Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 15 2011 Minutes ApproveAPPROVED Page 1 of 6 Preservation Commission MEETING NOTES PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:30 p.m. Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2200 Members Present: Suzanne Farrand, Dian Keehan, Anne McGuire, Jon Pohl, Amy Riseborough, Garry Shumaker, Scott Utter and Jon Willarson Members Absent: Andres Lombana, Kris Hartzell and Jack Weiss Staff Present: Carlos Ruiz Presiding Member: Garry Shumaker Declaration of Quorum With a quorum present, Chairman Shumaker called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of January 18 and February 15, 2011 It was moved (A. McGuire) and seconded (J. Pohl) approval of the January 18, 2011 meeting and the February 15, 2011. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were approved as written. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Survey Sub-Committee – Update Mary McWilliams said that they have met with Lara Ramsey, of Granacki Historic Consultants (GHS). They are on scheduled in regard to the survey and field work including photography. GHS has submitted a monthly report for work performed up to February and March. Mark Varner, GIS Specialist is going to work with the data from the consultant and the historical data from the volunteers. The Commission discussed setting day time meetings with GHS and the sub-committee and one evening meeting with the Commission. B. 2011 Preservation & Design Awards Committee – Appointment Dan Garrison, President of the Preservation League of Evanston said the League would like to contribute with a Juror. Anne McGuire said she helped with the Glencoe’s awards program. She will contact Glencoe to ask for a juror. The third juror is Garry Shumaker. C. 2011 Preservation Workshop Committee – Appointment Staff visited the workshop of TMC Windows, a window restoration company. The Commission discussed about programming a window restoration workshop that could be planned for 2012. S. Utter (member of the Association of Preservation Technology - APT) and A. McGuire were appointed to the Workshop Committee for the planning of the event. D. Keehan also offered to help with the workshop. APPROVED Page 2 of 6 Preservation Commission STAFF REPORTS Carlos Ruiz said permit applications activity is beginning to pick up. Anne McGuire said she is meeting with Garry and Kris to start working on the window paper. UNFINISHED BUSINESS No unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS A. 1045 Sherman Avenue (L) – Construction of a second story addition on the south side. Requires major zoning variance for front yard setback of 9.8’ where 13.8’ is required, a street side yard setback of 8.5’ where 15’ required, and a 3.5’ setback from the south interior property line where 5’ is required. Install 6’ high side yard fence (north property line) and a 3’ high front yard fence (west property line). Requires fence variance (no fence shall be permitted in any street side yard of a corner lot in any residential district). Fences located in street side yards of corner lots in residential districts may not exceed four feet (4') in height proposed height = 6'. No fence shall be permitted in any front yard in any residential district. [Alteration/Demolition/Zoning Variance] Susan Randhava, owner, presented the project. Bought house in 2007. The house has one bedroom on the second floor, a bathroom and a kitchen in the basement. S. Randhava said the house was lifted up in 1902. In 1920 the 1.5-story addition was built – with a roof line of 6-feet which is the same height of the roof line of the main original house and the added basement. In the back of the house, the roof line does not go back. The addition moves that roof line to be in line with the rest of the house. The addition is for three bedrooms and one bathroom on the second floor. Also a kitchen and bathroom on the first floor. The application also includes the construction of a new garage with a roof pitch to match the roof pitch on the main house. The proposed fence design resembles the fence that appears in old photos of the house. The side yard and rear yard fence is not solid (6-feet high). The front yard fence (4-feet high) matches the wire fence and wood forms that appear in the old photos. The fences require fence zoning variations. Carlos Ruiz received two emails (Anne O’Leary, owner of 702-708 Greenleaf, and Kathleen and Keith Henry, half owners of 708 Greenleaf) in opposition to the 6-feet high fence. S. Randhava said there was a back yard fence as shown on the photos. She said every other house on that block has a back yard fence and a garage. The fence is for safety and privacy. Commissioners suggested a lower fence on the front yard. Mary McWilliams, Associate member, said the earlier fences were to keep cows out of the yards, not to keep people out of the yards. Low bushes are effective to keep people and junk out of yards. Jon Pohl said a low fence will probably help the situation based on his visit to the site and photos he took of the property. A 3-feet or a 4-feet high fence will give a sense of continuity and it will give the site a face. Now the site is open and inarticulate. Garry Shumaker said he was not convinced that the house needs a front yard fence. A 6-feet high fence is not in keeping with the district. Susan APPROVED Page 3 of 6 Preservation Commission Randhava said she would like to keep the fence as open as possible; the old fence was a wood frame with iron post in between (photo circa 1920s). South elevation – Commissioners said that the proposed addition on the front façade was too vertical and tower like – dominating the original gable and porch. The existing rear elevation has a centered window under the gable. The proposed addition looks awkward. G. Shumaker pointed out the proposed 10’-6” ceiling height in the addition; the existing appears to be 7’-6”. He said the proposed addition is too tall. S. Farrand said the house to the south is so much taller that the 1045 house. Jon Pohl asked what the effect of the total addition is on the integrity of the house. The relationship of the 10-foot wide addition to a 18-foot wide house, does not visually work. Scott Utter: the existing one-story addition, the way it projects out from the original house is okay, because it is only one-story. One can still read the original house. By adding another story on top of the existing addition, it projects past of the original house, it looses the original form. He suggested moving that 2- story back so it does not project past the original house. S. Randhava said the addition is over the existing structure. Moving the addition back it would eliminate a bedroom. Commissioners suggested having another option to discern the addition from the main body of the house (brake the plane). S. Randhava said it could not be done because the existing one-story addition is where it is. J. Pohl suggested changing the design of the roof. Regarding the pediment on the one-story addition, he said the main house does not have a pediment. S. Randhava said that he had two architects who had turned the gable going the other direction and it gave more room, but it completely took away from the visual integrity of the front of the house. The proposed addition was designed to look as small as possible and keep it over the structure that is already there and provides access from one side of the house to the other possible, while keeping the same pitch of the roof. She had considered other designs. G. Shumaker referred to the photo montage to illustrate the number of clapboard siding above the window is 3, whereas the drawing shows 9 on the second story addition, it is significantly taller. He suggested pushing down the ceiling heights of the addition to match the ceiling heights in the main house. Also the little pediment does not work. He suggested bringing the height of the addition down, open up the pediment, let it be a gable and match the pitch of the existing main part of the house. Leave the cricket and the ridge across that height. Anne McGuire said the Commission is sensitive to wanting to save the historic materials and reuse them. However, the pediment of the early addition was meant to minimize a roof on a one-story element. She suggested not saving or retaining the pediment and come up with a new solution that addresses the overall strength of the gable of the original and work with something that could accommodate what is needed. The tower like element is what is detracting from the overall strength of the gable front. She asked for a solution that brings that back, so the full gable can be seen. The rear is not much a problem; it may mean reapportioning some window sizes. Starting with a 1 ½ story house and trying to get a second full story out of it. There might be some accommodations. There might be some solutions the owner might have looked before and discarded them, but these might be solutions that the APPROVED Page 4 of 6 Preservation Commission Commission feels are more in keeping with the strength of the original gable. She asked S. Randhava to bring these comments to the architect. The Commission asked for a study of that addition without the pediment. Have the architect redraw the gable end on that tower piece, to look more than the gable on the existing house (with rake boards and a short overhang). The architect had created a saddle and that is not a problem. The second-story addition is too towering like and it is a very strong geometric element that is detracting from the strength of the prominent gable. Susan Randhava would submit two options (draw the gable with the same pitch, but matching the existing design more closely and also draw a gable that matches the existing gable). Also reset the window(s) in the rear. The fence variance is administrative review. The major variance is for the setbacks. The Commission discussed the major variances. If the Commission makes a favorable recommendation for the major variances, it would do so with the caveat that the existing foot print is maintained and no larger on any direction (approving the existing non-conforming foundation). The Commission asked S. Randhava to come back with options for the fences. The old fence is no longer a part of the integrity of the district, putting it back is contrary to maintaining that integrity at this point. Delete the front fence and lower the side yard and rear yard fences to 4-foot in height. S. Utter suggested using the same comments for the addition on the gable for the garages where there are no returns on the house. The pitch should be a little more like the pitch for the house. The Commission asked S. Randhava to consider the open fence and a lower fence. And on the east elevation center the kitchen windows. Major variance for the setbacks: It was moved and seconded to recommend the major variance for the existing setbacks. A voice vote was taken to recommend to the Zoning Board of appeals granting the major zoning variance for the existing non- conforming setbacks at the front yard, the street side yard and the interior side yard be granted (continue to be allowed) as meeting standards A and C. This is assuming that the original footprint of the house would not be altered. The motion passed. Vote 8 ayes, 0 nays. B. 1220 Judson Avenue (L/LSHD) – Demolition of existing 2-car garage and construction of a new 2-car coach house. [Construction/Demolition] Paul Janicki, architect presented the project. The project requires the demolition of an existing two-car garage (c. 1927). There was originally a one-car garage on the opposite site (c. 1905). The new structure is a two-car coach house with an apartment and small kitchen, bath, living and dining above. The exterior is clapboard wood siding with pilasters details on the corners and dentils. The new garage roof matches the roof pitch on the house. The coach house faces south and it has standard overhead aluminum doo and metal rolling doors; all of the other doors match the house. The proposed coach house has windows with simulated divided lights. The tree at the southeast corner of the lot will remain. APPROVED Page 5 of 6 Preservation Commission Dian Keehan said the pilasters aren’t necessary because they do not wrap the corner on the alley side and the north side. She suggested doing it on the east elevation as an applied decorative piece. S. Farrand thought the coach house seemed too big compared to the garages along the same alley. She wondered if it was visually compatible with the surrounding garages. P. Janicki said coach houses are not unusual. A smaller garage would be out of scale with the main house. It was motioned (A. McGuire) and seconded (D. Keehan) to approve the application for construction of a new garage at 1220 Judson in that the standards for review for Construction standards 1 - 5, 7, 8, 10 -14, and 16 apply, with the understanding that the pilaster effect would be on the east facade only and that the remaining corners have wider corner boards. The motion passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay. It was motioned (J. Willarson) and seconded (A. Dienner) to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing garage because standard for demolition 1-5 apply. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays C. 1028 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) – Replace columns at existing front porch with new wood columns to match. Add 2 columns to match original condition with low wall on either side of stair. Replace: decking, handrail, railing and stairs treads. Wrap columns with 1”x 8” cedar. Provide gutter and downspout to porch roof. [Alteration/Demolition] John Holbert, architect presented the project. The project is for reframing the front porch with new floor decking, leaving the entablature and the roof and replacing the porch the columns and rail and adding two new wood round columns with capitals (per old photo). Remove the wrought iron railing and rebuild the low knee walls. The existing railing is 32” high. There is a pipe rail at either side of the stairs. Not raising the rail by putting a handrail behind it. Repair the rail. A new rail would have to be 36” high to meet the code. The two existing square columns are still in good shape. Two round columns and a square column behind them. How accurate are the replication of capitals and bases. It was motioned (A. Riseborough) and seconded (D. Keehan) for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations at 1028 Hinman in that they meet standards of alteration 1-3, 5, 6 and 9. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (S. Utter) and seconded (A. McGuire) for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the front porch columns and decking as it meets standards of demolition 1-5. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. 7. COMMUNICATIONS A. Email from City Manager regarding "Developing Sustainability Guidelines for Historic Districts." Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that the City Manager has asked the Sustainability Coordinator and him to look into a booklet from the National Park District regarding sustainability and historic preservation. Garry Shumaker expressed interest in participating and assisting City staff on this assignment. APPROVED Page 6 of 6 Preservation Commission B. Email from Mary Brugliera regarding hosting the Preservation Leadership Training Session in 2013. Dan Garrison, President of the Preservation League of Evanston said the League the Preservation Leadership Training in 2013 is a great opportunity to showcase Evanston. Garry Shumaker the resurvey could be something to show. Dan Garrison requested a letter from the Commission to the League asking for support of the application to host the Leadership Training Session (June 2013). C. Letter from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency informing the City of Evanston about a grant award for Phase 2 of the historic survey of Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. Carlos Ruiz said a letter from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency confirms the City of Evanston as the recipient of a Certified Local Government Grant in the amount of $21,000 for a total project cost of $30,000. The City’s match is $9,000 in kind (staff and volunteer time). 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Next Meeting: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 7:00 P.M