are marketed to empty -nesters, a different market segment. Nlr7 Citron said that if the Planned Development is approved that they maybe back in front of the Commission for a more specific reviciv of the materials, heights, and windows. If subsequent changes occur, they will comeback to the Commission. The plan tries to eliminate curb cuts as much as possible; it does not take away street parking and garages are tucked away. Larry Booth, architect said that by looking at the surroundings of the property, they developed two types of buildings, single-family detached houses which face the street in three sides, and the park like for the town houses. They developed a site plan off Sherman where they have two rows of 14 town houses facing Sherman with a public park and then 8 rows of town houses on the back side. Then on Colfax and Orrington and on Lincoln they have single family houses creating a vocabulary of architecture that comes from the existing houses surrounding the site. Mr. Booth said that at this stage they developed three types of houses with the intention of not to make them look like cookie cutters. Robert Buono said that they will not repeat the same fagade more than t«ice on any street in which the single family homes were facing. The houses will be distinguished by different types of materials, color of brick and roof types. He said that they have some of the materials and if approved, purchasers will have a pallet from which they could select. Regarding the town houses, they will face the street, the front door will face the street, but they will not have a sidewalk. Chris Carey asked about the orientation of the town houses. Mr. Booth said the front doors will be in the park. Regarding guest parking and handicapped parking, Mr. Citron said that oversized parking is not required for single-family homes or town homes. Each single-family home will have two -car parking. Also, the inner drives are accessible for fire service. The existing alley on Evanston Preservation Corr afission January t5, 2DO- —Minutes Pap 8 the south is also accessible to vehicles and it will remain. On Sherman, there will be two curb cuts and the existing alley will remain. Regarding the construction, Stan Gerson said that looking -west on Lincoln or Colfax and on Orrington what one sees is a straight line. He wondered if the setbacks could be altered. Mr. Citron said that they could look into that. Nfr. Booth added that the landscaping v%-ill create individuality for the buildings as well. He said that the value of the development is to make it look as part of Evanston. Susan Rundle said that even though the development was geared to attract empty nesters, that there could be children living in these houses. There are no backyards proposed on Lincoln and potentially everybody-6-ill be grilling on the front lawn. Mr. Buono said that the whole site will be governed by a homeowner's association which will restrict things that cannot happen including a restriction on closing off the park. Kerl LaJeune of Booth Hansen said that the parkway trees will remain on the site and the existing trees on the inside will be relocated if possible. Mr. Buono said that certain trees will be removed as part of the overall plan. Regarding the material for the driveways, Mr. Booth said that it could be brick or concrete pavers. Mr. Citron said the site plan in front of the Commission is dated November 9, 2004 with the same number of units and with a drive all the way around. Stan Gerson referring to standard G said that "The general standard for special uses, the proposed Planned Development preserves significant historical and architectural resources." The applicant responded in the application to refer to answer E, that has nothing to do with it. Mr. Citron said that they differ in regard to the historical significance of 2408 Orrington and that the houses on Sherman are significantly contributing to the site. Their opinion is that 2408 Orrington, Wesley Hall is not a landmark building therefore it is not inappropriate to demolish it. They do not think that is necessary to remain the single-family homes on the site and if those homes are replaced 'with single-family homes that are in character, scale and appropriate materials, then the district is still intact. Mary Bruglicra said that the ordinance designating the historic district, all of those houses, except for the two school buildings, are listed as contributing structures. Mr. Buono asked if a contributing structure could be demolished. Ms. Brugliera said, yes. Chris Carey asked about the materials. Mr. Booth said that the new homes will have wood windows, stucco, slate, limestone and brick. Mr. Buono said that not every house on the street is going to have a shingle roof and when someone picks a material, that material could not be used more than once. Ms. Rundle wondered what if everybody wants wood windows. Mr. Buono said he referred to the materials used on the street fagade, what color brick, how much limestone and then the roof material such as slate, shingle or other types of materials. He said that they are tr}zng to develop a system that provides flexibility for the buyer as well as address the needs expressed tonight. They need to establish a pattern in terms of hoc homes are going to be finished. Mr. Booth said that they may have metal clad windows, but they will make sure that they do not have the same color. Evanston Pres-oration Ca=nission January 18, 2005 — NSintnes Page 9 Emile Guthrie asked if they were going to tell a home buyer that there are limitations on what they can do because of the neighboring houses. Mr. Buono said, yes. It will depend on what else has been selected on the block, their choices will be limited. his. Guthrie asked for the rational for RA as opposed to Rh. She said that there could be 20 houses on 3.5 acres at 50' x I50' lots. Mr. Buono said that buildinz 18 to 20 homes would place the homes in a price point that an absorption rate for those homes at th::t price rate of 52.5 million dollars. They do not believe that market exists in Evanston. Mr. Citron said that the R4 is consistent with what the property is currently zoned which is Ul. Ms. Guthrie said that the only R4 strip is couple blocks south, and it is small. Ms. Guthrie wondered how- much consideration was given to R1. Ann Dienncr said that with million dollar houses, the Commission does not want brick on the front and wood siding on the sides. Mr. Booth said the houses will have brick and stucco combined. N1r. Buono said that there will not be concrete block on the sides either. Mr. Citron said that they would like the whole booklet to be part of the record as being reviewed by the Commission and the supplemental materials that have been supplied to the Commission. Mr. Carey asked if the elevations that have been provided are accurate representations. Mr. Booth said that they would call them preliminary. Susan Rundle asked about Jacob Homes. Mr. Buono said that Jacob Homes is expected market =d construct the homes. They have no ownership interest in the property. At this time Chris Carey asked for public comment. Jeanne LindwaIl said that what UI allows is limited to colleges and universities, and a fairly significant density is associated with Ul properties. She noted that the density allowed is for the purpose of protecting Evanston's tax base. For U I was not the intent to allow other developers to use the same density. Ms. Lindwall said,with respect to zoning that the development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan under the neighborhood section that is presming the neighborhood character encouraging developments that complement the existing street and sidewalk patterns. The proposed setbacks do not conform to the character of the neighborhood. Ms_ LindwalI said that there is an Oak Grove in the neighborhood and it should be protected. She mentioned the Commission should refer the Secretary of the Interior's Rehabilitation Standards, which is mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance. Nis. Lindwahl said that the Planned Development is not compatible in terms of the land use with the neighborhood. Tom Gemmell said that what the plan does not show is a wall of town houses towering over the single-family homes. This is contrary to what the applicant told the neighbors and the Alderman. He said that the park is not a public space and there are no backyards. Mr. Gemmed said that it makes sense to open up any row houses or int=-nor town houses to the east, not to the west. The developer has flipped that completely over. The neighborhood includes families with children; the developer does not believe that they are going to have a lot of children. Barbara Janes said that behind the single-family homes what will be seen is a solid row of the back walls of the individual row houses. The setbacks on Orrington are -19' and the development will create an intrusion into the street breaking up the rhythm of it. She said that the proposed development is too dense. Evanston Preservation Commission January 18, 2005 — Minutes Page 10 Susan Hughes said that the R4 is totally inappropriate with the surrounding neighborhood and that the town homes will be cookie cutter in terms of their fagade. Bill 'McClure said that details about the construction should be here now. In regard to the market study he said that the methodology was not explored, but it is a series of conclusions. Judy Fiske said that single in the R classification the front yard is at least 2 i'. This setback is important for maintaining the character of the neighborhood and of the historic district. She said that the proposed plan wvill have a negative impact on property values of the surrounding properties. There are several Oak trees in the property that are part of the area before anything was built. his. Fiske said that there is no contributing structure that is more significant under the historic district than another. They are all contributing. Ms, Fiske requested that the Commission provide more time to the neighborhood in regard to the Planned Development. She said that :pis. Janes had presented before an alternative to the Planned Development by an Evanston architect, Dave Roberts, they wanted to submit that as part of the record. The alternate plan retains five of the contributing structures on the site with in -fill single-family houses. Isis. Fiske asked that the Commission consider what it did in the past on the Cove School property. Nick Agnew said that the Planned Development is a subdivision that is not compatible with the neighborhood. It has single family homes wtth 5' backyards which back into 36 town homes. Mr. Agnew said that he is a marketing manager, and that from about 28 homes between Ridge and Orrington, 20-plus homes have children. He said that the market for empty nesters is downtown Evanston. his. Agnew said that through the internet he found a website of condo buyers unhappy about Smithfield's business practices. Bruce Enenbach said that the there is going to be 35' tall houses and the town houses are going to be 44' tall, or 251 a higher. There will be a continuous wall that is going to look like a giant courtyard apartment building. He though that the R4 zoning is a real disconnect with the surrounding neighborhood. Tom Gemmeli wondered how the Commission could consider something for recommendation to the Plan Commission when the Planned Development has so many inconsistencies. Chris Carey went on to review the standards to be considered for the Commission's recommendation to the Plan Commission. The Commission considers lot coverage, yard requirements, parking, building height, fences and landscaping. Chris Carey cited the standards for review of Zoning, Special Uses and Variations: "(A) Is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely, affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integritt- of the landmark or character of local historic districts; or B) Is necessary to pros de the owner a recoverable rate of return on the real properly it -here the denial thereof would amount to a taking of the properly without fast compensation; and Evanston Prescrv2tion Commission January I t's, 2005 — Ntinutes Page t l Q Will not be nraterialhy detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or h ttrious to property in the district or vicinity ~there the property• is located. (Ord. 108-0-98). " Jordan Cramer said that in his own neighborhood on Park Place, there is a segment of park with wide open spaces, then one hits a block where the setback are significantly reduced. He said that it's almost like a completely separate neighborhood. He said that the proposed Planned Development is going to do the same. In terms of lot sizes, and setbacks, this is going to be significantly set apart from everything. Mr. Carey agreed with Mr. Cramer and said the compatibility issue with the neighborhood and the historic district is being challenged. He saw the plan development not fitting into the district at all. Mr. Gerson said that as far as standard A, it's obvious that it adversely affects the character of the historic district. Ann Dienner said in regard to standard C that the Planned Development is injurious to the property in the district or the vicinity. It changes the character of the neighborhood. Mary Brugliera agreed with leis. Dienner. his. Brugliera cited the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee minutes of April 28, May 12 and July 28 [2004], and at the end they voted unanimously to deny concept for many of the reason stated here. Emily Guthrie asked if the homes on the site were boarded up and said that she was concerned with tearing down the buildings because of damage. Mr. Buono said that they have the permits to drain the pipes and that the buildings were heated while being occupied. Chris Carey moved that the Commission does not recommend to the Plan Commission the Planned Development at 2408 Orrington in that it would adversely affect the historic architecture and aesthetic integrity of the local district, and that it would be injurious to property in the district and vicinity_ of the district where the property is Iocated. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Discussion: Carlos Ruiz suggested including as part of the motion the specific reasons addressing the standards. Commissioners cited lot size, lot coverage, yard requirements, setbacks, building height of the town houses, no backyards and density as the reasons for their recommendation. Susan Rundle said that she did not know if she could vote against a Planned Development, because there might be a Planned Development that is okay, but she would vote if it is as presented. Andrew Huckman, City attorney said that if the Commission were to vote to approve the Planned Development that the Commission would want to satisfy all three of the standards. However, if the Commission is voting not to recommend the PIanned Development, the Commission could base that on one standard only, if the Commission so chose. The Commission discussed standard C to clarify the meaning of "injurious." Mr. Carey said that he felt the Planned Development was injurious to the properties in the district because this type of development would change the character and also potentially the values of the houses in the neighborhood and the character of the historic district. Evanston Preser•ztion Commission January 18, 2005 — Minutes Page 12 Chris Carey amended his motion recommending that the Commission do not recommend to the Plan Commission the proposed Planned Development of 2408 Orrington as presented by the applicant. In that it would, under standard A, have an adverse effect on the historic architecture by the fact that the height of the to•.%-n homes would distort the common height in the neighborhood. The lot sizes are much smaller than the apical lot sizes in the neighborhood. The Iot coverage is much greater than the typical lot coverage. The setbacks are much different than the typical setbacks in the neighborhood. The density of the project is too great, and most of the houses and the town homes have no actual yard. 'Michael Girard seconded the amendment. The motion passed unanimously as amended. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Judy Fiske referring to the Secretary of the interior's Standards said that they talked about preserving and protecting important landscape features before rehabilitation work can begin. She was concerned particularly with the house at 2344 Orrington. b) 2408 Orrington (.NEHD) — Construction of 16 single family detached 3-bedroom homes, and 20 single family 2-bedroom attached homes, and 16 3-bedroom attached homes. Project includes a central common open space, parking, and landscaping. Carlos Ruiz asked NIT. Huckman if it would be necessary for the applicant to go back and address the construction separately from the Planned Development and demolition separately from everything else. fir. Huckman said that if the applicant wanted to be heard on those issues alter the determination that has already been made tonight, the applicant could present anything they wanted on the issues of construction and demolition. Mr. Citron said that they presented an application for demolition. but they did not asked for approval of construction and they asked for recommendation on the Planned Development and the special uses required under the ordinance. He thought the Commission could vote on the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), especially in light of the vote and the findings on the Planned Development. fir. Citron said that the COA could be denied on that basis. Andrew Huckman said if the Commission so chose to vote on the COA, the Commission should - take into account the comments just made by the applicant and the previous Planned Development discussions. The Commission might want to consider to give anyone who wishes to speak on those issues the opportunity to do so. The Commission would want to vote on the construction, make findings and vote on demolition by making findings. Jordan Cramer said the Commission should follow all the procedures. Mary Brugliera moved to continue the hearing to Wednesday, January 26, 2005, in Room 2403 at 7:30 p.m. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. c) 2408 Orrington; 725 Colfax; 735 Colfax; 2351 Sherman; 2344 Orrington; 2340 Orrington (NERD) -- Demolition of existing structures [Demolition] ` This item was continued to Wednesday, January 26, 2005 in Room 2403 at 7:30 p.m Evanston Preservation Commission January 13, 2005 —Minutes Page 13 �'. STAFF REPORT 2005 Preservation Commission Retreat Carlos Ruiz reported that the Chicago Music Institute does not have a room available on weekends. Mary Brugliera proposed the Evanston Public Library. The Commission retreat was scheduled on Saturday, January 29, 2005 (time to be announced; U. ADJOURNMENT Stan Gerson moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:20 p.m. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: S ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Preservation Coordi or Date: Do, V6 T t&, Is af6 EVA1rSTON PRESERVATION CO.MIMISSION Public .Meeting.Minutes Wednesday' January 26, 2005 7:30 p.m. — Room 2404 Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Diener, Michael Girard, Emily Guthrie, Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Stanley Gerson, and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Bernard Citron PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz and Andrew Huclunan I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey called to meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. with a quorum of six members being present. 11. OLD BUSINESS (Continuation of Public Hearing) A) 2408 Orrington (NEHD) — Construction of 16 single-family detached 3-bedroom homes; 20 single family 2-bedroom attached homes; and 16 3-bedroom attached homes. The Project includes a central common open space, parking, and landscaping [Construction] Chris Carey said that the Commission got information from both the applicant and the public at the last Tuesday meeting. The Commission will refer to that testimony and now incites additional testimony in regard to construction and demolition. Mr. Carey said that the Commission will consider now the review of the standards for construction of the proposed planned development. Bemard Citron, attorney representing Smithfield Development for the planned development at 2408 Orrington Avenue, said that in regard to the request for approval of construction they would like the statements and record that was made at the last hearing adopted as the record here today. Ann Dienner pointed out that in her materials she did not have the elevation dran7ng for design type "D", she had "E" and "F". Susan Rundle added that at previous meetings she had requested that the Commission needed all elevations that can be seen from the public way. Later the Commission received elevations of two of the houses, but they seem to be inconsistent with the front elevation. She referred to the site plan and noted that it was not clear what house goes Evanston Preservation Commission January 26, 200= — Special Mectine Minutes Pace 2 where. Also, the materials for each house, was not answered. Nis. Rundle said that if there are fifteen houses and three different kinds, are there going to be five houses of certain kind, but the Commission was told that there cannot be more than two of the same on one street. She asked, what are the other? S. Rundle said that she did not have enoueh information. Jordan Cramer said that what was given to the Commission and what was stated last week, and according to fir. Citron, this is the plan that they have right now, and this is what they are submitting. Mr. Cramer said that the Commission should proceed to debate or discuss, once comment from everybody is heard, that is what is before the Commission. If the application is lacking in some way, the Commission has given the applicants an opportunity to put in the record what they want, the Commission should consider that and make a decision. Bernard Citron clarified that in terms of materials there will not be aluminum siding. He said that they have not finished designing all the houses. They fully expect to be back in front of the Commission for final approval, if other house types are incorporated. He said that they do not know exactly ` which house will be in which location on the street. The street elevations of those houses were provided to the Commission as a reference, because they do not want to have a monotony situation. Mr. Citron said that when people buy a house, they do not know which of the house types might be where. When they choose one, the same house could not be next to it. He said that they will not know this until a project actually is approved before it sells. Mr. Citron said that the town homes are a different situation, those are tied now in terms of materials and how they look like. Susan Rundle asked if the list of materials submitted in one of the books is the complete list. Mr. Citron said ves, minus everything that says vinyl siding, and there will not be vinyl clad windows. Ann Dienner said that what the Commission is being asked is to give an open-ended approval, because the applicant has given some ideas, but they are not necessarily what they are going to be. \fir. Citron said that there will be additional houses ultimately. Emily Guthrie arrived to the meeting at 8:08 p.m. The Commission had now a quorum of seven members. Mary Brugliera cited the standards for review of construction that R&TA determined applied to all the types of homes: (1) Height; (2) Proportion of front fagade; (3) Proportion of openings; (4) Rhythm of solid to voids in front facades; (5) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets; (6) Rhythm of entrance porches and other projections; (7) Relationship of materials and texture; (8) Roof shapes; (10) Scale of structure; (I 1) Directional expression of front elevation; (12) The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed; (13) Preserving archaeological resources; and (16) The Commission shall not impose a requirement for the use of a single architectural style. Chris Carey said that the Commission heard in previous testimony in terms of standard (1) that the height of the town homes was too high; standard (5) the Commission talked about setbacks and spacing between each house; (7) seemed not an issue; (10) it was discussed at last week's hearing; (11) the Commission discussed previously the way some of the town homes were focused or their directional expression. Jordan Cramer said that at one time the opening to the Evanston Preservation Corrmiission January 26, 2005 — Special Mrctine liinutes Pabc 3 development was faced in one direction and then the final drawin s in front of the Commission it face another direction. Chris Carey said that standard (12) is a very strong standard; particularly the original qualities or character of a site and its environment shall not be destroyed. He said that those were some of the standards relating to the Commission's findings of last week. Andrew Huckman, City attorney, asked if Mr. Carey said that the Commission .vas taking into account the comments that were made at last week's meeting, and that the Commission is apprised of all comments that were made at that meeting. Mr. Carey said, yes. At this time Chris Carey asked for additional public comment. Tom Gemmell said that in light of last week's denial of the planned application, as a matter of law the Commission ought to deny the construction of something that is suppose to go in its plate. He said that there are a lot of inconsistencies with the plan as proposed. The Commission war given plans to either vote up or down as a whole and consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Gemmell said that the proposed structures are too high; the row houses in terms of rhythm of spacing could not be possible be compatible with the neighborhood; the materials are completely options; the scale is way too massive; the front elevation of the row houses are looking inward, which is opposite of to what they have been shown before, opening it up towards Roycemore as oppose to opening it up to single-family homes. Bruce Enenbach said that the Commission had just turned down the PUD. Carlos Ruiz said that in terms of the planned development, it is a recommendation [from the Commission] to the Plan Commission. The construction aspect is an application for certificate of appropriateness as well as the demolition aspect_ The Commission has not taken formal action on the construction or demolition yet. The Commission could not make a determination without making the findings for construction. Andrew Huckman said that there were three separate and distinct items filed by the applicant before the Commission, each of which requires action of the Commission independently. He asked Mr. Ruiz if that was correct. W. Ruiz said that the application indicates the demolition and the construction and the planned development in one application. Mr. Cramer said that there are three items before the Commission and to go through the entire due process the Commission needs to consider each one. There has to be a record of it, in fairness to everybody concerned. Jeanne Lindwall sa:d that that the Commission does not have enough information upon which to base a decision one wav or another. As a former Associate member of the Plan Commission she is aware that once a planned development reach City Council, is quiet usual to have the pallet of materials specified. It is not inappropriate to ask that the developer come back with a more finite pallet of materials to even begin this discussion. Ms. Lindwall said that she did not recall any discussion of the materials for the townhouses. She said that the Commission will be doing a disservice to the community and the developer making a finding without adequate information. Ms. Lindwall urged the Commission to continue the hearing so that the developer can provide the information the Commission is going to need. Recalling an earlier meeting, she asked wasn't there a request that a model be produced and showing how the buildings relate to the surrounding areas. In respect to the notion that two homes should not look exactly alike on the same street or E%-anston Preservation Commission January 26, 2005 — Speciat Meeting Minutes Page d next to each other, she pointed out the development pattern of the district as a whole, where there are number of instances of similar housing t% es next to each other. That kind of development could make a nice ensemble within the neighborhood. Ms. Lindy+•all said that she could not see how the Commission could proceed with what appears to be an incomplete submission. Chris Carey asked Mr. Huckman if it was possible to continue the review of construction to a date as a continuance to a future proposal. Mr. Huckman said that certainly it's possible whatever the will of the Commission is. He assumed that tonight all the materials in front of the Commission are being considered and the distinct proposal that the Commission has been given in making the Commission's determination. Bernard Citron said that last week, the Commission made a recommendation regarding the overall planned development. In regard to the construction aspects under the Preservation Ordinance, lie did not knoiv if that is required before the project goes to the Plan Commission. Nir. Ruiz said, no. Mr. Citron said that they can be back in front of the Preservation Commission, because they are preparing different things for the Plan Commission, which he thought will fill in the blanks for the questions that are being raised. If the Commission could convene on the construction aspect, it may help everybody. Mr. Citron said they will come back evith details and information about the materials. He said that there stems to be a disconnect, because the Preservation Ordinance does not necessarily take into account a planned development. Mr. Citron said that they will not know exactly which house, color of brick-, and other specific details will be on a specific address until after a house is bought. Mr. Citron said that evcn if they were building, as it has been suggested by the community, 12 or 14 single-family homes, they will have the same issue that the Commission does not know what house is going to be constructed on which lot, until it is purchased. He did not know how to address that. Jordan Cramer said that is a problem for the Commission, because if they have an applicant before the Commission they are put through all the standards. He said it is problematic when building 14 houses or more, but the Commission can only consider what is in front of them. Mr. Cramer said that as far he is concerned, if the Commission does not have enough information, the Commission just votes on what is in front of them. Michael Girard said that the Commission has a finite list of materials, the problem is how they are applied, on what structure, on what plan, on what type, and where is it located relative to other structures on the street. Mr. Girard said that he felt that the Commission is being asked to approve concept rather than a set plan. Mr. Citron suggested that the review does get continue on the issue of construction. He said that they will come back in front of the Commission before being scheduled in front of the Plan Commission. Mr. Citron asked can the Commission approve house types A, B, and C with variances of materials such as brick, stucco, wood, or certain elevations that will ao along with a house type. He said that it seemed they will need to come back fourteen separate times, and all what he is asking for is some guidance about this issue. Michael Girard said that when someone comes for a single family house, there is no ambiguity about the materials when the Commission is ready to make a vote. Mr. Citron said that they need some certainty before things are offer for sale. Also, people want some choices on single-family homes. He asked is it possible to this Commission to approve Evww.on Presmation Corrni,ssioa 1aruar,.• 26, 2005 — Special «eating Minutes Page 5 basic material pallets, then they will come back with something that is consistent with that, and thcy will not need to eo through «°hale hearing process on the final construction for that house. He said that they could come in with some redefined housing types, and then they will have to come back when they know where things are. Mary Btugliera referred to the proposed development at 1314 Ridge Avenue. She said that the Commission started with the developer with a preliminary meeting, because they wanted to learn the kinds of things the Commission will consider or not. They were told that the Commission would not consider any building in the front yard, in front of the mansion. The developer came back later with a plan, the Commission got down to the windows, the height and pitch of the roof, and everything else. The developer was uncertain at the time if they were going to go for a zoning text amendment, map changes, or a planned development. Then a new ordinance was passed called "Unique Use" since there were two landmarks involved. The developer came back to the Commission and they said that they were going to have single-family homes that will be built either by buyers or by them. Chris Carey said that in his opinion that, if the Commission had better drawings, fully articulated on,,vhat they are building, and they will have on those drawings enough information that would show what the materials will be, he felt that given that, the Commission would probably have enough information to approve or deny constrmmclion on that basis. Nir. Cramer said the Commission will need to know where each house «•ill be, and the spacing. Mr. Girard said that the applicant is looking for certain density and a certain number of houses. The location of the curb cuts on the street and all that is not going to change. Mr. Carey said that things might change because the applicant is saying that they will come back with something completely different. Mr. Citron clarified that the basic building envelopes will stay the same. Mr. Carey asked if the applicant w-ill come back with the same site plan with 40 to 53 town homes with more specific designs and materials. Mr. Citron agreed that they should not move further this es•ening in this aspect, so they can get more defined information and remove the ambiguity. He said that house type "C" on the plan as shown, it might not be there when ultimately it gets sold. The location of the homes setback from the front yard and the and side to side spacing will remain the same, but it may be a "D" instead of "C." Mr. Citron said that lie will give to the Commission at some point of this process all of the information that the Commission is normally accustom to. He said that they will put together before the next meeting something that is more concise and tied up with additional drawings that might be included. Arum Dienner said that if the applicant is going to stick to the site plan, is one thing. But if there is going to be a reduction in the density that is another thing. Mr. Citron said that at the end, if City Council does not agree with the overall plan, they will be coming back in front of the Commission. He acknowledged Mr. Gernmell's comments about the Commission's recommendation against the planned development, and how the Commission could not recommend the construction. Mr. Citron said that the Commission, if for no other reason, could review the construction and everyone could benefit from comments, recommendations or concerns as to the standards. He noted that the Commission is not voting on the planned development alone but also because of issues on the houses. City Council and the Plan Commission could benefit from that review. Evanston Presmation Commissiea January 26, 2005 —Special Meer-._ Minutes Page 6 Judy Fiske encouraged the Commission not to take the review piecemeal. She said that the Commission could not consider the application without knowing the underlying zoning, or assume that is going to be R-s or anything else. Ms. Fiske said that she could not understand %%-hy there are no specific plans a: this point. She was concerned with statements to move forward and not taking the Commission's role seriously. Ms. Fiske cited the Cove School project as a model project where the City Council. the Preservation Commission, the Plan Commission, and the applicant worked to create something that benefited the applicant and the community. Mr. Citron said that he was not pushing forward and it is on the record. Regarding the piecemeal approach he said they had a pI=med development, now the construction and then the demolition. Mr. Carey said the plan has an assumed zoning. Nfr. Citron said that they do not have an R1 zoning either and that the site is zoned U1. He said that the R4 planned development if denied, and then they will come back %%ith something different. Diary Brugliera suggested continuing the hearing to another date and that the Commission could provide tonight ideas, as a preliminary review that would improve the design and the development. She asked if that -vould benefit the applicant. Mr. Citron said, ves. Nis. Fiske said that the Commission had turned down the planned development and what the Commission should be looking at is not the planned development, but the construction of new ]tomes. Mr. Citron said that is in front of the Commission. T Jordan Cramer said that the Commission is considering the construction of the single family homes and the town homes and not the development as a whole because the Commission rejected that. Judy Fiske said that she did not think the Commission could review the proposed single-family homes and town homes with the proposed underlying zoning R4. Mr. Citron said they could not do the same thing for Rl . He said that he liked Ms. Brughera's suggestion and in terms of the underlying zoning that is Ul, then if they came with 14 single-family homes and _ nothing more, the Commission has to deny that. Michael Girard suggested that if the hearing is continued on construction that the Commission does not consider demolition because item five under demolition requires that the Commission approves plans. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission continue the public hearing on the Kendall property at 2408 Orrington, to a date to be established in the future, and that the Commission will have some advisory comments in the next few minutes for the benefit of the applicant. Michael Girard seconded the motion. Nfs. Brugliera amended her motion to include the date of February 15, 2005, Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. to continue the hearing. Susan Hughes said that the neighbors are very concerned about how the planned development is driving a number of things that are in conflict with the standards for construction such as the setbacks, rhythm, height, and materials. Ms. Hughes said that she lives on the south side of Lincoln Street; all of the houses on the 800 block were built in 1928 by the same builder. The houses have rhythm to them, they are subtly different from one another, and they all are brick_ buildings with tile roofs with variations on the theme. Tom Gemmell spoke on behalf of Laura Nerenberg and said that the applicant has said that only two houses on a street will be the same. ;ifs. Nerenberg is opposed to a cookie cutter approach. Evanston Preservation Commission January 26, 2CW — Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 Chris Carey reiterated to motion to continue the hearing on the construction and demolition of 2408 Orrington as a development, to the next regular meeting of February 15, 2005. Jordan Cramer said that he did not think the Commission wants to keep putting this in the agenda every month. He said that at certain point if the Commission told the applicants what it wants and the applicants have given everything that they think they have, the Commission might feel that it is totally insufficient and has to deny their application. Susan Rundle said that the application should be treated like any other application with all the materials required. Carlos Ruiz said that if the plans are available the day before the meeting that is a problem. He said that applicants are asked to submit plans two weeks before the meeting. This means that by next Tuesday [February 1, 2005] the Commission should have a complete set of the plans. He also said that even if the Commission would like to give some guidance to the applicant, it appears the Commission would be doing that not on the basis of a complete application. Ms. Brugliera said that she was thinking of more general guidance. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission should have a consensus to do that. Mr. Carey reiterated once more the motion and added that the submission of new materials should follow the guidelines of two weeks prior to the meeting, or it would not make it to that mceting. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The hearing was continued to February 15, 2005. B) 2408 Orrington; 725 Colfax; 735 Colfax; 2351 Sherman; 2344 Orrington (NERD) — Demolition of existing structures [Demolition] This item was continued to Tuesday, February 15, 2005. Additional Comments: Mary Bruglicra made the following comments: a) She was concerned with the proposed standing seam roofs. b) The development of the street with similar variations on a theme of a house type is very typical of Evanston throughout. c) There are a lot more types of building materials used in the neighborhood such as stucco. d) She would like to see a Prairie Style or Craftsman Style house. Carlos Ruiz said that for the benefit of the applicant and the neighbors these are individual comments by Commissioners, not the Commission's recommendations. Mr. Citron recognized that these are unofficial comments of individual Commissioners; these are not findings or directions from the Commission. Susan Rundle said the plans and elevations should specify each house type individually. Mr. Citron said that they will provide an application for each individual house. Ann Dienner recommended that the architects spent sometime driving around and all over Evanston to get a better feeling of the historic district. She also recommended no flat roofs but pitched roofs for this climate. Evanston Preservation Commission January 26, 2M5 — Special :Meeting .Minates Page 8 :Mary Brughera said that for the type `,A" or Prairie inspired design to loot: into the depth of the eaves for visual balance. Susan Rundle said that the Commission is very pro wooden window in historic districts. Mr. Citron said that is a concern for his client because of the maintenance of wood windows. Emily Guthrie said that she does not like white windows in Prairie Style houses. She said she would not mind seeing a good contemporary house. She did not see in the submitted drawings something that she liked at all. She did not see that the applicant is trying to replicate the Prairie Style. Ms. Guthrie said she likes the Cape Cods along Orrington with the pitch that faces the street. She said that she was concerned with the density more than anything else. Mary Brugliera encouraged Mr. Citron that his client, consider withdrawing the current planned development application and consider the fairly unanimous reading the applicant has gotten to date and change it. Ms. Brugliera said that she was exciters with the possibilities of the site. Anne Dienner mentioned the Milburn Park development in Evanston by Hemphill, a builder and developer and encouraged Mr. Citron and his client to see such development. Mary Brugliera said it is possible to revise previously approved projects if something changes after the initial approval. Tom Gemmell said the neighborhood seconded the Commission to go back to the drawing board for single-family homes. When they do, they should keep their promise to the community that they mirror the style of the homes on the surrounding streets. He requested a copy of the standards for review from the Commission and materials submitted to the Commission from Mr. Citron. Emily Guthrie provided information about house sales between January 2003 and the end of 2004, with the price range of S950,000 and S2.5 million and there were 85 sales in Evanston in _ tnt,o years. - Mary Brugliera said that the proposed 5,200 S.F. homes seemed too large and whether a 4,000 T S.F. home would be saleable. Ms. Guthrie said that a mix of house sizes may be desirable. Ms. _ Dienner asked about the building at 2408 Orrington, should it be a condo in case of a R1 zoning. This item was continued to Tuesday, February 15, 2005. 111. STAFF REPORT - 2005 Preservation Commission Retreat update F Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's retreat has been scheduled on Saturday, January 29, 2005 to be held at the Levy Center Library from 9:30 am. to 3:30 p.m. Preservation Intern Carlos Ruiz said that a graduate student from the Art Institute of Chicago would like to work as a preservation 'intern. He will make the necessary arrangements to bring her on board. Evanston Preservation Commission January 26. 2005 — Special Meeting Minutes Pace 9 IN'. ADJOUR-NMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m - Respectfully submitted: 0. arlos D. Ruiz Date: ��e%. �S� aftS EVANSTON PRESERVATION CO3IliISSION Public Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:30 p.m. — Room 2403 Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Emily Guthrie and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Stephen Knutson, Jon Seed, Paul Bateman, Susan Powell, Susan Regan, Michael Sullivan, Andres Ottinb, Julie Rapisarda, Richard Heuberger, and Paul Audrian PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz and Andrew Huckman I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting to order at 7:4 c p.m. with a quoruyn of seven members present. II. APPROVAL OF I►IINUTES Ann Dienner made a correction to the January 26, 2005 minutes, in page 7, third paragraph from the bottom, first sentence to read: Dienner recommended that their architects spend time walking around the neighborhood to get a better feeling of the historic district. The Commission approved the minutes of January 18, 2005 as submitted and the minutes of January 26, 2005, as amended unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. III. COMMUNICATIONS A. Annual Report Mary Brugliera distributed a draft of a format for the Presemation Commission annual report as discussed at the Commission's retreat previously. She asked for comments about it from Commissioners. Presumably, the annual report to the Council will have a brief document pointing out the salient features. Brugliera noted the relevance of the date when projects are introduced and the date each case is decided. Chris Carey suggested adding a line for continuance. Brugliera said that what she tried to do was to put in brackets the issue that was at hand. Also, she thought about indicating the landmark or not landmark status or the contributing or not contributing status of each property. E%-awtan Preservation Corrunission February I5, 2005 - Minutes Pace 2 Carlos Ruiz said that he .vill continually write the report in a monthly basis and will ask Ms. BruQliem the Commission's Secretary, to review it and then it will be submitted to the Commission for approval. B. Public Hearing Procedures Carlos Ruiz notified the Commission that bv!Niarch 15, 2005 the Preservation Commission needs to adopt the new Public Hearing Rules and Procedures. He said that a written draft of the rules and procedures have been submitted to the Commission. The Commission's adoption of the new rules and procedures will be an amendment to the existing Preservation Commission Rules and Procedures. Ruiz said that Thomas Prairie and Emily Guthrie will receive the draft before ,larch 15, 2005 also. C. Illinois Historic Preservation Conference Mary Brugliera informed the Commission that the 2005 Illinois Historic Preservation Conference is in Joliet [June 2-4, 2005]. She encouraged all Commissioners to attend the conference. n'. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. a) 2408 Orrington (NEHD) — Construction of 16 single family detached homes, And 36 single family attached homes for an aggregate of 52 single family homes. The project will include a central common open space, parking, and landscaping [Construction], and b) 2408 Orrington; 725 Colfax; 735 Colfax; 2351 Sherman; and 2344 Orrington (NEHD) — Demolition of existing structures [Demolition] Chris Carey said that, last time, part of the motion on this project was that the applicant had to submit information to the Commission by February 1, 2005. Carey said that the information was received not until February 3, 2005. He said that the attorneys for the applicants and the neighbors were advised of this. Jordan Cramer moved that the Commission continue the hearing on 2408 Orrington to the next regular scheduled meeting of March 15, 2005, based on the applicant's request to the Commission to defer it to that time. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Dienner asked if it would be a reasonable request to ask the applicant for a model of the proposed project. Cramer said that the applicants have been given ample opportunity to submit whatever they wanted. However, if there is a lack of information, the Commission has to make its decision based on what is in front of the Commission. Dienner reiterated her request for a model. In response to a question from Brugliera, Ruiz said that the PIan Commission will review the proposed development on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Stan Gerson asked if the City Council was moving to consider the Commission's recommendation of landmark status [of 2408 Orrington]. Ruiz said not until the Council hears from the Plan Commission. Brugliera said she would not like to see an accidental lapse of scheduling in this landmark nomination. Evanston P=smation Commission February 15. 2005 —?Minutes Page 3 It'. NEW BUSINESS A. Revie«• and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1302 Hinman Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Expansion of breakfast room, add new mudroom, reconstruction of hip roof into a gable, and adding new windows and two cupolas [Alteration]Construction] John Seed, owner, and Stephen Knutson, architect presented plans for the expansion of a breakfast room, the addition of a mudroom, the reconstruction of a hip roof into a gable, the addition of new windows and two cupolas to the landmark house at 1302 Hinman. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Stephen Knutson said that there is no mudroorn or family room in the house. By adding a small addition on the southwest of the first floor they will be able to make a family room and a breakfast area and by adding to the northwest to the single story, they are able to get rid of the tornado door to the basement and have an interior basement stair and a family mudroom. The work on the attic is to make the attic a habitable space with natural lighting and ventilation. Knutson said that there was originally a cupola over the front door of the building. He noted that the cupola is a common feature of the Italianate houses. Knutson said that the roof has an extremely low pitch, so skylights will not work. Knutson said that by putting a gable on the north wing, they are able to have the estate windows as shown on sheet H. The Italianate Style often had gables and they were almost as common as the hip roof. The gable roof is not a departure from the Italianate Style, and it does allow the required escape window. Knutson also showed a section of the habitable space in the attic. He said that the cupola is not very tall in comparison to the height of the house. Knutson showed a site plan of the additions as well. Commission's Findings: Knutson said that the western cupola will sit on the flat portion of the roof; the eastern smaller cupola is not on a flat roof, but it is where the three ridges of the hip roof come together. The larger cupola with the same pitch roof will be taller. The eave of the rear cupola is 45' ; the eave of the other is 45" from the flat roof. Overall, it is 54" above the fiat roof: The house is 35' to the flat portion. The R-4 district allows 2.5 stories or 35' and cupolas do not count. The house is 35' to the midpoint of the hip roof. Knutson said that their first choice for the windows under the new gable would be Marvin windows with true divided lights. John Seed said that they had replaced the storm windows %%ith the round top. The cupolas would probably have a couple of operable sashes. Chris Carey asked if the applicants are making every effort to match the new windows to the old windows as closely as possible. Knutson said that the muntins of the Marvin window will probably not match the old window muntins, but they are 30' off the ground on the north side. Evanstoa Preservation Commission February 15, 2005 —Minutes Paze 4 Mary Brugliera referred to the Statement of Significance of 1302 Hinman that indicates about a fire in 1 S99. She asked if the applicants had any notion of whether the roof was a flat roof. Seed said that the bum marks are still on all of the rafter in the roof, but the cupola in front burned down. Knutson said that the bracket on the lower roof is greater in its horizontal dimension. The new bracket will be greater in its vertical dimension. Seed said that they have an old photograph that sho,-vs the old cupola, a wrap around porch, and the windows down to the floor. Susan Rundle said that because the north elevation has a clear view, that she had a hard time with the proposed gable roof and taking away the hip roof of one of the premier Italianate homes in Evanston. Knutson said that the Italianate Style combine the hip and the gable on the same building, it is not pure one or the other as shown in history books. Stan Gerson said the house is almost a perfect example of an Italianate house, the only thing that is lacking is a cupola right in the middle, such as the cupola on the Allerton Hotel in Chicago. He said that that the proposed gable destroys the Italianate aspect of the house. :Michael Girard said that he did not know about `destroy', but the one thing that is common is the flat to low pitch roof. He did not think that the hip was applied in a pure manner a lot of times to an Italianate house, Brugliera said that the architect who designed the house did an excellent job with the proportions of the house; that was why she had trouble with the gable and the cupolas. She thought that the proportions of the front section, the bay, the windows to the roof, and the elaborate brackets under the overhang should not be disturbed. Carey said that more attention should be paid to the windows in their construction, and that a manufacture window will fit better onto a house that has all the original windov.-s and muntin details. Knutson said that they will be happy to have a manufactured window Nvith the profiles matching, and wood storms on the outside. Jordan Cramer said that one of the prominent features of the house was the roof line and the detail work. He wondered if there was a way to do the proposal without disturbing the roof line. Knutson said that natural Iight and the escape windows are part of the issue here. Rundle referred to the standards of alteration for the two cupolas to the east and west sides, the hip roof to the gable on the north elevation with the new windows. The standards that apply are I through 3, 9 and 10. Carey asked Knutson if there was any other way to get usable space in the attic without creating a gable roof. Knutson said that the house is precious to all, but if people are going to be up there, they need natural light and being able to get out. He said that his proposal is the only one he has discovered to achieve that. Seed said that they also love the integrity of the Italianate house, but there is a need for additional space. Carey suggested providing a massing model for a better understanding of the alteration. Knutson _� said that providing examples of gables combined with hip roof in Italianate houses would be simpler. He said that if the gable is rejected regardless, there is no point in making the model. Most Commissioners agreed that a model would be helpful to them to make a determination. _ Rundle said that she felt strongly about the gable, but she was opened to see the model and possibly it could change her mind. Seed and Knutson agreed to continue the review to the next meeting. Girard moved to continue 1302 Hinman Avenue and that the applicants submit a model illustrating the proposed alteration to the house and bring photographs of any historic EvarLsion PrrsvTation Commission February 1 2W5 —Minutes Faez ; evidence. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1204 Asbury Avenue (RED) — Demolition of existing mudroom and porch and replace it with a one-story addition lAiteration/Constructionl Demolition; Paul Bateman, owner, and Stephen Knutson, architect, presented plans for the demolition of an existing mudroom and porch, and the construction of a one-story rear addition at 1204 Asbury Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Knutson said that they would like to remove a wall on the west side of the house and build a larger one-story addition to the west %Which will contain the breakfast room, mudroom and small open porch. The one wall on the north and the column is to mimic the walls and columns of the porte-cochere and the front porch. The third floor walls are shingled and they are proposing shini;les on the remainder of the galls of the small addition. Commission's Findings: Stan Gerson said that the one alteration is to remove the first floor window on the north elevation towards the west end. The standards for review of alteration to be considered are: 1 through 5, 9 and 10. Ann Dienner asked about standard 4 being with a question mark. Carlos Ruiz said that it was unknown if any changes to the house had taken place. Knutson said that circa 1910 the house had an enormous change. At its core one can see Italianate details and the house was probably 2/3 of its current width, also the third floor was added. The stairway and some of the openings of the stairs are absolutely Italianate. Carlos Ruiz said that the house was built in 1891; there was a remodeling with a new front porch in 1909 and Lawrence Halloberg is listed either as the owner or architect. The house is listed as contributing to the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Michael Girard moved that the Commission allow for the removal of the existing window on the north elevation, towards the west and filled it in, as it meets standards: 1 (every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property in such a manner that requires minimal alteration to the structure, 2 (the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property or structure are not being destroyed), 3 (properties, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time), 4 (the window is not an alteration that acquired significance on its right, and distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity), 9 (the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design), and 10 (whenever possible new additions and alterations to structures shall be done in a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, integrity of the structures would remain unimpaired). The alteration is an infill framing that could be easily replaced in a later date. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Gerson said that construction consists of a new one-story cedar shingle addition at the west elevation towards the north for mudroom and breakfast room and a new porch with stairs. The standards that apply are: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 through 16. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the one-story cedar shingle mudroom, breakfast room, and porch with stairs because it meets standards: 1 (the height is visually compatible with the rest of the Evanston Presmation Commission Febtvary 15, 2D05 — Minutes Page 6 structure), 3 (the proportion of openings mimics the existing), 5 (rhythm and spacing of the structures on the street, in this case the alley, is no different than before), 7 (the materials and texture match existing), 8 (the roof shape is also a match), 9 (the walls of continuity, in this case the brick wall, is appropriate and matches the one on the front), 10 (the scale of the structure is appropriate to its usage), 12 (the original qualities of the property, structure or site are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources must be protected if found), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (it will be possible to remove the addition in a manner that would not harm the integrity of the main structure), and 16 (the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style or period). Mary Brueliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Gerson said that the project includes the demolition of the existing one-story addition (mudroom and porch) on the west elevation. Applicable standards are I through 5. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission apprave the demolition of the one-story mudroom and porch at the rear northwest corner of the property, because it meets standards: 1 (it is not of such historic significance that its demolition would be detrimental), 2 (it does not contribute to the distinctive historical, cultural or architectural character of the district), 3 (demolition of the existing addition is not contrary to the purpose of this chapter), 4 (it is not of such an old, unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and or expense), and 5 (the owner has plans to replace the structure). Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 811 Milburn Street (Federal NEHD) — Demolition of one-story porch, construction of new three season porch. Requires minor zoning variance for lot coverage [Advisory Zoning Variance Reviewl Susan Powell, owner, presented plans for the demolition of a one-story porch, and the construction of a three season porch at 811 Milburn Street. The zoning variance they need is to make it a Little bit wider by mo% ing the east wall further east or about I -foot so it will be flush with the existing east wall of the house, and they will like to make it deeper by almost 2'. The system that they are using is modular in 3-foot increments. Ms. Powell said that their neighbors do not have a problem with the proposed variance. The neighbor's house to the east extends 12' beyond their porch, and their neighbors' house to the west extends 15' past where their house ends. Commission's Findings Chris Carey said that the nesv lot coverage is 31,15 % where a maximum of 301,116 is allowed. Susan Rundle said that A and C are the applicable standards for variations. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Administrator approval of the request for a variance as it is: A (appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and will not adversely a affect integrity of the historic district), and C (it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the district or vicinity). Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commission February 15, 2005 — Mirutcs Pace 7 4. 721 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Replace rotted front entry porch roof, reconfigure to stucco parapet roof from existing hip. Replace overhead garage door with new wood door. Replace metal screen door with wood single -light combination door, repair stucco and ivrought iron rail [.-alteration] Michael Sullivan, ov«er, and Susan Regan. architect, presented plans for the replacement of a rotted front entry porch roof, the reconfiguration of the porch roof to a stucco parapet roof from the existing hip, replace overhead garage door with new wood door, replace metal screen door with wood Single -light combination door, repair stucco, and repair %-rought iron rail at 721 Sheridan Road. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Susan Regan said the work; is on the front entry porch roof of the stucco house. She noted that there is a Iot of asymmetry going on the house. Consequently, the.:;•ould like to get rid of the hip roof on the porch. They are proposing doing a stucco parapet roof, similar to the garage roof and the gateway on the north side of the house. The stucco will be matched, new flashing work will be concealed behind the parapet and the panel aluminum garage door will be replaced with a garage door with recessed panels and glass lights. Also, they are replacing an aluminum screen door with a wood door. The main house roof shingles will be replaced w th same architectural asphalt shingles. Finally, the %vrought iron rail will be repaired. Commission's Findings In response to a question from Stan Gerson regarding the removal of the hip roof, Regan said that they wanted to clean up the overhanging cave detail that slams into the corner of the double hung windows on the south end, and the hip would come almost to a point. The parapet roof plays better with the asymmetn• of the second floor windows. Gerson said that standards for review of alteration that apply are: I through 6, 9 and 10. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for alterations at 721 Sheridan in that it meets standards: I (its being adapted in a manner that requires minimal alteration), 2 (the distinguishing original qualities are not being destrozed), 3 (alterations that have no historical basis and seek an earlier appearance are not being contemplated), 4 (the Commission does not believe that changes may have acquired siouncance m their own right), 5 (distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity), 6 (deteriorated features are being repaired in some cases replacement is based on the historical nature of the materials), 9 (the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design), and 10 (the alterations could be removed and the house returned to its original status). Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays 5. 2714 Sheridan Road (Federal NEHD) — Replacement of existing front stoop and sidewalks. Requires zoning variance for proposed 54.7% impervious surface ratio for Rl, where maximum allowed is 45% ]Advisory Zoning Variance Review] Julie Rapisarda, owner, and Andrew Otting of Scott Byron & Co. Inc. presented plans for the replacement of an existing front stoop and sidewalks at 2714 Sheridan Road, requiring a zoning variance for 54.7% of impervious surface, inhere a maximum of 45° o is allowed. The property is within the Federal Northeast Evanston Historic District. Evanston Preser•arion Commission i=ebtusry 15. 2905--.Niinutrs Page 8 Ottine said that they are looking for a minor variance on the impervious surface. The existing drivewav is 6' to 7' wide, making it difficult to move in and out of the property, which fronts on Sheridan Road. There are multiple blind spots when coming around the "S" curve; there is a telephone pole at the end of the driveway and a couple of parkway street trees. The idea is to facilitate traffic to move off Sheridan Road quicker than currently accomplished. Visitors will be able to pull off to the carriage walk, allowing them to quickly more off Sheridan Road. The current driveway is 6' to 8' «zde, and in most vehicles one could not open even the doors. The neighbor's property line is right on their driveway or 6" difference with plant material along that line making it more difficult to open doors. There is also a service door where the driveway is 6.6' wide. For those reasons the front door and the service door become highly difficult to use. Widening the carnage walk would allow a vehicle pull in easily, unload people and get them through the front door or service door. The turn around in the back is very narrow requiring a six point tum. The project is driven mostly for safety and functionality. Sheridan Road is very busy, it is an angled street at that point and it is a blind spot. Emergency vehicles will be able to open door ivith the proposed driveway as well. Otting said that the impact on the neighbors is widening the driveway allowing his clients to pull in and not step on the neighbors' property, and it facilitates safety issues coming in and out of the property. In regard to the aesthetic part of the proposal and the impact in the historic district, they are using materials that are sympathetic to the architecture of the house (old street paver, stone and blue stone). The walk is going to be dry set, although impervious, it will not be mortared in place nor will the walk. The existing walk comes up tight to the building, it does not lend itself to accessing the front door and it is deteriorated. The walk will be blue stone; the driveway is dry set street paver in between blue stone fonts. Commission's Findings Ann Dienner noted that 2714 Sheridan and the house to the north have an open front yard. Ottine reiterated that the carriage walk is to pull up and unload people more easily; it is not designed for parking. The sidewalk running north/south is approximately 7' wide, the patio is 10' to 12' wide and meant as a collection point. Stan Gerson said that he was sympathetic to the problem of unloading people. However, he felt that diminishing the impervious surface was important too. Mary Brugliera liked the design but she did not understand the safety argument. She said it took her five seconds to pull in and it took her six seconds to back out from the driveway. Brugliera said that the main reason of the impervious requirement is the drainage of water. She said that ` other than for the aesthetics of the good design, that there is any justification for the variation. She said it does not meet the standards and it does not do anything historic. Otting said that there is a curb to the south so they are not going to be pushing any water onto anybody's property. It is not going to affect the neighbors to the north or to the south as far as water or affecting their landscaping. The plan does not cause any detriment to the neighborhood, but rather they think there is a safety issue. Chris Carey asked about drain tile below the impervious surface. Otting said that they already have taken the downspouts to control a water flow and put in the dry well. They are trying to Evanston Presmation Co= fission Febru= 15. 200- — Mirnates Page 9 control any water from his client's property that won't affect the street or the neighboring properties either. In response to Bruglicra's request for his opinion, Jordan Cramer said that the standards for variation do not really apply; perhaps they would in a different context. Susan Rundle agreed with Cramer, but proposal is overly designed for what is needed to get to the front door. Brugliera said that standard C would apply and is not met in her opinion. Jordan Cramer moved that the Commission make a recommendation for approval of the zoning variance for 2714 Sheridan Road, to change the impervious surface to 54.7%, where maximum allowed is 4590, in that it meets standards: A (it is necessary or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation, so as not to adversely affect the historical, architectural or aesthetic integrity of the landmark). and C (is not going to be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property in the district or vicinity where this house is located). Michael Girard seconded the motion. Stan Gerson said that he did not have a choice but vote in favor of the motion based on the standards, although lie opposed the project. Ann Dienner echoed the same sentiment. The motion passed. Vote: 5 ayes, 2 nays. 6. 1801 Wesley avenue (RHD) -- Construction of a 2.5-store single family house on a vacant lot. Preliminary concept reviciv [Construction] Richard Heuberger, owner, and Paul Audrian, architect, presented a preliminary concept for the construction of a 2.5-store single family house on a vacant lot at 1801 Wesley Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. The applicants presented a model, elevation drawings and photos of houses in the neighborhood. Audrian said that the house is 2.5-stories tall; the ground is 4.2' above the mean grade level with a mean height for the house of33%1V. The house front fagade relationship width to height is similar to surrounding homes. In order to comply with zoning the house needs to be I5' setback from Lyons. The exterior facades have been designed to be visually compatible with the neighborhood. The windows are casement type windows similar to other homes in the neighborhood, although the majority of homes have double hung windows. The casement windows on the primary facades along Wesley and Lyons are paired to a scale and proportion consistent with the property at 1805 Wesley. The residence has been located on the site to be visually compatible with adjoining properties. The front yard setback matches the average setback of the rest of the houses or 35' from the property line to the face of the house, 28'-11" to the one-story porch. The house has a «rap around covered front porch similar to other houses on Wesley. The overall mass of the house has been broken up as it steps back into the lot. The exterior fagade is principally stucco with a two-story limestone bay along Lyons'; both materials are commonly used in the neighborhood. The house has lead coated copper standing seam roofing material, a material used for centuries with similarly pitch roofs. The windows are aluminum clad wood windows with insulated glass in a dark cladding color. The roof pitch of the residence is visually compatible with neighboring homes. The lower roof has a lower pitch similar to the rest of the homes in the area. The scale of the structure, mass, openings, and balconies are Evanston Presmatiop Commission February 1-, 2005 — ttinutes Page 10 visually compatible with the rest of the neighborhood overall mass. Wesley is the primary front elevation, with a %vrap around porch onto Lyons. The French doors open on Wesley and on Lyons. The northern end of Wesley is a mix of home styles, but consistent on both sides of the block are the pitch roofs, wrap around porches, large windows, facades in masonry, siding, and stucco. The proposed home has been designed to be visually compatible with the neighborhood, incorporating these features and the scale for providing a Ionizer lasting quality in use and maintenance required by new homes today. The proposed garage has been designed to appear more as a coach house, with a second level dormer and balcony, with the same quality of materials and roof pitches. Commission's Preliminary Findings BrugIiera asked if then were planning to put a dwelling unit on the garage second floor. Audrian said, no. He added that zoning has been approved. Dienner asked about the northern neighbors' access to their garage. Heuberger said the neighbor accesses his garage solely through the alley. Audrian noted that the railings are glass. The limestone on Lyons will be finished quarry stone. Brugliera asked about the standing seam metal roof and the lead coated copper. Audrian said that lead coated copper is a beautiful gray patina. The standing seam is a great roof for very steep pitch, as well as for a shallow pitch. The stucco is going to have a three coat application. Susan Rundle said that the rhythm of solids and voids was pretty weak, but she is not bothered by it. Michael Girard said the majority of windows on that street do not have a significant number of muntin bars. Audrian said that thewindows are 8.8' to 9' tall (French doors). He said that the house is in the Vernacular vocabulary with modem Victorian farm house influences. He is not trying to create a style. The house is meant to be Vernacular and responsive to the site, contextual in the way it responds to the weather and the other conditions that influence the scale and the shape of the building, but it is modern in the sense that it is a house build in 2005. Richard Heuberger said that he walked around the neighborhood showing the neighbors photographs of the model as well as the plan. He also read a letter from a neighbor in support of the project. Carlos Ruiz asked the applicants to verify with Zoning if in fact the proposed garage doors facing the alley and the rear yard are allowed. Brugliera asked about the color of the stucco. Audr;an said the color will be light cream. On the front elevation, the windows have a horizontal muntin bar at approximately the same height as the railing. Audrian said that they are still working on the detail, particularly for the conservatory. Also, the chimney will be stucco. Regarding the balcony in the garage, Audrian said the balcony ties in with the rest of the house, and the sliding doors make that upper space much nicer. The railing is tempered glass sitting on a channel out of the steel stops. Girard said that he liked the massing of the house, but he was not sure about the glass railings and the porch without columns. Also, it seems a lot of glass on the front facade. Commissioners discussed the standing seam roof material, the one-story glass conservatory, the lack of detail under the eaves, the French doors on the wvest primary facade and the location of the front door on the south facade. Chris Carey said that he had some reservations about the balcony in the garage, and the French doors in front facades. Commissioners indicated that there seemed not to be major resmations about the project in regard to the standards for review of Evanston Preservation Conzrnission February 15, 2005 — \iinutes Page 11 construction. Audrian said that the porch deck will be post supported, the deck will be built in wood (Ipe wood). The Commission thanked Mr. Heuberger and Mr. Audrian for their presentation. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, CONIMISSION N EMBERS, STAFF 2320 Pioneer Road — Planned Development Carlos Ruiz reported that the Plan Commission recommended approval of the Planned Development for 2320 Pioneer Road. The Preservation Commission had previously recommended the Planned Development as well. The applicants need to come back to the Commission for the construction of the proposed four, three and one story structure along McDaniel Avenue. The neighbors were not in opposition as a block, because there were some neighbors in favor of the proposal. The Plan Commission concluded that the latest proposal for the Planned Development was a balanced approach that was able to address the majority of the concerns expressed by the neighbors. 2408 Orrington _ Planned Development Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that the Plan Commission will review the proposed Planned Development at 2408 Orrineton on February 23, 2005. Also, the Planned Development proposal will be in front of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee on February 16, 2005. Associate Members Mary Brugliera said that she is thinking of Jonathan Leineweber as a potential Associate Member. Brugliera moved to re -nominate Mary McWilliams and Barbara Gardner for another term as Associate Members. She said that she did not include Anne Earle because Mrs. Earle's husband is ill. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mary Brugliera moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:00 p.m. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Rcsp ctfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Date Approved: March 15, 2005 EVANSTON PRESERVATION C03111MISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday, tiiarch 15, 2005 Room -7 403 — 7:00 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Mar}, Brugliera, and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Bernard Citron, Kerl LaJeune, Tom Gemmel], Bill McClure, Judy Fiske, Jeanne Lind;vall, Mary Singh, Chris Nesbitt, John Vasilion, Tim Hubbard, Barbara Jones, and Bruce Enanbach, Jon Seed, Alex Piper, Steve Knutson PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz and Ellen Szymanski I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUi11 DECLARATION Chris Carey called the meeting called to order at 7:45 p.m. with a quorum of six members present. II. MINUTES Approval of February 15, 2005 minutes The Commission approved the February 15, 2005 minutes with one correction. 111. COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTS Staff did not have any communications or reports at this time. W. UNFINISHED BUSINESS I. a) 2408 Orrington (NEHD) — Construction of 16 single-family detached homes, and 36 single family attached homes for an aggregate of 52 single family homes. The project will include a central common open space, parking, and landscaping [Construction) Evanston Presen•ation Commission %larch 15. 7905 — Minutes Pazc 2 The Commission passed a motion to not approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, as the proposed construction of 16 single-family homes and 32 town homes did not meet the standards for review of construction: 2, 3, 4, a, 6, 10, 11, and 12. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. A rerbatint transcript of this item is submitted with the minutes. b) 2408 Orrington; 725 Colfax; 735 Colfax; 2351 Sherman; and 2344 Orrington (NEHD) — Demolition of existing structures [Demolition] The Commission passed a motion to not approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of structures at 2408 Orrington, 725 Colfax, 735 Colfax, 2351 Sherman, and 2344 Orrington, as the proposed demolition of these structures did not meet standard for review of demolition: 5 (except in cases where the owner has no plans for a period of up to five years to replace an existing Landmark or property, structure or object in a District, no Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued until plans for a replacement structure or object have been reviewed and approved by the Commission). Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. A verbatim transcript of this item is submitted with the minutes. 2. Adoption of Public Hearing Procedures Stan Gerson asked about item L from the draft of February 15, 2005. Ms. Szymanski said that item was deleted because it is not in the Preservation Rules. Mr. Gerson asked about item P. NIs. Szymanski said that item was also deleted because according to the Plan Commission it would be hard to enforce. Instead, all persons who are in attendance to speak to a particular issue will sign in a sign up sheet, and they will be afforded the right to question witnesses. Jordan Cramer said he considers when people read letters of other people not appropriate because the Commission does not have the opportunity to cross examine. Emily Guthrie asked what if a letter is sent to the Commission to be included in the packet. Ms. Szymanski said it is hearsay. Ms. Szymanski said would acceptable if the person who collected the signatures is present to say, yes 1 am the person and everyone who is on this signed in front of me in opposition or agreement. Ms. Szymanski said because the Klaeren decision is important to follow the rules in cases of PUD and special uses. The Illinois Supreme Court has not extended the Klaeren decision to other land use proceedings. But, it is wise for the City to be aware and know who is here; who wants to ask questions, and assure that cN-ern-bodv who wishes to exercise that right has the opponunity to do so. To give a structure to the process, board and commission are being asked to follow the proposed public hearing rules. She said that Chris Carey has done a superb job without having the structure in front of him, he has observed it. Ms. Szymanski said that just because people have the right to cross examine, it does not mean that the Commission can't put limits on it. One has to remember that the two minute limit ruling is bad based on the Klaeren decision. The question is how long the limit should be; one has to play it by car. T lop- Eranston Presmation Commission M=h 15, 2005 — Minutes Pico Emily Guthrie moved to approve the Public Hearing Procedures. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Szymanski said she will work with .Mr. Ruiz to have the Public Hearing Procedures integrated into the Commission's existing rules. She will attend Commission meetings as requested or needed. 3. 1302 Hinman Avenue (LandmarkfLSHD) — Expansion of breakfast room, add new mudroom, reconstruction of hip roof into a gable, and adding new'svindows and hro cupolas fAlteration/Construction] Jon Seed and Alex Piper, owners, and Steve Knutson, architect presented the plans for the expansion of the breakfast room, adding a new mudroom, reconstructing a hip roof into a gable, and adding new windows and two cupolas. Mr. Knutson said there are other examples of Italianate houses with a gable. Stan Gerson said the alterations include the gable and the windows on the north and the two cupolas on the roof. Construction is at the rear, new mudroom and expansion of the breakfast room. The standards for alteration to be considered are 1-5, and 9. Jordan Cramer moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 1302 Hinman as meetings standards: 1 (minimal alteration to the property), 2 (distinguishing original qualities of the house are not going to be destroyed, removal of historic material and distinctive architectural features would be avoided where possible), 3 (the structurelsite arc being recognized as products of their own time), 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), 5 (distinctive stylistic features will be treated with sensitivity), and 9 (contemporary design is not being discouraged). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Discussion: Stan Gerson said standard 2 and 9 are not met. The gable will destroy the distinguishing original quality of the house and the gable will destroy significant architectural material, and is not compatible with the character of the property. Mr. Jordan said that elevation of the house is not a prominent and it was difficult to see. Susan Rundle said she agreed with Mr. Gerson regarding standard 2. The motion passed. Vote: 4 ayes, 2 nays. Stan Gerson said the recommended applicable standards for construction are I, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 — lb. The construction on the west elevation is a new mudroom and expansion of the breakfast room. Susan Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction at 1302 Hinman because it meets: I (the height is the same as the bay), 3 (the proportion of openings is a replication to what existing), 7 (materials and texture are the same), 8 (the roof shape is identical to another roof shape on the house), 10, (the scale of the structure is the same of the bay on the south), 12 (the original qualities of the property are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological Evarmon Presmation Conunission %firc 15. 2005 — Minutes par resources will be protected), 14 (contemporary design has not been discouraged), 15 (if the addition is removed in the future, the integrity of the structure will not be unimpaired), and 16 (a single architectural style has not been imposed). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. V. NEWBUSINESS Due to the lack of time the Commission approved a motion to hold a special meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. to reviciv the following: A. Review and Technical .Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1100 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Construction of new two-story and one-story additions to the rear (west elevation) [Construction,rDemolition] 2. 1030 Michigan Avenue (LandmarkILSHD) — Enclose rear porch and remove window and infrll window opening on west rear elevation. Seeking zoning variance for 31% Iot coverage and Y-7" setback for the north property line [Alteration/Zoning Variance] 3. 1800 Sheridan Road/411 Clark Street (Landmark/LSHD) — Installation of new pole/light fixtures (5) to be located on the property owner's side of public sidewalks, (2) to be installed at the front of the building (south elevation), and (3) at the side of the building (east elevation) [Alteration] 4. 405 Church Street/] 704 Judson Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Installation of new pole/light fixtures (4) to be Iocated on the property owner's side of the public sidewalks, (2) at the front of the building (south elevation), and (2) at the side of the building (east elevation) [Alteration] 5. 1207 Greenleaf Street (Landmark/RHD) — Raise height of roof ceiling with skylights on west elevation over existing one-story rear addition and replace several of existing windows. Seeking variance for 3.3' setback from the west property line and 1.1' setback from the rear property line [AlterationfDemolition2oning Variance] 6. 130 Dempster Street (LSHD) -- Construction of new one-story addition on the south rear elevation and two-story addition on the east side elevation. Remove second story windows and install new window and bay windows, construct new front porch entry with columns, and replace garage doors on north front elevation. Demolition of existing one- story addition. [Construction/ Altcration1Demolition] 7. 925 Edgemere Court (LSHD) -- Construction of new 2.5-story single family house. Demolition of existing house [Construction/Demolition] 8. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) — Construction of new 2.5-story single family house. Demolition of existing house [Construction/Demolition] Evanston Presmation Commission Nf=h 15, 2005 —,Minutes Page 5 B. 2004/2005 Evanston Historic Preservation Awards Program VI. COAIMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF None. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: 4 C los D. Ruiz, Senior lann ervation Coordinator EVANSTON PRESERVATION CONI\MISSION Special Public Meeting %linutes Tuesday, March 22, 2045 7:30 p.m. — Room 2.103 Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois 1%1EAlBERS PRESENT: Mary BrugIicra, Chris Carey, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Emily Guthrie, and Thomas Prairie MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer, and Susan Rundle OTHERS PRESENT: John & Mimi Petrakis, Amy Erixon, Andre McGonigle, Eric Youngquist, Marc Segel, Dave Parlin, fired Wilson, Bonnie Honing, Chris Nesbitt, Ron Fleckman, Judy Fiske, Mary Sinh, David Raynolds, and MaryMcWilliams PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:40 p.m. with a quorum of seven Commission members present. Il. COMMUNICATIONS A. Correspondence from Commissioners Carlos Ruiz said that Susan Rundle, Preservation Commissioner, sent an e-mail regarding the proposed light poles at 1800 Sheridan and 405 Church Street, and that in her opinion the light poles do not meet the standards. B. Nomination for Landmark. Designation Carlos Ruiz said that on March 21, 2005 the Preservation Commission received the nomination for Evanston Landmark designation of the building at 2100 Ridge Avenue, the Evanston Civic Center. Ruiz said that the Commission has 45 days to hold the public hearing. The Commission scheduled the public hearing tentatively on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Evanston Preservation Commission M. rch 22, 2005 — Special Meeting Minutes Pace 2 Mary Brugliera said that April 12, 2005 is the la-st day for City Council to decide on the landmark designation of 2408 Orrington Avenue (Wesley Hall). Ruiz said that James Wolinski, Community Development Director, is considering a draft memorandum to Julia Carroll, City Manager, to inform her about the approaching deadline. Ruiz said that he wrote a legal opinion request to the Legal Department requesting what the mechanism would be by which the City Council could extend the deadline. Mary Brugliera moved to write a letter to the Cit r'Manager and to James Wolinski, reminding them about the deadline for a decision on the nomination of 2408 Orrington Avenue as an Evanston Landmark. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1100 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Construction of new two-stom and one-story additions to the rear (`rest elevation) (Construction/Demolitionj John and Mimi Petrakis, property owners, presented the project. They proposed to extend out the family room on the first floor, also extending and adding a fourth bedroom on top of that family room. Mr. Petrakis said that the house was built in 1956. On the west elevation there are panels on the second floor up visually to break the existing structure, and a window on the first floor (south side) is being removed for more cabinet space. On the east elevation three windows are being removed and replaced with two narrower double hung windows. Petrakis said that the proposed material of the new windows is aluminum clad wood windows with brick mold. Michael Girard said that the bulk of the house has wood windows and that he would be inclined to maintain the wood windows, rather than introduce another type of materials. Girard said that the clad windows will weather differently than the wood windows and the texture will also be different. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for reNiew of alterations are 1 through 6, 9 and 10. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the alterations to the existing structure at 1100 Sheridan Road; including the replacement of a Chicago style window with side -by -side double hung wood windows on the south fa;ade on the east elevation. On the west elevation and corresponding south side, the same wood windows rill be repeated. Also on the north side of west elevation, approve the removal of the existing casement window and infill with brick, as they meet the following standards: (1) requiring minimal alteration, (2) character of the property shall not be destroyed, (3) recognizes the structure as a product of its own time, (5) stylistic features and example of skill craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity, (6) if the event replacement, the new material should match the material being replace in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities, (9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and (10) additions and alterations shall be done in such manner, that it could be removed in the future, the essential integrity and form of the structure will be unimpaired. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. E%=ston Preservation Conu dssion _ Starch 22, 2005 — Sp,ciat Steering Stiau:es Nee 3 Stan Gerson said that the addition on the west elevation partially includes a one-story addition (on the center) and partially a two-story addition towards the south. The standards for review of construction that apply are: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. %fary Brugliera asked about the panels on the west and south elevation. Michael Girard said that the material could be anything that would be smooth and that will accept paint. Brugliera said that there is no panel like that an) -where on the house. Girard said that the panels separate the addition from the house. The panels are typically fiat wood board with applied trim on the top, similar to wainscoting. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the one-story and the two-story addition to 1 I00 Sheridan, in that it meets: height, proportion of openings, rhythm of spacing of structures on the streets, relationship of materials and texture and that they are visually compatible with the house, that the roof shapes are compatible, the scale of the structure is compatible with the rest of the house, the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, archaeological resources will be protected, contemporary design is not being discourages, if the addition were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired, the use of a single architectural style is not being imposed, and the Commission requests that the architect contact Carlos Ruiz with further detail on the wood panels on the north and west elevation. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Chris Carey asked at this time if anyone from the audience would like to speak regarding the project. No one came forward. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that the five standards for review of demolition applied. ?Michael moved to approve the proposed demolition as it meets standards: (1) the addition is not detrimental to the public interest and not contrary- to the general welfare, (2) the addition does not affect the main fa;ade, (3) the addition is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter and the objectives of historic preservation, (4) the portion being demolished is not of such older or unusual or uncommon desien, texture and or material, and (5) the owner has plans for an addition. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1030 Michigan Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Enclose rear porch and remove window and infill window opening on west rear elevation. Seeking zoning variance for31% lot coverage and 3'-7" setback for the north property line [Alteration/Zoning Variance] Amy Erixon, property owner, said the project includes a kitchen update. They proposed to enclose the rear porch and utilize a set of stairs to the basement and not have to use the entrance to the basement stairs that is in the center of the kitchen. They arc relocating a double hung window from the pantry to the north side of the house, where all the windows are double hung. The basement is being extended under the new enclosed area. The new exterior wall will be 5" different from the already non -conforming existing wall. Stan Gerson said standards for zoning variance that apply arc A and C. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Board, approval of the variations for the rear and side setback at 1030 Michigan in that it meets standards: (A) it does not adversely affect the historic architecture or integrity of the district, and (C) it will not be materially detrimental to the property in the district or the general safety and welfare of everyone. Michael Girard seconded Evanston Preservation Commission 'Much 22. 2005 — Special Meeting Minutes Pale 4 the motion. At this time he asked if anyone from the audience would like to comment on the proposed zoning variation. No one came forward. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that there is one window infill on the west fagade. The applicable standards for alterations are 1 through 5, 9 and 10. Gerson moved that the proposed infill of a window on the west fagade at 1030 Michigan meets standards of alteration in that: it requires minimal alteration of the property, the original character of the property is not destroyed, alterations that have taken place are recognized as products of their own time, skill craftsmanship is treated with sensitivity, not proposing contemporary design, and in the future if the owners want to put the window back in it will not destroy the integrity of the structure. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vole: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the construction of the enclosed rear stair, in that it meets standards for review of construction: (1) for height, (3) proportions of openings, (5) the rhythm of spacing between adjoining structures, (7) the materials and textures are being maintained, (8) the roof shape, (10) the scale of the structure does not overwhelm the house, (12) distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being altered, (13) archaeological resources are being preserved, (14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, (15) the addition, if it were to be remove, will not significantly impair the main body of the house, and (16) a single architectural style or period is not being imposed. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. Chris Carey asked if the new window on the north elevation will be wood. Owner said, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 1800 Sheridan Road/411 Clark Street (Landmark[LSHD) — Installation of new poleflight fixtures (5) to be located on the property owner's side of public sidewalks, (2) to be installed at the front of the building (south elevation), and (3) at the side of the building (east elevation) [Alteration), and 4. 405 Church Street/1704 Judson Avenue (LandmarkfLSHD) — Installation of new pole/light fixtures (4) to he located on the property owner's side of the public sidewalks, (2) at the front of the building (south elevation), and (2) at the side of the building (east elevation) [Alteration] Andrew McGonigle and Erick Youngquist of Northwestern University (NU), said that because security related events that happened in and around the campus, the City of Evanston has upgraded the lighting levels in and around the NU campus. This resolved from a security walk that was conducted by senior members of NIX, student committees, and David Jennings, the City's Public Works Director, to ascertain the lighting levels that were pertaining to sidewalks and roadways around the campus. It was decided that the illuminating guidelines were not being met because of the Tallmadge fixtures, and as a result malting it extremely dangerous for students and pedestrians to traverse around the campus. The University decided to upgrade the lighting of sidewalks and part of that scheme has been completed. Mr. McGonigle passed around maps showing the existing Tallmadge light fixtures that do not come even close to meeting the lighting standards. He said that on October 31, 2004 a Evanston Preservation Commission March 22, 2005 — Special Meeting !Minutes Page 5 gentleman was robbed at gun point by two individuals outside of 1800 Sheridan. McGonagle mentioned more crime incidents in the area. Measurements between the existing poles read 0.05 foot candles, very log;• lighting levels. The illuminating Engineers Society of North America recommend in commercial areas 1 foot candle and in intermediate areas 0.6 foot candles, and for residential 0.2 foot candles. The existing lighting levels are way below of any recommendation. Michael Girard asked how much of Evanston complies with the recommended lighting levels. McGonigle said that with the upgraded Tallmadge fixtures «•e are coming much closer to the recommended levels, but he has concerns with the amount of glare and the amount of light pollution that they give is considerable. The Tallmadge fixtures do not project the light down. Thomas Prairie said that he lives in a block with the Tallmadge fixtures and he did not notice any problems. Mary Brugliera said that the existing Tallmadge fixtures are not the original light poles. McGonigle said that NU has developed standards that address light pollution and aesthetics. He showed photographs with the new light poles in front of historic settings. One picture was taken at night sho«7n2 the light pattern that comes from the light fixtures and it is a localized light pattern that does not bleed into the other areas. Another picture taken at twilight, looking north on Sheridan. shows light directed solely to the sidewalk and not obtrusive to any of the properties adjacent to the front or the side. McGonigle said that the pictures are important in terms of minimizing the impact of any lighting. The proposed fixture is a small device that was selectively picked to reduce the effect upon the environment. The environment has to be considered as an entity, rather than just the individual fixture. McGonigle provided the photometricts that go with the light fixture, «•here i-inch = 30-feet. Less than 30-feet directly in front of the pole is cohere the light goes sideways. The light fixtures are 200 Watts mounted on 12-foot poles. He explained that a Tallmadge pole will throw light out in every direction and with the modern upgrades there is a lot of white pollution coming from them. The new fixture is purposely designed to throw light sideways and minimizes the amount of light going onto the sidewalk and spilling off into the adjacent areas. The spacing between the poles is 60-feet. The NU guidelines for exterior lighting levels call for 0.5. McGonigle showed a photograph with superimposed light poles on the exact location where the proposed light poles will be installed. The photograph showed that the light poles are quite small and tend to get lost against the trees in the background and they are not large obtrusive objects. The alternate fixture submitted with the application has been used on campus; it does resemble the Tallmadge fixture and it has all the problems associated with it. The locations at 1800 Sheridan and 405 Church did not have light poles originally. Stan Gerson said that juxtaposing the proposed light fixtures in front of the landmark buildings is too stark a contrast. McGonigle said that the surrounding area on campus has a considerable amount of the proposed light fixtures. The traffic of students and faculty in the proposed areas has increased recently. 405 Church has become the School of Continuing Education. Evening traffic is considerable coming from various sources as a chosen route. Eric Youngquist said that The Associated Student Government identified the two areas as areas of high student traffic through surveys done with the students on November 7, 2004. Gene Sunshine and Ron Naylor of NU, David Jennings and Evanston Prose .-ztioo Conr-aission lurch 22. 200. — Sp-ciat Meeting Minutes Pace 6 Alderman Ann Rainey walked the area as well. Mary Brugliera said that she was not aware of any request r om the City for \7U to install for the benefit of the City. Citizens Comments: Judv Fiske of 2319 Sherman said that the concern that she has within historic districts and in front of landmarks is the same concern that the members of SPARC had and that is lighting the public ways. She said that there is a need of a City policy on what the appearance of the light fixtures is going to be. The current policy is the current Tallmadge fixtures to light City streets. She said that Evanston needs a policy for sidewalk lighting before starting doing it piece meal and picking out lights to go in front of landmarks and picking lights on sidewalks. The Commission should consider a policy unifying the whole process at this point; get more information and look at this as a larger issue. Mary Singh of 1711 Hinman which is behind 405 Church, said that there must be a light fixture that will meet the needs of lighting this area that it will not be as start: as the proposed light fixture is. David Raynolds of 204 Danis Street said that is not his impression that there is much student traffic. The traffic coming out of the Art Center goes through the quad at the 1800 block, down the alley beside the John Egan Center and then goes over to town. He said that he rarely sees young people at the corner of Judson and Church. The building at 405 Church Street is in an R-I residential district, the rest of the neighborhood is lighted just like that building is lighted from the public way. Raynolds said he did not think it was appropriate to add a non -compatible light into that area and at a landmark house. He thought that perhaps NU could pay the City to install Tallmadge fixtures. He also did not think that the area is so unsafe, that corner is not any less safe that any other part of the neighborhood. Andrew McGonigle said that they arc not looking for a City wide policy, they are looking to an area that by their students admission is of major concern for their safety and security, and for NU, they have gone out on record by saying that they want to improve the quality of safety and security to their students who identify the problem with the Chief Engineer of the City. 4%IcGonigle said that the students' concerns should be taken into account. He does not want to disregard the comments from the neighbors either. Outside the 1800 Sheridan, there have been other incidents that have been reported as well. The City has retrofitted 270 light fixtures adjacent of Nli's property to the new Tallmadge fixtures with a 165 Watt fixtures, but the foot candles they put out is equivalent to 250 Hyatt light fixture. Ann Dienner said that it would help to have police crime statistics. Chris Carey said that to him one person held at gun point is one too many. McGonagle read the official crime report about the hand point robbery. Mary Brugliera said that the request to put up fixtures on a front yard requires more substantiation as it is an unusual request. Chris Carey asked if NU Iooked at what else is out there. McGonigle said that it is NU's preference not to use the altemate fixture because of the problems associated with it as explained before. NU would consider as a last resort looking at the alternate fixture with a 200 Watts mercury vapor style lamp with a different ballast technology with more lumens per watt. McGonigle said that the shoe box fixture, the internal mechanism concentrates the light inside the light fixture and all the reflectance is done inside the fixture. The alternate light fixture could achieve the same result, but more light will be spread out at a larger distance and from his perspective as an architect, he was concerned about light pollution_ McGonigle said one has to weight the amount of light pollution with the Evanston Preservation Conunissmn March 22, 2005 — Special Nice::=e `.f—=—zes Page 7 alternate light fixture versus the shoe box light fixture and what is tr)-ing to achieve. Emily Guthrie asked if the Tallm :dge light fixture was considered. McGonagle said that he did not because the alternate fixture is more efficient and less light pollutant. Thomas Prairie said that the shoe box solution does not work for him. A-icGonigle said according to standard 9 the proposed light fixtures do not destroy the landmark buildings. Stan Gerson said that the issue of compatibility is addressed under standard 2 'original qualities and character shall not be destroyed." He believed the proposed light fixtures destroy the character of the landmark house. Michael Girard said that standard 2 is interpreted as: how is the design compatible with %what is there no«•? McGonagle said that the light fixtures already exist on Sheridan directly apposite from the main entrance. Girard said that the concern is with the immediate impact on the property. Mary McWilliams said that the original Tallmadge fixtures were installed in 1931 and they were replaced in 1980. McWilliams said that there was unanimous support for replacing the Tallmadge fixtures in kind. McGonagle said that 270 light poles were replaced and retrofit with new light fixtures. McGonigle said that he will not be able to guarantee that the Tallmadge fixtures will work, but he is able to guarantee that the alternate lighting fixture will work. Emily Guthrie said that she agreed with the light pollution but she wished that another fixture could be found. She also agreed with Judy Fiske about allo,,ti•ing the illumination of the public way from private property. McGonigle said that to his knowledge the students have not identified the Northeast Historic District as a problem in terms of NIU property. But in terms of City property, the answer is yes, and those fixtures have been or are in the process on being upgraded. On campus itself, in new development, they have the (F2) alternate fixture as the university standards, and for all new developments, around Pict: Steiger and Regan Stein those fixtures will be there. Mary Brugliera said that the (F2) alternate fixture is not appropriate when you already have an example of a good light fixture that has real historic credentials. Stan Gerson said that he would hope that NU could investigate this further to find light fixtures that give as much light as is required, but have the appearance that is compatible. He did not think that the (F2) fixture was compatible and he was not sure that the area needs it. Mary Brugliera said that she would like to see what the student survey says. Chris Carey said that he lived in the area and felt that the area is dark. NU owes it to the students and the public to have adequate lighting for safety and protection. Gerson said that then it would apply to all Evanston. Carey said that NU has the means to do something about it and the City does not. Guthrie said that there are people that feel that the Evanston streets are dark. McGonagle said that the (172) fixture could be used, but probably that will required more light poles. Mary Brugliera said that she would like to see police reports for the area, samples in other parts of the First Ward. Ann Dienner said that the activities that go on in the area. Michael Girard said that standard 9 deals with the issue. The nay he interprets the standards is as a device within the historic district, and scales up as it gets in the consideration of a specific property and the highest level is when an Evanston landmark in a historic district is involved. For him it deals with compatibility, if such design is compatible with size, scale, color material, and character of the property, and also the design is compatible to scale, and material. What is proposed is a Evanston Presenation Commission March 22, 2005 — Spy-i.,1 Meeting Minutes Page 8 square metal tube with a square top. Thomas Prairie had problems with the compatibility of the (F-1) fixture. The (F-2) he had qualms about it. He wished that there was a way for the Tallmadge fixtures to ivork. McGonigle said that he was concerned with Tallmadge fixtures on the properties, because they are much bigger and bulkier than the (F-I) and the (F-2) fixture that they are proposing. Chris Carey said proposed to continue the discussion with some guidance. Michael Girard moved to continue the review of the proposed light fixtures. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Chris Carey said that the motion is to continue the review for both properties, and to give the owner more time to present possible alternatives and also provide information on the student survey and Emily Guthrie will provide the Police statistics. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. In response to BrugIiera's question, McGonigle read a report that said that in July 2004, approximately 275 fixtures close proximity to the campus were re-lamped. They included lights from Central south to Emerson, Ridge Avenue cast to Sheridan. 5. 1207 Greenleaf Street (Landmark/RAD) — Raise height of roof ceiling with skylights on ivest elevation over existing one-story rear addition and replace several of existing ivindows. Seeking variance for 3.3' setback from the west property line and 1.1' setback from the rear property line [Alteration/Demolition/Zoning Variance] Marc Segel, architect, David Parlin, property owner, presented the project. Parlin said that they purchased the home in July 2004. The house is a two-story structure; the back is a one-story structure. They intend to renovate the back of the house due to water leaks and mold. Segel said that they need to find a better structural configuration for the roof. Also, the existing one-story addition is already legal non -conforming. This is the formal family room for the house. Segel said that in the 1970s it was a three -car garage. The previous owners were already using the addition as a family room. Stan Gerson said that standards for zoning variance that apply are A and C. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend to the Zoning Administrator the two variations requested for a 3.3' setback on the nest versus the 5' required and rear L V setback versus the 30' required in that it meets standards: (-A) it would not adversely affect the historical architecture or the character of the district, and (C) it will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety or injurious to the property or the district. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Bruglicra said that the rear addition is not visible from the public. Segel said that the neighbors do not object to the variance and improvements. Stan Gerson said that one can not see it because of the fence. Michael Girard said he lives in the neighborhood and he can not recall any other property that it was as nut visible as this one. Girard moved that the Commission does not review 1207 Greenleaf under the standards for review for alteration as the Commission's purview is for parts visible from the public way. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Presen-ation Co:runission March 22, 2005 — S cui Meeting Minutes Page 9 G. 130 Dempster Street (LSHD) — Construction of new one-story addition on the south rear elevation and two-story addition on the east side elevation. Remove second story windows and install new window and bay windows, construct new front porch entry with columns, and replace garage doors on north front elevation. Demolition of existing one-story addition. (Construction/ Alteration/Demolition j Fred Wilson, architect, and Bonnie Honing, property owner, proposed to add a small porch on the north elevation on the street far,ade. Also, construct a two-story addition to the east and a one-story addition to the south of the property. The project is creating larger spaces and installing a new stair with a front entry overhang. The dining room is becoming larger and the kitchen is being opened into a larger space with a fire place and a computer alcove and a mudroom alone the western portion of the room. From the octagon shaped family room one can see views to Lake Michigan. They plan to remove an existing one-story addition on the east portion of the house. On the second floor there is a new balcony that comes over to an office. There is an existing bathroom where there will be a dressing room and the new master bedroom with a view to the Lake. Wilson said that they are creating a new entry to the house with columns and covered entry, also a new bay on the first floor for the guest room and also a little bay to break the roof line and tie into the existing dormers. They arc keeping the siding, the stone on the first floor, the existing living room %vindo%vs and they are building a two-story addition that is on the east portion of the project, which captures the view for the project. The garage doors will be replaced and the dormers will have more details with some beaded board and some trim details. The roof is a hip that comes around and the octagon shape comes through with a little copper dormer with an oculus window. The west portion of the house is not being impacted too much. Carlos Ruiz asked about the lot coverage. Wilson said that it is under the allowed lot coverage. Regarding the building materials they will use clapboard siding and Marvin windows. The existing aluminum clad windows are replacements and they will replace the windows on the entire eastern portion with aluminum clad windows with the simulated divided light and the spacer bar in bervicen the glass. They are adding approximately 1,000 S. F. Stan Gerson said that the alteration consists of new garage doors, the new window where the existing entrance door is, the new window and new bay on the second floor and the new clay chimney pot, and the windows over the entry door. The applicable standards for review of alteration are: 1, 2, 4, 5, G, 9 and 10. Stan Gerson moved that the Commission grant the certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 130 Dempster, in that it requires: minimal alteration of the property, the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not going to be destroyed, the changes that have taken place are evidence of the history of the structure and those changes are not going to be affected, the features of skilled craftsmanship are going to be treated with sensitivity, the windows that are going to be replaced are going to match the windows that exist in the structure, the alterations do not destroy significant architectural features of the structure, and if in the future they want to remove the windows, the garage doors, the chimney clay pot it will possible without affecting the basic appearance of the structure. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Note: 7 ayes, 0 nays. E%-=ton Preservation Cc.r r ssion lurch 22, 2005 —Special Meetiae Mutes Page IQ Stan Gerson said that the construction consists of the north elevation enlarging the entrance foyer with a new covered porch with Tuscan columns, on the east elevation a two-story addition and in the south a one-story addition .'vith a new chimney. The applicable standards for review of construction are: 1 through 7, S. and 10 through 16. Chris Carey asked about the selection of the Tuscan columns. Wilson said that they are the most rudimentary column and the house is not of heavy ornament. Stan Gerson moved that a certificate of appropriateness be granted for the proposed construction at 130 Dempster in that in regard to: height, proportion of front fagade, proportion of openings, the rhythm of solid to voids in the front far,ade, and the rh%-tam of spacing of the structures on the street, the rhythm of entrance porches are all compatible with property, structure, sites, public ways, objects and places to which they are visually related. With regard to standard 7, that the materials are compatible with materials and textures on the structure itself to which are visually related, the roof shapes are compatible with the structures to which are visually related, the scale of the structure and directional expression of the front elevation are visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways to which are visually related, the distinguishing original character of the property is not going to be destroyed, archaeological resources will be protected, contemporary design is not being proposed, and there has not been imposition of a single architectural style. Mary BrugIiera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The standards for review of demolition that apply are 1 through 5. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the demolition of the front porch, cast and south walls of the sun room, and removing the first -story portion of the south w•alI elevation at 130 Dempster, in that: the demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest, there arc not features that deserve to be preserved, it is not of such old or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced, and the owner had just had a certificate of appropriateness for alteration and construction. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 925 Edgemere Court (LSHD) — Construction of new 2.5-store single family house Demolition of existing house [Construction/Demolition], and 8. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) -- Construction of new 2.5-story single family house. Demolition of existing house (Con structionlDemolitionJ Chris Nesbitt of 1047 Forest said that he found that 917 Edgemere Court was in the market, he made an offer and enter into a contract. At the same time 925 Edgemere was also in the market but to his knowledge it was under contract. However, he made an offer and it was accepted. Now he has two properties. Originally, the rendering for 925, they had a narrower version of that same house for 917. Once he purchased 925 they took that plan and made it fit into the property. Nesbit talked to the neighbors and the most important neighbor is the neighbor in between the two parcels. He is 1000,'o in support of the project. Nesbitt said that Edgemere has a mix of different houses and architectural styles, materials and finishes. They wanted these two homes to fit that environment. They took great care in roof lines so they are in keeping with the immediate neighbors. The house that is directly across the Evanston Presmation Commission %larch 22, 2005 — Special %leetiag %iinwes Page 11 street from 925 is a flat roof and the houses on both sides of the house have gable roofs. "here it came to 917 it had the neighboring house that has a slightly lower roof line, so the roof line was brought down to tie into it. Nesbitt said that all the materials are higher end; all the windows are true wood Man. -in windows, copper gutters, clay roof tile, the stone is Indiana limestone utilized in the trim, natural stucco porch, designer garage Mahogany doors.tith lights on them. They tried to keep the harmony with the rest of the neighborhood and at the same time, the house has a distinctive reputation onto itself. He went around Evanston and took pictures of other Mediterranean style houses. The reason they chose the Mediterranean style is because of the Lake or water, Mediterranean is a natural style for it. The floor plan shows the living room area and bringing the back of the house in, so one will be able to see through the house all the way to the Lake. Stan Gerson asked if Mr. Nesbit new why the lot at 917 is so narrow. Nesbitt said he did not know, he new that the house at 917 was an artist cottageflofl and they wanted to set it back far enough that they had views of the Lake. it was a one -bedroom unit. Mary :.1cWilliams, Associate Member, said that Antonin Sterba, an artist, bought the land from Wesley Knox who was the developer of the property. She suspects that the lot is small because that was what Sterba could afford. Arthur Howell Knox designed the house and the house was built in 1922. Mr. Sterba sold the house during the Depression and it went through a succession of owners and a succession of remodelings, additions and a number of changes. Nesbitt said that Edgemere has riparian rights and went through the Supreme Court. There is no sea wall at 925 and it is eroding away. There are sea walls to the north and to the south. He said that filed the application with the DNR which then goes to the EPA and to the Army Core of Engineers. They are not opposed to the addition of a sea wall. At 925, the original owner had prepared to put a house on the property and dough out for a basement. Something happened, but they never went forward with any construction. The next buyer took out the basement and foundation and shut in the back yard and put a slab down and the house that currently sits there is slab on grade. Mary Williams said that in 1915 there was a portable house on 925 Edgemere. In 1949 a survey was done, there was a permit issued in 1951, but there is no permit. Mary McWilliams (Associate Member) of 1606 Wesley Avenue said that Edgemere is part of the Lakeshore Historic District. The nomination of the district was done in 1978. The nomination had to be prepared by the State. The person who wrote the nomination worked two to three days and came up with a nomination that it is skimpy in architecture and history at best. There were three categories of buildings at that time: significant building, contributing building, and non- contributing building. Two years later that system was changed to contributing and non- contributing that is the system that we have today. McWilliams said that the buildings at 917 and 925 Edgemere are contributing. She said that she was not saying that the applications should be rejected, but she was hoping that the Commission could make a more informed decision with the information she was providing. McWilliams said that her concern is with the existing buildings. The building at 925 built in 1910 is a modem building. If horizontality is the sole issue without other things to consider, then there is list of buildings with strong horizontal presence that sit along buildings that are mainly E%anston Presmation Commission March 22, 2005 — Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 vertical that should be considered non-contributing to the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District including: 310 Church (1910 George Maher) , 200 Dempster, 1941 (William Denknatel), 1355 Forest, (1907 TaIlmadge and Watson), 1136 Lakeshore Blvd., (1909 Tallmadge and Watson) 633 Michigan (1911 John Reed Fugard), 1026 Michigan (1915 John Van Bergen), 741 Sheridan Road, (1915 John Van Bergen) 850 Sheridan (1912 Charles Thompson, builder). All of these building would be disqualified if the issue of horizontality is taken as the only issue amidst buildings that are primarily vertical buildings. McWilliams said that she would like the Commission think about that. The one thing that is constant on that side of Edgemere is that there is so much difference in terms of setbacks, heights, materials, and stvles. It is difficult to determine a visual hannorty or a system of solids and voids when one is looking at garage doors. She suggested to elevate these buildings beyond the category of non-contributing A -hen the Commission is conducting deliberations on whether these two buildings should be demolished. Also, historical significance is ven, important. 917 has been altered beyond recognition of what originally was, but Antonin Sterba was an artist with a recognized background. He taught at the Art Institute, and a number of artist of repute have listened him as one of their teachers. He has two paintings at the Smithsonian. Sterba was an artist of significance and he will qualify as a locally significant person. 'McWilliams request that the Commission defer deliberation until the Commission has the chance to read the material. Mary Brugliera said that she could draw two conclusions from this. One is that the Commission begin to second guess every single building in the Lakeshore Historic District, which the Commission could not do. The second is that the Commission will follow its current standards in reviewing applications. McWilliams said that in 1987 a survey of the City was completed. That is by no means the one and only survey. Because other things happened, the Commission changed its focus. There are consequences for the collective inaction, there are buildings out there that need re-evaluation. Stan Gerson said that he was going to ask deferring the review for those reasons. Also, he would like to see renderings of the proposed houses in the context of the neighborhood. Mr. Gerson moved to defer action on 917 and 925 Edgemere and ask for a rendering of the appearance of the proposed houses in their context (elevation of the cast side strectscape) and the footprint of the houses. 4,900 S.F. for 925, and 3,900 S.F for 917. Mary Brugliera asked if a Prairie Style or an Art Modern Style, or an International Style house was considered for either of those lots. Nesbitt said that they did, this is the fourth generation of plans. He said that the proposed house is a 2005 house where he has incorporated certain elements to fit with the community and be distinctive at the same time. Chris Carey said that the motion is to continue to the next regular scheduled meeting on April 19, 2005, ,%vith the request that the Commissioners re%iew the work of Mary McWilliams, that the applicant provide the elevation of the streetscape of Edgemere looking east, showing what these buildings are related to, and the foot print on the lot. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Discussion: Carlos Ruiz referred to the Commission's Rules and Procedures and indicated that the rules say that for demolition, the applicant should notify the neighbors within 250 of the proposed demolition and construction 5 business days prior to the meeting. Evanston Presmation Commission 1•farch 22, 2005 — Special Nfectine %fir -=Ls Page 13 The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. IN'. CO.NIMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION 1IENIBERS, STAFF A. Rescheduling the Public Hearing for 2100 Ridge Avenue Carlos Ruiz said that April 12, 2005 is the date when City Council will consider the Commission's recommendation to designate 2408 Orrington as an Evanston Landmark. He suggested changing the date to another evening. The Commission rescheduled the public hearing for 2100 Ridge Avenue on Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers, Evanston Civic Center. Regarding Mary McWilliams' research paper, Mary Brugliera said that since she came in the Commission, there is only one time that the Commission second guessed an earlier decision in a historic district, and that was when the Commission agreed to demolish the ESCCA building. Part of the reason that it was nominated was because it was an out building of the Osborne estate. It was moved from where originally had been. McWilliams said that she is asking the Commission to be thorough in the review. The nomination for the Lakeshore Historic District is skimpy at best. McWilliams said that she did not come to the Commission with the expectation that the Commission will deny the demolition of the buildings on Edgemere. V. ADJOURNMENT Mary BrugIiera moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:45 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: � �- 4 /, - �, 4� ()-- �"t, - Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservati rdinator Date: 4F—,L- rq, C�ftS EVANSTOti PRESERVATION COMIMISSION Public Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:30 p.m. — Room 2403 Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston, Illinois MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary BrugIiera, Chris Carey, Jordan Cramer, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle I<IE.MBERS ABSENT: Ann Dienner, and Michael Girard OTHERS PRESENT: Andrew McGonigie, Lynn Simon, )ill Singer, Jeff Devlin, Chris Nesbitt, Diane Nesbitt, John Vasilion, Harry Lawrence, James Kalas, Susie'.liuscato, Jacob Lassner, Susan Regan, Andrew Heindel, Paola Placko, Cindy Jevon, Kindon Mills, Greg Stoklosa, and Jack Weiss PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:40 p.m. with a quorum of seven Commission members present. H. MINUTES Approval of March 22, 2005 minutes The March 22, minutes were approved unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. III. COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTS Stan Gerson announced the Chicago Architectural Foundation architectural tours of Evanston scheduled on April 24, June 12, and September 25, 2005. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 1800 Sheridan, 411 CIark/405 Church, and 2. 1704 Judson — Installation of new pole light fixtures - Presen-ation Commission April 19, 2005 — Ntinutes Page Z Andrew McGonigle, of Northwestern university said that last month the Commission expressed some concerns about proposed pole light fixtures to be installed at 1800 Sheridan and 405 Church. Mr. McGonigle since then prepared a proposal that he presented to the University. He also said that he brought the crime statistics to support the reasoning for the lighting poles. Mr. McGonigle said that the Commission favored the Tallmadge light fixture over the previously proposed original and alternate light fixtures to b^ placed on University property. He realized that the scale of the light fixtures was out of keeping with the neighborhood. He looked at another smaller fixture and found that it was not in balance with the community or the neighborhood. The proposal that the University accepted was installing Tallmadge light fixtures in the public parkway. A tentative agreement has been reached between the City and the University for nine - light -fixtures to be placed in the parkway and to be in keeping with the neighborhood. The light fixtures will be paid by the University and installed by a contractor. The City will maintain the light fixtures and pay for the electricity. Mr. McGonigle showed the location layout of the Tallmadge light pole fixtures and a Photoshop illustration with the light pole fixtures. The distance between the poles is 70-feet. Stan Gerson asked about the role of the Commission since the light poles will be installed in City property. Carlos Ruiz said that the light poles "ill be installed within the historic district. Hence the Commission's review now is advisory to the City Council. At this time Chris Carey asked members of the audience for their comments. Lynn Simon of 404 Church Street said she was going to propose to put additional street lights, but in keeping with the neighborhood. Another neighbor of 414 Church agreed with the extra lighting. Jill Singer, Northwestern University student said that the Student Government supports the proposed street lighting. Jeff Devlin, President elect of the Student Body thanked the Commission for supporting the project. Commission members thanked Mr. INIcGonigle for his initiative to engage the University and the City. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the agreement being proposed between Northwestern and the City in regard to the installation of nine Tallmadge light fixtures on the public way across from two University landmark properties within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District (18150 Sheridan Roadi41 I Clark and 405 Church/] 704 Judson), in that they meet the standards for alteration: 1) every reasonable effort = _ shall be made to adapt the object in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property, and the distinguishing original qualities or character of the environment shall not be destroyed, 10) new additions shall be done in such a manner that if they were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity would be unimpaired. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Grote: 7 ayes, 0 nay5. 3. 925 Edgemere Court (LSHD) — Construction of new 2.5-story single family house. Demolition of existing house [Construction/Demolition]; and Prose —nation Commission April 19, _005 -- Minutcs Pace a. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) — Construction of new 2.5-story single family house. Demolition of existing house ]Construction/Demolition] Chris Nesbitt, owner, and John Vasilion, architect, presented the plans for the demolition of two houses; one at 925 and the other at 917 Edgemere Court and the construction of two new single- family houses respectively. Thomas Prairie asked if the zoning analysis was completed for the new house. Mr. Vasilion said, no. Mr. Ruiz said that the height of one of the new homes may not be in compliance to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Vasilion said that they will revise the elevations if necessary to be in compliance to zoning. Thomas Prairie said a zoning variation will require notice to the neighbors. Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission's rules and procedures say that for substantial work, such as demolition, the applicant should notify the neighbors about the proposed work. tiir. Nesbitt said that they made notice to all of the residents not only within the 250-feet, but they notified all of the residents of Edgemere Court. %fr. Nesbitt said that he had a notarized copy of the affidavit service and a copy of the notice that they served on each of those residences. The notice was delivered more than five days prior to tonight's meeting or April 13, 2005. Mr. Vasilion said that he will make a presentation for the two new homes. He said that the new homes are very much in the spirit of Edgemere Court. Neither of the designs approach the limits allowed by the Zoning Ordinance of lot coverage, height, and width. He said that the two homes that they plan to replace, at least on the east side of Edgemere Court are two homes that most disturb the rhythm of the street. Mr. Vasilion said that 925 Edgemere was clearly a break in the rhythm of the street. 917 Edgemere Court is unusual as is set much further back than the other houses on the street. Mr. Vasilion presented three drawings; one of the front elevation of all the houses on Edgemere Court, another with the street plan of the east side of the street, showing all the homes, a-td an existing plan shoving all the homes, and their proposed plan. Although the new houses are substantial, they do not overwhelm the property. They are not unusual among the houses on Edgemere with respect to lot coverage, height or width. Regarding 925 Edgemere, Mr. Vasilion said that its silhouette is very compatible with other houses on the block, but the composition of the home is not just its outline, it is composed of relatively smaller volumes. The foremost volume is the fagade with the unique parapet form, and it is in alignment with the house next door. The street plan shows that 925 actually mitigates . the difference between the street setbacks of each of its next door neighbors. The design of 917 Edgemere does a similar kind of mitigation between the different forms that its next door neighbors have. The 919 house sits in between the two new houses and it has relatively broad shoulders -wide fagade. The 917 design is right next to it And the bulk of its volume is setback from the street. Its size is a compatible neighbor with 919, but the wing of the house that extends closest to the street is lower, it has a hip roof form. The form that comes closest to the street is of a relatively lower mass. That is intended to complement the house at Preservation Commission April 19. 2DO5 — Mimics Page 4 911 Edgemere, which is also a hip roof form, and it has a wing that extends out close to the street. Carlos Ruiz asked if the houses have a third -story. Mr. Vasilion said that both houses have attic space that is a result of the roof forms that were meant to fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Nesbitt said that there is no full developed third floor of either house. There will be space that could be developed as their current house at 1047 Forest, where they are utilizing a portion of the attic space and it was converted into office space, but it is roughly less than 50% of the entire area, that is covered by the roof lines. Mr. Nesbitt said they spent considerable amount of time reviewing the Zoning Ordinance, before developing the plans for either, to make sure they comply without having to go for a zoning variance. Mr. Vasilion said that the designs do not challenge the limits of the Zoning Ordinance in any way that they know of, not withstanding the height of the new homes. Mr. Nesbitt said that if the houses %vere to be redesigned to comply with the Zoning Ordinance or if they needed zoning variance, they will come back in front of the Commission. Carlos Ruiz asked if any of the two new houses is taller than the existing houses. Mr. Nesbitt said that they surveyed both sides of the street_ Mr. %lasilion said that 925 Edgemere is the median height as proposed. 917 Edgemere is fifth in terms of height of the sixteen houses on Edgemere Court. They charted for fot coverage by buildings, percentage of lot coverage, building height, and overall building width. In none of these categories are either of the homes the leader. The lot area square footage and the lot coverage by building are taken from the City of Evanston's web site. The percentage of lot coverage at 925 is 21.7° o. 925 Edgemere is 8`h of the sixteen houses in terms of lot coverage. Emily Guthrie asked about some work to be done on the Lake front and whether that is going to extend the property out so that is more in line with the neighbors. Mr. Nesbitt said that it does put it in line with the neighbors, and increases the lot size because the way the City of Evanston has it drawn on the date that they took that reading, the water line was at a particular point, which since shot multiple times, the water has subsided, but it will be in direct line with south property (919 Edgemere), heading north and then return approximately 16-feet to the west, tying with the property to the north. This was done after the recommendation of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Department of Natural Resources, the EPA, and the Corps have jurisdiction over the water and what takes place on the water. The Corps does the notification to the neighbors. Ms. Brugiiera wondered if this requires Section 106 review. Ms. Brugliera asked about the depth of the property at 917. Mr. Nesbitt said 385-feet. The 925 lot is slightly shorter. At this time Mr. Carey asked comments from the audience. Harry Lawrence of 919 Edgemere Court said the proposed houses will be an improvement to Edgemere Court. Mr. Nesbitt passed around two a -mails in support of the project. Mr. Ruiz said that the e-mail from Mr. Crihfield deals with the issue of height and setbacks of the proposed houses. Mr. Nesbitt said that he made himself available to the neighbors. Mr. Schreiber had the same questions as Mr. Crihfield. They Presmation Commission April 19, 2005 —Minutes Page 5 met and then he became supportive of the projects.:%ir. Nesbitt said that the neighbors saw the exact plans as the ones received by the Commission. Mr. Nesbitt said that the design of 917 allows the vie,.v of the Lake through the house. Another neighbor was pleased that the design maintained the same view. Ms. Rundle said that if the Commission approved the projects; that does not mean that the Commission is also recommending zoning variances. Mr. Nesbitt said that they understood that position. Commission' Findings Stan Gerson said that the standards for review of construction to be considered are all except 14, 15 and 17. Mr. Nesbitt said that there will be walls at the rear. Mr. Carey asked about the proposed material. Mr. Nesbitt described the the roofs, stucco on the exterior, terra costa trim tile, natural stone, copper gutters, real wood windows, and all four elevations of the houses are finished. Mr. Nesbitt said that the windows on the back of the houses will be simulated divided lights. Mary Brugliera said that the existing setback of the house at 917 creates more interest on the street than the proposed setback. Susan Rundle said that 919 sticks out is out of place. No,.v the two new houses create a balance. Mr. Nesbitt said that 919 was the first house on the block and that is why sticks out. 925 Edgemere In regard to properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which the proposed home at 925 Edgemere Court is visually related, Stan Gerson moved that: 1) the height, 2) the proportion of the front fagade, 3) the proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in the front fagade, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street, 6) the rhythm of entrance porches and other projections, 7) the relationship of materials and textures, S) the roof shapes, 9) the walls of continuity, 10) the scale of the house, and 11) the directional expression of the front elevation; are all compatible with the structures to which the house is visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property will not be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, and 16) the Commission is not imposing the requirement for the use of any single architectural style or period. This motion does not imply that the Commission recommend that zoning variances be granted at this time. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that all standards of demolition are to be considered. Mr. Gerson moved to demolish the existing home at 925 Edgemere Court, as it meets standards: 1) the house is not of such historical, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance, that its demolition %ill be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City or the State, 2) the structure does not contribute to the distinctive historical, cultural, architectural or archaeological character of the District as a whole, and it should not be necessarily preserved for the benefit of the people of the City or the State, 4) the structure is not of such of old, unusual, or uncommon design, texture and material that could be reproduced without difficulty or great expense, and 5) the owner of the property does have plans for replacement of the structure. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Presmation Co: -nission April 19, 200-4 — `-Unutes Nee 6 917 Edgemere Court Mary Brugliera said that all of the standards [of construction] 1 through 13 and 16 apply and are met by 917 Edgemere as they were for the property at 925 Edgemere Court. Ms. Brugliera moved that the Commission approve construction on that site, with the caveat that the Commission is not taking any position on any zoning issues which may arise in the future when a zoning analysis is done. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. In regard to demolition, Ms. Brugliera said that same standards [of demolition] apply and are met by 917 Edgemere Court, she moved for approval of the certificate for demolition of the property. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, Qnays. 1%% NEW BUSINESS Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 724 Clinton Place (Landmark/Federal NERD) - Remodel attached garage Into entry foyer, add one-story family room at rear of house. Construct a two -car detached garage. Requires zoning variance for 34.2% lot coverage where 30% maximum Is allowed (Zoning Variance/Construction/Demolition) James Kalas, architect, and Susie Muscats, owner, presented plans to remodel a one -car garage into a foyer, add a one-story family room at rear of house, and construct a two -car detached garage at 724 Clinton Place. The house is an Evanston landmark within the Federal Northeast Evanston Historic District. James Kalas said that all the work is in the back of the house facing south. It involves the demolition of the porch and the one -car attached garage, and the construction of a new two -car detached garage off the alley, and the construction of a family room. Stan Gerson asked if the family room had to be that large. Architect said that the family room is 2VAY. Mr. Carey noted that one could say that the garage is adding to the lot coverage. Ms. Muscato said that they have been restoring the house for some time. She said that she cannot park on the street because street parking is always full. She said that everybody else has a two - car garage. Mr. Kalas said that the two -car garage is 1 S'-5" x 18%8" with a storage area. Mary Brugliera asked if the proposed variance requires notification to the neighbors. Carlos Ruiz said, yes. The Commission discussed the existing and proposed lot coverage with the proposed two -car garage which adds 64 square feet. Susan Rundle said that she liked the way she treated the house and the garage is not out of character with the house. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the standards for zoning variance A and C applied. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission recommend the approval of the 32.4% lot coverage for 724 Clinton because: A) it does not adversely affect the historic architecture of the landmark, C) and it will Presmation Comnussion April l 9, 2005 Page 7 not be materially detrimental to public health, safety and welfare of the C:.ty. Chris Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the standards for coastruction that apply are: 1, 2 (garage), 3, 4 (garage), 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 (gar2ge), and 12 through lb. his. Rundle moved that the Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the con,t.-uction of the remodeled attached garage, the one- story family room addition, and two -car garage at 724 Clinton because: 1) the height of the garage, 2) the proportion of the garage front fagade, 3) the proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids to voids in the garage front facades, and 5) the spacing of structures on the streets are all visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visually related. Also, 7) the relationship of materials and texture, and 8) roof shapes are the same to the structures to which they are visually related. In addition 10) the scale of the garage is visually related to other structures, 1 I) the front elevation of the garage is appropriate and matches others. 12) the distinguishing original qualities and character of the environment are not being destroyed. 13) archaeological resources will be protected and preserved, 14) the Commission did not discourage contemporary design, 15) the additions and new structures could be removed in the future, without hanning the integrity of the original structure, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period, though it may impose a requirement for compatibility. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the five standards for demolition applied. Ms. Rundle moved that the Commission issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of part of the attached garage, porch, and shed at 724 Clinton because: I) the demolition will not be detrimental, the structures do not contribute to the distinctive character of the District, 3) the demolition will not be contrary to the intent and objectives of the historic preservation or the District, 4) non of the structures are of such old, unusual or uncommon design that they could not be reproduce, and 5) the applicant have plans to replace the structure(s). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 2111 Orrington Avenue (Federal tiEHDltiC) - Convert existing carport into an attached garage. Requires zoning variance for 6' north side yard setback where 15' Is required, and 7' rear yard setback where 30' is required {Alteration/Zoning Variance] Jacob Lassner, owner, said that his house was one of the four houses that were built in 1918 by the same developer. The house was not built facing Garrett rather it was built facing Orrington. Consequently, an), construction done to 2111 Orrington requires a major variance. The project is to enclose the open space of the existing carport with walls on the east and north side of the carport, and put an electronic door on the front of the carport. The design will be consistent with the rest of the house. There are wooden windows on the side facing Garrett. Mr. Lassner said that the carport has been become a trash bin, but the most significant issue is safety. Garrett is a very dark street, and Orrington is also dart:. In the winter time getting to the carport is difficult; he has fallen three times last winter. Preservation Commission April 19, 2005 —Minutes Page S Mr. Lassner said that there have been several additions to the house over time. He added the second story over the carport some years ago. He said that the project has been in front of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. Mr. Lassner said that the house is finished in stucco but the area in question is brick. The vinyl siding that is on the outside will remain. The addition will be stucco. He was opened to suggestion for the east wall; he could put vinyl or stucco. Susan Rundle said that she would recommend the siding or all stucco. Mr. Carey Said that what the Commission is looking for is coherence for the exterior finish of the walls. Mr. Lassner said that he was not adverse to the stucco finish. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera moved to recommend the variance since the footprint of the carport has not changed, the project meets standards: A) it is appropriate in the interest of historic conservation, and will not adversely affect the historic district, and C) it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or injurious to property in the District. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Carlos Ruiz asked if neighbors had heard about the project. Mr. Lassner said the neighbors are aware of the proposal. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: i ayes, 0 nays. , Stan Gerson said that the standards of alteration to be considered are: I through 5, 9 and 10. Mr. Lassner said that the new arch over the new garage door will match the existing arch over the existing garage door. The new trim will also match the existing trim. Mr. Lassner said that the existing garage is brick. Thomas Prairie said that he will prefer that all the new walls are stucco. Mr. Lassner said that he was under the impression that his plans called for real stucco not synthetic stucco. Mr. Carey said that the Commission is favor of stucco as exterior material on the garage. The Commission took a straw poll and the majority favored the stucco finish on three sides of the new garage and not the stucco and %7nyl exterior finish as presented. Thomas Prairie moved that the Commission issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations to the carport at 2111 Orrington, provided that the exterior surface material will be real cement stucco, in that it «rill meet standard [for alteration]: 1) every reasonable attempt has - been made to adapt the structure in a manner that requires minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original character of the structure shall not be destroyed, and it could be removed in the future, 3) it is not creating an alteration with a historical basis that is of an earlier appearance or time, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a property, structure, site or object shall be treated with sensitivity; it will be if the stucco is used, 9) contemporary design for alterations are not being discouraged, and 10) the alteration could be removed in the future without the essential form and integrity of the structure being impaired. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 645 Michigan Avenue (LSHDi,NC) — Remove front steps and railing. Construct new open wrap around roofed porch with steps and railing. Replace chain link fence on north side %vith new dog eared -open picket 4' high wood fence and gate. South Side of lot, match neighbors 6' high fence (closed picket), taper to 4' high, and return Preservation Commission April I9, 2005 — Minutes Page 9 fence to new porch 4' high open picket. New tumbled paved ivalk-way and patio (Demolition/Construction) Susan Regan, architect said that her client proposes to build a porch that wraps around to the south of the house. The property has a large side yard. There is also an existing fence on the north side, some of it is chain Iink; they propose replacing it with a 4-foot high wood fence. On the south side the existing fence belongs to the neighbor to the south and it is a closed wood fence that tapers down to 4-feet. Ms. Regan said that her client will match the 4-foot high fence, coming forward and turns to meet the porch. The fence will be opened picket. Ms. Regan said that she would like to add the replacement of double hung wood windows on the front second floor bay with double hung aluminum clad %wood windo,.ti•s to match the existing aluminum clad wood windows. There is also a dormer to the north that has three windows also to be replaced. The house has steel siding. They will also Iike to replace the wood siding on the garage with the steel siding that occurs in the garage. Regarding the proposed fence, they proposed a closed fence on the south side to match the existing fence. The fence coming around the front will be more opened and have more of that railing feeling. Ms. Brugliera suggested leaving out the added alterations until next meeting. his. Regan agreed. Susan Regan said that the porch has wood shingles; the columns are fiber glass with straight forward Tuscan cap and base. The house was probably built in the late 1880s. Stan Gerson said the standards for construction to be considered are: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (fence) and 10 through 16. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the wrap around porch and the fence on the south and west sides of 645 Nlichigan because the porch meets standards: 1, 2, and 4 in that it is, as far as height, proportion and rhythm, it is very typical of front porches of that era, and it is appropriate to the house, as %yell as 5) the spacing of the structure on the street; the extension to the side does not harm the spacing at all and meeting standard 6) rhythm of entrance porches, 7) the materials and texture are appropriate, 8) roof shapes is also appropriate to the porch. Also, 9) the picket fence is appropriate for a structure of that era, 10) the scale of the porch and I I) the porch expression matches the rest of the Queen Anne type porch, 12) the porch does not destroy the original character of the property, 13) they will make every reasonable effort to preserve archaeological resources, 14) the Commission did not discouraged contemporary design, and 15) should the porch and fence need to be removed, the essential form and integrity or the original structure is not impaired. Ms. Rundle included in her motion the fence on the north side. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, o nays. Stan Gerson said that all five standards for demolition applied for the front steps and landing. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of the front open porch and steps to 645 Michigan because: 1) the open porch and steps do not have historic, cultural or architectural significance, 2) they do not contribute to the distinctive historic nature of the area, 3) is not contrary to the objectives of historic preservation, 4) they are not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, that they could not be reproduced, and Preservation Commission April 19, 2005 — Minut_-s Page 10 5) the owner has plans to replace them. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 4. 618-628 Judson Avenue (LSHDf C) — Repair/replace wood exterior porches and stairways on south and west side of building. Replace exit stair serving units 624 & 626 with new stair. Replace t-wo double hung windows with atrium -stele French doors at the 622 unit (first floor). Replace exterior unit doors that exit onto wood porches, and replacement of one horizontal sliding window in the kitchen of each of three 626 units with a double hung window. [A terationtDemolition). Concept/advisory review on zoning variance for rear yard setback [Zoning Variance — Concept) Andrew Heindel, architect said that the property is a 20-unit apartment building at the corner of Judson and Keeney, three -stories plus basement. The building is being renovated as part of the conversion to condominiums. There is interior and exterior work to upgrade the units. There exterior work is primary on the back of the building, In the front facade administrative review has been requested for the cleaning and tuck pointing of the brick and stone detail and for installing decorative iron rod rails at three window groupings. They found out that the railings previously existed and purely decorative. Mr. Heindel said that at rear of the building there is a series of open wood porch and stairs structures. They proposed the repair and extend the porches for use. Also, there is one deck of three units where the existing window groupings are being modified from sliding windows to smaller double hung ,-vndows. Also, there is one porch extension to be accessed from French doors that will be replacing existing windows. Susan Rundle asked if the existing balustrade design was being continued. Mr. Heindel said, yes. Mr. Heindel said that three (4' x 7') porch extensions and stacked. Mr. Heindel said that they are preparing for variance for a stairway that is very hazardous that will be removed and rebuilt to meet the building code. The variance is for the setback. The Commission agreed to conduct the advisory review for the porch setback variance. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle moved that the Commission recommend the approval of a variation for 618-628 Judson to repair and replace the wood exit stair with extended porches on south and west sides, with the west porch touching the property line. The west porch it does not adversely affect the historic district, and it will not be materially detrimental but improve the public safety and welfare of the City. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that standards that apply for the proposed alterations are: 1 through 6, 8, 9 and 10. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the repair/replacement of wood exterior porches and stairways on south and west side of building. Replace of exit stair serving units 624 & 626 with new stair. Replace two double hung windows with atrium -style French doors at the 622 unit (first floor). Replace exterior unit doors that exit onto wood porches, and replacement of one horizontal sliding window in the kitchen of each of Presmation Commission April I9, 2005 — Minutes Page 1 t three 626 units with a double hung window because they are doing the alterations in a manner with: 1) minimal alteration to the property, 2) the distinguishing orisnal qualities of the building arc not being destroyed, 3) the alterations will have no historic basis, 4) the changes that may have taken place in the course of time, which are the back exists are being duplicated and enlarged, 5) the distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity, 8) archaeological resources will be saved, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) if the alterations were to be changed will not harm the essential form and inteerity of the structure. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1209 Hinman Avenue (LSHD-NC) — Construct nvo dormers on the north and south elevations, matching existing dormers on the west and east elevations [Alteration) Paola Placko, architect and Cindy Jevon, owner presented plans for two new dormers on the north and south elevations of the house at 1209 Hinman Avenue. Ms. Placko said that the house has a hip roof with three existing dormers in the east and west sides and one on the south side of the house. The new dormers maintain the same style of the hip roof. They will have four dormers, two are existing dormers, one is being replaced with a larger dormer and they are adding a fourth dormer. The dormers keep the same line of the height of the main roof with asphalt shingles. The existing windows arc double hung windows, they are proposing casement windows for egress. The existing dormer on the west has a fixed window to be replaced with awning windows; the east side is double hung. The materials will match the existing materials. Nis. Placko said that the «hole house is sided with asphalt shingles. Stan Gerson said that the standards for alteration that apply are: 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10. Mr. Gerson moved that the Commission grant the Certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the south dormer, the addition of a north dormer, in that requires: 1) minimal alteration of the property, 2) it does not destroy the character of the original, 3) the changes are recognized as products of their own time, 5) stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a property are to be treated with sensitivity, 9) contemporary design is not being proposed, and 10) if in the future the dormers are removed it could be done without major alteration to the property. Jordan Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mary Brugliera suggested to the owner to consider landmark designation for the house and to contact the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency for the Property Tax Assessment Freeze. 6. 1021 Forest Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Remove entn• pantry and enclosed porch at rear of house. Build one-story frame addition. Build addition to existing two -car garage. Requires zoning variance for 39.2% lot coverage where 30% is allowed [Construction/Demolition/Zoning Variance] Kindon Mills, architect, and Greg Stoklosa, owner, presented the plans for the removal on an entry pantry, the enclosure of a porch at the rear of the house, construction of one-story frame addition, and build an addition to existing two -car garage. The project requires zoning variance Presen-ation Commission April 19, 200 — Minutes Pace 12 for 39.2% Iot coverage where 30% is allowed. The house is an Evanston landmark -Mthin the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Mills submitted a revised elevation showing on the north side a hip roof and a new casement ,window. The addition will have the same quality of the formal spaces of the original house. The addition to the garage will fit future needs of five members of the family of driving age. The materials are consistent with the house such as brick and stucco. The window configurations are taken from the existing house. his. Mills said that they proposed replacing all of the casement windows in the basement with casement wood windows. Susan Rundle said that she did not have a concern with the proposed alterations and addition. She had a concern with the proposed lot coverage, 39.2° o lot coverage is totally different than the neighborhood is zoned. Ms. Mills said that the addition to the garage is nearly half of the total addition. Chris Carey noted an improvement by the elimination of the curb cut and a driveway. Carlos Ruiz asked if there are other three -car garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Stoklosa said that both neighbors on either side have three -car garages. Nis. Mills said that the neighbors have been notified about the proposed variance and they have not known of any objections. The project requires a minor variance. Mr. Ruiz said that the addition itself does not project out and it seems well balanced %with the rest of the house. Ms. Brugliera added that they are increasing the amount of green space over a long driveway. Ms. Rundle said that she is worried about setting a precedent in terms of the lot coverage. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the standard that apply for the variation are A and C. Chris Carey moved that the Commission recommend approval of the variation (of 39 2% lot coverage] at 1021 Forest, in that: 1) it will not adversely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or the character of the local historic district, and C) will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property in the district or vicinity in which the property is located. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 nay (S. Rundle). Susan Rundle said that standards for construction that apply are: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (garage), 8, 10, 11 (garage), and 12 through 16. Ms. Rundle moved that the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction one-story addition to the rear of 1021 Forest and the construction of three -car garage. 1) the height is visually compatible with the garage, 2) the front fagade is visually compatible with the surroundings, 3) proportion of openings are based on replications of what exists, 4) solids and voids of the garage match the rest of the alley, 5) as well as the rhythm of spacing of structures or three -car garages, 7) materials and textures are the same, 8) the roof shapes are replications, 10) the massing of the structure in relationship to the _ windows and doors is the same as existing, 11) the front elevation is compatible with structures to which is visually related, 12) distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design has not been discouraged, and 15) the addition, if removed, will still allow the form and integrity of the existing structure to be unimpaired. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Preser.-ation Commission April 19, 2W5 — Minutes Page I3 Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of entry pantry and enclosed porch at rear of house because: 1) the aforementioned pieces of the house are not of such significance that it would be contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City, 2) they do not contribute to the historic nature of the District, 3) their demolition is not contrary to the objectives of the historic preservation, 4) they are not of such old, unusual or uncommon design, that they could be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense, and 5) there are plans to replace them. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. B. Historic District Signs Replacement of existing historic district signs with newly designed signs Jack Weiss said he designed the existing historic district signs over twenty years ago, and they have outlived their use for at least ten years. He also designed the existing Way Finding Program about four years ago. These signs are for the Dawes House, the Library, the Noyes Cultural Center, and other cultural attractions in the City. The proposed historic district sign follows the same program of the Way Finding signs. Historic District signs were not par of the Way Finding Program, Carlos Ruiz showed a map with the location of existing signs in historic districts. There are 23 signs in the Lakeshore District, and 22 signs in the Ridge District. There could be a total of 24 signs for the Northeast District including the Federal boundaries. The signs are meant for people driving and not for pedestrians. The map also shows the traffic patterns. Stan Gerson suggested that the ratio of lettering to background should be increased. Susan Rundle agreed with Mr. Gerson. Mr. Weiss said that will mean asking for a variation of a system that has been designed City wide. There are other messages on other signs, and one would have to design the sign and the lettering so it manages every message there is throughout the Citv. That dictated the size of the lettering. The size of the sign .vas a given 2.1" x 36". Chris Carey asked if the signs have to be the same brown and blue colors. Mr. Weiss recommended that the historic district signs be part of the existing system. The brown color is for cultural location, the blue color is for business districts, way finding signs are green. These colors are also consistent with U.S. Highway standards. Thomas Prairie said that the proposed signs are not appropriate signs for our historic districts. Mr. Weiss said that the icons had been designed by Davis Cisco back in the late 1980's and early 1990s. Public Works has his work on them, the pavers, and the patterns in various hardware in the downtown area. Mr. Weiss said that there is continuity in all the signs. The Commission discussed the colors available for the signs. Thomas Prairie asked if residents had an opportunity to comment on the signs. Mr. Weiss said that the sighs are mounted on the public way. Some objections were against the larger signs. The colors that are available are brown, blue, yellow, and green. Mr. Weiss said that one can make a sign as big as one can for large lettering or restrict the size of the sign, and the lettering is scaled Preservation Commission April 19. 2005 —Minutes Page la to that specific size. Chris Carey said that the signs seemed too big. Mr. Weiss said that the existine historic signs are the same size. Mr. Weiss said that the clients on the City's Way Finding project were the Arts Commission, the Parking Committee, the Chamber of Commerce, Evmark, and the City. The design is the result of that process. The Preservation Commission is one Commission that needs to review the sign. Chris Carey asked about a different symbol for historic district. Mr. Weiss said that there are other symbols like the acorn or Oak leaf from the Tallmadge light poles. Ms. Brugliera said she would like historic district signs have their own symbol. Mr. Weiss agreed to come back with additional desians. III. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION NIEAIBERS, STAFF Mary BrugIiera said that she has been in the Commission for three and a half years, and often when Ms. Susan Regan comes to the Commission with a project it is missing several important pieces. She asked Carlos Ruiz that whenever Ms. Regan brings an application that he sits down with her or at Ieast go through it and talked to her over the telephone. Susan Rundle asked if architects from Thomas Prairie's office may be available to apply for appointment to the Preservation Commission. Mr. Prairie said that one of them is not an Evanston resident. his. Brugliera said that she would like to nominate three people for Associate members: John Leineweber, a developer and contractor, Scott Walker, architect, developer and contractor, and Ryan Kettlekamp. Mary Brugliera mentioned the upcoming Preservation Statewide Conference. In regard to the Preservation Awards dates James Woltnski had suggested two dates: the second Council meeting in May or the first Council meeting in June. Carlos Ruiz presented the application for the Preservation Awards IV. ADJOURNMENT Mary Brugliera moved to adjoum the meeting at approximately 11:45 p.m. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: �Z& arlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner(Preservati oordinator Date Completed: June 11, 2005 Date Approved: June 21, 2005. • EVANSTON PRESERVATION CONE EMISSION :MEETING IIItiUTES Evanston Civic Center Room 2403 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday',111ay 24, 2005 — 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Michael Girard, Emily Guthrie, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Janicki, Jay Johnson, Jim Goldberg, Jeffrey Mundt, Michael Boone, Regina Look -is, Michael Canter, Susan Regan, Andrew Stover, Mike Malloy, Ryan Kettelkamp, John Holbert, Kim Sutker, and Andrew Venamore PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., with a quorum of eight members being present. H. 51INUTES Carlos Ruiz reported that minutes [April 19, 2005] were not ready yet, III. COAMIUNICATIONS/REPORTS There were no communications to report. IV. OLD BUSINES Historic District Signs Jordan Cramer suggested moving this item to the end of the agenda Commissioners agreed. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) Evanston Pmsrmation Commission Ntay 24, 2005 —Minutes Paee 2 of 12 Carlos Ruiz said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee recommended moving 323 Greenwood and 1741 Hinman ahead of the agenda. 1. 325 Greenwood Street (LSHD) — Add eyebrow dormer on the cast roof. Enclose rear porch [Alteration] BrugIiera said what was visible was the east roof of the proposed eyebrow dormer and not the rear porch. Paul Janicki, architect, said that his clients would like to install an eyebrow dormer on the third floor bathroom. They are using the circular oculus form to mirror another oculus that appears on the first floor stairwell of the building. The dormer is Queen Anne inspired with copper finish. The window will have clear glass and no screen. The brick mold detailing will be match as close as possible. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that the standards for alteration that applied are: 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10. Mary Brueliera moved that the Commission approve the eyebrow window on the east fagade at 325 Greenwood in that meets standards: 1) adapting property with minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing characters are retained, 3) there is no non -historical addition being put on, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) if the eyebrow were to be removed, the house will return to its original state. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1741 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) - Rebuild the roof over the front porch of the house [Alteration] Jay Johnson, owner, said that he has been renovating the house for the last two years. He proposed adding a front porch that was original to the 1884 Queen Anne house. In response to a question from Stan Gerson, Mr. Johnson said that there is a portion of the north fagade that has a denail detail that will fall along the remaining portion of the wood porch, and that the plan calls for five new posts. Mr. Johnson said that the Historical Society did not have any pictures of the front porch. He learned from the previous owners that the porch was removed by 1950. Commission"s Findings: :Mary Brugliera said that the standards of alteration that apply are: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. Mr. Johnson said that they would like to match the roofing cedar shingles on the house, but they may have to go with a metal roof due to budgetary constraints. Michael Girard said that he would prefer the metal roofing material. Thomas Prairie said that the shingles are out because the flat roof. liichael Girard moved that the Commission approve the porch at 1741 Hinman, including the columns and new roof with trim and fascia details to match those existing above the front entry, and that the roof over the porch be a metal roof, and that it meets standards: 2) distinguishing original qualities or character of the property should not be destroyed, 3) alterations that have no Ev-ansron Preservation Cow-mssion 'stay 24, 2005 — Minuics f'sre 3 of 12 historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance have not occurred in this project, 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; the house is being returned to its original state, 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, 9) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design for this alteration , and 10) wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential force and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 330 Greenwood Street (LSHD) - Demolish a portion of the existing brick wall and replace it with a new 6'- 0" tall brick wall. Demolish low brick wall and replace it with a 6'- 0" tall wrought iron fence. Also, install three interior 6'- 0" tall wrought iron fences and one 8'- 0" tall interior side yard wrought iron fence [Fence Variance/Construction/Demolition] Jim Goldberg, architect, pointed out that the late 1800s iron fencing in the front and the street side of the house was designed and installed by a company still in business in Connecticut. The elevation drawings show an exact replica of that fence on Judson and Greenwood. Nir. Goldberg said that on the plan, fences A, B, and C, require the Commission's approval. Fence A is a brick wall that has deteriorated badly and they intend to rebuild it. The fence variation required is for the existing 7' — 10" height. The wall will conform to the 6'— 0" height. B is a brick wall that is not in good condition and that it will be taken down and rebuilt with an iron gate to preserve transparency from the front yard to the back yard. Lastly, to give some security to the whole yard is fence C, that has a gate and it is 6' — 0" high. Mr. Goldberg said that the brick for the fence and the garage is an exact duplicate of the existing brick. Susan Rundle asked if the new 8' — 0" tall fence on the east side needed a variance. Mr. Goldberg said, no. Stan Gerson asked if the entire fence A will be removed and rebuild with the entry way moved. INir. Goldberg said that the reason for moving the gate is to center on the landscape court. The height of the entry way is 7' — 10". Susan Rundle asked if the east side fence stops somewhere. Mr. Goldberg said that the fence stops at the property line and it is 8'- 0" high to match the height of the existing fence in front of the house. Commission's Findings: Susan Rundle said that the standards for variation are A and C. The variation is for the 7'— 10" high side yard gate. INis. Rundle moved that the Commission recommend approval of the variation for the 7' — 10" side yard gate at 330 Greenwood, because: A) it does not adversely affect the historical or aesthetic integrity of the area, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Presm3tion Commission May 24, 2005 —Minutes Page 4 of 12 Susan Rundle said that in regard to rebuilding the 6 '- 0" high brick wall, installing the 8'— 0" high interior side yard fence to the east, and the 7' — 10" side yard gate, the standards [of construction] that apply are; I through 7, 9, 12, and 16. Emily Guthrie moved approval (of the previously described work] as it meets standards: 1) height, 2) the relationship of the width to the height of the front elevation is visually compatible, 3) it is visually compatible xvith the width to height of windows and doors, 4) relationship of solids to voids is visually compatible with the existing fence, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets; the relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures is visually compatible with the properties, and structures, 6) the gate projection, the brick %wall that is being slightly shifted and rebuild, and its mass, is visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, and public ways to which it is visually related, 7) relationship of materials is visually compatible, 9) walls of continuity are visually compatibility with structures, 10) scale is visually compatible, 12) distinguishing original qualities are not going to be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will not be destroyed, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) new additions to structures or objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for the use of a single architectural style or period. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle moved for demolition of the portion of the brick wall in the basis that it is going to be rebuilt, 1) it will not be detrimental to the public interest, 2) it is going to be rebuilt and mitigates loosing the distinctive historical element of the district, it is not contrary to the purpose (of preservation], 4) it is being rebuilt in the same design, and 5) there are plans to rebuild it. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Mr. Girard asked about the raked brick joints. Mr. Goldberg said that they will be the same. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 703 Sheridan Road (LSHD) - Demolish the existing garage and reconfigure the driveway, construct a new garage with a deck/terrace above it. Rebuild enclosed one- story breakfast room, and install open porch above on the second floor. Also, add new dormer to the rear of the roof at the attic to match front dormer, and remove asphalt roofing to install nervy asphalt shingles or slate shingles with copper gutters and downspouts [Alteration/Construction/Demolition] Torn Prairie recused himself from the Commission's discussion and decision making as being the architect for the proposed work at 703 Sheridan. Jeffrey Mundt, owner, and Michael Boone, architect, were also present. Mr. Prairie said that Carlos Ruiz had previously approved administratively the window replacement in kind. He said that now the Commission is looking _ at windows that will be changed or added. Mr. Prairie said that the project consists of on the front elevation: a) repairing of the existing front porch following the original drawings, b) adding a vdndow on the second floor to the south, to balance the window that was added on the north side and c) replacing asphalt shingle roof in kind or with slate shingles. Evanston Preservation Cw nission May 24, 2005 — Minutes Page 5 of 12 South elevation: a) adding afire place on the first floor living room with a stucco chimney, b) replacing existing % in,.1 windows with all wood windows; replicate the divided lights where required. Southeast rear: a) demolish one-story garage and construct a below grade two -car garage. Extend driveway on the south side, b) removing the enclosed porch at the southeast comer and replaced with part of the kitchen and an open porch above. On the east side there is the garage and a small garden shed attached to the garage. The north side is the same except for the garage addition to the rear. The existing art glass near the front door will be restored. The expansion into the attic includes a new dormer on the rear east side of the house, which will mimic the dormer in the front of the house. There will be flat skylights added near the front on the third floor and toward the rear to provide the required egress. Also, the original double hung windows will remain. Commission's Findings Mary Bruglicra reiterated the alterations: window addition on the front fa;ade, reinstalling several porch rails in the front, replace vinyl window with wood window, rear windows replacement, and third floor dormer addition. The applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve all the aforementioned alterations to 703 Sheridan Road in that: 1) every reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property with minimal alterations, 2) distinguishing original qualities of character, and in the case of the removal of the garage have been improved, 3) no alterations are seeking to recreate an earlier appearance, 5) the distinctive stylistic features of the house are being treated with sensitivity, 6) everything is being replaced in kind, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) any of the alteration if needed to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure is unimpaired. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention. Ms. Brugliera said that the construction standards that apply for the two -car garage at the rear are: 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Susan Rundle moved that the Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the two -car garage below grade and a one- story addition at 703 Sheridan as: 1) the height is compatible with the house, 7) the relationship of materials and texture is the same, 8) the roof shape and the scale of the structure are compatible, 12) the garage does not obscure any of the original qualities of the property, archaeological resources will be protected, 14) the Commission did not discouraged contemporary design, 15) if the garage were to be removed, the original integrity of the structure [house] is not unimpaired, and 16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural style. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, I abstention. Mary Brugliera said the standards for demolition that apply for the demolition of the existing garage and rear porch are 1 through 5. Susan Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the garage and rear porch at 703 Sheridan because neither Evanston Preservation Corr=_ission May 24, 2005 —Minutes Pape 6 of 12 one are: I) of such historic. cultural or architectural significance, that their demolition will be detrimental to the interest of the property, 2) they do not contribute to the historic nature of the district, 3) demolition will not be contrary to the purpose of this chapter, 4) neither one are of such uncommon design that they could be reproduce with not great difficulty, and 5) the owner has plans to replace them. !avian- Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, I abstention. 5. 555 Lincoln Street (Landmark) - Replace windows on the building. The building is part of a property designated as an Evanston Landmark [Alteration] Regina Lookis, Assistant Superintendent at the Evanston Water Department said that the windows to be replaced are on the 1949 addition to the original 1914 landmark building. Three additions were built to the original building in 1923, 1949, and 1963. The 37 proposed windows are located on the service building which faces Lincoln. The existing windows are single pane steel windows that were installed in 1949. They are severely rusted, the putty is falling, and many of them do not open. They believe that the best alternative is to replace them. Ms. Lookis said that after meeting with Carlos Ruiz they decided to order windows of the same size with exterior muntins with ventilation sash in the middle. Ms. Lookis said that they wanted to maintain the integrity of the building and meet the standards (of alteration),with the same loot: and feel. Susan Rundle asked Carlos Ruiz if he discussed other manufactures that do windows that are similar. Mr. Ruiz said that he talked to Dave Stoneback (Water Department) about restoration of the windows. The cost of restoration was prohibitive to the applicant. Also, after 9111 security is an issue. Regina Lookis said that after WI 1 they have a number of federal requirements to maintain the security of the facility. The windows have a dark film on the glass that will prevent someone from looking into the facility. Ms. Lookis said that they have taken good care of the beautiful inside terracotta as well. Also, prior to 9111 the facility was open to the public, but currently is not. Commission's Findings -- Susan Rundle said that the standards of alteration that apply are 1 through 6, 9, and 10. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for window replacements with TR900 Traco, in that it meets standards: 1) requires minimal alteration to the property, 2) the distinguishing features are not being destroyed, 3) there is no addition recreating and earlier style, 4) changes are being recognized and respected, 5) stylistic features are being treated with sensibility, 6) the ne v material matches what it is replacing, 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) if the windows were to be removed and replaced with the original, the integrity will not be unimpaired. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion - passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 6. 645 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) - Replace wvindowF•s on the house. Also, install steel — siding over existing shiplap siding on the garage [Alteration] Michael Canter, owner, and Susan Regan, architect, presented plans to replace the existing windows on the house with aluminum clad windows and install steel siding over the existing Evanston Preset :-a"_on Comrussion May 24, 2005 — Ntinutes Page 7 of 12 shiplap siding on the garage to match the steel siding on the house. The property is within the Lakeshore Historic District. Susan Regan said that the majority of the garage siding is viewed from the rear of the house. Mary Brugliera said that the garage is leaning to the north. Mr. Canter was not sure if they can straighten the garage, but they will try. Emily Guthrie asked if the Mr. Canter preferred matching the color but not the material and color. fir. Canter said lie prefers to match the house material which is steel siding. Susan Regan said that to replace some of the boards of the wood siding, they have to patch in all of the casement trim around m ndows and doors. Mr. Canter said that there arc some boards that need to be replaced as well. Thomas Prairie was concerned about installing steel siding over the existing wood siding because that will change the profile of the exterior and the character of the garage, unless they put additional trim over the existing trim. Susan Regan said that there still be that reveal. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for 645 Michigan to replace 5 windows on the west elevation, second and third floor, 3 windows on the north dormer, and 1 window on the second floor south with aluminum clad windows and installing the steel siding over existing siding on the garage as meeting the standards for alteration: 1) a reasonable effort is being made to minimize alteration, 2) is not meet, 3) there is no attempt to create an earlier appearance, 4) changes are recognized and respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity (wood trim of the garage), 6) is not met, 7) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) if alterations %were to be removed, the essential form and integrity of the house would be unimpaired, Stan Gerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Emily Guthrie said that a wood window is very distinctive and she did not like the way a clad window looks. Mr. Canter said that because there are twenty clad windows on the house and there has been already a substantial investment with those windows they want to be consistent with the clad windows. Susan Regan said that as much she would like to see wood windows, the house is a non-contributing house, and there has been precedent where the Commission has allowed clad windows. Ms. Guthrie said that the siding on the garage should be repaired to meet standard 6. Thomas Prairie said the garage does not have to match the house; but a wood garage has a certain charm and character. The motion failed. Vote: 4 ayes, 4 nays. Jordan Cramer said he would like to see on the front elevation the wood windows remain; certainly they are visible from the street. Michael Girard concurred with Mr. Cramer about the windows. Regarding the garage he would be more in favor of maintaining the shiplap wood siding rather than siding over it. Nir. Cramer said that he felt the same way about the garage. Ms. Regan said that she was struck by how little of the siding shows from the alley. The overhead steel door is at least 70% of that elevation. On the south side there is a 6' high fence, the portion that can be seen is broken up by two windows and two doors. Michael Girard said that the garage is in a historic district, and the sum of the parts is what it makes the historic district. Evanston Presen-arion Commission :stay 24, 2005 — `.iinutcs Page 8 of 12 Mary Brugiiera moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for window replacement on the front elevation (five windows on the «vest fa,ade, first and second floor) to be `Food windows and (three windows on the north dormer and one window on the second floor south) with aluminum clad as meeting standards 1, 3, 4, 5, and Aill more closely meet standard 2 (although not completely, also meets standards 8, 9, and 10. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. Tlie motion passed. Vote 6 ayes, 2 nays. The Commission did not take further action on the garage. 7. 653 ,%Iicbigan Avenue (LSHD) - Demolish a mudroom and construct a one-story rear addition to the house [ConstructionrDemolition] Andrew Stover, owner, and Mike Malloy, builder, presented plans for the demolition of a mudroom and the construction of a one-story rear addition to the house at 653 Michigan Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Stoner said that they have restored the interior of the house for the last two years. The proposed addition includes a first floor bathroom. The mudroom at the rear of the house has a small landing to the basement. The proposal is to provide an access to the basement under the current stairways inside and expand the kitchen. Then the ingress to the first level will be an entrance to the side as well a rear deck area with a sliding door. The foundation of the mudroom does not match the foundation of the house. Commission's Findings Commissioners noted that there will be a recessed window well on the north elevation not visible from the public -way. The cedar deck will match the newel post, railing and lattice work- of the front porch. SusanRundlesaid that the standards for construction that apply are: 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Michael Girard moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the one-story rear addition to the house at 653 Michigan Avenue as it meets the following standards: 1) the height of the addition is compatible with the structure to which is ~visibly related, 3) proportion of openings -- the height of the windows and doors is compatible with properties and structures to which are visually related, 7) they are maintaining the same materials and textures, 8) the roof shapes of the addition are consistent with the main house, 10) the scale of the addition is compatible with the — main house, 12) the character of the property is not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) the addition is not destroying historic material and it is compatible with the character of the property, and 16) a requirement of a single architectural style is not being imposed. Standard 15 does not apply. Mr. Girard amended his motion to include that the new rear porch rails and balusters will match the existing in the front. Ann Dienner seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that all standards for demolition apply. Michael Girard moved to approve the demolition of the existing mudroom at 653 Michigan Avenue as it meets standards of demolition: 1) the mudroom is not of such historic, cultural or architectural significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest, 2) the mudroom does not contribute to the Evanston Prescrvation Commission Slay 24, 2005 — Siinutcs Page 9 of 12 distinctive historic, cultural, and architectural character of the district, 3) the mudroom demolition is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, 4) the mudroom could be reproduced and it is not of such uncommon design, and 5) the applicant has plans and have been approved by the Commission. Tom Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 1015 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) - Construct a tea house on the property (Construction) Ryan Kettelkamp, landscape architect, presented plans for the construction of a tea house on the south side of the property at 1015 'Michigan Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The tea house will be visible from the alley. The gazebo is an all open structure with a trellis similar to the existing trellis on the house. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz asked if the neighbors to the south are aware of the structure going up. Mr. Kettelkamp said that the neighbor had given permission to work on his property. Mary BrueIiera said that the standards for construction that apply are: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16. ?Michael Girard moved that the Commission approve the construction of the tea house on the rear yard at 1015 Michigan Avenue as it meets the following standards: 1) height is visually compatible with the garage, 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street is being maintained, 7) the relationship of materials and textures is derived from the frame work and lattice on the house, 8) the roof shape is compatible to that of the garage, 10) the scale of the structure, size and mass is visually related to the garage, 12) the original qualities of the property are not being destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 1 4) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 16) the Commission did not impose a single architectural style. The motion was seconded. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 9. 1028 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) - Demolish the existing garage and construct a new two - car garage. Infill window openings on the first and second floor; install new windows and replace one window on the first floor of the west rear elevation. Replace two windows on the first floor of the north elevation. Also, infill one window opening on the second floor and replace one window on the first floor of the south elevation of the house [Atterati onfConstruc ti on/D em oli tion] John Holbert, architect, and Jeff Wootton, owner, presented plans to demolish the existing garage and construct a new two -car garage and exterior alterations to the house at 1028 Hinman Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Commission's Findings Michael Girard moved to approve the exterior alterations at 1028 Hinman Avenue for removing two windows [infill window openings) and install two new double -hung windows on the second floor, and remove one window (infill window opening) and install one new double -hung window Evanston Preservation Comn-¢ ssion May 24, 2005 Minutes Page 10 of 12 on the first floor of the west elevation. On the second floor of the south elevation remove window (infill window opening), install new double -hung window, and on the first floor, replace windows with new windows to match muntins on existing casement windows, as the proposed wort: meets the standards for alteration: 1) Every reasonable effort shall be made that requires minimal alteration of the property or structure, standards 2) through 5) distinctive stylistic features shall be treated with sensitivity, 9) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design for alterations, and 10) whenever possible new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in a manner that if there were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the standards for construction that apply are: t through 5, 7, 8, and 10 through 16. Ms. Rundle moved that the Commission approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a two -car garage at I028 Hinman because it meets standard of construction: 1) the height matches the height of garages in the neighborhood, 2) the proportion of the front fatiade is appropriate, 3) the proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids, and 5) the rhythm of spacing and structures on the alley are all compatible to structures, and public ways to which is visually related, 7) the relationship of materials and textures are appropriate, 8) the roof shape and 10) the scale are compatible to structures to which are visually related, 11) the directional expression of the front elevation is appropriate, 12) the garage does not alter the character of the district, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 16) the commission is not imposing an single architectural style. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Rundle said that all the standards for demolition apply. Mary Brugiiera moved that the Commission approve the demolition of the existing garage at 1028 Hinman in that meets standards: 1) it is not of such historic, architectural significance that its demolition would not be detrimental to public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the city and the state, 2) the garage does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural or architectural character of the district, 3) its demolition will not be contrary to the purpose of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation of the Lakeshore Historic District, 4) it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty or expense, and 5) the owners have plans that have been approved by the Commission. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 10. 1408 plain Street (Landmark) - Construct a two-story addition to the rear of the house. Also, construct a wrap -around porch on the north and west sides of the house [Construction) Andrew Venamore, of Airoom, and Kim Sutker, owner, presented plans for the construction of a two-story rear addition and a wrap -around porch on the north and west elevations of the house at 1408 Main Street. The house is an Evanston landmark. Mr. Venamore said that 1408 Main is a corner lot. The two-story addition includes a kitchen remodel and a mudroom, the second floor has a bedroom. The addition is off set on the west Evanston Preservation Commission May 24, 2005 — Minutcs Page 11 of 12 side of the property and extends also to the west property line. They also have a wrap around porch. There was a wrap around porch on the east side of the house. The addition .vill match the existing wood siding, and the details around window heads, and soffits brackets. The ridge height of the addition is lower than the existing roof ridge on the house. There is a covered porch off the master bedroom at the rear of the house. The addition has a two-story bay on the south elevation. On the east elevation there are exterior stairs to the second floor. Commission's Findings Commissioners discussed if there any pictures of the house showing a roof over the front porch. Emily Guthrie suggested if they consider a piazza in front without a roof. Mary Brugliera was also concerned with the roofed parch. Jordan Cramer asked if the exterior stairs are original to the house. Mr. Venamore said that it appears that the house had two additions at the tear. The stairs are part of one of the additions and that the owner will like to maintain the rear access. Thomas Prairie expressed concerns about the exterior stairs. %It. Venamore said that the exterior stairs are less visible from the public way. 'fir. Cramer said that hiding the existing bay on the west elevation with the roof of the -,wrap around porch detracts from the original distinctive feature of the house. Ms. Brugliera suggested not extending the porch over the bay window. Andrew Venamore said that ibis. Sutker has photos of the house with a front porch. Carlos Ruiz suggested putting a porch on the addition's west elevation rather than on the original house to minimize changes to it. Commissioners expressed their concern about altering the vertical expression of the front elevation with the addition of the proposed roofed wrap around porch. Andrew Venamore showed a revised west elevation of the addition with one less window on the first floor. The applicants agreed to come back in front of the Commission in June with revised drawings to address the Commission's concerns. B. 1311 Chicago Avenue (The Stewart) Request from Trileaf Corporation for comment on installation of wireless communications antenna and equipment shelter for T- Mobil on the building at 1311 Chicago Avenue (immediately adjacent to the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District) The Commission discussed the request from Trileaf Corporation for the Commission's comment in regard to the installation of wireless communications antenna and equipment shelter to be placed on the roof of the building at 1311 Chicago Avenue, which is immediately adjacent to the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mary Brugliera said that in her opinion the proposed activity does not have adverse effect on the Lakeshore Historic District. Commission members agreed to provide individually their comments to Carlos D. Ruiz, in response to Trileaf Corporation's request. Historic District Signs Carlos Ruiz said that Jack Weiss had submitted a revised sign for the historic districts. Jordan Cramer said that it seems that there is very limited selection of color. However, the design of the Evamton Presm-ation Commission May 24, 2005 — Minutes Page 12 of 12 signs could still be discussed. Mary Brugliera said that perhaps a new design for the historic districts may spark some interest among Evanston residents. She suggested looking into banners, for example. Jordan Cramer said that the existing signs look bad and that something needs to be done. Emily Guthrie said that the proposed sign is part of the Way Finding sign program. Mary Brugliera moved to table this item and discuss it in another time. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. N'I. CONINIENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Evanston Historic Preservation Awards Program Mary Brubliera moved that Carlos Ruiz to put for the June 6, 2005, City Council meeting, the awarding of the 2003 Preservation Awards. Mr. Ruiz said that Mr. James Wolinski would like to schedule the awards ceremony in September or October, 2005. NrII. ADJOURNMENT Ann Dienner moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately at 1 I:15 p.m. Michael Girard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservatt i Coordinator Date: July, lq, 2005 4ffE'Dve"p EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION NIEETING MINUTES Evanston Civic Center Room 2403 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday, .tune 21, 2005 — 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Mary Brugliera, Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Girard and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Andrew Venamore, Kim Sutker, Dick Smith, Earl and Diana Gardner, Andrew Zakszeski , Andre Valk, Neal Vogel, Sharon Haynes, Beth Jerva, Rachel Bomgaars, Charlotte Whitley, Joseph Caprile, Alex Piper, Steve Knutson, Nathan Kipnis, Kim First, Freda &: Patrick Grosrenaud, and Marek Salamon. PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. with a quorum being present (Mary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle). Staff. Carlos D. Ruiz. II. l HNI UTES The Commission approved April 19, 2005 minutes with the following corrections: Page 4, third paragraph, sentence before Iast sentence to read: The percentage ojlot coverage at 925 is 21.7%. Correct the word Core to Corps (US Army Corps of Engineers). Page 13, under Historic District Sims, third paragraph, first sentence to read: Stan Gerson suggested that the ratio of lettering to background should be increased. Fourth paragraph, second sentence to read: Mr. Weiss said that the ico►u had been designed by Dai7s Cisco back~ in the late 1980's and ear1j,1990s. Page 14, under III. Comments, Commission Members, Staff, second paragraph, correct the name from Susan Regan to Susan Randle. Emily Guthrie moved to approve the April 19, 2005 as corrected. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. III. COMIIIUNICATIONSIREPORTS No communications were reported at this time. Evanston Presmation Commission June 21, 2005 -- Minutes Page 2 IN-. OLD BUSINES 1408 Main Street (Landmark) - Construct a lhvo-store addition to the rear of the house. Also, construct a wrap -around porch on the south and west sides of the addition (Construction] Kim Sutker, owner, Dick Smith and Andrew Venamore of Airoom, presented revised plans for the construction of a two-story rear addition, and the construction of a wrap -around porch on the south and west sides of the addition to the house at I408 Main Street. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Venamore explained that they revised the original plans presented to the Commission in May 24, 2005 and the new scheme incorporates the Commission's recommendations including the elimination a wrap -around porch on the front and west side of the existing house. Instead the wrap- around porch is on the west and south elevations of the new t,.vo-story addition. They also removed the west elevation center window on the first floor of the addition. Mr. Venamore referred to pictures of other Italianate style homes in Evanston with roofed front porches. He said that they would like to build a roofed porch on front the house. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera suggested moving further, on the west elevation, the new porch stairs to eliminate the encroachment into the existing bay window on the original house. fir. Venamore said that they «ill make the adjustment and swap one of the windows on the west elevation for a door to access the deck. Ms. Brugliera said that the exterior stairs to the second floor clutter the addition east elevation. Susan Rundle said that the exterior stairs are a replacement of the existing stairs. Mr. Venamore said that the new windows are wood clad windows. The windows on the house are all good. They will match the wood trim of all v.-ood windows on the first floor, but not on the second floor. The brackets will match that on the second floor. Susan Rundle said as a rule the Commission asks wood windows with simulated divided Iights on landmark houses. Also, on the north elevation, the new front porch should be of the same height all across and not raised over the main entry door. Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for review for construction are I through 8, and 10 through 16. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the additions at 1408 Main Street and that it meets the standards: l) for height, 2) proportion of front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) rhythm of solids to voids in the front fagade, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, 6) rhythm of entrance porches, 7) relationship of materials and texture in that they are all compatible with the rest of the landmark house, 8) roof shape is compatible with the house, 10) the scale, 11) the directional expression [of front elevation), I2) the distinguishing original qualities are all being preserved and compatible, 13) archaeological finds %ill be turned over the Historical Society, 14) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design, 1 5) if the addition and the porch were to be removed, the structure would be unimpaired, and 16) the Commission is not mandating a requirement for a single architectural style. Evanston Preservation Commission June 21, 2005 —Minutes Page 3 Stan Gerson amended the motion adding that the exit from the kitchen be changed from the north to the west and that new windows be all wood with simulated divided lights (2 over 2). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Brugiicra advised the owner to consider the Property Tax Assessment Freeze program. Mr. Ruiz said that the 25% investment of the Assessor's fair market value applies to restoration and rehabilitation costs only. The cost of new construction is not considered as part of the 25% investment. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 920 Ridge Avenue (RHD-ti'C) — New basketball court at rear of property [Zoning Variance/Alteration ] Robert and Diane Gardner, owners, presented plans for a new basketball court at the rear of the lot requiring a zoning variance on the property at 920 Ridge Avenue. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Gardner said the 16'x 36' concrete area goes from the edge of the garage to the alley. He said that the basketball court location allows them to supen-ise their children from the house. Mr. Gardner said that the neighbor to the north requested 3' to 4' access area; the basketball court will be at the west end of the property. The variation is for impervious surface of 55%. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that he had a problem with increasing the impervious surface to 55%. He said that decreasing the amount of soil to absorb water was not desirable. For that reason he will not vote for the variance in the basis of standard for variation C; although he was in agreement with everything else. Ms. Rundle suggested eliminating the proposed sidewalk from the rear garage to the concrete patio. Mr. Gerson said that the sidewalk is 108 S.F., the court is 592 S.F. Mr. Gardner said that they will be willing to remove the sidewalk. Mary Brugliera moved to recommend to the Zoning Administrator for the basketball court at 920 Ridge in that: A) it will not affect the character of the historic district, and C) it will not be materially detrimental to the public safety and welfare, given the owners willingness to eliminate the 108 S.F. concrete sidewalk in the back area. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for alteration of the site are 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the alteration at 920 Ridge for a basketball court in the rear yard to the north of the garage because: 1) every reasonable effort was made to adapt the property with minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities of property and environment are not being destroyed, 3) they are not trying to create an earlier appearance, 8) if archaeological objects are found they ►will be turned over, and 10) the slab, if Evanston Preser►ation Commission June 21, 200- — !Minutes Page 4 removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the property would be unimpaired. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1301 Davis Street (RHD-NC) — New corner lot 6' high x 86' long wood cedar fence [Construction/Fence Variance] Andrew Zakszesla and Andre Fall:. owners, presented plans to construct a new 6' high 86' long corner lot wood cedar solid fence on the property at 1301 Davis Street. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. The fence requires a fence variance. Mr. Zakszeski said that the fence will run a straight line along Asbury, directly facing the Methodist Church. The property does not face Davis or Asbury. Asbury is the rear of their home which is in a cul-de-sac; the front of the house faces an inner circle. The property line along Asbury is not very deep. Their concerns are safety, security, protection, noise reduction, and privacy. A 6' high solid fence, as oppose to a 4' high picket fence, will allow the privacy and security. The cedar fence will be consistent with their 1960s home. The fence will reduce traffic noise and headlights. Commission's Findings Chris Carey said that he was not sure about the security because the fence does not connect with anything. Mr. Zakszeski said that there is a very goodamountof green space and landscaping. They reduced the length of the fence from their original permit application. The distance from the corner of Davis and Asbury to the corner of the house is 48' and then from Asbury into the fence is 20' in. The landscaping is far taller and thicker than the proposed fence. Mr. Gerson did not see how security would be improved with the proposed fence. He suggested increasing the amount of vegetation. Mr. Zakszeski said that they will have to pull all the vegetation and it will take time to grow. Chris Carey suggested building the fence behind the existing vegetation to minimize its visibility. Mr. Zakszeski said that they will loose the amount of green space. Ms. Brugliera said that reduction of noise will be minimal because low frequencies are reduced by mass. Ms. Rundle said that the solid fence will be detrimental to the historic district. NIT. Zakszeski said that there are similar fences in the neighborhood. The property at the northwest corner of Church and Asbury has a massive fence. Carlos Ruiz said there are corner lot fences that are legal non -conforming. Ms. Brugliera referred to the property at the northwest corner of Dempster and Forest that has a 10' high fence in front of huge trees; the zoning ordinance tries to minimize that visual effect. Mr. Carey said he would favor the fence if it was behind the vegetation. Commissioners agreed with Mr. Carey. Mr. Zakszeski said that they will consider that suggestion. Mr. Andre Valk said that their neighbors at 1610 Asbury and 1311 Davis support the fence. Mr. Ruiz said that the requested fence variation is for 100% opacity (70% maximum opacity allowed) and 6' height (4' maximum allowed), and for the location on a street side yard on a comer lot. Evanston Presen-ation Cor=ssion June 21, 2005 — Minutes Page 5 Stan Gerson said that the standards to be considered for the fence variance are A and C. Mary 13rugliera moved to recommend approval to the Zoning Administrator of a 6' fence that is completely opaque on the corner on the Asbury side of 1=G1 Davis in that it: A) will not adversely affect the character of the local district and C) will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or injurious to property in the district, speciAing that the fence be located to the west of the existing vegetation. �%fr. Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said the applicable standards for construction of the fence are 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 through 16. CarIos Ruiz said that the Commission should consider the same location of the fence as recommended for the fence variance as they review the construction of the fence. Mr. Zakszeski said that they will be agreeable to that suggestion and they %%ill amend their fence variation to reflect the location recommended by the Commission. Mr. Gerson moved to approve the construction of the 86' long., 6' high wood fence to be constructed west of the existing foliage on Asbury in that: (1) the height is compatible in regard to places and objects to which it is visibly related, 5) the rhythm of spacing of it on the street is compatible, 7) the relationship of materials and texture are compatible, 9) the walls of continuity would be compatible with the structures to which is visually relaters, 10) the scale of will be compatible, 12) the construction of the fence will not alter the quality or character of the site, 13) that any digging that is done and if there are archaeological resources that they will be protected and preserved, 1 4) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary the design of the fence as proposed, 15) the fence could be removed in the future, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. 6 ayes, 0 nays 3. 839 Michigan .avenue (LSHD—NC) — New front porch; repair, replace wood siding and trim; replace door and window [Alteration] Sharon Haynes, owner and Neal Vogel, restoration consultant and general contractor, presented plans for a new front porch, the repair and replacement of wood siding and trim, and replacement of one door and one window on the house at 839 Michigan Avenue (c. 1877). The house is in the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District, Mr. Vogel said that about 70% of the proposed work is on maintenance and repair of the siding, shingles, and trim around the house. in 1920 there was a small addition put at the rear of the house. In the late 1950s a bathroom %vas added at the front of the house and its vestibule was extended forward, and in the late 1990s the existing porch was built at the back of the house. The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps show that in 1898 and 1920 that there was a porch across the front of the house, and that shingle skirt came around the house with octagonal shingles. Mr. Vogel said that the house might be used as a field class for the School of the Art Institute's Historic Preservation Program; the field class is Restoration Methods. They are doing above and beyond restoration work such as cleaning the brick, and restore windows. The new windows are costume made. There is a picture window on the second floor that is going to a double hung. The siding on the north elevation is in good shape. The rest of the house or about 70% will be replaced. The porch roof,.,. -ill be galvanized standing seam. Evanston Prestnmtion Commission June 21, 2005—.ktinutes Nee 6 Susan Rundle said that the standards for alteration are I through 10. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the alterations as discussed at 839 Michigan Avenue as it meets: I) every reasonable effort is being made to adapt the property with minimal alteration, 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed, 3) they are not seeking to create an earlier appearance, 4) changes that may have tal:en place in the course of time have been respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity and replicated. 6) deteriorated architectural features are being repaired, 7) cleaning of the brick will be undertaken vdth the gentlest means possible, 8) any archaeological resources will be hand over to the appropriate authorities, 9), contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) the porch could be removed without harming the integrity of the original structure. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, Onays. 4. 1422 Forest Avenue (LSHD-NC) — Add windows on first and second floor at rear of house. Install wood railing on front of house 2"4 floor. Beth Jerva, owner, and Rachel Bomgaars, architect, presented plans for adding windows at the rear of the house on the first and second floors, and installing a wood railing on the second floor front of the house at I422 Forest Avenue, The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Jerva said that since the application packet was sent, shed decided to leave the existing door in the back. At the rear of the house facing west there is three double hung windows and a door going out into the porch that will remain, the previously proposed French doors will not be installed on that elevation. The south facing exterior wall has no windows; they proposed two double hung windows, one on each side of the fire place (instead of the high windows). Also on the second floor of the west elevation there are two new double hung «7ndows. Finally, on the first floor front elevation there is a new double hung window and the new 42" high railing on the porch roof. Commission's Findings Mary Brugliera said that the trim around the Palladian window seems to have been altered because of the aluminum siding. She suggested to redoing the trim proportionally. Ms. Bomgaars said they are infilling window openings on the north elevation towards the rear, one of the openings will have two double hung windows. The back of the house is wood siding. Stan Gerson said that the standards to be considered are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Susan Rundle moved to approve all the stated alterations at 1422 Forest as it meets standards: 1) every reasonable is being to use minimal alterations, 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being harmed, 3) they are not seeking to create an earlier appearance, 4) changes that may have taken place in the course of time have been respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features are being treated with sensitivity and replicated, 6) deteriorated architectural features are being repaired, 9), contemporary design is not being discouraged, and 10) should the alterations be removed will not harm the essential form and integrity of the structure. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preserv?tion Corr_nission June 21, 2005 -- Ntinstcs Pap 7 5. 2615 Colfax Street (Landmark) — New two-story addition at rear of house (Construction] Joseph Caprile, owner, and Charlotte Whitley, architect. presented plans for a two-story addition at the rear of the house at 261 S Colfax Street. The house is an Evanston Landmark. Ms. Whitley said that the addition cannot be seen dead on from the south. The program is for a family room on the first floor and master suite on the second floor. The addition retains the Tudor Cottage style, the roof pitches are the same as the existing; materials are brick on the first floor and timber and stucco on the second floor area. The roof will be slate; the new windows will match the existing windows of which there are many types, but use the same logic on the selection of window types. There are casement windows that are similar to the existing sun room windows; there are double hung windows on the second floor which are used in the original portion of the house. There is a hierarchy of diamond pattern in the principal rooms and bedrooms and the grid pattern in bathrooms and secondary rooms. Ms. Whitley said that the most visible portion is part of the west of the house. Commission's Findings Carlos Ruiz talked about lowering the ridge of the roof from the addition to clearly differentiate the original house from the addition. Ms. Whitley said that they wanted to maintain the simplicity of the design and need the head room. Susan Rundle said that the applicable standards for construction are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the two- story addition to the rear of the house at 2615 Colfax as: 1) the height is compatible with the property to which is visibly related, 3) the proportion of openings is virtually identical to those in the existing house, 7) the materials and texture are the same, S) the roof shapes are the same, 10) the scale of the structure is appropriate, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property are not being destroyed, 13) every archaeological resource will be handed over to the appropriate people, 14) the Commission did not discouraged contemporary design, IS) if the addition were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the house would be unimpaired, 16) is directive to the Commission. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 ayes. 6. 1302 Hinman Avenue (Landmark-LSHD) — Demolish stone and wood frame gazebo and two -car frame garage. Construct new three -car garage (Demolition/Construction] Alex Piper, Steve Knutson, presented plans to demolish a stone and wood gazebo, a two -car garage, and construct a 2.5-story three -car garage for the house at 1302 Himnan Avenue. The house is an Evanston Landmark within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Commission's Findings Emily Guthrie asked about the two-story garage. Mr. Knutson said that the occupancy of the second floor is limited to relatives or domestic help. Mr. Carey asked about the wood casement windows with simulated divided lights, and the insulated steel doors. Carlos Ruiz asked if the neighbors have any concerns about the size and height of the proposed garage. Ms. Piper said that Evanston Presen-xion Commission June 21, 2005 — Minutss Page 8 that the property to the north is a rental unit. Next to them there is no garage but parking that is rented out. All the rest of the garages on the street are similar to the proposed garage. Across from them is the rear of a commercial building on Chicago Avenue. Their property is surrounded by very unattractive buildings. Stan Gerson said that standards for construction that will apply are 1 through 5, 8, and 10 through 16. Chris Carey asked if that there are other structures of similar height in the neighborhood. Ms. Piper said, yes. Mary Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 1302 Hinman for the construction of a new garage/coach house at the rear in that it meets: I) the height, 2) proportion of front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) rhythm of solids to voids to front facades, 5) rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, in that all are compatible with the house and the propertied in the historic district to which they visually relate, 8) the roof shapes are compatible, as is 10) the scale of the structure, 11) the directional expression of front elevation, 12)1 he distinguishing qualities of the environment are not being destroyed, 13) archaeologicaI resources are being preserved, 14) the Commission is not discouraging contemporary design, 15) if the garage were to be removed there would be no impact on the house, and 16) the Commission is not imposing the requirement for a single architectural style. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said that all five standards for demolition applied. Diary Brugliera moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the gazebo and the garage at 1302 Hinman in that: 1) neither is of such architectural significance that their demolition would be detrimental to the general welfare of the people of Illinois, 2) neither contributes to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural character of the District, 3) it is not contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservation, 4) neither is of such old, unusual or uncommon design, and 5) the owner has already obtained a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement structure. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 806 Ridge venue (Landmark) — Removal of existing basement stairs in Auditorium building. Construct ramp up to new lobby for elevator [Alteration] Kim First, Business Manager for St. Nichols, and Nathan Kipnis, architect, presented plans for the removal of existing basement stairs in the Auditorium building, and construct a ramp up to the new lobby for the elevator at the building at 806 Ridge Avenue. The building is part of an Evanston Landmark property. Mr. Kipnis said that the building is the oldest building of the complex. The building is not handicap accessible. The elevator will make the building accessible. Commission's Findings The Commission discussed the design of the new door and the infill panel wall above it, and the removal of a «7ndow on the second floor above the infill panel and installing a painted wood panel. Evanston Prescrva6on Conunission June 21, 2005 — !Minutes Page 9 Susan Rundle said that applicable standards for alteration are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Chris Carey said that the Commission is reviewing the ramps and the change to the door. The existing steps and concrete landing are being removed. Ann Dienner moved to approve the proposed alterations as meeting standards: 1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property, structure, site in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property, or structure, (2) the distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object shall not be destroyed. Removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible, 3) all properties, structures, sites, and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. _alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged, 5) distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity, 6) deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible, and 9) contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historic, cultural. architectural or archaeological material, and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 8. 820 Sheridan Road (LSHD-NC) — One-story rear addition [Construction!] Freda & Patrick Grosrenaud, owners, and Marek Salamon, architect, presented plans for the construction of a one-story rear addition to the house at 820 Sheridan Road. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mrs. Grosrenaud said that they would like to remove the existing 9' x 27' addition with aluminum siding and the large chimney at the rear, and build a smaller new addition but more functional. Mr. Salamon said that the new addition will have solid brick exterior finish and recycled brick on one of the elevations; the terrace will be constructed with new brick and limestone. The new windows will be aluminum clad to match existing with simulated lights to match the existing windows. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for demolition are 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of one-story addition at 820 Sheridan Road because: 1) the height is compatible with the existing, as is 3) the proportion of openings, 7) the relationship of materials and texture is the same and for the most part reused, 8) the roof shapes is compatible, as is 10) the scale of the structure, 12) the original qualities of the environment and property are not being destroyed, 13) they will give any archaeological resources to the appropriate people, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) should the addition needed to be removed, it will not harm the essential form and integrity of the original structure, and 16) is a directive [to the Commission). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. E%=ten Presmation Commission June 21. 2005 —Minutes Page 10 Stan Gerson said all five standards for demolition apply. Susan Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the one-story sun room at the rear of 820 Sheridan Road as it is: 1) not of such historic, cultural, or architectural significance that its demolition would be detrimental, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive character of the area, 3) the demolition would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, 14) it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design it could be reproduced without great difficulty andtor expense, and 5) the applicants have plans to replace it. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, C01MAIISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Susan Rundle said that she will step down from the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&.TA) to a11ow other Commission members to participate. Mary Brugliera suggested starting next meeting in July at 7:00 p.m. to discuss preservation issues and beginning at 8:00 p.m. continue with the regular agenda. She would like to discuss issues such as: fast tracking recommendations from R&TA, 904 Hinman Avenue (window replacements), and the Preservation Awards presentation in September 2005. Ms. Brugliera suggested issuing a press release about the listing of the Oakton Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places. Commission members agreed to start the July meeting at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the above mentioned items. 4'II. ADJOURNMENT Diary Brugliera moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted flaros D. RuIz or Planner/Preser•ati oordinator Date Approved: Me J00-S r EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday, July 19, 2005 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera. Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey, Michael Girard, and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Dowhan, Nate Kipnis, Mary Bishop, Lenuta and lulius Lucaci, and Aaron Wilson PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz 1. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m., a quorum being present. II. PRESERVATION ISSUES Commissioners discussed the following issues: A. 904 Hinman Avenue — Window replacement The Commission agreed that Chary Brugliera, Chris Carey and Carlos Ruiz will work on the Commission's solution for the window replacement at 904 Hinman that was performed without a certificate of appropriateness. S. 2408 Orrington Avenue — New planned development Carlos Ruiz gave an update regarding 2408 Orrington Avenue. He noted that on July 11, 2005, the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council (P&D) remanded the new planned development for 2408 Orrington back to the Plan Commission and not to the Preservation Commission. Neighbors requested to P&D that the Preservation Commission also review the new planned development. Chris Carey asked P&D about the developer's appeal to the denial of the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of new single family homes and town homes and demolition of all existing buildings (except one). P&D's response was that the City Council will take action on the appeal after the Plan Commission concludes the hearing for the new planned development. C. Community Awareness The Commission discussed ways to raise community awareness of the Commission's role and activities. Commissioners agreed to the following: 91 Make presentation of the Preservation Awards in front of the City Council in September 2005. • Write preservation essays in the Round Table. • Conduct a Preservation Commission meeting In the Eighth Ward, and subsequently In other Wards. Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT INOT YET APPROVED July 14, 2D05 —Minutes Page 2 Meet with Julia Carroll, City Manager and elected City Officials D. Associate Members The Commission agreed to contact Scott Walker and John Leineweber and extend an invitation for appointment as Associate members. Ill. MINUTES Ann Dienner moved to approve the May 24, 20D5 minutes. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passel. Vote: IV, COMM UNICATIONSIREPORTS No communications V. OLD BUSINES Historic District signs Mr. Cramer said that this item will be deferred to another meeting. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1847-1849 Asbury Avenue (RHO/C) — Demolition of rear concrete retaining wall and stair along alley to be replaced with two two -car garages with decks on top. Replace fence along Emerson Street to the north and alley to the east (Construction/Demolition) Michael Dowhan, owner (1849 Asbury), and Nate Kipnis, Kipnis presented plans for the demolition of a rear concrete retaining wall and stair along the alley to be replaced with two tyro -car garages with decks on top. Also replace fence along Emerson Street to the north and alley to the east of the property at 1847-1849 Asbury Avenue. The house is a contributing structure within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Kipnis said that his clients do not have garages and they would like to build two new garages. He said that Emerson has a very steep re`.a:ning wall, the new tNo garages with stairs in the middle (to reach the grade) go into the retaining wall; in effect the garages top will be decks for the yard. The retaining wall will be rebuilt in concrete. The decks and garages have a new fence going around on Emerson. There is also a covered section between the decks that covers the walkway. The fence In the back Is facing the new development coming. The finish side of the 6' high fence will face out. The height of the retaining wall varies from 5'-10" and slopes up 1.25' going west. The exterior finish of the garages is cement fiber panels. The garage doors are flushed wood, the material above the garage doors is hard! board siding. The gate is similar to the top part of the fence. Commisslon's Findings Mr. Cramer said that the applicable standards for construction for the two garages, deck, fence, and retaining concrete wall are 1 through 5, 7, and 8 through 16. Mr. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed construction at 1847-1849 Asbury as stated above in that: 1) height, 2) proportion of front fagade, 3) proportion of openings, 4) rhythm of solids and voids, 5) rhythm of spacing of structures on the street; each of those is visually compatible with the property, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which they are visually related. Also, 7) materials and texture, and 8) roof shapes are visually compatible with the structure to which they are visually related. In addition, 9) walls of continuity; the new walls and fence form cohesive walls of enclosure and, 10) the scale of the Evanston Prescrvarion Commission July 19, 2005 - %finutcs Page 3 structure, and 11) directional expression of the front elevation; they are visually compatible with the property, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which they are visually related. Further, 12) the distinguishing original qualities or character of the property will not be destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be preserved, 14) contemporary design is not being proposed, 15) the proposed structures could be removed in the future without destroying the essential form and integrity of the original structure, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. Susan Rundle amended the motion indicating that the retaining -Nall and fence are on the north and east side and that the design of the garages is contemporary and yet compatible. Emily Guthrie seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Cramer said that the applicable standards for demolition of the exisbrg retaining wall are 1 through 5. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the retaining wall at 1847-1849 Asbury because: 1) its demolition will not be detrimental to the public interest because it is not of such historic or architectural significance, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural or archilectural character of the district, 3) it is not contrary to the purpose or objectives of this Chapter, 4) it is not of such old unusual or uncommon design that it could not reproduce without great difficulty, and 5) there are approved plans for replacement within five years. Mr. Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 634 Foster Street (NEHDlLocallFederal/C) - Install new picket wood fence on front yard [Fence Variance/Construction] Mary Bishop, owner, presented plans for the installation of a new picket wood fence on the front yard at 634 Foster Street. The property is a contributing structure within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. The proposed fence requires a fence variance. Ms. Bishop showed a picture of the house in 1947 when t•No 1880 homes were joined together by a woman architect at the current site. The homes were from Sherman Avenue. Ms. Bishop said that they lived in the house for twenty years, and over the years a blue Spruce was planted in front of the house; which is overgrown and unfortunately it will be removed. She said that they are landscaping the front yard of the house where there is a trellis. The proposed 30" high wood fence will improve the appearance of the front yard. The fence will attach to the trellis. She said that they are the last property adjacent to campus and they need some privacy. Ms. Bishop said that her neighbors are supportive of her request for fence variance. Also, her fence is 40% opened and 60% closed, the standard is no less than 300% opened or no more than 70% closed. Commission's Findings Susan Rundle said that she had a dilemma with the proposed front yard fence and the potential of other requests for front yard fences. On the other hand the proposed fence is an improvement. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for advisory review for the fence variance are A and C. Mr. Gerson moved to recommend granting the zoning variance for the 30' high picket fence on the front yard at 634 Foster Avenue in that: A) it is necessary and or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation; it does not adversely effect the historic architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark or the character of the district, and C) it will not be mateda'ly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property in the district or the vicinity where it is located, Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction of the fence are 1, 7, 9, 10, and 12 through 16. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the fence at 634 Foster as it meets standards: 1) the 30" height is appropriate and it does not obstruct the house or the yard in any way, 7) the materials and texture are appropriate to the age of the house and style, 9) the fence insures visual compatibility along the street and it relates to the trellis and the type of house, 10) the scale and size of the structure are appropriate; the pickets are similar to the size and type of when the Evanston Preservation Co=_;ssion July I9, 2G0S — Minutcs Page 4 house was built, 12) the distinguishing original quality and character of the environment is not being destroyed, 13) archaeolog+ca! resources will be preserved, 14) is direction to the Commission, 15) should the fence be removed; it ve:'I not harm the essential integrity of the home, and 16) is directive to the Commission. ?As. Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 trays. 3. 510 Greenleaf Street (LSHD) —Remove asphalt shingles from house and Install vinyl siding. Restore wood architectural details and trim In kind. Replace fence and install parking pad (may require zoning variance) [Alteration/Zoning Variance] lulius Lucaci and Lenuta Lucaci, owners, presented plans for the removal of the asphalt shingles and replace the siding with vinyl siding on the house at 510 Greenleaf Street. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Lucaci said that the house is an 1870 Victorian house; they submitted pictures of the house showing the porch at the main entrance and a carport that were removed at some point. Mr. Lucaci said that they removed the asphalt shingles to show the wood siding underneath. Between 1956 and 1966 they believe the asphalt shingles were installed. Ms. Lucaci said that the house was moved to its current site from Ridge Avenue. The house was cut in three places to be moved. There are large cracks in the boards themselves. Ms. Lucaci said that one contractor told them that at least 401, of the area they had exposed Will need replacement. There are windows where there is a 1" wide gap between the boards and the window frame. Mr, Lucaci said tt;at the house details will be restored and all the rotten wood will be replaced as well as the trim. The ginger bread designs hang 12" away from the house. The denlils will be also restored. Mr. Lucaci said that they will insulate the interior wall and install the 318" insulating foam over the wood siding. The insulation will be blown in and they will install Tyvec on the original cedar and put the vinyl siding on top. They showed a sample of the 4" exposure vinyl siding with smooth finish and said that they believed it was very comparable to the existing cedar wood siding. They are also considering the option of wood comers and the freeze boards. Ms. Lucaci said that the contractors gave them a range and the cost of restoration is about the same as putting new cedar. This cost is at least trice as much if not three times more than the vinyl siding. Ms. Brugliera said that this house would probably be either a landmark or a contributing structure in that district, if not for the asphalt siding. If the owners were to restore the siding rather than doing the vinyl siding, the house could probably be reclassified and in doing so, it would be eligible for the tax freeze and for the facade easement. Ms. Guthrie, as a realtor, said that she believed that the value of the house would be significantly higher if they have the cedar siding rather than the vinyl. Mr. Lucaci said that the windows will remain and that one of the contractors mentioned that the cost of Nardi board will be comparable to cedar siding. Superior Exteriors provided estimates for restoration, new cedar siding and vinyl siding. Ms. Lucaci said that with vinyl siding, the house will look as close to the clapboard look. Ms. Guthrie said that she will have a hard time approving the vinyl siding when the owners could restore the existing siding or install new cedar siding and also take advantage of preservation incentives. Ms. Lucaci said that they do not know if they will stay in the house for more than eight years to reap the full benefrts of the tax freeze. Commission's Findings Ms. Rundle quoted the National Paris Service, Preservation Brief # 8: "For historic residential buildings, aluminum or vinyl siding may be an acceptable alternative only if (1) the existing siding is so deteriorated or damaged that it cannot be repaired; (2) the substitute material can be Installed without irreversibly damaging or obscuring the architectural features and trim of the building; and (3) the substitute material can match the historic material in size, profile and finish so that there Is no change in the character of the historic building. In cases where a non -historic artificial siding has been applied to a building, the removal of such a siding, and the application of aluminum or vinyl siding would, in most cases, be an acceptable altemative, as long as the above mentioned first two conditions are met. E%-anston Preservation Cora-_�ssion July 19, 2005 —Minutes Page 5 There are, however, also certain disadvantages in the use of a substi.Lrte material such as aluminum or vinyl siding, and these factors should be carefully considered before a decision is made to use such a material rather than the preferred replacement with new wood siding duplicating the old." 1.1s. Lucaci said that based on those standards they should be allowed to install the •r-,yl siding, Ms. Guthrie said that if the owners were to install r.ew cedar siding that they should remove the old siding and insulate the exterior wall appropriately. Mr. Cramer said that the applicable standards for alteration to remove asphalt siding, apply vinyl siding, replace the fence in like kind, length and height, restore and repair all wood trim are 1 through 7, 9 and 10. Commission members recommended the o•rrners to obtain secor:d opinions on installing the Tyvec on top of the existing siding. Ms. Brugliera said that the flat onal Park Service information was very compelling. Ms. Brugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for proposed alterations at 510 Greenleaf because: 1) they are adapting it in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the structure, 2) the distinguishing original qualities of the structure are be ng retained, they are retaining all the distinctive architectural features, 3) and 4) do not apply, 5) dist nct:e stylistic features are being treated vrth sensitivity, in fact restored, 6) is not met, because of the sic.ng, 7) surface cleaning wN be done gently. 8) does not apply, 9) there are no contemporary designs being proposed, and 10) is not met. Emily Guthne seconded the motion. Ms. Rundle amended the motion to include the wood comers. Ann Dienner seconded the amendment. The motion passed as amended. Vote: 5 ayes, 1 nay. Ms. Rundle said that her favorable vote was only because the house is not a landmark. 4. 529 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Construct new three -car garage at rear to match 1972 modern house and demolition of existing garage [Construction/Demolition/Zoning Variance] Aaron Wilson, ownertarchitect, presented plans to construct a new three -car garage at rear of the house to closely match the 1972 modern house and demolish the existing garage at 529 Judson Avenue. The house is within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The proposed work requires zoning variance. Mr. Wilson said that he lives in the house since childhood and that his father built the house in the 1970s. The house is 37 years old. They are taking steps to completely restore it back to its original design. The contemporary design house won awards in the 1970s. The zoning variance is because they are 2% over the lot coverage or 32.3%; Lhe maximum allowed is 30°16. The origina=ly designed three -car garage was not built and they intent to build a new three -car garage similar to that_ The existing 1950s stucco garage was part of the neighboring ltalianate house until the lot was subdivided. Mr. Wilson said that the cedar siding on the house is getting old but they plan In the next five years to replace it but change the diagonal direction of the run to horizontal run. The new garage has a horizontal run. He said that the concept of the house and the interior design are most relevant, not the siding. The new garage is not going to exceed the existing parking pad and will be 3' setback from the side property line. Commission's Findings Stan Gerson said that the applicable standards for the zoning variance are A and C. Ms. Brugliera moved to recommend the increase of lot coverage of 32.3% be approved in that: A) will not adversely affect the character of the local historic district, and C) will not be materially detrimental to public health. safety and welfare in the district. Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said that the applicable standards for construction of the three -car garage are 1 trough 5, 7, 8, and 10 through 16. Mr. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a three -car garage at 529 Judson in that: 1) height, 2) the proportion of the front fagade, 3) the proportion of openings, 4) the rhythm of solids and voids in front facades, 5) the rhythm of spacing of structures on Evanston Preservation Com.^.ussion July 14, 2005 — Minutrs Page 6 the streets are ail visually compatible with the property, structures, sites, public ways, objects, and places to which they are visually re!a'.ed. Also, 7) the materials and texture, and 8) the roof shape are visually compatible with the house, 10) the scale, 11) directional expression of the front elevation of the garage are both visually compatible wth the house, 12.) distinguishing original qualities of the structure are not destroyed, 13) archaeological resources will be preserved, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the three -car garage could be removed without affecting the original structure, and 16) the Commission is not imposing a requirement for a single architectural style or period. Ms. Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said that all frm standards for demolition applied. Ms. Rundle moved to approve the demolition of the garage at 529 Judson because: 1) it is not of such significant historic, cultural or architectural significance that it wilt detrimental to the public interest or historic preservation, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural or architectural character of the district, 3) its demolition is not contrary to the purpose of this Chapter, 4) it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that It could not be reproduced without great difficulty or expense, and 5) plans have been approved for its replacement. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. VII. ADJOURNMENT Stan Gerson moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:40 p.m. Ann Dl©nner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: L�vzezv� carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservat< dinator Date Approved: do CW-S EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday, August 16, ZOOS — 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Mary Brugliera, Ann Diener, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer OTHERS PRESENT: Jessica 01dani, Lisa Jaffe, James Kalas, Missy Hedges, Rich Heuberger, Paul Audrian, David and Julie Singer, Kathleen Pozzi, Mike Porter, Jeanie Petrick, Steven Sklare, Susan Regan, John McNuIty, Eric Youngquist, and Andrew McGonigle. PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, and Ellen Szymanski I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. with a quorum being present (Mary Brugliera, Ann Diener, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle). Staff. Carlos D. Ruiz, and Ellen Szymanski. Mr. Carey recognized Betsy Hohman as a new Commission member and Susan Rundle's reappointment to the Commission for a second term. II. PRESERVATION ISSUES A. Definition for front elevation of a garage Comments by Commissioners: 1. The front elevation of a garage: a) faces the street or the alley b) is any plane that faces the public way c) faces the rear of the house (detached garages), not the alley d) is determined by the location of the overhead door e) is visible from the street, not the alley f) is anything that is part of that streetscape on the street g) faces the same direction as the front of the house h) definition: front elevation is the front fagade of a house facing the street and the front fagade of any structure attached or detached facing the street (to be used until something does not fit) E%-=von Presen-arson Cc=_. scion Auawr 16, 2005 — liz.:=.ts Page 2 i) definition: any plane that faces the public way and the street j) is the side facing the house and facing the street, not the alley k) is any fa;ade that fares the public way Final definition: front elevation is the plane that faces the public tray. S. Review & Technical Assistance Committee membership Comments by Cotn,..issioners: 1. A new perm: --tent member is needed 2. An architect is needed 3. Emily Guth-i.- and Stan Gerson ,Nill serve for the next few sessions C. Preservation Awards Comments by Commissioners: 1. September 26. 2005 date for Preservation Awards Ceremony in front of City Council 2. Carlos Ruiz :j-111 take pictures of each project and make the certificates 3. Prepare comments for each project a. Susan Rundle vill read the comment for each award D. Preservation Commission Retreat Comments by Commissioners: 1. Suggestion to schedule a mid October retreat 2. Possibly conduct the retreat in Alderman Ann Rainey's Eight Lard (Levy Center) E. Schedule meetings with Aldermen and CIty Manager Comments by Commissioners: 1. This is the only Commission charged to do something, like educate the public I. Form subcommittee to draft some issues to talk about and come up with some names 3. Meet with nvo Aldermen at a time F. Offer preservation internships to graduate students Comments by Commissioners: 1. Meet With Vince Michael of the Art Institute 2. Recruit more interns and offer internship for credit hours 3. Contact Preservation Program in Champaign -Urbana 4. 2005 Summer intern completed some Statements of Significance 5. Carlos Ruiz and Chris Carey Nvill visit Vince Michael to talk about a permanent internship program with the Preservation Commission I1I. MINUTES Corrections: Page 5: last paragraph, fourth line, correct the word 'costume' to 'custom' Iast paragraph, fifth line; change the word 'shape' to 'condition' Page 6: fourth paragraph, first line, change the words 'that has' to 'to have' Evanston Preservation Commission August 16, 2005 — Minutes Page 3 Stan Gerson moved to approve the June 21, 2005 minutes as amended. Ann Diener seconded the motion. The motion passed. IV. CO.MMUNICATIONSlREPORTS Letter from Rebecca Dudley expressing her regrets about not being able to fulfill her recent appointment to the Preservation Commission. V. OLD BUSINES None V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 8I5 Madison Street (Landmark) — Remodel on first floor: kitchen, dining room, entry hall and bath, as well second floor bath. Construct small addition with new windows and sliding glass doors [Alteration/Construction/Demolition) a) Project: Jessica Oldani, owner, and Lisa Jaffe, architect, presented plans for a 25 S.F. addition to the house at S 15 liadison Street. The house is an Evanston Landmark. The project also includes interior renovations. b) Comments/questions by applicant -owner: The addition maintains the wall lines and the roof line. The existing window trim will be replicated, and the new wall construction exterior finish will be stucco to match the existing. The new windows will look like if they have been original. c) Questions by commissioners: 1. What type of window w•iII be used? Answer. Double hung Marvin windows to match closely the existing 2. Is the addition part of the dining room? Answer: Correct, the dinning room has an amazing ceiling they want to maintain. 3. Is the alteration just the removal of a window an inf lling the window opening? Answer: The alteration involves new windows around the dining room to be trimmed to match the existing windows, remove a triple window from the old dining room and install a new sliding door to access the new deck. The new deck is designed in relationship to the front deck and painted. d) Comments by commissioners: None. e) Comments by owner: 1. This is a very small addition (approximately 25 S.F.). 2. The owner feels very strongly in maintaining the house, including the interior. Evanston Presmation Conunission August 16, 2005 — Minutes PaE- 4 3. They tried other solutions without an addition unsuccessfully. f) Applicable standards as reported by R & TA committee: Alteration (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10) includes: 1. West: remove a large window and replace it with a small window and infill the remaining opening. 2. East: replace three windows. 3. North: replace four windows, and three existing windows will be replaced by the sliding door, and stucco repairs as necessary. Motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness based on meeting above standards for alteration passed: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Construction (1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through I6) includes: 1. New deck 2. Rear addition (25 S. F.) Motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness based on meeting above standards for construction passed: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Demolition (1, 3, 4, and 5) includes: 1. Rear covered porch and stairs Motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness based on meeting above standards for demolition passed: 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 2. 734 Clinton Place (C/Federal NEHD) - Remove rear screened porch, construct a tivo-story addition. (Zoning Variance) a) Project: James Kalas, architect, and Missy Hedges, owner, presented the plans to remove the existing one-story screened porch at the back of the house (4.5' x 10"), and construct a two - LW story addition for a family room, mudrooun and rear entrance. The second floor will include a laundry closet and bedroom. The attic dormers are for the home office and storage. b) Comments/questions by applicant -owner: The eaves of the addition are at the same height as the existing eaves. The materials will be brick, the vinyl siding and the roofing material are - similar to the existing materials. The addition will provide a powder room and a family room on the first floor. The lot coverage will increase to 31% (maximum allowed is 30%), and the impervious surface will be 49% (maximum allowed is 45%). The existing walk is 30" wide and new concrete walks will be reduce to 24". c) Questions by commissioners: 1. How the overhang and eaves come into play? Answer: The present overhangs on the house are almost 30". The addition will have less because the allowable projection into the side yard is only 8" or 14" overhang. D.---tston Presmadon Commission Aupst 16, 2005 — Minutes Psgr 5 2. Have you talked the neighbors about the project? Answer: Yes and there is no indication for any opposition. 3. What is the current impervious surface? Answer: Counting the patios and walks and not the new addition the existing impervious surface is 1,018.168 S.F. The proposed is an additional 116.184 S.F. of sidewalks. d) Comments by commissioners: 1. Reduce the impervious surface. 2. Other things could be done to keep the impervious surface to 45% as close as possible. e) Comments by applicantlowner: i. The owners are considering removing the concrete patio and install pavers for a new patio. 2. They are adding 528 S.F. of imperious surface with the addition, the porch and the walks. 3. They will commit that any new walks that need to be added through this addition will be flag stone, blue stone, or pavers. They do not want more concrete. f) Applicable standards as reported by R & TA committee: Zoning Variance: A and C A motion recommending approval of the two variations for the addition at 734 Clinton Place as they meet standards A and C for advisory review for zoning variance, with the strong recommendation that pavers, blue or flag stone substitute concrete as soon is possible for the home owners passed. Vote: 7 ayes, I nay. 3. A vacant lot immediately south of 1805 «'esley Avenue and immediately north of Lyons Street, legally described as: LOT 37 IN THE RESUBDIVISION Of THAT PART NORTH OF LYONS STREET OF BLOCK 2 Iti LYONS, GILBERT AND WOODFORDS ADDITION TO EVANSTON IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 13, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNT', ILLINOIS.(RHD) - Construction of 2.5-story single family house [Construction] a) Project: Richard Heuberger, owner, and Paul Audrian, architect, presented plans for the construction of a ne%v two-story single-family home at 1801 Wesley. The property is within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. b) Comments/questions by applicant -owner: 1. Mr. Heuberger said that he received a letter from Sat Nagar, Senior Engineer with a street number assignment letter, granting the 1801 Wesley Avenue to the subject property. The letter was dated August 9, 2005. I. The house complies with the zoning requirements. 'lie house is finished in stucco, limestone, and standing seam metal roof. Evarston Preservation Commission Auzu.st 16, 2005 —Minutes Page 6 3. The house is tv,-o-stories tall, 33.10' high to the mean of the roof. The proportion of the front fagade, the massing, front yard and side yard setback, and materials are compatible with the neiehborine homes. The setback matches the average of the rest of the homes on the block. They have a IS' side %-ard setback on the side. 4. All of the other homes are 2.5—story homes made up of either: brick, stucco, limestone and wood siding. The majority of homes have some form of front porch with a roof or a wrap around porch. 5. The roof pitch and the three sets of casement windows on the front elevation are compatible with the homes in the area. The roof is a lead coated copper, not typical of the neighborhood but it has been used for centuries. The driveway will have Unilock concrete pavers. The deck and balcony material is good. The doors and windows are aluminum. The front porch is painted steel and glass railing panels. c) Questions by commissioners: 1. Are all the balusters glass panels? Answer: Yes and with painted steel. 2. Why the stone is being introduced on the south side elevation. Answer: The stone is there to add texture to the building. 3. Is there landscaping in front of the main elevation? Answer: Yes. 4. Any changes to the coach house? Answer: The balcony (facing west) was pulled in somewhat and is not as deep as originally proposed. There is also a garage door on the alley side. 5. Who is manufacturing the windows? Answer: The windows are thermally_ broken aluminum Fleetwood windows. The color is a dark brown with a mated finish. 6. Have they accounted for the incline of the land from Ridge down westward? Answer: Yes. d) Comments by commissioners: 1. Commissioners did not object to the aluminum windows. e) Comments by owners: None. f) Comments/questions by staff: 1. In regard to the aluminum windows, how is that addressed in terms of standard 7? Answer: The windows are dark bronze finish. Because the number of windows, wood windows will become an enormous maintenance cost. The aluminum windows are visually compatible with wood windows. g) Applicable standards of construction as reported by R & TA committee: Construction: (l through 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15). Evanston Presmation Commission August 16, 2005—1linutcs Page 7 A motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a single family home at 1801 Wesley as it meets standards I through 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 15) passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 312 Keeney Street (LSHD) — Install new French door on (vest elevation facing rear deck, new windows on east elevation, and remove existing exterior finish of back room and install new painted cement board siding [Alteration] a) Project: David and Julie Singer, owners, presented plans for installing a 5' ,vide sliding rear glass door onto the existing deck to match an existing sliding door; installing a new l' x 7'window on the east side to match the existing back windows; and replacing the existing exterior cobbled board finish on the one-story addition with Nardi -plank lap siding. b) Comm entslquestions by applicants -owners: None. c) Questions by commissioners: 1. When was the existing addition built? Answer. Not sure, the previews owner lived there for forty years. 2. What is the exposure of the siding? Answer: 6 inches. 3. What are the materials for the window and door? Answer: The window is wood on the inside and aluminum on the outside. The French door is an aluminum clad Marvin door. d) Comments by commissioners: None. e) Comments by owners: done f) Applicable standards as reported by R & TA committee: Alteration (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10) includes: 1. New French door at the rear. 2. Replacing the existing windows on the east. 3. Remove cobbled board and replace it with cement board siding. A motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 312 Keeney as meeting standards 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 624 Forest Avenue (LSHD) — Cover existing svood siding with white vinyl siding, cover soffits, fascia, and wrap windows and garage trim with aluminum. Install aluminum gutters and trim. Also, install thereto wall insulation on fiat wall areas [Alteration[ a) Project: Kathleen Pozzi, owner, and Mike Porter, contractor, presented plans for the project at 624 Forest Avenue as stated above. Evanston Presrnation Commission August 16. 2DO- —Minutes , Pat}e 5 b) Commenm'questions by applicant -owner. All trim areas will be aluminum and all the siding areas %%iII be vinyl. c) Questions by commissioners: I. %Vhy do you want to use vinyl siding? Answer The house has been poorly maintained over the years. The 1971 porch addition and there was a fire. The porch was reconstructed. The porch is very cold. The gutters are aluminum, but they are not carrying the water load. The gutters are hung directly on the last piece of siding and there are not fascia boards. 2. Do you proposed to remove the mood siding? Answer: No, the insulation and vinyl siding -ill go over the wood siding. 3. Is vertical corner board going to be installed? Answer: Vertical corners will be cedar wood to be painted white and the siding will be installed into the corners. 4. How do you that with the current siding being there? Answer:. One of the purposes of the foam insulation is to make that surface fiat. 5. Is it not that going to come in front of the �%indow trim? Answer: The insulation is about 3/8" thick. The windows will be in front of the siding. 6. Is it insulation in the addition's attic? Answer: Not know. 7. Is it a slab construction under the addition? Answer: yes. 8. Was any consideration given to keeping the siding, scrap the paint and blow in insulation behind it? Answer No consideration was giving to bloning in insulation, but the original plan was to scrape and paint it. It is cheaper to do it that way. The handy man told the owner that he could do it, but would not do it to his own house. 9. What is going to be done with the shutters? Answer: The shutters will be stained. 14. What about the rake boards on the gables and the board below the gutter on the fascia - board. Is the contractor going to add on to those to build them up? _ Answer: Yes, they will need to install one piece of board underneath the gutters and nothing on the gables. There will not be depth problems. d) Comments by commissioners: I. The gutters are not attached to the fascia boards but hung with straps. 2. There is not much rot, what is needed is scrapping and painting. 3. The existing shutters are too small. 4. This is a charming house for its style and period and its begging to be done correctly. That is restoring the existing wood or replacing with a similar material. The vinyl is completely inappropriate. 5. Owner was asked to come back with some estimates for new gutters, scraping and replacing damaged wood. Commissioners could to check the gutters as well. Evanston P:_srn'ation Commission Augwt 16, _' C�)5 —Minutes Page 9 6. The Commission certainly wants the owner to take care of her house and being able to perform the necessary repairs. There is a concern with covering the mitered comers, a prominent feature of the house, with vinyl siding. 7. The required repairs could be accomplished without covering the house with the vinyl siding, making repairs and painting. S. Compare the cost of a reputable contractor painting the house with a good quality paint versus the installation of the vinvl siding. 9. Chris Carey and Thomas Prairie offered to irspect the house with the owner. 10. Ms. Pozzi will come back next month to invevigate the options preciously discussed. There is no objection in terms of repairing bad wood., replacing gutters and downspouts, shutters. The Commission thanked Ms. Pozzi for her cooperation. e) Comments by owner -applicant: 1. The hood over the front door and the down -pouts next to it are copper. Ms. Pozzi will try to strip the paint down. 2. Would she be allowed to change the bad wood`' Answer: Yes. 3. She tivants to use the porch and not worry about the water going over the gutters. She wants the house to look good, understands the Commission's concerns. 4. Ms. Pozzi agreed to return next month and meet at her house with Chris Carey, Thomas Prairie and Carlos Ruiz on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. 6. 2134 Orrington Avenue (C/Local tiEHD) — Second -story addition to an existing one- story addition JAlteration] a) Project: Steve Sklare, owner and lean Anne Petrick, architect presented the project for a second -story addition to an existing one-story addition at 2134 Orrington Avenue. The house is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. b) CornmentsIquestions by applicant-o%•mcr: 1. The owner will gain an extra bedroom and relocate a bathroom 2. They have avoided another partition of the back of the house and strengthen the relationship of the original addition to the house. This addition is connected to the original structure but leaving it intact. 3. The height, proportion and scale of the addition are in keeping with the neighborhood and it does not dominate or compete with the original structure. 4. The new addition reflects the character of the original building through material and architectural style. They have maintained the stucco, color, and wood trim. The majority of the windows on the original structure are double hung and there are some casements. They are casement windows on the new addition. The roof pitch and material is the same. There are internal gutters. e) Questions by commissioners: 1. Are internal gutters provided in the addition like in the main structure? Answer: Yes. Evanston Pres:rti-ation Commission August 16. 2005 —Minutes Page 10 2. Could the addition be other than perpendicular to the house? Answer: The way the addition is designed is to maintain the roof pitch and also it allows the framing of the short span. 3. Are the new windows wood clad windows? Answer: Yes, the windows on the first addition are also aluminum clad. All the original windows are wood with storm windows. 4. Any alterations to the original addition? Answer: The trim around the windows will be added to match the second story window trim. d) Comments by commissioners: None. e) Comments by owner: None. h) Applicable standards as reported by R &: TA committee: Alteration (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10): A motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alteration of a second story addition to a first story addition to 2134 Orrington as it meets standards l through 5, 9 and 10 passed. Vote: S ayes, 0 nays. 7. 1040 Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Remove sunroom aluminum storm screen units, replace sunroom casement windows with new wood casement windows with SDL muntins, remove existing one-story bay and wood deck at rear of house, construct 2.5-story addition (west), construct platform deck above grade [Alteration/Construction/Demolition] a) Project: Susan Regan, architect and John and Carolytt McNulty, mvners presented the project at 1040 Judson Avenue as described above. b) Comments Iguestions by applicant -owner: _ 1. Replacing some existing wood casement windows in the sun room (south side of house) first floor with new insulated glass wood casement v-indows with matching muntin pattern. The aluminum storm/screen units will be removed. 2. Constructing a 2.5-story addition on the rear of the house. To that a little bay that projects will be removed. The addition will provide a family room on the first floor and an additional bedroom on the second floor. _- 3. The existing siding on the house is a steel lap siding. All the trim is still the original wood trim. They are looking to match the lap siding, the steel siding in the gable ends. The addition has a combination of double hung v6ndows and a French door unit with a transom. All of the existing windows on the rear of the house and the sides, with the exception of some stair windows, are single pane with no divided lights. - 4. The deck is 3 raisers up from the grade and there is no guardrail. c) Questions by commissioners: Evanston Preset: ation Commission August 16, 2r)05 —Minutes Pace t I I. Is there a new window on the west? Answer: The sun room is on the south side of the house, the windows «crap all the way around, so there is east, south and west facing windows. 2. Are the muntins simulated or true divided lights? Answer: The muntins are simulated divided lights. 3. Are there windows on the north fagade of the addition, why not breaking up that mass? Answer: The addition has quite a few windows. There is a lot of articulation happening on the west elevation of the house with the cantilevered turret, so the actual length of the addition passed the turret is about 14', it does sets in the main body of the house. 4. What is the foundation on the front? Answer: The foundation is brick 5. The siding goes all the way down to the grade, giving the addition a monolithic feeling Answer: There will be landscaping at the grade. 6. Why replace windows and not repair them? Answer: Because the insulated factor, the existing storm windows are not functioning at all and are very large. The individual casement width is over 2' wide. The windows could be repaired but could not be made thermo pane because of the weight and could not be operated. 7. Were the second -story windows replaced? Answer: The previous owner replaced those windows with clad casement windows. They are replacing now with all wood windows only on the first floor sun room. d) Comments by commissioners: None e) Comments by owner: - In regard to the north elevation, it cannot be seen from Judson. From the alley it is visible from a severe angle. i) Applicable standards as reported by R & TA committee: Demolition of bay at the west and existing deck (all five standards apply); construction (1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16); Alterations (1, 2, 5, 6, and 10). A motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a 2-5-story addition on the west elevation at 1040 Judson in that the standards I, 3, 7, S, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are met. The motion passed. Vote: S ayes, 0 nays. A motion to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations at 1040 Judson as described, in that standards 1, 2, 5, 6 (new windows will match the existing), and 10 (new windows could be removed in the future). The motion passed. Vote: s ayes, 0 nays. A motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for demolition as meets standards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The motion was seconded and passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Et-amton Pres:rvation Commission August 15, :C�35 — Nfimr:s Pa:e I? 8. 1800 Block of Sheridan Road11700 Block of Judson Avenue (LSHD) — Installation of new pole light fixtures adjacent to public sidewalks located on the City's west side of the walkway (Constructionj a) Project: Andrew yicGonigle, and Eric Youngquist of Northwestern University presented plans for the installation of new pole light fixtures adjacent to public sidewalks, located on the City's west side of the walkway, affecting the 1800 block of Sheridan Road and 1700 block of Judson Avenue. b) Comments/questions by applicant -owner: 1. Commission received a modification and a revision to the previous plan submitted to the Commission regarding the lighting on the 1800 block of Sheridan and the 1700 block of Judson and light poles on the 400 block of Church and Clark Streets. 2. The initial proposal Nvas to place Tallmadge light fixtures on the parkway with similar spacing within that area. They looked at the depth of the parkway from the sidewalk to the street. They determined that if placing the light fixtures adjacent to the curb, the amount of light to the pedestrian waIk,'Nvay would be virtually zero. 3. With the trees in full bloom there was actually no light getting onto the sidewalk. They also found thev could not install the new light poles on properties along Judson because the University does not own a large portion of those properties on Judson Avenue. 4. The university discussed with David Jennings and Tom Twigg of the City's Engineering Department to work out the solution that will enable them to have the designated amount of light in accordance with the Illuminated Engineer Society of North America falling on the sidewalk, and to provide a fixture that was easily maintainable by the City, and that would match in character the intent of the City of Evanston to provide light fixtures in keeping with the historic district. The only solution they could come up with was to place the light fixture adjacent to the existing sidewalk. 5. The size of the existing Tallmadge light fixture is over 18' tall. At this height the pole when placed immediately next to a sidew lk it is totally out of character with the scale and feel for the environment in which it is beine located. 6. On Clark Street they are propose two additional Tallmadge light fixtures in the parkway because of the depth of the parkway at that point, and on the 400 block, outside of 405 Church they proposed adding one Tallmadge light fixture. The spacing between light poles shown on the drawing is a little greater than the spacing between poles on Hinman Avenue outside the Homestead. 7. Discussions with the City were held to determine the best type of light pattern, because the Tallmadge is a 360 degree fixture, throwing light everywhere and being quite light polluting. Evanston Presmation Carr=jssion August 16, 2005 —Minutes Page 13 8. The proposed Sternberg (Tallmadge look alike) fixtures use a type III light pattern or a rectilinear light pattern rather than a round pattern that throws more light forward. 9. Type III light pattern is much easier to control in terms of the light distribution. 10. The Stenberg's Main Street-?► light fixture uses the QL induction light fixture with the standard 165 watt bulb that the City is now using. The base is the Oxford 6200 with the 12' pole. The top detail where the pole meets the base of the lamp (the 508 BD4 fitter) comes into two pieces; they propose using the lower portion so the light fixture could be used. 11. They propose using a 6" to 3.5" tapered and fluted shaft, which joins the base to the head with the 508 BD4 fitter. There are a total of 14 smaller 12' tall light fixtures and 3 of the 18' tall Tallmadge fixtures. The Clark and Church light fixtures are the 18' tall Tallmadge poles. 12. Northwestern will pay for the purchase and the installation of all of the light fixtures and they will be gifts to the City. The City will take care of the maintenance and operation. Two more Sternberg fixtures will also be provided for additional stock. 13. The photometric study shows that the minimum desirable light level of 0.2 foot candles occurs in between the light fixtures on the sidewalk, and there is no light pollution occurring on the face of any building. 14. The 3 Tallmadge fixtures at Clark and Church are still the same as before. The proposed 12' tall Sternberg fixture will achieve the goals of safely lighting the sidewalk without light pollution or dispersion. The existing modern poles along Sheridan are also 12' tall. c) Questions from Commissioners: 1. Mary Brugliera referred to the pattern at the base of the Tallmadge light pole, where there is a wave pattern at the bottom, then there are Oak leaves and acoms, and then at the top there are more Oak leaves. She asked if the supplier of the Tallmadge fixture could supply the base. Answer: No, because they are two different metals which will cause metallic corrosion. The profile of the Oxford base proportionally was the closest to the Tallmadge base. 2. Chris Carey asked about the finish of the aluminum Oxford fixture. Answer: Stenberg offers an array of different color and qualities of fixtures. The proposed fixture resembles as close as possible the Tallmadge fixture and is in a dark color. Regarding the post center caps, if Stenberg can provide a larger finial, they will do it if it is the appropriate scale. d) Comments by commissioners: None. e) Comments by owner: None Evanston Preservation Commission August 16, 2005 — Minutes Page 14 j) Applicable standards as reported by R &_ TA committee: Applicable standards of construction are 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 16. g) Comments by staff Because the proposed light poles are going to be part of the public right of way, that the Commission's findinss are a recommendation to the Citv Council. A motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed light fixtures in that: the height of the light fixture is compatible; that the rhythm and spacing of the light fixtures is compatible; that the materials and textures of the light fixtures are compatible with the existing Tallmadge fixtures; the scale, and the mass of the structures [fixtures] in relation to open space will be visually compatible; the original qualities and character of the property [district] and its environment is not going to be destroyed; any archaeological resources will be treated with care if found during the excavation; the Commission is not imposing a particular architectural style but is asking for compatibility, was seconded and passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays 9. 1611 Simpson Street (Landmark) - Construct recessed second story addition on top of landmark building, construct hyo-story addition at rear and east side of existing building (Alteration/Construction] The owners requested postponement of their project to the next meeting in September 2005. VII. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A to adjourn was seconded and passed at approximately 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior PlanneriTreservation � rrdinator Date: Ap f YD iced AMGG1641--- Xi > DRAFT YET APPROVED EVANSTON PRESERVATION CO\INHSSION MEETING MINUTES Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday, September 20, 2005 -- 7:00 p.m. MEAiBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Carey, Mary Brugliera and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: MaryMcAuley and John Leineweber, Kiril Mirintchev, Healy Rice, Natalie Fisher, Harry Golden, Brian Bowes, Lawrence Diehl, Andrew Venamore, Michael Harris, Carolyn Chmiel, Melba Graffius, Ken Swoycr, Tim Sheridan, Ann McGuire, and. John Wiechart PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, and Ellen Szymanski I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUIII DECLARATION Jordan Cramer, Vice -Chair, called the meeting to order at 7: 15 p.m., a quorum being present. II. PRESERVATION ISSUES The Commission discussed the following issues: A. Proposed amendment to the Preservation Ordinance to establish a 60 day limit to arrive to a final decision on landmark and historic district nominations. B. The Commission tentatively scheduled a fall retreat on October 29, 2005, and C. Statements of Significance prepared by interns. III, MINUTES The Commission approved the July 19, 2005 minutes IV. C0'L%11%iUNICATIONSIREPORTS National Register Nominations Evanston Presen-ation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED September 20, 2005 — Minutes Page 2 Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission about two nominations to the National Register of Historic Places: A. The Homestead at 1625 Hinman Avenue (David Reynolds, ov-neriapplicant) and B. Marywood Academy (Evanston Civic Center) at 2160 Ridge Avenue (Barbara Gardner, applicant) As a Certified Local Government (CLG) the City of Evanston through the Preservation Commission has an opportunity to review, comment, and solicit public remarks on the nominations. Also, a CLG has the opportunity to advise why the subject places do or do not satisfy the National Register criteria and explain the reason for the advice. The -written recommendation and that of the City Mayor must be received by the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency by November 9, 2005 (later the Preservation Coordinator was informed by the IHPA that the %-ntten recommendation can be received by no later than December 2, 2005) or the nominations will automatically be placed on the Illinois Historic Advisory Committee agenda for December 9, 2005. CLG Matching Grant Applications Carlos Ruiz submitted a memorandum from the IHPA regarding Fiscal year 2006 CLG Matching Grant Application. Applications must be postmarked by November 12, 2005. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1611 Simpson Street (Landmark) - [Alteration/Construction] a) Project: Construction of a recessed second story addition on top of landmark building; construct two-story addition at rear and east side of the existing building. b) Presentation by owner/applicant: Mary McAuley and John Leinewcbcr, owners, and Kiril Mirintchev presented the project. Mr. Leineweber said that -what they do is adaptive reuse including 1601 Simpson, 2142-21 4 t and 2153 Ashland. Ms. McAuley said -what they tried to do in the Dr. Hill Neighborhood (Simpson on the south, the Canal on the north, and Green Bay Road on the northeast) is to enliven the economic vitality of the area by converting buildings that have been either vacant or grossly underused to house new businesses -west of Green Bay Road. In most cases these buildings were used for manufacturing. The interior structure of the 1611 Simpson building is obsolete for that purpose. To keep the fagade and slate roof on it they need to bring tenants who may use the building possibly as live --work capacity with office space up stairs and down stairs. The building was underutilized by the former o---ner Tom Skomski, a sculptor. Mr. Leineweber said that the existing asphalt will be removed and a courtyard will be created, off of which doors of the units v ill open. There will be five separate spaces. Ms. McAuley said they have tried to be true the neighborhood and to the building, while at the same time working to enhance the usability of the property. Behind the roof they will incorporate the second floor Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED September 20, 200. — Minutes Page 3 addition allowing light to the gallery space below, and create a tiered effect inside of work spaces. An outside deck is also created off the back to access both the interior of the front spaces as well the addition to the back space. They are replacing the existing non-functional skylight with a small addition that creates additional usable space for small work areas. The design of the addition to the back accentuates the original structure with new materials in keeping with the area. The new addition will maintain the basic feel and Art Deco design as the front fagade. The materials of the addition are stucco, the front fagade windows will be replaced with like kind steel divided light windows. The addition will have casement or awning single pane windows and create a feel of a courtyard. Ms. McAuley said that the main street of the Dr. Hill Neighborhood is Simpson Street; she said they need to keep the momentum of rehabilitation going. c) Questions by commissioners/staff: 1. What will happen to the windo;vs on the front elevation? Answer. The glass block will be removed and replaced with steel windows that they believe were original to the building. 2. How did they arrive to that decision? Answer. The steel windows were chosen based on their experience with other buildings. 3. Did they go to the Historical Society? Answer: They went through the microfiche in the City. Their intention is to make a true representation of the front fagade. 4. How do the front elevation windows open? Answer: The windows are thermo-pane; there is a center group of six, if the overall width of the windows was 5 or 6 panes, a center group of awnings will open out. The operation of the windows could be negotiated. 5. Are the windows on the sides of the building being changed? Answer. There is a doorway to one of the spaces. They are not contemplating the replacement of the windows on the side, at least not with the steel reproductions. They would like to work with the Fagade (Improvement) Program to take it around the corner. There is only one window missing in the back. 6. Susan Rundle asked the applicants to speak about the proportion of openings, the relationship of the width to the height of the windows and doors that should be compatible with the existing structure. Also, she asked them to speak about the rhythm of solids and voids. Answer. It was not honest to make the additions to the building look like the existing, so they tried to create a different pattem in the windows with the additions. There is continuity in terms of the size of the windows, matching front and back. The original front entry of the building was reproduced in the back entry. The arching of the front entry to the building has been reproduced in three different locations. The addition to the back will have slate roof. 7. Susan Rundle asked the applicants to address the relationship of materials and texture. Answer: The existing building is common brick all around. The addition is cement based stucco, not EIFS. There is no stucco in the existing building. 8. What are the materials of the windows? Ev=ston Preset%-atian Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED September 20, 2005 — .tinutss Page 4 Answer: The windows are metal clad with wood interior on the addition, and steel on the front of the building. They cannot afford to put steel windows all around the building. d) Comments by commissioners/staff: l . Mary Brugliera believed that the glass block windows are original to the building because its Art Deco style. However, there is no evidence to prove it. 2. Stan Gerson said in 1927 glass block was used for buildings classified as Art Modern. It may be that the glass block was there originally. 3. What is different and most detracting are the transom windows over the glass block. 4. It seems the glass block is not original to the building (.A. Dienner) 5. Stan Gerson said the proposal creates a real dilemma for him, because he appreciates what the applicants have done on other projects. On the other hand he has to balance the appearance of the addition on the top and the rear. He appreciated that the roof slopes and the basic outline have been repeated. However, the material on the addition is a shock. 6. In fairness to everyone the majority of the standards have to be met. e) Comments/questions by oivner/applicant: 1. Ventilation and light is verb' important to the interior of the space. All the windows that they will install will operate. 2. It will be surprising if the front elevation windows were originally glass block. 3. The renderings isolate the main building from the addition, but in reality it is not isolated at all. In the context of the street, the side of the building is not as visible if at all. The front facade of the building is eery attractive. Much of the back of the building has been used for garbage dumping. Steps must be taken to preserve the old building and make it useful; otherwise, one will be preserving a facade for no function. f) Applicable standards as reported by R & TA committee: Alteration: The addition on the roof is considered an alteration. The addition to the rear is new construction because the footprint of the building is being changed. In regard to the alteration R&TA concluded that standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 apply. 1. Jordan Cramer said the design of the addition is very sympathetic to the existing structure. It is not attempting to look as it is part of the old building. 2. Emily Guthrie said the stucco finish complements the industrial feel to it. Ann Dienner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the roof addition and replacement of windows based on tneeting standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Stan Gerson moved to amend the original motion stating that standard 4 is not met. The motion to amend the original motion failed due to the lack of a second. The original motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Construction: Susan Rundle said from the public way what is visible is the eastern most portion of the addition. Carlos Ruiz said the alley to the west is also public way. Evamton Preservation Conn, sion DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED September 20, 2005 - Minutes Page 5 Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends the standards for reviety of construction that apply are 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the two- story addition at the rear and east side of 1611 Simpson based on meeting standards for construction (except 7) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8. I0, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 2. 1512 Judson Avenue (C'LSHD) a) Project: One-story addition to the rear of house [Variance/Construction] b) Presentation by owner/applicant: Healy Rice, architect said that the project includes a wrap around open front covered porch. The addition will increase the lot coverage to 34% (allowed 30%) and the garage in the back will increase the impen-ious surface to 52% (allowed 450, o). The home owners are considering pavers or an alternative solution because of the tree at the rear of the lot that they would like to preserve. The materials of the addition will be identical to the existing clapboard house with narrow 2.25" clapboard; the windows will be of similar sizing and mass. The windows are wood; the existing second story windows are not hindered by the lower pitched roof of the addition which mirrors the low pitched roof of the front porch. c) Questions by commissioners/staff: 1. Are pavers part of the application? Answer: The driveway is pan of the application. Pavers are not specified. d) Comments by commissioners/staff- 1. Susan Rundle said pavers should be used to minimize the impervious surface. e) Comments/questions by owner/applicant: 1. They have made every effort to comply with all the applicable standards for review of construction. 2. Ms. Rice said in regard to impervious material that they will satisfy the 45% as close as possible. f) Applicable standards as reported by R & TA committee: Construction: Stan Gerson reported the applicable standards are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, I2, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Stan Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the one-story addition to the rear of 12 15 Judson Avenue in that is visually compatible in regard to standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10. Also, the addition meets standards 12, 13, 14, I5, and 16. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Zoning Variance: Stan Gerson reported the applicable standards are A and C. Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED September 20, 2005 —Minutes Pace 6 Susan Rundle moved to recommend a variation for lot coverage for 1512 Judson with the strong recommendation that pavers be used that will make the lot coverage as close as possible to 451ib. Any new paving %%ill be done in pavers. Consequently, it will not adversely affect the historical or architectural intcerity of the district and with a lessened impervious surface it will not harm the safety, welfare or be injurious to any of the property in the near %icinity. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 3. 1246 Judson Avenue (Landmark,LMD) a) Project: Demolish existing rear deck; construct in its place an 8' x 8' roofed A•ooden porch [ConstructioNDemolition] b) Presentation by mvner/applicant: Natalie Fisher, owner said they would like to demolish the existing deck and add an 8'x 8' a roofed wooden porch that is more respectful of the integrity of the house. c) Questions by corn mission ers/staff: 1. Are materials going the match the existing in terms of the roof.) Answer: Yes. d) Comments by commissioners/staff: 1. Susan Rundle said the proposed porch is great. e) Comments/questions by owner/applicant: None. f) Applicable standards as reported bN R & TA committee: Construction: Stan Gerson reported the applicable standards are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, I3, 14, 15, and 16. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the porch to the rear of 1246 Judson Avenue in that it is visually compatible in regard to standards I, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10. Also, the addition meets standards 12, 13, 14, 15, and I6. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Demolition: Stan Gerson reported the applicable standards of demolition (existing deck) are 1 through 5. Betsy Hohman moved to approve the demolition of the existing deck (at 1246 Judsonj as meeting standards for review of demolition 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. At this time the Commission took a 15 minute recess. 4. 1016 Judson revenue (LSHD) a) Project: One-story wood frame screened porch at rear of house, Mth flat roof (Construction] Evanston Presmation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED September 20, 2005 — Minutes Page 7 b) Presentation by owner/applicant: Harry Golden, oivner, and Brian Bowes, contractor, presented the proposed 18'x20'screened and roofed porch at the rear of the house. The existing two double -hung fixed windows on the west rear elevation of the house tivill be replaced with a French door. c) Questions by commissioners/staff: 1. Susan Rundle: Is a trellis being place at the bottom of the porch? Answer: Yes. The front porch has a similar trellis. 2. Ann Dienner: Will there be a crawl space underneath? Answer: Yes. d) Comments by commissioners/staff: 1. Susan Rundle said the proposed porch is great. 2. Stan Gerson said in the interest of full disclosure, he is a personal friend of the owner, but there is no business relationship between them. 3. Carlos Ruiz said the R&TA committee considered the proposed French door as not visible because of the screened porch in front of it. e) Commentslquestions by ownerlapplicant: None. f) Applicable standards as recommended by R & TA committee: Construction: Stan Gerson recommended the applicable standards are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Emily Guthrie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the one- story rear porch at 1016 Judson Avenue in that it is visually compatible in regard to standards 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10. Also, the addition meets standards 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 5. 1135 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) a) Project: One-story addition, screened porch and deck to the rear of house [Construction] b) Presentation by ownerlapplicant: Lawrence Diehl, o«mer, and Andrew Venamore of Airoom, said the house was added on to in 1873 and the late 1930s with an addition to the back. They will keep the house as original as possible. Mr. Diehl said a Mulberry tree was removed. There are apartments to the north, limiting the view of the house from the north. Ms. Diehl showed photos from different angles to illustrate the very limited view of the proposed addition from the street and the rear. The lot is 190' long, making the visibility of the addition very difficult. There is no view from Hamilton Street either. Andrew Venamore submitted revised elevation drawings to show pilasters added to the screen porch section on the north elevation and seven windows with 6 over 1 simulated divided lights on the south elevation. The challenge was to maintain the style of the 1930s addition. The materials of the addition match the materials of the existing home such as the cedar siding, and Evanston Presmation Cc.—,—=.ission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED 5eptemtr-r 20, 244? — M s.es Page 8 the double hung windo%vs. The one-story sun room/family addition, screen porch and deck are at the rear of the house. All the single family homes are on the north side of their properties. This works well for u e properties immediately south. The house at 1135 Hinman is closest to the multi -family structures. There is a congregational point for the multi -family structures at the back of the building. The addition provides a sense of privacy from the multi -family structures. c) Questions by commissioners/staff: 1. Susan Rundle: The east elevation has Prairie style sliding doors, are they being revised as well? Answer: The doors in the photograph are slightly different in style. The doors that were there had a great number of individual Iights which is not characteristic of the rest of the house. The proposed doors open up a little bit more and capture the existing feel of the existing doors. 2. Susan Rundle: Because the existing garage blocks the view of the proposed elevation, the Commission could not discuss the proposed doors. Is that the case? Answer: Carlos Ruiz said that the Commission has not considered trees, fences and landscaping as permanent structures. Garages, brick walls are considered permanent obstructions. 'sir. Ruiz said that the visibility of the large addition is limited, but he did not feel comfortable making that decision. 3. Since most of the addition is not visible, would all the recommended standards apply? Answcr: Stan Gerson said that R&TA makes its recommendation before visiting the projects, It is possible that some of the recommended standards do not apply. d) Comments by-commissioners/staff: 1. Susan Rundle said she would not vote for the addition if it was visible from the public way because it does not meet the standards for construction except for materials, but because it is not visible she mill not object to it. e) Comments/questions by o►►•nerlapplicant: None. f) Applicable standards as recommended by R & TA committee: Construction: Stan Gerson recommended the applicable standards are 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, I2; 13, 14, 15, and 16. The Commission concluded after further review that because of limited visibility of the addition the applicable standards are 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Stan Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the one-story addition, screen porch, and a deck at the rear of 1135 Hinman Avenue in that it is visually compatible in regard to standards 1, 7, 8, and 10. Also, the addition meets standards 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 6. 1705 Lake Street (Landmark) a) Project: Erect a white wooden cedar picket fence; enclosing approximately 50% of the property [Fence Varian ce'Construciion] Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED September 20.2005 -- Minutes Pagc 9 b) Presentation by owner/applicant: Michael Harris and Carolyn Chmiel, owners, said that they are proposing a front yard fence that requires a fence variance, c) Questions by commissioners/staff: 1. Jordan Cramer: Do you know how it is the building is a landmark? Answer: Mr. Harris knows the history of the building but Carlos Ruiz was unable to find the Statement of Significance. 2. Susan Rundle: What is the history of the building? Answer: It was built by Milton Branch in 1868, a former slave who moved to Evanston and built the home. Mr. Branch was very involved in the African -American community until he died in 1911. He was instrumental in building the second Baptist Church, after the first church burned down. The church was rebuilt next to where the Evanston Athletic Association was. Nfr. Branch secured the deed for the land to do that. Mr. Branch had a delivery express service and he worked at the Post Office. 3. S. Rundle: Uhy do you evant to put up a fence? Answer: The main reason is because we have two small kids, lake Street is a very busy street. Foot traffic crosses our Iawn because we are not too far from the hish school. We believe that a white picket fence will loot; great. 4. S. Rundle: Looking from the west to east, is all open yard down the street. Then crossing the street, the neighbors to the east have a fence that is held back to the side and back yard. If the applicants were to do the same, would they need a variance? Answer: The variance is because the fence is on a comer lot. The front yard is their entire yard. dj Comments by commissioners/staff: 1. Carlos Ruiz thought initially that the house had a historical or cultural significance. Knowing about Milton Branch clarifies the historical significance of the house. 2. S. Rundle said that she sees front yard fences that create the appearance of a day care center with toys and playground equipment. She would not have difficulty with it if the fence were set back and even with the front of the house. 3. Ann Diener: There is the neighbor's chain link fence to the west of the property. As proposed, the wood fence conceals the chain link fence. 4. Emily Guthrie: If the fence is even the front of the house, there will be approximately 1,200 S.F. of side yard. The proposed fence will make the house look like a fortress. 5. J. Cramer concurred with E. Guthrie. 6. A. Dienner: The Commission allowed a fence at Foster and Noyes, that ovmer wanted some protection. That house was even closer to the fence. 7. E. Guthrie: That was a very small front yard. 8. C. Ruiz: The Commission has approved front yard fences, setback 3-feet from the property line and landscaping in front of the fence. 9. C. Ruiz: The fence is not affecting the building itself, but the Commission does not want to set a precedent. The applicant could provide landscaping in front of the fence to minimize the impact of the fence visually. 10. E. Guthrie: She appreciated a compromise, but it does not do it for her. The fence as proposed will not look good. The proportions are not right. 11. S. Rundle: The fence should be compatible with the house. Evanston Presmation Commission DRA,FI' NOT YET APPROVED September 20, 2005 —:Minutes P2¢c I0 12. A. Dienner: The open space makes the proposed fence look so stark. 13. Betsy Hohman: Maybe the applicant could come up with other ideas for the fence. e) Commentslquestions by oNvner/applicant: 1. The owners could not find a picture of the original house. It is possible the house is brick because a I910 map at the historical society shows a two-story structure with a 1.5-story framed structure on the back. 2. The last oi%mer in 1970 was someone with the Branch last name (apparently a daughter of Mr. Branch) and in 1980, the house xvas declared a historical Landmark. 3. The proposed fence is fairly unobtrusive because they don't want to block the views. 4. The issue for the applicants is having the available use of the front yard. As proposed the fence will stop the foot traffic. 5. The sight lines are not an issue because the fence does not block the view from Dewey going south. 6. There is a low fence on the west side of the street that does not block the view's and it does look very nice. 7. Dewey and Lake is a very big intersection. 8. The applicant asked what kind of fence would be compatible with the house. 9. Softening the fence, doing the drop back or cutting the corner to break it is what the Commission is looking for? Answer. The Commission could vote on the fence as is or the applicant could take the thoughts and recommendations from the Commission and come back with something else. The Commission wants the fence to be sensitive in terms of how is placed on the property and how it looks visually. 10. They plan to do more things to the house that will be in keeping with the house, like the front porch. The most immediate need is the fence, which in their minds would be the easier thing to do. g) Applicable standards as recommended by R & TA committee: Construction: Stan Gerson recommended the applicable standards are 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, I5, and 16. The standards for fence variance are A and C. The Commission asked the applicants to come back with a revised proposal for the fence. Michael Harris and Carolyn Chmiel agreed to come back in front of the Commission with a revised proposal. 7. 1006 Harvard (Landmark) a) Project: Relocate garage door from west elevation of house to rear (south elevation). Fill in garage door opening with salvaged brick and install two new windows [Alteration] b) Presentation by owner/applicant: Melba Graffius and Ken 5woyer, owners, said there is a huge concrete surface along the entire west side of the house. With the move of the garage door from the west side to the south facing the alley, their main priority is to put more green area along the house. c) Questions by commissioners/staff: 1. Jordan Cramcr: Are the salvaged bricks from the new garage opening be reused? Evanston Preservation Commission September 20, 2005 —Minutes Page I 1 DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Answer: If they can do them all, yes. 2. Stan Gerson: Is there a new patio? Answer: Yes, as part of the green space. 3. Carlos Ruiz: What kind of a patio? Answer: They have not decided yet. 4. S. Gerson: What is the driveway material on the alley? Answer: It will b.- a concrete driveway. d) Comments by commissioners/staff: 1. The Commission prefers pavers for driveways. 2. Susan Rundle: This is a great idea and improvement. yard of the house. 3. Is the garage original to the house? Answer: No. e) Comments/questions by oivner/applicant: None. Except, one cannot park on the front f) Applicable standards as recommended by R & TA committee: Alteration: Stan Gerson recommended the applicable standards are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The commission learned that the brick was already cleaned previously. Therefore, standard 7 does not apply. Emily Guthrie moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed relocation of the garage door from west elevation of the house to the rear (south elevation). FiII in garage door opening with salvaged brick and install two new windows at 1006 Harvard Terrace in that it is visually compatible in regard to standards I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 8. 1014 ;Michigan Avenue (LSHD) a) Project: One -car garage and storage addition to existing one -car garage [VariancCConstruction] b) Presentation by owner/applicant: Tim Sheridan, architect said the project entails adding on to a single -car garage. The existing garage has a %vall extension between the parking area in the back and the actual back yard, which is a paved parking area. The owner will like to turn that into a two - car garage with storage area and add a geen roof system on top of the garage. The project requires a zoning minor variance for the buildable area an impervious surface, which is already over the allowed. The concrete area will be removed and pavers will be installed. c) Questions by commissioners/staff. Stan Gerson: What is the proposed impervious area? Answer. Is somewhere between 52% and 55%. d) Comments by commissioners/staff: None Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED September 20, 2ViS -- Minutes Page 12 e) Comments/questions by ownerlapplleant: Adding a green roof adds a benefit. f) Applicable standards as recommended by R & TA committee: Construction: Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends the applicable standards are 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the garage at 1014 Michigan Avenue because it meets standards 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Zonine Variance: Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends that the applicable standards are A and C. Susan Rundle moved to recommend approval of the variance to exceed the lot coverage (34.5%) and impmious surface ratio of 551io for the garage and storage addition at 1014 Michican Avenue as it meets standards A and C. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Stan Gerson amended the motion adding that the impervious surface already exceeds the minimum. Ann Dienner seconded the amendment. The motion passed. Votc: 6 aves, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 9. 1031 Judson Avenue (LSHD) a) Project: Ne«, front and side porch[%'ariance./ConstructioniDemolition] b) Presentation by oivner/applicant: Ann McGuire, architect and John Wiechart, owner, said the project requires a minor variance for a less than 10% encroachment on the front yard setback. They submitted more detailed drauu•ings of the railing. The house originally had a front and a side porch. Old photos showed that what is there is not original. The effort is to configure the porch in such a way to restore the transom, provide an appropriate porch to the style of the house and meet the streetscape of the neighborhood. c) Questions by commissioners/staff- Emily Guthrie: Any thoughts on screening the porch? Answer: They prefer an open porch d) Comments by commission erslstaM. Ann Dienner: Many front porches have screens. e) Comments/questions by owner/applicant: The side stair on the side of the house is a scar of another stair that was there on the house. 1) Applicable standards as recommended by R & TA committee: Construction: Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends the applicable standards are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 through 16. Evanston Presmation Commission DRIFT NOT YET APPROVED Septcmber 20, 2005 — Minutes Page 13 Stan Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the front and side porch at I031 Judson Avenue because it meets standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 through 16. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Demolition: Stan Gerson said that standards 1 through 5 apply for the demolition of the existing small front porch. Emily Guthrie moved approval of the demolition of the front porch as it meets standards 1 through 5. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Zoning Variance: Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends that the applicable standards are A and C. Betsy Holiman moved to recommend approval of the variance (proposed front yard setback of 26.5') at 1031 Judson Avenue because it meets standards A and C. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. Discussion: Jordan Cramer noted it appeared that there was a porch at one time. Stan Gerson said that at least in this case it is not going to adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. VII. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION NfEi IBERS, STAFF CLG Matching Grant Applications Carlos Ruiz mentioned a memorandum from the IHPA regarding Fiscal year 2006 CLG Matching Grant Application. Applications must be postmarked by November 12, 2005. C. Ruiz suggested the Commission look at downtown Evanston and identify those buildings that are character giving or potential landmark buildings. He said that there is a proposed new building on the southeast comer of Chicago Avenue and Davis that will require the demolition of existing buildings, a potential loss of historic buildings. Across the street, on Chicago Avenue, there is a vacant building [apparently owned by telephone company) that is a good example to look at. A survey of downtown buildings could be very useful. The City would have to contribute 30% of the cost of conducting the survey. C. Ruiz suggested keeping this in mind for the next fiscal year. VIII. ADJOURNMENT With no further items on the agenda Ann Dienner mowed to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. Respectfully Submitted: Date: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner[Preservatio ordinator DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED EVANSTON PRESERVATION COIN MISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday, October 18, 2005 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS .ABSENT: Jordan Cramer. OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Hands, Carolyn Chmiel, Paul Janicki, Stephen Knutson, Jon Seed, Nancy Cunniff, Matt Kustusch, Simon Goldbrach, Bob Owen, Bob Ward, Julie and Ray Barrett, Rick Rasmussen, Andrew Otting, Linda Peters, David Raynolds, and Anne Earle. PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m., a quorum of eight Commissioners being present. II. PRESERVATION ISSUES Proposed amendments to the Preservation Ordinance The Commission members discussed the proposed amendment to the Preservation Ordinance. Mary Brugliera said Alderman Melissa Wynne expressed concern at the P&D meeting of September 26, 2005 about the number of eleven seats for the Commission and she wonder about the vote on various issues, principally the 110 Greenwood Street house vote that was A (ayes) to 3 (nays). Alderman Wynne wondered why the Commission does not follow the same rule of the Plan Commission whereby everybody is held for another month to add another vote, so absentee Commissioners can read the minutes and vote as well. Chris Carey said another issue is what constitutes a majority vote. Ms. Bruglicra said it had to be a majority of the sitting Commissioners, not the simple majority of the Commissioners present at a mectine. The current required quorum is six. If there are nine members a quorum will be five. Mary Brugliera said that while ago the Commission the Commission voted on her suggestion which was to change the quorum requirement to majority plus one of the Commissioners present. She sent it to the City CIark's office and was told the Commission should not to do Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes — Octobtr t :. )M Page 2 that. She also sent the proposal to Alderman Moran, then Chair of the Rules Committee in 2003 as well. Carlos Ruiz said if project have to be approved by the majority of the number of the Commission's seats, whether is eleven or nine, that the record of approval will be affected because some of the projects were approved a7thout and absolute majority. He noted the Preservation Commission has an excellent record of approval. Regarding the timeline for approval Mr. Ruiz said he is preparing a report to include the Georgian and the former Kendall College property. Mary Brugliera suggested including in the report the time staff spends assisting the public including phone calls, site visits, and walk-ins. Mr. Ruiz said the Commission had purview over 800 landmarks in 1994, now there are close to 2000 properties and still there is only one full time preservation coordinator. Chris Carey suggested taking photos of projects including the handicap ramps approved and incorporating them in the report. Mr. Ruiz said the Commission should consider address the number of commissioners, the number of days for COA approval, and what standards would allow staff to approve projects. Mary Brugliera said the commission's procedures include those issues. Mr. Ruiz said another issue for consideration is allowing staff the re -issuance of COAs. Currently a COA is good for six months; staff has re -issued the COA after that as common practice if everything has remains the same. This also should be codified. Prepare draft of the report for the November 5, 2005 retreat (8:30 a.m. — 1:00 p.m.). Upgrade the City's,.;-ebsite. Oakton Historic Center, meeting at the Levy Center, proposal about signs in the Oak -ton Historic Districts. II. MINUTES Approval of minutes Carlos Ruiz passed around the September 2005 minutes with the new format for consideration. Commissioners agreed to submit comments about the new format before approving the minutes. III. COMMUNICATIONS/RE PORTS None. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Public Hearing 2100 Ridge Avenue (Evanston CiAc Center) — Nomination for Evanston Landmark Designation — Consideration of approving the report to City Council recommending Landmark designation of the building at 2100 Ridge Avenue, and of Resolution directing the City Manager to transmit its recommendation to the City Council. Evanstan Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes —October IS, 2005 Page 3 ,Mary BruQliera moved to continue the public hearing on the nomination of 2100 Ridge Avenue until 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 26. 2005. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. (A verbatim transcript is attached) B. 1705 Lake Street (Landmark) — Erect a white wooden cedar picket fence; enclosing front and side yard of the property [Fence Variance/Construction] Mike Harris and CarolNM Chmiel, owner, said the fence is now setback 3' all around, opening approximately 275 sq. ft. of their lot, in that space landscaping will be provided between the fence and the sidewalk, along the front fatrade. The southeast comer of the fence will be cut in an angle and provide landscaping on that comer. The height of the fence is been reduce and its rhythm has been increased by scalloping the pickets. The post will be 4' and the pickets will scallop down to 3'- 6" to the lowest point. The pickets are 3'; the space between them is 3", creating 50 percent opacity. There is a gate on the cast side of the property, from the walk -way that goes to the door. Mr. Harris said twelve neighbors signed a petition in favor of the fence variance. Commissioners mentioned other fences requiring a fence variance the Commission had approved. Stan Gerson said the standards to be consider are A and C for the fence variance. Ann Dienner moved to recommend the fence variance for 1705 Lake Street as it meets standards A (it is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so does not adversely affect the historic or architecture or aesthetic inicgnity of the landmark) and C («till 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). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommended the following standards for construction of the fence: 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 -16. Susan Rundle said comer lot fences take away the rhythm of open spaces, but on the other hand the owners made the effort to minimize an adverse effect. Ms. Brugliera said that her feeling was that perhaps at some point there was a fence on a much larger property. The low fence enhances the large yard to the east. Betsy Hohman said there are other picket fences in the neighborhood and the proposed fence does not adversely affect the property. Stan Gerson moved to approve the COA height is visually compatible, 5 (the rhythm of the spacing of the structure is visually related, materials and texture are compatible with the house, 10 (the size and mass of the fence is visually compatible, the original character of the property is not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological objects will be protected), 14 (contemporary design is not being proposed, 15 the fence could be removed in the future, and 16 the Commission is not imposing a specific architectural style. Anne Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED !Minutes — October t w. ? CP05 Page d VI. NE«' BUSS ESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 325 Greenwood Street (LSHD) — Enclosure of back porch (previously approved) proposed setback from the rear lot line 16'; required 301. Installation of A/C proposed setback from east property line 81; required 10' [Zoning Variance] Paul Janicki, architect presented the plans for a back porch with a setback of 16' from the rear property line, the required setback is 30'. Mr. Janicki said the Commission approved the porch previously. The A/C is now a separate issue. Ms. Brugliera said the garage and the current back porch are non -conforming. Mr. Janicki said that the lot coverage is not being increased. Emily Guthrie said RC:TA recommends standards A and C for the variance. She moved to recommend approval of the variance for 325 Greenwood in that A (it is necessary and/or appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so does not adversely affect the historic or architecture or aesthetic integrity of the landmark) and C (will 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). Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1302 Hinman Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) - Demolish stone and wood frame gazebo and t- wo-car frame garage. Construct new 2-car garage [Construction] Stephen Knutson, architect and Jon Seed, owner presented the plans to demolish a stone and wood frame gazebo and a two -car frame garage, and for the construction of a new 2-car garage. Mr. the coach house is 6' smaller on its north/south dimension, and about 4' shorter. The new structure is similar to the larger one previously approved. Mr. Knutson said the coach house has clapboard siding with two panel insulated doors; the single door has a more barn like quality than the two doors. There is a wooden green house window facing south. The coach house is setback 3' from the alley and 5' from the side yard. Betsy Hohman said R&TA recommends standards for construction 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 11, and 12 — 16. Thomas Prairie noted wood garage doors have been typically approved for landmarks, not panel doors. Mr. Knutson said that there are commercial dumpsters opposite to the garage. Anne Dienner said a wood door would be too much upkeep on that location. Ms_ Hohman moved to approve the garage at 1302 Hinman as it meets standards: 1 (the height is compatible), 3 (proportion of openings is compatible), 5 (the rhythm of Evanston Presen-ation Cor:= ssion DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes — October 18, 2005 Pagc 5 spacing of structures on the street are compatible), 7 (the relationship of materials and textures are compatible), 8 (the roof shape is visually compatible), 10 (the scale of the structure is compatible), I (the directional expression of the front elevation is visually compatible), 12 (the distinguishing original dualities and character of the structure, site are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be protected), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (the addition could be removed in the future), and 16 (a particular style has not been imposed). Mary Brueliera seconded the motion. Susan Rundle moved to remove standard 15 because the garage is not an addition- Ann Dienner seconded the amendment. The motion for the amendment passed. tote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. The motion as amended passed. Vote: 7 ayes, l nay. 3. 2323 Orrington Avenue (C/NEHD) — Demolish part of existing rear wood deck; construct a screened porch and new deck with railing and stairs. Remodel existing one-story rear addition and expand window opening to install three casement windows in kitchen area (Alteration/Construction/DemolitionI Stephen Knutson, architect and ;Nancy Cunniff, owner presented plans to demolish part of the existing rear wood deck, chznge the ceiling of the family room, construct a screened porch to the cast and new deck with railing and stairs. Also, remodel the existing one-story addition and expand a window opening and install three casement windows in the kitchen area. There are French doors and double hung windows. The kitchen window is not original to the house and they are proposing casement windows over the sink. The window soldier course of brick will be extended east. Stan Gerson said there are alterations on the existing addition with five new windows and French doors, and on the main house a pair of Nvindows is being replaced by three windows, extending the soldier coursing east and new access door to the basement. R&TA recommended standards l through 6, 9 and 10, Susan Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness of 2323 Orrington in that: 1 (minimal alteration to the property), 2 (distinguishing original character of the structure is not being destroyed), 3 (an earlier appearance is not being sought), 4 (changes that took place over time are being treated with sensitivity), 5 (distinctive stylistic features have been treated with sensitivity), 6 (nothing deteriorated is being replaced, but replaced or added to), 9 (contemporary design is not being discourage), 10 (should the alterations be removed, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said the screen porch at the rear, addition to the deck and new paving at the rear are all new construction. The recommended applicable standards for review of construction are: 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12 through 16. fir. Rundle moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the construction as described above at 2323 Orrington in that it meets standard: 1 (the height is compatible to the existing), 3 (the proportion of openings is appropriate), 7 (the relationship of materials and texture Evanston Preservation Commission DR.kFT NOT YET APPROVED ;Minutes — October 15. 2W5 Page 6 are limited to the existing), 8 (the roof is the same as the dormers above), 10 (the scale is appropriate), 12 (distinguishing original quality of the main structure is not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design has not been discouraged), 15 (should the addition be removed, it %,. ill harm the essential form and integrity of the main structure),and 16 (a single architectural style has not been imposed. Aran Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Stan Gerson said demolition includes demolishing part of the existing deck and an existing walk at the rear. All five standards for demolition apply. Mary Srugliera moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition as described at 2323 Orrington in that it meets standards: I (those elements are not of such architectural significance), 2 (those elements need not be preserved in that they are not contributing to the distinctive architectural character of the district), 3 (demolition will not be contrary to the purpose of this chapter and the objectives of preser-vation to the historic district), 4 (the items are not so old, unusual or uncommon that could not be reproduced), and 5 (there are approved plans for construction and alteration). Ms. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1610 Ashland Avenue (C/RHD) -- Demolish existing garage and construct a new garage [Construction/Demolition] Matt Kustusch of Hackley and Associates and Simon Goldbrach, owner presented plans to demolish an existing garage and to construct a new garage at 1610 Ashland. Emily Guthrie said R&TA recommended as applicable standards for demolition 1-5 and standards for construction 1- 5, 7, 8, 10, 11-14, and 16. Ms. Guthrie moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness 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 structure on the street), 7 (materials and texture), 8 (roof shape), 10 (scale of the structure), and 11 (directional expression of the front elevation), are all visually compatible to the structure they are visually related, 12 (distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be presmcd), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 16 (an architectural style is not being imposed). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Goldbrach said that if is in the budget they will try to match the oval window and the garage doors are designer doors. Thomas Prairie moved to approve either a double hung or an oval window. The motion passed. The motion to approve construction passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Ms. Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards for demolition 1 -- 5 as applicable. Ms. Guthrie moved for approval in that: 1 (demolition will not be detrimental to the Evanston Prmcn-atian Commissiaa DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutts — 0.:ob.r 18, 2005 Pae: 7 public interest). 2 (it does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural, or archaeological character of the district), 3 (its demolition will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter), 4 (it is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it cannot be reproduced), and 5 (there are plans for its replacement). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. S. 1629-31 Hinman Avenue (Landmark) — Construct three-story rear deck addition with wood trellis to existing condominium [Construction] Bob Owcn and Bob Ward, owners presented plans for the construction of a three- story rear deck addition with wood trellis. Mr. Owen said they are asking to put the balconies at the rear back on the building. The existing doors will be reused. The new deck is pressure treated lumber. Mr. Owen said the front of the building is ornate not the back. The original deck might not have been painted. They would apply a sealant to the wooden deck. Mr. Owen said the deck would cut some of the view of a second floor window. He did not know if that window is original. The deck railings are 36" high. Thomas Prairie noted that a sealant will fade and the wood will age in a different color. He recommended painting the deck. Betsy Holhman said R&.TA recommended standards for construction 7, 8, 10, and 12-16 as applicable. Ms. Hohman moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness for constriction of the back porches in that: 7 (relationship of materials and texture are compatible with materials used in the structure to which is visually related), 8 (the roof shapes are also compatible), 10 (the scale of the structure is visually compatible), 12 (the distinguishing original qualities of the structure are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), 15 (the deck if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired, and 16 (a single architectural has not been imposed). Mr. Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, I nay. 6. 1727 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) — Construct new two -car garage at rear (Constructions Ray and Julie Barrett, owners presented plans to construct a tnwo-car garage at the rear of the house at 1727 Hinman. The existing one -car garage will remain. The new garage will be cedar siding with a wood door. Mr. Gerson said Rc4;TA recommends standards 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16 of construction as applicable. Mr. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the two -car garage at 1727 Hinman in that: 1 (the height), 2 (proportion of front fagade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to Evanston Preservation Coir*nission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes — Octolr_r I S. 200: Page 8 voids). a (rhythm of spacing of structure on the street), are all visually compatible ,Mth structures to which they are visually related, 7 (materials and texture), S (roof shape). 10 (scale of the structure), and 11 (directional expression of the front elevation), are all visually compatible to the structure they are visually related, 12 (distinguishing original qualities gill not be destroyed), 13 (arch aeolo Pica] resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 16 (an architectural style is not being imposed). Ms. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. tote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 7. 2121 Orrington Avenue (CI`EHD) — Demolish existing two -car garage and construct ne«• three -car garage [Construction[Demolitionj Rick Rasmussen, architect presented plans to demolish a two -car garage and construct a new three -car stucco Qaraee and a one -car parking pad and landscaping at 2121 Orrington Avenue. ,tits. Guthrie said R&TA recommended standards for construction 1-5. 7-9, 10-14, and 16. Ms. Rundle asked if anyone had a concern with the proposed door. The owners would like to reuse the existing door. Mr. Rasmussen said the owners would not oppose to eliminate the Spanish gable. The existing gate will be replaced with a new picket fence to match the existing. The parking pad will be pavers. tics. Guthrie moved approval of the construction of the three -car garage and parking pad in that: 1 (the height), 2 (proportion of front fagade), 3 (proportion of the openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids on front facades), 5 (rh)thm of spacing of structures on the street), 7 (materials and texture), 8 (roof shape), 9 (walls of continuity such as the fence), 10 (scale of the structure), and 11 (directional expression of the front elevation) are all visually compatible to the structure to which are ,%7sually related, 12 (distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be protected), 14 (contemporary design is not being discouraged), and 16 (a single architectural style is not being imposed). Mary Brueliera seconded the motion. Mr. Carey described the project to construct a new three -car garage with steel flat panel doors without Spanish curve and with exterior stucco finish, subject to administrative approval of the revised drawings. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Nis. Guthrie said R&TA recommends standards 1-5 for demolition as applicable. Ms. Guthrie moved approval for demolition as meeting all five standards. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. S. 1041 Judson Avenue (Landman:) — Replace the existing structurally unsound brick wall and fence with a new brick wall, Mood fence and gate [ConstructionfDemolitionj Evanston Presemation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes —October IS, 2005 Page 9 Andrew Otting, of Scott Byron and Company presented plans for the replacement of a brick wall and fence with a new brick wall, wood fence and gate at 1041 Judson. Mr. Otting said apart from the deteriorated walls a three fell down. Another existing three could be saved. The idea is to tear down those walls and build out new brick walls. The wood detail comes from the existing doors that are on the coach house. Mr. Gerson said R&:TA recommends standards for construction 1-5, 7, and 9-16 as applicable. 1\11r. Gerson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a brick and wood fence at 1041 Judson in that: (the height), 2 (proportion of front fagade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (rhythm of solids to voids), 5 (rhythm of spacing of structure on the street), are all visually compatible with structures to which they are visually related. 7 (materials and texture), 9 (the walls of continuity or fences), 10 (scale of the structure), and I I (directional expression of the front elevation), are all visually compatible to the structure they are visually related, 12 (distinguishing original qualities will not be destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be presmed), 14 (contemporary design is not being proposed), 15 (they could remove the addition without destroying the property)and 16 (an architectural style is not being imposed). his. Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: S aves. 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends all five standards for demolition as applicable. Mr. Gerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the wall at 1041 Judson in that; 1 (the material to be demolished is of no archaeological, architectural significance), 2 (brick and wood fence do not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological character of the district), 3 (demolition of the structure will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter), 4 (the structures to be demolish are not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that they could not be reproduce), and 5 (there are plans to replace the structures to be demolished). Iris. Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: S ayes, 0 nays. B. National Register Nominations 1. 1625 Hinman Avenue (The Homestead) David Reynolds, owner, and Linda Peters, preservation consultant, presented the nomination of the building at 1625 Hinman Avenue (The Homestead) for listing to the National Register of Historic PIaces. Mr. Reynolds said that the building is at a point where it needs a lot of work; it needs a major renovation and there are tax credits available if it is in the National Register. He said that he either has to sell the building or make the renovations. He has chosen to make the renovation and the tax credits will be very helpful. Linda Peters said that the City of Evanston, as a Certified Local Government, is a step in the process as the nomination goes forward to the National Register. It is written and it is reviewed between the State and herself to get it into an acceptable draft from. Then it comes to the Certified Local Government for their approval. Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes — Octobcr 18, 205 Page 10 Once the approval is given to the nomination, then it proceeds to the State panel [Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Committee] for their review, if they agree then it finally goes to Washington D.C. for the final listing on the National Register. Ms. Peters said what she is claiming is that the Homestead qualifies under criterion C for architecture. The Homestead is a significant building also for being the work of Phillip Danielson. Ms. Peters said she is an architectural historian and author of the nomination. She said the nomination claims that the Homestead is a significant example of Colonial Revival style, applied to commercial structure in Evanston. What makes this building separate, different and significant on its own, is that it is a different type of Colonial Revival style; more delicate and refined based more on Roman precedent than a Greek precedent. The building has also some Federal style qualities. To be precisely exact, it is really close to Jefferson style. Ms. Peters showed slides of the Homestead's interior and exterior. The Homestead is a fine example of the Colonial Revival on the outside, but the design carries on as a totality onto the inside of the building as' ell. In response to a question from Mary Brugliera, Ms. Peters said the first step in the National Register process is to get a preliminary determination from the State (in January 2005), then she %vrotc the nomination. They reviewed the nomination, and what the Commission is considering is the September 2005 draft. Ms. Peters said the building's exterior has both elements at ground level and at cornice level that denote the Colonial Revival style. At ground level, the veranda continues the Colonial scale and vocabulary of the delicate columned portico veranda. In Danielson's design the tempo and the scale of the Colonial Revival is not only set in the square middle columns and the Chippendale railing at the top, but also begins to be set around the front door and the windows stretching along the fagade. The main entrance shows a prime example of Colonial Revival vocabulary; the pediment or triangular cap to the door is broken and embellished 'with an urn. There are fluted pilasters framing the doorway and then an architrave that connects two pilasters. In so doing, Danielson sets up a vocabulary that established in the fagade of the building and it is continued throughout the building. Inside the library one can see the framing of the doors and «indows, having the same vocabulary, the paneling on doorways, wainscoting on walls throughout the corridor and walls. In the lounge one can see of the principal design features, a fire place, with pilasters framing it and raised paneling along the full surface of the walls. Closing the ceiling there is a very delicate plaster molding that is part of that Federal style. A view of the lounge area looking back towards the French doors, there are architectural elements close to Jefferson in that in Colonial southern architecture, they frequently converted their windows to doors. Evanston Preservation Corr.:ssien DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes —October IS, 'CwD; Page I Looking towards the front door, one can see paneling al..)ng the walls and the multiple paneling in the doors. The doorway left to the main entrance, has the same framing with the pediment and pilasters that was introduced on the front door. The corridors continue the design motives, the,.vainscoting and panel doors. Danielson originally designed the rooms and closely worked with his wife who was an interior designer. The original furnishings and detailing in the hotel rooms and apartments, carry on the Colonial Revival stele as well. Ms. Peters said the Homestead qualifies under criterion C in the National Register guidelines for inclusion on the National Register. In response to Ms. Brugliera's question, ifs Peters said Danielson designed a church near the campus of North Park College, North Park Covenant Church at 5254 North Christiana Avenue, in the 1920s. He laid out Deere Park subdivision, Highland Park; he did another set of apartment buildings, and a house in the Indian Hill subdivision in «'ilmette at 1116 Locust Drive. Susan Rundle asked tits. Peters to talk a little bit more about the exterior. Ms Brugliera said that the rational Register is more concerned about the interior than the Commission is in the local nominations. Ms. Peters said that for individual buildings they are more concerned with the interior integrity. In regard to the exterior, \is. Peters said what Danielson is doing on an eight story structure is dividing the classical orders of the columns and entablature, and rounding that on the first floor. The pediment is carried up to the roof level, and then attached at the top, along with the dentiled cornice underneath the cave line. Along the base of the 8` floor windows, there is also further paneling in stone detail. The bay windows that run from the 2rd floor to the 4 h floor that is a feature that is common to Colonial Revival style. In response to a question from Carlos Ruiz, Ms, Peters said through the slides she tried to convince the Commission that the features exist not only on the outside and the inside of the building, but they exist virtually as Danielson designed them in 1927-28; they are virtually unchanged. Therefore, it becomes a significant example of the style with high degree of integrity. That is what the National Register likes to approve. Mr. Ruiz asked about the method of construction and the adaptation of the original property. 'pis. Peters said another point is that out of the eight the apartment hotels that were built in Evanston from I919 to 1928, this is the only one that has remained as an apartment hotel throughout its entire history. Each of the other ones has changed in its function. It is not only maintaining the integrity architecturally, but functionally as well. It is very interesting to note that Danielson's design of four rooms and spaces is still appropriate today. Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes — October 15, 2005 Pact 12 Carlos Ruiz asked Ms. Peters about the high artistic values of The Homestead. Ms. Peters said that is referring to whether or not it is a fine example of Colonial Revival style. Mr. Ruiz asked Ms. Peters to talk about more about Phil Danielson, the architect. Ms. Peters said that he first appears as a student at Northwestern taking classes in business. He opened his offices at 1569 Sherman in Evanston in 1920 and the building is still there. He began practicing in Evanston in the early 1920s. He traveled extensively and he was exposed to not only Colonial Revival architecture on the east coast, but also in Europe. He got the idea from his -wife of designing and running an apartment hotel; that became significant to his work in the mid 1920s. Ms. Peters did not found %vhere Danielson obtained his architectural training. Nis. Peters said the nomination is not making the contention that The Homestead is the seminal work of Danielson; it is making the contention that this is a fine example of Colonial Revival on commercial structure in Evanston. In response to Chris Care,,'s question, Carlos Ruiz said the primary role of the Commission is to comment whether or not the proposed nomination meets the criteria of the National Register as submitted in the nomination. It is an advisory role and the Mayor has th same opportunity to do that. He said with the Georgian nomination [20041, the Commission went through the City Council to send its recommendation to the State. The Commission has until December 2, 2005 to submit its recommendation for The Homestead. Mary Brugliera suggested the Commission think about the nomination, read it again and as a group put toeether a recommendation next week. Thomas Prairie concurred with his. Brugliera. Stan Gerson said the Commission is concerned with criterion C only. Thomas Prairie moved to continue the Commission's deliberation to October 26, 2005. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mary Brugliera moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 11:00 p.m. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: *Z" — - Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation ardinator Date: DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMAfISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Wednesday, October 26, 2005 Room 2404 — 7:00 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brugliera, Chris Carey, Stanley Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Thomas Prairie, and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Dienner, Jordan Cramer, and Emily Guthrie OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Gardner, Judy Fiske PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER! QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with a quorum of six Commissioners being present. Ii. PRESERVATION ISSUES Proposed amendments to the Preservation Ordinance This item was moved to Iater in the agenda III. MINUTES No minutes were approved at this time. IV. COMMUNICATIONSIREPORTS Mr. Ruiz informed the Commission that the City's Public Place Names Committee is seeking for a representative of the Preservation Commission to fill the seat left by former Commissioner Michael Girard. ,lair. Ruiz asked if there was a volunteer. The Commission deferred discussion of this item until the next meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Public Hearing Evanston Preserrn-ation Cor=jssion DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes (Abst.- p — Ozto}Y_'r 26, 2005 , Page 2 2100 Ridge Avenue (Evanston Civic Center) — Nomination for Evanston Landmark Designation Approval of report to City Council recommending Landmark designation of the building at 2100 Ridge Avenue, and of Resolution directing the City Manager to transmit its recommendation to the City Council. (A verbatim transcript is attached) B. National Register Nominations 1. 2100 Ridge Avenue (Marywood academy) — Evanston Civic Center Barbara Gardner presented the nomination of 2100 Ridge Avenue-Marywood Academy (Evanston Civic Center) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Gardner said the National Register criterion for architecture is not much different than the local nomination. The criterion for education is different than the Evanston criteria. Ms. Gardner said the building meets the criterion for education because by its shear size, the building shows what an important building was at the time that it was constructed. The building ,.was not associated with a parish of any kind. Marywood Academy was reaching a broader audience. Students came not only from Evanston, but also from Chicago, downstate, other states, even from foreign countries. The school had a broad appeal. It falls under parochial education, but it was a higher level of education within the Catholic schools. Ms. Gardner said a building in Rock Island, Illinois designated a couple of years ago was also a girls academy built by the Sisters of Visitation. They had a few schools around the United States. Because the Evanston school was a prominent school at the time and it had a very wide audience, is what makes it meet the criteria for education on the National Register. Marywood Academy,.vas the only Catholic private school for girls in Evanston ever, as well as in the suburbs. The only other school that was like it and built around the same time was Saint Scholastica in Chicago. Ms. Gardner referred to the National Register Criteria: Criterion A: It is associated,.,.zth events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Ms. Gardener said this is not necessarily to be compared . with what is in Chicago or Rock Island. This is ,.within the history of Evanston, and that its prominence ,.was there. State officials concluded that there is no other building like this in Evanston, or a school building of this type and prominence within the City. Criterion C: It embodied the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Ms. Gardner said the building embodies distinctive characteristics Evanston Presmation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes (Abstr2n) — October 26, 2005 Nze 3 of a t-ype, period or method of construction, and the building is an example of the Georgian Revival structure. Ms. Gardner said, Section VIII, page 5 of the no nination it has the statement of significance. She said the State made some editorial changes to the nomination. The period of significance is from 1900, when it first was constructed, to 1924 when the main building was completed. Mary Brugliera referred to criteria of consideration A: Religious property. A religious property is eligible if it derives primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance. Ms. Brugliera said the criteria of consideration for a religious property apply if the resource was constructed by a religious institution. In the case of Marywood Academy the answer is, yes. If the resource is presently Owned by a religious institution, the answer is, no. If the resource was formed by a religious institution or used for religious purposes during its period of significance, the =;ver is, yes. Finally, if religion is selected as an area of significance, the answer is, no. Ms. Gardner said Marywood Academy .vas owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes. The nomination lists the building under education, meeting criterion A for education. The Nomination states: it is locally significant under criterion A for education for its association with an important Roman Catholic all girl school. Primarily this was a school and secondarily, it happened to be a religious school. Ms. Gardner said the nomination is based on criterion C as well. In terms of the Commission's recommendation, Ms. Gardner noted that Anne McGuire, Evanston architect, and former Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council member submitted only a statement, saying that she believed Mamvood Academy meets criterion A for education and Criterion C for architecture for Georgian Re--ival. Ms. Gardner said if the Commission agrees with the nomination, she would take the statement of significance and repeat it back to the Advisory Council. Chris Carey said under the review procedures, following discussion of the nomination's merits, the historic preservation Commission «i11 vote on whether or not to recommend the nomination to the IHSAC. Chris Carey noted the opinion of the local historic preservation commission and that of the Chief elected official will be transmitted to the SHPO by the deadline stipulated [December 2, 2005]. Mary Brugliera moved that the Commission send a letter to the State Historic Preservation Office that the Commission concurred with the nomination of the Marywood Academy at 2100 Ridge Avenue to the National Register, in that it meets Criteria A and C of the National Register process. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion, Eva=on Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Mi=,cs (Abstract) — Octobcr 26, 2005 Paz 4, Nis. Brugliera amended her motion adding: the Commission's motion is reflected in a summary. Mr. Prairie seconded the amendment. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1625 Hinman Avenue (The Homestead) — Continued from October 18, 20051625 Hinman Avenue Chris Carey moved to recommend approval of the nomination at 1625 Hinman under Criterion C of the National Register criteria as it meets Criterion C to the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Committee (IHSAC), Mary Bruglicra asked if the Chair should be making the motion. Mr. Carer then asked if anyone else cared to make a motion recommending that 1625 Hinman met the criteria for listing to the National Register. Thomas Prairie asked if the Commission had a reason for doing so. Carlos Ruiz said the Commission had heard a whole presentation [by the applicant) at the last meeting [October l S, 20051. Mr. Prairie said if the Commission could refer to something and make a recommendation for the building. Chris Carey referred to his. Brugliera's e-mail saying that the building was a %-cry good example of Colonial Revival architecture in a multi -story building in Evanston, and it is the last remaining apartment hotel in Evanston. Susan Randle said she would like to have a discussion about the nomination and the National Register. Stan Gerson said the Commission should refer to the building as Georgian rather than Colonial. Mr. Ruiz said the nomination says that the building is Colonial Revival. Ms. Rundle said the first floor interior and exterior are great, but she wondered what it has to do with the rest of the building. It has all the Colonial Revival staff all over it, but as a building is really a bad building, She said if they were talking about a local landmark, where it appears the criteria is much more stringent, and it has also to be a good building, which is kind of subjective, she could not vote for it because she did not think it is a sterling example of from what she had researched and specialty since it sits next door to a really nice revival building. Ms. Rundle asked Ms. Brugliera to go ever the National Register criteria once more. Ms. Brugliera said the National Register criteria are less exacting that the local criteria. They see it as an example of an important building in terms of type, style, and it is the last remaining apartment hotel building. Judy Fiske, from the audience, said the State not looks at the building in the context within the community in which the building stands, but also in terms of buildings throughout the state. The fact is that it is the only apartment hotel still in use. Ms. Fiske said she read the 1916 City Code of Evanston that defines apartment hotels as apartment buildings. The Homestead had a dining room, so that the people who lived in the apartments could come down and eat together. Besides the Georgian, The Homestead is the other structure built in a residential area that had this configuration. The Homestead E%witon Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Nfinntcs (.abstract) — O--tobcr 26, 200: Par= 5 is an important building for that reason. The comments that they got back from the State on the Georgian, for example, suggested that the two whole blocks on Hinman Avenue from Grove Street on the south, to Church Street on the north, because they were not allowed to be included in National Register of Historic Places, that the two apartment hotels that exist there, the Georgian and the Homestead, really ought to be in the National Register. If the Homestead is in the National Register that will just leave the Georgian, aside from Mather Gardens that it is not in the National Register. She believes that those two blocks are solid landmarks for the National Register. Ms. Fiske said that what is remarkable about the Homestead is that there is no other example in Evanston including southern Colonial architecture, The Homestead was designed to be in the inside and outside on first floor into following the southern style. That is partly what the State recommended is important and unique about the Homestead. Susan Rundle said then the State looks for more of local and state [significance]. Thomas Prairie said, unlike the Commission, the State is looking at the total cntity of the building, interior and exterior. In the nomination they made a point that the Homestead is an unusual merging of needs in an apartment hotel in Colonial Revival features, so it does have some merit or significance in that sense. They are taking into account a type of building using the Colonial motive that is not usual, so it has some significance. Mr. Prairie said, to him, the Homestead is an Evanston landmark in the broad sense of the word. They are only using Criterion C for architecture. The Homestead is one of the things that make up Evanston, call it an institution, an entity. He had the same feeling about the Georgian. Mr. Gerson said the Homestead could make a case for Criterion A also, significant contribution in the pattern of the history of Evanston. Susan Rundle said if that is what the State is looking for, that is something that is special in the City, it does not necessarily had to be good [architecture]. If it just has to be an example of Colonial Revival building of the state or the county, then she could agree. Stan Gerson moved that the Preservation Commission recommend to the IHSAC that the Preservation Commission approves of the designation of the Homestead at 1625 Hinman Avenue in Evanston, that it be placed in the National Register of Historic PIaces. Thomas Prairie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. II. PRESERVATION ISSUES Proposed amendments to the Preservation Ordinance Carlos Ruiz said the main issue is the sixty days limitation to make a decision (landmark nominations, planned developments, subdivisions). Mary BrugIiera said that she believed Mr. Ruiz has prepared a time line of the meetings of the Commission's involvement in 1314 Ridge, The Georgian (422 Davis), Kendall (2408 Orrington), Civic Center, Three Crowns, condo development on Ridge. She mentioned that former Alderman Newman had made a comment the Commission was obstructing development. Evanston Preserti-ation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPRO%TD Minutes (Abstract) - ():tob-.r 26, 2005 Page 6 She had suggested the Commission proN ide to the Council evidence of what the Commission's process has been in relation to the time frame for the development of each of these projects. Mr. Ruiz said that for The Georgian, the nomination (for landmark designation) was submitted on December 27, 2003, the public hearing was held on January 20, January 27, February 24, March 10, March 23, 2004, the Commission closed the public hearing on June 15, 2004. Chris Carey suggested looking at how much time and careful consideration was given to these projects and the extra meetings. For Kendall College the nomination was submitted on June 11, 2004. July 20, Augus117, September 14, October 26, and November 30, 2004. The hearing was closed on December 6, 2004. Chris Care), said not only the Commission had its regular meeting, but another meeting during the month. Thomas Prairie pointed out that the Commission is not set up to have an all day hearing, where both side can make a presentation. By nature, the Commission has to hear the original presentation, hear the rebuttal. Grant continuances and so forth. Part of it is out of the Commission's hands. The Commission is accommodating everyone and not being obstructionists. Mr. Ruiz said the Commission does not have control over what people submit for nomination. The way to finding out [the merits of the nomination) is through the public hearing, and then make a recommendation to the City Council. Chris Carey said the one thing that kept continually coming to him from legal counsel was due process and that everyone had the opportunity to speak. The Commission is having these meetings following procedures and allowing due process. He said it takes times because Commissioners are volunteer citizens on a Commission. Commissioners are not career Civil Servants. Commissioners are volunteering two per month is adequate. He said the Commission has to squeeze in sixty days how many hearings? Mary BrugIiera said this is going to turn to be unfair to either the owners, developers or whomever, because they are not going to be able to get their side. Mr. Carey said it takes time to get the transcripts, review them, the time the applicant/owner needs to rebut or develop an argument. Ms. Brugliera said that the Commission's response should include the timeline for the various projects. She suggested preparing an annual report of 2004 or 2005 to date to include: number of projects heard, number resolved at that meeting, number of carried over, number of appeals. She said that the 45 days for regular projects is being extended to 60 days as well, which the Commission almost never needs. Judy Fiske from the audience said going a huge development sea change of the community, specially the downtowvn. Preservationist for the most part have taken a hands of approach to downtown assuming that is where most of development is going to occur. There is being eery little effort after the one preservation review of the downtown to identify landmark buildings if anything else. The problem is that there is no man power to go out and see what buildings ought to be landmarks. In the case of The Georgian and E%anston Presen-ation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutss (Abstract) — October 26, 200= Page 1 Kendall, they tried to say to developers that there are good reasons to look at thesc buildings and adaptively reuse them. She believes that preservation and its architecture is the driving force bringing people to Evanston and why people want to stay in Evanston. INis. Fiske said there has been a disconnect between the City and the question of character of the community, and hopefully there will be a way to compromise with the City Council such as maybe it is time for another survey of the City and see what buildings ought to be protected. Education with the City Council and the time needed for providing for due process is important. She said that preservation did not hold up The Georgian. During the time the question of The Georgian was put forward, they were still working on whether or not they will pay taxes. In regard to Kendall College. the reason why landmark was put forward was to provide the developer an opportunity to rehab the administration building into condos. They do not have a final plan either. Ms. Fiske said the Commission is the professional arbiter of preservation that is why it is important that the Commission speaks up for preservation. Thomas Prairie said the time line should also address Alderman Newman's perception. The information has to say more than when the nomination was submitted and when the hearing was closed. It has to be stated what happened and why the number of meetings were necessary. It was not the Commission's choice to have so many meetings. Mary Brugliera said the Commission has a meeting on November 5, 2005, she suggested parceling out the rational of the various landmark nominations heard by the Commission. Also, somebody take the Commission's general process and history. Betsy Hohman suggested doing the average time for projects such as garages, residential, developer projects, and the total average to show how many days overall it takes. Explain why reviewing the developer's projects take so long and explain why the Commission is not obstructing developers. The Commission is much faster than sixty days on average for everything else. There are good reasons for needing more than sixty days for major projects. Mr. Carey said it is because the impact on the community. Mary Brugliera said that there should be a section about obstructionism. She suggested everybody bring a draft about an issue to the November 5 meeting. Mr. Prairie said to quote the Commission's rules of how to handle projects. Ms. Hohman said [as newly appointed Commissioner] she had no idea of how the Commission has to go criteria by criteria on each individual project. Mr. Prairie said the Commission has to a complicated set of rules to follow when it is a landmark designation, than when the Commission reviews a certificate of appropriateness. Ms. Hohman said as a volunteer one takes hours and hours dissecting what the ordinance means, and how things apply. Most people do not have an idea of this. Carlos Ruiz suggested how Commissioners, as individuals, perceive the system to be working, and how they feel the system is adequate, and whether or not the Commission Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Minutes (Abstract) — October 26, 2005 Page 8 fulfills its purpose, and whether or whether six months is adequate for the type of projects the Commission considers and that will affect the entire community. He said that he could provide the time line for the regular projects. He noted that Kendall College is still pending after ten months the Commission completed its review. Ms. Brugliera mentioned that 1314 Ridge still in the works after many months of waiting for a permit from the Water Reclamation District. The Commission developed the following outline for their presentation to the Planning and Development Committee: 1. Time line and comments for landmark nomination and planned developments (T. Prairie and C. Carey) 2. Year to date report and comment (M. Brugliera and B. Hohman) 3. Discussion on obstructionism (S. Gerson) 4. Importance of hearing all sides (S. Rundle) 5. Importance of the City's direction and its future in terms of historic preservation (M. Brughera). 111. ADJOURNMENT Thomas Prairie moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Betsy Hohman seconded. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Presery Coordinator Date: DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED EVANSTON PRESERVATION COtiItiIISSION Evanston Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday. November I5. 2005 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. MINUTES MEhIBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Mary Brugliera. Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle ,NIE4NIBERS ABSENT: Jordan Cramer, Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Gemmel, Michael Grover, owner and Daniel Bagleman, Paul Janicki, and Erika Storlie. PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey, Chair noted a quorum of seven members was present (Chris Carey, :friary Brugliera, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Betsy Hohman, Emily Guthrie, and Susan Rundle) and called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. PRESERVATION ISSUES Proposed amendments to the Preservation Ordinance The Commission discussed the draft of their response to City Council regarding amendments to the Preservation Ordinance. The amendments include: forty five (45) days after receivine a completed nomination the Commission must begin the public hearing. Then there is 60 days with the evidentiary portion of the public hearing. Request for extension must be made prior to expiration of the initial 60 days. One extension may be granted by the Council. The Commission has 35 days following the close of the evidentiary portion to make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioners noted 60 days seemed tight and it will require the Commission to meet more often in a shoner period of time. The Commission emphasized that nominations for landmark designation or planned developments affecting landmarks or historic district properties tend to take a long time due to public participation and changes that occur during the planned development process. Sixty days limit will force the Commission to be more concise during the public meetings and public hearings. The Commission discussed the possibility of conducting a preliminary meeting with landmark nominators. and property owners to explain the rules and the nomination review process. This may need a mandatory meeting with nominators and owners with the Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. This meeting may be scheduled 30 days prior to delivery of nomination with applicant and owner for landmark nomination or in the B-amton Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED November 15. 2005 —Minutes Pace 2 case of a planned development, a meeting with the owner. "Thirty days prior to delivery of nomination applicant must notify Presenvation Coordinator of impending nomination. A meetinu with the Commission. the applicant and owners will be scheduled." Carlos Ruiz said November 29, 2005 is the meeting with P&D; the Commission may request a subcommittee of P&D to work with the Commission. Mr. Ruiz also said there has been some mentioned of having joint meetings with the Preservation Commission and the — Plan Commission in respect to planned developments. The Commission planned their presentation to P&D; having Mr. Carey introducing the Commission's position. Susan Rundle and Thomas Prairie could talk about the time line. For example, there was a tremendous amount of public comment on the Georgian, and there was a tremendous lack of detail that the Commission needed for the Kendall project. The developer of 131.1 Ridge had a series of delay before the Commission made a decision. Also, the meetings are set now as trials "Klacren decision rules" the citizens were asking questions to the applicant at the Plan Commission meetings. Chris Carey will comment of the timeline elements that have caused delays. Other projects such as Three Crowns tool: long at the Plan Commission. Carlos Ruiz said the Commission recommended the planned development for Three Crowns and the applicant agreed to come back in front of the Commission for the materials. However, the plans have evolved. In the case of Kendall, the Council has decided that it will not go back to the Preservation Commission. The Commission decided that P&D should receive the Commission's executivc summary ahead of time for the P&:D meeting. The executive summary will outline the Commission's position on the proposed changes on the timeline. Commission member will send Carlos Ruiz their written statements so that Mr. Ruiz will prepare the draft for the presentation. III. MINUTES The Commission tabled the approval of minutes of August 16, 2005 to review the content and new format until the next meeting. The Commission also held the approval of the October 26 minutes abstract (regarding the Homestead nomination to the National Register of Historic Places) until the next meeting. IV. COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTS None. V. OLD BUSINESS Ann Dienner said last night the Council approved the Homestead nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and authorized sending the Commission's favorable recommendation to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. The Council was concerned with what kind of an impact the Homestead nomination will have on the Mather. Regarding the nomination of2100 Ridge, the Council declined to endorse the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The Preservation Ordinance says the Council has to direct the Commission to report to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, which the Council did not do. Evawton Preservation Commission DRAFTNOT YET APPROVED November l:. 27VD5 -- Nfinutes Plue Council set a special hearing for the Iocal designation of the Civic Center, 2100 Ridge on January 17. 2006. The Commission re -scheduled its regular scheduled meeting from January 17 to Januan, 24. 2006 so they can attend the P&D meeting. V1. \EW BC;SENESS A. Review and Technical .-assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2407 Sheridan Road (Landmark) — Replace steel windovvs with aluminum windows on ►►est elevation only (Alteration) The applicant(s) were not present at this time. 2. 720 Colfax Street (C/NEHD) —Install fence on east and ivest side yard property line, modify flat roof section of Avest roof to gable, construct two -car garage, and demolish existing one -car garage [Alteration/Construction/Demolition) Tom Gemmel, owner said for safety reasons they want to enclose the back yard ►►-ith a 6' high fence on the east and west side yards. :also, demolish the current one -car garage and construct a new two -car garage with an entry from the cast alley. They would also like to create a gable on the flat roof section on the west side of the house. Stan Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1, _', 3, 5, 9, and 10 as applicable for the alteration of the roof. fir. Gemmel said the shingles will be the same shingles on the new garage with stucco finish, and same fascia. The project includes the removal of two windows and the installation of one new window with the same muntin style as the existing. Stan Gerson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 720 Colfax for the modification of the flat roof on the west, in doing so, two existing windows will be removed and a new window will be added on the west wall of the new gable, in that: 1 (minimal alteration is required), 2 (the character of the property and site are not destroyed), 3 (the alterations do not create an earlier appearance), 5 (stylistic features and skilled craftsmanship will be treated with sensitivity), 9 (contemporary design is not being proposed), and 10 (the gable could be removed without altering the integrity of the structure). Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for construction (three -car garage and 6' high fence on the cast to the southern end of the property) 1-5, 7-13, and 16 as applicable. Susan Rundle moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the garage and fence at 720 Colfax in that: 1 (the height of the garage is similar to the existing), 2 (proportion of front fagade), 3 (rhythm of openings), 4 (the rhythm of solids and voids), 5 (the spacing of structures on the street), 7 (the materials will match that of the house -- same with the fence), and 8 Evamton Preservation Commission DR-AFr 10T DIET APPROVED November IS. 200: Nfinu:rs Pace 4 (the roof shape) are all compatible to the structures to which they are visually related. also. 9 (the fence continues the wall of continuity). 10 (the scale of the structure as well of the front elevation are similar to other garages). 11 (the distinguishing original qualities of the property are not being destroyed), 13 (archaeological resources will be presmed), and 16 (is directive to the Commission). Stan Gerson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for demolition (garage) 1 -5 as applicable. its. Rundle moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the garage at 720 Colfax in that it meets: I (it is not significant and its demolition «•ill not be detrimental to the public), 2 (it does not contribute to the distinctive cultural, historical, architectural character of the district), 3 (its demolition is not contrary to the purpose of this chapter), 4 (it is not of an unusual or uncommon design), and 5 (plans for a new garage have been approved). Mary Bruuliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 23.30 Lincolnwood Drive (Landmark) — On first floor, replace wood door on the west elevation and double hung window on the south elevation [Alteration] Michael Grover, owner and Daniel Bagleman, architect presented plans for the replacement of a solid door with a new French style door (Marvin) with lights (west elevation) and a double hung window with a casement clad window with eight divided lights inside (south elevation). The new window will have wood brick mold. The window is not original and the door is in poor condition. The area of the 1928 house being remodeled was the original one -car garage that was never used. The same },ear a two car garage was built. This area is now for storage. What they would like to do is bring more natural light into the dining area. The new door would be aluminum clad and insulated glass with a screen door. The door and window openings will remain the same. Most of the existing windows are replacement windon•s. All of the rectangular windows are clad windows on the = south elevation. fir. BaLleman showed an alternate wood door. Emily Guthrie asked if the door could be restored. The Commission discussed the option of installing a new wood door with a panel pattern in the bottom that is mare in keeping with the original door and a clad window with wood brick mold. Betsy Hohman said R&TA recommends standards for alteration 1- 6, 9 and 10. Stan Gerson moved that a certificate of appropriateness be granted to 2340 Lincolnwood for replacement of the existing wooden door on the west elevation with a new wooden door with six divided lights and a panel at the bottom and a wooden screen. Also, replacement of the window on the south with an aluminum clad window with a wood brick mold in that: I (requires minimal alteration), 2 (qualities and character of the house are not being destroyed), 3 (the alterations are not of an earlier appearance), 4 (the changes that have taken place in the house have been recognized), 5 (stylistic features and old craftsmanship are to be treated with Evanston Preservation Co.._ .isston DRAff NOT YET APPROVED November 1-.2005 - %tiru—cs Page 5 sensitivity). 61the replacement of the doors and window do match the appearance of the house). 91the alto rtions are not contemporary design), and Ithese changes could be removed without altering of the house). ifs. Hohman seconded. The motion passed. Vote: " a,.-:=. 0 nays. 4. 2103 Orrington Avenue (C/. EIID) — Fasade restoration: new front porch with railings; replace Colonial style window replacements, reconfigure front bay window openings. ne-,• side porch (screened). rear stairs, and rear ba} window), and alterations to rear elevation. Proposed front porch requires a five foot (S') setback from the north property line. Proposed setback 3.25' lAlteration/Construction/T.oning '%'arianceJ Paul Janicki. architec: presented plans for the restoration of a Queen Anne style house. At one time the double hung windows were removed and replaced with unevenly matched double hung windo►vs %with muntin bars. A large concrete stoop is in front that presumably replaced a wooden front porch. The project will create a new wood porch similar to others in the neighborhood. A zoning variance is required because the house is only 3.25' from the side yard and because of the location of the front door which aligns with the rest of the house. There is a porch on the south side replicating the designs of the front porch with Tuscan columns and balusters; it is part an open screened porch and part a mudroom. On the cast elevation there is an addition with a bay and blue stone terrace. The base is all stone the middle window is being removed and a fixed window on the west elevation iszll be installed. The house is currently covered with aluminum _ siding that %will be removed to expose and restore the wood siding underneath. On the west elevation there are windows with the Roman arch. The base on the south elevation is clapboard siding because of the heated mudroom area. Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards for variance A and C as applicable (for the proposed 3.25' side yard setback). Betsy Hohman moved to recommend the zoning variance as meeting standards: A (it is appropriate for the conservation of the architecture and character of the district), and C (it is not detrimental to the public health and welfare). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission recommended to the applicant to consider appl,,ing to the Property Tax Assessment Freeze because the proposed work may qualify for the program. Stan Gerson said the alterations include: Removing all the aluminum siding and restoring underNing siding as necessary. On the west (front elevation) second floor: replace three double hung windows and a smaller window. On the east elevation: new window on the second, new bay with eight windows (transoms), relocating a door, remove the existing deck, and construct new stairs. Mr. Gerson said R&TA recommends standards far alteration 1-7, 9 and 10. Evanston Presmation Commission DRAFf NOT YET APPROVED November 15, 2005 — Minutes Page 6 `1r. Gerson moved to arant a certificate of appropriateness for the alteration listed above in that: 1 (the alterations are minimal), 2 (distinguishing original character of the structure will not be destroyed), 3 (the alterations do have a historical basis), 5 (example of skilled craftsmanship are treated ,-vith sensitivity), 7 (surface cleaning will be done with the gentlest means possible), 9 (no contemporary design is being proposed), and 10 (the alterations could be removed without impairing the essential form of the structure). Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes. 0 nays. Mr. Gerson said new construction includes: new covered front porch on the west and a new covered porch and partially enclosed on the south with stairs to the east. The bay on the east is also included since it requires new foundation. fir. Gerson said R&T?+ recommends standards for construction 1-8, and 10-16 as applicable. Ms. Hohman moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 2103 Orrington at it meets standards: I (the height),_' (proportion of the front fagade), 3 (proportion of openings), 4 (the rhythm of solids to voids, on the front fagade), 5 (the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street), 6 (rhythm of entrance porches), 7 (the relationship of materials and texture), S (roof shapes), I0 (the scale), and I 1 (directional expression of the front elevation) are all compatible and to the structures to which they are visually related. Also, 12 (the distinguishing original qualities of the structure are not being destroyed). 13 (archaeological resources will be preserved), 14 (contemporary design has not been discouraged), 15 (if the addition is removed, the essential form and intezrity of the structure will be unimpaired), and 16 (a single architectural style has not been imposed). Mary Brugliera seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 5. 1427 Judson Avenue (Landmark[LSHD) — Replacement of wood windows. Mr. Ruiz said this project will be administratively approved since the replacement of the wood windows will be in kind (custom made Marvin ultimate double hung with wood jams). VII. COMMENTS BY PL:BLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF Erika Storlie, City's webmaster said the City's home page has currently information on historic preservation with links to other preservation sites. She will like to include the minutes as,.veil. Commissioners suggested putting on line revolving pictures of landmarks. Ms. Storlie said that may require permission of the owner. Other suggestion included putting the power point of the Preservation Awards. Other suggestions included: including the standards for review of alteration, construction, relocation, and demolition, a link to the Preservation Ordinance, background information on the Commission and preservation in Evanston, applications on line, put an example of how to write an application, include the Comprehensive Plan preservation section, historic districts maps, walking tours, tax credits, and the list of Evanston landmarks Evuuton Presm-ation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Novcniber 15. _'005 — Minutes Pant 7 GIs. Storlie said the Commission could provide continually relevant information as needed. also compile a list of Dos and Don'ts. The Commission thanked his. Storlie for attending the meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discussed Stan Gerson moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:58 p.m. Susan Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted: Carlos D. Ruiz, Senior PIanner/Presetvation Coordinator Date: EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:30 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Carey, Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, Jordan Cramer and Susan Rundle MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Brugliera and Thomas Prairie OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Youngman, Ken Taylor, Dimitrios Criezis, Susan Criezis, Jim Torvik, Earl Weingarden, Rick Erikson, Alan Baxter, Chris Turley, Grant Davis, Meg Foster, David Portnoy. and Marie Golan PRESIDING: Chris Carey, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL TO ORDER/ QUORUM DECLARATION Chris Carey. Chair, called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m., a quorum of six members being present (Ann Dienner, Stanley Gerson, Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman, and Jordan Cramer). The seventh member arrived short after (Susan Rundle). Staff present: Carlos Ruiz. II. MINUTES Approval of minutes: August 16, 2005 Stan Gerson said regarding the final definition of front elevation of a garage: front elevation is the plane which faces the public way. He thought that the front elevation of a garage is the same as the front elevation of the house. He wanted consistency with the definition. Mr. Gerson suggested revisiting this issue at a later tune_ He moved to remove the final definition on page 2 and approve the August 16, 2005 minutes. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. October 26, 2005 (Abstract) Carlos Ruiz said the minutes do not include the public hearing portion of the meeting, because there is a transcript (regarding the nomination of 2100 Ridge Avenue for landmark designation]. Emily Guthrie moved approval of the October 26, 2005 minutes (abstract) with her corrections. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. COMM UNICATIONSIREPORTS Chris Carey said Jordan Cramer and he met with a consultant regarding the review of permits and the development process in Evanston. He thanked all the Commissioners who participated in the Planning and Development meeting regarding the time period for review of public hearings. This review development process was referred to the consultant. Evanston Presem2tion Commission December '_0. 200_ — 1linutes Page 2 IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (RBTA) Chris Carey announced that the Commission will review 2332 Bryant Avenue first. (Susan Runde arrived at this time) 1. 2332 Bryant Avenue (Landmark) a) Project: Construction of a hvo-car garage proposing 34.7°h tot coverage and 581% impervious surface (Zoning VariancelConstruction) b) Presentation by ownerlapplicant: Michael Youngman, architect and Ken Taylor, owner said they had developed a master plan for the house addition. The 20.5' x 20.5' two -car garage was the last phase of such a plan. The garage is at the back of the property over a concrete slab. Mr. Taylor said when they bought the house they rehabilitated the house and built an addition. The site plan was for the addition and the garage. The slab for the garage that was approved is 4' short. They are asking a minor zoning variation for the lot coverage which is under the 35rz. The impervious rule came into effect after the construction of the addition (2003). At the rear of the house the alley is lined up with other garages. The proposed garage in no way will impact the front elevation of the house. The materials for the garage are wood lap siding. The garage is visible from the alley and the golf course b) CommissionerslStaK Questions What is the material for the garage door? Answer: The door is insulated metal; it could be wood too. c) Commissioners/ Staff Comments 1. The Commission approved the addition in I M. The Impervious surface limit tame about In 2003. 2. The garage as originally proposed needed a zoning variance; it was not as of right to build the garage. 3. C. Carey: The Commission prefers wood garage doors on landmark buildings. d) Public Comments 1. Susan Criezis, architect: She reviewed the plans and the garage is about as the smallest one can get to accommodate two cars. The garage Is unobtrusive. 2. Dimitrios Criezis. architect (2029 Colfax): The proposed garage enhances the neighborhood and the historic property. The garage works well with the scale of the house. 3. Jim Torvik, architect: supported the construction of the garage. e) Review & Technical Assistance Report 1. Zoning variance for increasing the lot coverage to 34.7% and Impervious surface to 58%. The standards that apply are A and C. _ 2. The existing impervious surface is 56%. 3. The applicable standards for review of construction are 1-5, 7. 8. 10, 12, 13 and 16, Evanston Prmr%'ation Commission December 20. 2005 —Minutes Page 3 ij Commission's Findings J. Cramer moved to make a recommendation to approve the increase of lot coverage and Imperviacs surface as it meets standards A and C. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. S. Gerson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the garage at 2332 Bryant Avenue, in that the height, the proportion of the front facade, the proportion of openings, the rhythm of solids and voids in the front facades, the spacing of structures on the alley, ail are compatible with structures and objects to which is visually related. The materials, texture, and roof shape are compatible with the house. The distinguishing original qualities of the house are not going to be destroyed. The applicant will noti`}, the appropriate authorities about archaeological materials, if found. The Commission is not imposing a single architectural style. The motion includes that the garage door and the door on the east be wood. J. Cramer seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 2. 623 Judson Avenue (LSHD) a) Project Description: Proposed installation of an air conditioning unit within 2' of south property Brie, requiring zoning variance. b) Owner/Applicant Presentation: Bart Weingarden said he had signed letters of support from neighbors on either side of his property. c) Commissioners/Staff Questions Could the a'c be at the rear? Answer: The property was subdivided at some point; the rear yard is very small. There is an existing sound barrier with a fence on two sides, and a porch and shrubs. The air conditioning unit is not visible from the public way. d) Review & Technical Assistance Report The required side yard setback is 10'. The applicable standards are A and C. e) Commission's Findings - J. Cramer moved to recommend approval of the air conditioning unit because it is necessary In the interest of historic conservation and it is not materially detrimental to the public health and safety. S. Rundle seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 3. 2407 Sheridan Road (Landmark) a) Project Description: Replace steel windows with aluminum windows on west elevation. b) Owner/Applicant Presentation: Rick Erickson of Auburn Corporation, contractor, said Northwestem University (owner), wants to replace 16 steel casement windows because their poor condition such as rust and problems with the steel lintels over the windows. c) Commissioners/Staff Questions - On page 3 of 5, what is the diagonal grid? Answer: It is an insulated panel with no glass, the aluminum skin has an insulated foam core, and the a/c unit will be cut inside the panel. Out of the 12 openings, 10 openings have existing a/c units. They propose a/c units in all 12 windows. The proposed a/c units are on the lower right or in the top portion of the windows. Half of the top portion could be glass. They can get a/c units that fit in that half upper portion (20'x14' a/c units). Er-anston Preser-6-2tion Commission December 20. 200-4 — Minutes Page a d) Commissioners/ Staff Comments Concerns were expressed about: 1. The location of the windows a/c (lower better than upper to preserve the proportion of windows). 2. Restoration vs. replacement. 3. The materials proposed (aluminum vs. original steel) 4. The restoration of windows on landmark buildings is preferred. The aluminum replacement windows are less of a concern if the profile Is the same as the steel windows. e) Owner/Applicant Comments 1. Five a/c are proposed on the upper left, 5 are on the lower portions of the windows. 2. The manufacture has developed a product to simulate the old steel casement windows. A sample of the windows went to the First Presbyterian Church in Evanston, because they are contemplating the replacement of steel windows as well. 3. The proposed aluminum windows match the existing steel windows appearance ('/: , 318" sightline, jams, heads, and sill). 4. Photos of other. NU buildings showed the upper steel windows and the lower aluminum windows for comparison. 5. The problem with putting the a/c units below the window opening as suggested is that the radiant heating s)5tem is below the window sill. 6. Repairing the windows is unfortunately difficult due to the deteriorated state of the steel windows. f) Commission's Findings 1. The Commission does not object to the aluminum windows, although it would prefer the restoration of the steel windows. The issue is the location of the alc units on the upper level of the casement windows. 2. S. Gerson moved to defer the consideration of the request for certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the windows at 2407 Sheridan Road until the next regular scheduled meeting. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. 1426 Hinman Avenue (Landmark/LSHA) a) Project Description: Install 48" high x 120' long front yard fence. Fence variance required for the front yard. b) Owner/Applicant presentation: Alan Baxter, architect said he worked on the building during its restoration, They removed a 7' tall hedge that enclosed the: front yard of the property. His client has experienced vagrant activity in her front yard and the front porch. As a result she put up a temporary fence to discourage people from coming in. Also, her children migrate from the front yard to the adjacent driveway of the multi -tenant building to the north. c) Commissioners/Staff Questions About height of fence (S2" vs. 36'); material (vinyl vs. wrought iron); pattern and opacity of fence. d) Commissioners/ Staff Comments - Possible hedge and gate in lieu of fence. Consider another fence style with less height. The maximum allowed opacity is an issue of visual compatibility with surroundings. e) Owner/Applicant Questions Are the neighbors opposed to the fence or the vinyl material? Answer, A. Dienner said both. Evanston Preservation Commission December 20, 2005 —Minutes Page 5 f) OwnerlApplicant Comments 1. The 48* high fence is a decarat ve picket fence. The intention of the fence is to deter pedestrians from erAe!ing t~e property. 2. The landscape arcrrtect recommended against the hedge because it would ruin the sightline of the house. The o-rner dc--s not to create a barrier, but open up the front yard. 3. In regard to safety, Me axe Hers found someone sleeping on their front porch. g) Review & Technical Assistance Report R&TA recommended standards A and C for the fence variance. h) Commission's Findings A straw poll did not generate any support the proposed fence. Susan Rundle moved to continue the project to Janus-; 24, 2006. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 aye. 0 na fs. 0 abstentions. 5. 1319 Lake Street (LandmarkILSHD) a) Project Description: Demc� it;on of existing deck and construction of two one-story additions, pergola and wood deck to the rear of house - [Demolition/Construction) b) Owner/Applicant Presentation: Chris Turley, architect, said the project is primarily a deck and a small room a: the rear of the house. They plan to remove the existing addition and canopy that the previous ow-r,ers did and build a sitting area and a vestibule. The hot tub is In between the new additions. c) Commissioners/Staff Questions 1. What is the material for the additions? Answer: The stucco �011 be repaired and the additions will also be stucco. The pilasters are smaller scale than Imose existing. They will use the same configuration for windows. The pergola is wood 2. Is the lot coverage at or less than 30%? Is the impervious surface at 45% or less? Are the setbacks 5' or more from the s►de yard? Is the rear setback more than 30'. Is the garage setback more than 10' from the house? Answer: Yes to al; cuestions. d) Commissioners/ Staff Comments - The addition is one-story. The project proposed the use of the same materials; the windows are wood, with the same &4sions, same comers. e) Review & Technical Assistance Report 1. R&TA recommender the construction the standards to be considered are: 1, 3, 5, f, 7. B, 10, and 12 through 26. 2. All five of the standards apply for the demolition of the existing deck. f) Commission's Findings S. Rundle moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the two one- story additions at the rear of 1319 Lake Street and the new deck to be in between, because it meets the standards aforementioned: the height is the same as the existing addition. Proportion of openings, the rhrhm of spacing of the structure itself on the street, as Weil as the other projections match the house, as it does the material and texture, and roof shapes. The scale of the one-story additions is appropriate to the existing structure. The distinguishing original qualities of the house are not being destroyed. Any archaeological resources will be protected. The Commission did not discourage contemporary design. if the additions should be removed, the essential form and integrity of the structure will not be EV2nston Presen-ation Commission December 20, 2005 —Minutes Page 6 impaired. Jordan Cramer seconded the moton. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 4 nays, 0 abstentions. Jordan Cramer moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the existing deck at 1319 Lake because the deck is not of such historic or architectural significance. It does not contribute to the disf-rctive historic or architectural character of the District. The demc,''lon would not be contrary to the purpose of the Preservation Ordinance. It is not of such ur.,sual or uncommon design that could be reproduced if necessary, and there are plans the replacement of the structure. Betsy Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 6. 130 Dempster Street (LSHD) a) Project Description: Two story addition to the east elevation, one-story addition to the south elevation, alterations to the first story entrance and second story directly above on the north elevation [A"erationiConstruction] Carlos Ruiz said that the applicants for 130 Dempster requested to be rescheduled for the January 24, 2006 meeting 7. 1316 Judson Avenue (Landmarklt_SHD) a) Project Description: Removal of aluminum storm windows and replacement of 27 Windows [Alteration) b) Owner/Applicant Presentatlon: Meg Foster. owner, and Grant Davis, Sales Representative for Andersen Windov.-s said the replacement windows are Renewal by Andersen. The windows are made of Fibrex, co-nposite material made of wood fibers and vinyl. c) Commissioners/Staff Questions 1. Are the new windoves clad on the exterior? Answer: No. Fibrex is a material made fiber wood and polyvinyl material that Is extruded out It allows you to match the profiles of wood windows. 2. Are the windows to be painted? Answer: Yes. Andersen has standard colors such as white. The windows are maintenance free. The windows do not have to be painted. The inside could be with a fine veneer material as well. The windows will be white on the exterior. The house is also white with black trim. 3. What will happen if the owner decides to do something different about the windows? Answer: Both orvners agreed to coordinate the colors. The other owners were concerned, but the new windo-.%s will replicate the dimension of the existing windows. The three upper right windows with divided lights will be replicated. 4. Are the windows with simulated divided lights? Answer: The nee., windows are full divided licht; they have an aluminum spacer between the panes of glass and they have a permanently fixed grid on the exterior. The grids will almost be identical to thei• traditional classic muntin. There are only three windows with a grid pattern on the front of the house. There is only one original window, which still has the grid pattern. The owner wants to put back in the grid pattern to the other large windows because it is historically appropriate. 5. Is the process a sash replacement? Answer: They cafl it an insert window. They do not touch the brick mold or the trim on the exterior. The frame in the inside remains the same. The Fibrex windows extend into the pocket where weights and pulleys are located. 6. What happens if these windows break after installation? Evanston Preservation Commission December 20. 2005 — lflnutes Page 7 Answaf: That is a big part of their business proposition. There is a large vinyl replacement market. Andersen has come up with a product that is more appropriate and a process that they stand behind it. Each unit is a numbered that identifying its specifications. These windaws can be replaced on site. 7. Have these windows being used on other historic buildings? Answer. Yes. They have been successful with four projects in Oak Paris in the last fnre years. 8. Why replace the existing vrindows? Answer The windows rattle and are very drafty. The owners wear long underwear all the time because of that. They prefer the replacement windows because they think they will sOr a their problem. They are making an educated decision about the windows. The storms are old aluminum and they do not function very well. If they go with the restoration option, they witi have to have custom made storms. All the mechanics of the windows needs to be replaced. The casement windows are in good shape. Restoration contractors said that they could restore windows without completely stripping the paint. d) Commissioners/ Staff Comments 1, The Commission has seen Margin tint pack replacements windows in the past. 2. It is des*ra5:e to have windo,rrs that are the same for both residences. 3. Years ago, the Commission approved vinyl clad windows for a historic house, because of a similar st uation. The fact is that this is a two -fiat [double house). 4, The Commissioners may favor the restoration of the windows on the front facade and allow rep!acr_ ,ent of windows on the secondary and tertiary facade. That will take care of the neigh5o' s eoncems. e) OwnerlApplicant Comments 1. Trex uses recycled vinyl. Andersen does not. 2. The storm windows are thirty years old; they detract from the original look of the home. 3. The pockets around the windows cause part of the heat loss. 4. The ovrner vn!I not replicate the window on the second floor at the rear, but she would like to keep the dimensions of it. 5. The rear will look a lot better if they replace the windows. 6. They are sympathetic to the Preservation Commission's concerns about the windows. f) Commission's Findings J Cramer moved to continue the discussion of the project to no later than January 24, 2006. Also, get tr'se addresses of Evanston projects with the Renewal by Andersen windows instated, perhaps get more contractors, communicate with C. Ruiz and if possible come up to a decision before January 24, 2006. Ann Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. 8. 1560 Asbury Avenue (RHD) -- (Alteration/Construction) a) Project Description: Two-story addition to the east elevation b) OwnedApplicant Presentation: Golan David Portnoy, owner, and Mark Golan, architect, presented the plans for a two-story addition to the east of the house. The actual front of the house is not facing Asbury, but the private access to the south. The official front of the house faces Asbury. The project is for a new bathroom and basement. A current office will be a bedroom. A zoning variance is not required for the project. c) CommissionerslStaff Questions 1. What year was the house built? Answer. 1955 or a couple of years after. Evanston Preserl•ation Commission December 20, 2005 — Minutes Page 8 2. Is siding being used? Answer, Yes, they prefer the vertical siding, d) Commissioners/ Staff Comments With the addition the new east side will be more in line with the houses to the north of the property. e) Owner/Applicant Comments There is an enclave of three homes on the private access road. This house is the last of the three to be vrorked on. f) Review & Technical Assistance Report R&TA reported the standards of construction to be considered are 1 through B, and 10 through 16. The standards of alteration to be considered are 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10 for the replacement of two windows with a bay g) Commission's Findings A. Olenner moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness for a two-story addition with a basement all 560 Asbury Avenue because: the height, the front facade, the proportion of openings, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, entrance porches, materials and texture are compatible with the property, and roof shape are all visually compatible with the structure(s) to which they are visually related. The scale, will be visually compatible, directional expression of front facade will be compatible, distinguishing original qualities of the property will not be destroyed, every reasonable effort shall be made to protect archaeological resources, contemporary design is not being discouraged, the addition could be removed in the future, and the Commission is not imposing a single architectural style or period. B. Hohman seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions. J. Cramer moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for alterations: replacing two windows on the south side with a bay with three windows because: every reasonable effort is being made to adapt the property with minimal alteration, the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed, the structure is being recognized as the product of Its own time, the distinctive stylistic features and craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity, contemporary design is not being discouraged. and the alteralions could be removed in the future. A. Dienner seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 9. 1317 Judson Avenue (Landmark/LSHD) — Demolish existing two -car garage, construct new -car detached garage at rear (Construction/Demolition] The applicant did not show to the meeting. a. 2006 Preservation Commission Officers Election Committee Appointment of the 2006 Preservation Commission Officers Election Committee Election of Preservation Officers Emily Guthrie, Betsy Hohman and Susan Rundle were appointed to the Election Committee. C Ruiz said that it is also time to reappoint Associate members Mary McWilliams and Barbara Gardner. Anne Earte could be also appointed. EV2nston Preservation Commission December 20, 2005 — Nfinutes Page 9 VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF A. Meeting with Consultant C. Chris said J. Cramer, Larry Widemayer and the incoming chair of the Planning Commission met the consultant to talk about the development process. The following comments were made to the consultant: 1. The City is really under staffed. 2. Crossover of projects such as the Kendall College project: there is interest in having joint Preservation Cornmiss!on and Plan Commission meetings. 3. The number of scheduled meetings for the Plan Commission is 24 meetings per year. 4. The City Council has completely overturned the Plan Commission's recommendations on some important projects with no feedback, suc'i as the project on Maple Avenue. Also, there were citizens that felt the City Council made a decision ignoring their concerns. 5. There has to be checks and balances. There is a lot of pressure to develop the tax base. 6. They discussed the rues for public meetings based on recent case law. The new rules have created a hostile atmosphere during public hearings. 7. Volunteer work takes a long time and this effort does not appear to be appreciated. 8. Neighbors can get organized to arrive to a compromise with developers. A. Dienner has encouraged neighborhood groups to keep coming back to the City for other projects, not just their own. 9. The current planned development process seems to have opened the gate to controversial projects. The Dubin development on Chicago Avenue, the neighbors did not want a high building. Instead, the developer built the project as of right. B. items for future discussion 1. Front elevation of garages: S. Rundle said the front of the garage, if there is a portion that is visible from the street, then that is the front. If nothing could be seen from the street, then the alley side is the front. 2. Check list of application for certificate of appropriateness. Vll. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: l Carus D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Prese Coordinator