Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 18 2012 EPC Minutes ApproveAPPROVED MEETING MINUTES PRESERVATION COMMISSION City of Tuesday, September 18, 2012 Evanston 7:00 p.m. Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2200 Members Present: Suzanne Farrand, Thomas Hagensick, Dian Keehan, Amy Riseborough, Garry Shumaker, and Jack Weiss Members Absent: Kristen Armstrong, Kris Hartzell, Anne McGuire, Andres Lombana, and Scott Utter Staff Present: Carlos Ruiz Presiding Member: Garry Shumaker, Chair Declaration of Quorum With a quorum present and after Carla Bruni's presentation, Chairman Shumaker called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of March 20, May 15 and August 21, 2012 COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Survey Sub -Committee - Phase II Update This item was discussed later in the meeting at which time Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that the final report of the Lakeshore Historic District Survey will be completed by the end of September 2012. STAFF REPORTS A. Sustainability and Preservation: Making the Case and Where to Start Guest — Carla Bruni: Sustainability and Historic Preservation Specialist. Carla Bruni talked about making the case for sustainability and historic preservation. She noted that code are changing and are now requiring that. There are more environmentally friendly measures as well. She mentioned her experience working with the National Trust and Preservation and the Green Lab doing case study work. Also her work with Historic Chicago Bungalow Association; where energy efficiency grants are available. They no longer fund window replacement, but air sealing and insulation, and high efficiency mechanical systems. Page 1 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED She suggested working with utility companies where funding is available. C. Bruni noted her work with the EPA and the Green Preservation Implementation in 2008-9. This program enabled policy change in Delaware and San Francisco. C. Bruni emphasized seeking opportunities for alliances with environmental groups, combining incentives (tax incentives, energy efficiency, and green building incentives) and working with contractors and environmental organizations. She encouraged the Commission getting to know the environmental initiatives already happening in Evanston. She argued that it is the preservationist job that old buildings should be saved. Also it is important to let people know that preservation is an important part of the environmental movement; and that preservation is the promotion of saving sustainable structures, because older buildings are built to last. Research has shown that air sealing alone can reduce air infiltration and saves energy in buildings. Things to consider include outreach the community doing educational programs and develop a curriculum. Having a guide with illustration is important, and providing the material available on line. One of the most effective ways to gain support is by showing people how to save money by doing restoration and implementing sustainable practices, and be able to fund programs. Julie Liska, architect has an incredible presentation in window restoration. She tracked energy savings. Also developed a list of resources and established a window campaign. Showing people what to do, how to do it, and how to save money over time. Make an economic argument and talk about the materials. C. Bruni said air seal first before insulation and is the cheapest and most effective method. Regarding standards for review she suggesting working with environmental organizations and green building advocates. Have local guides and standards, contractors and architects. Educational programming is very important. Window seminars are very popular. Garry Shumaker said the City of Evanston has developed a sustainability initiative and they have asked the Commission to begin to merge initiatives with sustainability. In addition to window restoration there are other alternatives to energy efficiency, which should be made available to home owners. G. Shumaker invited Ms, Bruni to join the Commission again to talk about how she could be involved with the Evanston committees that are trying to merge sustainability and preservation. Page 2 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. 1400 Wesley Avenue (L) — Completed improvements seeking approval: Replaced existing window sashes with new double glazed low-E vinyl window sashes. Removed existing front porch stairs (not original to home, refer to Historic city map circa 1910). Revised porch columns. Renovation of exterior finishes. Replaced existing exterior doors with new paneled insulated fiberglass doors (front door metal). Removed 1" floor air lock (not original to home, refer to historic city map circa 1910) and restored the use to a single family home (assumed to be original use) from a two family residence [Alteration/Demolition]. Nate Kipnis, architect presented the project. He read a letter from Beth McLennan in support of the performed alterations to 1400 Wesley. N. Kipnis showed a progression of alterations to the 1893 building. A 1910 Sanborn map shows the building as a 2-story building and correspond to a map from 1920 that shows a porch on the front that was added to it. At some point the house was converted to a duplex between 1910-1920. A 1977 real estate listing shows the front stairs and list the home as a duplex. N. Kipnis noted that the existing windows upper sashes are 2 over 1 on the second floor only. Also, the front stairs have been recently removed. The stairs were non -conforming and appeared not consistent with other Luxemburg farm houses in Evanston. The front stairs had been significantly altered over the years. Except with the two new windows at the rear elevation, all the existing window openings remain the same. The original first floor windows brick molds and stops have been left in place. The new insert replacement windows can be removed in the future. The proportions of the new windows are proportionally similar in size and color to the only remaining original window. The front balcony railings and columns were not original to the house; they were added between1910-1920. The balcony railings were altered in1977, 1981, 2008 and 2011. N. Kipnis said the new railings and columns will acquire their own significance over time. The front door is a five panel horizontal door. The red replacement door will be removed and replaced with a Simpson panel door with upper 2 panels with double glass with no dividers. The existing front door was an interior door that was replaced with an exterior door. He asked for the stairs, windows, columns, railings and door to be approved. Mary McWilliams, Associate member referred to the 1978 record of the Evaluation Committee and said these types of houses were built in marshy areas, with brick Page 3 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED basements above ground with the living area on top. The staircase it is a significance feature of the building and it was one of the features for which the building was designated. The building was built before 1893 as documented on the building permit. The stairs were a historic feature and were removed. The Commission should take into consideration that the stairs were a significance and prominent feature of the building. She was not sure where the Luxemburg denomination came from. Garry Shumaker noted that the stairs had acquired their own significance and the owner had been asked to carefully investigate whether the removal of the stair was absolutely necessary. Greg Summers of 1410 Wesley Avenue said the wood windows were intact and were removed. He cited the Secretary of the Interiors standards and said the original windows could have been repaired and when replacement is necessary the windows can be replaced with wood windows. He asked if the Commission would have approved the vinyl windows. Don Souhrada of 811 Sherman spoke in support of the application because the work is of quality and improves the neighborhood. He noted that 1045 Sherman Avenue is a landmark that has been vacant for a long time and it is an eyesore. Developers are buying properties such as 1400 Wesley and they are taking care of these buildings. Garry Shumaker said the information provided initially by the owner was different from what he actually did. The front stair had acquired some significance and it has been documented. The Commission had asked Mr. Reid to explore options that would retain or replace the stair (because he had already removed the stair) which is contrary to what this process in place allows for. The windows and the materiality of them is also an issue, because initially the windows were going to be retained and be restored. Materiality (wood or vinyl) has to do with what the continuity of the history of these properties is. Mr. Reid needed to do due diligence required to determine if the stairs could or not be built. Regarding the windows, the Commission would not have approved the vinyl windows. Also the Commission discussed the reorganization of two window openings on the rear and the stained wood doors are an improvement over the proposed fiber glass doors. Jack Weiss noted that the removal of the front stairs brings back the original design. Dian Keehan said that single family use of the house further justifies the removal of the front stairs. Tom Hagensick said that the stairs should be documented so that in Page 4 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED the future there will be a record of the stairs. G. Shumaker said that the removal of the stair it was not in the best interest of this type of home and historic preservation. Nate Kipnis said the vinyl windows are proportionally the same as the wood windows, he believed that anyone walking by the house would not have an issue with the vinyl windows. It was motioned (S. Farrand) to approve the COA for the proposed alterations at 1400 Wesley that include alterations to the windows, the front porch, the porch columns, exterior finishes, exterior doors because they meet the standards of alteration 1-7, 9 and 10. The motion was not seconded. It was motioned (A. Riseborough) and seconded (J. Weiss) to deny the COA for the window replacement because it does meet standards of alteration 1-7, 9 and 10. The motioned passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (S. Farrand) and seconded (D. Keehan) to issue a COA for the alteration of the property at 1400 Wesley for the revised porch columns, the removal of the front porch [stairs] and the replacement of the exterior doors because they meet standards of alteration 1-7, 9 and 10 with the stipulation that the Commission learns whether or not the stairs could be replaced and be fully documented. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission informed Nate Kipnis that he needs to come back for the windows. B. 908 Sheridan Road (LSHD) — Replace five metal windows and two doors with new Renewal by Andersen windows and doors [Alteration]. Jim McNamara with Renewal by Andersen windows and Sanam Shafii Mousavi, owner presented the application. The front door is a solid wood door (douglas fir) and the proposed bay window replacing two existing casement steel windows is composite Fibrex. The steel windows at the rear are also being replaced with the glider composite Fibrex windows. J. McNamara said the loss of glass area is being minimized as much as possible. The existing windows are steel casement windows, the new windows are fibrex gliding windows to match the appearance of the existing (no bay window). Also, the replacement of the front wood door with a new wood door to match the design of the existing and a rear wood door with a new fiber glass door to match the design of the existing. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (T. Hagensick ) to issue the COA for 908 Sheridan Road with the exception of the bay window (as amended by the Page 5 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED applicant) in that standards of alteration 1-7, 9 and 10 apply. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. C. 1841 Sheridan Road (Landmark lot of record) — New Northwestern University Visitor Center plus 435 space parking garage [Construction]. Bryan Schabel, architect of Perkins & Will presented additional documentation showing the proposed building at 1841 Sheridan in context. He said the proposed building is on the southeast corner of campus among the music building, the boat houses and the existing garage. He noted that the bike path was worked on with the City. He noted that the primary material of campus is limestone as is the proposed building. The proposed materials include limestone and fritted glass curtain walls. The glass curtain wall helps screening the parking garage, Cars would not visible from the street. At the base of the building is the visitor center (25' in height floor to floor), a double height volume at the south end, and two floors of offices on the north. The proposed building meets the zoning requirements. B. Schabel said they revisited the design and tried to lower the building. The design is broken down into three parts: a welcoming arcade to the visitor center and to the university from Sheridan Road; four floors of parking at 10' as opposed to 14' high for an office building. The four floors of parking above a 2-story base, the building height reflects the height a four- story building. On the lake side east elevation, fabric fins as screening elements maintain natural ventilation for the garage. Also, Fisk Hall is 120' from Sheridan; the proposed building is 155' from Sheridan. The main feature of the elevation is the curtain wall which is below Fisk height. The framing element at the top is 7' above Fisk Hall roof deck, and 2' above to top of Fisk Hall. McCormick Tribune building immediately behind Fisk Hall is taller. A section drawing thru the arcade shows the mechanical equipment does not allow the building height to be lowered. The upturned railing height is 3'-6" painted concrete, the glass has vertical frit (to address the bird issues). The newly submitted before and after visuals from different angles show from the west looking east, the dense trees along Sheridan, Fisk Hall is hardly visible. Going north on Sheridan the visuals showed similar results. The proposed building is meant to be compatible with Fisk Hall; the visitor center is transparent space. Bonnie Humphrey noted that parking is a zoning requirement. The fabric fins on the north fagade are 3'-3" on center. Northwestern also worked with the City on tree preservation. She pointed out that the garage lights point inward. Page 6 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED Garry Shumaker said the sheer scale and height of the building are to be concern. It is out of context for that corner of the site. It is significantly tall and it visually dwarfs Fisk Hall. The commission's review considers the relationship with new buildings and additions in context with their sites, both when they fall within districts, although this project is on a [landmark] lot of record. Fisk Hall is an important landmark on this lot of record and because it is immediately adjacent to the proposed building carries more weight. B. Schabel said the proposed building is across Campus Drive and it becomes a background building. It was determined that the 2/3 of the new building is outside of the lot of record. S. Farrand said the building is fine, but she struggles with the building being partially within the lot of record. She considered the view from the beach to the proposed building. Garry Shumaker said the building would be viewed from the public way and it affects Lakeshore. The scale and quality of buildings along Lakeshore are something the City of Evanston takes pride in, so the relationship of the proposed building to Fisk Hall (a landmark) is something the Commission should remain concerned about, whether or not is 1/3 of the building being proposed within the lot of record. He said the view from the public way is important, Evanston is known for its beaches. Putting a parking garage on the lake front it does not follow what Evanston has done. In terms of the public way, the fire lane and the access around the south end of the building is within the Lakeshore Historic District, and is the purview of the Preservation Commission. The proposed building directly affects the historic district. Consideration should be given to the orientation on the site of the proposed building and the amount of mature trees that might be affected by. Taking out as many trees as shown on the renderings will affect the view of the campus from the historic district. It was motioned (S. Farrand) to issue the COA for the new Northwestern visitors center and parking garage at 1841 Sheridan Road, which is a landmark lot of record, because it meets standards for review of construction 1-13, 16 and 17. The motion was not seconded and was not acted upon. Andrew McGonigle of Northwestern University asked the Commission to table the item. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (T. Hagensick) to table the item until re -submittal. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. NEW BUSINESS A. 725 Noyes Street (NEHD) - Demolish existing 2-car detached garage , remove existing asphalt and establish two required outdoor parking spaces in the rear yard (400 sq feet towards lot coverage). Remove existing rear stairs and replace with new deck. Build new cedar fence and 2 gates on the east interior side yard. Increase in lot coverage from 33.6% to 34.8%. Maximum allowed building lot coverage is 30%. Minor zoning variance required [Construction/Demolition/Zoning Variance]. Page 7 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED Dan Abraham, owner, presented the application for the demolition of an existing 2- car garage and the removal of asphalt surfaces a replace it with grass to increase permeability of the property. The existing garage is not a historic structure; built approximately 20 years ago. The material for the proposed rear deck and fence is cedar. The paths are constructed in brick pavers. The 2 required parking spaces create the need for a minor zoning variance for lot coverage from 33.6% to 34.8%. The maximum allowable lot coverage is 30%. Janet Kirby of 719 Noyes was concerned with the driveway immediately north of her garage (described as "public alley") on her plat of survey. She was concerned with the proposed parking on the alley because that will inhibit the activity that occurs on the alley, now described as a driveway. She was concerned with the 8.5 wide asphalt and 3ft of property on her property and another 3 to 3.5 ft of property on the other side. She did not understand why the driveway needs to be widened. She was concerned with the encroachment on her property. She asked why the desire to increase the width of the impermeable surface on that strip of land. Dan Abraham said he would like to match the walkways and for easy access to the parking spaces. Padma Rao of 2246 Sherman Avenue had a question about the lot coverage versus the impervious lot coverage. Garry Shumaker explained that the City considers the required parking spaces as part of the lot coverage, hence the need of the minor zoning variance for the lot coverage. Dan Abraham said that all the posts on the rear deck and the spacing of the rails will match the railing on the front porch. It was motioned (T. Hagensick) and seconded (J. Weiss) to issue a COA at 725 Noyes Street for the construction of two outdoor parking spaces in the rear yard, the construction of new cedar fence and gates, the construction of a rear deck, the construction of new brick pavers on the exterior based on standards of construction 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12-15. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (D. Keehan) to issue the COA for demolition [of the existing garage and removal of the existing paving] at 725 Noyes in that standards of demolition 1-5 apply. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (S. Farrand) and seconded (D. Keehan) to recommend to the [Zoning Administrator] that a minor variation be granted to the property at 725 Noyes to increase the lot coverage from 33.6% to 34.8%. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Page 8 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED B. 309 Davis Street (LSHD) - Construction of a 1-car attached garage at a 2- family unit with a 1.6' interior side yard where 5' is required. Increase in lot coverage from 42% to 43.6%. Maximum allowed building lot coverage is 30%. Major zoning variance required [Construction/Zoning Variance]. Burton Horowitz, owner presented the application for the construction of a one and a half -car attached garage and a driveway with pavers. There is no access to the garage from the rear. The exterior materials will match the materials on the main house. The materials for the garage door will also match the materials on the house. The garage is setback 75' from the front of the house. The garage has a flat roof to minimize blocking the side view of his neighbors to west of his house. The front of the garage has a short gable style roof in front of the flat roof. Tim Healey of 315 Davis Street spoke against the proposed garage because the proposed garage is not compatible with the size, the scale and the character of the property, the neighborhood and the environment. The garage is in violation of the side yard setback of 5'. The garage will encroach upon the original character of the environment and the neighborhood and it will offset the rhythm of design on the front side of the street. The front facing garage has no historical basis in the neighborhood. There are no currently front facing garages on the side of the street of the proposed garage. T. Healey said the propose garage would be injurious to his property value and a significance invasion to his property. The garage would significantly reduce natural light. Also, the historic brick wall, the proposed garage will abut the historic wall and potentially damage the historic wall. Burton Horowitz said in regard to the rhythm on the street, the proposed garage is setback from the front of the house. The height of the garage is 9' without the deck. S. Farrand said the proposed attached garage detracts from the house. Garry Shumaker said that the garage is too big for a one car and the location is the wrong location because it does disrupt the integrity of the street wall. The proposed garage deserves more study. J. Weiss suggested building the garage at the back of the house or reduce the size of the garage. The Commission asked B. Horowitz for a site plan and an elevation that incorporates the neighbors to the west. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (T. Hagensick) to table the project until revised plans are submitted. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. C. 1014 Michigan Avenue (LSHD) - Replace all existing first and second floor aluminum windows, sliding doors and door [Alteration]. Page 9 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED Gail and Thomas Hodges, owners presented the project to replace all of the aluminum windows and doors on their house at 1014 Michigan Avenue. The house was built in the 1970s. The existing windows have reached the end of their useful life. The windows are not thermally broken. The windows have been maintained in the past twice. The proposed new windows are aluminum and finished in anodized bronze and the glass is clear. The existing front door is wood and the new door is also wood. The overall dimensions of the window frames is 4% larger, the glass area is 4.4% less glass area. It was motioned (D. Keehan ) and seconded (A. Riseborough) to issue the COA for alteration at 1014 Michigan Avenue to replace all first and second floor windows, sliding doors and front door in that it meets standards for alteration 1-3, 5, 6, 9 and 10. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. D. 2310 Central Park Avenue (L) - Revisions to previously approved plans include: a) the two small additions to the kitchen are no longer included. The roof overhang across the west elevation from mudroom to kitchen will stay; b) the new portion of wood deck (5' x 13') at the new mudroom door is to be covered with a roof supported by columns; c) The east side double window at mudroom desk is to be changed to a single window [Construction]. DonnaLee Floeter, architect and Michael Wood, owner presented revised plans of a previously approved project in March 2012. The two small additions to the kitchen are no longer on the plan; the deck now will have a roof over it and a couple of new windows on the side and the roof overhang across the back stay in. It was motioned (A. Riseborough) and seconded (T. Hagensick ) to approve the amended plan as presented at 2310 Central Park Avenue with the omission of the two small additions to the kitchen, a new overhang over the deck and revision to the windows on the south, because the revisions meet standards of alteration 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-15. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. E. 2335 Sheridan Road (Landmark lot of record) - Build an accessibility ramp on the east elevation with concrete base and brick to match the building. Add fire exit and steps in metal on the southwest corner of the building [Construction]. Andrew McGonigle, of Northwestern University presented the application for the addition of an accessibility ramp at 2335 Sheridan. The building is not a landmark. On the east side of the property there is the front door with a stoop. The desire is to build a new stoop. The brick paver path will be realigned reusing the brick pavers. Page 10 of 11 Preservation Commission APPROVED A new exit door on the south elevation will be installed. The existing metal fire escape will be replaced with a new metal staircase on the west side of the building. The new brick matches the existing brick. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (D. Keehan) 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-15 to issue a COA for the addition of a new staircase and access and egress ramp at 2335 Sheridan Road in that the construction meets standards of construction 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-15. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. COMMUNICATIONS A. CLG Matching Grant Fiscal Year 2013 - Application due date: November 5, 2013. Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission about the CLG Matching Grant Fiscal Year 2013 due on November 5, 2013. Mary McWilliams and Anne Earle said they spent two years doing the re -survey of the Evanston Lakeshore Historic District. They need a break. Anne Earle noted that there are two gaps in the 1870s and the 1880s (the directory of renumbering and reading the newspapers for permits). These gaps should be addressed before any district that includes old houses. Garry Shumaker suggested the Survey Sub -Committee should meet soon to determine the next step and keep the process going. A. Earle said that all City parks within historic districts should be designated as landmarks. ADJOURNMENT It was motioned and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 am on Wednesday, September 19, 2012. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted, Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Page 11 of 11 Preservation Commission