Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 19 2010 EPC minutes DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, Room 2200 2100 Ridge Avenue Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:00 P.M. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Jordan Cramer, Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie, Kris Hartzell, Dian Keehan, Anne McGuire, Jon Pohl, Garry Shumaker, Scott Utter and Jon Willarson Associate Members: Mary McWilliams and Anne Earle MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Dienner OTHERS PRESENT: Ramo Perocevic, Phil Couri, Bernard Black, Frank Michalski, Lee and Catherine Boyce, Dave Roberts, Matt Wynia, PRESIDING: Jordan Cramer, Chair STAFF: Carlos D. Ruiz I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Jordan Cramer, Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with a quorum present: Suzanne Farrand, Emily Guthrie, Kris Hartzell, Dian Keehan, Anne McGuire, Jon Pohl, Garry Shumaker, Scott Utter and Jon Willarson. Staff: Carlos Ruiz. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 18 and June 15, 2010 minutes. The Commission tabled the approval of minutes. III. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS Carlos Ruiz said the Commission received communications announcing the appointment of Andres Lombana, Amy Riseborough and Jack Weiss as the new members of the City of Evanston Preservation Commission. IV. OLD BUSINESS 904 Hinman (L) – Proposal from property owner to remove the existing double hung aluminum replacement windows and existing steel casement windows on the Hinman Avenue and Main Street primary elevations and replace with new aluminum windows to match the original windows casement style and divided light configuration. Ramo Perocevic, owner and Phil Couri, attorney presented the proposal. P. Couri said there are four kinds of windows on the building (four, three, double and single panel) aluminum casement windows. The drawings show the location of the four kinds of windows. He said the proposal is to replace all the double hung windows on Main Street and Hinman Avenue and the courtyard windows on the third and second floors. The windows on Main and Hinman would be completed in the spring and summer of 2011. The courtyard windows will be replaced later due economic factors. Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED October 19, 2010 – Minutes Page 2 Jordan Cramer disagreed with the economic hardship issue. However, he agreed with phasing the project. He wanted actual drawings of the proposed windows. Carlos Ruiz said although the current drawings are not to scale, they show the number of lights per window and whether they are single, double, triple or quadruple pane casement windows. He said there is enough evidence on the building of the window type and configuration. Also, another positive aspect of the proposal is that the courtyard windows will be replaced. Gary Shumaker said the current drawings are a diagram. The drawings show how many panels and how many casement windows are there. However, the current drawings are not enough. He said the applicant needs to label the windows (i. e. window A on the drawings is reflected as window A on the shop drawings). The drawings show the ‘now’ look and the ‘new’ look. The intent is to replace the windows to match the proportion, the rhythm and the number of lights of the casement steel windows. The proposed new windows are not replicas, but they will be aluminum casement windows, with divided lights, double glazed (perhaps different on the exposed amount of glass). Ramo Perocevic said there is a wood frame where the existing steel windows are mounted. That wood frame will remain for the installation of the new windows. Also, the current drawings show the number panels and the location of window panels for the AC units. Dian Keehan noted the drawings do not show the dimensions of window stiles and rails. Garry Shumaker said the revised drawings should show how wide the frame on the steel windows is and how much wider the frame on the new window is. The shop drawings should show how the new windows will be installed inside the wood frame. He said the existing wood brick mold around the windows should be surveyed. If the wood frame Mr. Perocevic wants to leave is behind the brick mold, and then the steel window is inside it, then the window opening should not be narrowed. He emphasized the importance to seeing the installation detail such as how the capping should be the same as the existing brick mold. R. Perocevic said the manufacturer will provide a corner molding not a brick molding. Phil Couri stressed his desire to come to an agreement with the amount of windows proposed to be replaced within a time table. G. Shumaker said the Commission would like the owner to replace all the visible windows on Main, Hinman including the courtyard. P. Couri said the time table is subject to the economics; what is going to cost to replace windows on Main and Hinman first. Depending on that they will be in a better position to determine how much time they will need to replace the courtyard windows. They will replace the windows on Main and Hinman in an expeditious fashion. He noted it is difficult to say exactly what time period they will be looking for on the courtyard. They are suggesting at this time that it will be in stages. The current proposal is for $50,000; that might change depending on what the Commission is asking for. Garry Shumaker said he would like to have a definitive time table for when this starts and ends. P. Couri said for Hinman and Main starting time for the replacement would be spring of 2011. To determine a time table to replace the courtyard windows they would need to determine the costs. P. Couri said perhaps they could come back with another proposal for the courtyard. Jordan Cramer was concerned with leaving the time table opened. He said there has to be a concrete understanding of when it is going to get done with a time table. Also, waiting so long might create another problem with the same windows no longer being available from the manufacturer. Anne McGuire proposed to replace the original windows last; to retain the fabric of the original windows intact. Gary Shumaker concurred with A. McGuire. Emily Guthrie asked about the proposal of changing the third and fourth floor courtyard windows only. Carlos Ruiz said the second floor windows on the court yard facing south are not visible from the street. One can only see about 50 percent of the window openings facing east and west. G. Shumaker noted that on the second story courtyard there are French doors behind wrought iron grills that are not changing. One could not see the casement windows behind the metal grills because the view of these French doors is obstructed by the metal grills. Jordan Cramer said the window manufacturer should prepare the adequate specification and shop drawings. The elevation drawings should show on each elevation the location of all window openings with a key of which window goes where. Start with the windows that were improperly replaced. Save for last the original steel windows. Anne McGuire said details need to show how the new window fits against the wall and it needs to be compared to how the existing original steel window fits against the wall. If a wood or steel frame is being retained and the new window is going to be installed and panned over, the drawings should show how the new window fits into the existing construction. The Commission is looking Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED October 19, 2010 – Minutes Page 3 for the sight lines; it needs to know if the glass is (x) inches wide right now in an opening; is the new glass going to be (x) - 2 inches or (x) - 3 inches? The Commission needs to know what the difference is in the amount of visible light. The Commission discussed the replacement the double hung windows first as a priority, not Hinman and Main as a priority. P. Couri said they will replace the windows on the courtyard, the question is the timing of that. The Commission agreed to stage the window replacement, starting with the double hung windows and then replace the steel windows last. If that takes over a period of time it’s okay. Jordan Cramer said the applicant would not be able to give the Commission a ball park on the timing until the applicant gets an estimate. Then the applicant could plan the staging of the window replacement from start to finish. The Commission discussed replacing all the double hung windows on Main and Hinman in the spring into the fall of 2011 and the following spring for the double hung in the courtyard, and maybe the following year replace everything else (the original steel casement windows on Hinman and Main). Susan Farrand said she would be more inclined to support the staging plan that would require the least time for implementation. The Commission asked the applicant to go to the manufacturer to figure what stages could be logically followed (facades as a priority or the proper window replacement as a priority) and get some adequate drawings for the Commission that will give an understanding of what is going to be replaced and where is going to be replaced. Then the Commission and the applicant could conceptually arrive to an agreement and later work out the details. The emphasis is starting in April 2011. Gary Shumaker appreciated that the owner is trying to get the proposal go through. He recommended the owner getting the advice of a preservation architect to understand the terminology and the historic preservation aspects of the proposal. The Commission encouraged the applicant to work with staff and explore other manufacturers. G. Shumaker wanted the brick mold be explored more and be able to see a section through the existing steel window. The Commission expects the applicant come back at the November meeting and have a plan or alternate plans of what priorities they want to do and what period of time the window replacement will take place. Have drawings for the Commission so that it could be identified which window will go where and a time table for phasing or other options. P. Couri said his client and he understand the Commission’s wishes, but he needs to consult with his client. The Commission continued this item until November 2010. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review & Technical Assistance Committee (R&TA) 1. 2829 Sheridan Place (L) - Construct dormer instead of skylight for north bedroom. New dormer to access roof deck and install skylight in room above main stairs. [Alteration] Bernard Black, owner and Frank Michalski, architect presented the project. Changes to the third floor at 2829 Sheridan Place include on the west elevation: one car garage widen to a two car garage. South elevation: skylights withdrawn. East elevation: on the second floor expand window opening from two to four windows. On the third floor, create a bank of five windows over an existing bank of five lower windows; a wider dormer with a door with sidelights exiting to a deck; a new bedroom with a two-window dormer. On the first floor, adding a door to the kitchen area. The fourth phase (north) includes a door into the nanny area. The new windows will match the original existing windows. The two skylights facing south are not visible from the grade. The new items include: the skylight on the east side of the tower, the reconfiguration of the dormer with a door and two windows to the terrace, and the dormer on the northeast room. Commission’s Findings Garry Shumaker said R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-7, 9 and 10 as applicable. Emily Guthrie moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 2829 Sheridan Place for the alterations as described above in that they meet standards for review of alteration: 1) Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED October 19, 2010 – Minutes Page 4 minimal alteration of the structure, 2) distinguishing original qualities of the structure will not be destroyed; 3) alterations do not seek to create an earlier appearance, 4) changes that may have taken place are being recognized and respected, 5) distinctive stylistic features or skilled craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity, 6) Deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible, 7) the surface cleaning of structures and objects is being undertaken with the gentlest means possible, 9) contemporary design for alterations is not be discouraged, and 10) wherever possible, the new additions or alterations to structures could be removed in the future, the form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Anne McGuire seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. 2. 1114 Judson (L/LSHD) - Construct a 1-story conservatory at rear of house and add skylights in kitchen and great room. Replace entry door on east elevation, remove covered porch and stairs and install new entry door and remove eyebrow window and replace it with square windows on west elevation. Requires zoning variances for proposed lot coverage = 32.6% (maximum allowed = 30%) and proposed impervious surface ratio = 47% (maximum allowed = 45%). [Alteration/Construction/Demolition/Zoning Variance] Lee and Catherine Boyce, owners and Dave Roberts, architect presented the project. L. Boyce said they want to construct a conservatory in the back of the house and skylights in the kitchen and great room. Replace the front door with a new door with windows at the top panels. D. Roberts said they proposed saving the existing door as an artifact. The conservatory is attached to a 1994 existing addition. Demolition includes the existing small porch with two columns and two stairs (1994). The double door in the back will be replaced with a single door. The brick stone and pathway will be partially removed to give room to the conservatory. The new door comes out from the 1994 addition leading to a new stone and brick terrace. The conservatory floor is lower than the house and closer to the yard with doors on the south side. The roof of the conservatory is glass, except in the bay area. The project includes the replacement of the roofing material on the house with 40-year shingles. The dome remains the same. Dian Keehan had concerns with the west elevation shed dormer in the third floor bathroom. D. Roberts said they could consider eliminating all of the rake trim on the side and fascia and could be done in wood shingles. David Roberts said there are two zoning variations: for the building lot coverage, present is 30.35%, proposed = 32.67% an increase of 2.32% over the allowed, and on the impervious surface 45% is the standard, current is 46.2%, proposed is 47.4%. Garry Shumaker asked the applicant to consider reducing the terrace to minimize the impervious surface. Commission’s Findings Garry Shumaker said R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 10 as applicable. The alterations include the modification of the existing rear door, the replacement of the front door, the attic dormer on the southwest roof, the addition of 12 skylights, the new asphalt roof and changing the windows in the 1994 additions. G. Shumaker moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 1114 Judson for the above mentioned alterations in that they meet standards for review of alteration: 1) minimal alteration of the structure, 2) distinguishing original qualities of the structure will not be destroyed; 3) alterations do not seek to create an earlier appearance, 5) distinctive stylistic features or skilled craftsmanship are being treated with sensitivity, 6) Deteriorated architectural features are being repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible, 7) the surface cleaning of structures and objects is being undertaken with the gentlest means possible, 9) contemporary design for alterations is not be discouraged, and 10) wherever possible, the new additions or alterations to structures could be removed in the future, the form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Anne McGuire seconded the motion. The motioned passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED October 19, 2010 – Minutes Page 5 Garry Shumaker said R&TA recommends standards for review of construction 1-5, 7-10 and 12-16 for the addition of the conservatory and the terraces. Anne McGuire moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction for 1114 Judson for the conservatory and terraces in that they meet standards for review of construction: 1) the height, 2) the relationship to the front façade, 5) the rhythm of the structure on the street, 7) the relationship to materials, 8) roof shapes, 9) the walls of continuity, and 10) the scale are all compatibility with the structure to which such elements are visually related. Also, 12) the distinguishing original qualities are being respected, 13) archaeological resources will be protected, 14) contemporary design is not being discouraged, 15) the ramp could be removed, and 16) a single particular is not being imposed.1-5, 7-10 and 12-16. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Dian Keehan moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition for 1114 Judson to remove the rear yard covered porch and stairs in that it meets the standards for review of demolition: 1) its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the city, 2) it does not contribute to the distinctive historic, cultural, or architectural of the District, 3) the demolition of the rear porch would not be contrary to the purpose and intent of this Chapter, 4) the rear porch is not of such old, unusual or uncommon design that it could not be reproduced without great difficulty and/or expense, and 5) the Commission has approved plans for a replacement structure. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Carlos Ruiz said R&TA recommends standards for zoning variation A and C as applicable. Anne McGuire moved to recommend to the Zoning administrator granting the minor variations for the 32.6% lot coverage and the 47% impervious surface at 1114 Judson in that: A) it is necessary and appropriate in the interest of historic conservation and would not adversely affect the historic architecture, and C) it would not be materially detrimental to the public health and welfare. Emily Guthrie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. 3. 747 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) - First floor south elevation: remove kitchen window and infill opening with brick to match the existing windows. Remove two awning windows and enlarge window opening to its original size and install a pair of double hung wood windows. East elevation: Remove door and stairs; infill door opening. Install window and French door and construct new stairs. [Alteration] Matt Wynia, owner, presented the project. There is a window that was replaced in the back with 6 lights in the top one on the bottom. One window was removed and replaced with an awning style window. There are rows of brick on top of the sill. The awning window does not go all the way to the top, the top has fake brick. M. Wynia said he is In the process of redoing the kitchen and in he would like to replace the kitchen window with a window that will match the existing double hung windows. The dimension will be with 1/8” from the original windows. The kitchen window is on south side of the house, window over the sink. Matt Wynia said the new windows are double hung windows. The existing windows are single hung windows. The dimensions are 96” width; proposed 78” a 19” difference. The dimensions were measure from brick to brick (78” window on the front of the house). M. Wynia said the proposed brick up area over the window is not visible from the street, because it’s located behind a chimney. He needs to remove the window for additional counter top space. The new brick would match the existing brick. Commission’s Findings Garry Shumaker said R&TA recommends standards for review of alteration 1-7, 9 and 10 as applicable. Jon Willarson moved that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted for 747 Michigan for the alteration to the kitchen windows in that: 1) these are minimal; 2) the distinguishing original qualities are not being destroyed; 3) alterations with no historical basis are not being discouraged; 4) the history and development is being recognized; 5) stylistic features are treated with sensitivity; 6) repair rather than replacement, wherever possible; 7) surface cleaning will be as gentle as possible; Evanston Preservation Commission DRAFT NOT YET APPROVED October 19, 2010 – Minutes Page 6 9) contemporary design is not being discouraged; and 10) these alterations will be removable if necessary. Garry Shumaker seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. VI. COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF At this time Jordan Cramer welcomed newly appointed Commissioners Jack Weiss, Andres Lombana and Amy Riseborough. A. Horse Trough (Yerkes Fountain at Sheridan and Clark) (L) – Discussion on the Horse Trough restoration Kris Hartzell said Horse Trough (Yerkes Fountain, an Evanston landmark, at Sheridan and Clark) is in complete disrepair. She has been in touch with the garden club to figure out what to do with the Horse Trough. Carlos Ruiz said he contacted Paul Schneider, City Engineer to protect the artifact from the construction on Sheridan. He suggested Kris Hartzell to contact the Alderman of the Ward. B. Plaques for Evanston Landmarks – Discussion on establishing a Preservation Commission “Evanston Landmark Plaque Program.” [Update] Carlos Ruiz said he has received from time to time phone calls regarding plaques for landmark buildings. The History Center had previously administered the most recent plaque program as a fundraiser. The Commission collaborated with the program by certifying the landmark status of buildings that their owners wanted to buy the plaque. Carlos Ruiz said Susan Rundle, former Preservation Commissioner volunteered to reestablish the plaque program. C. Acting Chair and Vice-Chair - Appointment of Committee to Nominate Acting Chair and Vice-Chair for the remaining of the 2010 calendar Year (November and December 2010) Emily Guthrie moved to nominate Garry Shumaker as Acting Chair and Jon Willarson as Acting Vice- Chair for the remaining of the calendar year. Kris Hartzell seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays. Emily Guthrie said she would like to organize a fundraiser to republish some of the historic preservation booklets such as the self guided walking tours (Ridge and Lakeshore Historic Districts). Mary McWilliams said the Every Day Architecture booklet should be rewritten. Mary McWilliams suggested publishing self guided walking tours of the Northeast and Oakton historic districts. Emily Guthrie said the Preservation League is holding annual meeting in November. Vicki Granacki is the speaker. Jon Pohl said Vicki Granacki is going to be contracted to conduct the Lakeshore Historic District survey. Her scope of work outlines what is the work of the volunteers. Carlos Ruiz said his preparing the application to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency for the Lakeshore Historic District survey Part 2. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carlos D. Ruiz Preservation Coordinator December 20, 2010