Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes 1995 - 1996
!r u 1r«i 4i r 46111 iw 6I�.1:4 I.N. did, .IWII r ,F Y EVANSTON PUSERVATION COMAWSION Tuesday, January 17,1995 8:00p.m. - Room 2403 ~Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue H' MBER PRESENT: Dark Cottier, George Haliik, James NE Knox, Richard Leh=. Doug Mohnke, Carol QuaIlanbush, Neil Sheehan, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: Gregory Nowesnick, Deborah Warner, Stephen Yas. OTHERS PRESENT: Frank Kassen, Elliot Dudnick, Lynette Stuhlmacher PRESEDING: Derek Cattier, 1994 Chair, Richard Leiner, 1995 Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Derek Cottier called the meeting to order at 8.00 p.m. 1W Carlos Ruiz introduced a newly appointed Commissioner, Mr. George Ha& H. COMhui t" REPORTS A. REVEEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COhEffr EE (R&TA) 2603 Sheridan Road - Coach House Windows Replacement and Advisory Review for the Replacement of Greenhouse Roof Mr. Elliot Dudwck, architect, and Mr. Frank Kassen representing the Cites Facilities Management Department presented to the Commission plans for the replacement of steel windows of the coach house located at 2603 Sheridan Road (an Evanston Landmark). Also, they asked the Commission for advice for the replacement of the corrugated fiberglass roof of the Greenhouse. Mr. Dudruck had previously shown to R&TA photographs of the existing steel sash casement windows of the coact: house. Mr. Kassen said that Mr. Dudnick was asked to match the windows style with new double -glazed, thera:ally-broken aluminum casement windows. R&TA mambas discussed with 11►ir. Dudnick mA Mr. Kas= some potential d Evanston Preservation Commission ;anuary 17, 1995 - Minutes Page z alternatives to retrofit the original windows. Mr. Dudnick said that the existing windows were deteriorated beyond the possibility of repair. lbir, Kassen added that the two leaded glass windows with diamond patterned lights would be replaced with similar windows. A series of slides were shown to the Commission depicting the corrugated deteriorating fiberglass roof of the greenhouse. Mr. Dudnick said that the budget for the roof replacement was limited. Mr. Richard Lehner suggested Mr. Dudnick consider what would be the best solution in the long run. He said that a metal roof with glazed skylights or a least desirable solution would be a corrugated metal bar aided and painted. Mr. Neil Sheehau concurred with Mr. Lehnees suggestions. Mr. Lehner moved to approve the proposed aluminum windows that would replace and match the design of the existing coach house steel windows. The two leaded glass windows with diamond patterned lights would be replaced with matching true leaded exterior windows with diamond patterned lights. The motion seconded by Mr. Will Van Dyke was approved 8 to 0. W. Kassen said in respect to the roof replacement of the greenhouse that Mr. Dudnick would look into the metal systems that would be appropriate for the greenhouse. When a selection is made Mr. Dudnick and he would submit their selection of roofing system to the Commission for review before the request for bids. IL ELECTION OF 1995 OFFICERS Mr. Cottier said previously the Commission had approved the nomination of W. Richard Lehner as Chair and Mr. Neil Sheehan as Vice -Chair for 1995 calendar year. W. Cottier moved that the Commission elect Mr. Lehner and Mr. Sheehan in their respective positions. The motion seconded by W. Van Dyke was approved 8 to 0. Mr. Cottier asked Mr. Lehner to preside over the meeting as the newly elected Chair of the Evanston Preservation Commission. W. Lehner said his first action as Chair would be to move for a vote of thanks from the Cornmi:sion to Mr. Cottier for his even handed and carefully considered stewardslip of the Pre trvation Commission in 1994, an excellent year for the Commission. The motion seconded by Mr. Douglas Mohnke, was approved 8 to 0. Mr, Cotner received a round of applause from his fellow Commissioners. -� � i ........_J �a�r�.rr•rrrraw:nLw7�h'inJrw�Vn�ixl nVaw�.e+ _ d ci JW I A 1.141 111Git I'll. ill i, Ai W WI k Ilk Ar, 111Wh11 Alta JIl.wI ■.✓L id W, .YAN., w..Al. ,ildi IMAI, Ii Afi „ iki lY, julli,� II .,,,, .NIA WiI W,. u,Yl !. < .�Y 4�4`iyrv' `s�.ti#„ . T�_• ♦ F.�Z�, �r�:. tea. t `rVa ���r _ . Evanston Preservation Commission Ja muary 17,1995 - bfinutes Page 3 III, APPROVAL OF hlD(UTFS A. Approval of I incites of December 20,1994 Mr. Lehrer moved to approved the Commission's minutes of December 20, 1994 as edited by Mar Carol Qualldnbush, Mr. James M. Knox, and W. Will Van Dyke. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved 8 to 0. B. Amendment to the Commission's minutes of September 20,1994. W. Ruiz said &b. Mary Spaeth, Public Information Coordinator for the Research Park, Inc. asked ]urn to review her statements made at the September 20, 1994, regarding the proposed demolition of 912-920 Clark Street. Mr. Ruiz said that he reviewed the tapes of the meeting and would like to request the Commission amend the minutes of September 20, 1994, page 9, last paragraph, third sentence to read: She recognized that the subject building would fill the need of any theater, because of the available spare However, she said when a developer comes forward andfinds out that it is going to take sir months to a year to go through appeal processes, why do it? Putting mixed uses ncd to BIRL is 40ffxult because of the idea of concentrating mseamkem If a research group comes in and says, ym we would like to put In a building, it's a question of location and what makes .sense in terms of pmxiA iV to the various uses Mr. Cottier moved to amend the September 20, 1994, Commission minutes as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Sheehan, was approved 8 to 0. IV. COM11gITTEE REPORTS (CONTINUATION) B. LANDMARK NOMINATION COMMTTTEE Alderman Joseph Kent's Cultural Landmarks Initiative (Update) Alderman Joseph Kent (5th Ward) had previously requested the Commission information regarding the designation of landmarks or historic districts because of cultural significance. Mr. Ruiz said he contacted Alderman Kent and informed him that the Commission would like to meet with him to learn more about his ideas. Alderman Kent agreed to work with the Commission. Ile will try to recruit volunteers from his Ward who can work with the Commission. Ms. Qualkinbush and Mr. Mohnke volunteered to be part of a Committee that will work with Alderman Kent for the nomination of Landmarks in the 5th Ward. Also Mr, Ruiz will contact Ms. Anne Farce, and Ms. Polly Hawkins Crocker, Associate Commission f r -.- . � ....�1. ° � ��-- ,., r ���,r � ;a. , ��� w £'fir-r.i�=r; �;�E,-��Mr'�". - _ - - - � , „ —i ,- •a H , .*�6�' +- i Evanston Preservation Commission Januiuy I7, 1995-Mnutes Page 4 members asking for thou assistance, W. Ruiz said the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, is concentrating its planning efforts on community based phuining. This project could be an opportunity to integrate historic pms rvxtion into community based planning. V. NEW BUSINESS W. Ruiz said Mr. Dennis Marino, Assistant Director for Planning was not feeling well late in the afternoon and he apologized for not being able to meet with the Commission tonight. Mr. Marino will try to meet with the Commission at their next meeting in February 1995. -1995 Evanston Preservation Commission Committees Mr. Ruiz distributed the description of the following Committees; Research and Evaluation, Public Education, Liaison, Review and Technical Assistance, and Other Duties, Responsibilities, and Activities (includes legislation). He suggested that each Commissioner my serve: in two Committees. Because of the binding Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Liaison Committee has taken an important rote for the Commission. Mr. Cottier, Mr. Knox and Mr. Sheehan asked to be in the Lamson Committee. Mr. Cottier and Mr. Knox offered to serve in the Legislation Committee. Mr. Lehner asked about the Historic Evanston Architcaure-Scif Guided Walking Tour booklet. Mr. Ruiz said that the Public Education Committee could be in charge in marketing this publication. The booklet is available through the City Clerks office and the Planning Division office. Mr. Van Dyke said the Barnes and Noble bookstore will probably be interested in selling the book. Also, reel state businesses may be interested. VL STAFF REPORT A. 425 Dempster Street Mr. Ruiz said that the City Manager's office through the Facilities Management Department requested information regarding 425 Dempster Street (Chiaravalle Montessori School). 425 Dempster was designed by Daniel H. Burnham & Company in 1910. Mr. Ruiz said that the bQ- ding was not designated as an Evanston Landmark, however it was listed as a contributing structure to the Lakeshore Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places. The building is ovmed by the City of Evanston. No further information was available as to the purpose of the inquiry. Mr. Van Dyke said that the lease contract between the City and the Montessori School will be; expiring soon. - .r _ _ S ..r..r-' .;7` c;,!.;�_:i a-•}.« :'rt svf��i..�.+c.•r,ifc" •{� Y. A Evanston Preservation Commission January 17, 1995 - Minutes Page 5 W. Lehner said that if future redevelopment of the site is being contemplated that a good example to that effect is the redevelopment of Cove School, which has troth economic development and preservation btwfits as a planned development. h4r. Cottier said that it would be prudent for the Commission to lean more about future plans for the site. Tho Commission asked Mr. Ruiz to research more information about the building and its architect. B. Application Forma for Certificates of Appropriateness Mr. Ruiz referred to a prototype application form for Certificates of Appropriateness. He said that the form was developed with the assistance of Mr. Gregory Nowesnick. Mr. Ruiz said that the application form was designed around the provisions and standards for Certificate of Appropriateness contained in the Ifistoric Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Cottier suggested that the standards that appear hi the form should be verbatim to the standards in the ordinance. There should be one box for recommendations next to the standards column. Mr. Sheehan suggested also to remove the Yes/No boxes. Mr. Lehner said that a box for comments and below on the same column a box for recommendations will crake the form more efficient. VIL OLD BUSIlyESS 912-918 Clark Street - Proposed Demolition (Update) Mr. Cottier informed the Commission that in a few days the Chicago Tribune will publish an article about the proposal demolition of 912-918 Clark Street. He was interviewed by Mr. Brian Cox, a free lance writer. Ms. Qualkinbush asked the status of Northlight Theater. Mr. Knox said that Northwestern University has offered Northiight space on campus. Ms. Qualldnbush said that she talked to Mr. Stuart Handler, an Evanston resident, who is a developer. She asked him about tearing down the subject budding. W. Handler told her that removing the building at this time would be ludicrous. Ms. Qualldnbush said she will ask Mr. Handler to contact Alderman Stephen Englemen so he could share Els ideas with Alderman Englemen. Mr. Cottier asked if anything came out of the idea of moving the building, Mr. Ruiz said he did not bear anything new in that regard. Mr. Ruiz said that the continuation of the public hearing was scheduled for Monday, February 6, 1995. However, a public hearing for the City Budget was scheduled the same night at 7:30 p.m. He said he will notify the Commission with more certainty when the public hearing for 912-918 Clark Street will �)��., 1,•rr. �,�'-,"�,r. sy''�.SIFtt j ��,C��x". •-. _ . '1_.--- r t, 't =- -. - �- -- -�--:- _ - - - .. - .: - _ - _ - _-.-..--- ,: .n r� r-�A�T.-.,r�-r�n-n--.m•--..�. ' � jrR�•`r dr � � ~f��-= il (ru}' Evanston Preservation Commiasion JAMWy 17, 1995 - Minutes Page 6 Mr. Ruiz said the amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance regarding Cerfif"icates of Special merit was approved by the City Council on December 12,1994. Tins amendment incorgomtes a *Development Plan" as a requirement for the imume of a Ca ficame of Special Merit. Ms. Qualkdnbush said that with that amendment it means that the City Council could technically approve the Certificate of Special Merit for the demolition of 912-918 Claris Street. The Commission discussed the importance of continuing to represent the landmark Wilding well and professionally. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission has an obligation to represent the landmark. He said the Commission had already done that effectively. The Preservation League of Evanston (a citizen's organization) and Northlight Theater had aided the Commission in doing that. Mr. Lehner said that the question was what kind of tenor would the Commission adopt if the Commission would have to appear in front of P&D or the City Council. lvir. Lehner said that the Commission would have the opportunity to reiterate its position by stating that there is no need to argue about the landmark status of the building, because the Commission had already established the merits of the landmark building. Instead, the Commission could ask what the reasons are to tear the building down. If the answer is that the land is needed for future development, Own lets look at history. The Commission may ask where is the building that was supposed to go on the Buttler building site? How many parcels are available now for development in the Research Park? Why is this parcel critical for the Parkes development right now (when a resent report suggests reducing the size of the Park)? Ms. Quaikinbush slid that those were strong arguments in favor of preserving the landmark building. Mr. Lehner said the most important task was to study the information that was distributed by the Research park, so the Commission would be able to respond appropriately. Ms. Aisne Earle an associate member of the Commission and historian will be studying that information. Mr. Cottier said that it was specially important that the Commission submits the arguments expressed by Mr. Lehner to the City Council if Northlight Theater decides to not pursue its desire to occupy the building. V11L ANNOUNCENMM Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission's meeting is Tuesday, February 21,1995, at 8:00 p.m., in Room 2403 of the Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. IDL ADJOURNMENT Mr. Knox moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. The motion seconded by Mr. Lehner was approved unanimously. STAFF: .f�gm EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tues ny, February 21,199S 8:00 p.m. - Room UO3 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Derek Cottier, George Halite, James M. Knox, Doug Mohnke, C %ory Nowesnick, Neil Sheehan. MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Lehner, Carol Quaff Will Van Dyke, Deborah Warner. Stephen Yas. OTHERS PRESENT: Todd Powers, Mary Koberstein - Pat Cogley-Anhalt, Dennis Anhalt, Ron Flecla=n, Chris Thomas - Debbie Gallery - Lynette Stuhlmacher PRESIDING: Neil Sheehan, Vice-Cha'v, and Derek Cattier STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERNONATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Neil Sheehan called the meeting to order at 9:00 p.m, M COM us sr r. REPORTS A. REVIEW AND ITC MCAL ASSISTANCE COINIII+III M (R&TA) 1. 1700 Sherman Avenue - Display Window Conversion Into a New Entrance Door Mr. Todd Powers, architect, and W. Mary Kob«stein, attorney, representing the Saint Louis Bread Company presented to the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) a proposed display window conversion into a new entrance door at 1700 Sherman Avenue, an Evanston Landmark. Mr, Neil Sheehan said that R&TA's recommendation to the Commission was to approve the project with the following amendments: (a) provide a recessed door with more wensive finishing in the vestibule area, (b) match the exterior stone base and carry it to the inside of the vestibule, (c) leave the ornamental metal Same of the existing display window and install a filler painted to match the meal frame, and (d) finish the vestibule with dark color the flooring. Mr. �R M ' ! Mi n �! 7WIM, TV �r- ! ., tin r•i �iA��''v"4•`� �, Evanston Prcurvation Commission February 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 She&han moved to approve R&TA's recommendation. The nation seconded by Mr. Douglas Mohvke was approved. Vote: 6 aye, 0 nay. 13 L APPROVAL OF 1VIINUTES Mr. Derek Cottier moved approval of the January 17, 1995 Preservation Commission minutes as submitted. The motion seconded by M. Mohnke was approved. Vote: 6 aye, 0 nay. II. COM WTME REPORTS (CONTINUATION) A. REVIEW AND TEC 1NICAL ASSISTANCE COMMMIEE (R&TA) 2. 1710 Wesley Avenue - Rcsubdivision, Side Porch Demolition and Construction of Two New Houses h4r. Ron Fleckman of Cyrus Development Group, Chris Thomas, architect, Pat Cogley- Anha% Dennis Anhalt, and Debbie Gallery, presented to R&TA a proposed resubdivision, a side porch demolition, and the construction of two new houses at 1710 Wesley Avenue, an Evanston Landmark. For the resubdivision, Mr. Mohnke referred to the Ifistoric Preservation Ordinance, Section 2-9-12: Review of Applications for Subdivision, Resubdivision or Consolidation and read: (H) The Commission shall review the application for subdivision, resubdivision or consolidation baser 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, struchn-,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 y (c) Not result in blocking or otherwise obstructing, as viewed from a public street or nublic 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 ery ' associated with the Landmark, or area, property, structure, sure, site or object in the District; and ,,Kvl— Evanston Pres=ltion Comm'rsalon February 21,1995 - Nnutes Page 3 (a) Not adversely affect traffic patterns, municipal services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District. M. Mohnke said that R&TA found that the proposed subdivision was compatible with what was happening on the street block. The block is typically divided in fifty foot lots with single family houses. With respect to the south side porch demolition, Mr. Mohnke said R&TA could not determine whether the porch was original to the Landmark house or was a later addition. R&TA recommended that the porch could be demolished contingent on the permits being issued for the two new houses at either end of the Landmark. The two new houses will act as almost book ends. Many similar details would be picked out of the Landmark and brought to the new houses. R&TA recommended that in both houses the eaves be extended along all four sides of the houses to more closely relate to the existing house. Mr. Mohnke said that an early picture of the Landmark shows a balustrade above the porch, which it had been removed. R&TA recommended that picking up that detail in the two new houses would be appropriate. If the Landmark!$ balustrade was not rebuilt, R&TA recommended that the balustrades not be added to the new two houses to preserve a uniform streetscape. W. Sheehan asked if there were currzntl., three lots and whether the resubdivision would be changing the location of the side lot lines. W. Fleckman said that they were three lots, seed that they► were changing the lot line between the two southern lots. 1V&. Cottier asked if the porch is removed, whether the treatment of the side of the Landmark would be treated to blend in into the existing house. Mr. Fleckman said that at that location there are two leaded glass windows that will remain. Mr. Cottier said the plat of the existing house shows a framed garage in what is shown as lot 3. He asked if the garage would remain, or it would be demolished. Mr. Thomas said that the existing garage will remain in the southem most lot. Mr. Carlos Ruiz added that it was a contemporary garage. Mr. Greg Nowesnick moved that the Commission recommended the resubdivision of the two southern most lots (lots 2 and 3) as presented. The motion seconded by W. Sheehan was approved. Vote: 6 aye, 0 nay. Mr. Sheehan moved that the Commission approve the request for demolition of the south side porch, with the review and approval of the remedial work to be approved by staff. Approval was contingent to the issuance of the building permit for the new house on lot 3. The motion seconded my W. James A Knox was approved. Vote 6 aye, 0 nzy. .;: i... .. •r. . -.� nxn ire .i; -, -� � .^��',:-y. ,• - -• -;n� sir �,�'•,o-,rt-hra—��-,.T,�,� �no."*�,Y �nrr.•—,r Tr�y,^v��y�,-•1' „ -#r .�-..`x-w-�n'^Y-1•�,r` 4; e.� ��- Il f . � r Y .1• . 4 ;1r �.•^ iy�$8'',�Yi•Y'��'�f��((i ,.�Y.+�),';•i Evanston Presmation ComrillWon February 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 4 Mr. Sheehan add that final design drawings for the two new houses will be review by the Commission when available. Mr. Nowesnick clarified that the Commission does not warn to wait until all construction drawings ere clone, bemuse if there is any suggestions made far change, the Comn&sion would like to be sympathetic to the time firma of the architect. Tile applicants can come bask to the Commission when they feel comfortable with the exterior dessign of the buildings for final review. W. Shahan had to leave the meeting at this time, He asked Mr. Cottier to chair the rernsining of the meeting. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 912-918 Clark Street - Application for Certificate of Special Merit for Demolition (Update) Mr, Ruiz said that the Planning and Development Committee's (P&D) public hearing for the Certificate of Special Merit for demolition of 912-918 Clark Street, an Evanston Landmark, was continued Monday, February b, 1995. A motion by Alderman Arthur Newman denying the Certificate of Special Merit did not pass with a 2 to 2 vote. P&D instructed the Corporation Counsel to draft for City CouncWs consideration a resolution with fuxiings of fact denying the Certificate of Special Merit. The resolution will be c 'dered by City Council Monday, February 27, 1995. Northlight Theater is still interested in occupying the facility as their permanent home. Mr. WYdbert R. Hasbrouck, a prominent Chicago architect and preservationist, testified on behalf of the Preservation League of Evanston that both the Landmark building and Hamm Van Holst, its architect, were architecturally and historically important. Since P&D did not produce any recommendation for City Council, Mr. Cottier asked what it was that P&D asked Corporation Counsel to do. Mr. Ruiz said that he had asked to Ms. Ellen Szymanski, Assistant Corporation Counsel, the same question. Ms. Szymanski told him that the resolution will contain findings of fact for denial of the Certificate of Special Merit. B. 1995 Preservation Commission Retreat (Update) As background information, Mr. Ruiz said that Friday, February 10, 1995, Mr. Richard Lehner, Chair of the Preservation Commission and Mr. David Galloway, Associate member and he, met with Mr. Dennis Marino, Assistant Director for Planning. This was the first time that Mr. Lehner and Mr. Galloway had the opportunity to meet Mr. Marino who recently assumed his new position with the Comnumity Development Depart. Mr. Lehner and Mr. Galloway were interested in obtaining some feedhck from Mr. Evanston Preservation Commission February 21, 1995-11+finutes Page 5 Marino in harms of the Commission's role and actions in regard to 912-91 S Clark Street and the Commission's other future preservation goals and objectives. Mr. Ruiz raid that the meeting was very positive;, Mr. Marino said that the Commission had appropriately handled the 912-918 Clark Street case. The discussion was also about the recent ranking of City services. Preservation was ranked 80 out of 111 identified City services. The Commission's retreat would be important to put together a preservation plan for the 1995-96 Sscal year. One important project for the Commission would be the production of a triennial greservaaion report. The Commission would present the triennial report to various City Boards and Committees, the Planning and Development Committee in particular and finally the City Council. Mr. Marino suggested that effective communication with City officials and the public is important for any Commission. C Alderman Joseph Kent's landmarks Nomination Initiative Mr. Ruiz said Ms. Carol Qualkinbush, Mr. Douglas Mohnke, Ms. Anne Earle, and Ms. = Polly Hawkins Crocker volunteered for becoming members of an ad hoc Committee that Will work with Alderman Joseph Kent with his Landmarks nomination initiative within Ward Five. This committee will probably identify cultural, historical and architectural resources available in Ward Five. Also, this Committee could prepare nominations for Landmark designations. As a starting point for this project, Mr. Bradford %N%te of Clarion Associates, Inc. sent information to Alderman Kent about conservation districts. The concept of conservation districts users preservation initiatives in communities or neighborhoods that need economic development. 3 D. 425 Dempster Street, Chiaravalle Montessori School Mr. Cottier asked if there was new information about 425 Dempster Street. Mr. Ruiz said he had very little information. Chiaravalle Montessori School occupies 425 Dempster Street. The property is withun the boundaries of the Lakeshore Ifistoric District and its owned by the City of Evanston. Apparently negotiations to renew the lease with Montessori School are under way with the City. Mr. George; Halik said that one issue being discussed is the maintenance and repair of the property. . WIJ I.9IW. 13'. . .Kd'XM IMI..k i r ... I . •....'1i Evanston Preservation Commission Feim ary 21, 1395 - Minutes Page 6 V. NEW BUSENESS • ISO Block of Sherman Avenue - Street Lighting Mr. Frank Wheby, the owner of 1530 Sherman Avenue, wrote a letter to M. David Barber, PubGe Works Director, Mr. Wheby suggested that tM street lighting treatment of downtown Evanston should be extended to the ISM Block of Sherman Avenue. Mr. Ruiz said that he received a copy of a letter from Und Design Collaborative to Mr. Barbel and M. Terry Jenkins of Evmw1L The late: recommended not to add Tallmadge fixtures north of Elgin Road nor adding knuckles or sidewalk and curb projections. M. Wheby contacted M. Ruiz before this Commission meeting and withdrew his request. VL ANNOUNCEMIENTS M. Cottier announced that the next Commission meeting wan scheduled Tuesday, March 21, 1995, in Room 2403, Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Minois. VIL ADJOURNMENT Mr. Knox moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion seconded by 14r. Cottier was approved mac* STAFF: w DATE: r. AL�R5 `-"� '-�,- - >'€� ��,� v� ; rt�.�-•�-��t.�.� ..r ,� �.i.,c�:?S � _ai ERR+.-.- ...-..;`y,•...� ���r..-.i�_.,._.,.,�.r+r - �"'+"r"" -. r - ., +.-"y.� n`....�..""*'..`",,...`�,-'i,'-f'�#-r'-x....r_..-- - .r�« �f h[int •s+ - n EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, March 21,1995 9:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Richard Lehner, Doug Mohnke, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesniek, Carol Qualkinbush, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: Derck Cotner, George Halik, Janes M. Knox, Neil Sheehan, Deborah Warner. OTHERS PRESENT: Clayton: Weaver (METRA), Wayne Swafford (Teng & Associates); Joe Motto, Jim Melton, Charles Haungartner, Ron Fleckman, Chris Thomas; Lynette Stuhlmacher; Alderman Joseph Kent (Ward Five), Anne Earle, Mary McWilliams. PRESIDING: Richard Lehncr, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Immediately following the Review and Technical Assistance Committee session, and with a quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. 11L INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMNIISSION MEMBER Mr. Lehner wcicomed Ms. Mary Mumbrue as a newly appointed preservation Commissioner. Ms. Mumbrue, is a school teacher with 29 years of experience and an Evanston resident for 30 years. Mr. Lehner also acknowledged the presence of two Associate members, Ms. Anne Earle and Ms. Mary McWilliams. y Evanston Preservation Commission March 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 JIL COMMITTEE REPORTS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1323 Ashland Avenue - Exterior Alteration Without a Building Permit Mr. Carlos Ruiz said that on March 16, 1995, he received an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the siding with vinyl of 1323 Ashland Avenue (an Evanston Landmark built in 1896). The same day, Mr. Ruiz learned from Mr. Charles Baungartner, the owner of the building, that the siding of the building was already in progress and that almost all windows had been replaced with vinyl windows. Mr. Baungartner said that he understood that the contractor had obtained the building permit to do the job. Mr. Ruiz later confirmed with the City's Building Division that no building permit had been issued. Mr. Ruiz advised Mr. Baungartner to stop all work immediately until the proper applications are reviewed and approved by the City. The following day, Mr. Ruiz went to the site and found that the east and south elevations were already sided, and almost all windows had been replaced with vinyl windows. He was told by the contractor that they were unaware of the Landmark status of the building. The contractor believed that the permit would have been issued with no delay. Mr. Tim Melton, representing the contractor, said that the windows were replaced with vinyl windows in the same double hung style. Mr. Gregory Nowesnick said that he went by the site, and found the home without question is in need of maintenance. He said that he was not a proponent of vinyl siding, but at this stage the vinyl siding is a cosmetic material, it is covering up the siding underneath. He explained that sometimes vinyl siding may preserve what it is there or continue rotting the original material. The vinyl siding is up, he said, it is a definite improvement from a quick glance from what the existing siding is right now. Mr. Nowesnick said the 5 inch weather exposure of the vinyl siding is not appropriate versus the 3 inch weather exposure of the original. He added that the work done to date is not a drastic departure, the issue is vinyl versus wood siding. I Mr. Baungartner said that he was cited by the City to bring his building up to code. He mentioned that because of his poor eye sight condition he needed to have a free maintenance building. He said that he lived in the house since 1922. He maintained the building all these years but he can no longer continue doing that. Mr. Joe Motto, also representing the contractor, said that his company does not do structural work, but the installation of vinyl siding. He said usually when they submit an application for a building permit, the permit is issue immediately. This was their first Landmark building and the crews on the site started the work without a pennit. ANN Evanston Preservation Commission March 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 Slides of the house were shown to the Commission. Mr. Will Van Dyke asked what would happen to the decorative shingles at the gable. Mr. Motto said that normally they would be covered with vinyl the same as the rest, but they could try to keep the same look. Mr. Douglas Mohnke asked Mr. Ruiz what the Commission's options were from the legal stand point. Mr, Ruiz referred to Section 2-9-15 : Penalties (A) Pules for violation, (B) Penalty for willful violation, (C) Other remedies, and Section 2-9-16: Severability. Mr. Van Dyke said that it was clear that the Commission did not have the opportunity to be involved in the process, he said that it would be a bad precedent for the Commission to accept the project just because it was in progress. Ms. Mary Mumbrue said that she could not understand how the contractor could not know that they should not start a project without a permit, because that is the first thing the City will notify an applicant who seeks a building permit. Mr. Melton said that what happened was that they submitted the application for building pernrit, at the same time the crew started the work. What they did not know was that Mr. Baungartner had a historical home. Mr. Lehner said that they would have learned about it at the time the application was submitted to the City. Mr. Melton said that they will do whatever is necessary to remedy their mistake. Mr. Melton said that they could take care of one of the Commission's concerns and keep the siding with 3 inch weather exposure. He believed that would keep the clapboard look of the house. Regarding the gable area Mr. Melton said that there was no reason why they would not be able to keep the same type of look. Mr. Lehner asked if they could leave the existing material as is. Mr. Melton said if they do that, the gable area would need to be painted. Mr. Baungartner said that he would not be able to paint or maintain the gable. Mr. Lehner asked if the contractor intended to replace the beaded board when they do the soffits, and maintain the detail of the fascia board around the lower perimeter. Mr. Motto said he was not sure what can be done with the soffits. Mr. Melton said they could retain other details as much as possible. Further discussion ensued regarding the best possible way to retain the architectural features such as the gable and fascia board. Mr. Mohnke asked if all the additional cost for modifications would be taken care of by the contractor. Mr. Melton said yes. Mr. Nowesnick moved to replace the existing vinyl to the 3 inch exposure, try to maintain as much of the wood detail as possible, and use accent type of siding at the gable. The motion seconded by Mr. Van Dyke was approved. Vote: 6 aye, 0 nay. Mr. Lehner acknowledged the presence of Alderman Joseph Kent and moved the agenda to Old Business. Evanston ]Preservation Commission March 21, 1995 - Minutes Page A IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Alderman Joseph Kent's Landmark Nomination Initiative Mr. Ruiz said that over a year ago when the Commission was in the process of reda the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Alderman Joseph Kent had expressed his intere identifying additional sections of Evanston as historic districts, as well as historic or architoctural landmark buildings and sites (under the criteria of cultural significance) Commission on many occasions had discussed similar potential nominations. Aldenr Kent contacted Mr. Ruies office and asked to meet with the Commission to discuss ideas regarding this issue. Alderman Kent said that he felt strongly about an idea he believes needs to happen h Evanston. He said that Evanston residents and elected officials proudly talk about Evanston's diversity, but when he looks at his community and still finds segregating housing patterns, or groups of races of people that sail] are seemingly congregating in certain section of Evanston, it brings to his attention that there could be a whole different type of enrichment. He said it does not mean that something bad is happening in the community, but what it means is that there are false perceptions going on. Some of those false perceptions had lead him to constantly ask himself what can he do to bring more pride into his community, what can he do to stabilize the housing in his community, what can he do to hang on to the fifth Ward community that he grew up in, which he sees so rapidly changing. All these questions had lead him to the Preservation Commission. Some of the good examples mentioned by Alderman Kent no longer exist, including the Community Hospital, which played a major role in the community. He said that in his opinion the Community Hospital was stolen from the community. The enrichment that could have gone on if the Community Hospital was still available, could have nourished the Over the Rainbow Association. Alderman Kent said that now there is a question of trust, or why you are even there, even anger among some residents about what is happening in that particular building. It is true that the building was vacant for a long time, but he asked himself what would the relationship be like if the Over the Rainbow Association came in and play up the history of that particular site to the African American Community. All of this it leads him to a position where if we the community are not very concerned with what happens, then what we actually do is start destroying the fabric of the community we have. Before the house section of the Community Hospital was demolished, he had the opportunity to walk through there. The building was already stripped down, many people salvage what they could. He happened to wonder across a few names, He said it was fascinating because some of the names he picked out were I. •YAW u,r u111. 11, i� i, .Irk lu W � .. J•„i �. . �. .. _ � L � , Evanston Preservation Commission March 21, 1395 - Minutes Page 5 contributors. They contributed five dollars here and five dollars there. If the names of some of the people that were the very first contributors to the hospital, how their families now (which many of them still live there) could have been played up, it would have been excited them to know that they were part of something. Alderman Kent mentioned the Butler building as another example. These are buildings in which he had seen his community go out there and say how much they wanted to save them. The City Council for some reason or another, did not grant them the opportunity to allow a particular building to stay. Alderman Kent said that on Wesley Avenue, from Foster Street to Emerson Street, many of the houses on Wesley Avenue that once were owned by just hard working everyday y families have now been purchased by one individual. This gentleman owns practically the entire block. What does that mean?. Alderman Kent said that means that he is seeing a lot of siding going up, a lot of structures changed, from houses that were one family houses = to multi -family houses. It almost becomes like a racket instead of a neighborhood type issue. Alderman Kent said he did not tlunk that activity cleans up the neighborhood. What it does is displace people, he said, He thinks that it changes the character of the neighborhood. He said that he is aware that someone owning so much property on one street block is too much control in a community that was once a close community. Alderman Kent asked what would happen if Northwestern came across those eight houses or that particular block. Could they not demolish the whole block, could they not take 3 every house down :and put up dormitories. It that would happen, then we are talking about a major change of the neighborhood that is there, he said. Alderman Kent said that those were the type of issues that he wanted to address. He said that he was in front of 3 the Preservation Commission to make them aware of his concems that are definitely out there. Alderman Kent said that he is 28 years old and lived in his community all his life. With a three year old son, he does not plan to go anywhere. He plans to raise up his son in the same community he was raised up in. He plans to make the difference to the point where people are not pushed away, and stop changing houses around. Instead, he would Puce to keep what brought his community this far and what it has done for the families in the past. In his community there are traditionally frame houses, and that is wonderful, he said. Alderman Kent said he did not need a house with pillars or with five stories, what he needs is a house that is a home. He grew up in his community not seeing people moving in and moving out. He said that was a concern because that activity in itself has changed the very character of some of the neighborhoods. Three long time Evanston residents were contacted by Alderman Kent. These individuals were and continue to be very active in the different things going on in their community. He said it will be a total education experiam for everyone working with these indivi bdi. il{IY •..WIW W.. .r ALL Ik6 .1&NOW 1. �ln.. �u . IIM •W .W _ Evanston Preservation Commission March 21, 1995 - Minutes Page d As far as significant sites and locations (existing and non -existing), Alderman Kent mentioned Foster School, the Henry Butler building, the Community Hospital, and 1918 Asbury (the Evanston Sanitarium, at the time the only hospital on the North Shore to admit African -American patients or staff. That is the type of information the City of Evanston has been deprived o� he said. Alderman Kent feels that Evanston would be much more enriched if we open up events that have had a definite impact on where we are today. If we just could find something special from every area of Evanston, where people worked and made the difference, and give them back a little piece of Evanston, Alderman Kent wondered. Alderman Kent said that he feels that his community does not necessarily have a piece of Evanston. He watched things that are valuable for any community moved away. There is no Library branch in his community anymore, there is no school, there is no hospital. What he would like to do is salvage some of those things, even if they have been totally changed. He feels that we do have the responsibility to let people know that there wem great contributions from the African -American community right here in Evanston. So often we hear different perceptions that are going on in the African -American community, because we are constantly battling gang problems and drug problems, he said. However, since his active involvement in the community, he has seen progress. Melvin Smith, who published the first black newspaper in Evanston, and Pauline Williams, an activist, are two prominent African -American Evanstonians who Alderman, Kent would like to get involved with Preservation Commission in his preservation initiative. Ms. Carol Qualkinbush said that some of the problems that Alderman Kent had mentioned, could also be addressed by neighborhood planning and community based planning strategies in conjunction with preservation strategies. Discussion ensued regarding what was currently available through the Evanston Historical Society, such as oral history. or news paper articles. Mr. Lehner said that Alderman KenVs initiative was very exciting, and that there is a need in the community to pursue such initiative. He said that there maybe a need to broaden this initiative, he asked the Commission how could that be accomplished. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission has experience dealing with historical sites and buildings, but not with oral history, particularly since many resources are gone. Ms. McWilliams said that it is important one group gather oral histories, and artifacts. She said recording history is how we will learn how the community operated. The Preservation Commission could on the other hand conduct surveys, understanding what buildings are significant and why. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission could potentially nominate local historic districts or conservation districts. 7M }�';'nSf'-tee l.�;{t[;.i'L �.`�.;�''��+tiil iifi;••y #5�,, •i^� S, k�.� ,..4� C Evanston Preservation Commission March 21, 1995 - Mnutes Page 7 Mr. Nowesnick asked Alderman Kent if Churches in his ward were contacted spreading the news, asking for photographs of years past, or asking for relevant written documents. Alderman Kent said that there are seventeen Churches in his ward and one more coming in soon. What he found interesting is to learn where the alder Churches were started. Soma of them may have been started in a basement, after splitting from a larger Church and later these Churches branch out. The Commission agreed to form a Committee that would initiate the process of gathering information and eventually recommend to the Commission a course of action for eventual nomination of structures, sites, and/or districts. Ms. Carol Qualkinbush volunteered to serve as Chair of this Committee, other volunteers are Ms. Mary McWilliams, Ms. Anne Earle, and Mr. Douglas rAohnke. Alderman Joseph Kent and appointed residents of his Ward will also be members of the Committee, Mr. Carlos Ruiz will staff the Committee. The newly formed Committee agreed to meet as soon as the appropriate date and time is agreed among Committee members. Alderman Kent thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present his initiative. III. COM IIT E, E REPORTS (Continuation) A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL. ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 2. 1710 Wesley Avenue - Resubdivi,ion, Partial Demolition, New Construction Mr. Van Dyke said that R&TA reviewed final revised drawings submitted by Ron Fleckman and Chris Thomas, for two new two-story houses. One house is located immediately north of 1710 Wesley Avenue (an Evanston landmark), and the other house is located immediately south of 1710 Wesley Avenue. On February 21, 1995, the Commission had approved the resubdivison of the subject property and the demolition of a porch located on the south elevation of the Landmark. W. Nowesnick moved for approval of the plans as submitted, with the provision of scaling down the arched windows (east elevation) and increasing the divided light patterns. The motion seconded by Mr. Van Dyke was approved. Vote 6 aye, 0 nay. 3. Central Street Metra Station - Proposed Renovation Mr. Lehner said that R&TA, at the request of Metra, provided advisory review for the future renovation of the Central Street Station. He said that no action by the Commission was required. 1W Yi/il`I�h�•..W� y. •iW...Yw�_�_NLr,.:�L41i1-6.'=r6ibA,6 A,0—1W.,lYl.d ,.Am -a y ..)A ti•' rl,J. ''�+jr' 'CL .; "'E�t�� r'T.���4at, 5:,!' Evanston Preservation Commission March 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 8 IV. OLD BUSINESS (Continuation) B. 912-918 Clark Street - Proposed Demolition (Update) Mr. Lehner said that at their February 27, 1995, meeting, the City Council returned to the Planning and Development Committee (P&D) the Findings of Fact regarding the Application of Demolition of 912-918 Clark Street. The Findings of Fact were previously submitted by the Corporation Counsel's office to P&D. Also, at the request of one of the parties this item would return to the Councel's docket on March 27, 1995. At the P&D's meeting of March 20, 1995, Mr. Lehner as Chair of the Evanston Preservation Commission submitted to the Committee three issues. The first issue was that the Resolution prepared by the Corporation Counsel's office denying the Certificate of Special Merit was not clear. The Resolution was too even handed. Mr Lehner felt that P&D should adopt a clear Resolution for or against the demolition, and not list both sides of the case. The conclusion was that the recitation part of the Resolution which starts with "Whereas" (for the points made by the applicant), should be made prior to the Resolution. Secondly, he suggested that the Resolution be separated from Northlight Theater, on the basis that City Council should not be tying their hands to a specific adaptive reuse. Also, he submitted two items to P&D in the form of memoranda, from the Chair of the Preservation Commission. Mr. Lehner said that was done intentionally because the Commission had not voted on them. The first memorandum lists suggestions for allowing the use of the building for Northlight Theater. The second memorandum summarized the conclusions of the Commission's discussions on the meeting that the Commission considered the application for the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Lehner asked the Commission to vote on this memorandum. Mr. Nowesnick moved to approve Mr. Lehnees memorandum to P&D, dated March 15, 1995, "Preservation Comrission's Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for the Demolition of 912-918 Clark Street, an Evanston Landmark." The motion seconded by Mr. Douglas Mohnke was approved unanimously. C. 1246 Hinman Avenue (Update) Mr. Ruiz said that Ms. Bonnie Wilson, owner of 1246 Hinman, informed him that'+,r property was for sale. She requested to meet with members of R&TA to discuss the standards for construction for a new garage. Mr. Nowesnick said that the Commission should send the standards for construction to Ms. Wilson and her architect and allow them to interpret the standards as they see them. Then they could go through the normal process. Mr. Van Dyke agreed with Mr. Nowesnick. Mr. Lehner suggested to put together for R&TA a packet of all documents pertaining to 1246 Hinman and the standards for construction, Mr. Lehner said that the Commission should not be designing .z:; 7- 4 •f� ,— .... '' _ ' . ;lit' - ' . C �J•'�'`i ax � 4 '�•{f•Lr e..1i Evanston Preaervation Commission Much 21, 1995 - Nnutes Page 9 structures for anyone. What the Commission could do is indicate all the issues they look at when considering construction. V. NEW $USUMS W. Lehner said that Mr. John Driscoll, an architect, agreed to submit an application for appointment to the Evanston Preservation Commission. VL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Nowesnick moved to approved the Preservation Commission minutes of February 21, 1995, as submitted. The motion seconded by W. Mohnke was approved unanimously. VEL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lehner announced that the next Evanston Preservation Commission meeting is scheduled Tuesday, April 18, 1995, at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, r 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Minois. VM ADJOURNMENT 3 Mr. Lehner asked Mr. Ruiz to submit his report at the next meeting. With no further items on the agenda, Mr. Lehner moved to adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. The motion seconded by Mr. Mohnke was approved unanimously. STAFF: DATE: /4 , ZA �o � N,iJv;�:'r�'� �'�'�i�.X'�'f-.`4,�*,1'. =r - - � •,_,. .=�iti✓- ..-=+arr M+ii,n�• - rt.*'�Iy',n"r-'"'�r*^'.� - EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, April 18,1995 8:00p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: George Ralik, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Doug Mohnke, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Carol Qualkinbush MEMBERS ABSENT: Derek Cottier, Will Van Dyke, Neil Sheehan, Deborah Wamer. OTHERS PRESENT: Review and Technical Assistance Committee Session: Jean Schaefle, Phillip Brown Commission's Meeting: John Fitzgerald, Daniel Baigelman, Sydney S. Burstein, James M. Burstein, Daniel F. O`Malley PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. W. Lehner said that he will begin with the continuation of the Review and Technical Assistance Committee session. II. COMM[TTEE REPORTS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 3 1. 1006 Ridge Avenue - New Skylights Mr. John Fitzgerald, owner of 1006 Ridge Avenue, and Mr. Daniel Baigelman, architect presented to the Commission a proposal for the installation of a new rear window (facing west) as part of the kitchen remodeling, and the installation of skylights (facing north, south and west) for a living ante attic space to the master bedroom. The new kitchen window has a larger opening than the existing window. The style of the window matches the adjacent existing casement a window. y JIY. 31Q1 f, d :11U Ali- —id p Evanston Preservation Commisslon April 18, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 On the second floor, an attic space would be finished with a new bathroom and a closet. Because the green roofing tile cannot be matched, building dormers was ruled out. Instead, skylights that meet the vent requirements would be installed. The skylights are the least obtrusive way to bring natural lighting into the attic. The skylights are flush velux windows to be installed behind the existing dormers (facing north and south). The rear skylights face west. The skylights with clear glass will not protrude more than one inch. Mr. Greg Nowesnick said that he went by the house and determined that the only skylight that could be seen from Ridge Avenue would be the one facing north. The existing dormer most likely would hide the skylight. Mr. Lehner said that his only concern was the interruption of the tile roof, and in particular the location of the skylight facing north. Changing subject, Mr. Lehner said that his understanding was that the new window would be wood primed. Mr. Baigleman said that they did not want to ruin the look of the window mullions. Mr. Mohnke agreed with Mr. Lehner's concern about interrupting the the roof. However, given the location of the skylights, the character and the detailing of the house, the skylights would not be noticeable. Ms. Qualkinbush said that her only concern would be that the new window is appropriate for the style of the house. Mr. George Halik said that he was not in favor of interrupting the the roof: However, he understood the reasons why the skylights were needed. He was not sure whether the plain skylight windows would be appropriate. He said that since the existing windows had true divided lites, perhaps it would make sense to install skylights windows similar in design. Mr. Nowesnick shoved to approve the proposed project in its entirety with the understanding that the windows would be wood primed, generally matching the profile and dimensions of existing windows. The storm windows should be removable. The motion seconded by Mr. Douglas Mohnke was unanimously approved. Ms. Qualkinbush suggested that the Commission should seek the nomination of 1006 Ridge Avenue as an Evanston Landmark. 2. 630 Forest Avenue - One Story and a Half Addition Mr. James A. Burstein, Mrs. Sydney S. Burstein, and their architect Mr. Daniel F. O'Malley presented to the Commission a one story and a half addition to 630 Forest Avenue. This property is located within the boundaries of the Lakeshore Historic District, it is not an Evanston Landmark nor it is listed as a contributing structure to the Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. and Mrs. Burstein are the contract purchasers of 630 Forest Avenue and plan to build the addition after the Evanston Preservation Commission April 18, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 closing ofthe We. Mr. O'Malley said that the house sits at the corner of Ka,ney Street and Forest Avenue. It is a ranch house that does not fit in the context of the surrounding houses. The adjacent houses are typically two story houses with porches on the front. Mr. Wally said that the house at 630 Forest Avenue seems to be an anomaly on the street. The plan is to put a second floor on and bring the appearance of the house back into some character of the existing neighborhood. The second floor plan has two bedrooms, storage area, master bathroom, and an area that is open to below. Size wise the project seems to fit the scale of its surroundings. Mr. OTAalley said that they anticipate maintaining the original brick on the first floor. On the second floor the exterior material is intended to be dryvit. Windows on the project would be all new clad wood windows for maintenance purposes. The roof material would be an architectural type asphalt shingle, a heavy weight grade shingle to produce a shadow line. The garage door would probably be replaced. Mr. O'Malley said that the only drawback of the house is that its first floor level is very close to the ground, there is only one step up. Whereas the neighboring houses have a raised floor level, which allows for grand entries. He said that although he cannot reproduce some of the approach sequence to the house, he tried to address that somewhat with an arch feature on the front aad a small post at the entrance deck. The purpose on the front is to create a roof over the existing first floor, making a feature out of the roof design. In response to a question from Mr. Nowesnick, Mr. O!Maliey said that probably Marvin ,Pella or Anderson thermal wood windows with true divided Gates and energy panels would be installed. Mr. Nowesnick suggested that for continuity of appearance with the first floor windows, to stay with single pane, true divided lites with energy panels (like a Marvin). Mr. Nowesnick said to shy away from applied divided lites on the therm windows. Mr. O'Mally said the trim would perhaps be painted cedar wood. Head trims, sills, panels, louvers, would be wood. The facia feature is yet to be determine. Mr. Nowesnick said that the roof pitch of the house is very much like the neighboring homes, particularly to the north. The size of the house, even with the addition would be smaller than some of the homes to the north. He said the existing house is "a fish out of the water". The project is an improvement, and more importantly, it makes a better use out of the property. Evattston Preservation Commission April 18, 1995 - Minutes Page 4 Mr. Halik said that he was focused on the front porch. He asked if the porch were made more formal whether it would relate better to the other parches and entrances. Mr. 011alley said that zoning considers the south elevation th© front of the house. However, the front door is on the cast, the long side of the house. The neighboring homes on Forest Avenue are long and narrow, facing the street. The organizing element of the project was the front bay. The problem with the entrmtce is that the masonry work is stepped in. Mr. OT&Wey said that he chose to downplay the entrance somewhat. A formal entrance was not what he wanted to achieve. It is not subordinate but it had to work in tandem with the main feature to its right (the bay). Ms. Qualkinbush said that if the entry was further simplified by putting a pilar on the other side, it would draw more attention to the bay. Mr. Lehner said that the massing works very well, but he senses a mixture of styles, the porch is almost a federal style, the windows on the major gable are italianate. He wondered if drawing the house together from a single style stand point would work better. Some of the detaRing takes on elements from different eras that he was not as comfortable with. The roof line is a french provincial style steeply hip roof and there are some elements that were not as comfortable to his point of view. Looking at the porch, the window above the porch, the shutters on the second floor windows, are all a mix of different styles. Mr. Nowesnick suggested that the ornamentation to the head of the windows should emphasize more verticality or maybe get larger size windows and do away with the trim. In response to a question from Mr. Nowesnick, Mr. O'Malley said that the garage door probably would have a glass panel detailed at the top of it. Mr. Douglas Mohnke said that overall the massing of the design works well, he said that by looking at the first floor elevation, the shutters could be removed to accentuate the strong band of brick. On the second floor the scale of windows works well without the shutters. He said that the mass of the building is the element that ties everything together. Ms. Burstein said that without the shutters the house would be too stark. Mr. Carlos Ruiz said that because this projects is requesting a minor zoning variation, some neighbors had expressed their concern with the proposed addition, their concern is focused on preserving the architectural character of the neighborhood. Mr. Nowesnick said that perhaps the Commission should learn more about those concerns before rendering a final decision. Mr. Burstein said that they put a bid on the house which was accepted in January, 1995. The last day to hold on the project is May 24, 1995. They filed for the minor zoning variance March 17. The other concern was the length of the construction season Evanston Preservation commission April 18, 1995 - Minutes Page 5 which ends in September. Mr. O`Malley said it would take him two and a half weeks to complete the working documents. W. Lehner moved to approve the massing, the organization of the fenestration, the building materials (including a stucco like material, wood primed windows, architecture shingles), the project, in general, meets the standards for construction. The Commission would review revisions to some exterior details to draw the style of the house into something more uniform in appearance. The review will be conducted by members of R&TA members present at the meeting (Mr. Lehner, Mr. Nowesn!ck, Mr. Halik, and Mr. Mohnke). The Commission would agree that at their approval a Certificate of Appropriateness could be issued. The motion seconded by Mr. Nowesnick wits Approved unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS A. 912-918 Clark Street - Proposed Demolition Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Ruiz and he attended the most recent Planning and Development Committee meeting, at which time a motion was approved sending the 912-918 Clark Street application for demolition back to City Council. A revised motion denied the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition. He said that the final City Council vote was eight to one. Under the motion, the applicants have the opportunity to come back and reapply for demolition in a later time. He said that apparently Northlight Theater and Norwestern University were not able to come to an agreement regarding the land. II. CONMffME REPORTS (Continuation) A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 3. 630 Central Street - Demolition of Existing Garage and Construction of New Garage Mr. Nowesnick said that R&TA met with Ms. Jean Schaefle, owner of 630 Central Street and approved the design of the new garage in its entirety, with the recommendation to the owner to use wood sectional garage doors instead of steel doors. Mr. Nowesnick moved to accept the project in its entirety and with comment on the garage doors. The motion seconded by Mr. Halik was approved unanimously. 4. 100 Greenwood - New Two Car Garage Mr. Nowavnick said that the Commission had pre-rio,.Wy npproved a substantial AF Evanston Preservation Commission April 18, 1995-11+Iinutes Page 6 one story and a half addition to 100 Greenwood. R&TA met with Mr. Phillip Brown, architect for a two car garage addition to the north of the existing house, R&TA recommended to Mr. Brown to replace the single 16 foot garage door with two double doors, adjust the roof pitch making it steeper to work with the existing battens with the purpose of appearance and flashing details, and that the brick should match the adjacent existing brick. Mr. Nowesnick moved to approve 100 Greenwood garage addition with the following changes; replace single garage door with double doors, make the roof pitch steeper to work with the existing battens with the purpose of appearance and flashing details, that the brick should match the adjacent existing brick. The motion seconded by Mr. Mohnke. was approved unanimously. IM OLD BUSINESS (Continuation) B. Alderman Joseph Kent's Landmark Nomination Initiative Ms. Qualkinbush said that the appointed Committee is trying to schedule the first meeting with Alderman Joseph Kent. Scheduling conflicts are preventing the Committee from proceeding with the project. IV. APPROVAL OF MJNUTES Approval of March 21,1995 Minutes Mr. Ruiz requested to hold the approval of the March 21 minutes until Alderman Kent has the opportunity to revise them. V. NEW BUSEMS 800 Greenleaf - Nichols School Mr. Ruiz said that W. Darwin Johnson, District 65 School Superintendent, confirmed that the wood windows at 800 Greenleaf, Nichols School building will be removed and replaced with aluminum windows. Being part of separate government body, School District 65 buildings apparently do not fag under the purview of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Ruiz said that he will o@'er continued assistance for future projects on behalf of the Commission to Mr. Johnson. a Commission members wondered what would happen with the National Register landmarks owned by School District 65. A4r. Lehner said that the Commission Evanston Preservation Commission April 18, 1995 » Mnutes Page 7 should request information from Corporation Counsel ab could do about it. VL ANNOUNCEMENT'S Mr. Lehner announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, May 16, 1995, at 8:00 p.m., in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. At the request of Mr. Ruiz, the Commission agreed to reschedule the June meeting Wednesday, June 21, 1995, at 8:00 p.m. VIL ADJOURNMENT ' With no further business on the agenda Mr. Lehner adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. STAFF: DATE: A&Y7r1l�y__ZZlv, l'gl?5 r"�9r=�i.. '*r ';�fi�-+p-f�,ni�}„^�"i�E. .,��•i rr'�,;° �r "�'i'v+,P�4�P�F•ati,...3. -a2n ",•srU'� �a.. �>,yri -fif f., :i.c: - , fsr ,.,�ti .+°r• , EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, May 16,1995 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Jessica Deis, George Halik, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Neil Sheehan, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: Derek Cottier, Deborah Warner. OTHERS PRESENT: Review and Technical Assistance Committee Session: Daniel Baigelman, Barbara Howard, Nabil Zahrah, Joseph Destefano, Candace Hrones. Commission's Meeting: Richard K Bieg, Ellie Moderw4 George Anton, Lawrence Casazza, Mitchell Harrison, Thomas Mustoe, Katherine Stallcup, Alderman Arthur Newman. PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Lehner welcomed two newly appointed Commissioners, Jessica Deis and Kirk Irwin. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Lehner said that the minutes of March 21, 1995 and April 18, 1995 were in front of the Commission for approval. Referring to the minutes of March 21, and the design of two homes at 1710 Wesley Avenue, Mr. Nowesnick asked if the Review and Technical Assistance Committee needed to review the revised design for the arch windows again. Mr. Nowesaick said that part of his motion required the reduction in scale of the arched windows. Mr, Will Van Dyke suggested that the revised drawings could be approved 3 administratively by Mr. Carlos Ruiz. The Commission agreed with Mr. Van Dykes suggestion. Mr. Ruiz said that on page 7, under III. A. 2 be 4, March 21 should be changed to February 21. Mr. Van Dyke moved to approve the March 21, I995 minutes as amended. The motion seconded by Mr. Nowesnick was approved unarrlwously. �i e:. _-`••z.;'� '-I •f �: �� r. r- _ ', �. tes.p. s,.• y't. ,leis• a.1-_ �.. - X Ni ;r4t.5 Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 N1r, Van Dyke moved to Approve the April 18, 1995 minutes as submitted. The motion seconded by Mr. Nowesnick was approved unanimously. M. NEW BUSINESS 202 Greenwood Street - Proposed Two Lot Subdivision Mr. Richard Lehner, after reading Section 2-9-12: Review of Applications for Subdivision, Resubdivision or Consolidation of the Evanston Historic Preservation Ordinance, said that according to the Historic Preservation Ordinance the Commission will: a) prepare a report to City Council or to its duly authorized committee (Planning and Development), b) that the standards which were listed are those upon which the Commission evaluates proposed subdivisions, and c) from the day the application has been received, the Commission has thirty-five days to make the report. Mr. Richard K. Bieg said that he was representing his parents (Larry K. Bieg and Hilda E. Bieg) owners of 202 Greenwood Street. He introduced his sister Ms. Ellie Moderwell, and W. George T. Anton, a real estate appraiser. Mr. Bieg said that they were seeking the Preservation Commission's recommendation for a two -lot subdivision, He said that the existing lot is 200 feet wide, 267 feet deep, and 53,400 square feet. The property is located in the Lakeshore Plistoric District. The zoning ordinance would allow them to have seven dwelling units on the property. In 1988, the Biegs submitted plans for a four -lot subdivision. The zoning analysis determined variations for the four -lot subdivision. The Biegs then submitted plans with a three -lot subdivision. The zoning analysis approved the later subdivision. The Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed three -lot subdivision. That application did not progress. Now, the Biegs were here for a two -lot subdivision. The proposed lot is on the northwest corner of the existing lot. Mr. Bieg said that he had met with Mr. David Rasmussen, Assistant Director for Zoning, who had provided him with the approved zoning analysis. The zoning analysis does not call for restrictions, exceptions, or variations. With regard to the criteria that the Commission is to review for the proposed subdivision, Mr. Bieg referred to their application, items a) through e). Mr. Bieg said that he met with Mr, Bradford White, who is the President of Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, and vice-president of Clarion Associates, Inc. Mr. White is the author of the Evanston Historic Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Bieg submitted a letter dated May 16, 1995, from Mr. White to Mr. Carlos D. Ruiz, to the Commission. The letter contained comments regarding the proposed subdivision of 202 Greenwood Street. Mr. Bieg read the letter. Mr. Bieg distributed photographs to illustrate and elaborate on the points raised in Mr. Whites letter. Photo No. 1: Main entcance to 202 Greenwood Street, the atone wail .- -•• ___ - - . _,F. -ry .���n T�3 - - . . n rn n. � irn i i A1w � e . ♦ Mx}. n n r I'YF I.n n n R�! w♦I � . �..�� , wla n.�,�. n A .>w. .iflm �� '�t't�r-�- � M•��r Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 goes across the front of proposed lot 2. Photo No. 2: Mr. White's letter refers to side yard requirements. The west side yard setback of the proposed new lot is 5 feet, tho overall width is 68 feet, and front to back is 140 feet, with a 30 foot rear setback. Mr, Bleg said that although a 50 foot front yard setback is not required by the zoning ordinance, the applicants feel that it is important from the streetscape stand point that the streetscape is maintained as is. A fence on the west side of lot 2, runs north -south. Following the fence by looldng south, the property of 202 Greenwood Street is in many ways encroached upon by many adjacent lots. There are coach houses in the rear, which are on the property line. To the rear, there are structures that are on or over the property line. To the east, a house encroaches within the 5 foot side setback. Referring again to Mr. White's second observation regarding the approximate side yard setback, Mr. Bieg said that this is no different from what they are asking for in their subdivision. When Mr. White indicated that the rhythm of the street would change, that it is true of any new subdivision or any new lot that is proposed on the block. Photo No. 3: The front setback (Mr. Bieg said that the photo looking directly west was taken from the front of the new building's envelope), which is as far as the house could be built toward the street. Mr. Bieg (pointing at photo No. 3) said that the porch of the building directly west of proposed lot 2, is at 50 feet of the front property line. That distance is what the subdivision is maintaining as far as the front yard setback, Mr. Bieg said. Photo No. 4: Mr. Bieg said that photo No. 4 illustrates the distance of the front yard setback (234 and 242 Greenwood Street), which the applicants are not looking to do anything less. Mr. Bieg pointed to an existing fence on the property line (unable to determine on which property), the distance side yard and the distance to the structure are the same, and it is on the same block and same streetscape. Therefore, the applicants are not looking to change side yard requirements. The applicants understand that the general rhythm of the street will change by any impact of any subdivision. Photo No. 5: The photo from the corner of Forest Avenue and Greenwood Street, looks directly to the east. Mr. Bieg said that the photo absolutely illustrates the frontages of 242, 234, 228, 214 Greenwood Street. The applicants are going to maintain that frontage all the way along. The site plan shows the 50 foot setback from the front property line. Mr. Bieg said that he wanted to review different ideas and subdivision submissions with the Commission. The applicants also looked at possibly extending lots, and being flexible, and have shown their interest by working with the City. Mr. Bieg said that the applicants are concerned about the trees and wish to maintain them. Mr. Bieg referring to the site plan, pointed to the building envelope, trees along the west side, and a tree to the rear of the building envelope, all within the parcel (lot 2). Mr. Bieg said that Mr. White talked - - ,� .-.. M __-rt-.�—�,�mYr�•,--;.�«,s� �� r ,,. ,,,,,..� - ..,..,err rm�;�7.� .. - � �. ..�a�Itl�-., . .� _ .� M u Wi, Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 4 about the impact from the front curb in terms of the visibility of the coach house (photos 1 to 5 were taken as of 10:30 this morning). Photo No. 1 was taken directly opposite from the north side looking south, there is no alga of the coach house, Mr. Bieg said. Mr. Bieg said that even though one cannot see the coach house because of the foliage, that whatever is built in front of it is not going to have much of an impact on what one can see right now. Looking through the gates towards the rear of lot 2 and behind a tree, if one stood there looking north and south, under the proposal none of the surrounding trees will be impaired. Mr. Bieg said that the applicants are seeking the Commission's review and approval this evening. He said that if the Commission had any questions, that he would be glad to entertain them. He requested the Commission consider making their recommendation for the Planning and Development Committee's rune I2, 1995, meeting. Mr. Bieg asked Mr. Anton, as an appraiser, to address the value of the property . Mr. Anton said that he lives three blocks to the west of 202 Greenwood Street. He has been a consulting appraiser for twenty years in the Evanston north shore area. He is qualified in the District Court as an expert witness regarding valuation and topics of residential zoning boards. Mr. Anton feels that there are certain things that affect property values in a negative way, such as inharmonious adjacent uses (gas stations). Uses that create noise and odors will have a negative impact on property values. Mr. Lehner asked Mr. Anton if he was testifying on zoning issues. Mr. Anton said that he was not, but he had other cases, particularly in land use changes as to value. Mr. Anton continued by saying that he felt that a well designed (traditional style) single family residence on this site would be a good addition to this neighborhood. Mr. Anton felt that the subdivision would not negatively affect the surrounding properties. Mr. Anton said that there are certain concerns that are emotional and founded on the unknown or change alone. Whereas, the reality is that reductions and increases of value due to the change are difficult to measure. There are cases where the Judge dc-es ask for substantial reduction in the measurement of the loss of value, because of new construction. Mr. Anton said that he did not see that happening. As far as the overall conformity to the Historic District, the Dawes House across the street, several homes within viewing range of this property are invaluable examples of Evanston's historic (zoning). Mr. Anton said that he was sensitive enough to understand where people may have some concerns about change. He said that a well -designed residence (which he understands may be subject to the Commission's review, prior to the issuance of a building permit), would conform with this neighborhood, and would not injure anybody as far as their pocket it is concerned. Mr. Bieg referred to the application for subdivision, item 10 e) "Not adversely effect. traffic patterns, municipal services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District% he said that he met with each individual property owner to the east and Evanston Preservation Commission May 1 G, 1995 - Minutes Page 5 west, and to the south of 202 Greenwood Street. The owners of 214 Greenwood Street had purchased their property after the initial four -lot and three. -lot subdivisions at 202 Greenwood Street were in place. They had received a substantial reduction for the purchase of that property as a second offer. Therefore, Mr. Bieg said that he did not believe that there should be any adverse effect, because that has already been taken into effect on the basis of the purchase of the property. Mr. James M. Knox asked whether the standard to provide the design of new structures was disregarded for the purpose of the subdivision application. W. Bieg said that when he met with the property owners of 144 Greenwood Street, they were concerned with the architecture of the new structure. Mr. Bieg said that they had covered that in their application under item 10 e). He quoted the second paragraph: "Additionally, to insure consistency with the neighborhood, any future house to be built on the new subdivision (B) would be required to comply with all local and state ordinances, which includes the scrutiny of the City of Evanston Preservation Commission, and would have to conform to their guide lines and meet with their approval." In response to a question from Mr. Lehner, Mr. Carlos Ruiz said that in a previous subdivision proposal, the applicants submitted preliminary drawings of future buildings to the Commission. The application for two -lot subdivision at 202 Greenwood Street does not include any design for a new building. Mr. Ruiz said that if City Council approves the subdivision and if the owners of the new lot wish to build a new building, the Preservation Commission will review its design. Mr. Lehner said that he wanted to clarify if the Preservation Ordinance required the submission of specific plans at this time. He recalled that on a previous subdivision case the Commission did not require the design of a new building, because the Commission eventually would review its design when the application is submitted for a building permit. Mr. Ruiz said that was correct. Mr. Bieg said that City Council had approved a subdivision to the east of 202 Greenwood Street. Mr. Ruiz said that City Council approved that particular subdivision before the adoption of the current Historic Preservation Ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Lehner regarding the Commission's report to the Planning and Development Committee (P&D), Mr. Ruiz said that P&D requested that Corporation Counsel draft an amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance that will allow the Commission to submit its report to P&D concurrently with the zoning analysis. Mr. Kirk Lavin asked Mr. Bieg if the intent was to build a new building on lot 2 no less than 50 feet setback from the front property line. Mr. Bieg answered, yes. Regarding access to the existing coach house, Mr. Irwin said that the driveway would have to be moved over to the east. He also said that assuming a two -car garage is built for the new building, the garage would have to be facing Greenwood Street because of the constrictions of the site:. W. Wag said that they do not have a solution for that, clearly u W ill IY MIJn Cll i, Ali *.,�u rYialo .I J�WrG.0 Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 6 the entrance is on the west lot. For the main house, there may be no need for another entrance to maintain separate drives. The applicants are flexible on this issue, because the stone wall is an architectural feature, and they would like to maintain it. The Biegs are looking for the Commission's recommendation for a single or double entrance. Regarding the garage, this issue is contingent upon what the Commission's view is. There is a drive that is a single entrance. The entrance to a two -car garage could be from the side. It would be no different from 234 Greenwood Street (photo No. 5), which has an entrance off Greenwood. Referring to photo No. 3, Mr. Irwin said that the building to the west has a series of attractive windows. Assuming that one could see the lake from those windows, and a house is built on the location as proposed on the subdivision, the views to the lake would be blocked. Mr. Bieg said that the view of the lake directly to the east will be broken if the new house is built on the proposed location. Mr. Bieg said he had discussed this issue with Alderman Newman. They agreed that from the second floor of 214 Greenwood one could sae the lake, even with the building envelope as shown on the subdivision plat. Mr. Knox asked Alderman Newman if he could corroborate Mr. Bieg's statement. Alderman Newman said he would reserve his comments for the P&D meeting. Mr. Bieg reassured Mr. Knox that the view to the lake will not be obstructed. He said that the massing of the new building will not be far enough forward to obstruct the view of the lake. Looking east, depending where the new building is located, it will be difficult to see the lake. But if one were to take an angled sight line, the lagoon area and boating area are shown. Mr. Gregory Nowesnick said that the Commission was not going to argue the neighbors views to the lake, instead the Commission's role is to assess how the subdivision impacts the existing historic structures. He said 202 Greenwood and 214 Greenwood are contn'buting structures to the District. The homes to the west of 214 Greenwood are setback approximately 50 feet. Mr. Nowesnick said that he went to the site and observed that the actual two story facade of 214 Greenwood is at approximately 60 feet from the front property line. The building at 202 Greenwood is approximately at 80 feet. Mr. Bieg said that the porch at 214 Greenwood starts at 50 feet from the front property line. Mr. Nowemick (referring to 242, 234, and 228 Greenwood) said the setbacks of these three adjacent buildings is at 50 feet, then 214 Greenwood is at 60 feet, and 202 Greenwood is at 80 feet. His point was that the setbacks started to move back. Regarding the trees, W. Nowesnick said the caliper of the tree shown in ore of the photos is about 18 to 24 inches. The caliper of the other tree is 8 to 10 inches. Mr. Nowesnick said that at his rquest, Mr. Ruiz contacted Mr. David Rasmussen Assistant Director of Zoning, regarding the 30 foot rear setback of lot 2, and the 27 foot front yard set back for the coach house. Per Mr. Rasmussen, the property line from lot 2 could be moved 22 feet due south, allowing a 72 foot front setback for the building envelope. This would improve the views from the street of 214 Greenwood and 202 Greenwood. There are many fine features visible on the west facade of 202 Creenwood. At the north east corner of 214 Greenwood are ribbons Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 7 of glass, and the bay. Then features are equally important from the architectural stand point. Ms. Jessica Deis said that the building envelope on lot 2 is located very close to the trees. If the house is built within 5 to 7 feet of the trees (although the intention is to save the trees), because of the closeness of construction, having roots rut, and compaction of the soil, the trees will decline. A trade off the view versus saving the trees might be worthy of consideration. M. Knox said that he was concerned with preserving the open space. He wondered about the status of the Estate Overlay District (an issue discussed at one point as part of the zoning ordinance). He asked Mr. Bieg how their application complied with the standards for subdivision, specifically (B) (1) (a) "Preserve or protect property, structure, site or object." Mr. Knox said he was looking at protecting the site. He said that obviously with the proposed subdivision the site is being lost and the open space will be gone. He added that the unique feature of 202 Greenwood is that it is in a large open space. W. Knox said that the applicants are asking the Commission to approve the subdivision that will take away an open spare from the District. Mr. Knox argued that open space is precisely what the Commission is expecting to save and protect in that area, for all Evanston and everyone, from now into the future. W. Lehner added to Mr. Kno;es comments (B) (1) (d) "Preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the Landmark or area, propertyy, site or object in the District." He said that it was important to think about what this development might do the streetscape. Responding to Mr. Knox's question and comment, and Ms. Deis' and W. Nowesnicles comments, Mr. Bieg said that it was not their intention that by submitting the proposed subdivision the applicants were still going to maintain the open spare that is there now. Within the context of the ordinances that were provided to the applicants by the City of Evanston, and as far as the applicants were concerned, they came up with what they considered the best solution for the subdivision. Regarding standard (B) (1) (a), Mr. Bieg referrers to Mr. White's letter, which indicates that the applicants are trying to maintain the architectural features; for example, the stone wall, and the main house will be still visible. Mr. Bieg said that concerning the comment about stepping back the envelope of the building (on lot 2), 214 Greenwood still has a setback of 50 feet, it is up to the A Commission whether a 10 foot porch in front of the main building starting at 60 feet is eel that three trees should be preserved by putting the trees appropriate. The applicants f outside of the building envelope. Mr. Bieg said that he came up with solutions within total feasibility. The structure could be built within the envelope and maintain the 5 to 8 feet necessary to preserve the trees. He said that item c) of the application, indicates that they are not presenting a final solution or structure with the subdivision. They understand that a new building will be subject to the Commission's review. Prtr.ently their only wm-em is the subdivision itself. _.M ; - y „�. . .b vm+"+nefai�rs"'►�T`I1f'""" .ni ,�, „ ,a,. w�+•+1�1f?' mR� . � - rep*:+ Ty' �.o- ajy �,� rF�it�.• - 'i :�/ �a K:�S•. .;{'i'.t - � „ ',--" �' - '4- � i < < r � ,ram �•: �.:,y'�.7� 4 . k :li [�:., i���{1''''1Y'��..'.x �Yr �'1�r:.� p� ?� _';F ;� h� . . Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 8 Mr. Knox felt that W. Bieg did not answer his question, which was, "Doss the standard requiring the preservation of the site, without a building on the site, permit construction on the proposed lot 2 of the proposed subdivision?" Ms. Ellie Moderwell said that the standards also use the word "harmony." The property to the east of 144 Greenwood is the result of a subdivision and it will be developed. Ms. Moderwell also said that the addition at 100 Greenwood blocks the coach house's view to the lake. Mr. Knox said that the lot east of 144 Greenwood was subdivided before the adoption of the current Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Lehner, referring to 100, 234 and 242 Greenwood, said that these properties were not contributing to the District. Ms. Moderwell said that when the property east to 144 Greenwood is developed, all the open space will be taken. The open space east of 202 Greenwood will be maintained and the space that is left at 228 Greenwood. Acknowledging the presence of citizens in the audience Mr. Lehner asked for comments. Mr. Mitchell Harrison of 1519 Judson Avenue, said he is the president of the Preservation League of Evanston (PLE), a private not -for -profit neighborhood organization, with approximately 200 members. PLE is concerned with maintaining the architectural integrity of Evanston. (Mr. Lehner clarified that unlike the PLE, the Evanston Preservation Commission is a governmental public body, whose members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council). Mr. Harrison said that the area where 202 Greenwood is located is the "front porch" of Evanston. This is the prime neighborhood of Evanston, it does not get any better than this he said. He added that this is one of the best blocks in Evanston. We are talking about architecture in a town that will hold up with any city in this country. We five in a unique area, and we all should be aware of this, Mr. Harrison said. He is honored and thrilled to live in this community and in the area. He has lived in Evanston for the last eleven years, and as far he is concerned he would like to stay in the neighborhood for the rest of his life. He said that estates are very few, they are vanishing and they are very rare. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. Once estates are subdivided, they are subdivided forever. Estates are unique to Evanston and its architectural heritage. Mr. Harrison said they are awesome places, visitors are amazed with what is available in Evanston. When the subdivision of 202 was initially proposed, we did not expect a gas station, or a ten -story building, Mr. Harrison said. Now, we are going to be told how wonderful the new development will be. The subdivision will definitely affect this neighborhood, and it will destroy the symmetry of this estate and of the entire neighborhood. Look at the VAlson estates, and the town houses built. Remember what the estate looked lice before and what it looks like now. Mr. Harrison said the Evanston does not need more tuhdivisioz, Evanston his baea subdivided enough. Evanston do%n not need to look h1w other neighboring a mrrwities. The unique character of Evanston needs to be preserved. I,u1J YIJ 1 t Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 9 If the subdivision is approved, it may look like a small and minor thing, but it is a small erosion. Erosions like this do not happen over night, they are significant. One day, someone may like to subdivide the Dawes Mansion, its a nice property, why not? Mr. Harrison asked. What is done is done. Further erosion of the neighborhood must stop. This is a beautiful and prime example ofEvanston's past and fits very nicely with the Evanston of the future. I am not an idealist to stop the clock, he said. Mr. Harrison said that the applicants probably have a valid reason for the subdivision. In his opinion, if the applicants find it difficult to live there, let someone else buy it, lets keep it the way it is. W. Harrison said that the Commission in a memo to P&D, in August of 1993, expressed clearly the reasons why it is desirable to preserve estate properties. Mr. Harrison said that the preservation of estate properties does not require much thought. Mr. Lawrence Casazza of 214 Greenwood Street (immediately west of 202 Greenwood), said that his wife and children have lived in Evanston for fourteen years. Mr. Casazza said that they vigorously oppose the subdivision of 202 Greenwood. Tlds is a street of profound architectural and historical significance. It is cleanly enhanced by the architectural beauty and details of the buildings, which certainly will be obstructed and impaired if the subdivision is allowed. Mr. Casazza emphasized the visual perspective and spacing of buildings on the street. He said that the coach house on 202 Greenwood is a gorgeous building, and despite what Mr. Bieg said, it clearly will be obstructed, as well as will parts of has house. This subdivision calls for a 50 foot setback, different from the main house that is 80 feet. Mr. Casazza said in addition to the beauty of the street, there is the Dawes House, the beach, the sailing, and the access to the park. This is truly the front yard of Evanston, it is not just a very beautiful place, and a very historic place, but it's a place that is frequented, it's a main access to the park and the beach. Obstructing the beauty, the charm and detail of this block will do a lot to harm Evanston. These structures have been this way for at least one hundred years, and once this is gone, it is gone forever. Mr. Casazza said that to try to use the setbacks of the two houses further west is not appropriate. The proposed subdivision does not meet any of the standards, and it is not going to preserve the open space or property. Referring to the cast side yard of their own property, Mr. Casazza said that their house is about 8 to 10 feet from the Biegs property. The Biegs want to build something within 5 feet of their west side property line, blocking a lot of the architectural detail of the Casazza's house. It will also have profound effect in the light, and the views to the lake. Completely contrary to what Mr. Bieg said, this will have a devastating impact on our house, Mr. Casazza said. We do not have a view of the lake to the front, we look at the Dawes house. Whatever vi-ws of the lake we have, which are quite nice, are all looking straight to the side. All of those vim-3 will be obstructed. The view of the lake in the yard `- to the east on th.a terrace uiU be obstructed.., and the view front the front parlor will be Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - bfinutes Page 10 obstructed. The south porch, the living room, the children bedroom, and the m bedroom sunlight will be totally obstructed. It will obstruct seven rooms and the terrace view of the lake, totally contrary to what Mr. Bieg said. W. Casa= explained that they did not learn about tho proposed subdivision until they had signed the contract to buy their house. W. Bieg knows that, Mr. Casazza said. It was several months past the signing of the contract that the Casazzas found out indirectly through Alderman Newman about the existence of the subdivision, W. Casazza went to an attorney in Evanston, who told him that he did not think they could rescind the contract based upon the existence of the subdivision. The attorney sent an appraiser to the property. He looked at it but was not able to go in the building, because the Casazzas did not own the building at the time. Not being too clear about what the views of the lake were and what was going to happen, Mr. Casazza estimated that if a building is built where proposed, it would probably diminish the value of their property by S60,000. Mr. Casazza said that they negotiated a reduction of their house after that, but they had already signed the contract. He said that they were not made whole as Mr. Bieg tried to have the Commission believe; they had some adjustment on the price, because the real estate agent had misrepresented the situation to them. They tivere not able to rescind the contract, although they pursued that objective with a lawyer. The fact they got an adjustment after the contract does not make them somebody that should not be considered or that their interest should not be considered. Regarding the trees, Mr. Casazza said that one of the trees is in the middle of the future house, and it will be clearly destroyed, the other two trees are so close to the house that they likely are not going to make it either. The setbacks the Biegs asked for do not pertain to really trying to save the trees. Mr. Casazza said they have a personal interest, certainly, but as members of the Evanston Community for fourteen years, and members of the Historical Society, they also have a concem with their property on this block. They thought that this was a particularly beautiful lot, particularly a good reflection of Evanston, and if a new structure is built within ten feet of their house it would block the coach house behind, which right now is visible from the street. A new structure is going to take away some beautiful space and some beautiful opportunities to look at the architectural significance and enhancements to the structures. Mr. Casazza said that they certainly hope that the Preservation Commission advise the City Council against accepting the proposed subdivision. Mr. Thomas Mustoe, owner of 144 Greenwood, immediately to the east of 202 Greenwood, said that he had some conversations with the Biegs, and that the subdivision is a concern of the Biegs to maximize their financial return from the property, an understandable concern. Mr. Mustoe said that there are also the needs of the community, and that sn alternative proposal which they brought to the Biegs, would be the coach house, which is a considerable structure. If the first floor of the coach house is induded, r Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 -Minutes Page 11 which is the garage, it is probably a 6,000 square foot structure. There are other compromised solutions, such as converting the coach house into a separate home. This subdivision would allow the side lot and the coach house to be a separate property. That will require some building on the coach house, but that can be done, preserving the architectural integrity of the entire neighborhood. Mr. Mustoe said that some things can be done with the main house, that potentially could increase the value of the house. Adding another structure to the neighborhood is going to change forever the view of the neighborhood. Mr. Mustoe said that there are other ways to subdivide the lot that are much less encroachment. He said that the 50 foot setback was questionable. Mr. Mustoe detected that. some people wanted both ways, who knows where the structure will be, he asked. He would like to see a structure that is really going to be built, maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood and with an innovative way of doing it. I have not seen that yet, Mr. Mustoe said. He saw the applicants wanting the zoning to maximize their income, and letting the next person that buys the lot worry about what is going to happen. Regarding their own situation, Mr. Mustoe said that he would love to buy the lot in front of them right now. They would love to maintain the open space. Ms. Katherine Stallcup, said that despite the different last name, she also lives at 144 Greenwood and that she is married to Mr. Mustoe. She said that she did not have anything particularly to add to what had been said. She was very struck when she saw and read the ordinance. She believes that the proposed subdivision does not stand up to any of the points raised by the ordinance. She agrees with her husband, there are other options for subdividing 202 Greenwood. As a property owner nearby, she would have no complaint about making the big house into a two-family dwelling if the facade from the street is maintained. She said that they will not be directly impacted as far as losing views, or any of the personal things the new building could bring. However, the street value - mattered to her. The street is something that she values, she feels if she did not speak up on this issue, if the neighbors allow this subdivision to go forward, that they would be the "goats" of Evanston. Many people in this city value this block of Greenw000 Street, = regardless of their direct property values. She believes it is asking for trouble to subdivide the property. The Commission is making more work for itself in the future, because there will be a house put there. It will be many long hours of aggravation to try to find a structure that would fit into the neighborhood properly. Ms. Stallcup said we already have bad examples on the western side of the block, as to what unregulated development -= can put up. She believes that it is not financially feasible in these days to build a house that has the features that the existing old structures have. We are bound to have something that would not fit, it would stick out, it would be the first thing one sees from 3 the Dawes house, it will really be a shame, she said. W. Lehner acknowledged that no one else wanted to speak. He asked for comments from Commission members. Mr, Lehner said that he had a hard time recommaiding the y subdivision to City Council. Rxognizing what preuervation entails ant eepcciaily the l3se+.t+%'S'w�,�;ir.'i'a!"a �l8�y�.'�j'r,R:�'�.N".�- ` '.�"•t' ., - , Evamston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 12 standards that were established to review subdivisions. In his view, the standards include the streetscape and the rhythm of the street. The site is an integral part of the structure. He reminded Commissioners that the Secretary of the Interioes Standards are in tkct a referenced subject in the preservation ordinance, specifically stating that: "The relationship between a historic building or buildings and landscape features within a property's boundaries --or the building site -,helps to define the historic character and should be considered an integral part of the overall planning for rehabilitation planning work." Mr. Lehner said that the site is a valid consideration. One issue of particular concern is that there is no solution to site access here. The Commission may well be faced with a garage facing the street, because there is no way to get to the back of the site to put a garage in the back. That is directly contradictory to the pattern of housing on the street. The structure further west of 202 Greenwood, which has a garage facing the street is a not contributing structure. It was built more recently. This garage is not consistent with the pattern of the housing that makes up this area of the historic district. Another unresolved issue is access to the existing coach house. Mr. Lehner said that these two issues together made it very difficult for him to come to grips with the subdivision of 202 Greenwood, Furthermore, the setback issue is a real one. While there are setbacks on the street in the area of 50 feet, the issue of the two adjacent houses being setback somewhat further was a real issue for him. He said that his concerns had to do with the pattern of housing on the street, and particularly the pattern of housing in this block of the National Register Historic District. Mr. Neil Sheehan concurred with Mr. Lehner's comments. He said that the applicants' raised an argument on economic grounds. Mr. Sheehan said that them is specific language in the preservation ordinance saying that at this point the Commission does not consider economic hardship as a factor to weigh the appropriateness of a decision to approve or disapproved the compatibility of an alteration or change of a structure or site. The 3 economic hardship argument is not one that the Commission can weigh at this point, though there is language that will allow that argument later, W. Sheehan said. Will Van Dyke said that he also agreed with the previous comments. He referred to the four houses on the south side of the street, noting the site design of the buildings and the y space between the buildings. W. Van Dyke said that the Conunission had recommended subdivision in the past, where it was clear in the street that there was a planned pattern. Looking at the pattern of the houses on Greenwood Street, one can see the houses are clearly contributing structures. He said that he would like the Commission to make a recommendation to City Council to deny the proposed subdivision. Mr. Lehner said that the responsibility of the Commission under the Preservation Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 13 Ordinance is to make a recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee. He said that he would like to arrive at a consensus. A report is to be prepared by two Commissioners is to be distributed to the members of the Commission for review. Mr. Lehner said that he would like to have a motion recommending for or against the proposed subdivision. Mr. Nowesnick said that three people stated that they are totally against the subdivision as presently submitted. He asked if it would be of any benefit to have the applicants propose a design for the house that locks them in to a particular design, form, and mass. That would address some concerns of the neighboring property owners. It would obviously address the financial aspects in terms of the size of home or its value. Mr. Nowesnick said that as stated before by one of the neighbors, it is unknown what it is going up there, and that is the Commission's biggest problem with a subdivision. If the Commission knew what is going there, that might be a benefit to the applicants. That puts the applicants in the role of developer, because they are designing it, and they will be selling that design as such. Mr. Knox, in response to Mr. Nowesnick, said that in his opinion that approach will not make a difference, because when the ordinance was being drafted, the concept of estate stricts was discussed. In this case, this is a unique area, as the Commission overlay di heard in the testimony. Preserving open space is a crucial issue. "Do the standards address preservation of open space?" he asked. Mr. Knox believes that the ordinance states clearly that preservation of open space is under the purview of the Commission. He _ said that open space is very significant to the subject structures. Mr. Sheehan said that there is no building that could be built within the proposed envelope that would maintain the character of the site. Mr. Levin said that in that particular neighborhood there is a real sensitive balance between building mass and space between each building. To put a house on the subdivided lot will really upset that balance. Ms. Deis, concurred with the previous comments. She added that concentrating on the housing further to the west, and avoiding the fact that the Dawes Mansion is across the street is a key to this particular situation. The location of the lot is so critical, once the estate is subdivided, its no longer an estate. With the subdivision, we are not preserving or protecting the landmark as an estate, according to the standards. Mr. Lehner asked Mr. Bieg if he had additional comments. Mr. Bieg said that he disagreed with Mr. Casazza. He said that many of Mr. Casazza's statements were incorrect. In terms of the entrance, a critical issue, not resolved, it requires the input of the Commission. Mr. Bieg said that the garages of I44 Greenwood and 228 Greenwood are facing the street. He said that it was erroneous that 234 Greenwood is not considered �� ,a. isr �„�-rn�•,� a�; ,r•zb°:K•.r+l,WAt,+ttM�+yfh"+�+��ltw.�e•�,��yu ...,f y�•�r�E Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 14 part of the streetscape. M. Bieg said that the applicants are going to preserve the streetscape and the open space. Mr. Sheehan moved that the Commission make a recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee to disapprove the proposal for subdivision of202 Greenwood. The proposal does not meet the requirements of the Evanston Historic Preservation Ordinance in the following ways: The proposal does not preserve tho historic character of the District, in that the site will be adversely impacted, the subdivision will not be compatible with existing sites in the District and immediately adjacent to the property. The future construction on subdivided property would have the effect of blocking and otherwise obstructing views of landmark properties within the District. The subdivision will adversely affect the streetscape of the block and the rhythm of the buildings on the block. The setback of a future building will not be consistent with the setbacks of properties on the block. The subdivision would adversely affect general harmony of the District and setback of buildings. Furthermore, the petitioners have offered arguments based on economics, which cannot be considered at this point of the Preservation Commission's review process. Mr. Knox seconded the motion. Mr. Lehner amended Mr. Sheehan's motion by stating the setbacks should be specific to the adjacent buildings, rather than the buildings on the block. He added that the design of the new structure is a concern, because the unresolved aspects of site access, both to the new lot and to the existing coach house. Mr. Sheehan seconded Mr. Lehner's amendment to his motion. The motion as amended was approved unanimously. Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Knox and he will draft the Commission's report to P&D. Mr. Lehner announced that the Commission will hold a special meeting to vote on the report Wednesday, May 31, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. in Room 2403. IV. COMMi i r zh; REPORTS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1624 Wesley Avenue - Reconstruction of a Rear Porch Ms. Barbara Howard, owner of 1624 Wesley Avenue, and Mr. Daniel Baigelman, architect met with R&TA. Mr. Will Van Dyke said that the project involved the reconstruction of a porch on the back side of the house. R&TA recommended approval of the project to the Commission with R&TA's recommendation to the architect to match the spacing of the balusters with the existing balustrade. Mr. Knox moved to approve -_-- -- __ - - - .• -�_ '�wx+..rw:w��rkr'�. - � .. � �"�'•'� ,,, �.. .w, fir, , i�-�-ta 1;' ». �� ' � n�� . p4;°r•� � Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes Page 15 R&TA's recommendation. The motion, seconded by Mr, Van Dyke, waa approved unanimously. 2. 1025 Asbury - Enlargement of Side Door Opening and Replacement of Existing Door and Storm Door. Joseph Destefano and Candace Hrones, owners of 1025 Asbury Avenue, and Mr. Nabil Zahrah, architect met with R&TA. Mr. Van Dyke said that the house at 1025 Asbury had been previously added to. The owners proposed a new door with sidelights. The new door has a single division that matches the existing door. Mr. Van Dyke said that R&TA recommended to the Commission approval for this alteration as submitted. Ms. Deis moved for approval of R&TA's recommendation, The motion, seconded by Mr. Sheehan, was approved unanimously. M NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUATION) B. 1995 EVANSTON PRESERVATION AWA'kiDS Mr. Ruiz said that the nomination form for the 1995 Evanston Preservation Awards will be available in a few weeks. He encouraged Commission members to submit nominations in the categories of adaptive -reuse, maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, and new construction. Traditionally, a member of the Commission and a member of the Preservation League of Evanston, serve in the five -member jury. The other three jurors are invited from outside Evanston. Mr. Lehner suggested former commissioners Douglas Mohnke and Ann McGuire to be invited as jurors, and former Evanston preservation coordinator Gwen Summers Yant. Mr. Knox suggested that a category for preservationist of the year should be incorporated as part of the Evanston Preservation Awards. Commission members agreed that Mr. Knox's suggestion was worthy of consideration. Mr. Lehner said that the Preservation Awards program is the most publicly visible event for the Commission. He said that he was somewhat concerned, because during the last few years, the number of nominations dropped off. lie also said that it was incumbent 3n the commissioners to nominate projects. The presentation of the awards is in front of City Council. A reception is hosted by the Commission before the awards ceremony. Mr. Ruiz said that lie had contacted Mitchell Harrison, president of the Preservation League, who agreed to participate in this year's program, Mr. Lehner mentioned Mr. Larry Perkins house as a potential nominee. AA Inn am r Evanston Preservation Commission May 16, 1995 - Minutes , Page 16 — V. OLD BUSINESS 1710 Wesley Avenue - Commission's Report of Proposed Subdivision. Commissioners reviewed a draft prepared by Mr. Ruiz of the Commisdods report regarding a proposed three -lot subdivision of 1710 Wesley Avenue. Mr. Vans Dyke amended page 1, paragraph B. (1) (a) to read: Comnnlsslon's Findings: Ercept for the removal of a south side porch (apparently not original to the house) the professed - resubdivislon has minimal Impact on the existing Landmark building. Mr. Van Dyke moved for approval of the Commission's report to P&D of Miay 16, 1995, regarding the subdivision of 1710 Wesley Avenue, as amended, . The motion, seconded by Mr. Sheehan, was approved unanimously. Vi STAFF REPORT Mr. Ruiz reported that he will meet with Alderman Joseph Kent May 17, 1995, and with other members of the Evanston community. They will begin discussions regarding cultural resources with emphasis in Ward 5. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is subject to confirmation and tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, June 21, 1995, at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403, 2100 Pidge Avenue, Civic Center. The change is due to a scheduling conflict. VUL ADJOURNMENT With no further business on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, May 3191995 7:30 p.m. - Roam 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Jessica Deis, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Will Van Dyke, MEMBERS ABSENT: Derek Cottier, George HAW Gregory Nowesnick, Neil Sheehan, Deborah Warner. OTHERS PRESENT: Eleanor Moderwell, Laura Weisskopf PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM A quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner called the special meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. IL OLD BUSINESS A. 202 Greenwood Street - Commission's Draft Report on Proposed Two -Lot 3 Subdivision Mr. Lehner said that Commissioners have received a draft copy of the findings of fact regarding the proposed subdivision of 202 Greenwood Street. The Commission will submit its report to the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council (P&D). Mr. Lehner said that the role of the Commission is to report the findings of fact to P&D and that the Commission's comments are advisory to the City Council. He said that he added his comments to Mr. James M. Knox's original draft. Mr. Lehner asked for i comments on the proposed draft. Mr. Knox said that on page 3, paragraph four, line two, should read Comprehensive General Plan (the word Plan was missing). Mr. Will Van Dyke said that on page 3, under P-RMO S OP MONS. on line four, the last sentence should read: It is the opinion of the Commission that the few remaining estate properties in this area be maintained to 7 Evanston Preservation Commission May 31, 1993 - Minutes Page 2 preserve the original landmark structures on the site and the relationship between the structures and the landscape (the word "landscape" replaced the words "open space"). Mr. Van Dyke said on page 3, the last sentence should read: In conclusion, the Preservation Commission recommends that the Planning and Development Committee deny the subdivision of 202 Greenwood Street as submitted (the word "deny" replaced the word "discourage"). Mr. Carlos Ruiz asked whether an early suggestion for subdividing the rear of the property (considering that the applicants had submitted previously a three -lot subdivision) should be included in the Commission's report. Mr. Lehner said that he found that suggestion hard to think about without seeing a proposal. He said the flag lot issue would be brought again. Although Mr. Lehner felt uncomfortable opening other options at this point, he felt that the comments made by the Commission were reasonable and possible. Mr. Lehner acknowledge the presence of Ms. Eleanor Moderwell (daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Harry K. Bieg) and asked her if she had any comments. Ms. Moderwell said that the applicants submitted pictures that showed clearly that there was no view of the coach house from the street. Pictures showed that there is so much landscaping between the 214, 202 Greenwood, and the lake, that the lake cannot be seen from the windows at 214 Greenwood. The lake cannot be seen from their porch either. She said that those are facts. In terms of the rhythm of the street, there is only one property that has two very large side yards, and that is 202 Greenwood. She said that two large side yards do not show a rhythm, Mr. Moderwell referred to the draft report, on page 2 (b), regarding the issues of design and access, it was clearly stated that was subject to the scrutiny of the Commission. Mr. Lehner said it is important to understand that in this case it is hard for the Commission to react to something that has not been presented. The Commission does not provide the design of new structures, rather the Commission reacts to proposed designs. Ms. Moderwell said that the issue of setbacks is totally untrue because the setbacks have been established and that the issue of setbacks is open to discussion. She said that contrary to item (e), Mr. George Anton testified that there would not be adverse affects on property values. Also, Mr. Brad White covered other issues. Ms. Moderwell wondered if there is any other estate property in Evanston other than Northwestern UniversiWs Dawes Mansion that can be presented for subdivision. She said that the Commission has to ask in good conscience whether only one property is being targeted. She also said that the suggestion of subdividing the property with the coach house as the main structure was never suggested to the applicants before. We are expecting somebody here to maintain a great deal of open space as an ideal. If that is what the Commission really wants, there should be some fair compensation. Even as Mr. Lawrence Casazza had said to give this owners the value of their property, for the maintenance, and for the Evanston Preservation Commission May 31, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 Wes. Ms. Moderwell said that she struggled with these issues because she used to be a member of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois. Now, being on the other side, seeing how decisions are arbitrary, she would renlly like to sac some justice. She said that even separating the coach house could be a good solution. She said even with Mr. Ruiz working in the City, it was difficult to get some direction. Mr. Ruiz clarified to Ms. Moderwell that when the last proposal for a three lot subdivision was still pending, her brother, Mr. Richard K. Bieg, had requested an informal meeting with Ms. Carol Qualkinbush, former Chair of the Commission. Mr. Ruiz said that he was present at that meeting. Mr. Bieg wanted some direction about what to do with the proposed subdivision. Nis. Qualkinbush told Mr. Bieg that his questions were related to zoning issues, and that at the time the Conunission did not have any purview over subdivisions. At that time Ms. Qualkinbush suggested Mr, Bieg to perhaps subdivide the lot with the coach house being the main structure. The other suggestion was the subdivision of the rear of the property. Mr. Ruiz said that he was a witness of that suggestion. Mr. Lehner said that there was a suggestion made that, in fact, it might be possible to subdivide the coach house from the main property. The coach house would be the main structure on a subdivided lot. Ms. Moderweti asked if that meant to subdivide the property on the west side in half. Mr. Lehner said that was one possibility. The Commission is working with an ordinance that was adopted within the last year. All the rules that apply for subdivision are all new, Mr. Lehner said. He said that he was very sympathetic with what the applicants were going through because he had to go for zoning variance this year for his house, that he would not have had to go through under a previous zoning ordinance. He said that he understands how frustrating this is for the applicants. Mr. Lehner said that there have been discussions about other options, whether they were something that the applicants wanted to consider or not, is unknown. The Commission tries to be helpful when it can, Mr. Lehner said. Ms. Moderwell asked what would be the problem in proposing a subdivision where the coach house is on one lot as the main structure. Mr. Lehner said that he would like to do is finish what the Commission had in hand. Mr. Moderwell asked if the Commission could find out more =' about previous suggestion. Mr. Lehner suggested that the Commission could consider the issue at the next meeting if Ms. Moderwell wishes to. Ms. Moderwell referring to Mr. Casazza's comments, said that Mr. Casazza of 214 Greenwood Street had said that when he contracted to buy his property, that he did not a know about the pending subdivision, and when he found out about it, he got a reduction in the price. As a Realtor, she knows that Mr. Casazza got a substantial reduction. Ms. Moderwell said that Mr. Ruiz characterized Mr. Casazza's testimony as hearsay, she could not understand that since she was present when the statement was made. - - - - - � .. ...- - - nr ��- + -. �r .r +lr'�J1+1'"•��'MT•...�^r ..'1'^Rr L'T^'.,a+.'.,� �� _nT++�+."�.I+r•;`TI•hY�, �'�MM•��i+ Evanston Preservation Commission May 31, 1995 - Minutes Page A Mr. Kirk Irwin said that Mr. Casazza statement was in response to Mr. Bieg's comment regarding Mr. Casazza's knowledge of the subdivision prior to the signing of the contract. Ms. Moderwell said that Mr. Casazza stated that he got the reduction in price because the real estate agent did not inform him about the subdivision. lit either case he got a lot of credit. Mr. Lehner in response to Ms. Moderwell's comments said that his understanding of the findings of fact is that these are the Commission's findings in response to the criteria stated in the Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Lehner said that each item that was addressed by the applicant and that were discussed at the May 16, 1995 meeting, does not necessarily have to be represented at this evening meeting. However, there is the record of all the discussion and everything that was presented in the meeting minutes. Mr. Ruiz confirmed that the minutes will be available to P&D along with the Commission's report. Since the applicants were trying to be in the P&D's agenda of June 12, Mr. Ruiz said that a draft of the minutes could be ready by the end of the week (June 2, 1995). Mr. Lehner said that the applicant's testimony submitted to the Commission will accompany the Commission's report to P&D and the City Council. Mr. Knox confirmed that the Preservation Ordinance requires a report with findings of fact from the Commission. Ms. Moderwell said that she had the impression that P&D was about to be restructured. She said that was a concern for her. Commissioners reassured Ms. Moderwell that the Commission's report will be ready for the P&D meeting of June 12. Mr. Van Dyke moved that the Commission accept the report on 202 Greenwood as amended. The motion, seconded by Mr. Erwin was approved unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nay. B. 1995 PRESERVATION AWARDS Mr. Ruiz submitted a draft of the nomination form for the 1995 Evanston Preservation Awards. The forms would be distributed to the public through direct mailing and by placing the nomination forms in public places such as the Public Library and the Civic Center. Commission members were encouraged to submit nominations. Mr. Lehner said that this an important event that takes place every year. The awards ceremony takes place in front of the City Council. sm i ,r J Am 3 -A 7W i AM 49 Evanston Preservation Commission May 31, 1995 -Minutes Page 5 11L NEW BUSEMS A. 1702 CHICAGO AVENUE - CEWN LWK FENCE Mr. Ruiz said that an application for a side yard chain link fence at 1702 Chicago Avenue (Woman's Club of Evanston) was submitted to his office for approval. He explained to the applicants that the proposed fence was not in character with the Landmark building. He offered that the Conunission may be able to make some recommendations regarding the fence design. Ms. Deis suggested that a cast aluminum fence may be appropriate and in character with the building. She said that she would contact the applicants to provide them with the name of a fence contractor. B. PUBLIC PLACE NAMES CGNIIVIY ME Mr. Lehner said that he had received a letter from the CiWs Public Place Names Committee. He said that a Commission member needs to be appointed to this Committee. Mr. Lehner said he would like to have a volunteer by the next Commission meeting. M AN NOUNCEM[ENr Mr. Lehner announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, June 20, 1995, at 8:00 p.m., in the Civic Center, Room 2403, 2100 Ridge Avenue. IV. ADJOURNMENT The special meeting was adjourned by Mr. Lehner at 8:50 p.m. A �i ', i, ��"�., :Y.'- '4g�{ i:.�'r '�'r1'. -• ,�i^<,f``��y�`�41 F11��. �,'/:.�iy�, r JY .'...` _ •,M �„.. EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION r-I Z Tuesday, Jane 20,1995 0:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Derek Cottier, Jessica Deis, George Halik, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Gregory Nowesnick, Neil Sheehan, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Mumbrue, Deborah Warner. OTHERS PRESENT: Review and Technical Assistance Committee Session: Caryl Till; Jeremy R. Wilson, Doug Pasma; Joan & Jack McLane, Ellen Galland; Kathy Burgess Commission's Meeting: PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz hp . At 8.00 p.m. the Review and Technical Assistmce Committee session was stilt In progress, and a quorum was present. L COM11MTEE REPORTS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CO14II MTEE (R&TA) 1. 1502 Davis Street - Rear Alterations Ellen Galland, architect, with Joan and Jack McLane, owners of 1502 Davis Street, ' submitted plans for alterations to the rear (west facade) of the north half of the double house. The alterations consist of new stairs to the porch, new rear door to the kitchen, and an enlargement of two rear windows facing west. y Mr. Richard Lehner, said that before a motion is made that he would like to call to meeting to order. 11 DETERMENATION OF QUORUM �7 With a quorum being present, Mr. Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Evanston Preservation Commission June 20, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 L COMMITTEE REPORTS (Continuation) A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1502 Davis Street - hear Alterations Mr. Will Van Dyke moved for approval of the alterations at 1502 Davis as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. George Halik, was approved unanimously. 2. 1330 Church Street - Alterations Ms. Kathy Burgess, owner of 1330 Church Street, presented schematic drawings for the relocation of openings on the east facade and the addition of an exterior covered porch. Ms. Burgess requested a preliminary review from the Commission. The alterations include facing east: replacing an existing door for a new double hung wood window; the addition of french doors to the south side of the window; relocation of steps in front of the french doors; a new covered porch with a gable over the french doors and a railing to the north of the steps. The Commission recommended to Ms. Burgess that it would be beneficial for the project to obtain detail and construction drawings from an architect. Ms. Burgess s agreed to follow the Commission's advice in that regard. a Ms. Burgess asked the Commission's opinion regarding the design of the new french doors and the new window, and whether it was necessary to replicate existing details. Mr. Lehner said that the casing around the window and the molding of the outside edge can be matched. Any typical detail should be maintained. Standard size windows and doors are acceptable when they are very close in size and design to original doors and windows. Ms. Burgess said that she would like to put leaded glass on the door and window. At the west side of the house is an enclosed porch, which has a flat tin roof that needs replacement. Ms. Burgess asked if a copper roof would be better than a tin roof. Mr. Lehner said that in this case it was the owner's discretion to select the material. Ms. Burgess asked about storm windows. Mr. Lehner said that aluminum triple track storm windows are removable fixtures, therefore may not permanently alter the character of a building. III. APPROVAL OF MDWTES M. James M. Knox moved for aplrioval of flip. nunutes of May 16, 1995. The motion, seconded by Mr. Van Dyke, was approved unaniimously. • Aq _- — ---�.- �,.��=�.r�^+,+r'°'n*^�",�:7�7er+T'-� r .�, -- �tr;,'ro►+.a' r r .fir- � �.�,-,S�i���Nh^ft�.w'.1�t-S�'i..+,Ee,J�'�3a^.,�"'•-f�F"1"swi,wf;�,?r�IR'441�+�'"`•'�i�x"'M1nfr, _-- •-(�*,-; . �..� is f.a l.. , - _ z fib +1 •.•� Evanston Preservation Commission June 20, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 L COMMITTEE REPORTS (Continuation) A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 3. 600 Forest Avenue - Rear Addition Mx. Van Dyke said R&TA reviewed the addition of a rear screened porch. Mr, Van Dyke moved for approval of the rear addition at 600 Forest Avenue as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. 4. 1908 Sheridan Road - Rear Alterations Mr. Van Dyke said that a building at 1908 Sheridan Road was recently purchased by Northwestern University, The conversion of the house for office use requires a stair as a second means of egress for safety code. The stair would be constructed where an existing two-story porch currently exists. A lift on the north side is needed to meet accessibility requirements. After some discussion, R&TA recommended to add the flared clapboard skirt detail at the second floor. Mr. Sheehan said that in his opinion the new construction was fake. He believed that the porch could be retained as is and build the stair through it. He objected the roof over the stair at the third floor. Mr. Sheehan believed that the alterations were inappropriate according to the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Flsstoric Buildings. He added that he was not satisfied with the architect's roof solution. Mr. Lehner said that lie would rather see the proposed stairs screened in some manner. Mr. Halik said that he prefers the stairs to be screened, however, he also believed that it could have been done in a more sensitive way to the existing construction. Mr. Van Dyke moved to approve the alterations to 1908 Sheridan Road, with the modifications as recommended by R&TA. The motion, seconded by Mr. Derek Cottier, was approved. Vote: 8 Ayes, 1 Nay. 5. 1710 WESLEY AVENUE Mr. Lehner said that since the applicants for this project were not yet present, he will continue with the agenda. IV. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Ruiz said that he learned that the Wendenheimer Astronomical Research Center at Northwestern University may be dernolished. This fa.e ty is not listed as an Evanston Landmark. -�--��,y*�----•r:N-n�. M%�r�'^�h�*err-'.�-�*,rr��rbtlR*-=*a ., . � � :�-�"�'�' . w+,F7r,�*�� Evanston Preservation Commission June 20, 1995 - Minutes Page 4 However, some Evanston residents have expressed to him their concern about its future. Mr. Halik said that apparently the facility is neither maintained or used. Mr. Ruiz said the building, according to the Preservation Ordinance, could be nominated for Landmark designation by any Evanston resident. V. OLD BUSINESS A. 202 Greenwood Street - Proposed Two Lot Subdivision Mr. Knox said that the 202 Greenwood Street two -lot subdivision was held by the Planning and Development Committee (P&D). A motion by Alderman Anny Heydemann to approve the subdivision was not seconded. A second motion by Alderman Arthur Newman to deny the subdivision and seconded by Alderman Joseph Kent, was not voted. Alderman Stephen Engelman was undecided. Mr. Lehner said that Alderman Engelman was looking for a compromise. The Commissions suggested a subdivision that would run from the front property line, straight back to the rear of the lot. The coach house would remain as the only building on the new lot, with no development in front of it. Another possibility would be a planned development that would allow the subdivision of the main house without affecting the landscape. Alderman Engelman was interested in pursuing that. Mr. Lehner said that Alderman Kent had a strong opinion against the subdivision, based on his own experience with his Ward. Alderman Newman took his stand on the basis of the Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Lehner said that those opposed to the subdivision included: the Preservation League of Evanston, the immediate neighbors of 202 Greenwood and two other residents of the neighborhood. Ms. Moderwell, daughter of Mr. and Mrs, Bieg, their attorney Mr. Murray, and Mr. Frank Hoover, were present in favor of the subdivision. The applicants argued that they started with four lots, then three lots, and now two lots. They feel that is an unfair burden to force them to maintain the property. They also argued that there is no consistency on the block. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission has a different opinion. Mr. Cottier said that under the provisions of the Preservation Ordinance, the applicants did not meet the standards for subdivision- B. 1995 PRESERVATION AWARDS Mr. Ruiz said that he had an appointment with Mr. Gary Taylor, editor for the Evanston Review. Unfortunately, Mr. Taylor did not show. Mr. Taylor called him and rescheduled another appointment. Mr. Ruiz said that he will propose to Mr. Taylor that the Evanston Review carry a #tell story about the preservation awards. Mr. Lehner asked Commissioners .P b Evanston Preservation Commission June 20, 1995 - Minutes Page 5 to turn in addresses of projects that would qualify under the categories of adaptive ra-use, maintenance, new construction, rehabilitation, and restoration. Mr. Van Dyke suggested forming a standing committee that would look for projects to be nominated year-round. C. CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Mr. Ruiz said that the Cultural Resources Committee met once on June 14, 1995, Now that the Committee is formed, Alderman Joseph Kent would be responsible in attracting more people from the Fifth Ward to serve in this Committee. Mr. Ruiz said that he will try to meet with Alderman Kent to develop a strategy for that purpose. VL STAFF REPORT Mr. Ruiz said that he was invited to the annual meeting of the Preservation League of Evanston, June 23, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. He said that he will attend the meeting. Commission members were also invited to attend the meeting. Mr. Ruiz said that he was asked to attend meeting with the internal neighborhood planning team, composed by City staff. I tonic preservation is now considered as another important component of neighborhood planning. The Plan Commission soon will be rewriting the Comprehensive General Plan. In the current plan, there is a chapter that deals exclusively with historic preservation. Mr. Lehner hoped that the Preservation Commission would be writing that chapter. Mr. Ruiz said that the Plan Commission just conducted their annual retreat. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Continuation) A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) S. 1710 WESLEY AVENUE Mr. Lehner noted that the applicants were not present. Mr. Ruiz had indicated earlier that the applicants were properly informed about the date and time of the meeting. Mr. Cattier asked what happened with the original plan that was previously approved as part of a subdivision. Mr. Ruiz said that the developers had a new client that does not like the twin homes concept. Mr. Nowesnick said that the Commission approved the two new proposed structures, because it was a book end composition, and everyone seemed to like that concept. The idea, was strong, it made the original house much more prominent. Changing the design to a brick home, next to the clapboard Landmark, how does the Commission feel about that? Does it chaff the rules on what the Commission had approved two meeting ago? f N Evanston Preservation Commission lion 20, 1995 - Minutes Page 6 W. Cottier said that the Commission approved the subdivision of the property based on the deign of the new homes. He said this is a total change to the original proposal. Mr. Cottier affirmed that the design of the homes was tied to the subdivision approval. The developers submitted to the Commission a solid idea of what they wanted to do, including the massing, the basic design, and now they changed it. Mr. Nowesnick said that the project was significantly changed by introducing vehicular drive in front of the lot. Mr. Cottier said that was done not in conjunction with the subdivision. He said the Preservation Ordinance requires that the Commission look at what is going to be built, in order for the Commission to make a recommendation on the subdivision. The Commission had already done that, on the basis of twin homes on either side of the Landmark building. He said that the Comnssion acknowledged that the details may change somewhat. Now the applicants are totally changing the entire design concept for both the new proposed house and the way the three lots work. Mr. Lehner said that the applicants are not presenting the new design in the context of both lots. We do not know how this affects the other lots. Mr. Ruiz said that it was his understanding that the design of the house for the south lot was fine. The new buyers for the north lot want a house with an attached two -car garage. Mr. Nowesnick said that the Commission also liked the idea of the two porches. Now the new design does not have any porch. Mr. Nowesnick said that the applicants have significantly changed the program. Mr. Sheehan asked if the applicants came with the same new design without the drive way, would the Commission approve the design? Mr. Nowesnick said that he did not know. He said that his comments were very strong about the book end idea. Mr. Sheehan said that perhaps that opinion was based on what was presented at the time, but that we did not know about the new concept. Mr. Nowesnick said that he could not say that his opWon would change. Ms. Jessica Deis said that without the knowledge of what happened before, she had strong objection to the driveway. Mr. Nowesnick said aside from the garage and the depressed driveway, this was a totally 7 different style of home that is not sympathetic to the existing Landmark. Much of the 3 Commission discussion was about the shadow lines, the eaves, balustrades, front porches, massing. The applicants changed the program, Mr. Nowesnick maintained. Mr. Ruiz then showed slides of the immediate homes and the block. Mr. Lehner said that he was not present when the Commission approved the subdivision, he said that them is no question about the garage. The applicants should also submit a site plan when seeking approval. For that reason the Commission would not approve the project. He said that the Commission is concerned with the proposed garage. The new project is a radical departure from what the Commission had seen previously, the massing and the entry characte xtics hod rlaanged. The Commission would like to see the project submitted again in conjunction with the other house. Mr. Lelllmer asked 1'vir. Ruiz to � +r Evanston Preservation Commission June 20, 1995 - Minutes Page 7 iAr contact the applicants to confirm that they had been informed properly about the Commission meeting. W. Lehner said that the Commission states specifically to the applicant that the two -car garage was rec weed very poorly, the Commission would not move for approval, because a site plan was not submitted, and no one was present to discuss the project with the Commission. The applicants could certainly expect that without those changes that certainly no motion for approval will be made. The Commission is also concerned with the massing and the relationship with what was approved with the subdivision. The Commission understands that when it approved the subdivision, it also approved the design. Mr. Ruiz was asked to communicate the Commission's comments to the applicants. VIL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lelmer announced that the next Commission meeting is scheduled Tuesday July 18, 1995 at 8:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. ViIU. ADJOURNMENT With no further business on the agenda Mr. Lehner adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. . �„ �,. ''S�� nr+-r,�r�k•�^hr a. arlCtnT�^'Mk�r��Rm . f�� . a �"�'�• EVANSTON PRESERVATION COM1VJ.iSSION MINUTES Tuesday, July 18,1995 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Derek Cottier, Jessica Deis, George Halik, Kirk Irwin, James M, Knox, Richard Lehner, Gregory Nowesnick, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Mumbrue, Neil Sheehan, Deborah Warner. OTHERS PRESENT: Review and Technical Assistance Session: Kathy Burgess, Preston Faucett, Joe Colucci; Nancy Kohn, Mary Kohn Commission's Meeting: PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz = L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Lehner called the meeting to order at 9:10 p.m. He said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee review session will continue as part of the Commission's regular meeting. 3 EL COM1 MTEE REPORTS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COM MTEE (R&TA) 1. 610 Callan Avenue - Replacement of Windows and Installation or New Fence Ms. Nancy Kohn said that her mother Ms. Mary Kohn, owner of 610 Callan Avenue, would like to replace fourteen windows of her house. Only the window sashes would be replaced with vinyl clad double hung windows, the wood casement and trim of all the windows would remain. N. Kohn said that plain double hung windows would cost $420 less than windows with applied divided lights. Commissioners discussed issues related to window design, dimensions, materials and cost of replacing new windows with true divided lights. Commissionera E Evanston Preservation Commission July 18, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 concluded that applied divided lights would detract from other original features around the window openings. Mr. George Halik moved that the Commission accept the original proposal to replace the existing double hung with divided lights windows with vinyl clad double hung windows without divided lights. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gregory Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. N. Kohn said that for security reasons they would like to install a fence facing the street. She had an old picture of the house that showed a wood picket fence. Mr. Richard Lehner asked the Commissioners if they had any objection for the installation of a wood picket fence. Hearing none, he said that the Commission will not object to the installation of a wood picket fence. No motion was required at this time. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Derek Cottier moved to approve the May 31, 1995, special meeting minutes. The motion, seconded by Mr. Kirk Irwin, was approved unanimously. Mr. Will Van Dyke moved to approve the June 20, 1995 minutes. The motion, seconded by Ms. Jessica Deis, was approved unanimously. IV. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Ruiz said that he received from the City Mangers office a copy of the draft for request for proposals (RFP) for the redevelopment of 425 Dempster Street (formerly the Miller School), a contributing structure to the Lakeshore Historic District. The Building was designed by Daniel Burnham and built in 1898. Mr. Ruiz said that he was asked to review the text and incorporate new text regarding preservation requirements for the redevelopment of the property. He also provided a list of developers and architects with experience in historic preservation. The RFP requires the preservation of the main structure and the existing open space. IL COM ni izr, REPORTS (Continuation) A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMMME (R&TA) 2. 1330 Church Street - Rear Alterations Mr. Nowesnick said that the Commission had previously reviewed this project for exterior alterations. The owner, Ms. Kathy Burgess, made a second presentation to R&TA with drawings prepared by mi architect for a covered porch addition and exterior non -covered stairs. R&TA did not have objections to the overall design 3 Two recommendations were submitted to die owner. First, match existing eave details. Second, match color of finishes. W. Nowesnick said that R&TA lJo".ro.ill fl a .IJ,, u .ILA Evanston Preservation Commission July 18, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 recommends approval of the project at 1330 Church Street. Mr. Cottier moved to approve R&TA's report. The motion seconded by Mr. Nowewnick was approved unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Committee on Public Place Names - Meeting Mr. Lehner said that W. Van Dyke attended a meeting of the Committee on Public Place Names. Mr. Van Dyke said that a woman named Jennifer Morris was killed five years ago. Ms. Morris was apparently instrumental in getting a small piece of property on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Custer, dormted to the City. There wo-e no representatives at the Public Place Names Committee meeting to speak for her. The Public Place Names Committee tabled a motion until a next meeting. B. 100 Greenwood - Addition Mr. Van Dyke said that this property now is on the market for sale. The _ Commission had approved the addition a few months ago. He said that for the record he feels that the addition does not do anything for the building. Mr. Lehner said that this project is a reminder to the Commission to assert their trust for preservation. C. Resignation Mr. Ruiz said that Ms. Debbie Warner informed him of her resignation as a Evanston Preservation Commission member. Ms. Warner is moving to a new residence out of Evanston. Mr. Lehner suggested that a new commissioner preferably be representing women and minorities. VL OLD BUSINESS A. 202 Greenwood - Proposed Subdivision Mr. Lehner said that Mr, Ruiz and he attended the July 10, 1995, City Council meeting, in which the Council discussed their new rules. The meeting lasted until JOIN 2:00 a.m. The proposed subdivision of 202 Greenwood was delayed. Earlier 2: that evening the Planning and Development Committee voted 4 to 0 to concur with the recommendation of the Preservation Commission to deny the request for subdivision of 202 Greenwood Strut. At 11:15 p.m. Mr. Lehner left the Council meeting after Alderman Engelman told him that he and Alderman Emily Guthrie weld moved to posipone the vote until the following nutting because, the �¢wv.t �.- �. Est _'fit'`.,= _ —.�� — — .... ,...; .:ti,.-, +:Ii Evanston Preservation Commission July 19, 1995 - Minutes Page 4 attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Bieg, the owners of202 Greenwood, Mr. Murray, was not available that evening. Mr, Lehner said that some Council members are considering a compromise. However, the neighbors have generated significant support opposing the subdivision. The Preservation League, The Southeast Evanston Association, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois and the National Trust for Historic Preservation are opposed to the subdivision. Mr. Lehner said that he will not be in town on July 24, when the City Council will meet again. He said that he will arrange so that a member of the Commission is present at that Council meeting to accompany Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Cottier asked if there was a compromise with the subdivision, would the Commission had the opportunity to review the new subdivision? Mr. Ruiz said that if that were the case, the applicants would have to submit a new application for a new subdivision. B. 1995 Preservation Awards - Update Mr. Ruiz said that the application forms for nominating projects for the 1995 Evanston Preservation Awards have been distributed. He said the Evanston Review will also announce the awards program. Mr. Irwin said that he would like to nominate St. Marie's Church at Grove Street and Ridge Avenue in the category of restoration. Mr. Ruiz said that the jury will visit the sites Saturday, August 25. Mr. Ron Emrich, Executive Director of Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, Linda Sean, ALA, Nan Greenough, a preservation advocate and recipient of the 1995 - Preservationist of the year from Winnetka, Mitchel Harrison, President of Preservation League of Evanston have been invited to serve as jurors. Mr. Ruiz said that the reception and awards ceremony is Monday, September 18, 1995. Mr. Irwin also suggested the nomination of the Evanston Post Office, for maintenance, and the Evanston Public Library, for new construction. C. CULTURAL RESOURCES COM1VQME Mr. Ruiz said that Alderman Kent's initiative for the nomination of a Cultural Resources Conservation District is under way. The Committee held its third meeting. ip N-1i-9..f , �j„ x., - _a,-:.F' it,-1 .. ;,'h•'_-si�i�va.f}�.[r"j FVr .o . a, [,,-E '-.S .r .. - ,. nn n.. ... ..;, _-__ �JM a`F'•.`'0 'r.t.t�ti"- 1 "f ii--5�.4}.'�.�A .. ��3.n. Evanston Preservation Commission July 19, 1995 - Minutes Page 5 VIL STAFF REPORT lUir. Ruiz said that he had approved several ro-roofing projects. Calls reguesdng information about the Tax Credit programs for historic preservation have increased dramatically this year. VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr, Leiner announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, August 15, 1995, at 8:00 p.m, in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois, 60201. DL ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lehner adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m, STAFF: DATE:t±tI � ! j4s EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, August 15,1995 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Derek Cattier, Jessica Deis, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick. MEMBERS ABSENT: George Hallk, Neil Sheehan, Will Van Dyke OTHERS PRESENT: Review and Technical Assistance Session: Katherine Grant, Susan Regan, David Roberts, Emily Guthrie, Clayton Pierson, Sarosh Saber, Beth Jones Commission's Meeting: Gintaras Lietuvninkas, Keith Sheahan, Till Fletcher PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz NOTE: At 8:00 p.m. the Review and Technical Assistance review session was still in progress. A quorum was already present. L COMMIT" I'EE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 618 Emerson Street - Replacement of Windows Mr. Gintaras Lietuvninkas, architect, presented architectural drawings to the R&TA for the replacement of the steel casement windows for aluminum casement windows at 618 Emerson Street. Mr. Lietuvninkas explained the existing condition of the steel windows, y emphasizing their state of great deterioration and disrepair. The current rate of heat loss is considerably high, augmented by several layers of paint, making difficult for the windows to close properly. Most screens are mussing, posing a security risk to the house. MIN Mr. Lietuvninkas said that the proposal is to replace the windows replicating the subdivision of the windows as they currently exist. Mr. Lehner asked if the replacement 3 windows had true divided lights, Mr. Lietuvninkas said no. Mr. UetuvnW= showed Evanston preservation Commission Minutes - August 15, 1995 Page 2 other examples of windows that had been previously replaced with the same type of window as the proposed windows that closely resemble the existing steel casement windows. ibir. Lehner asked if there was any window that would be changed from casement to double hung, Mr. Lietuvninkas said no. Mr. Lietuvninkas referred to the literature on some of the alternatives available in aluminum and steel windows. Mr. Nowesnick asked if the Hope thermally broken windows were considered as an alternative, although the muntin bars and frame are a little larger, Mr. Lietuvninkas said no. Mr. Lietuvninkas said that the initial intent was to replace all casement windows with windows of the same type, however that puts the project over the budget. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission would expect that all the windows are of the same type. Mr. Kirk Irwin said that he would encourage the architect to look into the thermally broken Hope window. In response to a question from Mr. Lietuvninkas, Mr. Lehner said that the Commission's intent is to preserve the integrity of the building. Mr. Nowesnick asked if the proposed windows had the divided light grill sandwiched between the insulating glass, Mr. Lietuvninkas said yes. Mr. Nowesnick asked if applied grills (interior and exterior) were considered. Mr. Keith Sheahan said that they had looked at some lead taming systems. The lead taming system has a strip of lead on the outside of the light, there is also a strip of lead applied in between the two lights. He said the cost for this system is relatively expensive. W. Nowesnick asked about the color of the windows. Mr. Lietuvninkas said that the color would be close to the original color. Mr. Irwin asked whether the transom issue applied to the circle head windows. Mr. Lietuvninkas said that the existing windows No. 3 have transoms, the proposed new windows are full casement windows, thus eliminating the transoms. Mr. Lehner said that two issues were discussed: first, the divided lights and second, the transoms. He asked members of R&TA for their thoughts about the Wausaw versus the Traco windows, At this time Ms. Jill Fletcher, President of the Board of Directors of Delta Gamma House, arrived at the meeting. Mr. Ruiz asked whether the restoration of the existing windows was an alternative. Mr. Nowesnick said that it seemed that it was a question of budget versus true divided lights. He added that the Commission members know how the fake divided lights look like. W. Lehner said that he would request further investigation to determine the best alternative. He said that he was not completely comfortable with a bar between two prates of glass. Mr. Nowesnick said that because there are many windows involved, it was important to consider the economic impact that true divided lights would have versus the single pane windows which would totally change the appearance of the building. Ms. Fletcher said that with the proposed windows the project is already 522,400 over budget. Mr. Nowesnick said referring to the proposed windows that the muntin bars between the insulating panes would be the same color as the Game. W. Irwin said that as long as the - R`�, e.r.. � .4 � �,.-J4 � • e.•�'l, r Y. Inih' i lit. .ipr Evaniton'Preservation Commission Nfinutes - August 15, 1995 Page 3 overall character of the windows is maintained, he did not cans whether they are steel or aluminum. Mr. Lehner paused the R&TA session to acknowledge that a quonun was already present for sometime. He said that he would conclude the R&TA session before officially caffing the Commission's meeting to order. He said that R&TA would recommend approval of the proposal with the following stipulations: The use of a window system that has a profile as the Wausaw windows (that is no larger than the Wausaw), the use of the same type of window throughout and that apart from the transoms, the same type of windows be utilized (casement for casement windows, no double hung windows should replace casement windows). Mr. Lietuvninkas asked if restoration was found to be more economically feasible, would the Commission needed to approve that alternative. Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Ruiz would be reviewing the specifications. If he finds that the stipulations made by R&TA were met, then he would be able to approve the project without coining back to the Commission. He added that restoration is a preferred alternative. H. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM A quorum being present, Mr. Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. III. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Continuation) A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 618 Emerson Street - Replacement of Windows Mr. Lehner said that since a quorum was present during R&TA's session regarding 619 Emerson Street, he would ask for a motion regarding the proposed replacement of windows. Mr. Cottier moved to approve R&TA's recommendation. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox was approved unanimously. Mr. Lehner said that at this time he would like to welcome three visitors -observers from Elgin: Mr. Sarosh Saher, Historic Preservation Specialist, Clay Pierson, Director of Code Administration and Neighborhood Affairs, and Beth Jones, Code Compliance Engineer. 3 2. 2222 Lincoln Street - Rear and Side Addition _ Mr. Lehner said that at the R&TA preliminary review session Mr. David Roberts, architect, submitted plans for rear and side additions at 2222 Lincoln Strut, an Evanston =i Landmark, designed by Tallmadge and Watson. Mr. Lehner said that R&TA would ..---r�r .- -- , , .�k f - ._- ,- _-' .,,, ,_ _ - .,- . -` - ' .., ,., -, ' s,�=.gyp .yii�•, r �q.11T'.--il"'nMP�},,.-..- --- Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - August 15, 1995 Page 4 recommend to the Commission acceptance of the additions as proposed with the following stipulations: The wall of the addition on the west elevation should be setback at lean 6 Inches to delineate the dif#'erence between the old structure and the new construction. Mr. Lehner said that this is a very large addition to a beautiful house, which generally was well done. The proposed attached garage was an issue of extensive discussion, at the end, R&TA agreed to recommend the project with the above mentioned stipulation. Mr. Lehner added that this house is located near a grouping of other important Tallmadge and Watson designed houses and other Evanston Landmarks. Mr. Cottier moved to approve R&TA's recommendation. The mo}ion, seconded by Ms. Mary Mumbruc was approved unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF MY RYM Mr. Cottier moved to approve the Commission's minutes of July 18, 1995. The motion, seconded by Ms. Mumbrue was approved unanimously. V. CORRESPONDENCE Mr, Ruiz said he had received a letter from Anne Swallow from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, in response to his request for determining whether the properties at 940 Judson Avenue (400-12 Lee Street), and 1450-56 Oak Avenue (1101-1111 Lake Street) were eligible for a federal tax credit. Mr. Ruiz said Mr. Bon Jordan had requested information regarding the landmark designation of the two properties owned by Baird and Warner. At issue is the replacement of the existing wood windows for aluminum windows, and the purview of the commission over the properties. Mr. Ruiz said that he has offered information to Mr. Jordan regarding potential federal tax credits if the windows were restored instead of being replaced. Ms. Swallow estates in her letter that the properties were fisted only as eligible structures for the National Register, because the owner had opposed the actual designation. She also estates that in order for the properties to be eligible for the federal tax credit, all that Baird and Warner has to do is write to her a letter indicating that they no longer oppose the designation of the properties. lair. Lehner asked to Mr. Ruiz to contact the former preservation coordinator to find out more about the local designation of the two properties. He also asked that Ms. Mary McWilliams and Ms. Anne Earle be contacted for consultation. Mr, Lehner said that he was concerned with the request of determining whether the due process was followed for the local landmark designation of both properties. He said that this information is important for the Commission as well. ..... i ..l li YI .lilt, 11.. t1 F� Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - August 15, 1995 Page 5 VL CONMff EE REPORTS (Continuation) A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 3. 653 Michigan Avenue - Porch Rehabilitation Mr. Lavin said the project at 653 Michigan Avenue was a porch repair. The owner, Ms. Emily Guthrie, submitted plans to R&TA by W. Kent Marthaler, architect. The columns' detail would be changed at the base. Mr. Irwin said that R&TA was somewhat concerned with this change, since Ms. Guthrie plans to apply for the Property Assessment Tax Freeze. The question was whether the State would approve the project. W. Nowesnick added that R&TA would recommended approval of the replacement of the existing porch in kind, including the alteration of detail of the columns base. Mr. Nowesnick moved to accept R&TA's recommendation regarding the porch rehabilitation at 653 Michigan Avenue. The motion, seconded by Mr. Lavin was approved unanimously. 4. 716 Michigan Avenue - Side and Rear Addition MIr. Irwin said that Ms. Katherine Grant, owner, and Ms. Susan Regan, architect, presented to R&TA plans for the rehabilitation of the front porch steps, an addition to the rear of the house of an open porch, and the rehabilitation of an existing two-story porch. Mr. Lavin said that R&TA discussed the concrete masonry base and whether there were other options to pursue, instead of painting the concrete block base. R&TA agreed to allow the concrete block. There was a question regarding the concrete block pier underneath the exterior porch as well. Mr. Lehner said R&TA would recommend this project as submitted. Mr. Irwin said that a glass block window on the second floor would be replaced with a diagonally mullioned square window. W. Nowesnick moved that the Commission accept R&TA's recommendation regarding 716 Michigan Avenue. The motion, seconded by Mr. Irwin was approved unanimously. VU. NEW BUSINESS Nomination of the Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center (LARC) as an Evanston Landmark Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission has received a nomination for the Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center (LARQ as an Evanston Landmark. By ordinance the 'q � � �* £''•��'""I°"1; r .��-�''e.^.�i4:�"�'�' ,��� -"ram ,ic r. '.� 4-r- _: .- _ • - - - -- - � - - ,t�.:.`-t- 7s�-':'rY":+'-�� L�t."" ix,�S�x O��t+'�C�c � �ty*��,"��`�W 4f�3�'�b-•) ' ,����' �i'��ilt�' ?�4i`�f rY i�r'e�x��YF��•.1,��-''- 4ri '",:�� _ i �i! s•�r.•,;�:1�, �<� ' �f j, Evanston Preservation Commission Knutes - August 15, 1995 Page 6 Commission has 45 days to hold a public hearing for the nomination. After the closing of the public hearing, the Commission has 30 days to prepare a report to the City Council, recommending in favor or against the designation. If the Commission finds that the nomination does not meet any of the standards, then the nomination process is finished. If the Commission finds that the nomination meets one or more standards, the Commission will make its recommendation to the City Council with a resolution. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission needs to select a date for the public hearing, a quorum of six members is needed in order to hold the public hearing. Mr. Lehner said that he concluded that the public hearing should be held as a separate session from the Commission's regular meeting. At the public hearing, the Commission will receive testimony from the nominator(s) for designation and from those who wish it not to be designated as a landmark. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Mr. Lehner said that he would like to come to closure on the Commission's opinion, as far as the Commission's recommendation to the City Council whether the Lindhpimer be considered for designation or not. He said that it was his understanding that if the Commission does not recommend designation, the process stops there. If the Commission recommends landmark designation a report must be submitted to the City Council. Mr. Cottier said that the report could be distributed among Commission members as a summary of the public hearing. Ms. Jessica Deis asked if the nomination of the Lindheimer for landmark designation has A stop for the time being its demolition. Mr. Ruiz answered yes. Mr. Knox asked if an engineering analysis or at least an estimate of the integrity of the building was needed. Mr. Lehner said that two issues have been raised, the presence of asbestos and the use of lead paint. As far as structural integrity, no issue has been raised about it. Mr. Ruiz added a that additional information about the facility is available in the application and newspaper articles. Mr. Nowesnick asked if Commissioners will have the opportunity to walk through the building prior to the public hearing. Mr. Ruiz said that he will make arrangements with Northwestern University. Mr. Cottier added that observations among Commissioners during the site visit would be appropriate. Mr. Cottier also suggested that the Corporation Counsel be consulted about the application of the Public Meetings Act. Mr. Lehner added that because the sensitivity of the issue that consultation was important. w The Commissioners agreed on Monday, August 28, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. as a tentative date for the public hearing, subject to the public notice requirements, S - &i. - • ., ,'`Z�„ e,,i,io. .-+Mlt•.''M'71—"�rt"'ti�7?'^+'k'?�%4c7K'�f.�V{f/��}w iy ,�:, n 14 Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes • August 15, 1995 Page 7 V L OLD BUSINESS A. 1995 Preservation Awards Mr. Ruiz said that approximately 21 nominations are expected for the 1995 Evanston Preservation Awards, The Site visits with the jury will be conducted Saturday, August 26, 1995, from 9:00 a.m. until 12 noon. Mr. Ruiz said that the jurors are: Ms. Jessica Deis, Ron Emrich, Executive Director of Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, Scott Javore, AlA of Glencoe, Nan Greenough of Winnetka, and Mitchell Harrison, President of the Preservation League of Evanston. B. Cultural Resources Mr. Ruiz said that Alderman Joseph Kent has submitted a letter to Mr. Eric Anderson, City Manager, requesting that the Cultural Resources Committee be established. Meanwhile, the Committee has conducted some preliminary research about population counts to determine how the African American community migrated to and within Evanston. Mr. Knox asked how was deternvned to concentrate on the African American community of Evanston and not include everybody else. Mr. Ruiz said that few months ago, Alderman Kent addressed the Commission with his initiative of preserving the ' heritage of Ward Five. Most of the residents in Ward Five are African American. Mr. Knox said that he feels that in Evanston there is negligence in not having visible designations such as plaques that can be read. They provide information and education about architects, historical information, residents who occupied the structure. Mr. Knox said that the Commission should do more about this issue. his. Mumbrue concurred with Mr. Knox. Mr. Ruiz said that with the Conservation District initiative, Mr. Knox's suggestion can be carried out. Mr. Lehner said that perhaps the Commission has not address this issue historically, probably because the number of landmarks, cost of buying and mounting the plaques, which structures get a plaque. He said that Evanston has approximately 800 local landmarks. Coming up with a systematic approach has been a gzggering thought for the Commission. Mr. Knox said that the money is there because the City can build the stone wall on Green Bay Road, even though the same type of wa11 on Ridge Avenue is deteriorating. He said that is a question of priorities and lobbying. Mr. Lehner said in -; regards to the stone wall on Green Bay road, that he has heard continents from many y people including landscape architects that feel that the dry set wall is the right way to build the wall, this is contrary to the testimony heard by the Commission that this system on Ridge Avenue was a mistake. AC :7v j .w 'r' ,'• .,�i' ` ,. �t' !*. .r.4. -• : k,'•'_: ,. i,.�jEl�:' •�� �•� , `FI ' J,i.`,'i1•`+=�-����ti 't.'i.R,y�•. .� �'�h�E'^. ?.ys'�.y,�Uh' ' e :,,.i. k:�'7,'1'�..E'1".� .`ii . '�:. - ' - - : . - �:- 1�ti-,ly�,���;F�re�gb. �`�-i i"5�'s••I'.T�,'�!CF'l _:. - - �� _ _ t Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - August 15, 1995 Page 8 Returning to the plaque issue, Mr. Ruiz said that it is possible to design a universal base plaque that Landmark owners could purchase on their own. Some condominium associations have purchased their own plaques. W. Lehner said that a committee could be established to implement this initiative. M ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lehner announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, September 19, 1995, at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403 of the Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. X. ADJOURNMENT With no further business on the agenda, Mr. Lehner moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox was approved unanimously. WOF DRAFT - NOT APPROVED EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Monday, August 28, 1995 7:30 p.m • Room 2403 Evanston Civic Center MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Derek Cottier, Jessica Deis, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Neil Sheehan, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: George Halik OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Goff, Mitchell Harrison, Robert A. Lentz, Ronald Olson, Jerry R. Wilson PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION Or QUORUM A quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner tali the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Lehner said that this is a public hearing called to hear testimony about the nomination of the Lindheimer observatory to be designated as an Evanston Landmark. II. RULES AND PROCEDURES Mr. Lehner said that the first thing the Commission will do is adopt the rules for the public hearing. He said that the Commissioners received a draft of the proposed rules. Mr. Lehner read the proposed rules document in its entirety (see Attachment 1) to the audience. Mr. James M. Knox moved to approved the rules as presented and amended. The motion, seconded by Ms. Mary Mumbrue was approved unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Lehner said that the Commission's role is to listen to the testimony and come to a decision whether the Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center (LARC) should be nominated (designated) as a Landma& if the Commission concludes the observatory is `•i5h'r� �ylv� e�'YG�'.Ye: rgeif.� j;,�}f? � . g' .. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes - August 28, 1995 Page Two Draft - Not Approved not to be nominated as a Landmark, it was his understanding from the ordinance this would close the issue. That is, the nomination does not go to City Council. The Commission is the final body of jurisdiction if it does not feel that the structure should be nominated. If tha Commission feels that the structure should be nominated as a Landmark, the Commission will make a report to City Council stating the criteria and the reason why the Commission feels that this structure should be nominated as a Landmark. The report is directed to the City Manager who will take it to City Council for a vote. Mr. Knox asked about semantics, designation versus nomination. He said that the structure has been nominated by Mr. Goff at this point is the Commission considering the nomination and make its nomination?, Mr. Knox asked. About the designation process, does the Commission makes a recommendation for designation for vote by the City Council?, Mr. Knox asked. Mr. Lehner said it is not a designated Landmark until the City Council votes to designate it as a Landmark. Mr. Knox said that the Commission recommends designation. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission recommends action on this nomination. Mr. Knox said that the Ordinance states that the Commission has thirty five days from the closing of the hearing and asked if they would reach a decision tonight. Mr. Lehner said that it would be in everybody's interest if the Commission could make a decision tonight. Mr. Knox said that he was disappointed not to see more people at the public healing. He wondered if enough notice had been given to those interested in the hearing. Mr. Carlos Ruiz said that proper notice was given to Evanston organizations, only one letter was returned. Also, public notice was given through the local newspaper. Mr. Knox asked if the University is in session and if university students were back from the summer break. The answer was no. He said that was significant to him because the structure is on the University's campus. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission met and exceeded all the requirements of public notice. The Commission delayed the hearing for over a week in order to ensure that the Commission had appropriate public notice. He said that he understood Mr. Knox's concern about students at Northwestern who are a community within Northwestern. On the other hand, many of the students are not permanent residents of the community. He feels that there has been a lot of opportunity for people to become knowledgeable about the hearing through the newspapers. Mr. Knox said he was asking about students in general. He said that he was thinking about structures on campus being very important to students, since they are not in session and they are out of state. This is our land on the campus, certainly is our lakeshore, not Northwestern lakeshore. He said that it would seem that students may have strong opinions about this. Mr. Lehner said that it would be his intent to close the hearing tonight. He said that a structure does not have to meet every criteria in order to be considered a Landmark, and that just because a structure meets the criteria it does not have to be designated as a Landmark. Mr. Lehner called the applicant of the nomination, Mr. Michael Goff. �I Evanston Preservation Commission Nfinutes -August 28, 1995 Page Three Draft - Not Approved I& Goff said that he was an Evanston resident for approximately ten years. He said that he has a bachelors degree in architectural design from the University of Minois at Chicago. He practiced architecture at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) from 1981 to 1989, then at Hollibard and Root from 1990 to 1991. His specialty in architecture has gravitated towards the use of computer technology for architecture. Currently he is a consultant to other architects and engineers. He spent two years at the University of Chicago where he comsidered a career in astronomy and physics and is probably the reason he is here tonight. He said that he would like to nominate the Lindheimer observatory under Section 2-94 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Specifically, Section 2-94(A)2, because of the architect Walter Netsch. Section 2-9-4(A)3, because of the structure's modern architecture from the 1960% and the unique quality of its design, detailing, and position on the site. Section 2-94(A)4, because Walter Netsch was a design partner at SOM which is a worldwide renowned firm. SOM has done many other buildings on the Northwestern campus, and it has shaped much of the north campus landfill, and Section 2-94(A)6. Its presence on the lakefront in Evanston and the Northwestern campus as a significant building, or monument or sculpture. Mr. Goff said that in his application he cited the structure as an excellent example of modern architecture that includes functional use with engineering design. He said that the structure was designed and constructed in 1967, using a combination of public funds and private donations. Designed by Walter Netsch, formerly with SOK and the design partner, currently with SOM, Hal Iyengar. As such, it really speaks to the attitudes that firm had at that time, the unique shape, much of Chicago's architecture, particularly the modern architecture which dominates the skyline which the firm is responsible for. Netsch's conception of using the metal tube framework to lift and stabilize the observing platforms and domes was the first application of such framework to an astronomical observatory. It accomplished several things: it allowed for rapid temperature equalization of the structure with outside air which allowed viewing to be possible, and the structure showed braces that lift the building up off the lakefront to enhance its viewing capabilities and helps to stabilize the building. It was also the first building on the Miller campus landfill area, and it has remained the only structure at that end. In 1967, the design received a combined award from the Chicago Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (ALA) and the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry for its exemplary use of technology and architecture. The late J. A. Hynek:, who was then the chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern, lead the effort to establish the Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center at Northwestern. Publishcd reports quoting him saying that (it) provided the advantages of a local serious astronomical instrument that greatly enhanced the teaching and the research goals at Northwestern's Department of Astronomy. His plan included placing the telescopes out in the land in conjunction with Walter Netsch's works, on the north promontory of the iandfiJl, elevated above it to provide excellent dark sky viewing to the north and east out of the lake hlich:gam This continues to be true is spite of the fact that the Midwest hrs had an increase of land bile lighting from indiscrinunate devclopment and an increase in haze. T ,�-x^rn�*tiA"�r�!"F*iw'g'"r�'1`,7F , i.*xwrih�-A'Jii,'.�=�Fr�•-fi''�,'i� a �� �`�R� F}Y'ti,t�i*aL.iy r.�}, Evanston Preservation Commission Draft - Not Approved M'urutes -August 28, 1995 Page Four The structure has become a fixture on the lakefront, it is visible from many vantage points on the land, on the lakefront, from the lake itself and also from the air. It lays below the easterly approach landing corridors for aircraft traffic to O'Hare Airport. Its definitely an Icon or a symbol on the lakefront. It is a symbol of its architectural time and the, style of architecture that is ironically facing the same demolition pressures that destroyed many of the examples of the Chicago School of Architecture that preceded, particularly in downtown Chicago. W Goff said that it was important not to repeat the same waste of resources that resulted in the needless destruction of many buildings in the Chicago area during the 1959s and 1950's. The building's use of modern technology is also a symbol for the scientific learning and endeavor that it housed. The development of space and astronomical technology did much to shape the current attitudes towards education and learning. LARC is a symbol of that development because it was built during that time. It is difficult to imagine Evanston's lakefront or Northwestern campus without LARC being there. Unlike other buildings, which may be adaptively reused, this building is designed for a single purpose, to house astronomical research and education learning activities. As the nomination for a historic Landmark, many other building can be adaptvbly re -used. It is difficult to imagine anything than perhaps the concrete piers of this building being re -used for another feature. Mr. Goff said that contrary to published reports that the Lindheimer research facility is obsolete, or that it no longer has any value. In fact it does have value, he said. Mr. Goff said that he did not have real credentials to demonstrate this, but that he had however requested that people with the astronomical research and teaching credentials send letters which he would review later. The major objections to continuing to use Lindheimer are that the skies are hazy, that the purpose of Northwestern's Astronomical Department is elsewhere, specifically in use or remote collection of information from observatories in another states or cities where the viewing conditions are better, and the building is in need of significant renovation. The observatory originally faced the same citing criteria when it was built. At the time it was constructed, some astronomers thought it was ludicrous to site a 40 inch reflecting telescope on a lakefront at low altitude near a large city. What Hynek was able to persuade others of at that time was that the flaw was offset by its presence near the seat of research and learning. In other words, in order to use remote telescopes, you need to schedule time on them, that time is precious and you have limited amounts of it. Astronomers and students here at Lindheimer were found to have frequent access and large amounts of time to access the research instruments which compensated for the. fact that there were fewer numbers of good visible days. In addition, there are still good viewing conditions out over lake Michigan for which the telescope was originally intended to be used for. Mr. Goff said that in his opinion the research center is still useful. One graduate student came specifically to the University because of the presence of this facility near the University learning center. In addition, the Evanston Review indicated strong support between the current Astronomy Department, toward the use of Lindheimer as a teaching center, and toward that end they were able to obtain a $300,000 research grant to support that activity. ' - - - a-' T-�_-: ,_...-,.,:4 ��nr-.i' - ....-,,.. - i �,�•.++� ��.��.� �,'-i0.tnr�r'l,n��,-. ;,#A'4�`►w�f.r�.,i" �F-' , ��# *�. _ ::i�: s`7:' . ..r J F •h. �'' i's'!�:"'7'ar'.�; �7�r�`:�y'it`r psi... � '. . Evanston Preservation Commission Draft - Not Approved Minutes - August 28, 1995 Page Five Finally, regarding the $700,000 renovation cost for painting and other repairs, IVIr. Goff said that in his opinions it is the result of inadequate maintenance, certainly over the fast five to six years. Northwestern University has been an excellent steward of the lakefront and of the private and public resources that have been afforded to them through the years. The presence of the landfill campus itself, helped to prevent the destruction of a lot of the number of Sheridan Road residences, and the residential character of Evanston back in the 1960's, when they considered either acquiring land for building, filling in part of the lake and expanding the campus onto the landfill. In this case, the stewardship of this particular resource has in fact lagging of it. Mr. Goff said that he saw on that a tremendous waste. The decline of Lindheimer really began with the retirement and death J.A. Hynek, who was responsible for starting it. It took several years for the observatory to come to its present state of disuse. It will take several years to get it back into shape, and the large grant that the University had received towards that end was a good step. Now however, the problem has been exacerbated by the removal of the 40 inch and the 16 inch telescopes which have resided at Lindheimer since its dedication. To replace the telescopes with new equipment, just for the I meter telescope, estimates surpass one million dollars. Which is why the Lowell Observatory found that it was an extremely good bargain to come to Evanston and remove and transport the telescopes to Arizona, and spent $100,000 to upgrade them. The telescopes were, in fact, in good working order, what they lack is an updating of the instrumentation that was originally installed. The 16 inch telescope was used primarily for teaching and for demonstration use and public tour3. The 40 inch telescope was used for research, and Northwestern University had a few research students in the 1970's and 1980's. If the economy of maintaining the facility is a concern, Mr. Goff said that it was n missed opportunity to gain more compensation for a resource which had been in Evanston for so long. Mr. Groff said that there might be an opportunity for matching grants for the renovation of the observatory that the University may have overlooked. All of these factors, Mr. Goff believes, should be taking into consideration. When the report on the cost of demolishing the observatory is taken, if you take its face value, it is a lot less expensive to demolish the observatory than it is to invest another $700,000. However, Mr. Goff said if the investment as a whole is considered, from the 1960's up until now, including the instrumentation, and the observatory in the building itself, that it far exceeds the $700,000 in value. What it seems to lack is a responsible and creative attitude on the part of Northwestern University and the administration and current faculty to make use of the resources which were intrusted to them in the 1960's. W. Goff said he valued the University's presence in Evanston, and he takes pleasure in the use of its public resources such as the park and the landfill. Mr. Goff said that in this case it would be a mistake for Northwestern to continue on its current path to the destruction of the observatory, and the fact that it is unnecessary. A less expensive alternative would be to allow the observatory to remain on its location with no renovation, until such time as its value is reassessed and theme is a faculty and the administration that it will tape down to its proper use. 39 Nk. Goff said that he had slides, but he said that it was not necessary they should be seers. ll+ir, Lehrer asked if any Commission member would like to see the slide*. Commimion= indicated Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -August 28, 1995 Page Six Draft - Not Approved that they were familiar with the facility, Mr. Goff said that Mr. Walter Netsch, the architect intended to ba present tonight, but Mr. Netsch was in the hospital. Mr. Goffsaid that at the appropriate time he would read verbatim a letter that Mr. Netsch wrote. Mr. Lehner called the owner or the owners representative of the subject structure. W. Jeremy Wilson said that he was Associate Provost of the University, his office address is 633 Clark Street. Mr. Wilson read a prepared statement of behalf of the University (see Attachment 2). In summary, Northwestern University asked the EPC to reject the nomination of the structure as an Evanston Landmark so the University can proceed with its planned demolition. As a matter of clarification td one of the points raised by Northwestern University, Mr. Lehner said that a structure, in order to be nominated as a Landmark, has to be at least twenty five years old. W. Lehner open the hearing to the public. Mr. Mitchell Harrison, said that he is the President of the Evanston Preservation League. He said that he was amazed with what he learned about LARC through Mr. GolTs presentation. He said that in his mind there was no doubt that LARC should be designated as an Evanston Landmark. He said that it is a very interesting structure. He also said that pilots use it as a reference point. Many people use the observatory as a focal point. He said that it is already a landmark, although it has not been declared one. He urged the Commission to declare the observatory a Landmark. Mr. Lehner asked Mr. Goff to read the letter from Mr. Walter Netsch (see Attachment 3). Mr. Lehner, then read a letter from Mr. Ronald C. Stone (see Attachment 4). Mr. Lehner opened the hearing for questions from Commission members. Ms. Jessica Deis asked W. Wilson, regarding the Dearbom Observatory, was the building in use? Mr. Wilson said that the Dearborn Observatory has an 18 inch telescope, it is the site in which tours are offered at night, and it is the Astronomy Department's office, research is also conducted there. The telescope has not been recently used in teaching undergraduates. It provides students a brief experience with the telescope but the rest is done with computers. Mr. Knox asked Mr. Goff about Mr. Hynek and his significance with LARC. Mr. Goff said that Mr. Hynek gained notoriety as a supporter of searching extra -terrestrial fife later in his career. He had a cameo appearance in the movie_Qq5_e, Encountcrs of the Third Kam. To some extent his credibility suffered throughout this period. His impact on campus is significant because of the placement of the observatory. Mr. Goff does not believe that the observatory has contributed significant astronomical research results. It has contributed with some papers written and the instruments technology of the 1960's. Evanston Preservation Commission b inutes -August 28, 1995 Page Seven Drab - Not Approved Mr. Knox, referring to the exo-skeleton structure which apparently is unique, asked Mr. Goff if he was aware of the use of the exoskeleton on any other similar instruments or facilities. Mr. Goff said his research indicates that its the only instance that it has been used in the way it is applied at LARC. In this case the exo-skeleton is in direct support of the building and the observing platforms. Mr. Lehner asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners regarding the structure. Mr. Neil Sheehan said that the building is in disrepair, its basement level has a lot of water damage, the upper levels had been essentially cleaned out. The structure and the exterior envelope are sound. Mr. Sheehan said that it is an issue of repair if anything else. He believed that the vinyl asbestos file (VAT) was removed throughout the building. It is perhaps incorrect to call it a building, in one sense, the ground floor is habitable, but the second level and the observatory levels are not habitable spaces, and they are not intended to be. The domes seat on rolling tracks. General impression of the design, it is an elegant solution and design. When you look at it, there is a real rationality about the floor and overall plan, that cannot be seen from the distance. Mr. Sheehan said that there is an spectacular view from the balcony around the outside of the dome back to the campus. Obviously, the paint is the worst evident feature of the building. Removing paint would be difficult. Mr. Kirk Irwin asked if the asbestos abatement was completed. Mr. Wilson said, yes. W. Robert Lentz, an Evanston resident, said that as far as the usefulness of the observatory, especially for undergraduate viewing, he was aware that the introductory astronomy course referenced by Mr. Wilson, last fall was trying to use the 14 inch telescope to provide undergraduate observing opportunities. However, that was halted due to the deterioration of the building, and considered no longer safe, because of water damage that threaten electrical conduits. Mr. Lehner closed the testimony and moved into the Commission's deliberation. He said that the Commission would review each item of criteria for designation. Mr. Knox in terms of procedure, he believed that in Section 2-9-4 (A) criteria 3,4,5 and 9 were applicable. W. Lehner said that a question is whether the only criteria the Commission could use are those in Section 2-94, he said that these are the criteria to establish designation. Mr. Lehner said that in his view the Commission has the ability however to choose whether to recommend nomination or not. In other words, he said, even if the nomination meets some of the criteria, the Commission still cannot recommend the nomination. Mr. Cottier agreed with Mr. Lehner, obviously, if the nomination does not meet any of the ten criteria, it cannot be a landmark, according to the ordinance. But the fact that it meets one or more criteria does not automatically mean that the Commission is bound to recommend that it will be a Landmark. To the extent that one may recognize that it meets some of these criteria, and yet if the Commission feels it does not want to recommend the observatory as a Landmark. Mr Cottier believed that the Commission will be ti y wminn,ri an 'n'0" n'.5,�. ; PP I M. ;�9f1Ti`,A*MnTe�.'7 6 YI JY 1JY A� Y II amJI,I ml, I 66. 1. Nl J. k . AIN W".4 ill. Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -August 28, 1995 Page Eight Draft - Not Approved bound to explain why that would be the case, even though the Commission recognized that it meets some of these criteria. To that extent, M. Cottier said the Commission will have to go beyond the question of, does it simply meet the criteria 1 to 10?. The Commission owed it to the applicant, to the owner, and the public, he said. Mr. Knox asked that one of the architect Commissioners elaborate on Walter Netsch. Mr. Lehner said that Walter Netsch was a design partner at SOM for substantial period of time, He designed many structures in the Chicago area, such as the downtown Chicago Art Museum. He had a large design participation on what used to be called Circle Campus, and is now called University of Chicago Campus. He designed many structures for Northwestern University. Mr. Netsch was a proponent of a theory that he called the "Field Theory", Mr. Lehner believed it had to do with exagons. Mr. Sheehan said it was about rotated squares. Mr. Lehner is considered an important Chicago architect. Mr. Irwin said that A& Netsch's local work had national recognition. As a senior partner of SOM's in the later twentieth century, one could make a case for given Mr. Netsch international stature, given the broad scope of work of SOM internationally. Mr. Lavin said that having the structure or skeleton of the building on the outside exposed, that is a part of Netsch's talce on modernism. One exposes the structure to reveal how is put together. 3 SOM is known for their combination of engineering and architecture, that is evident in the Hancock building and the Sears Tower, certainly it is true with LARC. Mr. Sheehan said that he had QQoken with Mr. Netsch, he said that this was the first use in this area of an external structure system. Mr. Sheehan said that it may precede some other work such as the George Pompidou Center in Paris, France. Mr. Irwin said that another architectural notion is the idea that the design of a building should express its use. 9 y Mr. Lehner said that the Commission go through the criteria and agree on those that do not apply. Commissioners agreed that the following criteria did not apply: 2-94(A)1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. Mr. Cottier said that criteria 2-94(A)2 and 4 should be discussed together. Mr. Knox said that (referring to 2-94(A)2 and 4) based on the discussion tonight, Mr. Netsch is certainly significant. _ Mr. Netsch's association with SOM and his standing in this community and perhaps in the world is significant, and according to the testimony, this structure is a very important architectural design innovation. Mr. Knox said that in all counts this criteria is met. Mr. Van Dyke said that when he thinks about Walter Netsch, he thinks of the University of Illinois at Chicago, the campus planning that he did at Northwestern Campus, and the Air Force Academy. Mr. Van Dyke said if he would think of Walter Nctsch, he would not think of LARC. Mr. Knox said that perhaps one should think of the Pompidou Center in Paris and other structures like that, there are not very many. To think of an example right here in our town that is the work of a person who did major structures is significant; he said. People testified that the structure is a -- Evanston Preservation Commission Ndinutes - August , 1995 Page Nine Draft - Not Approved significant feature of our landscape. After finding out the significance of the design style and innovation, Mr. Knox could not imagine tearing down the structure. Mr. Sheehan said that one of the first discussions with architectural students is to ask what is architecture. A definition is that architecture is a building that inspires emotion. Mr. Sheehan said that for him, Walter Netsch inspires more negative emotions. For that reason, Mr. Sheehan was inclined to vote negatively on this particular criteria. Mr. Irwin said that he has a graduate degree in Renaissance Classicism, but he supported the nomination of the structure in terms of its historical and cultural significance, in the 1960's and early 1970's the exo-skeleton was an approach to architecture which many architects felt compelled to explore, that point of view has been challenged, and criticized. That does not mean this structure is a piece of architecture that should not be preserved as a work of a particular time and place, that being 1960's modernism in Chicago. Mr. Lehner asked if anyone wished to discuss criteria 2-94 (A)3. There being no discussion on criteria 2-94(A)3, Mr. Lehner asked if there was any discussion on 2-94(A)9. He said that he did not think that there was any question that the structure is a recognized and a familiar visual feature of the community. In that sense it meets that criteria. Mr. Knox said that the Lindheimer observatory sits on its site so beautifully. He said that it is a beautiful structure or sculpture, with a familiar and distinct appearance. Mr. Lehner said that the structure is an example of a style, and is in fact a distinctive building, and although he shares the same emotions as Mr. Sheehan about Mr. Netscks architecture, this is a very interesting structure and he liked its appearance. He said that the structure meets a number of the criteria such as 2-94(A)3, Mr. Netsch and SOM are at least of national stature. However, he also felt that it was fair to state that there are quite a few example of both SOM and Mr. Netsrh's style, and in the long run, he did not find those, convincing reasons for designation. He did find the design of the structure to be an elegant solution. Mr. Lehner said that one concern is the question of reuse. Mr. Lehner closed the discussion about the criteria. Mr. Lehner said that he would like the Commission to arrive at a conclusion about the criteria discussed tonight. The Conunission agreed that the nomination met criteria 2-94(A)4, which provide a more definitive explanation than 2-94(A)2. Mr. Lehner asked if the Commission agreed that the nomination met criteria 2-94(A)3. Ms. Deis said that, in her view, there was no question that this is probably one of the early examples of the exo-skeleton structure. The sculptural quality of it is significant. The Commission agreed that the nomination met criteria 2-94(A)3. Regarding criteria 2-94(A)4, Mr. Sheehan said that the question is if this is exemplary of the work of Water Netsch, in his mind the answer to that question is no. Mr. Cotner said that he would disagree with that, because Walter Netsch has to be looked at in the sense that whether his work is significant. Mr. Cottier said that it in his view it meet this criteria. Mr. Gregory Nowesnick said that some architects have a distinct style. However, there are many architects Evanston Preservation Commission Minutes -August , 1995 Page Ten Draft - Not Approved who do not have a distinct style but do quality architecture. Their common thread is their quality of architecture. The Commission agreed that the structure met criteria 2-94(A)4. Mr. Lehner said that it was the consensus of the Commission that the structure met criteria 2-9- 4(A)9. Mr. Lehner said that the structure meets three of the ten criteria under section 2-94(A) for designation as a Landmark. Mr. Lehner indicated that at some point the Commission has to come to a conclusion of whether the fact that it meets these three criteria make it worthy of recommendation to City Council for designation as a Landmark. He said that he thought it was fair that the Commission take into account not only the integrity of the building, but other issues as well. He said that the telescopes are gone, and that the structure appears to be intact. He also said that he would like to consider its potential for reuse and its future if it is designated as a Landmark. Mr. Knox asked about the semantics of criteria 2-9-4(B), and how much one should read into them. Here we have a structure without telescopes and it is not even a building, and apparently it does not have any great structure, he said. Mr. Cottier said essentially it meets criteria 2-94(B), for what it was designed for. It basically is structurally sound but it lost its telescopes. As far the structure itself, it had its asbestos abatement but has to be repainted,. In order to take into account adaptive reuse it is not necessary to plug it with criteria 2-94(8). All becomes part of the Commission discussion as to whether and given that the Commission has decided that threw of the criteria are met, whether given that fact the Commission should recommend to the City Council that this be a Landmark. In response to a question from W. Knox, Mr. Cottier said that he thinks that the structure meets 2-94(B). But, the fact that it meets 2-94(B) and three other criteria in 2-94(A), does not mean to him that the Commission has to designate the structure as a landmark. Add to that discussion as to whether the Commission should recommend that the structure be designated a Landmark to City Council, the question of what its future use would be and whether the University apparently has chosen not to use Lindheimer as an astronomical facility any longer, what is its potential use by the University. Mr. Cottier said that it was entirely legitimate to take into account those issues when the Commission makes its decision as to whether the Commission should recommend that it be a Landmark. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission established that the structure meets some of the criteria. The Commission still has to decide whether all the conditions or all the situations surrounding it, make it a reasonable (not necessarily worthy) nominee for designation. Mr. Lehner said here is when the Commission could bring other criteria or other situation to bear, if the Commission chooses to. Mr. Knox said that he was troubled that it is an empty structure, that is not a real building, and making Northwestern keep the building when the University decided to tear it down. The situation is not where there is another reuse. W. Sheehan said (referring to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards) if the building is about to fall down or it could not realistically be restored it allows you to say no to designation as a Landmark. However, Lindheimer has physical integrity and it is not about to fall down. Nr' Get Evanston Preservation Commission Nfi nutes - August , 1995 Page Eleven Draft - Not Approved Ms. Deis said the fact that Northwestern has this empty building with pealing paint, did not bother her. Because she believed that if Northwestern wanted to get money for something and is they are motivated to do so, is very successful at it. Letting a building run down and ihiling to disuse and be emptied out is nine tenths of the way to getting it torn down. She felt that this was kind of the intention of Northwestern all alone, and it has just now come into the public. She did not feel that the building is far enough gone that it has to be tore down, because there is no other possibility. She said that the Commission should not be too heavily influenced by the fact that Northwestern is not using that building now. The fact is, according to the testimony, that Northwestern could use that building if they wanted to. She wondered whether part of the Commission's mission is to make a statement about something, even if it is not the ultimate in practicality for Northwestern University. Mr. Nowesnick said lets look at the Evanston Lighthouse, which has not been used in forty and some odd years. Is that a good reason to do away with it?, he asked. Looking at all the lighthouses on the east coast, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard use other means of navigation. Some lighthouse are empty, some are restaurants, and some lighthouses are nothing more than a lookout point. The lighthouses stand for a period of time, of some design, and purpose. W. Sheehan asked if the citizens of Evanston are entitled to require private property owners to support structures that they deemed not usable to them, and clearly not usable to anyone else. He asked, is it just to make that property owner pay for the maintenance of that property for the benefit of the citizens of Evanston? Mr. Lehner in response said that his problem is that he happened to like the building quiet a bit, and he believes it is a good example of the integration of architecture and engineering construction. But, he had a real problem because he did not see the possibility to restore it. When the Commission considered the demolition of the Substation or the Buttler building, there was a case to be made in those structures that there were economically viable uses to them. The Substation is a big shell, not only could it be used for a theater, but there are other number of potential uses. The Butler building was also reusable if people wanted to take the time to reuse it. The difficulty with the observatory, is that it was built as an observatory, a very specific use. Observatories are not insulated, which means that to make it useful for another purpose would be difficult, that also begs the question of the space that is available within it, and also the question whether the structure could support other uses. Mr. Lehner said that he agreed with Mr. Nowesnick comments about the Evanston Lighthouse, and he was all in favor to preserve the Lighthouse, but the Lighthouse is a publicly owner] structure, and the public pays for its ownership and preservation. Mr. Leluier said regardless Walter Netsch is liked as an architect or not, he is a pretty well recognized architect. Mr. Lehner said the problem for the Lindheimer is that he did not see other use for it. Mr. Lehner said that he did not think that the Commission can say to a private property owner that it has to maintain it for the public, while on the other hand he wants to see it saved, because he happen to like it. He does not know how the Commission could do that. The other problem is if it is designated as a Landmark, the next request would be the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for its demolition- He asked, how the Commission wpould respond to that isue? - - - - -- - -- - - � .� �, --, r �� �—.a,. ,..,, .,- ... , �� , - r� � �y.�,�.�.7n.-. „-.-rn en... l:-.,--+t;-+��`-r*�w-r•-nr.'iY+"'n'.'� Evanston Preservation Commission Draft - Not Approved N+fmutes - August , 1995 Page Twelve Mr. Knox said that Northwestern is not your typical property owner. Northwestern is tax exempt, Mr. Wilson said that a lease holder has to pay a tax, so in that respect a tax is paid on buildings. Mr. Knox said that Northwestern is not an ordinary property owner, also a point was made that Northwestern certainly could raise funds if they chose to do so, to establish integrity of the structure for whatever reason, or maybe for no reason but just to look at it. Mr. Knox said that he was confident that Northwestern could certainly raise funds. Mr. Cottier said that his feeling was that Northwestern has made a rational case for wanting not to choose the use of this building any longer, they made the rational choice that they do not need this building and they had answered the question concerning the adaptive reuse of this building, probably for the reasons which were mentioned by Mr. Lehner, which Mr. Cottier agreed with. Because of that, if the building is preserved, essentially what the Commission is telling Northwestern is that the Commission wants Northwestern to preserve the building as a piece of sculpture. This is something that he really hesitates to do to any landowner no matter how privileged they may be. Mr. Cottier said that the Commission may find that the structure meets the criteria discussed earlier, but because of the unique character of this structure, for him to vote in favor of recommending that this be a Landmark, the Commission has to make a much more compelling case than for another structure which can be easily adaptively reused. Although, he had expressed early that this criteria based on the evidence that the Commission heard had been met, he did not feel strongly enough to put that kind of burden on Northwestern with this kind of structure. Mr. Cottier said that the case has been made that certain criteria apply, but in this case, because of the unique character of this structure, and the lack of identifiable use other than what it was originally designed for, but which apparently no longer is going to be used, he did not think the case is strong enough for this building to be recommended for Landmark designation. Mr. Lehner said that if this was a Robbie House, one of Frank Lloyd Wdght'-s most famous buildings, and it was about to be demolished, he would probably have a different opinion. The Commission has to weigh the question of whether this building is so unique that the Commission would impose such a restriction on it, that it is of national character and important enough that the Commission has to go to every effort to preserve it. Ms. Deis concurred with Mr. Lehner, she said it was a very tough decision, she said Northwwestem has a white elephant in this building, and there is not But obvious adaptive reuse for it. It is an observatory, a building that looks good on a prominent location. Mr. Sheehan said that he had asked his neighbors and other people he ran into the question, "What do you think if Lindheimer were demolished?" He was really surprised by how little concern they showed. He actually made the effort to convince them to think otherwise with no greater success. Mr. Van Dyke said that he did not find sympathy or support either. Ms. Deis said that she had a different experience. Mr. Sheehan said that he was worried what kind of a message the Commission is sending to Northwestern. Obviously, he did not want Northwestern to design new buildings that could not be adaptively reused. Evanston Preservation Commission IN nutes - August , 1995 Page Thirteen Draft - Not Approved In response to a request for his opinion about the adaptive reuse for Lindheimer, Mr. Noweurick said that one could take one step Rather and remove the domes and put in new glass and the building could be used for brain storming sessions for Kellogs business school. Is it an expensive space, no doubt about it. Its a stretch, but it gives some reasonable degree of alternate use, and still serves the purpose as a recognized structure of Evanston. Mr. Lehner said that it would not be easy and it will require a great amount of work. Mr. Lehner closed deliberation. Mr. Cottier suggested that a motion be made by one of the Commissioners who are in support of the designation, or he would be willing to make a motion. Mr. Cottier moved that we (the Commission) not recommend that this (nomination) be sent to (City) Council for Landmark designation. As part of the motion we (the Commission) recognized that the Commission has found that the structure meets the criteria (for designation) under Section 2-94(A) 3, 4, and 9 and also under Section 2-94(B). But, given that the Commission finds that the peculiar nature of the structure of this facility and the fact that it would be extremely difficult and not potentially feasible to adaptively reuse this (structure) for another purpose, makes designation of this (structure) as a landmark unwise. The motion, was seconded by Will Van Dyke. Under discussion, W. Sheehan requested that City Council receive the minutes of the public hearing. Mr. Cottier said that in fairness we (the Commission) should point out that we (the Commission) do not recommend this (the nomination) go forward, that the nomination is dead. Mr. Lehner said that Planning and Development (Committee) receives the minutes. Mr. Cottier said they (P&D) will receive the report but the nomination is dead. Mr. Lehner said that the nomination does not move forward. Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Cottier's motion is not to recommend to the City Council that the Lindheimer observatory be made an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Lehner asked for a show hands of all those in favor of not designating the Lindheimer observatory as a Landmark. Five (5) Commission members raised their hands voting in favor of the motion. Four (4) Commission members raised their hands voting against the motion. The motion carried 5 to 4. Mr. Lehner said that the motion was carried which means that the Commission will not recommend to City Council that the Lindheimer observatory be desipated as an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Lehner said that concludes the public hearing. Ms. Deis moved to adjourned the public hearing. The motion, seconded by Mr. Irwin was approved. The public hearing was adjourned at 9:50 p.m- STAFF: DATE: i C ATTACHMENT 1 EVANSTON PRESERVATION COSION RULIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC EM RING FOR THE NOMINATION OF AN AREA, PROPERTY, STRUCTURE, SITE OR OBJECT FOR CONSIDERATION AND DESIGNATION AS A LANDMARK OR DISTRICT After fiilfillment of Section 2-9-5: Nomination, Consideration and Designation of Landmarks and }districts, subsections (A), (B), (C) and (D) of the Evanston. Ii'istoric Preservation Ordinance (Ord. 12-0-94), the Evanston Preservation Commission (Commission) shall conduct the public hearing in the following manner: 1. The Chair will call the public hearing to order. 2. The Chair shall establish the presence of a quorum (six members) and the presence of the applicatat(s) for the nomination of an area, property, structure, site or object for consideration and designation as a landmark or district. If'a quorum is not present or if the applicant(s) is not present, the Chair shall reschedule the public hearing on a new date, place and time. 3. With a quorum and the applicant(s) being present, the Chair shall call the applicant(s) to present the nomination and all testimony or evidence in support of the nomination. After the applicant(s) concludes testimony, if the applicant is not the owner of the nominated landmark or of property, structure, site or object within a nominated district, the owner shall be allowed reasonable opportunity to present testimony or evidence concerning the applicability of the designation criteria in subsections 2-9-4(A) and (B). The chair shall call the owner to present all testimony or evidence that the owner wishes to present. Then, the Chair shall call members of the audience who wish to submit additional testimony and evidence in support or opposition of the nomination. Each person shall state his/her name and address prior to submitting any testimony or evidence. Written testimony submitted to the Commission prior to the (rearing shall be considered as part of the evidence. 4. The Chair shall grant Commission members the opportunity to ask questions regarding the proposed nomination. 5. After the conclusion of all testimony or evidence, the Chair shall ask Commissioners for any additional information regarding the area, property, structure, site or object for consideration and designation as a landmark or district. N. The Chair shall ask for the last time, to those present, for any additional testimony or evidence in support or in opposition of the nomination; if none, the Chair shall close testimony. 'tb R 7. After closing testimony, the Chair shall open the Commission's deliberation only on the testimony or evidence presented to the Commission (no public comment shall be allowed during deliberation). Deliberation shall include a point by point discussion of each criteria for designation. S. If the Commission determines that the nominated landmark or district does mat the criteria for designation, the Commission shall follow subsections 2-9.5(E) and (F) of the Evanston Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ord. 12-0-94). Recommendation by Commission shall be made within thirty five (35) days following the close of the public bearing. 9. If the Commission fails to make its recommendation within thirty five (35) days following the close of the public hearing or if the Commission finds that the nominated landmark or district does not meet the criteria for designation, the nomination process shall end. L u. �r YI ��• 1 YIYY. �iMY�� IJY���. +u Y. I u u +. ui .. ..� i_ YY . u I .. . a ... .. a� Y6. +1. i.. NORTHWESTERN iUMVERSTTY STATEMENT TO THE EVAN.STUN PRESERVATION COMMISSION August x8,1995 Northwestern University requests that the nomination of the Lindhelmer Astronomical Research Center as a City of Evanston landmark be rejected. The University designed and constructed the building in 1967 for use by the astronomy department for research and teaching i purposes. Since that time the nature of astronomical research has changed markedly. Research is now conducted in remote ten trial sites or in outer space and digitized images are transmitted to the Evanston Campus as well as throughout the world. The building has not been used for astronomical research In more than a decade. As a result the telescopes and the building have not begirt maintained. Ti-,e lower office structure has been used for storage by the physics department. The building's only potential use is for undergraduate student viewing experiences. Most of the material students use in course work now is obtained from the Hubbell space craft and other remote observaticnmal sites. Dearborn Observatory will provide a very similar viewing experience for students using an existing 19" telescope. This spring the University concluded that the building had reached the end of useful service to the University. The two telescopes previously located in the structure have been conveyed to and relocated to the Lowell Observatory In Flagstaff, Arizona, where University students and faculty will have priority use of them and other instruments. The lower level of the building has been emptied. The demolition contractor had held initial conversations with city staff concerning the most efficient and environmentally -sate method of razing the building. A dernotition permit had not been submitted pending final University agreement on the process to be used. A demolition permit request has now been submitted which awaits the action of this committee. �a {- Z W01 rf The Historic Prel►mtatlat lainnce sets forth two groups of criteria that a structure must meet to be recommended by the commission for designation as an Evanston landmark. First, the commission shall limit its consideration to one or more specified criteria. The nomination s asserts that the building Is an excellent and unusual example of a building that integrates a specific functional use with excellence in architecture and engineering form. ('iris presumably conforms with criterion 3, for designation.) It is true the building Is an observatory. It has two domes to house lnlescopes. As a result It is unusual In fohn In contrast to other buildings on the campus or in Chicago. It is not much different, however, from other observatories except that structural supports are exposed rather than concealed within an enclosure. Dearborn Observatory will continue to be used and represents an alternative example of an observatory on the campus. The designer and engineer are Invoked (presumably in response to criterion 4). The designer, partner In Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM), Walter Netsch, also designed many other buildings on the Evanston Campus Including the Rebecca Crown Center, the Hogan Biological Sciences building, Vogplback Computing Center, Regenstein Music building, Mudd Science and Engineering Library, Searle Communicative Disorders building, and the University Library building. The observatory is therefore not the only example of the work of Mr. Netsch or of Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill In Evanston. There also are many other works by SOM In Chicago including the John Hancock building and Sears Tower that represent far more monumental illustrations of the firm's engineering competence. The nomination asserts that the lakefront siting and sculptural presence provide a unique Identity to the University and City and provide a natural gathering place for people interested in nature (presumably in conformance with criterion 9). The fact that the building is visible from many locations is undeniable. The site around the building Is part of the entire lakefront campus to which the University has welcomed members of the Evanston community since its 3 - --- #,F die--(= ems, " • C.Z .. 11 11 .I.L, Y I. .. 3 1 construction. Whether the building attracts people, or the opportunity to enjoy views of the lake attracts people, Is a matter for our mutual conjecture. The applicant has asserted that support exists for the building's continued use as an educational facility. This assertion appears to respond to no criterion. In fact, In recent years the building has not been used as a teaching or research facility and will not be used In the future as a teaching or research facility. ' A second condition under the ordinance provides that In addition to meeting one or more specified criteria, any area, property, structure, site, or object that meets any one or more of the criteria ... shall also have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship to make It worthy of preservation or restoration. The University has concluded that the building is no longer useful for the purpose for which it was constructed and that its superstructure and lower buildings are not adaptable for alternate use. The lower structure Is served by a meager water supply and the toilet facility and waste return are based on minimal occupancy. The domes are unheated. The building was constructed when asbestos was still an acceptable insulation material. Even to raze it requires asbestos abatement. The superstructure was painted with lead -based paint, an acceptable material when It was constructed. Tc, repaint the structure would require removal of the existing flaking paint. The University has been advised that such removal would need to be accomplished within an enclosure to protect the environment from the residue of the removal process. The University does not believe the building has sufficient Integrity of design, materials, or workmanship, to make It worthy of preservation. 3 The City of Evanston has a very thorough process by which to designate a structure in the City a landmark. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the State of Illinois sponsored a survey of structures throughout the state, Including Evanston, to Identify buildings that should be ' f - - _.",'3ffr 4 , ',tr:}ice ' _' ! r•;j/a�+1L„f+�E..L fin', iw's$'�s e`�7 rr J;' ywi candidates for designation as landmarks or historic structures, The City amplified that survey with its own study that resulted In the designation of nearly 1000 structures as Evanston landmarks. 'these are listed in the Appendix to the Evanston Zoning Ordinance. Many University structures, Including Dearborn Observatory, appear on that list. The Plan Commission, the Preservation Commission, and citizens have had over 25 years to place Lindhelmer Observatory on the list. No one did so. The University has concluded this University building has served its research and educational purposes and should be demolished so in the future the land can be devoted to other uses. We ask the Evanston Preservation Commission to reject the nomination of the structure as an Evanston landmark so that the University can proceed with its planned demolition. QDB151 rr` TYPED COPY OF MR. NETSCH'S HAND WRITTEN LETTER My name is Walter Nctsch, for many years I (as design partner of SOM) created many buildings for N.U. and was the designer of Miller Campus, a landfill addition which preserved the existing campus waters edge and allowed the university to expand without destroying the residential fabric west of Sheridan Road. Every good architect and planner should be a creature af'his or hers creative time' and express the best in aesthetics, materials and techniques, as a product of MIT, of the modem movement, in both its beginnings and its teachers (for me Dean Anderson and Acvar Aalt) I believe the Lindheimer is for Chicago and Evanston one of the icons, in structure, purpose and location. In time and place the observatory has an important position in the University's role in astronomical science by serving both science and the nation. For the community it has been a landmark both physically and intellectually, a goal on an evenings walk on Miller campus or a sighting driving north on Sheridan Road. For architecture, and for very different reasons, I selected the structural terra herons as the aesthetic spine of the cadet chapel at the Air Force Academy and the technical structure for the astronomical telescopes and their race in space. The University has told me that two primary persons led to impact their decision, one that the observatory's original purpose is obsolete and second, the cost of maintaining the painted surface is too expensive. Regarding the frst, according to newspaper reports a new professor has brought both purpose and funding for a new high tech use. Regarding the second, I know that modem technology can provide new solutions (and I would be happy to assist pro -bona). I have asked that Lindheimer Observatory be seriously considered at Landmark status, other buildings and landscape features I have designed near McCory Hall have been demolished. the expansion of the athletic program necessitate these changes and I agree. Northwestern has honored me with an honorary doctorate, an honor I most appreciate, in return I hope NU will recognize the special qualities of the Lindheimer Observatory. ..................... .. ...................... .....---...........................---------- JaNT SY:RPSGUC MED. , REST /ADMIT; e-H-95 ; 2:54PA 3129422252- �._;?��;'���:{�� 6�..- �, ��Y �� tau � �' � oi' `dip �°rldr '�e�M W44" • (�� OF �iil.' orl, �w A�R.,GOt�►ct� -tws VuIiCh� _ 0.�6 GAyt •PixS ZAMSAISI ma rb OF • u ILA [� n.► �os� r� •ta ,+N��>Js� Iwo" 'Trx.ufs LIN0441MMC ,c lc � . � � ,�r+u�. �d�� ray Tts raf poft p"IS C)6Gmvxrcrk-� Q p4ou CAL 104 i saw IIJ� '�� lt7r�`� t.,�� � f`(�'iC y�h CN++Aa ;�, "ilia �.IKaSt�17Y tt' 44� W i�a6i wqc. N .fin ��,:,u E-+ '�• H w�g x; -TW a � � � t�A Fom -Z w MaoMs rs,3:m,,A% ,, ••.tag4w � s�qLsmisr 6�czz l � 'Cb is �� �� p 10�5 CiLA i •ik1��P�+ '�' yl�c- Iry � 'S�.i1l+pt uGG , 'CT HAWp Est j m.,�aa AN RAC 4 _��... .7 fii, i may'" ease' wxr 08. 28. 95 0J'. i8 FM *USNOFS 520-774-3626 P02 U. S. NAVAL OBSERVATORY FLAGSTAFF STATION P. 0. Box 1149 FLAGSTAFF, AZ 88002 (402) 772.3132 August 28,1998 Mr. Carlos Ruiz City of Evanston Departmerat of Planning Evanston, IL Dear SET, I ravcatly heard them will a meeting disew"tiag whether the Lindheimer Building at North- wwt= University will become er city landmark. As I understand, the University would Bice to tear the structure dower, in the coming months. I was postdoctoral fellow in se'n otny at Northwestern during the period 157M1 and u$ed the Lindhc1m telescope extensively during ray stay. Most astronomers make their obumticm at national fadlitiral such as Kitt Peak National Observatory near 'Tucson, Arizona. The national fadlitics of em superb observing site$ and instrumentation; howevex, because of the heavy demand, only a fuw days each yr-mr of observing tuna are allocated to each astronomer. For project$ requiring much more observing time, other telescopes must be umd. Igor this reazon, the research I conducted at Lindheimer would have not been possible elsewhere. I also found the observing site, albeit near a major urban centex, was still suitable for conducting many types of xmronwuical rc--A=ch. Moreover, rincc the facility is located an the campus of Northwestern University, it offer may opportunities for undergraduate research and instruction. The building is unique in its design and is unquestionable a major landmark within the City of Evanston. Either from the: campus, Lake, or from arriving aircraft, the beauty of the Lindhcitner building is always obvious. Unfortunately, the exterior paint of the building has often been allowed to deteriorate. The University has never really given priority to main miuiug the, exterior of thin structure. Being familitir with the building for many years, I just wanted to bring these points to your attention during your deliberation concerning the fate of this beautiful building. With kind regards, Sincerely, Ronald C. Stone EVAIISTON PRESERVATION COhIAUSSION Tuesday, September 19,1995 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Derek Cottier, Jessica Deis, George Halik, Kirk Irwin, lames M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Murry Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Neil Sheehan, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Review and Technical Assistance Session: Frank Kassez, Elliot Dudnick Commission's Meeting: Gintaras Wayne Swafford, Lutz P. Barndt, Thomas Hoept Gil Walendy PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz A quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m.. He said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee's review session may continue as part of the regular Commission meeting. L A. COMMTITEE REPORTS Review and Technical Assistance Committee i. 2603 Sheridan Road - Greenhouse Roof Replacement Mr. Elliot Dudnick, architect, and Mr. Frank Kassen of Facilities Management, City of Evanston, submitted plans for the greenhouse roof replacement at 2603 Sheridan Road (an Evanston Landmark). The existing fiber glass roofing material will be removed and replaced with copper. There were two alternates, one a polycarbonate which is a clear glazing material, but was determined to be too ex, -pensive. The second alternate was a lead coaxed copper also determined to be expensive. Mr. Neil Sheehan moved that the Commission accept the revision to the Art Center's greenhouse to replace existing fiber glass roofing materials with copper sheeting as submitted. The motion seconded by Mr. Will Van Dyke was Approved unanimously. ,A ='i•::.r'2J`�`�ai � �,{��a»��yq,'_�_.y(�f ...1..,•,:..:�.,'i. : � w.:':;kar:� 4�'�' Evanston Preservation Commission September 19, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 Mr. Kasen brought to the Commission's attention that handicapped access to the Art Crater is under consideration. The fast option Is a ramp at the front entry way to be hidden by a wall in front of the building. The second option is a lift on. the north side parking of the building. The third option is a ramp on the back of the building. Mr. Dudniek said that at this point, he was inclined in favor of the Rrst option. Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Dudnick and Mr. Kassen should bring plans with their preferred solution in front of the Commission. 2. Central Street Metre Station - Renovation Mr. Lehner said that representatives of Teng & Associates, Inc. were present for an advisory review regarding the Central Street Metra Station. Mr. Lehner said that he would Wee to continue the meeting with their presentation. W. Lehner said that a while ago, Teng & Associates made a presentation to the Commission regarding the renovation of the Central Street Metra Station, Subsequently, Carlos Ruiz, Will Van Dyke and he, had met with the architects at the station and discussed piv=vation issues and the renovation of the station. Mr. Lehner said that since then he had several conversations with Gil Walendy and Thomas Hoepf about the project. The Central Street Metra Station is not an Evanston Landmark,, however Teng & Associates and Metra made the decision to have an advisory review with the Commission. W. Walendy, the project architect, said that the project's prime objective was to bring the station in compliance with The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), by adding a ramp to the south of the station. On the inbound side, everything is being taken out. A new stair with a canopy and a new ramp with a canopy will be built. All the platforms will be replaced. The south platform is to be completed before winter. Mr. Walendy said that the intention was to preserve the original station as much as possible. A new roof will be installed, the brick will be cleaned and tuck pointed where necessary, the stairs on the north end will be replaced, and minor interior renovation work is anticipated. Regarding the canopies' cast iron columns, Mr. Walendy said that as many as possible cast iron columns will be salvaged and reutilized in the inbound side under the canopy. The canopy will be recreated as much as possible. The condition of the cast iron columns is unknown. Replica precast concrete columns will replace the cast iron columns that can not be reutilized. The station building vill essentially be rehabilitated with the exception of the windows which will be replaced. Mr. Lehner asked if the new windows will match the profile of the adsting windows. Mr. A'alendy said they will be closely matched. He also said that the precast concrete columns will be painted to match the existing cast iron columns. W. a Leim r said that it was his understanding that the station's canopy basically will have no �a �Ifou --- Evanston Preservation Commission September 19, 1995 » Minutes Page 3 EL visual change, he asked if that was correct. Mr. Walendy said that rotted wood wilt be replaced with treated wood. Mr. Hoep& traffic designer, using a model of the project discussed the design of the columns. He said that initially the canopy and columns were to remain in place. Later, they learned that Metra requires a 10' clearance for a platform that extends out from the train. Now, the frame structure for the canopy is similar in design but has been pushed back with the 'intend to derive a form similar to the original canopy. The new columns will have a tapered profile as the existing columns do. Mr. Lehner asked if the price of the design was within Metro's budget. Mr. Hoepf answered, yes. Mr. Lehner also asked about the changing of color of the columns and canopy. Mr. Hoepf said that the tongue and groove beaded board ceiling will be in a natural finish. The ceiling would allow space for the installation of light fixtures and prevent pigeons from nesting under the canopy. George Ha.lik asked if a full size precast concrete column sample will be available for inspection. Mr. Neil Sheehan said that the concrete columns will look very similar to the cast iron columns. Mr. Nowesnick said that concrete columns may be fragile to impact. Mr. Hoepf referring back to the paint issue said that they did not know what the red brick color would look like after the cleaning. He distributed samples of the roofing shingle and palette of colors. Mr. HaUk asked about the material of the retaining walls. Mr. Hoepf said they will be concrete with a limestone look alike finish. Mr. Lehner said that since this project does not fall under the Commission's binding review, he would like to have a conscnsus from the Commission that the proposal is favorably received by the Commission A4 Commissioners agreed that the project was sensitive to preservation issues. W. Ruiz offered to provide Teng and Associates the name of a window restoration company so they could obtain another cost estimate for restoring the windows. Mr. Lehner said that the project was very sensitive to the preservation of the building. He also thanked Teng and Associates for making the effort of seeking the Commission's comments. Mr. Lehner praised the presentation and the design for the renovation of the Metra Station. APPROVAL, OF M WUS Mr. Nowesnick moved to approve the minutes of August 15, 1995, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Derek Cottier, was approved unanimously. Regarding the minutes of the public hearing of August 28, 1995, Mr. Nowesnick asked to revise the order of some sentences on page 13, third pamgrsph. lVls. Jessica Deis moved .Muar .._ ..-.... ..rM..... �.. �!'S�IX�_.... .__.._�E...�..�.t ,,.�,. ,i .e x.....�,4.� ....r�..�w4'd»,.A .1144,..ri.,,.4��.�ry �..._. .G.,_i..� WL'it 64 A 4 Evanston Preservation Commission September 19, 1995 - Mnutes Page 4 to approve the public hearing minutes of August 28, 1995, as revised. The motion seconded by Mr. Van Dyke was approved unanimously. IIL NEW BUSINESS A. 2236 ]Ridge Avenue - Alterations Mr. Ruiz said that a project for alteration at 2236 Ridge Avenue was submitted on September 18, 1995 by Mr. Marc Kalman Segel, architect, for preliminary comments, Mr. Segel was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Ruiz said that on the south elevation a two- story porch would be enclosed on the second floor and extended to the west. On the north elevation a new french door and deck are being proposed. On the west elevation some windows are being replaced. Mr. Lehner said that it was difficult to comment about the project without some rep*eseutation of the exiting conditions of the house. Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Segel should provide photographs to illustrate the existing condition of the houseto the Commission. Mr. Nowesnick said that the Commission needs more information about the changing of a hip roof to a gable roof, and that it should be more sensitive to the existing roof A little more study on the balustrade spacing and size in relation to existing, and other details such as location of brackets, location of windows and size are needed. In terms of basic massing apparently there are no major concerns. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission needs information about details. B. 425 Dempster Redevelopment Proposals Mr. Ruiz said that the City had received four proposals for the redevelopment of 425 Dempster Street from R & F Development, Cyrus Development, and The Development Group. The proposals will be submitted to the City Council. A subcommittee of the Committee of the Whole was formed to study the proposals. Mr. Lehner asked if the Commission had the opportunity to request participation in the selection process. Mr. Ruiz said that he was asked to join the City staff group that reviewed the proposals. Mr..Lehner asked if the public had the opportunity to participate in that review process. Mr. Ruiz said that only City staff was involved at this time. Mr. Lehner asked if the City is at the point of selecting one of the proposals. Mr. Ruiz said that the City has to study the benefits of having the redevelopment of the property versus retaining the Montessori School. Mr. Lehner asked if the redevelopment goes ahead, will the redevelopment go under the planned development ordinance. Mr. Ruiz said that the redevelopment of the 425 Dempster may require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, because a planned development does not allow the increase the cumber of units. Mr. Lehner asked if the redevelopment goes ahead and if under an amended ordinance of any type, will the '...- � ,nir, � i- I , �n� r � _ Rw .L r H'S'�i':a'JI.%�'�'f',•�9�'!1hJ.�M�i��M4�1�!�' ��J��+�A'r��� � Evanston Preservation Commission September 19, 1995 - hfrnutes Page 5 Commission have the opportunity to participate. Mr. Ruizsaid that he had specifically suggested to the City Manager's office that at least one member of the Commission be part of the selection committee. Mr. Lehner asked who makes the final selection. Mr. Ruiz said that the City Council would make the final selection. Mr. Lehner said that it seemed appropriate that the Commission make comment about which proposal is most sensitive to preservation. Mr. Ruiz said that he was asked to get involved with the request for proposals (RFP). He incorporated preservation issues in the RFP. As far as the Commission's involvement in the selection process, he had not received any word on that yet. Mr. Lehner said that his concern was that a selection Gould be made without any input from the Commission. Mr. Ruiz said that he understands that before any of the proposals could go ahead, it has to come in front of the Commission. W. Lehner asked if the Council will look at the site plan to make their selection. Mr. Ruiz said that according to the RFP, retaining the open space is very important for the' successful redevelopment of the site. He said that, at the staff review, he had expressed the concerns raised by Mike Jackson, the State architect, regarding skylights. Because the main building's clay the roof is visible and is in good condition, alterations to the roof may not be acceptable to .the State architect. On the Cyrus proposal, the detailing of the secondary structure might be too excessive and the new terrace facing north may not be appropriate. He also said that there are no south elevations to comment on. Mr. Lehner Wd the Commission did not objected to sensitive dormers in the past. An ad hoc committee composed of Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Van Dyke and Mr. Knox was appointed by Mr. Lehner to review all the proposals and submit a report to the Commission with recommendations about the merits of each propose! regarding preservation issues. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center - Demolition Update Mr. Ruiz said that the demolition of the Lindheimer was more difficult than expected. The structure did not come down after the implosion and efforts for several days to pull down the structure were futile. B. 1995 Evanston Preservation Awards - Update Mr. Ruiz said that the Jury for the 1995 Evanston Preservation Awards selected 12 projects as award recipients as follows: 2517 Ceand Street t 1 Jr}N,� .ti•V �y{.� n1.�.�'}�i�.4 __.i `P..'��a is *;�f ii '1 Ad _im Evanston Preservation Comnssion September 19, 1995 - Minutes Page 6 1101 Davis Street (Evanston Post Office) 732 Madison Street Rehabi��t_ ►aion 635 Judson Avenue 640 Lincoln Street (Roycemore School) 1326 Asbury Avenue 1512 Asbury Avenue 1312 Church Street . 1509 Ridge Avenue (St. Mark'S Episco; al Church) - Margery Perldns Award Adaptive Reuse 601 Linden Plane - Margery B. Perkins Award 1703 {hrington Avenue (Evanston Public Library) 1739 Wesley Avenue Mr. Ruiz said that for the fast time ever the Jury felt very strongly about giving two projects the Margery B. Pesldw Award, the highest honor, to 1509 Ridge Avenue and 601 Linden Place. The reception and awards ceremony will take place Monday, October 23, 1995, beginning at 7:45 p.m.. On a side topic Mr. Ruiz said that 1739 Wesley Avenue has a beech tree that may be in danger of being cut down. The Preservation Ordinance only protects activity that requires a permit from the City. The cutting of trees on private property does not require a permit. The Commission members were very concerned with the potential cutting of the beech tree. Ms. Deis, a landscape architect said that the tree can be adequately trimmed. Returning to the Preservation Awards W. Lehner complemented the members of the Jury and the Commission's staff for a fob well done. C. Cultural Resources Committee Mr. Ruiz said the Cultural Resources Committee was in temporary recess. Alderman Kent is back to school as a teacher and a new day and time for the committee will be arranged to acconnmodate everybody's schedule. Meanwhile, Reid Mackin, a volunteer intern has worked on demographics znd migration patterns of the African -American community of Evanston. A . .'i- . k •. �.t..r:'. ... tiT' ! A c-+r .N ',�.'�C. ..w : i =••}i �S� 'w ......fL ��,. Evanston Preservation Commission September 19, 1995 - Nfinutes Page 7 V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, October 17, 1995, at 8:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. VL ADJOURNMENT With no further business in the agenda, Mr. Sheehan moved to adjourn the Commission's meeting. The motion seconded by Mr. Nowesnick was approved unanimously. STAFF:e���? i� DATE: /C 11.3 ///'SWMI/95 y y:�.`I wl-1oAlrl _i: aid ruiS �ii{IFiSd,.1� 'i�i DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES (Excerpt) Tuesday, October 17,1995 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Jessica Deis, George HaW Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Neil Sheehan, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: Derek Cottier, Richard Lehner. OTHERS PRESENT: Review and Technical Assistance Session: Kevin Boyer, Tun Swallow, Sharon Swallow, Ron Fleckman, Chars Thomas, Rhonda Hopps. PRESIDING: Commission's Meeting: Tim Koolish, Jeremy R. Wilson, Craig M. Smith. Neil Sheehan, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz, Robert Fahlstrom L COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee 1. 2033 Sheridan Road (Lunt Hall) - Proposed Construction of Enclosed Fire Scape Stairs Mr. Robe: t Fahlstrom, the City's Coordinating In3pector, said that his was involved with this project from the beginning. Mr. Craig Smith and Mr. J'un Koolish contacted him at the end of May, 1995, to set up a meeting to review to code aspects of the proposed renovation for Lunt Hall. At the May meeting James Wolinski, Director of the Community Development Department, and Criezies Architects, consultants to the City were present. During this meeting Griskellis and Smith with Tun Koolish went over the scope of the renovation. The City's concern was with the existing exiting (one open stairway and two existing fire escapes) that were not up to date with current coda James r"* ..'�,.r ,-r - i-iF�n-.-a'r.r„r���y.R,���.�tr.-..,,Mmtrgair-�.r++..��^n�„rrnn���. ,•,�.... 5�'!�+�t= Evanston Preservation Commission October 17, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Wolinski then requested that Northwestern University make a code study of the flrc escapes to see if they would suffice as exiting means. Northwestern University's study received on July 6th acknowledged that there were some problems. Mr. Fahlstrom said that the stairs were evaluated with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) criteria for existing fire escapes. It was determined that the best that could be assigned by the City as exit capacity to those fire escape stairs was less than 20 people (there is a projected occupancy of 70 people per the floor). The City sent a letter to Northwestern University with two options: One, they could remove the existing fire escapes and replace there with exterior wdt stairs which would conform the BOCA code, or two, they could take their case an appeal to the Property Services Board. On September 12th, at the Property Services Board's meeting, during Northwestern University's presentation, the issue of historic preservation was discussed several times. Northwestern University had expressed their concern to be caught in a catch 22 situation between the Property Services Board and the Building Division, on the one hand, and the Preservation Commission on the other hand. This concern was also brought by some Board members. At that meeting, the Property Services Board approved a motion to require that the exterior fire escapes would have to be replaced with new exterior stairs, but if Northwestern University could not come up with a design solution that somehow garnered the approval of the Preservation Commission, that the Property Services Board would want to have a meeting with the Preservation Commission to resolve the issue jointly, or the Board would like to rethink their position in requiring the f re stairs. Jeremy R. Wilson, Associate Provost, introduced Jim Koolish from the University Architect's Office, and Craig M. Smith from Griskellis and Smith. Mr. Wilson said that Lunt Hail is a 1994 Evanston Landmark, reason why the University went in front of the Property Services Board with an appeal which was rejected. This situation allows them to come in front of the Preservation Commission with some worst of all or best of all alternatives. The two stairs in questions are part of a modest renovation. The University had renovated the basement and the first floor in the past. Now they are renovating the second floor and the small tower on the third floor. iVir. Wilson said that from Sheridan Road, Lunt Hall is the building immediately south of the Garrett parking lot. Only two sides of the building can be seen from Sheridan Road, the front facade and the north end of the building. There is a fire escape in the north and a fire escape in the east. What the University proposes rather than building fire escapes (which would have to be 10 feet away from the building), is to maintain the northern fire escape, and instead of replacing in kind the fire escape in the north, build a stair structure adjacent to the existing bustle to the east side of the building. The University anticipates ._ ,e �, r�_r.., .. .riM rr-',i-p .a r M�Iri :'N.'�j! �,.i I,��ei '.-+I d i�+N��`�i nq � .. � - �u . •�.MA.i 'rT9'�1'FE'Rr1' .-. r,,, �. �� ,, .�� „�. . ni ,���nr"'n �T,T � YI •Yi I. •,. , a it w .. Jii i. .Y. YY ., W .. Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED October 17, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 that sometime in the future and with no commitment to so that the new stair structure could be incorporated into an addition. The original design of the existing building anticipated an addition as a "T" structure. Mr. Smith showed several views of the site and building. He also showed floor plans illustrating that the first and the second floor are similar in shape and size. A monumental open stair goes all the way down to the basement. The library is located on the first floor along with some large class rooms. There is no place inside to add a fire stair. Mr. Smith said that the proposal is to build an enclosed stair, adjacent to the existing building that eventually could be incorporated into a "T" addition. This would maintain the north fire escape. The existing one story addition and the existing walkway will be improved to gain access from the second floor. From the third floor there will be a matching bridge to go out to the new enclosure. The exterior finish of the existing building is limestone, the new structure finish is stucco. The intention is to build something sympathetic in proportion to the rest of the building. The coloration will be a beige color similar to the existing building. The roofing material would be same type of tile of the existing roof. Mr, George Halik asked why an interior stair could not be built? Mr. Smith said without cutting one to two offices it would not be possible to do it on the second floor. On the first floor, the library, the lobby or class rooms occupy the space may be affected. At this point Mr. Neil Sheehan said than there was a quorum present. Mr. Sheehan called the meeting to order at 8: 0S p.m.. He said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee's review session may continue as part of the regular Commission's meeting. A series of drawings were shown by Mr. Smith to demonstrate the difficulty of building an interior stair. Mr. Halik asked if other alternatives were explored to build interior stairs. In response, Mr. Smith said that the proposed design would allow some flexibility for arranging different spaces, including fire exits. Mr. Sheehan asked if this was a judgement call as to whether or not the full compliance triggers based on the scope of work? Mr. Fahlstrom said that the City is citing section 804 of the BOCA code. When extinct facilities are found to be deficient, the City may remedy or even that they may be remedied at that point. Mr. Smith mentioned that the original budget was about $200,000 plus $200,000 for mechanical. Mr. Sheehan asked if the building was sprinklered. W. Smith said, yes. Mr. Sheehan asked if a conventional water curtain was explored. Mr. Smith said that alternative was explored, but the Fire Department found that water curtains are sometimes more hazardous because they create a curtain that people are afraid to penetrate. Mr. Sheehan said that perhaps an alternative of smoke separation then would be more acceptable to the Fire Department. Mr. Wilson said that alternative would not be acceptable. - .. .. ��. -___ __ __. _ _ - i-. -, _ .: __ _ -_ _ __ - - -• ._ _� -�1• . ,_ �_ ,.. _.. ._- - ,.• jam``. o�� f Evanston Preservation Commission October 17, 1995 - Minutes Page 4 DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED Greg Nowesnick asked whether the fenestration openings will remain the same in all locations on the second and third door' Mr. Smith sald, yes, Mr. Sheehan asked what was the actual occupancy count on the second floor? Mr. Smith said about 30 people. He said that the Property Service Board had discussed the same issue. In response to a question from Mr. Halik, Mr. Smith said that the now structure contains an open shaft for a future elevator. Mr. Nowesnick asked if the exterior details of the new structure would simplify or duplicate the details of the existing structure? He also asked if putting some fenestration or recesses in the wall to brake up the vertical appearance of the tower was looked at? Mr. Smith said that they talk about fenestration, but it was decided to keep it as a simple form to break up the horizontal lines. Mr. Ralik said that the tower has a strong presence and he was interested if all alternatives were explored to build an interior stair. Mr. Smith said that they had explored that possibility with no favorable results. Kirk Irwin said with respect to materials that the stucco finish was compatible, but why then copy the exact roofing matedaJ? He said that either put the limestone on the tower to match the materials all the way or contrast it. Some elements are shown to be consistent with the existing context, while other elements contrast with the existing structure. Mr. Irwin said it was hard to get a read on the addition. Mr. Irwin said to consider bringing the bands on the existing building across the tower, it may :ielp with the proportion of it. He also said that breaking up the massing of the tower with inset panels or niches of some sort was desirable. Mr. Irv/in said that when the exquisite details on the existing building are drawn in, a different view on the design will be apparent. Mr. Wilson said that within 50 feet of the existing building there is a one story wood frame 1940 hut, leftover from W.W. 11. There is also an entire black top, and a handicapped ramp to the rear of the building. Mr. Sheehan said that the proposed solution is forced on the existing building. A better solution all around would be to do a whole project, not just one portion. He said that this condition existed for 100 years, why could not exist for another 5 years? he asked. Mr. Sheehan said that an agreement could be made to add the fire enclosed stairs when a whole addition is done. This could be a compromised solution with the City. He said this a historic structure that is not totally unsafe. Mr. Halik concurred with Mr. Sheehan, he added that all things considered that the tower is not a good solution. Mr. Fahlstrom said that Mr. Wolinski had accepted the tower as a possible solution, in lieu of reworking the exterior stairs. In addition, the Property Services Committee decided that they would meet again to reconsider their ruling, that is certainly an option. He said that he could not speak for the Board. Mr. Wilson said that the University could not make a firm commitment to build an addition in the near future. Mr. Smith said that all working drawing for the proposed tower have to be ready in May of 1996, in his opinion that leavea them with little time. W. Wilson said that if the University were to present r ui,WMIpuli„oL Evanston Preservation Commission October 17, 1995 - Mantes Page 5 DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED their proposal to the Board, that they would find the tower with the approval of the Building Division as acceptable. It represents a response that would be satisfactory to them. He said that on behalf of the University that he would like to proceed with this solution. Therefore, he asked the Preservation Commission to concur with the University's request to solve the problem with the addition of the stair. Commissioners discussed the content of motion that would address all or most of the continents and suggestion previously discussed by some Commissioners. Mr. Nowesnick moved that the Commission approve the stair addition as illustrated with the following additional modifications: A string course addition at the third level, removal of the hipped roofs introduction of recessed panels, niches or other decorative forms to break down the size of the tower, and the color of the exterior cement stucco be of a more muted weathered color closely resembling the existing limestone, and improving the exhaust and intake louvers which will be of complementary nature, closely resembling the limestone. As an addition the motion, the Preservation Commission will meet with the Property Services Board, to discuss the possibility of deleting this addition in its entirety (Mr. Fahlstrom at this point noted that the Building Division should be included as part of the decision). Mr. Nowesnick amended his motion to include the Evanston Building Division as part of the discussion with the Property Services Board and the Preservation Commission, and the design is contingent on coming to some resolution with all parties involved. The motion seconded by W. Halik was approved unanimously. In response to a question from Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sheehan said that if the Commission were to come with some agreement with the Property Services Board, it would mean that the construction of the tower would be forestalled. Staff was asked to make the necessary arrangements to sat up a meeting between the Property Services Board, the Preservation Commission and the Building Division. Lastly, the Commission will review detail drawings if the tower is to be built. STAFF:�''�/ DATE: ///a" 195 =F .}errr . • A.�Vti ..j.;1Y��..rtKty � }rqq: �# t. _ .rw �.� -r• 1 '�� P • {�wRw1M .. , 'l rt#, _ � . Y - . � � :.' ' • 1 STANDARDS ADIDRM: S S �• *� mot*. �li LANDMARK YES _ . NO .. _ LIAR' H64- c' O '4VrrHv HLSTORIC DISTRICT: "ES —, , NO 001*. M *-rr W YES' R GE LA,XMOP13 . THEMATIC _ ftito-Pt+�� — CONfRIavTSNe. YES., . NO 10105. 4HO94 a &" PROPOSED PROJECT. f �$Vq p.- TV(Z L,VI.T �&l i To Plot.- ACT In., . , i , . . I ,ass appike iad for a Cersi, icsk of Appmpda*r k albtatiom the Camnlimioa shall ooaaidcr only the follol►66 t1100ad ssartdartis, spoil& &*M guidelines, if aw, , ..... (, tW odutsneo d tM Lsndawk or District, sad the standards Wuded in Section 2-9-0M. Noticing lu this Chepirr ahsll be oorrxru-d b prevent ottihwy maintmaaee or mpdm that do trot iuvoltro a change of dcsiv% material, or the cmdor xMwU -i'Y-� •r•• • of s props y . kilo orCb!�ed"ions as th& prCwibW Micw r � � J"+ . Ara fidwvMd. STANDARDS COWENTSSCOMMENDAT'I ONS (1) Every vas mm" s effort :tuff he aw ds to &Igo Aber proparty, ctrs , sits of object I s 2� � w A M.�bL t;,v '- its in momw tha mqub= mint a temroa of tbA property, structrue, cite or objeet mad IVb (I) T ha d ofirtgtxshing wf ea%l qudW= . r chwader of property. err MUT, site or object ad is cni=xnad aim act be e:sft yad. The rawval or dkmden of may mWaW or dis5aaiva architect" imWcs ttbal► be avoided when pazA Aa. (3) M propati ca, struchucs, rhea, and abject: valid! bo re ad ra products of dzk own two. Atterarkm that We no hbwgi=l basis and flat ad to an a utkar -rr.•,•M-- deli too di:=� (4) ChwVu that may have taken plem in the course of timer aver cvWcnce of the history said davdbpment of a prripcsty. struchm,, eta or object end its eavirormestt. 7rseso dwga may have nquirw sib is their aaia right, and die signsticmoe shd be nod roperovd.' (S) Diginc6n styli -do fzttttrsa or cwo In of ski W m2ft anxnjhip thrd eraruterim a property. sotua=, site or obje i stall br katad with =%si6vity. (6) DeteriomW arch -WUrJ fraftna %? A ba relxue l Mdw than rep!aeed, whesevcr potsible. In the event replsxment is net wary. the new mataW sbMW ma,'ch the material being replaced in compotitian,+ eYipr, color, Wwc, and other visual quaiidu Repair at replacement of mitring architectural features should be bused on accurate duplications of fcatum, rubsundated by hiaorie, physical. or pictoriar evidence rather than on conjectural deaigm or the avada ility of difTcirnt architectural elements from other &uctur" or objactt (7) The:arnica cksning of structures an l obju to shill be undataken with the gentlest twat possIA,— Sandbtasunug shall riot t: - undzttakatt, nor shalt other cSczning rrxd rds that will dcauV the historic materials of the structure, site or objat. (8) Every rc&%mbte effort sha11 be rn" to protect and preserve ar+cls=ological resauxcct a!f'rctrd by, er 42ant to any vVitet. (9) Contenrparuy design for alterations rnd additions to mustang pmpcmcs slop not be dixxmngcd wtom tnrch alterations and *4ditiens do riot destroy signMeRnt historic, eultutsl, stshitettttral or archaeological iv auikl, and such dc:ign is eompstibla with the size, sal-, COW, material, art•! chsrscta -if the property, nrwghbortrood or cnvironmrnt AAp4Nto i:4-wlzs. - 3d/ mac, r OIL `T� Rd�tow vWiVPiQ%?� (10) Whcwwrer patEbio, nxw addition.: o* dUntiorrs to stu:tr..,ct sad objt-,s alrall bm done in sutlt a menorr thA if such sdditi." or el:e;ttlimu a�ero to W rr--"Ynd Wthe fug h= ta M9� fnrr i 0M i.^-t�siry tfths ac M wW4M to t�pcir-d. ApFRO :YES ` " NO _,_, DATE • �Iur:zA 4`HA�R r EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION NEMTES Tuesday, November 21,1995 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Derek Cottier, Jessica Deis, Kirk Irwin, Mary Mumbrue, Neil Sheehan, Will Van Dyke. MEMBERS ABSENT: George Halik, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Gregory Nowesnick. OTHERS PRESENT: Shelley J. Orbach, Peter F. Tromp, Birch Burghardt, Marc K. Segel, Jeff Cagan, Joe Bahles, Robert Lipman, Michael Streator:, Chris Czechowski. PRESIDING: Neil Sheehan, Vice -Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Neil Sheehan called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. He suggested to continue with the Review and Technical Assistance Committee's review of 2236 Ridge Avenue, which was still in progress. II. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2236 Ridge Avenue - Addition and Exterior Alterations Mr. Jeff Cagan and Mr. Marc K. Segel, architect submitted drawings for the exterior alterations and additions to 2236 Ridge Avenue, an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Sheehan said that the items under review were: the wood sided enclosure of an existing porch and the addition of a new deck (facing south), the addition of a second story deck to the south-west comer of the house, the addition of a deck on the north side of the house, and the replacement of full size windows for french doors. Also, opening a new window for a bathroom on the first floor and a new window on the second poor. Finally, the replacement of storm windows and the construction of a new 6'-0" high fence on the north property line. Mr. Sheehan: said that the enclosure of the southern porch and feneestration, was in general, satisfactory. However, he was concerned with the design of &.o balusters and Evanston Preservation Commission November 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 railing detail for the deck and for the second story deck railing, Mr. Segel said that the detail of the wooden balusters and railing will match the balusters and railing of the front porch. The height of the railing will be Y-0" to meet with the building code. W. Segel said that the concrete foundation wall will match the texture of the existing foundation wall. The wooden decks will be painted to match the color of the house. Will Van Dyke expressed his concern with the proposed 6'- 0" high fence on the north property line. He said that the existing low picket fence is an important feature of the property. Mr. Segel said that his clients want some privacy on the north side of the house. Mr. Sheehan said that he would prefer that the 6'- 0" high fence begins at the front setback of the house to the north. He said that one of the Commission's charge is to preserve the historic character of the historic districts. The low picket fence is a strong element, Mr. Sheehan was interested in preserving it as much as possible. Mr. Van Dyke said that what the Commission is trying to do regarding the fence is to arrive at a compromise while preserving it as much as possible, particularly the view when going south on Ridge Avenue. Mr. Van Dyke asked Mr. Cagan and Mr. Segel to consider moving the higher portion of the fence as far west as possible to obtain privacy and a yard, but also understand and respect that the house is a very distinctive house, because of its location and prominence on an angled street. his. Jessica Deis said that a landscape solution could provide better privacy than the fence alone. Mr. Van Dyke said that the important public view is the arched windows and the gable. He said that he would argue that beyond the gable is where the line is drawn for the starting of the higher fence. Mr. Cagan agreed to comply with the Commission's recommendation regarding the location of the higher fence. Mr. Cagan asked the Commission if fiber glass replacement windows (double hung, thermo pane) that fit right into the existing frame, so all the outside woodwork is left intact, destroy the character of the house? Mr. Sheehan said it would all depend on the profile of the existing window. However, from the preservation point of view, when replacement is necessary, the replacement should be in kind, including the design and the material. Mr. Van Dyke requested that the Commission review the detail drawings for the railing and windows. Mr. Sheehan said that Mr. Carlos Ruiz, could approve the drawings without having the applicant coming back in front of the Commission. Mr. Van Dyke moved that the Commission approve the plans for 2236 Ridge Avenue with the following stipulations: the aluminum storm windows will have an arched head to match the windows arched head, the existing picket fence continue to the line of the setback of the adjacent house to the north, and the 6' - 0" high fence must start beyond that point to the west, the aluminum siding for the additions is acceptable because it matches the existing aluminum siding on the house, the porch railing and balusters detailing must match the detailing of the existing front porch. If the design of the - ] -� �}.4 x ��.� � � -`} t�� F- �� e,�` i��(�'' � �� -�� '���,Cy ����-� +r 9' �,..r�j��y'��;�y5� �1 ,��• �s�.��I�jg��lxR�-�c� �(((... --� h;-- t Evanston Preservation Commission November 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 windows as presented should change, a subcommittee of R&TA is delegated authority to approve those changes on behalf of the Commission. The motion, seconded by Mr. Kirk Irwin, was approved unanimously. 2. 330 Greenwood Street - Exterior Alterations W. Van Dyke reported to the Commission that 330 Greenwood Street submitted plans for the following alterations: at an existing dormer, the metro louvre windows are being replaced with double hung windows, at the attic dormers, a heading and new palladian windows will be added to one of the dormers, the dormer will be stuccoed to match the existing limestone finish. A cornice will be added to the dormer, new windows will be installed in several locations to match existing windows. The project includes tuck pointing of the masonry. Mr. Van Dyke said R&TA recommended approval of the alterations as submitted. Mr. Irwin moved to accept the R&TA's recommendation for approval of the alterations at 330 Greenwood Street. The motion, seconded by Mr. Van Dyke, was approved unanimously. 3. 731 Michigan Avenue - Exterior Alterations Mr. Robert Lipman, owner of 731 Michigan Avenue and Joe Behles, architect, presented drawings for reworking in the back of the house the second -story sleeping porch and the first floor back porch, which both had previously been enclosed. The back porch has a pitching roof at the box bay window. On the second floor, there is a reconfiguration of two rooms into a master suite, the enclosed space that was the sleeping porch previously remains as a little sitting room for the master bedroom with new casement windows. Everything remains the same with the exception of the projecting 16 inch box bay windows. From the kitchen, the small back porch which steps down to grade, is being enlarged. The appearance from the street not being affected. Mr. Lipman said that at some point the front entry needs to be brought into to -haracter with the house. Also, the replacement of the front windows is being considered. He asked if the Commission could approve such plans ahead of time. Mr. Behles added that the front porch was enclosed and it currently has deficient fixed glaring, also some settlement has occurred. Mr. Ruiz response was that without appropriate documentation the Commission will not be able to review an application. He also said that a building permit is valid for a period of 12 months. Mr. Van Dyke made a motion to approve 731 Michigan Avenue remodeling as submitted. Ms. Deis seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. SY 7'ey� Y3 -yam �, � � { •*'['�'$� Evanston Preservation Commission November 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 4 4. 1031 Ridge Avenue - Exterior Alterations Mr. Michael Straaton, the owner of 1031 Ridge Avenue, and his contractor Chris CzechowsK presented to the Commission plans for alterations at 1031 Ridge Avenue, a property located within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Straaton said that the alteration involves the construction of a 6' - 0" x 11' - 0" addition to the rear, over a flat roof of a one story section of the house. He said all the eaves, stucco, windows, muntins of the addition will match the existing features. Mr. Straaton said that his contractor was informed by the City that the project could proceed, he said that he was not aware that the project had to be approved by the Commission. He instructed his contractor to go ahead with some minor demolition of a cantilevered section which is falling down. In addition, one of the workers fell through the open flat roof, causing an opening on the ceiling. Mr. Straaton said that the foundation underneath the construction area will be shored up, and the new 6' - 0" x 11' - 0" addition will be built in the same manner as the whole house. Referring to the roof gables on the house, Mr. Van Dyke asked Mr. Straaton if instead of doing the sloped roof with the skylight, whether a gable was considered. Mr. Straaton said that the architect and the contractor advised him not to do so, because there is a house very close to his house, and because a new gable would not look appropriate. He also said that if the gable was facing to the back, the big roofs collect a lot of water making it difficult for the installation of the gutters. Mr. Stmaton emphasized that the addition is in the back of the house. Mr. Ruiz said that while taking photographs of the house, he could see the addition from Ridge Avenue. He also said that he was concerned with the appearance of the sloped roof that projects to the side of the house. Mr. Sheehan offered some suggestions for a flat roof instead of the sloped roof, however Mr. Straaton reaffirmed that the proposed design was appropriate. Mr. Van Dyke said that although the house is in the Ridge Historic District, it is not considered a contributing structure to it. Mr. Van Dyke made a motion to approve the alterations at 1031 Ridge Avenue as presented. Mr. Cottier seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 5. 2319 Lincoln Street - Exterior Alterations Mr. Van Dyke said that 2319 Lincoln Street is a Dwight Perkins house (Evanston Landmark). Representatives from Airoom Architects, Inc. (Shelley Orbach and Peter F. Tromp) presented earlier to R&TA minimal elevations and sketches of the elevations. The sketches were different from the elevations and window treatment. Mr. Irwin said that the drawings submitted to the Commission were not consistent with the drawings submitted for the building permit. R&TA had some concerns with the design of the windows. R&TA requested Airoom to revise their drawings for resubmission to the Commission. .,. 't 5 r 'ram Evanston Preservation Commission November 21, 1995 - Nhnutes Page S Mr. Irwin said that Mr. Dick Lehner (Chair of the Commission) was present at the review session with R&TA, and he recommended that the Commission review this project very closely, particularly because it is a Dwight Perkins house. III. OLD BUSINESS A. 425 Dempster Street - Proposed Redevelopment Mr. Ruiz said that the City Council is still considering the proposals from developers for the redevelopment of 425 Dempster Street (designed by Daniel Burnham) as condominiums, and the proposal from the Chiaravalle Montessori School to remain in the facility. The Commission will not be directly involved in this issue until a building permit or any other application concerning the preservation of the building is formally submitted to the City for its approval. = Mr. Sheehan said that it appears to be strong public opinion that the redevelopment proposals cut down in the available open space. He said that to his knowledge that was not the rase. Mr. Ruiz said at least two of the proposals encroach to some degree into 3 the existing open space. The Request for Proposal specifically stated that no open public j space be used for redevelopment. B. Metal Guardrails in historic Districts Mr. Ruiz said that he had a conversation with James Tonkinson, City Engineer, about the Commission's purview over the installation in the historic districts of unpainted metal guardrails, traffic lights and signs and light fixtures. He found out that some streets in Evanston are state routes and that the City complies with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) standards. Mr. Van Dyke pointed out that every single light A fixture and standard (in the ten million dollar renovation of Evanston's downtown) has a brown anodized finish. He believes that this issue can be approached as an education process, IDOT has standards, but IDOT also listens to the communities. Mr. Van Dyke urged that the Commission talk to David Barber, Director of Public Works. He said that Mr. Barber is very familiar with the downtown renovation. Mr. Van Dyke strongly believes that the Commission has a rase to maintaining the character of the historic districts because they are important to the City of Evanston. 4M The Commission asked Mr. Ruiz to make the necessary arrangements so that Mr. Lehner and he can meet with Mr. Barber to talk about the appearance of light fixtures, traffic -73 lights, metal guardrails and any other items that may have an impact in the historic districts. .`.: 4:e b � r`' ,,��11.9 _u �• [15L'.'1',:'C!.' �3- .. ' - -VVV. ., _ ,,j -r ��'' � � '�3,}a;{`;�' F `.�s w Evanston Preservation Commission November 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 6 C. Cultural Resources - Conservation District Mr. Ruiz said that the Cultural Resources Committee (Committee) resumed its bl-weekly meetings. Mary McWilliams, a member of the Committee, submitted a proposal for a mobile workshop for the 1996 National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference in Chicago. The mobile workshop is intended to showcase the Fifth Ward and the process of proposing a conservation district. Fifth Ward Alderman, Joseph Kent, is working on the initiative of creating a conservation district in his ward. Alderman Kent is also in the process of identifying those individuals that serve or will serve as block captains in the Fifth Ward. The block captains will help with the oral interviews that may provide the Committee with important information about the cultural assets and history of the Fifth Ward residents. The Committee also agreed to identify on a Fifth Ward map the location of important sites and structures, birth places of prominent residents, business and civic institutions, etc. D. 1995 Evanston Preservation Awards Mr. Ruiz said that the Evanston Preservation Awards ceremony which was originally scheduled for October 23, 1995, took place on November 6. Despite the unforeseen delay, Mr. Ruiz believes that the Preservation Awards still made a good impression on the City Council. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of Nominating Committe, (1996 EPC's Officers) The Commissioners agreed that Mr. Lehner will chair the nominating committee for the 1996 Commission's Officers. The Committee will report to the Commission at the next meeting. B. Commission's End of the Year Holiday Party The Commission did not make a decision regarding this issue. V. OLD BUSINESS (Continuation) 2033 Sheridan Road - Lunt Hall (Fire Escapes) 14Ir. Ruiz said that on November 7, 1995, Richard Lehner, George Halik and he met with the Property Services Board (Board) and Robert Fahlstrom, the City's Coordinating Inspector, to discuss the issue of fire escapes for 2033 Sheridan Road (Lunt Hall). Jeremy -- - . L.. i0Y .,,_..iJ, JL. 4. II.:L,i i.l9. a;t.'41ci Yld !i i. � t�,A' L'�'. •�r, : f +•,4 4�isl 1 Evanston Preservation Commission November 21, 1995 - Minutes Page 7 Wilson, Jim Koolish (Northwesten University) and Craig Smith (architect) were also present. Mr. Ruiz said that the Commission had reluctantly approved a fire escape tower to the rear of Lunt Hall as part of the second floor remodeling on October 17, 1995. The Commission also agreed at that time to meet with the Board to determine whether the fire escape tower was absolutely necessary to comply the fire code and if possible, also agree with the Board on a better solution than the fire escape tower. After a lengthy discussion and careful consideration of the Commission's concerns about the fire escape tower, the Board reversed its denial of an appeal from Northwestern University regarding the fire escapes. The Board concluded that the sprinkler system, the improvement of interior stairs as means of egress and the water curtains will be a great improvement to the existing fire prevention and egress systems. The Board and the Commission also agreed to work together in future projects dealing with Evanston Landmarks or properties located within the historic districts. Mr. Ruiz said that Northwestern University has recently inquired to the City about the fire code requirements if they decide to remodel the third floor of Lunt Hall. This new development was not part of the discussion of November 7, 1995. VL APPROVAL OF M NUTES Mr. Cottier moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 1995, with corrections submitted by the Commission members. The motion seconded by Mr. Irwin was approved unanimously. VEL ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Commission meeting is scheduled December 19, 1995, at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. i - VIM ADJOURNMENT Mr. Van Dyke moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The motion seconded by Mr. Irwin was approved unanimously. STAFF:Ct^/y ' DATE: 'i�r. rs,�";�,�..jt�'S��S.,�;ir.,a•3��`a.C�'}` ti{. .., EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, December 19,1995 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Derek Cottier, Kirk Irwin, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesn'rek, Julie Coulter Thomas, Will Van Dyke, MEMBERS ABSENT: Jessica Deis, George Halik, James M. Knox, Neil Sheehan. OTHERS PRESENT: Peter F. Tromp, Roberta Kodner, Till Fletcher, Chris Thomas, Ron Fleckman. PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz At 8 p.m, the Review and Technical Assistance Committee's (R&TA) review session was still in progress. A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1319 & 1323 Chicago Avenue - Demolition and New Construction W. Ron Heckman of Cyrus Developers and Mr. Chris Thomas, architect, presented to the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) for preliminary review a proposal for the demolition of two structures and the subsequent construction on the cleared site of a new four story building, with twenty condominium units. The site is located in the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The structures considered for demolition are not listed as contributing to the historic district, nor are they Evanston Landmarks. Mr. Thomas said that their purpose was to set up a zone in front of the building that is akin to the other buildings on Chicago Avenue. For example, upper level lofts with gabled roofs, size and proportion of windows, the entrances are located off to the side, all with the exception of five surface: parking spaces are accessed off of the alley. The front elevation has masonry from the ground level to the sill level of the fourth floor. A lighter material or a plaster like material such as stucco or cast stone will be used for the fourth floor. The balconies have been recessed with a decreased projection of three feet from the face of the building. At the gables, five pairs of chimneys provide fire places. ..1A1 A;1 1p eil ado . :•1 6..ndl.. 1�'-d gd-b "Iv'dr�WVsl•il',ai.:Yiin .,d3nx hri�l 4 s� 44 —� Evanston Preservation Commission December 19, 1995 - Minutes Page 2 Mr. William Van Dyke said that he would like to see a site plan relating to the other buildings. He believes the key question is the demolition of the two houses. Mr. Lehner asked the applicants for clarification, what was their intent in presenting their plans to the Commission. Mr. Fleckman said that they wanted a preliminary review from the Commission because the project is within a historic district. In response to Mr. Lehnees question, Mr. Thomas said that the balcony doors would be French doors. The windows are Marvin windows (two fixed windows on the sides and a single French door opening on the center). Mr. Kirk Irwin said that it would be better if the inset panels were windows but the relief would be equal to what the relief is at the window. Sometimes the inset panels just do not work, and sometimes they do work. Mr. Thomas said that the design is reminiscent of other kinds of larger residential structures from another era that could be found in this area. Like those structures, they have a way of manipulating architectural language to deal with areas where symmetries could not work. For example, where windows are needed, but cannot occur, the recessed panels are a solution to that problem. Mr. Gregory Nowesnick asked, if it would be appropriate to have a little more of a break where the gable terminates and adjoins the flat roof to punctuate the facade and allow the flat roof to be a little more subservient. Mr. Thomas said that the layout of the building responds to the demands of the market. In terms of office design, there is a thirty -two - lease span that occurs all the way around this building, which allows for the residential units and for circulation to occur in the center. To stay competitive in the market one has to keep that kind of distance. Mr. Thomas said that zoning and the market dictated the design of the building. Mr. Nowesnick said that his point has to do with the scaling of the building. The break on the facade could be two feet or more to accentuate the gable roof and more importantly, provide some kind of a break in plain avoiding the tenuous relationship of the flat roof going right up to the gable roof. Another approach would be to use a gravel stop copping and drop or raise the flat roof creating a vertical break. In that way, the gables become more of a feature component of the facade. In response to a question from Mr. Lehner, Mr. Fleckman said that the developer intends to incorporate all the design details and features of the building as submitted during the preliminary review. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission's consideration of demolition is based on what the Commission believes will be in place of the demolition. At this point, Mr. Lehner paused the R&,rA's review session, and acknowledged the presence of a Commission's quorum. L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. He said that the Commission will continue with R&TA's review of 1319 and 1323 Chicago Avenue. I] - - - - ,� � - - � �,� �-..,� � ,. . ,w,M � .. �i wK ..R� -�,.:�, � rr.•iar,N �.ra fnP'I� r�r, „ '"K �yl�-., +,i�Ay,L �,�yial��,J ,ari�li� E Evanston Preservation Commission December 19, 1995 - Minutes Page 3 IL COMNUTTEE REPORTS (Continuation) A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1319 & 1323 Chicago Avenue - Demolition and New Construction Continuing with R&TA's review session, Mr. Lehner said that there are two issues in front of the Commission: first, the demolition of two structures which are in the Lakeshore Historic District, and second, the construction of a new condominium building on their place. Mr. Van Dyke asked if the two structures contemplating demolition were in fact non-contributing to the historic district, or that at least that question had been researched. Mr. Fleckman said that the addresses involved are 1319 and 1323 Chicago Avenue. Mr. Thomas said that the Commission will find that the two structures have been added and modified and that they are no longer text book architectural examples. Mr. Van Dyke said that, nonetheless, they might be contributing structures to the historic district. Mr. Ruiz said that at this point he did not find any record that will show the subject structures as being contributing to the historic district. Mr. Van Dyke said that i& in fact, the two structures are not contributing to the historic district he did not have a problem with the proposed building. It will all depend on how the site plan works, especially in relationship to the north. Mr. Fleckman believed that the structure to the north is a single family residence. He said that the two structures in question are residential flats. Mr. Cottier asked if the owners of the structure to the north were aware of the proposed plan. Mr. Fleckman said that he was not sure whether the current owners of the two structures contemplating demolition had talked to the owners of the property to the north. Mr. Thomas said that at one of their meetings with the current owners, one of them had mentioned that the owner to the north was also interested in selling. In response to a question from Mr. Nowesnick, Mr. Thomas said that the setback of the proposed building to the north property line is fourteen and a half feet. Mr. Nowesnick said that the scale of the two structures proposed for demolition are much smaller than the adjacent structures, even smaller than the existing residence to the north. He believed that the nature and style of the proposed development would be a great asset for the street block on Chicago Avenue. He said he would be concerned with the distance between the building and the house to the north. Responding to a question from Mr. Cottier, Mr. Thomas said that the building's front setback was twenty-seven feet, which is close to the setback of the house to the north. Mr. Cottier concurred with Mr. Nowesnick's and Mr. Van Dyke's continents, and unless there was something particular about the two houses that the Commission does not know at this time, it would not bothered him to see those two structures demolished. "Wo,;ir. Evanston Preservation Commission December 19, 1995 - Miinutes Page 4 Mr. Lehner said that he did not hear any major objections to the proposed development at Its location. A building of this scale and magnitude (multi -family) would, in fact, be appropriate. The Commission would not disagree with a request for a demolition permit for the two houses in question, assuming that what the Commission knows to date is in fact correct. Referring to the proposed the design, Mr. Lehner said there may be modifications that would be beneficial to the project, but that the Commission would not have an objection to the proposed project. The Commission requested a site plan showing the content and setbacks of the proposed building in relation to the other remaining structures on that particular block from the applicants. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission will review this project at least one more time when the building permit application is submitted to the City. The applicants were invited to come back to the Commission whenever they are ready with the project. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Before approving the minutes, Mr. Lehner welcomed Ms. Julie Coulter Thomas as a newly appointed member to the Commission. Mr. Cottier moved to approved the Commission's minutes of November 21, 1995, as submitted. The motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, was approved unanimously. IV. CORRESPONDENCE A. Resignation Letters Mr. Ruiz told the Commission that Mr. Derek Cottier and Mr. Neil Sheehan submitted their respective resignation letters from the Commission to the Mayor, effective January 1, 1996. Mr. Lehner praised both Mr. Cottier and Mr. Sheehan for their dedication to the Commission and thanked them for their work. B. Letter from the Preservation League of Evanston Regarding 1127 Hinman Avenue Mr. Ruiz said that an open letter from the Preservation League of Evanston expressing the League's opposition to a proposed group home facility at 1127 Hinman Avenue has been widely distributed and published in the Evanston Review. The problem is that, apparently, some citizens believe that the letter was written by the Evanston Preservation Commission. There seems to be confusion between the Preservation League of Evanston and the Evanston Preservation Commission (Commission). Mr. Lehner said that in order to clarify the apparent confusion that a letter to the Mayor be sent indicating that the Preservation League of Evanston is a separate not for profit Evanston organization, which is not part of or tied to the Evanston Preservation Commission. Also, the letter should indicate that the Commission has no opinion on 1127 Ilinman Avenue. - _ x - ____ _.� .,—�....rr+lr .. _ .. : + . a 7,... � .i� .. y1n�� � �;,. r • • *��•it' �"'"�4%�i5+' r �'�F•+t+at'i� ��r M Evanston Preservation Commission December 19, 1995 - Minutes Page 5 M COMMITTEE REPORTS (Continuation) A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 2. 2319 Lincoln Street - Rear Alterations Mr. Irwin said that the owner (Ms. Roberta Kodner) and her architect (Mr. Peter F. Tromp) submitted plan to renovate the kitchen to R&TA. The project entailed removing some existing windows and adding some new windows. The project is a renovation to an addition to the original house. Mr. Irwin said that Tromp had come the Commission's previous meeting with some sketches of the project. The Commission asked them to resubmit the project with revised and more complete drawings. The drawings that were included for this Commission meeting were further revised. New drawings were submitted by the architect at the R&TA review session. IMTA thought that the latest drawings met the criteria and standards (1 thru 10) for alteration. R&TA recommended approval of the proposal as it was presented tonight to R&TA. Mr. Irwin moved to accept the recommendation of R&TA for approval of alteration at 2319 Lincoln Street as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Van Dyke, was Approved unanimously. 3. 618 Emerson Street - Replacement of Windows Mr. Van Dyke said that the replacement of windows at 618 Emerson Street was reviewed before by the Commission in a preliminary basis. The project is replacing existing windows. The applicants presented two different types of windows. Hopes is a metal window that has the mullions applied to the glass. These windows are very similar in character to the existing windows. The other window was a Wasaw window. Mr. Van Dyke said that R&TA recommended approval of the Hopes window to replace the existing windows. The architects of the project agreed to send the actual window specifications to Mr. Ruiz for his review when they submit the window replacement for a building permit. Mr. Van Dyke moved to approve R&TA's recommendation to approve the Hopes windows as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. .4k�114rJA&rS61, r Evanston Preservation Commission December 19, 1995 - Minutes Page 6 IV, OLD BUSINESS A. Nominating Committee Mr. Cottier said that the Nominating Committee for the 1996 Evanston Preservation Commission Officers, had unanimously agreed that Isar. Will Van Dyke will be an excellent choice as the Commission's Chair for 1996. Because of his current commitments with other local organizations, Mr. Van Dyke agreed to accept the nomination as the Conunission's Chair for the second half of 1996. With that thought in maid, the Nominating Committee, recommended that Mr. Richard Lehner be re-elected as Chairman for the remainder of his appointment to the Commission which expires at the end of June 1996. Mr. Van Dyke will then assume the chairmanship for the remainder of the year. The Nominating Committee recommended Mr. James M. Knox as Vice -Chair. Mr. Knox had accepted his nomination. Mr. Nowesnick moved to approve the nominations for the 1996 Commission's Chair and Vice -Chair as presented. The motion seconded by Ms. Thomas was approved unanimously. The election for new officers is scheduled in January 1996. i i a B. Metal Guardrails In Historic Districts Mr. Ruiz said that he had drafted a letter to Mr. David Barber, Director of Public Works, requesting a meeting between the Commission's Chair, Mr. Barber and himself. At the meeting issues of concern to the Commission could be discussed, such as the installation in the historic districts of unpainted galvanized metal guardrails and traffic light poles. The draft of the letter will be submitted to the Commission members for their review and approval. C. Cultural Resources Mr. Ruiz said that he was invited by Fifth Ward Alderman, Joseph Kent, to attend a meeting in his ward. The meeting was an opportunity to talk about Alderman Kenfs initiative to designate a Conservation District. The residents seem to be genuinely interested in participating with Alderman Kenfs proposal. Mr. Ruiz said that he plans to submit a report to the Commission for their approval, in January 1996, and subsequently submit the report to Mr. Dennis Marino, Assistant Director for Planning. The participation of the Fifth Ward residents is extremely important for the success of Alderman Kent's Conservation District initiative. Mr. Ruiz said that, at this point, he will propose that all block captains participate in the process. Each block captain will be assigned the task to identify within their respective area, buildings, sites, persons, and events that are considered of significance to their ovm community. -ri•"��'+*x*'+�'� � �� .. , :.��'^ ^.,,�-ni„My,r�f w 1wR':'.,u. �Y��k"�I�•'��rti%.��3,ry.�,i�,,�,�.-.K!�Sl���ii�,Jr!r�N{�!'^ Evanston Preservation Commission December 19, 1995 » Minutes Page 7 Mr. Lehner asked if the City designates a Conservation District, would the Commission have the responsibility of reviewing permits for construction or demolition within the Conservation District. Mr. Ruiz said that at this stage its too early to tell. The Conservation District could be established by the City Council through an ordinance or a resolution. The other possibility could be that the City Council may instead adopt a policy that would establish the boundaries of a Conservation District, with certain goals and objectives, such as providing particular services or improvements. Mr. Irwin said that this initiative may require the Commission to take a hard look at what is defined as historic preservation, it would probably broaden the Commission's view of what it is trying to preserve. If cultural resources are defined as more than buildings, then what is the Commission's role in the process? Mr. Irwin asked. Mr. Ruiz said that unfortunately, there is not much written African American history to be found in the Evanston Historical Society archives, there are some oral histories that may shed some light. Mr. Irwin said that there is a Caribbean community in Evanston, two published articles have connected Caribbean architecture to shot gun houses in the Caribbean architecture back to vernacular buildings in Africa. He said that it will interesting to see more about this cultural resource in Evanston. D. 425 Dempster Street Mr. Ruiz said that the City Council has decided to solely negotiate with Montessori Chiaravalle School. The understanding is that Montessori School will stay in the building, the building will be rehabilitated and the grounds will remain the same. Ms. Thomas said that Montessori School proposed a 1.2 million rehabilitation for the building. They proposed to borrow $600.000 from the City. Ms. Thomas said that the proposal includes renting the building for the next seven years, for $21,000 a year. At the end of seven years, the School would purchase the building, minus all the rent that the School would have paid. In the mean time, the School would renovate the building borrowing $600,000, having (lie City in essence issuing a bond for $600,000. V. NEW BUSINESS a A. 1996 Evanston Preservation Commission Scheduled Meetings Mr. Ruiz submitted the schedule of the Commission's meetings for 1996. The monthly meeting is scheduled the third Tuesday of the month, in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center at 8 p.m. Mr. Cottier moved to approve the Commission's 1996 schedule of meetings. The motion, seconded by Mr. Van Dyke, was approved unanimously. _y i$ A.31NJJ,1LO PlilRICA,..ii%gliWAJVl�hl iWild,IA4 Jnra�, a Evanston Preservation Commission December 19, 1995 - Minutes Page S B. Preservation Commission's goats and objectives for 1996 Mr. Ruiz said that draiiing and adopting the now rules and regulations for the Commission is a top priority. The Conservation District project and the implementation of preservation initiatives for south-east Evanston were considered a priority. The Plan Commission is in the process of updating the Comprehensive General Plan which includes a chapter in historic preservation. Finally, updating the City's Historic Preservation Plan is another priority. VL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lehner thanked Mr. Cottier's work as commissioner and as former Commission Chair, for his involvement and leadership with the drafting and adoption of the new Historic Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Lehner also extended thanks to Mr. Neil Sheehan for his contribution as commissioner and Vice -Chair. The next Commission meeting is scheduled January 16, 1996, at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. VEL ADJOURNMENT Mr. Van Dyke moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The motion seconded by Mr. Cottier was approved unanimously. STAFF: -L U DATE: A ► - 1(0 ,. ,,. Tom. r.+w-=�• a,�n nri ,emu,, . iJ q��lsi ad�� .ydllr�.ilN�1h�IL�i�i� `r i EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, January 16,1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: George Halik, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Julio Coulter Thomas, MEMBERS ABSENT: Jessica Deis, Will Van Dyke. OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Thomas, Ron Fleckman, Leslie Walsh, James Law, Mark M. Markarian, Anne Earle. PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair. STAFF: Dennis Marino, Reid Mackin (intern). L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:12 p.m. EL 1996 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Lehner announced that Mr. Lehner and Mr. Knox were nominated for Commission Chair and Commission Vice -Chair respectively at the December meeting. Mr. Halik moved to accept the nominations for Chair and Vice -Chair. Ms. Mumbrue seconded the nominations. The motion was approved unanimously. 11L 1996 APPOINTMENT OF COMMTI'TEES Mr. Lehner gave a brief description of each of the four standing committees: Review & Technical Assistance (R&TA), Public Education, Liaison, Research & Evaluation. Mr. Lehner said all the architects on the Commission are eligible for R&TA and he would Woe each Commissioner to be on at least two committees. However, no appointment was made to the four standing committees because it was not clear to the Commission whether the committees were part of the Commission's new operating ordinance nor were all the current committees operating in the way that is detailed in the Preservation Ordinance. :� ;s':._�j •Wf�`ZS r'�::'t 'n;i. ,iti.•� �:. - _ .;., 1.. �.3,�.t t.`J., �vv ��Y�.Y3'�`;.:a�';�:'�'' . � ?t � ,'e., � L .�'•wiL'�r� � y� i•�i'�% `�,''y�`• --,@w Evanston Preservation Commission January 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 Discussion then focused on the need to update the Commission's rules and goals as part of the 1996 Work Plan that has been advocated by Mr. Carlos Ruiz. Mr. Lehner suggested the Commission needs a committee to study an update of the Commission's rules and a committee to establish the Commission's goals. Mr. Knox also said the need for a Plaques and Recognition Committee exists, and in which he would be willing to chair such a committee. Mr. Lehner suggested that Mr. Knox could chair the Rules Committee with Ms. Mumbrue as a member and Mr. Ruiz as a staff member. Mr. Lehner suggested that Ms. Thomas could chair the Goals Committee with Mr. Halik and Mr. Irwin as members. Mr. Lehner suggested that Mr. Knox could chair the Plagues and Recognition Committee with Mr. Nowcsnick as a member. Ms. Thomas moved to form the Rules Committee, the Goals Committee and the Plaques and Recognition Committee with the membership of such committees to be as previously discussed and recorded. Mr. Knox seconded the motion and was approved unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Mumbrue asked if the R&TA discussion is part of the minutes. Mr. Lehner said officially the meeting notes of the R&TA are not part of the minutes; however, the Commission meeting was called to order while the R&TA was still being discussed, and, therefore, the minutes of the meeting started. Mr. Irwin moved to approve the Commission's minutes of December I9, 1995, as amended. The motion, seconded by Ms. Mumbrue, was Approved unanimously. V. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence was presented at this time. VL COMMTITEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1319 and 1323 Chicago Avenue - New Construction Mr. Irwin reported that R&TA looked at 1319 and 1323 Chicago Avenue a second time, the first time being in December I995. The R&TA wanted to make sure that the design as � i �� ..1�...�IeW.r.r ai.5l4� I..J r ��h11►J, i-.,•IjSLwjY o'I�.'+`1q�eli{i Evanston Preservation Commission January 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 presented the first time did not change, after the applicants got the preliminary pricing from the contractors. Mr. Irwin said the R&TA concluded that the drawings essentially were identical to' was presented to the full Commission in December 1995. Mr. Irwin stated that the R&TA would recommend to the Commission that the project be approved as presented and that when the project comes in for permit it would be subject to stafr review for conformance to the design development drawings. Ms. Thomas then announced that she has recused herself from comments or deliberations on this project because it was her architecture firm who authored the new construction. Mr. Irwin moved to accept the recommendation of the R&TA to approve the design development package as presented, and when the building is submitted for permits it will be subject to staff review (Mr. Lehner amended the motion by saying that staff will review the design for compliance with the Preservation Ordinance - the design development drawings will not require the full Commission's review). Mr. Lehner then reminded the Commission that this project is in the (Lakeshore) historic District, but there are two structures that have to be demolished to accommodate this building. Mr. Lehner felt that when the (application for) demolition comes through, that it be subject to staff review also. Mr. Lehner said that the structures on that site are neither landmarks nor contributing structures in the Historic District. Mr. Knox asked for clarification on what two structures needed to be demolished, and if these structures were landmarks. Mr. Lehner stated that these two buildings were neither landmarks nor contributing structures. Mr. Lehner said that at the December meeting the Commission looked at photographs and had some discussion about these structures, and he added it wa3 the feeling of the Commission then it would issue a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of these two structures. The motion was seconded by Mr. Halik, and with no further discussion, the motion was approved by the vote of 6 ayes, 1 abstention. 2. 1201-13 Michigan Avenue - Window Air Conditioners Mr. Lehner reported Leslie Walsh and James Law, residents of 1201 Michigan Avenue (a landmark) came to R&TA for advice on mitigating the summer heat problem in their air conditioner -less condominiums. According to Ms. Walsh and Mr. Law, a member of the 1201 Michigan condo board warned them that the building's landmark status was threatened by the installation of window air conditioners. Neither the R&TA nor the Commission countered this claim directly; however, the R&TA did discuss several air- conditioning alternatives. Ms. Mumbrue questioned the Commission's purview on window air -conditioners in general. Mr. Knox said since air -conditioners did not permanently change the structure; �}- -{ ,--, - _ � - -. - „ � i ., rtn. m .. . .1,My Tq•r^1"n�x'rn��1,��-,r-ir�r1�*+:...T.�l�mR r.."^rTl'R"iR'r rr j'gii �'?Trf*'Y!-'+.nPm*1r71 a-. .., is - -- _ ,.- 1 . - "' �.L.r41` •• J_Y�L��W.�h.L.L�LL1_u��_JY .IY,I iu �. * .W'IYYi I,4 y 'rxt-i' .�=��:�� itAl��rn+' f .( `�,. - •, �f! � �,J�iy wrti `' _ ;,+ �.J (,. r�,�r`•i r - • Y '�"'i }i.`�Ti d[:4�'t�� i "_fat�i t . .�'��• ( «.# -` .�c� �.r,�y.,,!(t Evanston Preservation Commission January 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 4 therefore, the Commission will look at this feature differently than other changes. Mr. Lehner did say that the air conditioners do affect the fenestration and the exterior of the landmark building which the Commission does have purview; however, the condo board does not need a permit to install air conditioners, and, therefore, the Commission's review process does not activate. Mr. Lehner said the solution lies within the condo board although he appreciates the fact that the residents came to the Commission for advice. Mr. Lehner believes the residents were given several good ideas during R&TA particularly Mr. Halik's idea of putting the condenser on the roof and running cold -water pipes down to the individual units. VIL OLD BUSINESS A. Metal Guardrails in Historic Districts The Commission reviewed the letter that Mr. Ruiz drafted to Mr. David Barber, Director of Public Works, requesting a meeting between the Commission's Chair, Mr. Barber and himself concerning issues such as the installation in the historic districts of unpainted, galvanized metal guardrails and traffic light poles.. Mr. Lehner agreed to sign the letter and attend the meeting. Mr. Lehner also asked for volunteers to accompany him at the meeting. The Commission suggested the Mr. Van Dyke would be an appropriate volunteer to join Mr. Lehner at the meeting. B. Cultural Resources - Update No update of Cultural Resources was trade at this time. V13L NEW BUSINESS A. 1996 EPC Work Plan The Commission set aside action on the EPC Work Plan until the newly -formed Rules Committee and the newly -formed Goals Committee reported back to the Commission. 70 B. Proposed cul-de-sac at Ashland Avenue and Church Street Anne Earle reported on a planned four-way cul-de-sac at Davis Street and Florence Avenue and a cul-de-sac on Ashland Avenue south of Church Street. Ms. Earle reported that this plan has been advocated by the some of the block captains of the Mason Park Neighbors in order to reduce westbound traffic on Davis Street and northbound traffic on Florence Avenue. Ms. Earle described the existing traffic pattern where car drivers going westbound on Davis Street are supposed to be funneled to Church Street at Asbury Avenue, but in fact, Continue on Davis Street until Florence Avenue where they turn north F • ''e.atiit .ti •�u, •. 4 i Evanston Preservation Commission January 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 to link up with Church. Eastbound drivers are using Florence to get from Lake Street to Church Street. The Mason Park Neighbors intend to halt this pattern by installing the previously -mentioned cul-de-sacs. However, Ms. Earle strongly disagrees with this plan to install two cul-de-sacs because she believes the cul-de-sacs will "fundamentally destroy" the character of the neighborhood. In the affected area, the street grid was part of Evanston's original plat. Ms. Earle believes there are legitimate preservation concerns by saving the grid and preventing the installation of the cul-de-sacs. As Ms. Earle sees it, the preservation concerns include disrupting the historic street grid, affecting the streetscape by breaking the long vistas and changing how the neighborhood "works" including the logic of street grid. Ms. Earle says the police and fire departments are not opposed to cul-de-sacs in principle. In fact, several cul-de-sacs already exist in Evanston. Mr. Lehner acknowledged this is a new area for the Preservation Commission to consider -- more social preservation than building preservation; however, it may be helpful that the Commission proposes alternatives. Ms. Earle suggested a temporary barrier at Davis Street and Asbury to get drivers "in the habit" of moving over to Church Street. Mr. Lehner suggested bringing that idea up at the planned meeting with David Barber, the Public Works Director. Ms. Earle also mentioned the need to repair the limestone curbs found in much of the Ridge Historic District. Ms. Earle distributed to the Commission a copy of her January 5. 1996 statement to the Mason Park Neighbors detailing her objections to the proposed cul-de-sac. IX. STAFF REPORT No staff report was presented at this time. X. ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made at this time. XI. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Thomas moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. The motion seconded by Mr. Halik was approved unanimously. STAFF: , 00, --�3 �'r� - .� � 4• .. !: 1r_.�,7 `'�:--f`�3~4 ,'� :(•. i t::_ :'a:,ir -�:.F'y .'• '.:r� , , t EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, February 20,1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Jessica Deis, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Julie Coulter Thomas. MEMBERS ABSENT: George Halik, Gregory Nowesnick, Will Van Dyke. OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Collier, Jeri Weinhold, John Fitzgerald, Drew Heindel, Till Fletcher, Paul Zack, Clara Lopez, Mark M. Markarian, Adam Berkelhamer, Christopher Thomas, PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM With a quorum being present, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8.20 p.m. IL COUNMTEE REPORTS A. REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (R&TA) 1. 1307 & 1313 Ridge Avenue - Exterior Alterations Mr. Kirk Irwin said that R&TA had reviewed proposed alterations to 1307 and 1313 Ridge Avenue, a large duplex residence designed by Myron Hunt, an important architect who was influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright. The architects for the alterations (Thomas & Thomas, Architects) have proposed the removal of the existing detached garage, the addition of off street parking to the rear of the lot, the addition of owner's parking at grade (underneath the existing sun porch), the replacement of windows sashes, the addition of access ramps on the west side of the building, the addition of four dormers on the west side of the building, the extension of north and south dormers, and the addition of dormers to the back (East facade). The alteration also includes, the removal of the central �S= :•��s.�-s�sa.IitL-r..+Y�±-rrae.+ai-:_ ,'Y_�-y--- =t- �Fa .+. r --= - - - - xlyilcSlrs�>��.I f, 7. ���i� �^�;17�}"►f.j.'•`� ' �SW� ME y Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 chimney, the restoration and replacement of windows sashes, and the enclosure of existing entry porches. Mr. Richard Lehner said that the Commission would consider whether the proposed alterations were appropriate, or request additional architectured studies to address the concern regarding the new dormers on the West elevation. Mr. James M. Knox said that he would prefer not to see something so permanent and irretrievable without further analysis. Ms. Mary Mumbrue said that because the house was designed by such a prominent architect, she would not.like to see anything that would compromise the architecture of the structure. Ms. Jessica Deis said that she concurred completely with Mr. Knox and Ms. Mumbrue. Mr. Lehner said that he was concerned with the proposed alterations to the West facade, because it is the primary elevation. Mr. Lehner said that after hearing the comments from the Commission members, he had the sense that the Commission would like to see further studies of the West facade without the dormers. He also said that the Commission did not object to the other alterations to the North, South and East facades. Mr. Knox asked if the existing garage proposed for demolition was of any significance. Mr. Mark Markarian said that the porches and the garage are not original to the house. Ms. Deis said that even though the site should be looked at carefully, the garage did not appear to be related to the house. Mr. Knox said that he asked about the significance of the garage because it faces Dempster Street. He added that he was not concerned with the changes not visible from the street, which appear to be appropriate. Carlos Ruiz emphasized to the applicant and his architects that the Commission's comments regarding the proposed alterations to the house, reflect the importance of the Commission's role to preserve the integrity of Evanston landmarks. He encouraged the architects to address the concerns raised by the Commission regarding the West facade. Ms. Deis said that she was interested in knowing where the original driveway of the house was. She said that it would be desirable to recreate what was originally there. Mr. Lehner said that generaSly, the proposed alterations were done very sensibly. Mr. Markarian said that the project its taking back a house that has been a rooming house, a boarding house, and a rental house. He said that many things changed from the original design. Early photographs show that the upper balcony was originally open, and the driveway was circular with palm trees. The garage did not appear until much later. Nft. Markarian said that he understood the Commission's concern about the West facade dormers. He said that he will revisit the subject. He said that it was very difficult to incorporate the bedrooms on the third floor, but if there is another way to tend to it, he will do it. Mr. Markarian offered the Commission his assurances that he wants to keep the house in as much of a purist form as possible. Mr. Markarian agreed to come back to the Commission with revised drawings. IM All -1,m. W.l VL �,. �1 �C} :.yi``V,' .fir. `L�°_. .i`: i,• .. .� ' . Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Julie Thomas moved to approve the Commission's minutes of January 16, 1995, as revised. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS 1319 & 1323 Chicago Avenue - Proposed Demolition Mr. Lehner said that all Commissioners have received further information in their packets about 1319 & 1323 Chicago Avenue. This issue came twice to the Commission, in fact discussion regarding these two structures are part of the Commission minutes of January 16, 1996. Mr. Lehner referred to the staff report of February 15, 1996 regarding the two structures. He said that the issue is not the new building (which design the Commission had approved in January 16, 1996), rather the issue is the demolition of the two structures. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission had expressed an intent previously that demolition of the structures would be appropriate. Mr. Lehner said that two things have transpired since then. First, the Commission agreed at the last meeting, as part of a motion, that the review of the certificate of appropriateness for the new building and the certificate of appropriateness for demolition would be reviewed by staff. Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Ruiz brought the his attention that what the above mentioned Commission's action does, is put him in a position of evaluating the appropriateness of that demolition. Instead, the Commission needs to approve a motion that is appropriate to demolish those structures. Second, a study done in 1987- 1988 by the Commission, suggested that these structures could be contributing structures. The important qualification here is that they are not contributing. Mr. Lehner continued by saying that the report was never incorporated into either an ordinance nor incorporated in the State's evaluations of the Historic Districts nor into the National Register of Historic Districts. These two structures remain non contributing by all standards. Mr. Lehner said that both Mr. Ruiz and he spoke independently to various people including Ms. Mary McWilliams. Ms. McWilliams' feeling was one, she is always sad when older buildings get demolished. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission feels the same way. But in light of the fact that these structures are not contributing to the Historic District and are not in the middle of it, and when considering the land use patterns in the area, she felt that the Commission made a reasonable decision. Mr. Lehner said that what y the Commission needs to do tonight is go through the evaluation of these structures and review their proposed demolition, and make a motion that says that the Commission follow the provisions of the Preservation Ordinance and agree that these structures can be demolished. 3 u J _ a • . �, i.. ...I I .. A.I r r.� _i I. Il! NIII. A_ i4A .YY-.i I'.,6,.�GW .`Z AW _--m Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 1996 - Minutes Page 4 Mr. Knox said that he felt uncomfortable last month when the Commission voted on this subject. He said that it was unfair to the other Commissioners to come to a meeting and all of a sudden become aware through R&TA, and only then, that there is going to be a demolition. So that the other Commissioners who are not in R&TA do not have a chance to go out and look at the buildings that are proposed for demolition. He said that he did not know about the proposed demolition until he came to the January 1996 meeting. Since then he went to look at the buildings. Mr. Knox said that the buildings have good integrity, even though, one of them is covered with aluminum siding, but they can certainly be renovated and made lovely structures. He said the layout, the large lots, and the design of the buildings make them interesting. He said that despite their location on Chicago Avenue, there are still a couple of structures that are very handsome to the North, at the comer on Greenwood Street. Mr. Knox also acknowledged the apartment buildings to the South. Mr. Knox said that is one of the things in the Commission's rules that he wants to revise with the Rules Committee composed by Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Mumbrue and himself. He said that the rules should change so that when there is going to be a possible demolition, other Commissioners do not hear for the first time that the Commission is voting on a demolition. Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Knox's continents were fair, but this (new) building came in front of the Commission twice, last month (January 1996) and the month before (December 1995). Mr. Lehner said that he thought that as part of R&TA's review in December, that in fact, the Commission had discussed the proposed demolition. He said that he did not think that the proposed demolition was a surprise at the January meeting. Mr. Lehner acknowledged that the first issue in a case like this is the demolition, not the review of a new construction. Mr. Irwin said that he understood Mr. Knox's concern and encouraged R&TA to keep that in mind. Ms. Mumbrue said that she felt uncomfortable, because she did not know whether the owners were aware of the proposed demolition when the project was presented to the Commission. Ms. Julie Thomas clarified to the Commission that the two properties were already under contract for sale when the applicant came in front of the Commission in December 1995. Mr. Knox also acknowledged that he was not present in the Commission's December 1995 meeting. Mr. Ruiz, referring to his report, said that 1319 and 1323 Chicago Avenue officially are not contributing structures to the Evanston Lakeshore Historic. He arrived at his conclusion after talking to Ann Swallow from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Mr. Irwin asked whether public notice was required for demolitions. Mr. Ruiz answered that the Preservation Ordinance does not required public notice for demolition. Mr. Knox asked if the Commission was estoppel, because it approved the design for a new building already. Mr. Lehner, after reading the a portion of the Commission's minutes of January 16, 1996, said that the Commission had in fact made a motion to approve the demolition of the two structures by giving staff the authority to review the application for a certificate k�.i'3 4d Yia. dim Y -� ~¢� `RL•".�� - }.r!�5 ,yet ,i tr �%.1 i4 "i � �, K r.-.• Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 of appropriateness for demolition. Mr. Ruiz said that his concern is that the Commission follows due process. Mr. Lehner said that there is no Nord that would establish the Commission's use of the standards for demolition. W. Irwin said that he felt that the discussions that took place in January 1996 and December 1995 were open and there was no hidden agenda. Mr. Knox said that the Commission members were diligent in performing their duties, Mr. Lehner initiated the review process for considering the proposed demolition of 1319 and 1323 Chicago Avenue by reading the Preservation Ordinance Section 2-9-9: Standards for Review of Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness: (D) Standards for Review of Demolitions. Mr. Lehner read the five standards in descending order: "S. 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 planr for a replacement structure or object have been reviewed and approved by the Commission. " Mr. Lehner said that number 5 was not an issue, because the applicant had provided plans for a new building. "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 dcully and/or expense, " Mr. Lehner said that number 4 did not apply. 73 Whether demolition of the property, sbucture 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. " W. Irwin said that apart from residential land use at that point of Chicago Avenue, that there are also commercial uses. This seemed to show that demolition of the two buildings would not be contrary to preservation issues on that Historic District. Mr. Ruiz read Section 2-9-1: Statement of Purpose: (G) "Encouraging orderly and efficient development that recognizes the special value to the City of the protection of areas, properties, structures, sites and objects as landmarks and districts: " "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 siate. " Mr. Lehner said that the structures are included in the Historic District, they probably would have not been included if there was not a reason that they had some contribution. However, Mr. Lehner 3 argued that they are not of such distinct character that they would have to be preserved for the benefit of the people of the City. Mr, Knox and Mr. Irwin agreed with Mr. Lehnees analysis. 111. Whether the property, structure or object is of such historic, cultiral, architectural or =haeologirul sign�cmice that its demolition would be dcMmental to the pWic fntcre. cstrd ro�itrnry to sl:s b nEral e af'the rte of p city 4M- the ." Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 1996 - Nnutes Page 6 Mr. Lehner said that he would argue that in this case the general welfare is better served by a multi -family unit an that site. Mr. Knox moved that the Commission adopts its recommendations and/or findings in respect to the demolition of the two buildings (1319 and 1323 Chicago Avenue). Mr. Irwin seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: four ayes, Mr. Knox and Ms. Mumbrue abstained. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Evanston Preservation Commission's Issues for 1996 Mr. Ruiz reported to the Commission that Mr. James Wolinski, Director of Community Development, asked him to developed a list of issues that the Commission may be working on in 1996. Mr. Ruiz cited from the list the Commission's triennial report as an important document. Mr. Knox said that the continuing nomination of new Landmarks should be included in the list. He referred to the demolition of the Lindheimer Astronomical Research Center building, he said that the Commission should not be in similar position again. Mr. Knox said that in the case of the Metra Station on Central Street, the Commission was fortunate that its proposed renovation is sympathetic to its architecture. Mr. Lehner said that the potential nomination of landmarks as part of the potential Conservation District may give that opportunity. The Commission agreed that the on going nomination of landmarks should be included in the list. Mr. Lehner suggested that Ms. Mary McWilliams make a presentation to the Commission about her experience with the Commission regarding the nomination of landmarks. Ms. Thomas said that it would be helpful to distinguish public education from educating the Commission. She suggested that a meeting may not be necessary. Mr. Irwin said that, for him, a session with Ms. McWilliams would be very useful. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission had surveyed the entire community through grants. He asked, what would be the charge of a subcommittee for landmark nominations. Ms. Deis said that to be eligible for landmark designation a structure has to be no less than 25 years old. There are many structures today that meet that standard. She said that it seems unlikely that there is going to be many new designations. Mr. Lehner said that he would like to appoint a committee for continuing review of structures for nomination as Evanston Landmarks. B. Appointment of Nominating Committee for Commission's Chair Mr. Lehner said that Mr. Will Van Dyke had informed him that after looking closely at his commitments for this year, that he will not be able to assume the Commission's position of Chairman, after Mr. Lehner's term which ends in June 1996. W. Lehner said that he had asked Mr. Irwin, Mr. Knox, and Mr. Van Dyke to form a new nominating committee for a Chair to succeed him. S-•;. #s� �rta'Iii r 4'i'�Fgi'til f ��r�� `4�� � Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 1996 - Minutes Page 7 V. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Continuation) A. Rules Committee Mr. Knox said that the Rules Committee is composed by Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Mumbrue and himself. The committee will be meeting soon to go over the existing rules and regulations. B. Plaques and Recognition Committee Mr. Knox said that the Plaques and Recognition Committee obtained information from Erie Brothers Foundry and Erie Landmark Co. Mr. Nowesnick and Ms. Janine Knox are members of this Committee. The committee will inventory existing singnage in the city right now, identify interested candidates such as the Commission itself, the Preservation - League of Evanston, the Evanston Historical Society, Northwestern University and other candidates. Mr. Knox said that in other communities buildings are preserved through organizations such as garden clubs. The Committee would like to make a recommendation on signage as to what structures should have signage by involving all entities from the stand point of finance and their involvement for approval. Mr. Lehner suggested that the Evanston Garden Club, and Design Evanston may be interested in getting involve. C. Goals Committee Ms. Thomas said that the Goals Committee was unable to meet. However, Mr. Ruiz and Mr. Irwin submitted their thoughts via fax. The committee will reschedule a meeting as soon members are available. D. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2420 Harrison Street - Landscaping y Mr. Irwin reported that R&TA reviewed a landscaping project 2420 Harrison Street, a Frank Lloyd Wright House. The owners (Mr. Paul Collier and Ms. Jeri Weinhold) want to construct an oriental style garden, primarily in the front of the house. R&TA recommended to the owners to simplify the landscaping at the rear and on the side of the house. Mr. Irwin moved to approve the design for landscaping as submitted to R&TA. Mr. Irwin added to his motion that R&TA recommended to the owners that the design would benefit from simplifying it. Also, R&TA found that the plan met all the standards as outlined in the Preservation Ordinance for alterations. The motion, seconded by Mr. = Knox, was approved unanimously. 2. 1010 Ridge Avenue - New Construction Mr. Irwin said that R&TA reviewed plans for the construction of a brand new house, a single fimffy residence, two story brick and stucco house at 1010 Ridge Avenue. R&TA �,.?r„,.,_u,.�.�'�7s€a'�'ka�F��CVir.�.i:�=6.«,. _. °�-� -_�--- 'ti'- - __�...��. - •- _,---,. -men.,. .m .._ �,_......l+l►�.._i,..a..i..v.m.e Evanston Preservation Commission February 20, 1996 - Minutes 'Page 8 was impressed by the design. The house fit into the land use pattern and urban context, the setbacks from the street were appropriate. The scale of the facade end the way the design brakes down the second floor made it all a good project. Mr. Irwin said that for new construction there are seventeen standards, the applicants (Mr. John Fitzgerald and Mealy & Heindel Architects) had requested a preliminary review. The applicants will come back with final drawings. Mr. Irwin moved that the Commission authorizes Mr, Ruiz to review the permit drawings for 1010 Ridge Avenue for full approval of the proposed design. Mr. Lehner added to the motion that the review is for materials as represented as well as design. The motion, seconded by W. Knox, was approved unanimously. 3. 618 Emerson Street - Replacement of Windows Ms. Thomas said the applicants (Mr. Paul Zack of Northwestern University and Ms. Jill Fletcher, President of the Board of Directors of Delta Gamma House) came back to R&TA with two new options far aluminum sash windows (for the replacement of existing steel windows) which would increase the size of the frame and the sash over the steel sash windows. The muntins were part of the issue, previously the Commission had approved an applied lead taming to steel windows. The applicants came back with a fairly reasonable assertion that steel is cost prohibitive compared to aluminum alternatives, R&TA felt that the Efco alternative with applied muntins to the exterior with in fill sash was a reasonably acceptable attcrnpt on their part to please the Commission. Ms. Thomas moved to proceed with the Efco aluminum window alternative as presented, with the stipulation that the applicants submit an opening schedule, shop drawings and documentation communicating that the replacement will be identical assembly to the existing steel windows, specifrcaily with regard to transoms. Staff will review such documentation and shop drawings for issuing the Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion, seconded by Mr, Knox, was approved unanimously. VL ANNOUNCEMENTS a Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission's meeting is Tuesday, March 19, 1996, at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, R&TA will meet the same date and place at 7:00 p.m. AU XL ADJOURNMENT Mr. Knox moved to adjourn the meeting at to: to p.m. The motion seconded by Ms. Thomas was approved unanimously. A.. Am GATE: ?S •! •qfA L STAFF: �+ ., _sin;<tb`�"-'5�,+`+�."v^��.=�+.,.J----•�w..rK_.. __, _ . , .,...... Y _,..�.Y, � IA... 3k�,. Id .L.i: . .sei _ rY I„ � 4 ' P .t.. J.... ..L.Y ,.'.l. 4 I ,i JL.i a .i..6. .. .0, ... -- u EVANSTON PRESERVATION C01%01ISSION VVY-1 �t�•a Tuesday, March 19,1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: John M. Byrne, Jessica Deis, George Ralik, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Julie Coulter Thomas, Will Van Dyke. Mary McWilliams (Associate Member) MEMBERS ABSENT: None a OTHERS PRESENT: John Fitzgerald, Drew Heindel, Clara Lopez, Mark M. Markarian, PRESEDING: Richard Lehner, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Immediatelly following the Review and Technical Assistance session, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:40 p.m.. A quorum being present. II. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER Mr. Lehner introduced Mr. John M. Byrne, a newly appointed Commissioner. Commission members welcomed Mr. Byrne. HL APPROVAL OF MINUTES =�! Mr. James M. Knox moved to approve the Commission's minutes of February 20, 1996, with the correction of the spelling of the name Myron Hunt instead of Marion Hunt and the spelling of the word estopped instead of stopped. The motion, seconded by Ms. Julie Thomas, was approved unanimously. :NCI Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 IV. CORRESPONDENCE A. Cook County Real Estate Tax Incentive. Mr. Ruiz said the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois (LPCI) requested comments from the preservation commuiuty in Cook County regarding the text of draft for the Cook County Real Estate Tax Incentive legislation proposal. W. Ruiz said that there a some income producing properties in Downtown Evanston that if they were designated Evanston Landmarks, they could benefit from this type of tax incentive legislation. For example, the City's Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee reviewed a preliminary proposal for a three story addition to the Chandler's building on Davis Street, a historically significant site and structure for Evanston. However, the building is not designated as an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Byrne asked regarding the proposed text, why are they exempting the land. Mr. Lehner asked if the proposed legislation is agre.5sive enough. Mr. George Halik asked if the proposed legislation was based on surveys done on other cities and villages. Mr. Ruiz said that the LPCI requested information from the City of Evanston about income producing properties. Mr. Gregory Nowesnick asked whether the proposed legislation would expand the Commission's purview to include a building like Chandler's, if they wanted to get the tax incentive. Mr. Ruiz said that would be the case if the Chanclees is an Evanston Landmark. He added that building ovmers could apply for landmark designation to obtain the tax incentive. Mr. Will Van Dyke had a question regarding the assessment percentage for income producing properties. B. Evanston's Comprehensive General Plan Mr. Ruiz referred to the Plan Commission's announcement for the first public meeting regarding the revision of the City's Comprehensive General Plan, on March 28, 1996. Mr. _ Ruiz said that the Preservation Commission should be represented at one or more of the annouced meetings for the revision of the City's Comprehensive General Plan. He said that the Preservation Commission's participation is important because the Comprehensive General Plan includes a chapter to Historic Preservation. Mr. Ruiz noted with the adoption of the binding Historic Preservation Ordinance, it is even more necessary to incorporate Historic Preservation as part of the City's planning process. Mr. Lehner asked Mr. Ruiz to formaly request to the Plan Commission notification of when Historic Preservation will be discussed. Mr. Lehner encouraged all Commissioners to participate y and attend the public meetings with the Plan Commission. a �'ti... _ . 'fis., ..r.3`.''.$;.._. .i ..�.�- i.. : zl- } .. - ,. nr, ., �r .�, ,.. ..� ,ni1r"f^"•�,T n••,ii- r Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996-1Vlinutes Page 3 V. COMMITIi'EE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistant Committee (R&TA) 1. 1104 Michigan - Alteration Mr, Kirk Irwin said that 1104 Michigan is a single family residence, frame construction. The owners want to modify the existing condition and expand the kitchen into an exterior porch through the addition of a door and two windows. Mr. Irwin noted that the R&TA Committee discussed the virtues of panels vs. clapboard siding. R&TA concluded that the proposed changes to the building comply with the standards for alterations, Mr. Lehner mentioned that, because R&TA was evenly divided on the issue of whether wood panels or wood clapboards should be surrounding the door and windows, R&TA recommends approval of the project as submitted. Mr. Irwin moved to approve R&TA's recommendation for approval of alterations at 1104 Michigan Avenue as submitted. The motion, seconded by Ms. Jessica Deis, was 3 approved unanimously. 3 2. 1210 Michigan Avenue - New Driveway Mr. Irwin said that the owners of 1210 Michigan Avenue proposed a brick shaped concretepaver driveway, from an existing curb cut on Michigan Avenue, back to the rear of the property. The property does not have alley access to the back of the property. The house has no garage, forcing the property owners to park on the street. The architects for the project brought to R&TA a sample of the concrete paver, and a site plan. R&TA found that the proposed change to the site met the standards for alteration. Mr. Irwin said that R&TA recommends approval of the proposed changes. Mr. Irwin moved that the Commission approved the R&TA's recommendation to approve 3 the proposed changes to 1210 Michigan Avenue. The motion, seconded by Ms. Deis, was approved unanimously. 3. 100 Greenwood Street - Additions Mr. Irwin said that the proposed project at 100 Greenwood Street, involves converting an existing garage into a dining room, and add on a garage to the Northeast corner of the house. It is an addition to an addition. R&TA found found a few difficulties with the proposed addition. R&TA recommendation is that the proposed design does not meet the standards. Mr. Irwin said that R&TA has four main concerns: One, vehicular access, it A! will be difficult for automobiles to park in the garage as wells as back out of the garage. 3� Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 4 Second, the massing is inapropriate to the existing context. Third, the architecture vocabulary is incompatible with the existing context. R&TA members felt that the proposed addition resemble a suburban ranch house added on in two halves to the main house. Fourth, the detailing of the proposed additions needed more clarifiction. R&TA requested review of the proposed design for the additions and resubnutal of the project. Ms. Julie Coulter Thomas moved to deny the petitionees request for a Certificate of Appropriatenesss for the proposed additions as submitted, based upon the R&TA's comments. The motion, seconded by Mr. Irwin, was approved unanimously. 4. 724 Judson Avenue - Addition Mr. Halik said that R&TA reviewed a proposed addition of a bathroom to the back side of the existing house at 724 Judson Avenue. The proposal was to clad the addition with exterior shingle siding to match the existing siding. R&TA concluded that them. were not enough detail in the drawings to really determine what was going on. R&TA asked the architect for additional drawings that show the actual construction conditions. Another R&TA continent was that the addition should reflect as much as possible details of the original house. R&TA asked the architect to come back with the additional information. Mr. James M. Knox moved to deny the Certificate ofAppropriatess for the proposed addition at 724 Judson Avenue as submitted. his. Mary Mumbrue seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: 8 ayes, Mr. Irwin abstained for possible conflict of interest with the architects of the project. VL OLD BUSINESS A. 1010 Ridge Avenue - New Construction Mr. Lehner said that the Commission had previously review preliminary drawings for the construction of a new house at 1010 Ridge Avenue. Mr. Lehner stated that the applicants were back in front of the Commission for final review and approval. Ms. Thomas moved to approve the proposed project. The project will be review by staff when submitted for building permit. It is expected that it will be substantially the same as submitted to the Commission. Mr. Lehner Amended the motion, stating that the Commission has already found that this projects meets the standards required for new construction under the Preservation Ordinance. That if it is submitted for building permit, with substantial agreement with the design as proposed to the Commission, that staff may review and approve it. If however, what it is submitted for construction documents, there are differences from the design as proposed, that the Commission will need to review and - - - - - - � - -- - .. -.� ' - � ,.-.- �n- -_- - - - � - � - - ,.r '.-�.,E'w°ai''.- � � i.wn'h'ii�•,. �„ .,,�'i� d�ai, ,v "'kM"ti +�'�1�F�"'f�h �.;,:i-�S� Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 -Minutes Page 5 approve a new Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Irwin seconded the motion as amended by Mr. Lehner. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Drew Heindel, architect and Mr. John Fitzgerald, developer, submitted to the Commission a revised site plan which changed the location of the garage to preserve more trees. Mr. Lehner said that the relocation of the garage is a substantial change to the original site plan. With respect to the relocation of the garage, Mr. Lehner listed the standards and said: (1) Height, (2) Proportion of front facade, (3) Proportion of openings, and (4) Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades, are not being changed with the relocation of the garage. (3) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, and (6) Rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections, are being improved with the relocation of the garage. (7) Relation of materials and texture, (8) Roof Shapes, (9) Walls of continuity, and (10) Scale of a structure, are not being affected. (11) Directional expression of front elevation, and (12) The distinguishig original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed, are being improved. Standards (13), (14), (15), (16), and (17), do not apply. Mr. Lehner said that the relocation of the garage meets the standards. Mr. Lehner moved that, the Commission finds the design as presented with the relocation of the garage, in compliance with the applicable standards of the Preservation Ordinance, and that the Commission will issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the proposed design. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. a Mr. Lehner moved that, staff review the project when it is submitted for permit, in y conformity with the design as submitted to the Commission. Staff can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness without further review by the Commission. Kowever, if it is not in conformity with the design as presented, the project will be review by the Commission again. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. B. 1307 - 1311 Ridge Avenue - Exterior Alterations and Partial Demolition Ms. Thomas recuse herself from participating in deliberations regarding 1307 - 1311 _ Ridge Avenue, because her architectural firm is the architect of the project. An- _ Ms. Thomas said that she will be available for any clarifications about the project. Ms. Clara Lopez, of Thomas & Thomas, Architects and Mr. Mark Markarian, owner of 1307 - 1311 Ridge Avenue were present. Ms. Lopez said that the property is located on the Northeast comer of Ridge Avenue and Dempster Street. Mr. Lehner introduced at this time Ms. Mary McWilliams, farmer Commission Chair and now an Associate Member. Ms. Lopez continued saying that the building was designed in �;. - ,_s;n,�3=I.�,r*P7R't..,yR,�F•tij�4i , .; �p- r� - +,: ` _ _ i � Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page b 1897 by Myron Hunt. The house is primarily a long brick structure, with an elongated hovering roof, The structure is currently a double house. Mr. Markarian is proposing to convert it into a twelve guest room bed and breakfast. Ms. Lopez addressed the concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting, She referred to the site plan and noted that the project maintains the same vehicular access drive of Ridge Avenue. The proposal removes one existing drive, extends the driveway in front of the house, and provides handicapped accessible ramps in the front. The project calls for the demolition of the garage. Instead, the project calls for a three -car garage underneath the South porch, and fourteen parking stalls along the alley. Referring to the West (primary) elevation of the house, Ms. Lopez said that the project proposes on the ground level, the enclosure of the center loggia, and the replacement of window sashes when necessary. At the center upper loggia, the replacement of windows to match the original windows. Rarefying with a shadow line fiber glass shingles. Ms. McWilliams said that most likely wood shingles were the original roofing material. Mr. Markarian said that he will check into that. Ms. Lopez continued by saying that the project requires the removal of center chimney meet the egress requirements on the second a third floor. The East facade, enclosing and winterizing the center back porches, stairwells. South facade, opening up the south back porch. On the East facade, addition a double hipped addition to the third floor, the meet the egress requirements on the third floor and maintain the same number of rooms that exist in the house. On the North and South sides, enlargement of the existing dormers to approximately eleven feet wide. Ms. Lopez said that previously they had proposed dormers on the West facade. Because the concerns expressed then by the Commission, they eliminated the proposed dormers by adjusting plans on the third floor and by enlarging the North and South dormers to meet the light and vent requirements and not alter the appearance of the West facade. Mr. Halik asked clarification for the need of the double hipped addition on the rear of the third floor. his. Lopez said that to meet the two exit egress requirement. The hallway is needed in order to get thru. Mr. Nowesnick asked about the central chimney. Ms. Lopez said that the emphasis of the house is on the horizontal lines. Mr. Halik asked clarification about the ramps. Ms. Lopez said the ramps will work with the landscaping. Commission members asked Ms. McWilliams for her comments about the project. Ms. McWilliams said that the primary concern with historic buildings within historic districts is to preserve the essential character of the district and the buildings. Some buildings are more significant than others. Some particular buildings are so important to the character of �i r t-"�- 'i�fi '.,s�� " �z' ��"•�'� y �'+ic'-'Sy`•ai1'�aai'S>'•�% �!•�„s:'!:'t' i- �i, ! r¢#i.i��r�"_� •rr ' Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 7 the district that the Commission should be extremely careful and very thorough in all deliberations on this buildings. Ms, McWilliams said that this particular building is one of them. At the South and at the Northwest side of Ridge and Dempster is the Dryden Mansion by George Maher, which is another building of the same importance. One building South of Dempster on the West side is 1232 Ridge by Stephen Jennings, an outstanding Queen Anne style house. All these three buildings give focus and character to the Ridge Historic District. If anything happens to these three buildings, the Ridge Historic District is essentially cut in half. Ms. McWilliams said that even the additions to the Myron Hunt building are part of the historic character of the building. This is a building of national reputation. She said that she was glad to see that the proposed dormers on the West are gone. All sides are visible from the street. Ms, McWilliams urged the Commission to be very careful with alterations to this Landmark. Ms. McWilliams said that she was against making changes to Landmarks, in fact she thinks that changes are important. The Commission in the position of saying that preservation does not pickle the community. There has to be change and growth, but it has to be done as carefully as possible. Mr. Byrne asked Ms. McWilliams if it was important to preserve the double house design of the building. Ms. McWilliams that ideally that would be desirable. She said that the project as submitted essentially keeps the character of the public areas on the fast floor. Ms. McWilliams expressed her disappointment to see the central chimney go. However, she said that she understood the need to do so. Ms. McWilliams suggested to consult with Mr. Hans Friedman, former Commission Chair, now an Associate Member, a knowledgeable architect of Prairie style architecture. Mr. Knox asked Ms. McWilliams to comment on the North and South dormers. Ms. Williams said that she would prefer to see the dormers not changed. Ms. Lopez said that the dormers exist and that they are not proposing drastic alterations to them. Ms. Thomas stated for clarification that the North and South dormers are similar to the one on the Fast side, and are not introduced as a new element. Mr. Halik asked if the size of those dormers needed to be that large. Ms. Lopez said that the dormers on the East elevation are about nine and a half feet wide, they are proposing dormers eleven feet wide, needed for proper light and ventilation. Mr. Knox that the elimination of the domiers on the West elevation was very important to him. Mr. Knox said that he was very encouraged to see someone take care of this building. He felt comfortable overall with the project. Mr. Lehner asked if the double hipped dormer on the East facade could be simplified. Ms. McWilliams said that the double hipped dormer creates a line that is unnecessary. Ms. Lopez said that the dormer's double hipped roof emulates similar pitch that occurs in the lower section of the house. Mr. -, -.-. � -m -� --r � J- � "-- '--.,. it � , ,n- -` - � � -•-'- ,�r n .,,, p�m ,., ., �„.. ����r�. ��„ „,. „ �o. JI IL.L i 1 1, I. IAI Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 8 Nowesniek said that the point was made that the particular pitch only occurs on the lower portion of the house. He felt that the double hipped roof was contrary to the design of the main roof, and it would difficult to deviate from the standard pitch. Ms. Lopez said that they were not trying to bring more attention to that area. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission was trying to find a solution to an architectural problem. The Commission had set a direction previously, and now a solution is being sought that would work for all parties. Mr. Nowesnick suggested to have two separate dormers instead, and rearrange the floor plan to accommodate the suggested change. Ms. Thomas expressed her concern with backtracking the project with additional revisions. Mr. Knox said that this building requires careful scrutiny. The architects have remove some of the main stumbling blocks for approval, but he could not see how the Commission can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness without looking at the overall project in light of the proposed modifications. He emphasized that the Commission wants the project to work for the owner as well. Mr. Lehner suggested to let the discussion run its course, then set some direction for the architects. Perhaps at the end of the discussion, the proposed changes are found to be the least objectionable. Mr. Markarian said that as the owner of the house his intention is always to make it the best. He suggested to address the issues progressively, one at a time. He said that he wanted to see results. Mr. Byrne suggested that the Commission go through the standards. Ms. Deis said that she felt that she needed more information on some areas of the project. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission will review the issues of concern one by one. He asked about the driveway configuration in front of the house. Mr. Markarian said that the driveway will be improved to facilitate the circulation of vehicles in front of the main entrance. The grand stone entrance will be rebuilt. The handicapped accessible ramp will be behind a foot and a half wall. Mr. Byrne asked if the curb cut near the corner of Dempster and Ridge would be a problem being so close to the intersection. Mr. Markarian said that he believed that it will not be a problem. Ms. Deis suggested to consider concrete block pavers for the driveway. She added that what Mr. Markarian described about the driveway and the ramp seemed reasonable. Mr. VanDyke asked about pedestrian access to the house. Mr. Markarian said that pedestrians most likely access the house thru the driveway. Mr. Lehner asked if anyone on the Commission had any problems with the driveway as proposed. Ms. Deis said that it appears that is an improvement from what is already there. Mr. Markarian said that the access ramps will be behind a brick and stone wall. He said that the idea is the make a room accessible on the first floor. Mr. Lehner asked if the slopes had been checked. Ms. Thomas said that the ramps will be at the same height of rE � uf,r �,� ,• -� Evanston Preservation. Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 9 the stoops which are flanked by small walls. Ms. Deis asked if the low wall shown on an elevation was disguising the ramp behind it. Mr. Markarian said, yes. Mr. Lehner asked about enclosing the loggia. Mr. Markarian said that he wanted to create one solid floor on the first floor by enclosing the front porch loggia as it was done on the second floor. He said that he will take advantage of the existing columns and walls to glaze the loggia. Ms. Thomas said that the vertical siding will be removed. Mr. Lehner noted said that the enclosure of the loggia represents a change to the fenestration. Mr. Nowesnick asked if the window frames will be wood. Mr. Markarian answered, yes, Mr. VanDyke said that he could not determine the detailing of the proposed windows from the elevations being presented. Ms. Deis said that in principle, the loggia could be enclosed successfully. She added that the illustrations at hand are not complete enough for the Commission to be able to make a complete judgement. Ms. Thomas said that the architects will respond to that concern. Mr. Lehner said that Mi. Markarian said the original windows will be restored. Replacement windows will be replica of the original windows. He said that the second floor loggia will be reglazed. Mr. Lehner asked for additional cements of the reglazing of the second floor loggia, No additional comments were made. Mr. Markarian said that the architects followed the Commission's recommendation to not alter the West elevation roof line. Mr. Markarian acknowledged that the recommendation worked for the better. Mr. Markarian said that the North and South dormers are larger to also enhance the appearance inside the rooms. Mr. Lehner asked for objections to the proposed enlarged North and South dormers. Mr. Halik said that he had a hard time to judge from hvo dimensional drawings whether the larger dormers are out of proportion with the scale of the rest of the house. Ms. Deis said that, the larger dormers did not appear to be a major concern from her point of view. Mr. Lehner said that although from the drawings he perceived the dormers to be out of proportion, he felt that it was not a major concern. Mr. Nowesnick said that the existing vocabulary of the house, the dormers appear to be fine. Mr. Lehner added that the design of the dormers appear to be sensitive to the house. Ms. Thomas said that the architects will provide detail drawings for the construction details. Mr. Lehner asked for any objections to the North and South dormers. Mr. Halik said he had expressed a concern he but did not object to the dormers. Mr. Markarian said that the rear garage will be demolish. He said that he anticipates a lot of discussion about the alley and the way it is being maintained. Mr. Lehner said that he understands that the garage is a much later addition. Mr. Lehner asked for any objection to demolishing the garage. No objections were raised. 'rill rk. Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 10 Mr. Lehner asked about the addition of garage doors. Mr. Markarian said that three non panelized garage doors will be installed under the porch on the Southeast side, matching the North garage underneath the porch. No one raised any objections to the three new garage doors. Mr. Markarian said that the central chimney is the major dividing part of the house. He said that he would like to remove it so he can bring the house together on the third floor, and put the rooms together on the second and third floor as well. Ms. Thomas clarified that the chimney is non-functional and it takes a lot of spate. Mr. Irwin said that in this case the chimney is not as strong of an element as the chimney is usually in a typical Prairie School house. He said that he did not object to the chimney being remove last time, and he would not object this time either. Mr. Lehner asked for any objections to the removal of the central chimney. No objections were raised. Mr. Lehner asked if anyone had any objection with the actual change of the East (rear) elevation of the house. Mr. Halik asked if it made any economic sense to have one narrower guest suite, and have a corridor and not bump it out at all. Mr. Markarian said that the whole room is eleven feet wide at that point, but they are taking five feet for the hallway, leaven six feet for the room. Mr. Ruiz suggested a small library or sitting room instead of a suite, that way avoiding the need for adding a dormer. Mr. Markarian said that he needed the additional room to make the project economically viable. He requested the Commission to consider the new dormer as part of the discussion. He said that he was supportive of creative solutions as part of the discussion. Mr. Ruiz said that the elimination of one room will reduce the zoning issues. Mr. Markarian acknowledged the possible advantage of eliminating one room. He said that what is allowed is ten rooms plus the owner's room. The current plans call for eleven rooms plus the owner's room. When he met with the Commission last time, there were twelve rooms plus the owner's room. Mr. Markarian said that it may be necessary at the end to come down to ten rooms. Mr. Markarian said that the zoning regulations allow five bedrooms plus the owner's -� rooms. He said that he is seeking an amendment for a dual house and for the side of the lot. He said that he is proposing a bed and breakfast that will be very license oriented that could be allow thru these kind of exceptions. Mr. Byrne said that he wanted to make sure that it is understood that the main trust of the Commission is historic preservation and not A economic development. He said that he hopes the Commission is in agreement that the historic nature cfthe West and East facades are not changed merely because the Commission wants the project to go forward. He said he knew some about bed and breakfast homes, and in his view, one room will not make or break this bed and breakfast. The said that there are other questions involved here other than the Commission's approval. W. Ruiz said that one of the purposes of the Commission is providing economic benefit to the City thru preservation. Mr. Lehner noted that proposed project -J -49 am Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 11 will help preserve the structure and some sense of the economics of the project is reasonable to consider. Ms. Deis said that she did not think that the Commission should shut itself off from the economic aspect. Mr. Markarian said that a primary function of his effort is bringing the house as a single family home. Mr. Lehner asked for any objections to moving the East wall on the third floor to aline with the second floor to accommodate the Eastern rooms and to allow the corridor to connect the two homes. No objection was raised. Mr. Lehner said regarding the roof line of the proposed East dormer, that he did not see any good alternates to the proposed roof line. He asked how the other Commissioners felt about it. Mr. Markarian said that the architects had looked at many alternatives. A suggestion made by Ms. McWilliams for a single truncated hipped roof such as the roofs that exist over the main entrances on the West facade, was favorably received by the architects, Mr. Markarian and the Commission. Mr. Lehner asked if there were any objections to Ms. McWilliams suggestion. No objections were raised. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission, the owner and the architects have agreed with the A set direction. The construction documents will be submitted for final review by the 3 Commission, recognizing that the general direction of the proposed changes. Mr. Irwin moved to grant preliminary approval for alterations at 1307-1317 Ridge Avenue as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. _Ad 10. - 11. Design of driveway as presented. Design of handicapped ramp as presented. Enclosing first floor loggia as presented. Restoration of original windows and when necessary replacement of windows in kind. Replacement of glazing at loggia on second floor. On West facade roof line - elimination of any new dormer above the cornice line. Enlargement of North and South dormers as presented. Demolition of existing garage. Addition of garage doors underneath existing sun porch (three garage doors rather than two garage doors as presented). Demolition of existing chimney on the center of the building. Third floor East side center dormer - no objection to modify the wall and eliminate the roofs center valley of the new dormer, to mirror profile of the roof over the West elevation entries. Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 12 Each of these design issues were discussed within the context of the ten standards of alteration. The Commission intends to approve these modifications to the odsting main structure contingent to compliance upon review of construction drawings including details of the specified changes. Mr. Nowesnick seconded the motion. The Commission approved the motion. Vote: 8 ayes, i abstention. C. Conservation District (PITCH Committee) Update Ms. McWilliams reported to the Commission that the PITCH Committee (Preserving Integrity Through Culture and History) appointed by the Commission last year has been meeting in a regular basis twice a month for one hour during the last nine months. The PITCH Committee is chaired by Fifth Ward Alderman Joseph Kent. The Committee is composed by volunteers and Fifth Ward residents. Ms. McWilliams said that PITCH is in charge of determining the feasibility of a Conservation District based on Evanston's African -American heritage and culture. - The Committee is in the process of preparing a working document in preparation for the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference in Chicago this October, 1996. Evanston will participate by organizing a mobile workshop. The Committee is also in the process of applying for grant moneys for scholarships. The scholarships will be for Evanston residents who can attend the National Trust Conference. Ms. McWilliams said that she would to request the Commission's support for the mobile workshop and obtain the signature of the Commission's Chair on the letters going out to 3 Evanston institutions requesting grant funds. Mr. Knox asked if it was the Commission's purview to recommend to City Council the creation of Conservation Districts. Ms. McWilliams responded by saying that the first African -Americans arrived to what is now known as Evanston in the 1850's. The African - American community has contributed both culturally and historically to the City of Evanston. There are a number of buildings and sites that need to be acknowledged as significant and contributing to the City's history and culture. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission supports the Committee's initiative for the mobile workshop and offered to sign, the letters requesting grant funds. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission's meeting is Tuesday, April 16, 1996, at 8:00 p.m., in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. R&TA will meet the same date and place at 7:00 p.m. ¢3 1�tk .. r �. Evanston Preservation Commission March 19, 1996 - Wmutes Page 13 WIIL ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lehner adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. STAFF: i r EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMNIISSION Tuesday, April 16,1996 3:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: John M. Byrne, Jessica Deis, Kirk Irwin, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick. MEMBERS ABSENT: George IWk, James M. Knox, Julie Coulter Thomas, Will Van Dyke. OTHERS PRESENT: R&TA Session: David L. Wagner, Joan B. Safford, Frank R_ Safford, Daniel Baigetman, Matt Struve Meeting: Ray Pigozzi, Victor Freise, Rose S. Wlodardd, Tanley J. Woznicki PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DE17ERMINATION OF QUORUM Following the Review and Technical Assistance session, I& Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m.. A quorum being present. IL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 724 Judson Avenue - Rear Addition Mr. Ray Pigozzi, architect, said that he was back with revised drawings for a rear addition at 724 Judson Avenue. Mr. Pigozzi showed a new hipped roof for the rear addition, instead of an earlier shed roof. The hipped roof will match the slope of the main house, as well as the overhang. He said that the finish of the house is wood shake over clapboard. The finish of the addition will be the same. Window casings will also match those existing in the house. Mimi L i0i I. y,},iW1�.fL1+Iidly .i1Y1�.�arYi�i YLr.�Y ���LI� i �.� W.Ntis• - '�'S --- �r v.....1r....+w...r ,r....;rw-•—�—_---- "'".. Evanston Preservation Commission April 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 Mr. John Byrne moved that the Commission accepts the proposal and grant the Certificate of Appropriateness with the design drawings submitted to the Comnniasion. Mr. Lehner amended the motion, adding that the proposal meets criteria 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 of the standards for alterations. The motion, seconded by Mr. Greg Nowesnic'rc, was approved, Mr. Kirk Irwin abstained. III. NEW BUSINESS 1102 Florence Avenue - Subdivision and Partial Demolition Mr. Lehner said for the record that he had a prior business relationship with Mr. Freise, the applicant. However, he felt that his prior business relationship with the applicant does not have any bearing on his judgement in this case, and that he does not have any interest in the subject property. = Mr. Victor Freise, applicant, Ms. Rose S. Wlodarski, owner, and Mr. Stanley J. Wortticki, presented a proposed subdivision at 1102 Florence Avenue, an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Freise said that Ms. Wlodarski has been living at 1102 Florence Avenue for at least seventy years. She and her brother are responsible for maintaining the house in its Original - state. =' Mr. Freise said that there are four buildings on the lot. To the north, a single f rnily = residence had been converted into a two -flat. To the south, right at the corner, there is a commercial building, which at one time was a meat market. Right next to it (36 inches away) is the Landmark house. The proposal is to divide the lot into three parcels, leaving the two -flat on one lot, subdividing the Landmark house offfrom the commercial building and the little cottage that is near the alley, The dividing line will run east and west, going between the commercial building and the Landmark house, then back within 10 feet of the A cottage, and going north to get access from the alley to the house. Mr. Freise along with three other people Have been negotiating with Ms. Wlodarski to buy _ the property four about four months. Mr. Freise said that they would like to change the zoning of the Landmark house from 13-1 to R-3. Mr. Lehner said that 1102 Florence Avenue contains a Landmark building which shares one lot with three other structures. If the lot is subdivided, then the new lots will continue to be under the purview of the Commission. Mr. Freise noted that potentially without the subdivision, the Landmark house and the other structures could be demolished to take advantage of the 13-1 zoning. Mr. Lehner noted that Mr. Freise is requesting also a Certificate of Appropriateness for the partial demolition of the connection between the commercial building and the —_ Landmark house. Therefore, the Commission, will review both applications according to the respective standards. .P Evanston Preservation Commission April 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 Mr. Byrne asked if after the subdivision the commercial building is demolished, what cant be built on a 25-feet wide lot? He was not sure if the subdivision necessarily contributes to the Landmark. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission will still have purview over any proposal on that new lot. Mr. Byrne said then, if so, why subdivide the lot? He concluded by asking if there was an actual connection between the Landmark house and the commercial building. Mr. Freise said, yes. Mr. Kirk Tiro indicated that the connection is set back away from the front of the house. Ms. Jessica Deis said that taking away the connection would not significantly impair the significance of the Landmark house. Mr. Freise said that they have two interested parties who would like to buy the Landmark house and the commercial building respectively, after the subdivision. He said that the intent is to keep the commercial building as office or professional building. The building is in good condition. At this point, Mr. Lehner asked Commission members if they had any additional concerns with the proposed subdivision. None were raised. Mr. Lehner initiated discussion about the proposed demolitions. Ms. Deis said for the record that in her opinion, either the garage or the shed are significant contributors to the historic nature of the Landmark house. Mr. Cregory Nowesnick asked if either the garage or the shed were built at the same time as the house? Ms. Wiodarski said that both structures were built after the construction of the Landmark house. Mr. Lehner listed the standards for demolition: (1) Whether the property, structure or object is of such historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the city wid the state. The Commission determined that: a) The connection between the commercial building and the Landmark was a later addition and it does not follow the architectural form or style of the original building. b) The shed. The structure is a non descriptive. c) The garage. The structure is non descriptive. (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 he preserved for the benefit of the people of the city and the stag ZE 0. `a'"t"'.ii�.:f �r I - - ry �S• e � 1't Evanston Preservation Commission April 16, 1996 -Minutes Page 4 The Commission determined that standard (2) is not applicable to items a, b, and c listed above, because the property is not located within a Ilistoric District. (3) Whether demolition of the property, stmeture or object would be con"7y to the purpose and intent of this Chapter and to the objectives of the historic preservationfor the applicable District. The Commission concluded that the demolition of items a, b, and c is not contrary to the purpose and intent of standard (3). (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 concluded that the demolition of items a, b, and c is not contrary to the purpose and intent of standard (4). (S) Farcept in cases where the owner has no plans far a period of tip to free years to replace an existing Landmark or propero}; 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 determned that standard (5) is not applicable for items a, b, and c. Mr. Nowesnick moved that the application for demolition at 1102 Florence, for a frame garage, an adjacent shed, and a wood frame connection between the one and a half story frame residence and the one story brick building, met the standards of demolition. W. Lehner amended the motion and said that standards (2) and (5) are not applicable. Mr. Nowesnick seconded the amendment. Mr. Byrne seconded Mr. Nowesnick's motion as amended. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Lehner initiated discussion for the proposed subdivision. Mr. Byrne raised concerns about the proposed subdivision and its impact upon the Landmark house. He also had concerns with the lot for Landmark house and its proposed 10 feet wide driveway to the alley. Mr. Ruiz said that those issues were discussed by the City's Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee, Mr. Lehner listed the standards for subdivision and read the responses of the applicant: The design of the subdivision, resubdivision or consolidation shall: (a) Nmrve, adaptively use, or otherwise protect the Landmark or areA property. structure, site or object in the District; and =f - Evanston Preservation. Commission April 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 The applicant responded that the subdivision "will permit Landmask house to be separate fi-om commercial building to the south. Will encourage maintenance and upgrading of Landmark house." (b) Provide the location acid design of new structures and objects that an visually compatible with the L whftark or areas, properties, structures, sites, avid objects in the District; and The applicant responded "no new construction [is planned]- some accessory buildings on the lot will be removed," Mr. Lehner said that the Commission already addressed the removal of those accessory buildings, and have agreed that is appropriate. (c) Not result in blocking or other►ilse 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 The applicant responded "no change in view from Florence. Improvement in view from Greenleaf (see b.)." Mr. Lehner said that was because of the removal of structures. (a) Presence and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the Lan&nark or area, property, structure, site or object In the District; and The applicant responded "no change." (e) Not adversely affect traffic patterns, municipal services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District. The applicant responded "no change." Mr. Lehner asked if the Commission had arty exception to the responses of the applicant. No exception was voiced. Ms. Deis moved that the Commission concurred with the applicant's findings of fact regarding the subdivision application for 1102 n- orence Avenue, and the Commission concur with their findings on items 7. a) through e) on their subdivision application. Based on the Commission's findings of fact, the Commission has no objection to the subdivision application as submitted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Irwin, was approved unanimously. Evanston Preservation Commission April 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 6 M APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Byrne commended staff for well -written minutes of a long and challenging meeting on March 19, 19%. Ms. Mumbrue said that at that meeting she was overwhelmed by the difficult discussion. She also encouraged the Comrni3sion to closely follow the rules in cases where possible conflict of interest may be present. Mr. Irwin said that he was concerned with the situation described by Ms. Mumbrue, where the design and technical discussion of a case may not encourage the comments of Commission members that do not have that specific professional background. The Commission agreed that the updating of the rules and regulations is a priority for the Commission. Mr. James M. Knox is heading the Rules and Regulations Committee. Mr. Byme said that Ms. Mary McWilliams name be added to those present at the March 19, 1996 meeting. Mr. Byrne moved to approve the minutes of March 19, 1996. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. V. COMMr[TEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2233 Onington Avenue - New Fence Mr. Irwin said that 2233 Orrington Avenue, an Evanston Landmark designed by Howard Van Doren Shaw. Mr. David L. Wagner, owner, made a very thorough presentation to R&TA for new fences on four different locations on his property. Mr. Wagner would like to replace an existing chain link fence, keeping a portion of this fence, and replace the rest of it with a cedar fence. R&TA discussed visibility of the house, once the proposed fence was built, addressed the owner's concem about the noise on Noyes Street, due to pedestrian traffic late at night. R&TA review the proposal in terms of the criteria and determined that the proposed fence complies with standards 1, 2, 9 and 10 for alteration. R&TA requested that the applicant place the fence a minimum of three feet back from the sidewalk along Noyes Street, and that the fence be six feel high, pending zoning approval. Also, R&TA requested that the area between the sidewalk and the fence be landscaped. Mr. Irwin moved that the Commission accept R&TXs report. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. 2. 1618 Wesley Avenue - Rear Addition lVir. Irwin said that 161 g'9 acy A%wwa, is located witbain the Ridge Historic Distdc L The Project is for the restoration said repair c f the existing structuM and the addition of a Evanston Preservation Commission April 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 7 kitchen and bedroom and a study above it. R&TA determined that the addition was compatible in terms of the criteria and to the existing building. Materials and detailing were appropriate to the existing building. The house, built in the 1930'8, tins a federal style front. The house was originally a Queen Anne style house. The house is sided in wood clapboard siding. R&TA asked that the pickets on the railing be more closely spaced than shown on the elevations. R&TA found that the proposed changes to the house met criteria 1 - 7, 9 and 10 for alterations. Mr. Irwin moved that the Commission approve R&TA's recommendation to approve the project at 1618 Wesley Avenue. The motion, seconded by Mr. Byrne, was approved unanimously. 3. 915 Michigan Avenue Mr. Irwin said that R&TA reviewed three different types of fences with Mr. Matthew Stnrve, the owner of 915 Michigan Avenue, an Evanston Landmark. R&TA determined that the proposed fences in general meet criteria 1, 2, 9 and 10 for alteration. The fence facing Michigan Avenue is a wrought iron fence, 4-feet high. The 6-feet high stockade fend will be placed along the ally to the south. The 4-feet high chain link fence will be on the nortih side of the main structure. Mr. Irwin moved that the Commission approve R&TA's recommendation for the proposed three fences at 915 Michigan Avenue. The Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued after staff and Ms. Deis approve the design of the wrought iron fence. The motion, was seconded by Ms. Deis. Mr. Byme said that it was his impression that the owner was not sure of the type of fence that will be installed facing the street. He suggested that perhaps it will appropriate that the Commission to have once more the opportunity to review the final design for such fence. Ms. Deis said that the owner expressed the desire to restore the house in kind. Mr. Lehner said that it is possible that Mr. Ruiz or Ms. Deis will not approve the design of the wrought iron fence. In that case, the fence will be sent back to the Commission for review. Mr. Irwin's motion was approved unanimously. VL OLD BUSINESS a A. Election of a New Chair Mr. Lehner said that the Election Committee did not complete their work yet to nominate a Commission member for the position of Commission's Chair. He said that he expects a report at the next meeting. Mr. Lehner reminded the Commission that his last meeting is in June. 40 Evanston Preservation Commission April 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 8 B. Evanston's Comprehensive General Plan - Public Meeting Mr. Lehner said that the Plan Commission is conducting three public meetings to discuss the updating to the Comprehensive General Plan. The Plan Commission is encouraging representation of other City Hoards and Commission. The next public melting is May 8, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at Robert Crown Community Center. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission needs representation at this meeting to talk about what parts of preservation should be incorporated in the Comprehensive General Plan. He said that the Commission should emphasize that preservation is a critical element of Evanston. One of the primary reasons why people move to live in Evanston is because its physical surroundings. Preservation of the physical surroundings is a benefit to the community, economically and in many other ways. He said that he will be happy to join the group that will represent the Commission. Mr. Byrne, Mr. LrwK Mr. Ruiz and Mr. Lehner agreed to meet in preparation for the May 8, meeting. VI L ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz read a thank you note to the Commission from Mr. and Mrs. Nowesnick, for the present and good wishes for the birth of their son William. Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission's meeting is Tuesday. May 21, 1996, at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center. VUL ADJOURNMENT With no further business in the agenda, Mr. Nowesnick moved to adjourn the -meeting. Mr. Irwin seconded the motion. W. Lehner adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.nL - STAFF: DATE: M . -AL Ql� • - ., ...:.'i. EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, May 21,1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT: Jolm M. Byrne, Jessica Deis, George Halik, James M. Knox, Richard Lehner, Mary Mumbtue, Gregory Nowesnick, Julie Coulter Thomas. MEMBERS ABSENT: Kirk Irwin, Will Van Dyke. OTHERS PRESENT: R&TA Session: John Culbert, Gregg & Heather Collins, Judi Diamond -Falk, Steve Patton, Ellen Galland Meeting: Teresa Sommer, Steve & Elma Diamond, Tim & Susan Schell, Ken Walchak, Tom Hair, Bruce Boyer, PRESIDING: Richard Lehner, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Following the Review and Technical Assistance session, Mr. Richard Lehner called the meeting to order at S- 10 p.m.. A quorum being present. H. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A. 1145 Asbury Avenue - Variance for Corner Lot Fence Ms. Teresa Sommer requested a variance from the Commission for a comer 5-foot high wood fence at 1145 Asbury Avenue, Ms. Jessica Deis suggested to set back the fence five = feet from the sidewalk to provide landscaping in front of the fence. Ms. Julie Thomas said that she sympathized with Ms. Sommer's situation, suggesting that the fence could be 42- inches high and translucent such as a picket fence. Mr. John Byrne strongly objected to a fence next to the sidewalk and supported the suggestion to set back the fence to the comer of the house. Ms. Sommer said that she understood the Commission's concerns. AN- She agreed with the translucent fence. However, she believed that setting back the fence 5-feet from the sidewalk will limit the available open space. Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 Ms. Thomas moved to grant a variance for a corner lot fence at 1145 Asbury based on the following modifications to the applicant's proposal: a) Reduce the height of the fence uniformly to 4-feet maximum. b) Aline the fence with the bay at Crain Street at a minimum set back of 4.5- feet south of the north property line. c) The fence spindles will be 1-inch x 2-inches at 4-inches on center. The motion, seconded by Mr. Greg Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. s. 1427 Judson Avenue - Rear Bay Window and Screen ]Porch Steve and E1ma Diamond, owners, and Ellen Galland, architect, presented plans for a rear bay window and screen porch at 1427 Judson Avenue, an Evanston Landmark. Ms. Galland said that the bay gives additional space to place a table in the kitchen eating area. The windows will be Pella or Marvin windows. The front second floor porch will be screened. The screens will be aluminum, painted white. Mr. Lehner expressed some concern with the front second floor screen porch. The Commission recommended to detail the screen frame as light as possible. Ms. Thomas moved that the Commission approve the bay on the rear of the house as presented, and the proposed removable screens on the front second floor porch. The motion, seconded by Ms. Deis, was approved unanimously. C. 1246 Hinman Avenue - New Garage Tim and Susan Schell, owners of 1246 Hinman Avenue, presented plans for a new garage to the Comrnissionat. The building is located within the Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Lehner reminded the Commission that 1246 Hinman Avenue was subdivided in 1994. The subdivision required the demolition of two-story coach house. Ms. Schell said that she met with Mr. Carlos Ruiz before they bought the house, because she was aware that the Commission had some concerns with the future design of garage that would replace the coach house. Ms. Schell submitted signatures of neighbors in support of the new garage to the Commission . Mr. Lehner said that the proposed garage design could be improved by raising the pitch of the roof to a 8:12 pitch. Mr. Nowesnick said that the solution would be to increase the roof pitch of the garage and eliminate the cupola. Mr. Lehner recommended to raise the roof pitch to 8:12 pitch, eliminate the window in the gable, and eliminate the cupola. Regarding the windows Mr. Lehner suggested to put windows similar to the windows in the main house. Mr. Byrne 40. e � r> R Z t' Evanston Pruervation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 asked if any consideration was made to changing the direction of the gable? Ms. Scholl said, yes. Mr. Lehner said that the direction of the gable of the coach house was the same as the proposed garage. Mr. James Knox asked if there was any alternative to the stem garage doors. He said that the garage door material should be considered because the garage will be very visible. Mr. Lehner said that he would like to also see wood doors, but because the garage faces an alley, wood doors seemed to be not feasible. Mr. Nowesnick moved that the proposed garage at 1246 Hinman Avenue be amended as follows: a) removal of the cupola. b) altering the pitch of the roof from 4:12 pitch to 8:12 Pitch. c) removal of single window on the north elevation. That the Commission also accepts the 9-feet by 7-feet metal doors for this particular application only. The two double hang windows on the east elevation must be of comparable proportion to the existing house. The motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, was approved unanimously. D. 1575 Ashland Avenue - Vnriance for Corner Lot Fence Mr. Ken Walchack, owner, requested a variance for a corner lot fence 5-feet high at 1575 Ashland Avenue, an Evanston Landmark. The location of the proposed fence is coming down the driveway between two houses, replacing a dilapidated rustic fence with a walpole fence. Mr. Walchack said that there is no fence on the side yard. Mr. Lehner asked Mr. Ruiz for clarification regarding the need for a variance for the proposed fence. Mr. Ruiz said that the applicant submitted the proposed fence for zoning analysis. The zoning analysis concluded that the proposed fence will require a variance. The Commission, according to the Zoning Ordinance, has binding authority over all fence applications within historic districts and for Evanston Landmarks. Mr. Ruiz said that the property is located at the corner of Ashland Avenue and Elinor Place. Elinor Place is a short street block and not as wide as Ashland Avenue. He said that there is no fence on Elinor Street that is as high as the proposed 5-foot high fence. Mr. Walchack said that Elinor Place "tees" at Wesley Avenue with Dewey School. Kids cut through the yard to get to school. Mr. Walchack said that the fence is for privacy and that the existing dilapidated fence is four -feet high. t ~ r. �4... J AA$ Py W J4 M IWI "WI i gli iil 16 gill 1111 a ILWi 9 1 iY . rL ,Y`im a Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page 4 Mr. Lehner asked if the existing fence fence goes across the building. Mr. Walchack said no. W. Lehner asked why the fence is needed since that paricular area is already open. Mr. Walchack said there is a line of shrubs and other landscaping on the open area. He reiterated that the fence is for privacy for their only yard space. He added that they have four year old playing in the yard, and that their yard is the cut through for kids going to Dewey School. Mr. Byrne said that one of the reasons why people like Evanston is because of its grid street pattern. Obviously, there are many corner lots in Evanston. However, if the Commission would continue granting fences on corner lots, that will destroy some of the nature and character of the streetscapes. Ms. Deis said she wrote in her dive by field notes "wish it was low." To her the 5-feet high fence is a wall. She suggested a fence with a more open design, to set back the fence from the sidewalk, and to improve the area with some planting. Ms. Deis said that what she heard from the applicant is lids cutting through the yard. She did not hear problems with heavy automobile traffic or foot traffic. The applicant wants privacy, and that a portion of his yard feels that way. Ms. Deis said that there are other ways to achieving that, besides specifically erecting the proposed fence. She ssid that she would be supportive of a more open and lower fence, no more that 4-feet high. Mr. Lehner said that what the Commission is approving is a variance of an ordinance (Zoning) that is very succinct, which is, no fence shall be permitted in any front or side yard abutting a street in any residential districts. Mr. Walchack said if there is already a fence there, he understood that the choice is to approve a fence just like what was there, or approve another commitment. Mr. Lehner asked if the existing fence was legally erected. Mr. Walchack said that the fence was there when they moved in eleven years ago. The fence was delapidated. Mr. Knox Said that the question is whether !here should be a fence at all. He wondered if a wrought iron fence is an alternative. He said that he can understand the applicant's situation, but, the whole streetscape is open. Mr. Knox said that building a fence on that location will be a negative impact. Mr. Ruiz read from the Zoning Ordinance: Section 6-4-6-7 (7) 3. "... no fence shall be permitted in airy front or side yard abutting a street in any residential district except in the following specified locations... " Mr. Ruiz said that those locations did not apply to the property in question. Mr. Ruiz also read: _.,�-_:''���.yin'���}�T'�ibf.��+�€:iisY�� tt4�� .•iv�r�Y.-c.�"� ��._s....r Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page S "Section 64-6-7 (K): Provision for Historic Fences and Wally; Application to reconsmict a formerly existing historic fence or construct a new fence designed in a style and height compatible with the style of a house identyled as a Landmark Building or located in a designated historic district shall he reviewed by the Preservation Commission. Upon completion of their review, the Preservation Commission shall report their decision to grant or G1eny such fence permit along with written findings, to the Zoning Administrator. 77ne Preservation Commission's decision and findings shall be binding on the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Knox wondered whether there ever was a wrought iron fence on the property. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission has the option to choose with the applicant a design that is in keeping with the design of the house. Mr. Walchack said that was what they wanted to achieve. He conceded that his proposed fence needed to be revised. Mr. Lehner requeoted Mr. Walchack consider what other fences might be appropriate, and whether the fence could be set back from the sidewalk. He asked Mr. Ruiz to clarify on the replacement of the existing fence, what the owner is entitled to under current ordinance. Mr. Ruiz read the fallowing sections of the Zoning Ordinance: "Section 6-3-8-12 Q Variations from Fence Standards for Landmark Structures and Structures Located in Historic District: 1. A variation from the fence standards for properties designated as landmark structures or located in designated historic dis ricis my be authorized by the Zoning Administrator, subject to the review and approval by the Preservation 3 Commission, when it is determined by the Preservation Commission that the proposed variation meets the standards for fence variations set forth in subsection 6-3-8-12(B) and, in addition, will not alter, diminish or destroy the historic nature and/or character of the zoning lot where the fence is located and on adjacent zoning lots. 1. All decisions of the Preservation Commission shall be accompanied with written findings and shall be binding. " Mr. Ruiz also read: 3 "Section 6-3-8-12 (B) Variationsfrom Fence Regulations: Variationsfrom the requirements for fences set forth in Section 6-4-6-7, "Fence Regulations"; may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator upon making written,indings that the proposed variation satisfies the following standards: -�.+n.. 3 sip- :.i.;t=r }'-,_ .., Y :A .:#',, .-;��7 .�k. M-.,'`tti-�.rrr.;M1Fi-hr*.'.","r'IA'i°M'+"t-`.++'rf"* - n - .•��th�l'�i . IIA4 - r! 11 3A Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page 6 E. and; I. The requested variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or h#urious to the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining neighbors. 2. The additional screening, additional height, or requested loc+aflon achieved through the variation will assist in reducing nolse, screening incompatible adjacent uses, or increase salary to the owners of the subject property or abutting properties. 3. In no event shall a variation be granted that would permit a fence taller than thirty (30 ") to be located within twenty feet (20 ) of the corner curb line of an intersection," "Section 6-4-6-7 (E) Nonconforming Fences. All fences legally existing on the effective date of this Ordinance that do not conform to the regulations of this Section 6-4-6-7 may remain and be repaired or replaced in kind as a permitted legal nonconforming use pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 6, "Nonconforming Use and Noncomplying Structures", " Mr. Knox moved to deny the proposed fence at 1575 Ashland Avenue as submited. The motion, seconded by Mr. Byrne, was approved unanimously. 1031 Michigan Avenue - Resubdivision Mr. Tom Hair, of The Prudential Preferred Properties, presented a two -lot resubdivision of 1031 Michigan Avenue to the Commission. The property is located in the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The existing lot is 100'x150'. The new lot i will be 52'x150' (contains a main structure and an accesory structure, lot 2 will be 48'xl50' (now vacant). The Commission discussed minimum front set back required for single family zoning area (27-feet). Mr. Lehner said that the Commission considers the nature of the neighborhood, the nature of the lots, and the nature of the rhythm and pattern of existing structures. He said that the proposed subdivision fits within the neighborhood. Mr. Knox said that Michigan Avenue is one of the finest and most pristine streets in all Evanston. He felt that the Commission should have a closer look at the proposed subdivision. Mr. Byrne said that should new construction occur on the proposed new lot, a mature tree may have to be cut down. Ms. Deis said that it might be a maple tree, not necessarily a pristine specimen. Ii7.r. Byrne said that the site looks like a wide open side yard. Mr. Knox said that the site's location, size and setting does not compare to other sites where the Commission did not recommend their subdivision to the City Council. Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 -Minutes Page 7 h4r. Lehner listed the standards for subdivision to determine the Commission's findings: 2-9-12: (B) (1) (a) Preserve, adaptively use, or othenv}se protect the Landmark or area, property, structure, site or object in the District. Commission's Finding: The building's lot is not sited in such a way that the subdivision would be detrimental. In fact, it is sited on the original 50' wide lot. In respect to the District, the subdivision follows the existing land use, rhythm of subdivision and lot size pattern on that street block. (b) Provide the location: and design of new structures and objects that are visually compatible with the Landmark or areas, properties, structures, sties, and objects In the District. Commission's Finding: Under the Preservation Ordinance the Commission will have the opportunity to review any future construction. (c) Not result in blocking or othenvisc> obstructing, as viewed from a public sweet or public wiry, the critical features of the Landmark or area, property, structure, site or object in the District; and Commission's binding: The Commission will expect that any new construction will have the appropriate set backs. (d) Preserve and pro!nct the critical features of the streetscape associated with the Landmarl, or area, property, structure, site or object in the District, and Commission's Finding: The critical features include the set back, and the rhythm of the street. The proposed subdivision does not seem to directly affect the Landmark (e) Not adversely affect traffic patterns, municipal services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District. 7M Commission's Finding: No information was presented that would indicate the contrary. 1-9-12: (B) (2) Alteration, construction, demolition., and relocation shall be consistent with Section 2-9- 9. 7-2 -III Wiwi ii&wja e4&ihm k'16i,llh IlilM. ill AJ n Is �.�,.Fiil ili.1�)Mlr�a rn •.-. a.�..0 ., _ . 1h{tr i^,'*�.._e--'.+ psi.{: :',i� -•� '�,}.: �,: ',i,.?%. #L.. ~r7,'�'{#i��r';5.?ii-''�-fit,` �r•fii, ' �,�" ��'s ai� Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page a Commission's Finding; New construction should be consistent with the Preservation Ordinance. The Commission will review the design of any new construction, Mr. Lehner said that the Commission concluded its findings regarding the proposed subdivision. Mr. Knox said that the house at 1031 Michigan Avenue had received a Preservation Award for maintenance in 1992. Mr. Byrne moved that the resubdivislon of 1031 Michigan Avenue meets the standards in the Preservation Ordinance. Therefore, the Commission does not oppose the proposed subdivision. The motion, seconded by Ms. Deis, was approved unanimously. F. 11242 Asbury - Rear Screen Porch Addition, New Garage, and Demolition oPTwo Existing Garages Mr, Brucc H. Boyer, owner, and Nis. Melinda Heindel, architect, presented plans for a rear addition, a new garage, and the demolition of two existing garages at 1242 Asbury Avenue, located within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr, Boyer said that there are two one -car garages, one original to the house and the other was built later. He said that there is no parking on the street. The older garage needs substantial repairs, the newer garage is in worse condition. He wants to reconfigure parking with one two -car garage. Mr. Boyer considered expanding the original garage, however, the cost would be too high. The pitch roof would also be too high, creating a barrier between the back of the lot and the alley. He also considered restoring the original garage, but that would not solve the need for a second parking space. This will require the demolition of the newer garage and to build a new one. This scenario is also too expensive. The third option is to demolish the two garages and build a single garage to harmonize as much as possible with the house, with the neighborhood and with the garages along the alley. Mr. Boyer said that the garage finish will be beveled wood siding to match the house. The garage will have sufficient customization to harmonize with the house, increasing 0- weather exposure of the siding, to increase the cave to match the cave of the original garage, and reutilize the existing windows. Ms. Heindel said that there is a substantial ' secondary structure on the ally and adjacent to Dempster Street. The consolidation of the arkin into one garage will open the view to that structure and the eave line would be the P g S g T� same as the new garage. Mr. Lehner said that the design details such as the eave would be carefully represented. Mr. Knox said that the roof pitch of the older garage closely matches the roof pitch of the house. Similar pitch would be sensible for the new garage. Alter some discussion, the Commission concluded that the dimensions for the eave of the new garage should match the dimensions of the old garage. Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page 9 Regarding the screen porch addition, Mr. Boyer said that it is an addition to an earlier one-story addition. Ms. Heindel said that the aluminum siding will be taken off the existing addition. The new wood siding will match the house. A new screen porch would be added. She said that there will be more texture in the actual built structure than as represented in the design drawings. Mr. Halik and Mr. Lehner said the shed roof of the screen porch did not contribute to the character of the house. Ms. Heindel said that a hipped roof looked too mimicked, like a doll house. Mr. Halik suggested bringing the flat roof of the existing addition over the new addition. Mr. Boyer said that from the existing addition there is a significant drop of the grade towards the rear of the lot. The effect of the proposed shed roof will be different from what one can see on the drawings. Ms. Heindel said that the intent is to make the porch more part of the yard. Mr. Lehner reiterated that the roof line was a problem and that the skylights were unnecessary. Mr. Lehner asked for final comments. Mr. Halik said that in this particular case the solution is not self evident, and no matter what kind of solution is presented, the roof pitch may still look bad. Ms. Deis said that she liked the simplicity of the design. Mr. Byrne said he was not in favor of the proposed design. Ms. Mumbrue said that she liked the porch. Mr. Halik moved to accept the design of the new garage with the following comments: 1. The clapboard should match the proportion of the siding of the house. 2. The windows of the existing garage should be reused. 3. The garage door would be a steel door. 4. The eaves should be extended to match the existing garage to 16-inches or no less than 12-inches. The motion, seconded by Mr. Byrne, was approved unanimously. Mr. Halik moved that the construction of a screen porch at the rear of the hove be accepted as designed. Mr. Lehner amended the motion requiring that the vertical siding as shown on the elevations be changed to horizontal siding. Mr. Knox seconded the amendment. Ms. Mumbrue seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed, seven (7) aye, one (1) nay. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Byrne moved to approve the Commissiotfs minutes of April 16, 1996 with correction of typo errors. The motion, seconded by Mr. Halik, was approved unanimously. A 4 +� r 7 c 4 � Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page 10 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Comprehensive General Plan Report Mr. Lehner said that Ms. Mumbrue, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Ruiz and he, attended the meeting held by the Plan Commission on May 8, 1996 at the Robert Crown Center. Mr. Lehner said that he made a presentation about the Commission's concerns regarding preservation. The presentation was well received by the Plan Commission. Mr. Lehner said that the Commission offered to be the author of the preservation plan. His comments focused on the priceless historic and architectural resources of Evanston. Preservation should run throughout the content of the general plan and not just a section of the general plan. B. Nominating Committee Report Mr. Knox said that the Nominating Committee composed of Mr. Irwin, Mr. Van Dyke and himself, recommend and nominate Ms. Jessica Deis to succeed Mr. Richard Lehner as the Commission's Chair. Ms. Deis has been a landscape architect over fifteen years, and worked on historic properties. The election of the new Chair will be June 18, 1996. Mr. Knox moved that the recommendation of the Nominating Committee to nominate Ms. Deis as the new Chair of the Preservation Commission be approved. The motion, seconded by Mr. Byrne, was approved unanimously. V. STAFF REPORT A. 2603 Sheridan Avenue - Evanston Arts Center Mr. Ruiz distributed drawings for a new access ramp for the handicapped at 2603 Sheridan Road, an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Ruiz said that at this time the City is seeking feedback from the Commission so the architect can develop a proposal for the next Commission's meeting in June, 1996. B. Chandlers Building 630-36 Davis Street & 1573-75 Sherman Avenue - Adaptive Reuse Mr. Ruiz said that two developers are in the process of putting together a proposal to adaptively reuse the Chandler Building as residential units. The developers have requested to meet with the Commission so they can present their plans to the Commission for the adaptive reuse of the building. Mr. Ruiz said that the Chandlers Building is not an Landmark. Mr. Lehner said that the developers are welcome to attend the next Commission meeting. He said that this an important building in downtown Evanston and the Commission should participate to discuss its adaptive reuse. — e — 1 �LI—. Ii i ei• Y IM..w i —_ �:�' �� . r i'1'.. `.`i J.�ki'rs?6 tJ- -et 15 �• :. Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page 11 C. Certified Local Government - Status Recertification Mr. Ruiz said that the City of Evanston received recertification as a Certified Local Government with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. VL COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1322 Lake Street - Porch Rehabilitation Mr. Lehner said that R&TA determined that the porch rehabilitation was a sensitive alteration to the building at 1322 Lake Street. The building is an Evanston Landmark, Mr. Lehner moved to approve the porch rehabilitation as presented to R&TA. The motion, seconded by Ms. Deis, was approved unanimously. 2. 744 Judson Avenue - Rear Addition Mr. Halik moved that the Commission approve R&TA's recommendation to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness for a rear addition at 744 Judson Avenue as proposed. The Building is in the Lakeshore Historic District. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. 3. I041 Forest Avenue - New Skylights W. Lehner said that R&TA tabled this project due to lack of adequate information regarding the installation of skylights. The building is in the Lakeshore Historic District. 4. 1126 Michigan Avenue - Front Alteration and Rear Addition Mr. Lehner said 1126 Michigan is located in the Lakeshore Historic District. The project involves the rebuilding of the front porch and the addition of a screen porch in the rear. R&TA determined that the design of the front porch was not appropriate for the house. The rear and front porch should conform to the same architectural vocabulary. R&TA recommends that a Certificate of Appropriateness should not be issued for this project. The applicant should return to the Commission with a revised design. Mr. Lehner moved that the Commission accepts the R&TA recommendation as stated above. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. r3� �� ^it 4 y � 1�• - _ Evanston Preservation Commission May 21, 1996 - Minutes Page 12 5. 1462 Ridge Avenue - Two Story Rear Addition Mr. Halik said that the project at 1462 Ridge Avenue consists of a two story addition and a deck. The Building is an Evanston Landmark. R&TA recommends acceptance of the project as submitted. Mr. Halik moved that the Commission approves R&TA's recommendation. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. VIL ANNOUNCEMENTS W. Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at 8:00 p.m., in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. VIH. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Deis moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. The motion, :seconded by Mr. Halik, was approved unanimously. 1 �-- r �` �- •rF.•rc�. fa i ; �.. _" s i ' � Si �r^�i,_, t, ., rtf 2� - EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, June 10, 1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 3403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBER PRESENT; Jessica Deis, George Halik, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Julie Coulter Thomas. MEMBERS ABSENT: John M. Byrne, Will Van Dyke. OTHERS PRESENT: R&TA Session: Larry Brady, Nevin Belser, Ellen Gralland, Elizabeth Stump, Steve Pierce, John Splitv'9eth Lang. Meeting: Robert Benjaming, Richard Beal, Robert M. Segil, Frank Kassen, Elliot Dudnik, Katie Malone -Cordell, Ron Shipka Jr., Selwyn Malisoff. PRESIDING: James M. Knox, Vice -Chair and Jessica Deis, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Following the Review and Technical Assistance session, Mr. James M. Knox called the mating to order at 8:05 p.m.. A quorum being present. IL ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR Mr. Knox said that the first item on the agenda is the election of a new Chair. Based upon the unanimous nomination of Ms. Jessica Deis as the new Chair of the Preservation Commission, Mr. Knox called for a vote. The Commission elected Ms. Deis unanimously as the new Commission Chair. Mr. Knox turned the meeting over Ms. Deis. Ms. Deis said that unfortunately Mr. Richard Lehner was not present. Mr. Lehner had served as Commission Chair since January, 1995. Ms. Deis said that she looked forward to working with the Commission and that she will try to meet the high standards that Mr. Lehner had set. Mr. Knox said that the Commission is very grateful to Mr. Lehner for his leadership and excellent work on behalf of the Commission. Ms. Deis said that the Commission will miss him. Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 M. COMMrME OF THE WHOLE A. 1204 Crain Street - Rear Addition Mr. Richard Beal, attorney and Mr. Robert Benjamin, contractor presented plans for a rear addition at 1204 Crain Street, located in the Ridge Historic District. Mr. Benjamin said that the rear addition is an enclosed porch to be erected on an existing foundation. Mr. George Halik said that the drawings should be revised to correct the connection of the porch roof and the house. Mr, Kirk Irwin noted that the house is non-contributing to the Historic District. He added that the addition cannot be seen from Crain Street nor from the common driveway. Mr. Irwin said that the porch does not extend significantly beyond from the existing eave and it will not affect the surrounding historic buildings. W. Greg Nowesnick added that the stricture is contemporary in design. Mr. Halik moved recommending approval of the proposed project as submitted. The building is a non-contributing structure to the ffistoric District, the addition is located at the rear and not visible from the street. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. B. 205-07 Hamilton Street (1205 Michigan Avenue) - Fence Variation Mr. Robert M. Segil said that the project involves increasing the height of an existing fence and gate at 205-07 Hamilton Street, an Evanston Landmark. He said that the intention is to improve security because building residents had experienced many break ins in the recent past, due to the low fence. Mr. Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that the proposal is also seeking a zoning variance for a side yard fence. Ms. Deis said that the City's Zoning Administrator submitted a report to the Commission recommending approval of the variation. Mr. Segil said that the fence and gate will be extended upwards not to exceed 8-feet. Ms. Deis said that the location of the fence is approximately 15-feet north from the face of the building, and away from the sidewalk. Mr. Nowesnick said that considering the location of the fence and gate and the security issues mentioned by Mr. Segil, the proposed alteration seemed acceptable. Mr. Irwin moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed fence 3 aid gate alteration at 205-07 Hamilton Street as submitted, which meets criteria 9 and 10 of the standards for review of alterations. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. -J �� �_ .�. -.r,!°+['F+�+�(i'"4�•'4E9;�aa.-:R,r.�- .,•„ .r��,..,r�r. GI�7s+���,y.i�r-4ir''•FIW.� ykl�, , a • �' 17 Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 C. 2603 Sheridan Road - Handicapped Entry and Parking Mr. Frank Kassen, City ofEvanston's Facilities Management Supervisor and Mr. Elliot Dudnik, architect, presented two scheme drawings for a handicapped entry and parking at 2603 Sheridan Road, an Evanston Landmark. Scheme #1 featured a half circle concrete path around an existing tree. Scheme #2 featured a straight path. Mr. Dudnik showed slides of the location where a concrete path accessible for the handicapped and parking were being proposed. He said there is a 5-foot raise between the street and the main floor. The path would provide access to the main building and to the green house building, located immediately to the south. Mr. Dudnik said that there is handicapped parking, about 80-feet down the driveway, no where near an entry or sidewalk. Mr. Dudnick said that one objective is to avoid a railing by creating a path with an incline of 1120, as in scheme 91. The path will be behind an existing store wall. Also, two handicapped parking stalls will be provided to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Ms. Julie Thomas suggested a wheelchair lift that could be installed adjacent to the entry instead of the path. Mr. Kassen said that initially, the City had considered a lift. However, its maintenance and its operation became an issue. The ramp is maintenance free, he said. Mr. Nowesnick said that the main issue was to make access for the handicapped easier. He felt that scheme #1 accomplished that. Mr. Halik said that the path in scheme #1 could be softened by making the 90 degree turns into radius curves. Ms. Deis said that for her, the proposed location was ideal for the handicapped path; the path is behind a wall, and it does not have the feel of a back door entrance. She said it has the potential for the development of a garden in the area. Ms. Deis referred to the curb cuts for the parking area. She said that there is access for wheelchairs between the curb and a car to then move on to the path. She also said that the Commission seemed more in favor of scheme # 1. Ms. Deis summarized the suggestions made by the Commission such as providing stone steppers between the arcs of the radius for pedestrians who may want to walk in a straight line. The landing in front of the door should be stone. 'I'he existing stone steps are to be re -used at the main entry. Mr. Irwin moved Approval of scheme #1 with the following provisions: 1. Stone steps parallel to the stone wall will be provided between the ends of the large curve. 'sf Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page 4 2. Radius curves will be added to the proposed right angles. 3. Stone pavers will be provided at the landing at the top of the ramp (path) at the main entry. 4. The existing stone steps will be re -used at the main entry, and; 5. The concrete path will be tinted. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. D. 227 Dempster Street - Rear Addition Ms. Katie Malone - Corded, owner, presented plans for a rear porch addition at 227 Dempster Street. The property is located within the Lakeshore Historic District, Ms. Malone said that the Commission had previously approved a screen porch. Now she would like to build a regular enclosed addition instead. The north elevation consists of a wooden deck: and railing with stairs, and new french doors . The east elevation features two horizontal bands of high windows. The exterior walls are stucco. Ms. Thomas moved to approve the proposed rear addition with the stipulation to match k the leaded giass detailing, if possible. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 630-36 Davis Street & 1573-75 Sherman Avenue (The Chandlers Building) - Adaptive Reuse Mr. Ron Shipka, Jr. and Mr. Selwyn Melisoff presented plans for the adaptive reuse the Chandler's Building for apartments to the Commission. Mr. Shipka Jr. said that the Chandler's Building located at 630-36 Davis Street & 1573-75 Sherman Avenue is not designated as an Evanston Landmark. However, they wanted to present this project to the Commission for their input. The building has been vacant for approximately a year, it is composed by three story building and a five story building. Their intention is to demolish the second and third floors of the three story building and add three floors to the five story building; creating an eight story building with a one story building on the comer. The first floor would have approximately 7,000 s.f of retail space and develop the upper floors with 35 residential t . I �F 1� �11 r. •..I'II I`t"T. .�—r.�q �1 .1 i � r ..I � �� •PTT' T� Yin.K:MKw..ifruN��1S ��Mla w Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page S loft style apartment units. The apartment would range in size from about 700 sX to 1,000 st A decision has not been made to whether rent or sell the units as condominiums, if they arc rented, the rents will range from $1,000 to $1,700 per month. If they are sold, the price will be from $100,000 to $160,000. Mr. Knox asked why the second and third floors would be demolished. Mr. Shipka Jr, said that the second and third floors don't lend themselves to residential layouts becauso they are too deep. They cannot get enough natural light and ventilation into the bedroom spaces. That requires them to demolish the second and third floor down. They intend to construct decking on the roof of the one story building. Mr. Melisoff believes that the "L" shape building is what the Commission would like to retain. The three story building is deteriorated. The restoration of the first floor would be totally compatible with the portion of the building he assumes the Commission would like to retain. Mr. Halik said he was surprised that the building at the corner would not be completely demolished. Mr. Shipka Jr. said that economically they needed the retail space. Mr. Shipka Jr. said that it was their understanding that the wood frame building was built in the early 1900's. The concrete building was built sometime in the 1920's or 1930's. Mr. Melisoff said that the reason they need to add the three new stories is because economics. He added that they will pursue quality tenants for their retail spaces. From the developers point of view the secret phrase is "quality of cash flow". But at the same time when one gets that quality of retail tenants, these tenants capitalize and contribute to the community and also make a good retail presentation. Mr. Melisoff said that they have filed for rezoning application. They were not sure as to whether they needed to go through the City Council or Board of Appeals. Mr. Melisoff said that the ceiling height on the first floor is about 1 S-feet, on the upper floors the height is 10.5-Feet. Mr. Shipka Jr. said that they intend to bring the residential entry off Davis Street. At the ground level the retail space will be separated into three separate stores. Mr. Irwin said that his main concern was the massing of the "L" shaped building in relation to the massing of the corner structure, as it relates to urban design. He wondered what it Will look like when it is set in place in that context, and across from Fountain Square. He wondered if the one story portion of the building will look alright next to the tall building in that particular spot. Mr. Irwin wondered if would it have the same effect as a corner lot where a building has been taken down to provide a parking lot at grade. Would it look h'ke a building should be in that comer? Mr. Knox said that it has always been a bad A ��,.�_. _-. �f� -L�.� �� ..-�- - .�.F�Ft } ���-��s,�+:,,,..,•-_�:.�,=,i+':-ern,,,ra1--n-•,1►^—,�+''��i°�*N+li+�`�,'M►l}�„---�4.-; „,.i r„ra'r'f4�iR1=` wl- . Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page 6 combination between those two buildings. The question for him is whether this is really an improvement by removing those two stories and making the other building bigger yet. He suggested to look at a model. Mr. Irwin said that it really needs to be studied in an urban context. Mr. Knox asked what was the height of the first story. Mr. Melisoff said, with the parapet added, it will be in the 18 to 19-feet range. Mr. Ruiz said that one important issue for the Commission to consider is the historic significance of the building, even though the three story corner building may not be architecturally significant as the "L" shaped building. The Commission may deal with this issue with the community itself or with the City. Mr. Ruiz suggested to Mr. Shipka Jr. and to Mr. Melisoff, to develop a model showing the context of the proposed project in relation to the adjacent buildings within a block or so. And to show how the added three stories on the "L" shaped building next to a larger void would impact the Fountain Square area. Mr. Melisoffsaid that they have attempted to address those issues, at worst what they will deliver will be better titian what is there now. Regarding parking, Mr. Melisoff said that they have contacted the City to make arrangements and use the City's garage that is north a half block. Mr. Halik said the cornice treatment might be explored further. Ms. Thomas said that the Fountain Square intersection has already been affected by the NBD Bank building. The Commission discussed the height of surrounding buildings, Mr. Halik asked if the corner of the one story building could be made more prominent. Mr. Halik said that the three story building is very important because it holds that corner together. He suggested to do something prominent and important to compensate for the two stories that would be removed. Mr. Halik asked about the exterior material for the added three stories. Mr. Malisotf said that most likely it would be drivit because the way the building was built. They cannot add dead load, according to their structural engineer. They have to go back to the columns and do a steel structure with structural steel studs and curtain wall with dry wall. That will be the only way the foundation will take the load. The drivit will be colored so it does not took like an addition. Mr. Ruiz suggested to restore the existing steel windows. Mr. Malisoff said that the windows arc single glazed steel windows. The steel windows do not offer protection at all and they are not operable because they are going from commercial to residential use. As the developers, they need to comply with light and ventilation requirements. All windows Will be replaced with aluminum windows to provide a uniform look. J�, :gam .- •'�,. ,.� { . _ � . :�,- ..A, M . .,.. .., • = _. •. -- - `,:' ,: - .., F; .1 4.1 I d ` }Y 'E1 Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page 7 Ms. Thomas asked about the material of the exterior walls facing west and north. Mr. Melisoffsaid it was brick. Mr. Nowesnick said that at the very minimum they would have to paint the brick. Ms. Deis said that one of the goals is to preserve the facade of the *V shaped building. She recognized the intention of the developers to preserve the original facades. However, she would like to see some of the detail pulled into the interior facades. She added, this is a business comer and the heart of downtown Evanston; using the ground floor as retail was appropriate. Mr. Melisoff said that they did the Cenwry Shopping Center, where they retained the entire facade. Mr. Halik said that if drivit will be used on the added three stories, it will require more articulation with the interior facades. Mr. Nowesnick said that it may be desirable to provide some type of screening to provide more privacy to the second floor roof top tenants, that may assist in giving a little more of substance to that facade. Mr. Malisoff said that the balconies will be made of wrought iron so it blends in properly with the building, Mr. Ruiz said that he looked at the brochure provided by the developer, showing projects by which he was impressed. He hoped, if the proposed project moves forward, it would reflect the quality of work as shown in the brochure. He was concerned with the introduction of aluminum windows and drivit material for the exterior treatment . Mr. Malisoff said that the windows will be colored. Mr. Ruiz also said that he was concerned with the void that will be created by removing the second and third story of the corner building. He encouraged Mr. Malisoff and Mr. Shipka Jr. to develop a model to clearly show that the project will be an improvement to what is existing. He believed that the project cannot work by itself, it has to be tied in with the rest of the downtown and the Fountain Square area. Mr. Knox said that he certainly likes saving an old building. He was excited to see the possibility of reusing the Chandler's Building. He was not troubled by the additional three stories. Mr. Ruiz asked if the drivit will be compatible with the existing material. Mr. Shipka Jr. said that it can be very close. Mr. Nowesnick said that even a contrasting color might be even more acceptable. Mr. Malisoff said that he will come back to the Commission to show the final materials and colors. Ms. Thomas said that it is a good thing to try to reuse the Chandler's Building. She said that it blend in more with the character of Evanston, versus building something new on such an important urban corner. Ms. Deis agreed with Ms. Thomas. With no further comments from the Commission, Ms. Deis invited Mr. Shipka Jr. and Mr. Malisoff back to meet with the Commission at any time. - - - , r, c _, _ - - .- - ��r ' - -- .,. .. E - ,--�yir.� n �,,�� -r'�ir'...r„ Flirrrrr.rt.►i,-r�T��`s'x-^f"h�r�*�^"�`yM, �`Mk�' _ _ . � fr" -4- Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page 8 V. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1001 Forest Avenue - New Skylights (Resubmission) Mr, Irwin said that R&TA recommends that the Certificate of Appropriateness be approved for the addition of two skylights at the east side of the building. The building is located within the Lakeshore Historic District. The skylights are already installed. 2. 2649 Highland Avenue - Rear Addition Mr. Irwin said that R&TA recommends that the Certificate of Appropriateness be approved for the rear addition at 2649 Highland Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. The approval is pending stalireview for the following items: a) Provide a base or "plinth" painted dark grey to mimic the same condition on existing front porch. b) Set the addition in by one corner board width, or extend the addition beyond the existing house. 3. 714 Reba Place - Exterior Stairs Mr. Irwin said that R&TA recommends not to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed exterior stairs at 714 Reba Place. The building is an Evanston Landmark. R&TA requested photos or elevations and floor plans that should also include placement of stairs from the applicant. 4. 540 Judson Avenue - Rear Alterations Mr. Irwin said that R&:TA recommends that the Certificate of Appropriateness be approved for three new windows and a door to the rear at 540 Judson Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. 5. 1037 Michigan Avenue - New Windows = Mr. Irwin said that R&TA recommends that the Certificate of Appropriateness be approved for changing two new windows on side and rear of the house at 1037 Michigan = Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. R&TA also recommended that the new siding be feathered into the existing siding. }�s; r ,rj-tic's- } Y n 1 Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page 9 6. 709 Judson Avenue - Front, Side and Rear Alterations Mr. Irwin said that R&TA recommends that the Certificate of Appropriateness be approved for new skylights and changing dormers on the front, sides of the house at 1037 Michigan Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. R&TA also recommended the elimination of the skylights on the front dormer. Mr. Irwin moved to approve R&TA's report for items 1 through 6 as presented above, The motion, seconded by Ms. Mary Mumbrue, was approved unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS (Continuation) 1996 Evanston Preservation Awards Mr. Ruiz announced that the nomination forms for the 1996 Evanston Preservation Awards will be available in July and will be due at the end of August. The sites visits will be conducted on September 21 or 28. The Awards ceremony will be in early October. Mr, Ruiz solicited nominations and two volunteers from the Commiss+on to assist him with the awards program. VU. OLD BUSINESS Evanston's Comprehensive General Plan - Public Meeting Report Mr. Ruiz said that the third meeting for the revision of the Evanston's General Comprehensive Plan was held by the Plan Commission at Fleetwood Jourdain on June 12. Evanston residents continued to voice their concerns regarding affordable housing, economic development, and neighborhood planning. The Preservation Commission will have again the opportunity to continue offering their assistance to the Plan Commission particularly in the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. VICII. STAFF REPORT Mr. Ruiz said that tonight the Commission tried to dedicate 10 minutes per project to expedite the review process. Also, a suggestion was made by Ms. Deis to reappoint a Chair for R&TA. She feels that an architect should chair the R&TA Committee. Mr. Halik volunteered to chair R&TA. Ms. Thomas moved to nominate Mr. Halik a the new Chair of R&TA. Ms. Deis said that the Commission had a nomination to appoint Mr. Halik as the new Chair of R&TA. Mr. Irwin seconded Ms. Thomas' motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Finally, Ms. Deis urged all Commissioners to visit all the sites prior to the meeting. She believed that it would help to cut the review time. ., .. _, . r .,s.. ,... .> >_ ,. +. - �-'� -1 'ate. .. �... _F; i��� ,-�, ,.+� -��{t �, „ _r ,�,-f� . �.-r=M=r�� �. `a�, - x `�?�iY'�ic�.tti`➢°5i1�„r Ta r Evanston Preservation Commission June 18, 1996 - Minutes Page 10 IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next'Commission meeting is My 16, 199§, at $:00'p.ft in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. The R&TA Committee wiff "meet the 'same evening at 7:00 p.m. X. ADJOURNMENT With no further business in the agenda Ms. Deis asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Knox moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. The motion, seconded by Mr. Irwin, was approved unanimously. STAFF: % !.1. ✓ Ali DATE: � ''� - Zt �_ .ir.� -i_'r ..i'�"^�.� - ='r i44{ ten_ �. s^ '+7s - _ •�q I Sri --� } ''�� � �i� t Ynrt�E #�' - -F-tc Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page I EVANSTON P)rLESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, July 16,1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessica Deis, George Halik, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Gregory Nowesnick, Susan Regan, Mark Sarkisian. MEMBERS ABSENT: John M. Byme, Mary Murnbrue, Julie Coulter Thomas, Will Van Dyke. OTHERS PRESENT: R&TA Session: Barbara and Lloyd Gadau, Debra McQueen, Jay Gleischman, Lawrence Lauer. Mary & Paul Finnegan, Ted Benson. Meeting: K. Carbonara VerBockel, Gabor Zsolnay, John E. £ifler, Max Rubin, Charlotte Whitley, Nevin Belser, PRESIDING: Jessica Deis, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Following the Review and Technical Assistance session, Ms. Deis called the meeting to order at 8: i S p.m.. A quorum being present. II. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A. 900 and 901 Edgemere Court - Fence Replacement and Gates Ms. K. Carbonara Ver Bockel owner of 900 Edgemere Court, presented to the ' Commission a proposal for the replacement of the existing wrought iron fence, located at the south end of Edgemere Court. The property is an Evanston Landmark. The new wrought iron fence would be different in design, with a gate in the center. The proposal would close access to Edgemere Court from Sheridan Road when coming from the south. ---,- y'�iv d, r. yt'I.��(rr;``"`'��rpp;,,'^'_#�Y, ..s. ~.ti. � .. •t r f`j }^a"•�}'��'a. �, + ,. �� 1 a y i `j Y �k "�::.L.: �j4 rF S?•R,a' � S: �f ",. .'I�F_�+i.J��! 1�{PY� i� (rA N I Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 Edgemere Court is a private street located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Carbonara Ver Bockel said that the existing fence is very ornate but it is badly damaged and it does not match the gate at the north end of Edgemere Court, She said that the property owners at Edgemere Court have liability and safety problems with the current situation. Mr. Sarkisian raised the issue of how the City would deal with cutting off access to Edgemere Court. Ms. Deis said that the issue in front of the Commission is the structural replacement of the existing fence only. Mr. Ruiz said that when considering the standards for alteration, the Commission could determine that the existing fence allows public access to Edgemere Court. The proposed new fence, being an alteration, does not do that and it is not a replacement in kind. Ms. Deis asked Ms. Carbonara Ver Bockel if the proposal would maintain the existing masonry piers along with the new fence. Ms. Carbonara Ver Bockel said, yes. Ms Deis asked if the option of restoring the existing fence was considered. Ms. Carbonara Ver Bockel said that initially she wanted to fix the existing gate. They found that the cost of doing so would be absolutely prohibitive. They opted for the proposed new fence which is simple in design compared to the existing fence. Ms. Deis noted that the Commission was reviewing the change in the configuration of the fence, the material and design of the fence. Ms. Carbonara Ver Bockel said the applicants would consider matching the design of the north gate fence. Ms. Deis said that she would like to reach a middle ground in terms of the design of the new fence. She continued by saying that the other aspect of the proposal was the closure of Edgemere Court to public access. Ms. Deis said that the Commission would request direction from the City regarding the latter issue. Ms. Carbonarn Ver Bockel said that she will share with the Commission a legal opinion that supports the proposed closure of Edgemere Court, obtained by one of her neighbors. Since the existing piers are being preserved, Ms. Deis said that the Commission would look favorably upon a design that reflected that of the existing wrought iron fence at the north end of the street. Mr George Batik said that it seemed to him that the purview of the Commission may not allow approval of the change of the opening. Mr. Knox said that if the existing piers are retained and the new fence is compatible with the north end fence, and the existing openings are retained, that would eliminate the problem of reconfiguring the existing fence. Ms. Carbonara Ver Bockel said that she understood the Commission's dilemma, in fact, the Commission's position supported what she was saying to her Ke Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 neighbors all along. The problem for her is that at the moment she was alone with her position. Mr. Kirk Irwin moved disapproval of the proposed new fence based on the finding that the proposal does not meet standard 6. The Commission also stipulated that if in fact the existing fence cannot be restored, and if it is determined that the Commission's purview includes the reconfiguration of the fence and two locked gates, then the Commission would look favorably to a design for a new fence that reflects the design of the north fence. Drawings showing the piers and the design of the fence would be helpful to the Commission. B. 1909 Sheridan Road - Proposed Consolidation Mr. Gabor Zsolnay, the university architect of Northwestern University presented to the Commission a proposed consolidation of 1908 Sheridan Road. The property is an Evanston Landmark. The consolidation involves property of Northwestern in the block between Emerson and Foster Streets. Northwestern acquired the property at 1908 Sheridan Road two years ago. The building was recently remodeled. Mr. Zsolnay stated that it is the practice of Northwestern to consolidate land to allow the university to plan its property on at a lot by lot basis, rather like a planned development. Mr. Carlos D. Ruiz showed slides of the property and the street block. Ms. Deis asked what would come up in the future that causes it to be an advantage for the university to consolidate the entire block_ Mr. Zsolnay said that the University's zoning requirements are broad. For example, parking, is not allocated on a lot by lot basis. Ms. Deis said that she was concerned with the possibility of the demolition of the entire block. Another question was whether the Commission would have purview over the consolidated property or over what currently constitutes 1908 Sheridan Road. Mr. Zsolnay said that there are already several Evanston Landmarks within consolidated University property. The proposed consolidation is for property which was recently purchased by the University. There is no other purpose for the consolidation. This is a = routine property management process. Ms. Deis said that her concern was whether the consolidation would in any way weaken the ability of the Commission to have the same jurisdiction that currently has over 1909 Sheridan Road. Mr. Knox moved to table the Commission's recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed consolidation of 1908 Sheridan Road, until the Commission consults with the City's Corporation Counsel. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gregory Nowesnick, was 3 approved unanimously. �.. , 9.,..� . _.a-.�� � - -' •- _- �r ".. „" . ,�`. . , _ .� � .M,,. ',, ... Yam+'`• SO ',',,,�s,,:•.�.' � Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 4 C. 425 Dempster Street - Proposed Exploratory Work Mr. John Eifler, architect to Chiaravalle Montessori School accompanied by Mr. Max Rubin, Director of Facilities Management of the City of Evanston, presented plans for exploratory work on the building at 425 Dempster Street. The building is in the Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Eiger said that Daniel Burhnam designed the building in 1898. The building is experiencing water problems in three areas of the second floor. The gutter liners appear to be failing and the sheathing is rotting. He said that the proposed work is an assessment study of the conditions of the building. Ms. Deis said that the issues the Commission is concern about are related to preserving the architectural details. Mr. Halik said that according to the information submitted with the application the proposed work is not visible. Ms. Deis moved to accept the proposed investigation into the leaking and drainage problems, with the understanding that the only change to be performed is the patching from above of the existing gutters. No visual changes will be made to the facade of the building. The motion, seconded by Mr. Halik, was approved unanimously. D. 1126 Michigan Avenue - Resubmission of Front porch Alteration Ms. Charlotte Whitley, architect, submitted the drawings for a front porch with a gable roof. The Commission had previously denied a similar proposal, and recommended use of a shed roof instead. The architects had complied with the Commission's recommendation. However, Mr. Paul Lehman, owner, contacted Mr. Ruiz and requested resubmittal of the gable roof. To illustrate his case, the owner took pictures of neighboring buildings. Mr. Halik said that the Commission rarely has the opportunity to see side by side two alternatives. He now was inclined to accept the gable roof for the porch. Ms. Whitley said that the pediment and upper section of the gable would be treated with wood shakes. Ms. Susan Regan said that she preferred the shed roof because there is something very different about the building from most of the other ones. She emphasized the strong gable of the main roof as an important element of the design. Ij a I .r e.. ,, Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 The Commission discussed the merits of both alternatives and their respective appropriateness to the style of the building. The Commission found that the proposed work met standards for alterations 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10. Mr. Nowesnick moved that the Commission accept the revised proposal for 1126 Michigan Avenue as submitted, based of the following standards for review of alterations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10. Mr. Halik seconded the motion. Mr. Nowesnick amended his motion by adding that revised proposal illustrates the gable attached to a shed roof, which the gable would be finished in the same material as that of the existing house. Mr. Irwin seconded Mr. Nowesnick amendment. Ms. Regan asked at what point the shed roof was not acceptable under the standards. Mr. Nowesnick said that the Commission was not comparing the shed roof versus the gable roof, rather the gable roof was being revised on its own merits. The motion passed as amended. Vote: five ayes, one nay. (Mr. James M. Knox left the meeting at this time) E. 714 Reba Place - Exterior Stairs Mr. Nevin Belser presented for the second time his original plan (plan # 1) for building exterior stairs at 714 Reba Place to the Commission. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Plan # l was previously reviewed by the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) on June 18. 1996. R&TA had recommended denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior stairs as proposed by Mr. Belser to the Commission. Mr. Belser also presented an alternate plan (plan 92) for the exterior stairs as suggested by Mr. Kirk Irwin. Mr. Ruiz showed the Commission two slides of the Landmark building. He said that the proposed exterior stairs would be on the east elevation of the house and they would be visible from the street. Mr. Irwin said that Mr. Ruiz and he met on June 11, 1996, at the site to discuss some options for the exterior stairs with Mr. Belser. Mr. Irwin said that, first, they looked at the rear of the house, where the exterior stairs would not be visible at all. At the back of the house there is a second story deck, which is accessed through a doorway. The doorway leads to some interior winder steps of stairs that go up to the third floor. The stair goes down to the second floor also. Mr. Belser added that there are no exterior Stairs from the deck down to the ground level. Second, they talked about the possibility of building the stairway on the east side of the house, but pushing it closer to the back (south) of the house (plan #2). Third, they considered pursuing plan # 1 as previously submitted to the Commission. Mr. Irwin said that other suggestions were offered for improving the design of the stairs by picking up some of the existing elements such as the existing wood detailing of the main house to Mr. Belser. iWFi�W . a ur ql i+ ��.W. • .. a YfY.. ri Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 6 In response to a question from Ms. Jessica Deis, Mr. Irwin said that plan #2 would allow the stairs to go towards the back of the house on a linear fashion, then have a landing, and at that point, zigzag the stairs down to the ground. Plan #1 zigzags the stairs from the top and straight down to the ground, and would be closer to the street. Mr. Belser said that his original design takes advantage of an existing overhang. His intent was to squeeze part of the stairway into the overhang as possible. One disadvantage of the alternate plan #2 is that it does bring the stairway out from the building. Mr. Mark Sarkisian asked what the reason was for the stairs. Mr. Belser said that the building is a two -flat and they want to make the third floor a separate apartment. He felt that it is important to have a primary means of entrance and egress. The only existing access to the third floor is a narrow and steep stairway that goes all the way through the rest of the house. He would like to have an independent entrance for the third floor. Mr. George Halik said that he thought that the reason why the stairs were being proposed was because it was required by the building code. Mr. Belser said that he and Mr. Ruiz had asked the Building Division about the building code and they were told the building code does not require the stairs. However, Mr. Belser said that it was recommended that the second stairs be built. He said that if there was a fire in the rear, there would not be a way out of that space. He said that he was not satisfied with that situation. Mr. Sarkisian asked if there was a way out from the front entrance without altering the inside. Mr. Belser said that there is no way to make a separate entrance to the third floor through the house. Mr. Irwin said that the interior entry was striking with stairs to the second floor featuring the windows on the east facade. The windows step up as the stairs go up. The windows give natural lighting in that entry space. Mr. Nowesnick said that was a good reason for moving the exterior stairs away from those windows. Mr. Irwin said that idea was suggested to Mr. Belser. Mr. Belser said that at the rear of the house there is a third floor dormer facing south. Another dormer for a second entry would double the expense of the project. In response to a question from Mr. George Halik, Mr. Belser described plan# 1. He said the advantages are that: it tucks at least two -feet of the stairs underneath the overhang. The stairs would be screened by an existing tree on the front of the house. He showed s front elevation where five -feet of the stairs would hang out on the east side of the building. Plan # l incorporates some of the architectural details from the front porch, such as the l" x 2" slats from the front porch, and the arches under the front porch eaves. The Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Mnutes Page 7 configuration of the stairs does affect the windows along the interior stairs. A top view showed that two -feet would be covered by the overhang. (I) "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. " Commission's Finding: Mr. Irwin said that the proposal complied with standard (1), because the applicant had stated his concern to not altering the configuration of the roof line. Mr. Nowesnick said that the applicant's plans would maintaining the fabric of the house as much as possible. (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. " Commission's Finding: Mr. Halik said that the exterior stairs as proposed would disturb the original qualities of the property. Mr. Belser argued that the alteration was not irrevocable. Mr. Halik made reference to the existing rear deck (which was not reviewed by the Commission). He said that the deck would still remain and that the Commission would not ask to change it. Further, the deck is in the back and it is not visible. The stairs would be visible from the front and would affect the impression of the property. Mr. Belser said that standard (2) does not say "affect" but "destroy." He asked: "are we destroying it by affecting it"? Mr. Halik argued whether destroy means "tear it out" or does it mean "visually destroyed?" Ms. Deis standard (2) refers to a "character destroyed." Mr. Nowesnick said that standard (2) refers to the physical aspect of destruction, not figuratively. Ms. Deis said that a "character being destroyed" has a figurative aspect. She said that the character of the arrangement of the windows on that side of the house would be destroyed by the proposed stairs. Mr. Halik agreed with Ms. Deis' interpretation of standard (2). (3) 'All properties, structures, sites, and objects shall be recognized as products of their cm-n time. Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. " ' "+til w(1 ��F'�`.�M.'r•R1 I w In � i . Id � i � I.I. . Y rh rd, „6 YY . ,a.'dw -Al, IYuI. rr. aY.Yr W, ILq N. ,� •.�+r obi „ ,� 1l rrffi ..-.r.- Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 8 Commission's Finding: Ms. Deis said that standard (3) did not apply to the proposed stairs. She said that the applicant is not trying to make it look older than it is, or to make it look like something that it is not. The stairs are a purely functional addition, dealing more with style. Commissioners agreed with Ms. Deis' interpretation of standard (3). (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 awn right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. " Commission's Finding: Ms. Deis said that standard (4) also did not apply. All Commissioners agreed. (5) "Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a property, structure, site or object shall be treated with sensitivity. " Commission's Finding: Ms. Deis said that she would have to beg to differ on standard (5). The stylistic features of the house such as windows and their rhythm would be obliterated. (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. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects. " Commission's Finding: Ms. Deis said that standard (6) did not apply. All Commissioners agreed. (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. " 4tFi•4'a. - _ . 1�- _ .. .. ,..e�T r ..r �f . r.__^nTfvrrrir•Y'Vfr�.1' n rrn r .. i�� �r'i�h rr. •. Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 9 Commission's Finding: Ms. Deis said that standard (7) did not apply. All Commissioners agreed. (8) "Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. " Commission's Finding: Ms. Deis said that standard (8) did not apply. All Commissioners agreed. (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, atul such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. " Commission's Finding: Mr. Halik said that the proposed stairs absolutely did not conform with standard (9). He said that standard (9) was a major issue. The proposed design of the stairs is not compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property. Ms. Deis said that she was really looking for a way for the applicant to built the stairway. She said that she did not believe the design complied with standard (9). The design was not compatible with the scale, color of material and character of the property, despite the applicant's efforts to incorporate the arches between posts and the appropriately spaced spindles for the railings. Ms. Deis said that attaching the stairs to the house has no relation to its design . No Commissioner voiced any disagreement with Ms. Deis's interpretation of standard (9). (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. " Commission's Finding: Ms. Deis said that the proposed stairs complied with standard (10). All Commissioners agreed. . ,. i •fs '-1 nip. f ����.-.. { i�.L1-t .�♦ �If .4 1 'Y`•{:-�. �'�-i t''* -•�t ` �li Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 10 Summarizing, Ms. Deis said that the proposed stairs did not comply with standards (2). (5) and (9). Standards (4),(6),(7) and ($) did not apply. Standards (1), (3), and (10) were in compliance. Ms. Deis said that there were six applicable standards, and the Convnission found that there standards were not in compliance. Ms. Deis said that based on the Commission's findings, she could not see how the Commission could approve the proposed stairs. She said that the Commission looked for ways to approve the stairs. However, the Commission would have to deny the application as proposed based on the standards. Mr. Halik said that the Commission always tries to come up with a suggestion that the Commission could approve. He added that this case was a dilemma for the Commission. Ms. Deis said that to come up with a innovative solution to a difficult problem under a limited budget is every architect's nightmare. Mr. Ruiz encouraged Mr. Belser to consider the possibility of improving the existing rear stairs from the third floor down to the second floor deck and adding stairs to the ground. He said that the Commission would consider the safety issues and the building code when a motion is made for this particular case. Mr. Halik said that the Commission deals with style issues, building materials, and so on. Those are minor issues compared to the proposed stairs, he said. He continued by saying that this case represents one of the reasor-s why the Commission is here. To preserve not so much an object but more of a neighborhood and what you see as you walk down the street. Mr. Belser disagreed with Mr. Halik. He said that the building was not representative of the neighborhood. He said that on one side of the street there is a 12- unit apartment building. There are also small modest houses. He added that there are more apartment buildings than anything on the block. Mr. Sarkisian said that the existing conditions did not mean that one could go ahead and build something like what it was being proposed. He said that the Commission was trying to preserve a historic building. Mr. Belser said that he understood the Commission's responsibility, but he had a practical problem and he would like to know how to appeal the Commission's determination. Mr. Ruiz advised Mr. Belser to apply for an appeal to the City Council. Ms. Deis moved that the application to add a staircase to the house at 714 Reba Place, which consists of plan #1 and alternate plan #2, be denied since the Commission finds that the plans do not conform to standards (2), (5) and (9) in the standards of review of alterations. ,1 ri qT Mh rl�LEr,-,,.--,T."--.�+,� „, - ^-�,iri�•„ ftm� :'7„' it �6 Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 11 Mr. Halik seconded the motion as stated by Ms, Deis. No discussion followed. The motion passed. Vote; four (4) ayes, two (2) nays. Mr. Ruiz noted that the Commission could not approve the application when the standards were not met. He recommended Mr. Belser to appeal the Commission's determination to the City Council. Mr. Ruiz also said that it was also important to note that the Commission tried to find a way to approve the proposal. Mr. Ruiz advised Mr. Belser that he had thirty days to apply for an appeal. The City will review the appeal based on the evidence submitted to the Commission. Ms. Deis said that the Commission recommends Mr. Belser to pursue the appeal process. M. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 614 Judson Avenue - Rehabilitation and Alteration Mr. Irwin said that R&TA reviewed a proposed rehabilitation and alteration of a single family house at 614 Judson Avenue (Barbara & Lloyd Gadau made the presentation). The building is in the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The project consists of adding a street porch to the south and remodeling of the kitchen. Mr. Irwin said R&TA found that the proposed work met the appropriate standards for alteration. Mr. Irwin moved to approve the proposed addition and alterations as submitted, The motion, seconded by Mr. Halik, was approved. Mr. Nowesnick voted nay. 2, 2426 Linconlwood Avenue - Gazebo Mr. Irwin said that Ms. Debra McQueen presented plans for a frame gazebo, custom made. The base for the gazebo is made out of bricks which would match the existing brick. The gazebo is placed in the back of the house. The project meets standards 7 and 10 of the standards for construction. R&TA recommended approval of the project. Mr. Irwin moved to accept R&.TA's recommendation of approval for the construction of the new gazebo as proposed. The motion, seconded by Ms. Deis, was approved unanimously. 3. 528 Greenwood Street - New Skylights Mr. Irwin said that R&TA reviewed proposed skylights at 528 Greenwood Strect. The structure is located in the Lakeshore I•Iistoric District. One skylight is on the south side 46 Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 12 and two skylights on the west side. R&TA found that the project met standards I, 2, and 10 for alteration. Mr. Irwin moved to accept the recommendation of R&TA to approve the proposed skylights at 528 Greenwood Street. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. 4. 1110 Michigan Avenue - Rear Deck Mr. Irwin said that R&TA reviewed a proposed rear deck at I i 10 Michigan Avenue. The structure is located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The proposal meets standards 1,2 and 10 for alterations. R&TA recommended approval of the rear deck as proposed. The applicants (Mary & Paul Finnegan) also requested approval for a future screen porch. Mr. Irwin moved to approve R&TA's recommendation for the construction of the rear porch. Staff will review the future screen porch and will have authority for approval. The motion, seconded by Ms. Deis, was approved unanimously. IV. WELCOME TO NEW COMMISSIONERS Ms. Deis welcomed two newly appointed Commissioners, Ms. Susan Regan, architect, and Mr. Mark Sarkisian, structural engineer. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 18, 1996 Minutes Ms. Deis and Mr. Irwin made two typo corrections. Mr. Nowesnick suggested that in future in the minutes use the term "disabled" rather that "handicapped." Ms. Deis moved to accept the June 18, 1996 minutes as corrected. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. Mr. Ruiz asked feedback from Commissioners regarding the minutes. Commissioners agreed that summarizing the main points of discussion and resolution is appropriate in general. Whenever there is a difficult case, more detailed minutes are also appropriate. B. May 21, 1996 Minutes Due to the lengthy nature of the minutes of May 21, 1996, Mr. Nowesnick moved to approve the minutes of May 21, 1996 subject to any other verbal corrections made by - - u .- . -� - -- -�, . - - . wr n. n R �n � 'M n•� r—r-rrT� � i R +fn'N' �. w .�.�. , .. I .] Evanston Preservation Commission July 16, 1996 - Minutes Page 13 Commissioners within the next 24 hours. The motion, seconded by Ms. Deis, was approved unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS 1996 Evanston Preservation Awards Mr. Ruiz distributed nomination forms for the 1996 Evanston Preservation Awards. He encouraged Commissioners to submit nominations for the year's Preservation Awards. The nominations are due August 30, 1996. The site visits are schedule for September 21 or 22, 1996, The awards ceremony is scheduled in October. VII. STAFF REPORT A. New City Manager Mr. Ruiz said that the City has a new City Manager, Mr. Roger Crum. B. Preserving Integrity Through Historic Preservation (PITCH) Mr. Ruiz said that through PITCH the National Preservation Conference in Chicago, October 16-20, 1996 will conduct a mobile workshop to Evanston. The bus tour will include the Evanston Historic Districts and the Fifth Ward. Mr. Ruiz recommended Commissioners to attend the one day workshop for preservation commissioners. PITCH members obtained four scholarships to attend the conference. VUL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission's meeting is Tuesday, August 20, 1996 at 8:00 p.m., in Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. R&TA will meet before at 7:00 p.m. EK. ADJOURNMENT i Ms. Deis moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. STAFF: DATE:vvc,� '-- -- - - - - - -- -- -�--- ., '- - •, - . •• - .�- r �iq• r• •��in,n •q�r^^.=-n•r+,��'-'�'N'*.r.*, I�. � •r'll'"Kir"'� '�""f}4' ' chi ��if� ex7�11'nilk l�il�ri l'm ii �.ii -1G` a, Evanston Preservation Commission i August 20, 1996 - Minutes ; Page 1 ' EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION E MINUTES Tuesday, August 20,1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBERS PRESENT: John M. Byrne, Jessica Deis, George Halik, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Gregory Nowesnick, Susan Regan, Julie Coulter Thomas, Mark Sarkisian. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Mumbrue, Will Van Dyke. OTHERS PRESENT: R&TA Session: Lee Oesterling Meeting: Steve Knutson, John Holbert, Sari Lehtinen, Mary Brush, Peter Mayer PRESIDING: Jessica Deis, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Following the Review and Technical Assistance session, Ms. Deis called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.. A quorum being present. IJ. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A. 2601 Sheridan Road - Rear Additions Mr. Kirk Irwin abstained from the discussion indicating that he worked with Mr. Steve Knutson, the architect for the project. Mr. Knutson presented plans for additions at 2601 Sheridan Road, the Evanston Lighthouse keeper's residence. The structure is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Knutson said that the proposed work involves the reconstruction of two one story brick structures originally used as woodsheds. The structure to the north will enclose the existing wheel chair lift. New brackets, eaves, fascia and all detailing will match original design. The design and construction plans were derived from the original design plans. -r ✓ ,w, - nin , sr aria M, :G. •- .n,�.-y e�r�� ,r�Mi til�r"i I ',nnn YT-`'!?v�+-rr��rnrTAT - -- lvnp� Evanston Preservation Commission August 20, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 Ms, Jessica Deis moved for approval of the proposed rear additions as presented which meet standards of alterations 1 through 10, with the exception of 8 and 9 which are not applicable. The motion, seconded by Mr. George Halik, was approved. Mr. Irwin abstained. B. 649 Michigan Avenue - New Construction Ms. Deis noted that the Commission received a memorandum from Mr. James Wolinski, Director, Community Development Department, that indicates that the original structure at 649 Michigan Avenue has been condemned. The house is unsafe and unhabitable. Mr. Wolinski informes the Commission that a demo:ition permit has been issued. Mr. Carlos Ruiz said that the memo complies with Section 2-9-14: Exceptions to Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. John Holbert, architect, presented plans for the construction of a new house at 649 Michigan Avenue. The property is located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Holbert said that his client had considered rebuilding the house after a serious fire. However, the fire practically burned the house to the ground. The proposed design incorporates the massing of the Queen Anne style, bulged geometric forms and tall pitched roofs. The new house is similar in design to the original house twin house, to the north. The new second story projects out to the face of the porch. The original setback is maintained. The new house is broken into sections with a vertical emphasis to reflect the character of the block. The primary exterior material is stucco with wood trim. The roof material is asphalt architectural shingles. Mr. Holbert said that the project requires a minor zoning variation for the maximum building lot coverage. In response to a question from Mr. George Halik, Mr. Holbert said that the plans call for modest landscaping. Commission members discussed various aspects of the design, such as roof line, massing, proportion, rhythm of solid and voids, and building materials. Mr. Byrne was concerned with the larger size of the new house in comparison with neighboring houses. He felt that proportionally, the new house, was not appropriate for the block. Mr. Holbert said that the allowable buildable area is 2,000 s. f , the project calls for abour 2,200 s. f. Mr. Gregory Nowesnick said that one of the issues the Commission reviews is new construction in relation to the existing adjacent houses. Without information about adjacent structures it will be difficult for the Commission to review the proposed new house. He felt that the north and south elevation are also important because they will impact the neighbors at each side. The Commission members felt that the front and side elevations could be studied further. Ms. Julie Coulter Thomas said that it was important to review the new house in context with the neighborhood. She was concerned with the bulk of the south elevation. The Commission members expressed a major concern with the massing of the front facade. Evanston Preservation Commission August 20, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 Ms. Coulter Thomas moved to table the project to allow Mr. Holbert address all the applicable standards for review of construction, with particular focus on standards 2, 10, 11, IS, and lb. The motion, seconded by Mr. Byrne, was approved unanimously. C. 2236 Ridge Avenue - Addition Ms. Mary Brush and Mr. Peter Mayer, architects, presented plans for a side addition at 2236 Ridge Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Mayer said that they are the successor architects to the previous architect of the project that is currently underway. The revisions to the previous design involve the south side second story bathroom area, the construction of a wall and windows of the new kitchen on the first floor and above, and building a free standing porch. Also, the porch is moved out, covering a portion of the deck that was initially proposed by using the existing columns, brackets and detailing. The owner, Mr. Jeff Cagan, also applied for a tax freeze for the rehabiltation of the building to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. The State architect reviewed the revised drawings and her initial response was positive. Mr. Byrne said that the house is not only visible from the Ridge Avenue, but it is also visible from Noyes Street. He said that the proposed new windows altered dramatically the character and sense of openness of the south side of the house. Discussion followed regarding the style, symmetry and location of the windows. Mr. Halik said that the second floor pair of double hung windows and their location did not complement the character of the house. Ms. Susan Regan said that the change to the porch was a major departure front the preexisting porch. Mr. Mark Sarkisian suggested casement windows instead of the double hung windows with mullions and muntins on the second floor addition. Also, provide more wall between the double window and the west wall on the second level. Mr. Irwin moved to approve the proposed design with the following provisions: Align the south rear windows with the north casement window, if the sills do not conflict with the fascia at top. 2. Provide windows with mullions and muntins on the second floor of the addition on the south elevation. Mr. Halik seconded Mr. Irwin's motion. Additional discussion followed. Mr. Nowesnick amended Mr. Irwin's motion, adding that the new windows should be proportionally compatible with the existing adjacent casement windows. Ms. Coulter Thomas seconded the amended motion. The Commission approved the motion as amended by a vote of 7 to 2. Mr. Byrne voted against. Ms, Regan abstained. •t Evanston Preservation Commission August 20, 1996 - Minutes Page y M. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee 1. 1735 Wesley Avenue - Rear Deck Mr. Irwin said that R&TA reviewed the removal of an existing rear porch and stairs an the construction of a new deck. Mr. Irwin said that R&TA recommends approval of the project with provision that the rails, the color and the decking match the existing rails, color and decking. Also, an adjacent tree is not disturbed. The proposals met standards 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 of alterations. Mr. Irwin moved to accept R&TAIs recomcndation for approval. The motion, seconded by Mr. James M. Knox, was approved unanimously. 2. 1322 Hinman Avenue - Addition Mr. Irwin said that this an infill addition to a two-story space. It involves the removal of an existing bay window. The addition is a glass enclosure that would serve as a greenhouse. R&TA asked for the windows to be redesign, to make the windows proportionally compatible with the existing windows. Also, R&TA asked that the upper windows align with the front upper windows if possible, and the window groupings to be studied further. The detailing of the new aluminum clad windows should match the existing wood windows, and the window casings be designed to match the existing casings. The project meets standard 1, 4, 5 and 10 and did not meet standards 2 and 9 of alterations. R&TA recommends disapproval of the project requesting resubmittal with the stated revisions. Mr. Irwin moved that the Commission approved R&TA's recommendation for disapproval of the project and request resubmition with the revisions as outlined. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved by a vote of 8 to 1. Ms. Regan abstained. 1V. NEW BUSINESS Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Mr. Ruiz suggested that the Commission consider applying for funding from CDBG grant program for the hiring of an preservation intern for the 1997-98 fiscal year. He said that an intern could work on the conservation district initiative and other related preservation projects such us i updating Landmark building's statement of significance. Commission members agreed to pursue Mr. Ruiz's suggestion. Mr. Byrne volunteered to assist Evanston Preservation Commission August 20, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 Mr. Ruiz with the preparation of the grant application. V. OLD BUSINESS A. 714 Reba Place - Exterior Stairs Ms. Deis said that on August 19, 1996 the City Council's Committee of the Whole reviewed the application for an appeal of the Commission's decision to deny the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of exterior stairs at 714 Reba Place. The Aldermen were receptive to the Commission's decision. They wanted time to visit the site and assess the situation. Their decision is scheduled in two weeks. B. 900 & 901 Edgemere Court - Replacement of Existing Fence Mr. Ruiz said that a memo from Corporation Counsel to the Commission, indicates that the Commission can in fact approve proposals under the provisions of the Preservation Ordinance. The proposals may involve other issues that are not related directly to preservation. He said that the Commission had previously denied a proposal to remove an existing fence and install a new fence that would close public access to the 900 block of Edgemere Court, which is a private road. The applicants indicated that they may reapply with a revised proposal and still close public access to the street. Mr. Knox said that the memo clarifies that the Commission's action on a proposal is only one of the steps in order to obtain a building permit. C. 1996 Preservation Awards Mr. Ruiz said that he had received one nomination for the 1996 Preservation Awards. He encouraged Commission members to nominate more projects. The deadline has been extended at least until the end of September. D. Preserving Integrity Through Culture and Integrity (PITCH) Mr. Ruiz said that PITCH held it first public meeting on Thursday, August 15, 1996. He said that twelve Fifth Ward residents attended the meeting. PITCH has scheduled two more meetings in the Fifth Ward before the National Preservation Conference in Chicago (October 16-I9). A mobile workshop that includes Evanston is part of the Conference program. E. Comprehensive Plan The Plan Commission conducted three public meetings and a phone survey. Also, a meeting with Evanston planners was held by the Plan Commission. Mr. Ruiz said that one of the topics of discussion at a regular Plan Commission meeting involved the issue of preservation. A Plan 3 __--- .. _.e \.. �S,?-j . -r . i-; - _- - a. , a]`i a _. " - `K - - - R ,.Ir,•-�'Mi"�- � ,r - _`^'.'w•a•m�+ .. -,..n..�itF'ilhl�'ti"` a Evanston Preservation Commission August 20, 1996 - NI'inutes Page 6 Commission member suggested that the Comprehensive Plan should address the issue of subdivision of large estates in the historic districts, and accept that as a possibility for further development. Fortunately, Mr. Stephen Knutson, Associate member of the Plan Commission, disagreed and noted that his experience as an architect is different. He maintained that there are home buyers who look for this type of properties, and Evanston has them. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Irwin made some minor corrections to the text. Mr. Knox moved to approved the minutes of July 16, 1996 as amended. The motion, seconded by Mr. Irvin, was approved unanimously. VII. ANNOUNCEMENT Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission's meeting is Tuesday, September 17, 1996, at 8:00 p.m., Reom 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, 60201. VIII. ADJOURNMENT With no further business in the agenda, Ms. Deis adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. STAFF&dFla� 0 DATE:vVPaj— .t, Evanston Preservation Commission. September 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 1 EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, September 17, 1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBERS PRESENT: John M. Byme, Jessica Deis, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Mary Mumbrue, Susan Regan, Julie Thomas, Mark Sarkisian. MEMBERS ABSENT: George Halik, Gregory Nowesnick, Will Van Dyke. OTHERS PRESENT: R&TA Session: Ken Hazlett, Tom Vear, Judy Kemp, Charlie Clarke Commission Meeting: Jerry Scherrer, Ken Walchack, Mike Blackwell, Steve Hennesy, Don Wa11in, Seth Weinberger, John Holbert, PRESIDING: Jessica Deis, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Following the Review and Technical Assistance session, Ms. Deis called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m.. A quorum being present. H. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A. 1702 Chicago Avenue - Ramp Mr. Jerry Scherrer, architect presented plans for a new wheel chair ramp at 1702 Chicago Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Scherrer said that the proposed ramp is 60-feet long and it is raised approximately 4-feet to the main entry porch level. The open space around the ramp will be landscaped. Mr. Scherrer said parking for the disabled will be available at the municipal parking lot next door. Commissioners expressed concerns about the length of the ramp and the disruption of the symmetrical �- _ - a�_ a`%� ;r�;'�i�6t O'�•�,`i�ECi��P�-a - _ - -- �.�� - 'r- �- ', - r -� ,. � .n � .. �. ���. y-•...,.-rn,..=--„.--•-r.T��roT�-+I�"""�.;,"-'�RtAca.K•-'tiY41�+'.�+,-r,-++ Evanston Preservation Commission September 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 front facade. Ms. Julie Thomas suggested to reconfigure the ramp in a "U" shape to shorten its length and improve the distance to get to the ramp. Ms. Mary Mumbrue concurred with Ms. Thomas. She said that shortening the distance to get to the ramp from the parking lot or the drop off area would be an improvement. Ms. Thomas moved that the ramp design be revised to a "U" shape configuration, with the entrance pointing the porte cochere, and that the revisions be submitted to staff for fax distribution and telephone response from Commissioners. The motion, seconded by Ms. Mumbrue, was approved unanimously. B. 1575 Ashland Avenue - New Retaining Wall, Rear & Side Fence and Landscaping Mr. Ken Walchak, owner of 1575 Ashland Avenue, and Mr. Mike Blackwell, landscaper, presented plans for a new eighteen -inch retaining stone wall, new rear and side Fence, and landscaping. 1575 Ashland Avenue is an Evanston Landmark and it is located within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Walchack said that the new rear fence goes across the back of the property to get some privacy. The front and south side yard grade will be leveled off with the retaining wall and landscaped. The new fence facing Elinor Street is five -feet high and it is recessed eight -feet from the property line. Mr. Walchak said that his new proposal responds to the Commission's concerns of a previously proposed and denied corner lot fence. However, the new proposal will require a fence variation. Ms. Deis complemented the new design in all aspects, from the use of plant material for screening to the low retaining stone wall. Mr. John Byrne moved that the Commission grant the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project as submitted, finding that it meets all applicable standards as set forth by the Preservation Ordinance. The motion, seconded by his. Mary Mumbrue, was approved unanimously. C. 1637 Orrington Avenue - Alteration Mr. Steve Hennessy, building manager and Mr. Don Wallin, architect presented drawings for new dormers at 1637 Orrington Avenue. The building is listed as an Evanston Landmark. Mr. Hennessy said that the plans are in lieu of the existing dormers that were built without a building permit. Mr. Wallin said that currently there are five dormers on the west elevation varying in various dimensions and window sizes. The proposal would remove the northerly most one entirely, make the next most northerly one same size as the rest of them, creating a symmetrical pattern. The sheathe for the dormers would be the same slate material that is presently in the rest of the roof. Evanston Preservation Commission September 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 Mr. Ruiz showed slides of the existing building. Ms. Thomas said that she was very concerned with the proposed dormers and suggested looking at existing downtown buildings with mansard roofs and dormers to emulate the appropriate design of the dormers. All Commissioners concurred with Ms. Thomas. Mr. James M. Knox moved to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed dormers as presented. Ms. Thomas amended the motion by suggesting that the applicants refer to the buildings at the corner of Chicago Avenue and Grove Street to observe how the dormers can be integrated with the mansard roof, and resubmit a new application. The motion, seconded as amended by Mr. Irwin, was approved unanimously. D. 649 Michigan Avenue - New Construction Mr. Seth Weinberger and Ms. Barbara Goodman, owners and Mr. John Holbert, architect, presented revised drawings for a new house at 649 Michigan Avenue. The property is located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Weinberger said that they wanted a house with a contemporary design, and at the same time also fit the neighborhood. Mr. Holbert had submitted to them three different designs until the last one which has incorporated design elements of other houses on the block. They also wanted a house more usable to them, which would require a departure from the old house foot print. Mr. Weinberger highlighted the importance of the front open porch and its projected frequent use. The direct connection with the southern room through doors will almost make it a wrap around porch. Mr. Weinberger said that he was aware of the issues of concern raised by the Commission. He said some of those issues will be addressed by the Zoning Administrator. There are no major variations that implicate the design, but there is a minor variation for lot coverage. In his view, this is a scale issue in terms of preservation. Mr. Weinberger said that the proposed new house was not out of scale with the rest of the block. The street block is very eclectic in nature, with houses varying in scale, design and building materials. In addition, the houses are very close together on the block. In terms of the stucco finish, Mr. Weinberger said that he and his wife like the stucco finish, but they were open to other interpretations of how to finish the house. He said that the project has for them financial and emotional consequences for their family, since their original house was destroyed by a fire. He asked the Commission members to consider the circumstances. Mr. Knox asked whether the size of the proposed house was out of proportion. Mr. Irwin said that the issue of massing was discussed by the Commission previously. Ms. Deis said that this was a key issue as reflected in the Commission minutes of August 20, 1996. Ms. a k ,j- _ Evanston Preservation Commission September 17, 1996 - Minutes Page a Deis said that by all accounts the proposed house would be the largest single family home on the block by at least 25 percent. She said that the other large home is a two -fiat st 707 Michigan Avenue, Ms. Deis said that she wished that the house was 20 percent smaller or even 15 percent smaller. She then would feel that the house fit in nicely with the rhythm of the street and conform with standard 2, The Commission discussed the width and depth of the house. Mr. Sarkisian said that the building to the south is dwarfcd by the size of the new house. Mr. Irwin said that he was concerned with the three story tall section of the building that comes from the back to the front of the building, wrapping around the turret without a cap. He said that the curve element (turret) needs to stand alone rather than the attachment to it. Breaking the house into smaller elements will help the house to be more architecturally compatible with the rest of the houses on the street. Mr. Byrne said that the,bouse is almost as tall as 653 Michigan, the tallest house on the block. Other two story house have significantly lower pitched roofs. He said that he was concerned with the three story new house. He said that there are houses as wide as the proposed house but not as high. Mr. Irwin concurred with Mr. Byme. He said that when there is a third floor, it is clearly defined with trim or defined as a large scale dormer, above a cornice and a half story. Ms. Thomas said that what is tripping off the Commissioners is the full third floor that extends on the south elevation. She did not have a major objection to the height of the ridge. The front facade has a degree of compatibility with the street, she wished that the pitch would be 12-feet and 12-feet to bring the height down. She said that the Commission would like to work with the applicants in a spirit of cooperation and not to start the design all over. Mr. Irwin said that modulation or the varying of light and shadow, the varying of solid versus void are not represented on the south facade. He also suggested that the columns on the front be wider. Mr. Byrne said that standard 10 (dealing with scale) was the most important issue to him. He was concerned with preservation as a policy issue, outside architecture and zoning issues. He said that a main role of the Commission is to preserve the character of the historic districts. Consequently, scale is an important issue in the context of the streetscape. Mr. Sarkisian said that he did not as big of concern with the scale issue, but he believed that the suggestions already made will help to address that concern. Ms. Susan Regan said that the combination of the width and the height makes the design of the house different from the rest of houses on the block, She was looking at the parts that by themselves are not a problem. In her view, it was the combination of the parts that is problematic. She also said that the treatment of the finish materials is very important. Evanston Preservation Commission September 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 Ms. Deis said that Ms. Regan crystalized the concerns of the Commission. She offer to work with applicant and provide solid suggestions to the Mr. Holbert so he can prooede with the project. Mr. Wienbergcr said that he had heard the Commission and he could not disagree with their concerns entirely. He asked Mr. Holbert to what degree he could comply with the suggestions offered by the Commission. Mr. Holbert said that it will be possible to satisfactorily address most of the Commission's corncems. Mr. Byrne reiterated his concern with the scale of the house. Ms. Thomas encouraged the applicants to scale down the square footage of the house and avoid the minor variation for lot coverage. Ms. Deis encouraged the applicant to consider reducing the foot print of the proposed house. Mr. Irwin moved for approval of the proposed new construction with the following modifications: 1. Redesign of the turret / third floor element. 2. Redesign of porch area, adding wider columns under the turret. 3. Vary the foot print to break up linearity of the south elevation and possibly the rear ele% ..tion. The Commission also finds that the design will comply with standards 2 and to with the modifications. The Commission also requests staff to fax revised drawings to all Commissioners present for their review and response. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. Note: Mr. Irwin left the meeting at 10: 30 p.m. M A. COMMITTEE REPORTS Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) Mr. Byrne requested that the R&TA report be read in its entirety before making a motion for apporval. Ms Deis read the R&TA reports. 1220 Judson Avenue - Porch Addition to Existing House to the Rear R&TA recommended that: r- _� � -- - _ r,�ia xt.t -�.-� �r,��-�ti� -ate.-.•�.: Y-r - �� ro�.t-4 -�r �� r+ a-, � - _ a Evanston Preservation Commission September 17, 1996 - M'inutes Page 6 a) the railing detail shown on the back porch be extended horizontally to the screen porch. b) to add a tablature with columns. R&TA found that all standards of alteration were met by the appliation except standards 7 and 8 which were not applicable. 2. 1026 Forest Avenge - Addition of Front Porch and Stairs R&TA recommends approval and finds that the proposed changes meet all applicable standards. 3. 400-412 Lee Street and 940 Judson Avenue - Restoration Regarding the restoration of existing apartments, R&TA recommends approval of the project and finds that the project the applicable standard 6, referring to deteriorating architectural features. 4. 936-940 Hinman Avenue and 502-512 Lee Street - Demolition of Garage and Off Street Parking The R&TA committee recommends approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition for the garage, because it does not adversily effect any of the five standards for demolition. R&TA also recommended approval of the proposed off street parking with the recommrpdation that the garbage area be screened from public view. Mr. Byrne moved that the Commission accept the recommendations of the R&TA Committee for the above projects. The motion, seconded by Ms. Mumbrue, was approved unanimously. 1V. OLD BUSINESS A. 714 Reba Place - Construction of Exterior Stairs Mr. Ruiz said that on September 9, 1996 the City Council Committee of the Whole continued the hearing for an appeal to the Commission's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of exterior stairs at 714 Reba Place. The Committee of the Whole granted the appeal based on their interpretation of the standards. It was not the intent of the Committee of - the Whole to contradict the findings of the Commission. The Committee followed the Corporation Counsel and looked at the standards and arrived to their own decision. There was one condition that will require Reba Place fellowship to remove the stairs if requestd by a potential new owner of the building. r' J... Evanston Preservation. Commission September 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 7 B. CDBG Grant Application Mr. Ruiz said that previously he had suggested to the Commission to seek funding for a preservation intern. Mr. Dyme and he prepared an application for a CDBG grant for the Commission's consideration. However, at this time CDBG funds are very limited, consequently the City will try to accommodate primarily existing programs. Mr. Ruiz recommended postponing the application until a more appropriate time. He said that the Planning Division is in search of a neighborhood planning intern. The neighborhood planning intern will help in preservation issues whenever possible. V. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Ruiz said that today he received the response from the Legal Counsel regarding questions from the Commission about the proposed consolidation of 19 Sheridan Road. He said that the Commission will continue its review at the October meeting. VI. STAFF REPORT Preservation Atvar ds Mr. Ruiz said that he only received a few nominations to date. He asked whether the awards program should be postpone until early spring of 1997. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is October 15, 1996 at 8:00 p.m., in Room 2403, Evanston Civic: Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Knox moved to approve the Commission minutes of August 20, 1996. The motion, seconded by Mr. Byrne, was approved unanimously. IX. ADJOURNMENT With no further business in the agenda, Ms. Deis adjourned the meeting at 10-45 p.m. STAFF: fI DATE:- uv`ramp 10 • 15,`L&�!� -Z/. �4, J' .i YY Vie iu ii+Yi ,rY r Evanston Preservation Commission October 15, 1996 - N inutes Page 1 EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PRESIDING: MINUTES Tuesday, October 15,1996 9:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue Jessica Deis, George Halik, James M. Knox, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Susan Regan, Ju!ie Thomas. John M. Byrne, Kirk Irwin, Mark Sarkisian, Will Van Dyke, R&TA Session: Al Hatcher, Larry Miller, Judith Matsuda Commission Meeting: Mina Cudecki, Mike Zenco, Sari Lehtinen Jessica Deis, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Following the Review and Technical Assistance session, Ms. Deis called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m., a quorum being present. IL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A. 149 Burnham Place - Second Story Addition Ms. Nina Cudecki, owner and Mr. Mike Zenco, architect presented plans for a second story addition at 149 Burnham Place for a preliminary review. The non contributing one-story ranch style building is located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Ms. Cudecid said that the addition would be prairie style finished with brick to match the existing brick. The existing double -hung wood windows would be replaced with casement wood windows. Mr. Zenco said that the back of the house is being changed by making the back wall a colonade with a series of French doors. All other exterior walls would remain the same. New materials consist of precast banding to break up the brick work. A heavier asphalt roof shingle with added texture would be installed on the roof. The existing soffit is 30-inches in depth with copper gutters. a to Evanston Preservation Commission October 15, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 Mr. Halik said that his main concern was how the existing structure will meat the new structure. Details such as keeping the same type of gutters are important. Ms. Cudeeki said that her intention is to keep the same type of gutters. Ms. Julie Thomas asked how the second floor brick addition is held up. Mr. Zenco said that the second floor would be built clear above the existing ceiling joists. He said it would be almost a house being built over another house. There are some load bearing points on the first floor, he said. Mr. Zenco added that the only two materials being considered are brick or stucco. The addition is approximately 2,000 s.f. or 70 percent more than the existing house. The proposed design may require a zoning variance for the height of the Second story addition. Regardless, the house would not be the tallest structure on the street block. Mr, Carlos Ruiz said that if the zoning variance is not granted, or any other applicable code would force changes to the proposed design, then the Commission will review the project again. Mr. Nowesrick suggested adding some Lannon stone accents to pull the front facade into the addition. Mr. Halik summarized the building materials as follows: lannon stone accents, brick to match existing, heavy asphalt roof (dark green), new wood windows throughout, painted board soffits, copper gutters, precast sills and bands. Ms. Deis read the seventeen standards for construction. The Commission concluded that all standards were met by the proposed project as presented, except standards 13 and 17 which are not applicable. Ms, Deis said that based on the surroundings and looking at the neighborhood, the height of the second floor addition is not necessarily inappropriate. Mr. James A. Knox said that by just looking at the drawings he could not make a determination. However, he would like to hear the architects in the Commission concur with Ms. Deis. Ms. Deis suggested the applicants provide in plan both sides of the block; and show how the size of the house relates to the foot prim sizes of other houses, and also provide facades to indicate how the proposed addition relates to its neighbors. The Commission did not object to the proposed prairie style of the second story addition. With no additional comments the Commission requested elevations of all sides, a site plan showing how the structure sits on the site, and its relation to the rest of the block for the next review. B. 1322 Hinman Avenue - Alteration and Addition Ms. Sari Lehtinen presented revised drawings for an alteration and addition at 1322 Hinman. The house is located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. The Commission had previously reviewed the project in concept and made some suggestions, now incorporated in the revised drawings. The project consist of an infill at existing bay (to be removed) and build a two story greenhouse. The size and number of windows have been adjusted as well as their location .W iIL..i- w.",..." , . . YI IN Evanston Preservation Commission October 15, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 and alignment. New sliding doors are narrower and taller with transoms above. Meeting more: Mr. Greg Nowesnick left the meeting at this thine (8: 4S p.m). Ms. Deis referred to the standards of alteration, she said that standards 7 and 8 did not apply. All other standards were met by the proposed project as revised. Mr. Hank moved that the Commission accept the alteration proposers at 1322 Hinman Avenue, for the infidl in lieu of the existing bay window with the configuration of windows and horizontal muntins as shown on the revised drawings. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved. M. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and 'Technical Assistance Committee 1. 2244 Orrington Avenue - Rear Alteration and New Fences Ms. Deis said that the Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) reviewed a proposed rear alteration and two new fences at 2244 Orrington Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. The alteration consists of a new rear door to match an existing curving rear door adjacent to the proposed new one. The proposal also includes a 6-foot high wood tongue and groove fence that would surround the north, south and west portions of the property, and a 6-foot wrought iron fence that will meet the front plane of the house on the north and south side of the house. R&TA recommended approval of the proposal with the following conditon: that the south side wrought iron fence be moved west and back to meet the rear corner of the porch. R&TA found all standards of alteration met, except standards 7 and 8 which are not applicable. Ms. Deis said that R&TA recommend approval of the project as presented. Ms. Mary Mumbrue asked if the 6-foot fence was appropriate. Mr. Halik said that R&TA felt it would be better to meet the 6-foot high side yard fence with the wrought iron fence at the same height. Ms. Deis said since houses on Orrington Avenue are substantially further set back and because the particular house has a monumental facade, the 6-foot wrought iron fence seemed not to create a negative impact on the landmark. Ms. Thomas moved that the Commission accept R&TRs recommendation as stated. The mootion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. Evanston Preservation Commission October 15, 1996 - Minutes Page 4 2. 1308 Asbury Avenue - Rear Enclosed Screen Pony Ms. Deis said that R&TA recommended not to approve the project as submitted until recommended changes were made. Members of R&TA were concerned with the proposed pitch of the screen porch roof. R&TA suggested that the applicant keep the location and foot print of the rear porch the same, and the roof of the screen porch be essentially fiat or have a pitch of 114- inch in 12-inch, Also, as the porch heads west, have a transition to a pitch that will match the angle of the roof of the existing atrium addition. The structure would be considered a removable appendage that could be removed later without any alterations or damage to the existing landmark. R&TA felt that if these changes were made, that the project could be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the next. Ms. Deis moved that the Commission deny the application as submitted, pending a resubmission to staff showing charges in the roof slope., leaving the foot print the same, changing the roof slope so comes out flat from the building and then going west into a pitch to match the pitch of the existing atrium. If the applicants submit these revisions to staff, it can be reviewed and approved by staff. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Deis moved that the review and approval of the Commission September 17, 1996 minutes be conducted outside the meeting by telephone. If staff does not hear from any member until October 21, 1996, he may assume that the minutes were approved as submitted. The motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, was approved unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS A. 1908 Sheridan Road - Proposed Consolidation Mr. Ruiz said that Northwestern University has formally requested to table this item until further notice. B. 649 Michigan Avenue - New Construction Mr. Ruiz said that he has distributed a packet with the design revisions by the architect and the 3 independent responses submitted by Commission members. The primary concern expressed by the Commission members was the size and scale of the proposed new house. Out of eight Commission members present at the September 17, 1996 meeting, seven Commissioners voted for approval. Other comments were related to the finish materials. 40 �'M °III AJI�1 "II '1}A IIYY'rl l'liF IYJ I„L„ . II ru .0 di 6�• Evanston Preservation Commission October 15, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 C. Preserving Integrity Through Culture And History Committee (PITCH) Ms. Deis said that PITCH met at Fleetwood-Jourdain Community Center on October 9, 1996, There was a fine presentation outlining the proposed project for the creation of a Conservation District in the Fifth Ward, in recognition of African -American history and culture. Ms. Deis had previously discussed this initiative with Mr. Knox and both agreed that this proposed project is about African -American history. None of the PITCH literature says so. Ms. Deis brought that to the attention of PITCH members after their presentation which in fact, dealt with African. American culture and history. PITCH members acknowledged that the literature was indeed general but that from now on the literature will be more specific toward African -American culture and history. The PITCH Committee is hosting a mobile workshop for the 50th National Preservation Conference taking place in Chicago from October 16 to October 20, 1996. The mobile workshop is a bus tour of the Fifth Ward and ending with a reception at Fleetwood-Jourdain. Ms. Deis said that this an opportunity for the PITCH Committee to spotlight their program and initiative to the preservation Community as a whole. D. 1996 Preservation Awards Mr. Ruiz informed the Commission that unfortunately few nominations were submitted for the 1996 Evanston Preservation Awards. He suggested that Commission postpopc the Preservation Awards until May 1997. He said that each year the National Preservation Week is celebrated beginning in Mother's Day. The Awards Ceremony could be scheduled to coincided with the National Preservation Week. Ms. Mumbrue moved to postpone the Evanston Preservation Awards until May 1997, for the reasons stated by Mr. Ruiz. The motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, was approved unanimously. E. 630-636 Davis Street / 1573-1575 Sherman Avenue - Partial Demolition and Three Story Addition Mr. Ruiz said that on October 14, 1996 the Evanston City Council approved an ordinance granting zoning variances for floor area ratio, lot area per dwelling unit, building height, and number of required off-street parking spaces for 630 Davis Street, the Chandler's building. The Commission had previously commented on the proposal at the request of Enterprise Development Company The project consist of removing two stories of the comer building and adding three new stories to the V shaped portion of the building. -0- _�'- --— ,�..-��r`���.x,�.:-Ti=.,r—� - "' �- ,. - -' „a;-��i.-l~� "o+ 'trM`,-,;'1�°'!`3�`�-..�.,�t�h'F'k�hM,�+"#+°1�►�rrN"4 'w°�r►�. Evanston Preservation Commission October 15, 1996 - Minutes Page 6 VL NEW BUSINESS Commission Standards for Review Process Ms. Thomas handed out a memorandum regarding the Commission standards for review process. Ms. Deis requested its distribution to all Commissioners by mail. The Commission will discuss this issue at the November meeting. V11L ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, November 19, 1996 at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois. VM. ADJOURNMENT With no further business in the agenda, Ms. Deis moved to adjourn the meeting at 9: 15 p.m.. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously DATE: o44-e -3. STAFF: Al2a VF'Q _ �� • [ °t 9� ' _.�: �'. �:� � . �.. ..,.-:r,.: �.,. .. .....•'F.1; ��.�..•w-1 j.��. �:a5 �i,.4�.�_' �F_. :.ir.�r`.: r:r:•!'�yy+� Evanston Preservation Commission November 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 1 EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, November 19, 1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessica Deis, Kirk Irwin, James M. Knox, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Mark Sarkisian. MEMBERS ABSENT: John M. Byrne, George Ralik, Susan Regan, Julie Thomas, Will Van Dyke, OTHERS PRESENT: R&TA Session: John Syvertsen, Connie Morrison, Anne McGuire, Doug Medin, Linda Powers, Randolph Liebelt, Katherine and Mark Noonan, Sean Gallagher. PRESIDING: Commission Meeting: Hari Matsuda Jessica Deis, Chair. STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz L DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Following the Review and Technical Assistance session, Ms. Deis called the meeting to order at 8:57 p.m., a quorum being present. 11. OLD BUSINESS A. 1308 Asbury Avenue - Rear Screen Room Mr. Hari Matsuda, owner, presented revised plans for a rear screen room at 1309 Asbury Avenue. The property is an Evanston Landmark and it is located within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Matsuda said that he recently removed a structure that covered the rear patio, and that he would like to replace it with the new screen room. The proposed off the shelf screen room was customized by Mr. Matsuda to make it fit in with the main house. The previous .t.+-i -o' Evanston Preservation Commission November 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 structure followed the lines of the existing contemporary looking addition that former owners had done. The proposed screen room has a shallow sloped roof which will be covered by a fascia made out of wood. The frame for the screens would be made out of dark aluminum with wood cladding. The screen room could be easily removed if needed. Mr. Matsuda said that the proposed screen room fits into the basic architecture of the house as opposed to the existing addition. He said that the screen room roof will prevent water from leaking into the kitchen area. It would also allow natural lighting through skylights on the screen room roof, located along the area connecting the screen room roof with the main house, The area above the screens and to the roof would be finished with an ash wood panel and stained. Mr. Gregory Nowesnick said that proposed screen room appearance was delicate and light, it is not obtrusive or overpowering to the existing house, and it is removable without damaging the historic fabric of the main house. Ms. Deis concurred with Mr. Nowesnick and added that the structure will not be visible from the public way. Mr. Deis referred to the Standards of Alteration and said that standards "(9) Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not he 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, neighbonccod or environment, and (1 D) 97tere ver 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 farm and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired", were the most applicable. Ms. Deis moved that the Commission accept the proposal for a screen room as presented with an "off the shelf" design that has been customized to include wood cladding to cover stock aluminum elements and a fascia surrounding three sides to give the appearance of a flat roof. The Commission finding is that the proposal meets the applicable standards 9 and 14 of alterations. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was Approved unanimously. III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1127 Hinman Avenue - New Garage Ms. Deis said that R&TA reviewed a proposed garage at 1127 Hinman Avenue. The building is located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Representatives of Boys Hope and Girls Hope discussed the plans with R&TA. Evanston Preservation Commission November 19, 1996 - Mnutes Page 3 Mr. Irwin said that the site plan showed the garage located to the rear of the lot, and partially visible from the street. R&TA recommended to change the hipped roof for a gable roof, also the -exposure of the siding on the garage should match the exposure of siding on the main house. The color of the garage should match the color of the main house. Mr. Irwin moved that the Commission accept R&TA's recommendations as stated. The motion, seconded by Mr. James A. Knox, was approved unanimously. Z. 735 Michigan Avenue - hear Alteration Ms. Deis said that the rear alteration at 735 Michigan Avenue consist of enclosing a second floor screen sleeping porch with windows. 735 Michigan Avenue is located in the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Mr. Irwin said that R&TA reviewed the proposed replacement of existing screens with casement windows. The applicants originally submitted awning windows, which were changed at the review session with casement windows. R&TA reviewed the proposal based on casement windows. R&TA found that the proposal met all the standards of alterations except 6, 7, and 8 which are not applicable. The applicants mentioned that their neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the house have virtually identical screen porches which have been filled in with casement windows. R&TA determined that the proposed windows would fit in within the existing context. R&TA recommended approval of the casement windows. R&TA required that the applicants submit a drawing to staff for review showing the casement windows. Mr. Irwin moved to approve R&TA's recommencLition for approval of the project as revised. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was approved unanimously. 3. 100 Greenwood Street - Alteration and Addition Mr. Irwin said that R&TA reviewed a proposed alteration and an addition at 100 Greenwood Street. The building is located within the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. R&TA recommended approval of the alteration and alteration with the following provisions: a) That the existing hedge on the north elevation, either be maintained or replaced with a new hedge of equivalent size and bulk. b) That the carport/deck railing be continued to the west. I � l� n�' � � �! N • I � I �.0'W1�F�'W'4--.�-.ri�`if1�til`f �Yi'.'�' w[LI ci.+�tY�S��s��r*1►'�- -'.`r `�.�7- Y�i�-�+�lt�g��g v-----��r+ �- >-9RRs"�, ��q'4Tr�dl�`i�iA'�^1 °�.T•.� Evanston Preservation Commission November 19, 1996 - Minutes Page a c) That the garage door and the person door include a greater level of detail and articulation. d) That staff review the three previews provisions and that staff circulate drawings representing those revisions to R&TA members via fax for final approval. R&TA point out positive aspects of the design such as the effort to include appropriate detailing and the successful design of the south facade design. Mr. Irwin moved to accept R&TA's recommendation. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was Approved unanimously. 4. 1232 Asbury Avenue - Alteration and Addition 1232 Asbury Avenue is an Evanston Landmark located within the Evanston Ridge Historic District. Mr. Irwin said that the alteration and addition at 1232 Asbury Avenue consist of expanding a deck towards the west and adding a bay window and a bay French door. On the north elevation some windows will be changed. Mr. Irwin said that R&TA recommended approval of thu proposal, finding that the proposal meets standards of alterations 1,2,5,9 and 10. Mr. Irwin moved that the Commission accept R&TA's recommendation of approval of the proposed alteration and addition. The motion, seconded by Mr. Nowesnick, was Approved unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Mary Mumbrue corrected two spelling errors. On page 1, third line from the bottom (French instead of french), and on page 5, fifth line from the top (brought instead of brougth). Ms. Deis moved approval of the Commission October 15, 1996 minutes as corrected. The motion, seconded by Ms. Mumbrue, was approved unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS Commission Standards for Review Process Mr. Knox moved to table this item until next meeting or until Ms. Julie Thomas, author of a memorandum regarding the Commission Standards for Review Process, is available for discussion. The motion, seconded by Ms. Mumbrue, was approved unanimously. AM- Evanston Prescrvation Commission November 19, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Nomination of 1997 Evanston Preservation Commission Ofters Ms. Deis asked for volunteers for the Nominating Committee who will make recommendations for 1997 Chair, Vice -Chair and Secretary. Mr. Knox volunteered to Chair the Nominating Committee. Mr. Nowesnick and Mr. Irwin also volunteered to serve in this Committee. B. Appointment of Acting Chair for the December 1996 Commission Meeting Ms. Deis informed the Commission that she will not be available from December 17, 1996 to January 27, 1997. Mr. Knox said that he will not attend the December meeting. Mr. Mark Sarkisian moved to appoint Mr. Nowesnick as Acting Chair for the December 1996 Commission meeting. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was Approved unanimously. Mr. Nowesnick accepted. VU. STAFF REPORT Kenilworth Historical Society Preservation Awards Mr. Ruiz said that Mr. Nowesnick received two preservation awards from the Kenilworth Historical Society. Mr. Nowesnick said that this was the first year for the Kenilworth Historical Society Preservation Awards Program. Four awards were given from twenty submissions. Commission members congratulated Mr. Nowesnick for his two awards. 3 VM. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, December 17, 1996 at 8:00 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Deis moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.. The motion, seconded by Mr. Knox, was approved unanimously. 3] . STAFF: =3 . ��,. ; �ry ,•;,r ��;�J� e� ��r 9 uw. ,a . Ilalil�l ;iIMK ..kl��,.� .. � , ,,. .- 1. y-y�i . �i.. 'I,i _ !..�.A "•:•.•��,14 _�Y,'i��l �^ �-••' �_; ;. �.g•..a' - i' .. _. _ 1 w7 ,--'_ „���. ,. r�.1pt*. :�fr,;a ,�� ��ry)�;•� �}} �J)•s r: i"-•- � - .. �{'.i, ��.13r •, A Evanston Preservation Commission December 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 1 EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, December 17, 1996 8:00 p.m. - Room 2403 Civic Center 2100 Ridge Avenue MEMBERS PRESENT: Kirk Irwin, George Halik, Mary Mumbrue, Gregory Nowesnick, Susan Regan, Mark Sarkisian, Julie Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: John M. Byrne, Jessica Deis, James M. Knox, Will Van Dyke OTHERS PRESENT: R&TA Session: Martha Koch, Bob Kuhel, Rick Sweitzer Commission Meeting: Laura Tilly, Ellen Galland PRESIDING: Gregory Nowesnick, Acting Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Nowesnick, acting Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m., a quorum being present. The meeting started with the Review and Technical Assistance Committee session already in progress. H. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Review and Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 1835 Grant Street - New Construction/Addition Ms. Laura Tilly, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Evanston Day Nursery, and Ms. Ellen Galland, architect, presented plans and a model for a side and rear one-story addition with a partial two-story addition at 1835 Grant Street The building is an Evanston Landmark. 3��1k��.,.}�dIESNI::,.W �tl�tli�_k.l�i�i� �i�l�:dil6L1al�l yi�l4�ritl��iS����S"�Ilir.�alaSrai�isi •. Evanston Preservation Commission December 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 2 Ms. Galland explained that the house had already two previous additions. The new additions would serve for an after school program. The project also includes an access ramp for the disabled. The project has received zoning approval. The lot is 282-feet deep and 60-feet wide. Parking is behind an existing shed. Mr. Nowesnick said that alter visiting the site, he concluded that the proposed addition is sensitive to the existing house. He appreciated the design of the addition to the left of the front elevation. Then he asked about the skylights on the west elevation. Ms. Tilly said that the skylights will be operable. Mr. George Halik asked about the hip roof of the one story addition, which is different from the gable roof of the main house and the partial two-story addition. Ms. Susan Regan said that she liked the contrast between the one-story addition and the rest of the building. Mr. Carlos Ruiz raised the question whether the second story transition point between the existing building and the addition should be clearly defined. Commissioners concurred that in this case the seamless transition point was appropriate. Mr. Kirk Irwin moved for approval of the proposed work as submitted. The addition meets standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15 and 16 for review of new construction. The motion, seconded by Ms. Regan, was approved. Ms. Julie Thomas abstained. 2. 1604 Chicago Avenue - Restoration of Windows Mr. Irwin said the applicants (Ms. Martha Koch, owner, and Mr. Robert Kuhel, contractor), presented plans to R&TA for cleaning the facade and restoring windows at 1604 Chicago Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. The restoration consists of replacing in kind rotted wood and the single pane glass with insulated glass. Also, the balance system will be rehabilitated with a Pullman spring counterbalance system. The center portion of the windows is to remain fixed. R&TA reviewed profiles of the windows with sections and the specifications for cleaning the exterior of the building. . Mr. Irwin moved to accept R&TA's recommendation for approval of the proposed window restoration and exterior cleaning to 1604 Chicago Avenue. R&TA found that the proposed work met standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 for review of alteration. Under standard 6, R&TA recommends to paint the windows with the original colors if possible. The motion, seconded by Mr. Halik, passed unanimously. 3. 2404 Ridge Avenue - Alteration or Windows and Door Mr. Irwin said that the owner (Mr. Richard Sweitzer) presented plans to R&TA for exterior alterations at 2404 Ridge Avenue. The building is an Evanston Landmark. - �r ,�- - ..„- �. r .- � -•' �.n��YJl,1'� .q:-�r9�ei�.�t A�-°�-.+4�'"1�•�fh�-k�1F'Kfl�y�.`}, ._ - �. - Evanston Preservation Commission December 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 3 On the north elevation, the existing window that is closest to the back of the house, is dropped lower, due to previous remodeling, Mr. Sweitzer would like to raise that window up to be in line at the top with the two existing adjacent larger windows. An alternate alteration would be to shorten the existing two larger windows to be in line at the top and bottom with the raised window. The applicant requested approval for the removal of an existing sheet metal flu that sticks through the roof. Also, the applicant asked approval for the relocation of an existing door (on the inside wall of a screen porch) to an adjacent window opening. The door opening would then be in filled with wood siding to match the existing. Mr. Irwin moved R&TA's recommendation for approval, finding that it met standards 1, 2, 3, S, and 10 for review of alterations. The motion, seconded by Mr. Halik, passed unanimously. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Nowesnick corrected on Page 4, item IV. , last sentence, Ms. Thomas for Ms. Deis. Page S, item VII. , last sentence typo error, out of were to from. Ms. Thomas moved for approval of the November 19, 1996 minutes as corrected. The motion, seconded by Ms. Mary Mumbrue, passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS Nomination of 1997 Preservation Commission Oliicers Mr. Nowesnick reported that members of the Nominating Committee (Mr. James Knox, Mr. Kirk Irwin and Greg Nowesnick), and after consultation with members of the Commission, recommend that Ms. Jessica Deis, continue as Chair of the Commission in 1997, Mr. Knox as Vice -Chair, and Mr. Irwin as Secretary. Ms. Thomas moved to accept the nominations for 1997 Preservation Commission Officers as presented. The motion, seconded by Mr. Mark Sarkisian, passed unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS A. 1314 Ridge Avenue - School District 65 Headquarters Mr. Ruiz said that he received in the recent past, two phone calls from developers asking about the Commission's role over 1314 Ridge Avenue. The property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and it is an Evanston Landmark, located within the Ridge Historic District. Mr. Ruiz said that if the property is sold to a private individual or �.a -- - -.F :=a-L•a.r-� �. t, of -ti�A -- .- - - --- - -- - - .. �, _ - A .. , .. „,. �e gie,i'='r,nr w � ten• - r� -. ��•. Evanston Preservation Commission December 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 4 entity, the Commission will definitely have purview over any activity that would require a building permit from the City. However, he was not sure if the School District has to comply with local ordinances, regulations or codes. In any event, he will try to inform the Commission of any event or activity that may have an impact on the subject property. B. 1724 and 1730 Chicago Avenue Mr. Ruiz said that a representative of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union National (WCM, has contacted the City to discuss redevelopment possibilities of lots that the organization owns on the west side of the 1700 block of Chicago Avenue. The WCTU is exploring ways to bring much needed revenue to the organization. The potential redevelopment of the north and south lots of 1730 Chicago Avenue, may potentially have negative impact on this Evanston and National Register Landmark. Apparently, not everyone on the Board of the WCTU, is in support of the redevelopment idea and it is yet to be seen what the final decision would be on this matter. V1. STAFF REPORT A. Commission Standards for Review Process Mr. Nowesnick said that in the absence of Ms. Deis, he would prefer to postpone any official action on this matter until Ms. Deis return. Mr. Nowesnick asked for any comments to Ms. Thomas' memorandum regarding the review process. Commission members agreed that twenty minutes would allow enough time to review projects under the preservation standards. A concise overview of relevant issues about a project could be presented by staff and then the applicant could add any additional comments about the project. A clock and time keeper could be available to efficiently run the review process. Commission members also discussed the possibility of beginning the regular Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. and integrate the R&TA session into the regular meeting. Commissioners agreed to consult members not present at this time and determine if they would also agree with the three issues previously discussed. VD. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Ruiz announced that the next Commission meeting is Tuesday, January 21, 1997 at 7:00 p.m., Room 2403, Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue. f ;z 1,y i::=i.•oL=.. I Evanston Preservation Commission Deccmber 17, 1996 - Minutes Page 5 Vffi. ADJOURNMENT With no fluther business on the agenda, Mr. Nowesnick adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. = N � ,� , A. *. �.�i.3��F�°���.�i'`�i.3��eY+d+�1s.�$.e>3ri�✓r*T.��ia�,.•.'ti��R r,,-6-'^��1��. '��` , �.�r- ..... ... � .a� n� �``