HomeMy WebLinkAboutEPC Packet 112916Owner/applicant or representative
is required to attend the meeting
1 of 2
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 29, 2016, 7:00 P.M.
Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2404
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM
2. OLD BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARING
2771 Crawford Av. – Christopher Enck, applicant/owner. Approval of
Commission’s Report with findings of fact, and adoption of Resolution requesting
the City Manager to transmit the Commission’s recommendation and report to the
City Council.
B. 2603 Sheridan Rd. (L) – Anil Khatkhate, applicant. New door for accessible exit
on the first floor of the east elevation and new sloped walk and walk with crash
stone to front of building. Also modification to existing ramp in the front. Applicable
standards: [Alteration] 1-3, 5, and 7-10. [Tabled on 10/18/2016 - COA Application
withdrawn]
C. 1317 Rosalie St. (L) – George Rudder, applicant. Replace existing 3 tab asphalt
shingles on house and garage roofs with asphalt shingle or metal roof system.
Applicable standards: Alteration [1-6, 9, and 10]; [Demolition] 1-5
3. NEW BUSINESS
A. 1620 Judson Av. (LSHD) – Paul Janicki, applicant. Coach house: New exterior
materials-cedar shingles on all elevations and brick on West and South elevations;
new garage door and masonry opening on West elevation; new windows
throughout to replace existing damaged windows; new entry door and concrete
stoop/stairs on East elevation and new air conditioning unit on concrete pad.
Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-7, 9 and 10.
B. 939 Hinman Av. (LSHD) – Garry Shumaker, Applicant. Part A: Low slope organ
loft roof, replace slate with white 2-ply Modified bitumen roofing, and replace gutters
and downspouts with copper with G+ D. Part C: Remove lantern. Fill in with 2x10
wood framing, insulate and sheath flush with ¾” APA roof sheathing. Replace
existing shingle roof with new light grey fiberglass composition shingles over roofing
felt. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-7, 9 and 10; [Demolition] 1-5.
Order & Agenda Items are subject to change. Information about the Preservation Commission is available at:
http://www.cityofevanston.org/government/boards-commissions/preservation-commission/index.php. Questions can be
directed to Carlos Ruiz at 847-448-8687 or at cruiz@cityofevanston.org
The city is committed to ensuring accessibility for all citizens; If an accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting,
please contact the Planning and Zoning Division at (847-448-8687) 48 hours in advance so that arrangements can be
made for the accommodation if possible.
Español - La ciudad de Evanston tiene la obligación de hacer accesibles todas las reuniones públicas a las personas
minusválidas o a quienes no hablan inglés. Si usted necesita ayuda, favor contacte a Carlos D. Ruiz de la Oficina de
Planificación y Zonificación llamando al (847/448-8687) o cruiz@cityofevanston.org con 48 horas de anticipación para
acomodar su pedido en lo posible.
2 of 2
C. 726 Sheridan Rd. (LSHD) – Garry Shumaker, applicant. Replace existing gable
end siding, resurface existing open porch, construct new garden wall, 4’-0” fence as
screen wall and retaining wall at rear of house. Replace existing aluminum sliding
door w/lift/slide door (cladding to match). Construct rear yard trellis and covered
entry. Applicable standards: Alteration [1-7, 9, and 10]; [Construction] 1, 7, 8,-10,
and 12-16; [Demolition] 1-5.
D. 1045 Sherman Av. (L) – Greg Borkowski, applicant. Raising the existing gable
portion at the south side of the residence to allow for an increase of habitable area
at the second floor level. Approved previously on 9/20/2011. Applicable standards:
[Construction] 1- 5, 7-10, 12, 14 and 15; [Demolition] 1-5.
E. 2126 Orrington Av. (NEHD) – John Issa, Replace the existing non-historic, 2-story
addition on east facing front façade with an open, wrap-around porch; replace all
windows; replace the rear deck and garage, and add a 3-season porch to the SW
corner of the house. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-7, 9 and 10; [Construction]
1- 5, 7, 8, 10 - 13, and 16; [Demolition] 1-5.
F. 2350 Orrington Av. (NEHD) – North Shore Builders, Inc., applicant. Construction
of single family dwelling with attached 2-car garage. Applicable standards:
[Construction] 1-13 and 16.
4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of October 18, 2016.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Working Groups)
A. Preservation Ordinance Review Subcommittee - Update.
6. VOLUNTEER REPORTS
A. Design Guidelines Volunteers - Update
7. STAFF REPORTS
8. DISCUSSION (No vote will be taken)
9. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: TUESDAY, December 20, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. (subject to change)
2. OLD BUSINESS
C. 1317 Rosalie St. (L) – George Rudder, applicant. Replace existing
3 tab asphalt shingles on house and garage roofs with asphalt
shingle or metal roof system. Applicable standards: Alteration [1-6,
9, and 10]; [Demolition] 1-5
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 1 of 4
Section A. Required Information (Print) * Refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance [page ‘i” fifth below].
1) Property Address:
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Application Number:
2) Owner’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
3) Architect’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
4) Contractor’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
5) Landmark: Yes No * Refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance on page (i) (fifth page below).
6) Within Local Historic District: Yes No;
If yes, Lakeshore Ridge Northeast Evanston Apartment Thematic Resources
7) Refer to the completed Zoning Analysis and check as applicable if project requires:
Major Zoning Variance; Minor Zoning Variance; Fence Variance If one or more is checked, then
fill out Sections B and C (next 2 pages). If project does not require any Zoning Variance or Fence
Variance or Special Use Complete section B only.
Check if your project requires: Special Use Planned Development Refer to Supplemental
Information on page (i) below.
Binding Review of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) &
Advisory Review of Zoning/Fence Variations, Special Uses, and Planned Developments
Thank you for submitting your COA application for Preservation Review. This application is required for exterior work affecting Evanston
landmarks and properties within local Evanston historic districts when a permit is required and when visible from the public way. To process your
application, submit one (1) hard copy of the fully completed application and attachments including: plat of survey, site plan, floor plans, elevation
drawings of the existing and proposed, 3D drawings of the proposed alteration/addition/construction (not to exceed 11” x 17” paper size); and
one (1) digital copy in PDF format of the same by 5pm on the last Tuesday of the month, or no less than 15 business days before the next
scheduled Preservation Commission meeting. All required materials must be to scale with dimensions, and in context with the principal structure
and immediate/adjacent structures on the same street block. The submission of the completed COA 15 business days prior to the next
scheduled meeting date allows the City staff’s review of the application and provide staff feedback to the applicant in the completeness of the
COA application. Incomplete applications will not be processed. Refer to the Supplemental Information, page (i) below.
Applications can be submitted in person, by regular mail, electronically via email or in a flash drive to the Preservation Coordinator, City of
Evanston, Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Division, Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 3201,
Evanston, Illinois 60201.
For new construction, additions, major alterations, and demolition, applicants must submit to this office electronically via email, or a flash
drive of the current and updated list of all names and mailing addresses of property owners within 250 feet of the subject property (in Excel
format). The updated list must be submitted before or no later than the submission of the COA deadline. City staff provides a preliminary list in
Excel to the applicant. Zoning Analysis must be completed by the City of Evanston’s Zoning staff before or by no later than the submission
deadline of the completed COA application. Zoning staff requires at least 10 business days to complete a zoning analysis. Applicants must give
themselves enough time to request a zoning analysis to meet deadlines.
Completed applications will be scheduled for review at the next available meeting, as long as space is available (six projects per meeting).
Applications submitted on time but not making the cut will be scheduled to the next available meeting in the order they were received. The
Preservation Commission meets on the third Tuesday of each month [see schedule on page (v) below]. Meeting dates are subject to change.
Applicants are asked to present at the scheduled meeting to the Preservation Commission a brief overview of the project.
Application for
Preservation Review of
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
Richard and Pam Burrill 1317 Rosalie St.
Evanston IL 60201 tandem524@yahoo.com847-491-6208
X
X
Albert J. Wagner & Son LLC 2510 Rte, 176, Suite B
Crystal Lake IL 60014 815-459-1287 815-459-1952
x
1317 Rosalie St. Evanston, IL 60201
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 2 of 4
Section B: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
1) In addition to the required site plans, drawings, and photos, briefly describe the proposed activity
and reason for obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. Attach a separate sheet if necessary, and
refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance.
2) Checklist (Check all that apply and attach any additional information)
Type of Exterior Activity
Location / Details
Visible from Public
Way (e.g. Streets
and Alleys)?
Construction Residential Other: Yes No
Demolition Partial Total
Yes No
Alteration Restoration
Addition Landscaping
Front Side Rear
Yes No
Garage: New Replacement
Rehabilitation
Front Side Rear Yes No
Windows Storm Windows
Doors Storm Doors
New Replacement Restoration
Style/Materials:
Yes No
Roof: New Re-roof Front Side Rear Yes No
Fence / Gate: New
Replacement
Front Side Rear Yes No
Siding: New Replacement Front Side Rear
Material:
Yes No
Sign Awning New Replacement Restoration
Material:
Yes No
Air Conditioning Unit New Replacement Yes No
Relocation New Address for Relocation:
X x
Existing asphalt shingles are not repairable and have outlived life span.
x
x
x
x xxxx
x x x
Removal of existing asphalt shingle roof. Replace roof with new 24g prefinished
metal shingle roof.
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 3 of 4
3) Checklist for Exterior Materials—Check all that apply.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Façades/Front Porch &
Rear Porch Material Flashing Material Fences
Wood Frame Copper Wood
Stone Sheet Metal Wrought Iron
Brick Other: _______________ Aluminum
Stucco Other:_______________
Synthetic Stucco Fascias, Soffits, Height:______________
Wood Siding Rakeboards, Trim Length:______________
Aluminum Siding Wood Terraces, Patios, Decks
Vinyl Siding Metal Wood
Shingle, Material: ______ Synthetic Material, Type: Stone
____________________ ____________________ Brick Pavers
Other: _______________ Other: _______________ Concrete Pavers
Roofing Material Poured Concrete
Wood Shingles Door Material Other: _______________
Wood Shakes Wood
Slate Metal Driveway Material
Clay Tile Clad Asphalt
Asphalt Shingles Other: _______________ Poured Concrete
Metal Sheet Brick Pavers
Other: _______________ Window Type Concrete Pavers
Double Hung Crushed Stone
Chimney Material Casement Other: _______________
Brick Other: _______________
Stone
Add Other Materials/Alterations
Not Listed Here (Explain and
Attach Information As Needed):
Stucco Window Material
Other: _______________ Wood
Aluminum
Gutters/Downspouts Steel
Copper Other: _______________ Air Conditioning Unit
Aluminum
Galvanized Sheet Muntins
Other:_______________ Not existing
True divided lights
Simulated divided lights
4) Applicant’s Signature: ____________________________________
Print Name:
Date:
Proceed to Section C if you are requesting a zoning or fence variation and/or s special use. Refer to the
Supplemental Information for guidance [page (i) below]. For Planned Development refer to Supplemental
Information [page (i) below].
11/15/16
George Rudder
George Rudder
x
x
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 1 of 4
Section A. Required Information (Print) * Refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance [page ‘i” fifth below].
1) Property Address:
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Application Number:
2) Owner’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
3) Architect’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
4) Contractor’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
5) Landmark: Yes No * Refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance on page (i) (fifth page below).
6) Within Local Historic District: Yes No;
If yes, Lakeshore Ridge Northeast Evanston Apartment Thematic Resources
7) Refer to the completed Zoning Analysis and check as applicable if project requires:
Major Zoning Variance; Minor Zoning Variance; Fence Variance If one or more is checked, then
fill out Sections B and C (next 2 pages). If project does not require any Zoning Variance or Fence
Variance or Special Use Complete section B only.
Check if your project requires: Special Use Planned Development Refer to Supplemental
Information on page (i) below.
Binding Review of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) &
Advisory Review of Zoning/Fence Variations, Special Uses, and Planned Developments
Thank you for submitting your COA application for Preservation Review. This application is required for exterior work affecting Evanston
landmarks and properties within local Evanston historic districts when a permit is required and when visible from the public way. To process your
application, submit one (1) hard copy of the fully completed application and attachments including: plat of survey, site plan, floor plans, elevation
drawings of the existing and proposed, 3D drawings of the proposed alteration/addition/construction (not to exceed 11” x 17” paper size); and
one (1) digital copy in PDF format of the same by 5pm on the last Tuesday of the month, or no less than 15 business days before the next
scheduled Preservation Commission meeting. All required materials must be to scale with dimensions, and in context with the principal structure
and immediate/adjacent structures on the same street block. The submission of the completed COA 15 business days prior to the next
scheduled meeting date allows the City staff’s review of the application and provide staff feedback to the applicant in the completeness of the
COA application. Incomplete applications will not be processed. Refer to the Supplemental Information, page (i) below.
Applications can be submitted in person, by regular mail, electronically via email or in a flash drive to the Preservation Coordinator, City of
Evanston, Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Division, Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 3201,
Evanston, Illinois 60201.
For new construction, additions, major alterations, and demolition, applicants must submit to this office electronically via email, or a flash
drive of the current and updated list of all names and mailing addresses of property owners within 250 feet of the subject property (in Excel
format). The updated list must be submitted before or no later than the submission of the COA deadline. City staff provides a preliminary list in
Excel to the applicant. Zoning Analysis must be completed by the City of Evanston’s Zoning staff before or by no later than the submission
deadline of the completed COA application. Zoning staff requires at least 10 business days to complete a zoning analysis. Applicants must give
themselves enough time to request a zoning analysis to meet deadlines.
Completed applications will be scheduled for review at the next available meeting, as long as space is available (six projects per meeting).
Applications submitted on time but not making the cut will be scheduled to the next available meeting in the order they were received. The
Preservation Commission meets on the third Tuesday of each month [see schedule on page (v) below]. Meeting dates are subject to change.
Applicants are asked to present at the scheduled meeting to the Preservation Commission a brief overview of the project.
Application for
Preservation Review of
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
Richard and Pam Burrill 1317 Rosalie St.
Evanston IL 60201 tandem524@yahoo.com847-491-6208
X
X
Albert J. Wagner & Son LLC 2510 Rte, 176, Suite B
Crystal Lake IL 60014 815-459-1287 815-459-1952
x
1317 Rosalie St. Evanston, IL 60201
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 2 of 4
Section B: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
1) In addition to the required site plans, drawings, and photos, briefly describe the proposed activity
and reason for obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. Attach a separate sheet if necessary, and
refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance.
2) Checklist (Check all that apply and attach any additional information)
Type of Exterior Activity
Location / Details
Visible from Public
Way (e.g. Streets
and Alleys)?
Construction Residential Other: Yes No
Demolition Partial Total
Yes No
Alteration Restoration
Addition Landscaping
Front Side Rear
Yes No
Garage: New Replacement
Rehabilitation
Front Side Rear Yes No
Windows Storm Windows
Doors Storm Doors
New Replacement Restoration
Style/Materials:
Yes No
Roof: New Re-roof Front Side Rear Yes No
Fence / Gate: New
Replacement
Front Side Rear Yes No
Siding: New Replacement Front Side Rear
Material:
Yes No
Sign Awning New Replacement Restoration
Material:
Yes No
Air Conditioning Unit New Replacement Yes No
Relocation New Address for Relocation:
X x
Existing asphalt shingles are not repairable and have outlived life span.
x
x
x
x xxxx
x x x
Removal of existing asphalt shingle roof. Replace roof with lifetime architectual
asphalt shingle roof.
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 3 of 4
3) Checklist for Exterior Materials—Check all that apply.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Façades/Front Porch &
Rear Porch Material Flashing Material Fences
Wood Frame Copper Wood
Stone Sheet Metal Wrought Iron
Brick Other: _______________ Aluminum
Stucco Other:_______________
Synthetic Stucco Fascias, Soffits, Height:______________
Wood Siding Rakeboards, Trim Length:______________
Aluminum Siding Wood Terraces, Patios, Decks
Vinyl Siding Metal Wood
Shingle, Material: ______ Synthetic Material, Type: Stone
____________________ ____________________ Brick Pavers
Other: _______________ Other: _______________ Concrete Pavers
Roofing Material Poured Concrete
Wood Shingles Door Material Other: _______________
Wood Shakes Wood
Slate Metal Driveway Material
Clay Tile Clad Asphalt
Asphalt Shingles Other: _______________ Poured Concrete
Metal Sheet Brick Pavers
Other: _______________ Window Type Concrete Pavers
Double Hung Crushed Stone
Chimney Material Casement Other: _______________
Brick Other: _______________
Stone
Add Other Materials/Alterations
Not Listed Here (Explain and
Attach Information As Needed):
Stucco Window Material
Other: _______________ Wood
Aluminum
Gutters/Downspouts Steel
Copper Other: _______________ Air Conditioning Unit
Aluminum
Galvanized Sheet Muntins
Other:_______________ Not existing
True divided lights
Simulated divided lights
4) Applicant’s Signature: ____________________________________
Print Name:
Date:
Proceed to Section C if you are requesting a zoning or fence variation and/or s special use. Refer to the
Supplemental Information for guidance [page (i) below]. For Planned Development refer to Supplemental
Information [page (i) below].
11/15/16
George Rudder
George Rudder
x
x
3. NEW BUSINESS
$. 1620 Judson Av. (LSHD) – Paul Janicki, applicant. Coach house:
New exterior materials-cedar shingles on all elevations and brick on
West and South elevations; new garage door and masonry opening
on West elevation; new windows throughout to replace existing
damaged windows; New entry door and concrete stoop/stairs on
East elevation and new air conditioning unit on concrete pad.
Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-7, 9 and 10.
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 1 of 4
Section A. Required Information (Print) * Refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance [page ‘i” fifth below].
1) Property Address:
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Application Number:
2) Owner’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
3) Architect’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
4) Contractor’s Name:
Address:
City:
State: Zip: Phone: Email/Fax:
5) Landmark: Yes No * Refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance on page (i) (fifth page below).
6) Within Local Historic District: Yes No;
If yes, Lakeshore Ridge Northeast Evanston Apartment Thematic Resources
7) Refer to the completed Zoning Analysis and check as applicable if project requires:
Major Zoning Variance; Minor Zoning Variance; Fence Variance If one or more is checked, then
fill out Sections B and C (next 2 pages). If project does not require any Zoning Variance or Fence
Variance or Special Use Complete section B only.
Check if your project requires: Special Use Planned Development Refer to Supplemental
Information on page (i) below.
Binding Review of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) &
Advisory Review of Zoning/Fence Variations, Special Uses, and Planned Developments
Thank you for submitting your COA application for Preservation Review. This application is required for exterior work affecting Evanston
landmarks and properties within local Evanston historic districts when a permit is required and when visible from the public way. To process your
application, submit one (1) hard copy of the fully completed application and attachments including: plat of survey, site plan, floor plans, elevation
drawings of the existing and proposed, 3D drawings of the proposed alteration/addition/construction (not to exceed 11” x 17” paper size); and
one (1) digital copy in PDF format of the same by 5pm on the last Tuesday of the month, or no less than 15 business days before the next
scheduled Preservation Commission meeting. All required materials must be to scale with dimensions, and in context with the principal structure
and immediate/adjacent structures on the same street block. The submission of the completed COA 15 business days prior to the next
scheduled meeting date allows the City staff’s review of the application and provide staff feedback to the applicant in the completeness of the
COA application. Incomplete applications will not be processed. Refer to the Supplemental Information, page (i) below.
Applications can be submitted in person, by regular mail, electronically via email or in a flash drive to the Preservation Coordinator, City of
Evanston, Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Division, Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 3201,
Evanston, Illinois 60201.
For new construction, additions, major alterations, and demolition, applicants must submit to this office electronically via email, or a flash
drive of the current and updated list of all names and mailing addresses of property owners within 250 feet of the subject property (in Excel
format). The updated list must be submitted before or no later than the submission of the COA deadline. City staff provides a preliminary list in
Excel to the applicant. Zoning Analysis must be completed by the City of Evanston’s Zoning staff before or by no later than the submission
deadline of the completed COA application. Zoning staff requires at least 10 business days to complete a zoning analysis. Applicants must give
themselves enough time to request a zoning analysis to meet deadlines.
Completed applications will be scheduled for review at the next available meeting, as long as space is available (six projects per meeting).
Applications submitted on time but not making the cut will be scheduled to the next available meeting in the order they were received. The
Preservation Commission meets on the third Tuesday of each month [see schedule on page (v) below]. Meeting dates are subject to change.
Applicants are asked to present at the scheduled meeting to the Preservation Commission a brief overview of the project.
For more information call: Carlos Ruiz at (847) 448-8687 or email: cruiz@cityofevanston.org
Application for
Preservation Review of
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 2 of 4
Section B: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
1) In addition to the required site plans, drawings, and photos, briefly describe the proposed activity
and reason for obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. Attach a separate sheet if necessary, and
refer to the Supplemental Information for guidance.
2) Checklist (Check all that apply and attach any additional information)
Type of Exterior Activity
Location / Details
Visible from Public
Way (e.g. Streets
and Alleys)?
Construction Residential Other: Yes No
Demolition Partial Total
Yes No
Alteration Restoration
Addition Landscaping
Front Side Rear
Yes No
Garage: New Replacement
Rehabilitation
Front Side Rear Yes No
Windows Storm Windows
Doors Storm Doors
New Replacement Restoration
Style/Materials:
Yes No
Roof: New Re-roof Front Side Rear Yes No
Fence / Gate: New
Replacement
Front Side Rear Yes No
Siding: New Replacement Front Side Rear
Material:
Yes No
Sign Awning New Replacement Restoration
Material:
Yes No
Air Conditioning Unit New Replacement Yes No
Relocation New Address for Relocation:
Adopted October 19, 2004 Page 3 of 4
3) Checklist for Exterior Materials—Check all that apply.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Façades/Front Porch &
Rear Porch Material Flashing Material Fences
Wood Frame Copper Wood
Stone Sheet Metal Wrought Iron
Brick Other: _______________ Aluminum
Stucco Other:_______________
Synthetic Stucco Fascias, Soffits, Height:______________
Wood Siding Rakeboards, Trim Length:______________
Aluminum Siding Wood Terraces, Patios, Decks
Vinyl Siding Metal Wood
Shingle, Material: ______ Synthetic Material, Type: Stone
____________________ ____________________ Brick Pavers
Other: _______________ Other: _______________ Concrete Pavers
Roofing Material Poured Concrete
Wood Shingles Door Material Other: _______________
Wood Shakes Wood
Slate Metal Driveway Material
Clay Tile Clad Asphalt
Asphalt Shingles Other: _______________ Poured Concrete
Metal Sheet Brick Pavers
Other: _______________ Window Type Concrete Pavers
Double Hung Crushed Stone
Chimney Material Casement Other: _______________
Brick Other: _______________
Stone
Add Other Materials/Alterations
Not Listed Here (Explain and
Attach Information As Needed):
Stucco Window Material
Other: _______________ Wood
Aluminum
Gutters/Downspouts Steel
Copper Other: _______________ Air Conditioning Unit
Aluminum
Galvanized Sheet Muntins
Other:_______________ Not existing
True divided lights
Simulated divided lights
4) Applicant’s Signature: ____________________________________
Print Name:
Date:
Length:_____________
Proceed to Section C if you are requesting a zoning or fence variation and/or s special use. Refer to the
Supplemental Information for guidance [page (i) below]. For Planned Development refer to Supplemental
Information [page (i) below].
C O A C H H O U S E R E N O V A T I O N
1 6 2 0 J U D S O N A V E N U E
E V A N S T O N, I L 6 0 2 0 1
A R C H I T E C T S
1 7 1 8 S h e r m a n A v e n u e E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s 6 0 2 0 1
P A U L J A N I C K I
HP-1
N O V. 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
GARAGE
A1
GARAGE
STAIRS
MECH.CL.
A2
A3
A4
C O A C H H O U S E R E N O V A T I O N
1 6 2 0 J U D S O N A V E N U E
E V A N S T O N, I L 6 0 2 0 1
A R C H I T E C T S
1 7 1 8 S h e r m a n A v e n u e E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s 6 0 2 0 1
P A U L J A N I C K I
HP-2
N O V. 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
BEDROOM
BEDROOM LIVING RM.
KITCHEN
BATH
BEDROOM
HALL LIVING RM.
COATS
LAUNDRY
KITCHEN
BATH
D1 D2
C5
C6
C7
B1
C1
C2
C3
C4
C O A C H H O U S E R E N O V A T I O N
1 6 2 0 J U D S O N A V E N U E
E V A N S T O N, I L 6 0 2 0 1
A R C H I T E C T S
1 7 1 8 S h e r m a n A v e n u e E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s 6 0 2 0 1
P A U L J A N I C K I
HP-3
N O V. 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
D2
A2 A1
D1 C4 C3 C2 C1 B1
C O A C H H O U S E R E N O V A T I O N
1 6 2 0 J U D S O N A V E N U E
E V A N S T O N, I L 6 0 2 0 1
A R C H I T E C T S
1 7 1 8 S h e r m a n A v e n u e E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s 6 0 2 0 1
P A U L J A N I C K I
HP-4
N O V. 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
C7
A4 A3
C6 C5B1
C O A C H H O U S E R E N O V A T I O N
1 6 2 0 J U D S O N A V E N U E
E V A N S T O N, I L 6 0 2 0 1
A R C H I T E C T S
1 7 1 8 S h e r m a n A v e n u e E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s 6 0 2 0 1
P A U L J A N I C K I
HP-5
N O V. 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
C O A C H H O U S E R E N O V A T I O N
1 6 2 0 J U D S O N A V E N U E
E V A N S T O N, I L 6 0 2 0 1
A R C H I T E C T S
1 7 1 8 S h e r m a n A v e n u e E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s 6 0 2 0 1
P A U L J A N I C K I
HP-6
N O V. 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
C O A C H H O U S E R E N O V A T I O N
1 6 2 0 J U D S O N A V E N U E
E V A N S T O N, I L 6 0 2 0 1
A R C H I T E C T S
1 7 1 8 S h e r m a n A v e n u e E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s 6 0 2 0 1
P A U L J A N I C K I
HP-7
N O V. 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
C5A3
C O A C H H O U S E R E N O V A T I O N
1 6 2 0 J U D S O N A V E N U E
E V A N S T O N, I L 6 0 2 0 1
A R C H I T E C T S
1 7 1 8 S h e r m a n A v e n u e E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s 6 0 2 0 1
P A U L J A N I C K I
HP-8
N O V. 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
3. NEW BUSINESS
B. 939 Hinman Av. (LSHD) – Garry Shumaker, Applicant. Part A: Low
slope organ loft roof, replace slate with white 2-ply Modified bitumen
roofing, and replace gutters and downspouts with copper with G+ D.
Part C: Remove lantern. Fill in with 2x10 wood framing, insulate and
sheath flush with ¾” APA roof sheathing. Replace existing shingle
roof with new light grey fiberglass composition shingles over roofing
felt. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-7, 9 and 10; [Demolition] 1-
5.
3. NEW BUSINESS
C. 726 Sheridan Rd. (L) – Garry Shumaker, applicant. Replace
existing gable end siding, resurface existing open porch, construct
new garden wall, 4’-0” fence as screen wall and retaining wall at
rear of house. Replace existing aluminum sliding door w/lift/slide
door (cladding to match). Construct rear yard trellis and covered
entry. Applicable standards: Alteration [1-7, 9, and 10];
[Construction] 1, 7, 8,-10, and 12-16.
2-STORY RESIDENCE
#726
173.38'
175.14'
50
.
2
7
'
50
.
1
1
'
Frame Garage
2-STORY RESIDENCE
#726
173.38'
175.14'
50
.
2
7
'
50
.
1
1
'
FRAME GARAGE
EXISTING
EXISTING
A0
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
N
1
SITE PLAN
ED
G
E
R
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
72
6
S
h
e
r
i
d
a
n
R
d
.
E
v
a
n
s
t
o
n
,
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
6
0
2
0
2
As Noted 10.11.16
Scale:Date:
705 Washington Street
Evanston, Illinois
p. 917.817.3780
e. garry.shumaker@gmail.com
Shumaker Design
Associates, LLC.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
N
2
A0.1
COVER SHEET
As Noted 11.3.15
Scale:Date:
705 Washington Street
Evanston, Illinois
p. 917.817.3780
e. garry.shumaker@gmail.com
Shumaker Design
Associates, LLC.
EXISTING ENTRY AT NORTH FACADE
E
D
G
E
R
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
72
6
S
h
e
r
i
d
a
n
R
d
.
E
v
a
n
s
t
o
n
,
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
6
0
2
0
2
EXISTING EAST FACADE~ VIEW FROM FRONT YARD
EXISTING WEST FACADE~ VIEW FROM REAR YARDEXISTING WEST FACADE~ VIEW FROM REAR YARD SOUTH WEST
Family Room
Laundry
Rm.
Bedroom #1
Mechanical
Bath #1
Stair Hall
Entry
Porch
D1
Demolition Plan
E
D
G
E
R
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
72
6
S
h
e
r
i
d
a
n
R
d
.
E
v
a
n
s
t
o
n
,
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
6
0
2
0
2
As Noted 10.11.16
Scale:Date:
705 Washington Street
Evanston, Illinois
p. 917.817.3780
e. garry.shumaker@gmail.com
Shumaker Design
Associates, LLC.
Demolition Basement Plan
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1
Family Room
Laundry
Rm.
Exercise Room
Mechanical
Bath #1
Stair Hall
Entry
Porch
Stair
Hall
A1
Proposed Plan
E
D
G
E
R
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
72
6
F
o
r
e
s
t
A
v
e
.
E
v
a
n
s
t
o
n
,
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
6
0
2
0
2
As Noted 10.11.16
Scale:Date:
705 Washington Street
Evanston, Illinois
p. 917.817.3780
e. garry.shumaker@gmail.com
Shumaker Design
Associates, LLC.
Proposed Basement Plan
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1
A2PROPOSED ~ NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1B
EXIST. / PROP.
NORTH
EXT.ELEVATON
E
D
G
E
R
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
72
6
S
h
e
r
i
d
a
n
R
d
E
v
a
n
s
t
o
n
,
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
6
0
2
0
2
As Noted 10.11.16
Scale:Date:
705 Washington Street
Evanston, Illinois
p. 917.817.3780
e. garry.shumaker@gmail.com
Shumaker Design
Associates, LLC.
EXISTING ~ NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1A
A3
EXIST. / PROP.
EAST/WEST EXT.
ELEVATONS
E
D
G
E
R
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
72
6
S
h
e
r
i
d
a
n
R
d
.
E
v
a
n
s
t
o
n
,
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
6
0
2
0
2
As Noted 10.11.16
Scale:Date:
705 Washington Street
Evanston, Illinois
p. 917.817.3780
garry@
shumakerdesignassociates.com
Shumaker Design
Associates, LLC.
EXISTING ~ EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2A
PROPOSED ~ EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2B
A4
EXISTING ~ NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3A
EXIST. / PROP.
EAST/WEST EXT.
ELEVATONS
E
D
G
E
R
T
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
72
6
S
h
e
r
i
d
a
n
R
d
.
E
v
a
n
s
t
o
n
,
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
6
0
2
0
2
As Noted 10.11.16
Scale:Date:
705 Washington Street
Evanston, Illinois
p. 917.817.3780
garry@
shumakerdesignassociates.com
Shumaker Design
Associates, LLC.
PROPOSED ~ NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3B PROPOSED ~ WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4B
EXISTING ~ WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4A
3. NEW BUSINESS
D. 1045 Sherman Av. (L) – Greg Borkowski, applicant. Raising the
existing gable portion at the south side of the residence to allow for an
increase of habitable area at the second floor level. Approved
previously on 9/20/2011. Applicable standards: [Construction] 1- 5, 7-10,
12, 14 and 15; [Demolition] 1-5.
1045 Sherman Avenue
Tax Parc els
October 25, 2016
This map is not a plat of surv ey. This map is prov ided "as is" without warranties of any kind. S ee www.c ityofevanston.org/mapdisclaimers .ht ml for m or e inform ation.
0 0.0 06 0.0 120.0 03 mi
0 0.0 1 0.0 20.0 05 km
1:3 76
Copy right 2016 City of Ev anston
1045 Sherman Avenue
(Sherman Street view)
1045 Sherman Avenue
(Greenleaf Street view – includes backyard)
1045 Sherman Avenue
(Greenleaf Street view – includes backyard)
1043 Sherman Avenue (Neighboring house)
Shows 2nd floor elevation matching proposed work on
1045 Sherman
APPROVED
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
MEETING MINUTES
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2200
Members Present: Anne McGuire, Amy Riseborough, Suzanne Farrand, Garry
Shumaker, Kris Hartzell, Jon Willarson, and Jack Weiss
Members Absent: Jon Pohl, Scott Utter, Dian Keehan, and Andres Lombana
Staff Present: Carlos Ruiz
Presiding Member: Garry Shumaker, Chair
Declaration of Quorum
With a quorum present, Chairman Shumaker called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of March 15, 2011
This item was deferred until later in the meeting. It was then moved (S. Farrand) and
seconded (A. Riseborough) the approval of the March 15, 2011 minutes as submitted.
The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
No Committee reports.
STAFF REPORTS
A. Sheridan Road intersections of Chicago Avenue, Foster Street (NEHD), Noyes
Street, Lincoln Street and Central Street (NEHD Federal) - New traffic signals
Paul Schneider, City Engineer and Sat Nagar of Public Works presented the project.
This is an update of 2008 Sheridan Road Corridor Project, Phase 1 Study, from
South Boulevard to Ridge Avenue. Construction on the south end and middle
portion has been completed. The project will continue in 2012 with new traffic
signals along the Northwestern University portion. The last portion from Chicago
Avenue to Ridge Avenue will be completed in 2013.
P. Schneider said there will be five traffic signals along Sheridan and Chicago to
Central at the intersections. The traffic signals are 80 percent funded by the 2009
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant. The project replaces existing
post top signals with new post top signals (interconnected). There is a new signal
south of Garrett Place also interconnected with the rest of the system. Plans are
Page 1 of 10
Preservation Commission
APPROVED
being prepared for submission to IDOT. The signals are similar to the post tops on
Ridge Avenue. The new signals are equipped with microwave detection. The
equipment is from Eagle manufacture.
It was motioned (A. Riseborough) and seconded (K. Hartzell) to recommend City
Council the traffic signals project as presented by City staff. The motion passed.
Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. 1045 Sherman Avenue (L) - Second story addition over existing one-story earlier
addition on the west and south elevations. [Construction]
Susan Randhava, owner presented the project. Ms. Randhava said that her
architect was not present. The Commission had asked at the last meeting elevation
drawings showing: 1) no façade [pediment] on the top and 2) a façade [pediment] on
the top of the proposed addition.
The addition extends out 5 feet and aligns with the porch. Option A shows the
facades, the garage, the fence matching the front with posts instead of rails in dog
ear style. The Commission wanted the fence match the front porch instead.
Ms Randhava preferred Option A, a façade [with the pediment] because it matches
the original house. G. Shumaker said one of the Commission’s concerns was the
height of the addition. Option A appears to be the same as the previous version.
Ms. Randhava said Option A draws a line from the porch. The line goes all around
the side and back (a trim board 6” wide) breaking up the verticality. Both sets of
drawings show the horizontal line that goes all the way around. The original owner
was a wood worker. He used his house to show how the façade on the first floor
porch matched the other part of the first floor porch. Inside, none of the wood work
matches.
Anne McGuire said the Commission had asked an elevation drawing where the
height of the addition was pushed down. The current drawings do not show that. S.
Randhava said to move from one part of the house to the other requires the 8’
ceiling height. She said the earlier drawing was incorrect. The floor height was 10’-
4” not 10’-6”.
Anne McGuire said she left the last meeting expecting that Ms. Randhava will come
back with a drawing showing the height of the addition being pushed down, while still
being an adequate height to come across. She was not convinced that 10’ height
was necessary. The Commission was okay keeping the saddle. Also, the line
between the ridge and the tower could be removed. S. Randhava her architect
removed it in most of them, but not all them.
Page 2 of 10
Preservation Commission
APPROVED
A. McGuire said the gable is too steep. The Commission is concerned with these
alterations, while needing adequate space they do detract from the overall gable.
There might be a way to create the space, but minimize the impact.
Garry Shumaker said the Commission discussed continuing the rod fence all the
way around at 4’ in height. S. Randhava said the height of the proposed fence is 6’
in the back and keeping the front at 4’ in height. She referred to photos of corner lot
fences in the neighborhood that are 6’ high such as: Nichols [School], the corner of
Greenleaf and Elmwood shows a 6’ fence, the side of Sherman and Greenleaf is 6’,
the side fence at Sherman and Greenleaf is 6’ and at the corner of Crain and
Sherman the fence is 5’ and it goes all the way around.
Anne McGuire said the previous drawings show a 3’ high fence on the site plan and
on the elevation. S. Randhava referred to her written notes: two options of the south
addition, delete front fence, 6’ fence to be 4’ fence?, make it as open as possible
(meaning the rods rather than the dog ears), return on the garage to match the
house, center the windows in the back, existing non-conforming setback to retain all
the way around.
Anne McGuire asked about the photos and the garden on the alley. S. Randhava
said the neighbor (702-708 Greenleaf) has a 2’ x 2’ garden in the alley, and her
objection is the garage and the fence at the alley, even though S. Randhava gave 5’
back to the alley, so there was room to turn around. Garry Shumaker said a property
line dispute is not the purview of the Commission. G. Shumaker asked if S.
Randhava notified the neighbors. S. Randhava said yes. She did not receive
feedback from the neighbors. She said at the last meeting the neighbor at 702-708
Greenleaf did object the building of the garage and the fence.
S. Randhava said the railing on the front porch will not change. In the 1990s the then
owner torn down the front porch. A wire fence was shown on the original drawings.
In the 1920s it had an open rail.
Garry Shumaker summarized the application as follows: First, restore the railing on
the front porch with steel pickets instead of wood pickets, add a second story above
the existing one-story addition - copying the details at the top, at the previous height
to match the existing ridge and apply a band of trim along the side of that, and on
the rear of the house install one new window on the second floor and relocate the
kitchen windows to align with the second story. On the south elevation, adding new
windows above and repairing the existing windows on the first floor.
Second, the fence which is now a consistent 4’ high fence on the front and 6’ high
fence on the side and rear yard with wood rail and metal pickets (the 6’ high fence
from the end of the rear porch), and the new garage in the back. S. Randhava
incorporated the changes to the garage as noted on the April meeting. C. Ruiz said
the former Zoning Administrator enforced corner lot fences to be setback 15’ [at the
street side] and not higher than 4’.
Page 3 of 10
Preservation Commission
APPROVED
Third, the proposed alterations to the house. G. Shumaker said there are some
discrepancies on the drawings that make him a little nervous. This house is an
important example of its style and craftsmanship. A lot of the details were not
addressed appropriately and to the satisfaction of some of the Commissioners, i.e.
the eaves overhang doesn’t appear to be correct and coordinated. The detail on the
front as well. He was still concerned with the height of the addition. He was not
sure if this was a proper alteration to the house. S. Randhava said they cut off the
extension of the garage with a half round gutter as requested. G. Shumaker said S.
Utter had suggested the details on the garage had a return on the fascia, and that
return on the fascia be eliminated, and the overhang and the gutter detail match the
house. The architect cut the whole eave off instead of cutting off the return, a
misunderstanding. G. Shumaker said to keep the eave but not the return.
The Commission considered taking action on the fence, the garage and the house.
The Commission asked for an accurate and complete set of drawings for the house
with four elevations with the changes executed throughout. The Commission’s
inclination is that the height of the new addition is still too high; the architect needs to
figure out a way to get the height lower. If it helps to explain the room height with a
section drawing so that the exterior façade(s) are clear to the Commission, if there is
a need to express the head room issue, provide a section. Also, update the
elevations for the garage and the house.
It was moved (S. Farrand) and seconded (J. Weiss) to make a recommendation [to
Zoning staff] regarding the property at 1045 Sherman Avenue, regarding variations
required for the fence, specifically installing a 6’ high fence on the north property line
and a 4’ high front yard fence on the west property line, and a portion of the north
property line, and a 6’ high privacy fence on the east property line, this would
required a fence variation to construct the fence as requested by the applicant. The
design as presented, the 4’ high fence has the ½” iron rods (spaced 6”). The motion
passed. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2024 Orrington Avenue (NEHD) – Restore windows on front elevation and selected
windows on north and south elevations. Replace selected windows on south and
north elevation. Install new wood storm windows.
Louise Keeley, owner, presented the project. Four double hung windows on the
front elevation to be restored and install Spencer wood storm windows. Two picture
windows one original storm window side elevation n/s several windows to be
replaced with Marvin Ultimate window one with divide lights, three windows with a
latch to remain add two storms, the picture windows will also have storm windows
installed. All the new storm windows are all wood to be painted. On the sides seven
windows will be replaced and without storm windows.
Page 4 of 10
Preservation Commission
APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES
PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2200
Members Present: Suzanne Farrand, Kris Hartzell, Thomas Hagensick, Dian Keehan,
Andres Lombana, Anne McGuire, Amy Riseborough, Garry
Shumaker, Scott Utter, and Jack Weiss
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Carlos Ruiz
Presiding Member: Garry Shumaker, Chair
DECLARATION OF QUORUM
With a quorum present, Chairman Shumaker called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES - May 17, 2011
This item was deferred until later in the meeting. It was then moved (J. Weiss) and
seconded (A. McGuire) the approval of the May 17, 2011 minutes as submitted. The
motion passed. Vote: 10 ayes, 0 nays.
UNFINISHED 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 27’ 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. [Construction/Zoning
Variance]
Susan Randhava, owner and Jeffery Heaney, architect presented the project. J.
Heaney said he lowered the height of the addition by 2.5’ from the original proposal,
re-did the eaves for the garage.
The Review and Technical Assistance Committee recommended standards for
review of construction 1-12 and 14-16 as applicable.
It was moved (A. McGuire) and seconded (J. Weiss) to approve the Certificate of
Appropriateness for 1045 Sherman Avenue, for the addition to the house and the
garage in that, standards for review of construction 1-12 and 14-16 have been met.
The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 2 nays.
Page 1 of 4
Preservation Commission
3. NEW BUSINESS
E. 2126 Orrington Av. (NEHD) – John Issa, Replace the existing non-
historic, 2-story addition on east facing front façade with an open,
wrap-around porch; replace the rear deck and garage, and add a 3-
season porch to the SW corner of the house. Applicable standards:
[Construction] 1- 5, 7, 8, 10 - 13, and 16.
APPLICATION FOR PRESERVATION REVIEW
OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
SUBMITTED - 11/04/2016
BARNEY RESIDENCE
2126 Orrington Ave.,
Evanston, IL 60201
1700 W. Hubbard St.,
Chicago, IL 60622
www.perimeterarchitects.com
office 773.525.0788
AV
E
N
U
E
As
p
h
a
l
t
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
W
a
l
k
...OF...Lot 7 in GAFFIELD'S SUBDIVISION of the East 512 feet of the South half of the
Southwest quarter of Section 7, Township 41 North, Range 14, East of the Third PrincipalMeridian, in Cook County, Illinois.
Commonly Known as:2126 Orrington Avenue, Evanston, Illinois.
42439-UAROLegal:CAD:ART
ARTInstr.:
September 27, 2016DATED:
File No.
State of Illinois }County of Cook } SS
WE, North Shore Survey, Ltd., do hereby certify that we have surveyed the propertyas described in the above caption in accordance with official records and/or previoussurveys and that the plat hereon drawn is a correct representation of said survey.
______________________________
Professional ILLINOIS LAND SURVEYOR
License No. 35-2232 Exp. 11-30-2016
N
North Shore Survey,Ltd.
778 Frontage Road #110 -Northfield,Illinois 60093
(847)446-6510 NSSURVEY@sbcglobal.netProfessional Design Firm No. 184.006982
W E
SCALE:1"=16 '
9-27-16
Bond & PDF9-30-16
Mortgage / Sale
Central Law GroupPreparedfor:_______________________
Purpose:___________________________
Field Date:__________________________
Delivery Date:______________________
Formats:____________________________
Information hereon is not sufficient nor guaranteedfor new construction, unless property corners noted.Distances and angles may not be assumed by scaling.Distances noted hereon are in feet and decimals.Building Lines & Easements per title, if provided.Compare all points on ground prior to construction.
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONFORMS TO THE CURRENTILLINOIS MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
AL
L
E
Y
As
p
h
a
l
t
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
PU
B
L
I
C
Frame
Garage
2-1 2 Story
and Basement
Frame Residence
No. 2126
North Line of SIMPSON STREET
Lot7
211.48
50
.
0
211.42
50
.
0
20.0
5.
0
6
6.08 5.87
59.03
50.01
1.81
89°46'
5.335.48
22.17
30
.
2
0
22.17
30
.
1
9
16.61
7.29 6.12
17.710.95
4.26 4.26 4.28 4.28
1.
1
9
6.
2
1
3.58
6.42
15
.
2
4
11.180.
2
2
15.57
2.
0
7
42.96
27
.
4
9
30
0
.
0
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
Ap
r
o
n
Wo
o
d
D
e
c
k
Raised
WoodDeck
St
o
r
a
g
e
Bi
n
s
Basement Entry
Open
Porch
AsphaltDriveway
Concrete Approach
Brick Walk
Brick Walk
Concrete Walk
Concrete Walk
6 Ft. Wood Fence
6 Ft. Wood Stockade Fence
South Face of
Fence Post is 0.50 North
North Face of
Fence Post is 1.40 South
Meas.
Rec. = 211.0
Meas.
Rec. = 211.0
North Face of
Fence Post is 0.43 South
North Face of
Fence Post is 0.18 South
Wood Stockade Fence
Wood Stockade Fence
Service
Pole
FROM FRONT YARD
NORTH NEIGHBOR ON RIGHT
FROM FRONT YARD
SOUTH NEIGHBOR ON LEFT
FROM SIDE YARD
NORTH NEIGHBOR ON RIGHT
FROM SIDE YARD
SOUTH NEIGHBOR ON LEFT
FROM REAR YARD
NORTH NEIGHBOR ON LEFT
FROM REAR YARD
SOUTH NEIGHBOR ON RIGHT
2106 ORRINGTON AVE
GAMBREL ROOF W/ BAY WINDOW AND WRAP-AROUND PORCH
2112 ORRINGTON AVE
GAMBREL ROOF W/ BAY WINDOW AND WRAP-AROUND PORCH
TYPICAL EXISTING WINDOWTYPICAL EXISTING WINDOW DETAIL
TYPICAL EXISTING WINDOW DETAIL
EXISTING GROUND COVERAGE - 4,263 SF
PROPOSED GROUND COVERAGE - 4,227 SF
STORM & TRIM DETAILING TO
MATCH EXISTING WINDOWS
3. NEW BUSINESS
F. 2350 Orrington Av. (NEHD) – North Shore Builders, Inc., applicant.
Construction of single family dwelling with attached 2-car garage.
Applicable standards:1-13 and 16.