Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 16 2016 EPC Minutes Approve APPROVED Page 1 of 13 Preservation Commission MEETING MINUTES EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2404 Members Present: Elliott Dudnik, Julie Hacker, Ken Itle, Tim Schmitt, Jack Weiss, and Diane Williams. Members Absent: Robert Bady, Sally Riessen Hunt, Amy Riseborough, and Karl Vogel Staff Present: Damir Latinovic, Planning and Zoning Administrator Carlos D. Ruiz Preservation Coordinator Presiding Member: Diane Williams, Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM 2. PUBLIC HEARING – Application for Rescission of Landmark Designation A. 919 Edgemere Court (L/LSHD) – Harry Lowrance, applicant. Application for Rescission of landmark designation of 919 Edgemere Court. Judy and Harry Lowrance presented the application for rescission of landmark designation of the property at 919 Edgemere Court. H. Lowrance said he has lived at 919 Edgemere for 42 years and his wife Judy for 28 years. At no time during that period they ever made an application or were aware that their property was designated as a landmark. They became aware of its designation when attending a Preservation Commission meeting for the demolition and construction at 925 Edgemere. Harry Lowrance said upon reviewing the criteria for landmark designation and the changes that have occurred to the property at 919 Edgemere over the years, they believe that 919 Edgemere Court, no longer meets the criteria for designation of landmark status as set forth in section 2-8-4 Ordinance 12-O-94. H. Lowrance read the application for rescission citing several changes to the house thru the years, concluding that, because all those changes, the house no longer met the criteria for continuing being a designated landmark. APPROVED Page 2 of 13 Preservation Commission Diane Williams said removing the landmark designation on the property isn’t going to mitigate any review, because the property is also in the Lakeshore Historic District. H. Lowrance said he understood that. Jack Weiss asked what harm it is causing them to continue being a designated landmark. H. Lowrance said that the property next to them at 925 Edgemere totally diminishes their property. The landmark status becomes a stigma, because what is next to him. He thought that not being a landmark would make it easier to, for example, alter the front elevation, than altering the front of the landmark. Diane Williams said the same standards would apply. H. Lowrance asked is there a stricter test for a landmark property than a non- landmark for demolition? The answer is, no. Commissioners noted that this is a special house despite the changes made to the house, changes could be reversed, such as the doors, and windows, symmetry has not change, telescoping effect, double gables still there. Cross hatch details of the brick. The historic district has to do with context. Mary McWilliams, Associate member presented a statement written with Associate member Anne O. Earle. Noting that buildings change over time, what is relevant is that the designation of 919 Edgemere Court as an Evanston landmark with all of its changes, has withstood the challenge of time. Of eight identified Charles H. Thompson houses in the Lakeshore historic district, three were designated primary structures and four contributing structures and only one was non-contributing. Seven were designated Evanston landmarks as A5. 919 and 932 Edgemere Court received an additional designation of A4 (the combination of A4 and A5 criteria was the highest designation the Commission could assign to a building). The 2012 re- survey of the Lakeshore historic district, acknowledges all the alterations to 919 Edgemere Courted as noted by Mr. Lowrance, and yet confirms that 919 Edgemere Court is still a contributing building in the district. Mary McWilliams said she and A. O. Earle have the opinion that the changes to 919 Edgemere Court have not affected the critical design features that were the basis for the designation in 1978. Based on the evidence is their assessment that 919 Edgemere Court should remain an Evanston landmark. Based upon the discussion and information received at the meeting, H. Lowrance withdrew his application for rescission. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (E. Dudnik) to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: ayes, 0 nays. REGULAR MEETING 3. OLD BUSINESS APPROVED Page 3 of 13 Preservation Commission A. 321 Lake Street (LSHD) – Mike Hauser, applicant. Add second story master bedroom over existing one-story addition on the east side yard at rear of house. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1 – 5, 9 and 10; [Construction] 1 - 5, 7, 8, and 10 – 15. Graham Grady, attorney, said the Hammerschlags (at 311 Lake Street) had retained him as their attorney. G. Grady said they just received the plans last Friday and requested the Commission to continue the application until the March meeting. He said they will not hear the application with the same ear that they will hear it after they have the chance to digest and after compare it to the standards, to which the Commission will review it. He raised the question of whether Commissioners have had adequate opportunity to digest the revised plan, because it is a different building. The roof line is different; it is a taller and different shaped roof. They are not sure Commissioners had the chance to go to the site and look at it in view of the revised plan. Diane Williams, Chair, said most of the Commissioners reviewed the packet and have mostly visited the site, they are familiar with the property, and they had a hearing in December 2015. Damir Latinovic, Planning and Zoning Administrator said, per the Preservation Ordinance, the Preservation Commission has the right to continue the case, if the Commission feels there is additional information needed to continue the review; the Commission has the right to request the continuance, as it was the case in December 2015, when this item was heard. The public or neighbors are not entitled to a continuance per the Preservation Ordinance. In response to D. Williams question, D. Latinovic said the applicants can certainly request the continuance, but the Commission has to grant that. Mike Hauser, architect of the project, said they would rather not pursue the continuance. Graham Grady said their ability to respond after a presentation today would be quite limited, because they just received the application. They understand the application was given to the Commission on February 5, which technically was after the deadline which was supposed to be presented earlier. They have some questions about this procedurally. The Hammerschlags house was built in 1927, and they lived there for 31 years, why rush to judgment. Would it not be in the interest of due process to give the neighbors the opportunity to fully digest this proposal and to be able to respond fully to their opinion, as to whether meets the criteria in the Preservation Ordinance? Diane Williams said Commissioners received the application on Friday as well and have had time to digest it themselves. In terms of this process, the Commission had back and forth with applicants in terms of looking at the design and carrying out the Commission’s piece of the process, which is to review the project. She empathized with the Hammerschlag situation, but the Commission’s job is to review the projects, to make sure that they meet the standards that are in the Preservation Ordinance. The applicants are coming back now in February after appearing in December 2015. APPROVED Page 4 of 13 Preservation Commission The Commission is well aware of the Hammerschlags concerns, giving the letter to the Commission earlier and their appearance in December 2015. Diane Williams said if there is some different information, the Commission needs to proceed and review the application as appropriate. G. Grady said that was a different building in December; that was a flat roof building that was significantly shorter. This is a gable roof building, which is much taller, has much more bulk, and it has a different impact and changes the relationship between the properties. D. Williams said there have been changes to the project, but they were changes that in some instances the Commission had suggested through the normal processes as part of the Commission’s recommendations that the Commission does. Part of what the Commission does is work with the applicants to really make sure that they get the best project possible for each one that the Commission reviews. That is the goal with this project, as well as any other. Diane Williams said the Commission wants to respond the Hammerschlags concerns. From the Commission’s perspective, the Commission needs to execute what it is they are supposed to do. G. Grady thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be heard. Mike Hauser presented the project as revised. It is now a gable scheme; it is still a second floor addition to an existing 1980s one-story structure. It is a cross gable, that is 90 degrees to the main gable of the house. Each elevation is considered as a whole with the other elevations. There are also influences per each elevation. The primary elevation of the existing house (south elevation) and the east elevation have the quoins, the shutter windows and the dentils on the eave. These are indicative of a higher formality that does not exist on the north and west elevations. Regarding the south Lake Street elevation, M. Hauser said they introduced the quoins on the addition that are reflective of the formal facade. The second floor window is intended to replicate the east elevation and its relationship to the eave, there is no keystone that is evident on the south elevation. The south elevation has the dentils, the quoins and the proposed window is lined up with the Palladian window below. The east elevation is considered a formal elevation, it has the dentils, quoins on both sides and it has the additional formality of the main building. The shutters will be reflected on the gable end on the south elevation. The window will relate to the south elevation because of its relationship to the gable. The north elevation, the existing first floor windows are not centered on that façade. They put the quoins on that elevation to bring that centering back into visibility. There are three windows on the upper floor that are part of that secondary elevation (also seen in the west facing elevation – those two windows are in a bedroom) and the windows on the north side will be the same. On the west elevation (second story), there is another of the same window (a smaller and narrower window). On the first floor the sliding glass door will be swapped for a double hung window, similar in all its detailing to the first floor windows on the front of the house, the head will match the windows on the north side. The gable is of the same slope as the original house. APPROVED Page 5 of 13 Preservation Commission Mike Hauser said they pursued a lot of different angles on this. A lot of different roof types and different relationships for the addition. The proposed addition is the least impactful addition on this house. It is a glancing blow to the original structure, and it is on top of an existing addition that they think will help that addition. It makes sense in light of the original house. Julie Hacker said it was a big improvement from the last attempt. The architect worked very hard to matching the detailing. If only addressing the structure as an addition, this makes a lot more sense than the existing one-story addition. Elliott Dudnik said a lot of what they have done was in response not only to the Commission’s comments, but the comments of the Hammerschlags had made. There is a response here to all of the comments two months ago. This is not simply drop in as if the Commission never seen it before. This is a major step forward and substantially improved over what was seen two months ago. J. Hacker said one of the received letters asked to make sure that the addition that is put on this house does justice to the house; this is not in regards to blocking out the neighbors view. She thought the project absolutely responds to it. Diane Williams said overall with that one-story addition, this made a very difficult design, trying to add to this house, it really made it very challenging. The Commission recognized that the applicants really tried to respond to that under these circumstances. Tim Schmitt said the project is a very clearly thought out design. They quibbled with the logic of the one-story addition, but what they did to respond to that, trying to tie the design with the rest of the house makes a lot of sense. Cathleen Hammerschlag of 311 Lake agreed that the drawings are fine drawings; however, they do not respond to the concerns that they addressed in December 2015, which really talks about the block, the streetscape, the public way and issues that go beyond the actual structure of the house. Cathleen Hammerschlag read a statement with the following points: She and her husband lived in their house for almost 30 years directly east of 321 Lake Street. The drawings presented tonight did not address their concerns or the concerns of other neighbors who sent comments to the Commission. Therefore, they cannot support this revision. Granting a COA would adversely affect the architectural character and the sense of history of the 300 block of Church Street. It will open the door to the steady erosion of the strength and vibrancy of the Lakeshore Historic District. Why the district exists: To provide protection to historic properties that work together, to create a certain character that reflects the overall architectural and historical development of Evanston. APPROVED Page 6 of 13 Preservation Commission Lake Street between Forest Avenue and Judson; and Judson between Grove and Davis, have characteristics which allow these streets to showcase in a unique way the interaction of Evanston history and architecture. From 1870 to 1925 the land was part of the estate of Charles Grey, pioneer settler, business man, philanthropist and art collector. In 1928 prominent Chicago architects designed different styles of homes. Morris Webster designed 311 Lake and his other works includes the Glencoe Public Library. Frederick Stanton designed 321 Lake. Architects Webster and Stanton were clearly sensitive to each other’s designs. These fraternal twin homes were designed and built to enhance each other, not to compete or take away from each other. The harmonious aspect of the two homes will be altered in a major way if the proposed addition were built. Cathleen Hammerschlag cited standard 2-8-9 (A) 2, and maintained that in this case there will be the destruction of two public ways (Judson and Lake). The 1987 one- story family room and its one-story aspect of the structure, minimizes the destruction to both Lake and Judson. The proposed second-story addition may echo design features and details of the original home, but that distorts the home’s architectural history and obscures the social history of 1920s Evanston in an irreversible manner. They know no other one or two-story additions in the neighborhood that are readily visible from any public way. Cathleen Hammerschlag cited the 2012 inventory or architectural resources in the historic district and 321 Lake as one of 300 contributing structures out of the total of 800 in the district, 321 Lake is “landmark eligible.” It is also one of 55 structures that the study recommends begin the process for landmark designation. The study eliminated those structures as eligible for landmark designation if the structure had undergone major alterations, which were defined as “irreversible or readily visible from the public way.” The proposed addition is a major alteration, and the study’s criteria would most likely disqualify 321 Lake from a more elevated local landmark status. Citing standard for review 2-8-9 (A) 1, in this case minimal alteration would mean that a new second story addition would not be readily visible from any public way. However, the applicants’ revised proposed addition is readily visible from the public way, in fact 2 public ways. They would like to be convinced that a reasonable effort has been made to adapt the property in a minimal manner. If one significant contributing structure is lost, it seems others could also be at risk. Approval of a COA for the 321 Lake addition will set in motion an undesirable increase in applications seeking approval for other second story additions to be built on the roof of sunrooms or porches that already exist and are clearly visible from the public way. Cathleen Hammerschlag said she had great concerns regarding this issue and the neighbor comments that the Commission received in December. A review of the 2012 inventory indicates that at least 2 dozen significant structures fitting this description in the historic district, including the landmark home directly across the street at 314 Lake. An owner of one of these homes who desires more interior space APPROVED Page 7 of 13 Preservation Commission would be encouraged by approval of this COA. That then will be opening the door to gradual erosion of architectural resources in the entire Lakeshore Historic District. They had been able to talk to the Roccas after Judy Fiske, First Ward Alderman, initiated the meeting this afternoon, to try to seek an acceptable outcome for everyone. On Saturday, immediately after the new plan was made public at the end of business last Friday, they talked to a respected architect and a long time neighborhood resident. They offered a reasonable alternative to explore. It offers the benefits to the applicants, to them and the entire historic district. They were told it was considered and rejected. They are not convinced because this revised plan seems to be the same plan from December except for the roof. They are sure there are other alternatives to explore as well, which will involve all neighbors’ needs being balanced and every neighbor giving up something. There is a lot at stake here for them and the Roccas and for the future efforts of the Commission to safeguard the strength and vibrancy of the Lakeshore Historic District. Tim Wittman, architectural historian and historic preservation professional with teaching credentials with the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and Lake Forest College, said he was retained by the Schammerschlags. He read from a statement and highlighted the following: 2-9-12 (B) 1. (a) Preserve, adaptively use, or otherwise protect the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district 2-9-11 (C) 3. The proposed project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the existing landmark or area, property, structure, size or object in a district 2-9-12 (B) 1. (d) Preserve and protect the critical features of the streetscape associated with the landmark, or area, property, structure, site or object in the district 2-9-12 (B) 1. (e) Not adversely affect traffic patterns, Municipal services, adjacent property values, or the general harmony of the District. In his review of the application for appropriateness for the proposal for alterations and addition to the property at 321 Lake, he found that the applicants have not met the spirit nor the letter of the law in the sections of the Municipal Code previously highlighted. It could be argued that the addition as currently proposed will violate 2- 9-12 (B) 1. (a) In that the building and the district will not be protected. The alteration would indeed have a significant impact on this landmark structure and its district (the architect told the Commission that the primary facades are being altered facing the south and the east and they would not affect the secondary elevations facing west and north). The addition as proposed will increase the height of the building significantly, whereby violating section 2-9-12 (B) 1. (d) In that the critical features of the streetscape would in fact not be preserved nor protected (the architect told the Commission that the primary facades are being altered). And the intent of section 2- 9-12 (B) 1. (e) Will not be met since the general harmony of the district in terms of its historic fabric and its community cohesion would be disrupted; its harmony thereby APPROVED Page 8 of 13 Preservation Commission upset. Most importantly 2-9-11 (C) 3. “The proposed project includes all possible planning to minimize harm.” The addition was described as a glazing blow to the original design. Any blow stands in violation of the letter of the ordinance. There has been no indication that any, let alone all, of the possible options for applicants to acquire square footage have been investigated. If further options were explore the applicants might find, as one example, that the addition place at the rear of the building might suit their needs, could provide more interior square footage than the current proposal, could create a better integrated floor plan, would have an advantage that it will make less or possibly no impact on the view from the public way. This would be the best solution since it will preserve the integrity of the building as seen within the streetscape. It would relieve the Commission from being asked to consider an addition that could adversely impact the district, would help the Commission avoid creating a precedent that could lead to applications for similar additions, and would save the neighbors from losing the light they have enjoyed in their property from decades. The Commission should insist that other options be made before any determination regarding the application for appropriateness is made. The proposed addition is to be built on top of an existing addition, which has said to have been built on a shallow slab foundation at grade. What kind of engineering study has been done to determine whether or not the existing one-story addition has the structural integrity to support an additional story and a half? A second story addition with an additional gable to what may be a flimsy structure may require that the entire existing be rebuilt in order to add substructure substantially enough to carry the weight. The Commission should not act on the application until such determination is made. Since the structural integrity of the existing addition could lead to even a more serious adverse impact on the building and on the district. Throughout the presentation not one mention has been made of any preservation or restoration component in any of the proposed work. No effort is being made to preserve the structure and all kind of effort is being made to alter it in contravention of the ordinance. Historic additions can themselves acquire significance, but the 1987 addition is only 29 years old. Therefore is not historic as the National Register will defined historic, which requires a 50 year term. The proposed addition also includes historic design elements, the quoins, dentils, moldings that are in effect faking historic fabric. The applicants have provided no compelling argument that the actions they proposed are necessary, desirable or unavoidable, or that they have any value for the preservation of the building, the district, or that they have exhausted every means possible to minimize the impact of any proposed alterations within the historic district. Tim Wittman said it is his opinion, as a preservation professional with 30 years of experience in the field, that the application provides no compelling rationale for the proposed alteration and addition to the property at 321 Lake Street as proposed. APPROVED Page 9 of 13 Preservation Commission The application ignores the standards of preservation in general and the Municipal Code of Evanston in several particulars. The application seeks to violate the designation that protects this building, the streetscape and the district in which stands. He encouraged the Commission to insist on further study of the application, particularly in terms of an engineering study, to determine whether or not this proposal is actually structurally practicable. And insist that all optional designs, solutions be study and considered before any vote is taken in regard to any application for appropriateness, regarding the property at 321 Lake Street. Graham Grady said that they ask that the Commission specifically review the words contained in the standards, and apply those terms to this revised project. The standards are clear; it’s not a matter of whether today’s design is better than the first one the Commission saw. It is a matter whether this design complies with the standards. 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to adopt the property, structure in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property, structure and its environment. The Commission quibble with the one-story addition, the problem is exacerbated by allowing the second story structure. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a property, structure, site or object and its environment shall not be destroyed. This large mass destroys the environment and it is visible from the street. If Commissioners read the words and follow their obligation, G. Grady and his clients respectfully request that the Commission deny the application because they believe that it fails to meet the standards for preservation in the ordinance. In regard to the comment implying this project opens the flood gates for more applications like this, Elliott Dudnik referred to a letter that made reference to at least six other homes in the area that had a second floor addition, a deck addition and so on, so that, it does not appear that the gates had opened or are being opened right now. John Hammerschlag said one of the references is their home at 311 Lake Street. The facts are totally wrong; the letter claims that they added a second floor deck. They added a deck directly behind the house in 1987 with no view from the street. He went to all the referenced properties and there is no view from the public way on the additions that have been made. Mason Rocca said he grew up in the neighborhood. Their intent was to design something that was architecturally maintaining the integrity of the house and the neighborhood. They shared their plans with the neighbors. He felt they are doing the best for the neighborhood and their family. Corinne Rocca said they needed two months to develop the different iterations of their plan that is great for their family and respects the historical home. The claim that the addition was built on a slab is not right. They dug out the footings to see how deep the foundation is, and there is a crawl space. This is a structure that was built to support a two-story structure. There are no structural issues that need to be further investigated. APPROVED Page 10 of 13 Preservation Commission Graham Grady asked the Commission to defer action on this matter for one month. D. Williams said the continuance is requested by the applicant or the Commission based on the specifics of the project itself, is not based on a neighbor’s request. Barbara Grazzi of 314 Lake said she has lived there for 14 years. Her front door is directly across from 321 Lake. B. Grazzi said the Roccas have shared their plans with everyone and really have got input from all neighbors. She has seen the plans in depth. She thought the addition will look beautiful, is what she will look at every day and she does not think it will block the view from Judson at all and it will not take away from the integrity of the neighborhood. Diane Williams said the standards that apply for alteration are 1-5, 9 and 10. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (E. Dudnik) to issue a COA for 321 Lake in that standards for alteration 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Diane Williams said the standards for construction that apply are 1-5, 7, 8 and 10- 15. It was motioned (T. Schmitt) and seconded (E. Dudnik) to issue a COA for the project at 321 Lake Street in that the standards for construction 1-5, 7, 8 and 10-15 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Mike Hauser said the cornice of the one-story addition is being removed. It was motioned (E. Dudnik) and seconded (T. Schmitt) to issue a COA for demolition for 321 Lake. The standards that apply are 1-5. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. B. 2418 Lincoln Street (L) – Jeff Hurting, applicant. New addition to the existing masonry residence to occupy the east side yard and rear (south) side yard without encroaching into existing setbacks. Design (including materials, proportion, etc.) shall seamlessly match existing. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1 - -5, 9 and 10; [Construction] 1 – 5, and 7- 15; [Demolition] 1-5. Jeff Hurting presented the project. J. Hurting showcased a 3D model and said they met with Anthony Rubano form the Illinois Historic Agency, who had some comments as well about the addition. The addition would be a little quieter and simpler and more toward the back. A. Rubano told him IHPA wants a distinct definition between the proposed addition and the existing house, and keeping the same materials and matching. IHPA wanted it to feel like it was an addition and blend seamlessly with what the existing house is. Jeff Hurting said the proposed addition was pushed back and incorporated a porch. There is no second floor on the addition. The roof and the pitch of the roof is what create the feel of a tall steep roof. The steel windows being removed will be reused on the addition facing the street. The roof at the rear will match. APPROVED Page 11 of 13 Preservation Commission Carlos Ruiz said, the IHPA looked at the proposed addition, it is visible from the street and is high, was the IHPA okay with that? J. Hurting said the IHPA sent a letter where they were very complementary to the proposed addition. In response to a question from J. Hacker, J. Hurting said the front windows will be the reclaimed steel windows, the windows in the back will be the aluminum clad windows in black color with divided lights. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (E. Dudnik) to issue a COA for 2418 Lincoln for alteration in that, standards 1-5 9 and 10 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (T. Schmitt) to issue a COA for 2418 Lincoln for construction for 2418 Lincoln, in that standards 1-5 and 7-15 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (E. Dudnik) to issue a COA for demolition at 248 Lincoln, in that standards 1-5 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. 1045 Hinman Avenue (LSHD) – Thomas Findlay, applicant. Install AC condensing unit in back of house (east rear yard), 2' from property line. Zoning variance required; required setback is 3' from all property lines. Applicable standards: [Zoning Variations] A, B and C. Thomas Findlay and his wife Crystal presented the application. They are seeking to add an A/C compressor to their home at 1045 Hinman. They have a short irregular land lock piece of property with no backyard, no garage and at best 10’ of flag stone behind the home. There is no place to put the compressor. They are requesting a zoning variance for a 2’ setback where 3’ is required from all property lines. The compressor is out of sight from their neighbors and surrounded by a 6’ high wood fence. It was motioned (T. Schmitt) and seconded (K. Itle) that the Commission recommends favorably for the zoning variance for the project at 1045 Hinman in that standards for zoning variations A, B and C apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. B. 1560 Oak Avenue (RHD) – Dino Mustafic, applicant. Already installed 8' high metal fence. Requires minor (fence) zoning variation, maximum allowed height is 6'. Applicable standards: [Construction] 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 13; [Zoning Variations] A and C. Adam Wilmot presented the application. A. Wilmot said the application is requesting a variance for an 8’ tall fence on the north property line next to APPROVED Page 12 of 13 Preservation Commission another property with commercial use. The zoning allows an 8’ fence on a commercial use next to a residential use. Therefore, on the south side of the property next to residential use, the 8’ high fence is permitted. To maintain continuity they are requesting a zoning fence variance to continue the 8’ fence on the north side and in the rear yard. It was motioned (J. Hacker) and seconded (J. Weiss) that the Commission recommends the approval of the fence zoning variance at 1560 Oak Avenue, for the zoning variations A and C. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. C. 1200 Judson Avenue (LSHD) – Jeanie Petrick, applicant. West rear elevation: 2-story addition with new covered back entry, new casement windows with transoms on the first floor and double hung windows on the second floor, relocation of leaded glass window, remove existing second story window and infill opening, new rear wood deck. South elevation: 1st floor, new casement window with transom. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-10; [Construction] 1, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 12 – 15; [Demolition] 1 – 5. Jeanie Petrick presented the application. J. Petrick said the project is for 30 square feet first and second floor addition. The addition would allow a larger bedroom and kitchen expansion. The exterior materials are wood siding and wood trim to match existing. The new windows are wood. The horizontal lines will be maintained at the southeast corner. The kitchen windows are casement with a transom above and double hung windows on the second story. There is a bay window with transoms above. On the front of the house there is a large window with a transom and also one transom on the third floor. Jeanie Petrick said the addition is in the back of the house. They are extending with the addition to the south to the edge of the house. The addition has a flat roof to not affect the windows above. It was motioned (E. Dudnik) and seconded (J. Weiss) to issue a COA for alteration at 1200 Judson in that standards 1-10 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (E. Dudnik) and seconded (J. Hacker) to issue a COA for construction at 1200 Judson, in that standards 1, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 12-15 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (E. Dudnik) and seconded (K. Itle) to issue a COA for demolition at 1200 Judson, in that standards 1-5 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 5. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of November 9, November 17, December 15, 2015 and January 19, 2016. APPROVED Page 13 of 13 Preservation Commission It was motioned (E. Dudnik) and seconded (J. Hacker) to approve the November 17 and December 15, 2015 meeting minutes with corrections as made. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. 6. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Working Groups) A. Preservation Ordinance Review Committee Chair Williams said she has received comments from Commissioners and she will organize them and will inform the Commission about the next step. B. Preservation and Design Awards Committee Carlos Ruiz informed the Commission that the deadline for submission of nominations for the awards is April 8, 2016. 7. STAFF REPORTS 8. DISCUSSION (No vote will be taken) The Commission discussed the following items: A. Joint “Meet and Greet” meeting with Preservation Commission, Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals (February 23, 2016 at 6 p.m.) B. Landmarks Illinois – Five Year Plan Meeting (March 19, 2016, Park Ridge) C. Preservation Month Events and Activities - Coloring Book - Historic Chicago Bungalow Association – Spring 2016 Seminars - Other activities and events 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. on 2/16/2016.