Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 21 2016 EPC Minutes APPROVEDAPPROVED Preservation Commission 1 of 10 MEETING MINUTES EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, June 21, 2016 Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2404 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Elliott Dudnik, Julie Hacker, Ken Itle, Tim Schmitt, Jack Weiss, Karl Vogel and Diane Williams. Members Absent: Robert Bady, Sally Riessen Hunt and Riseborough Staff Present: Mark Muenzer, Director of Community Development Damir Latinovic, Planning and Zoning Administrator Carlos Ruiz, Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Presiding: Diane Williams, Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM With a quorum present, the meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. 2. OLD BUSINESS A. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) – Elliot Flaws, applicant. Construction of a new 2- story, brick and stucco single-family residence with an attached 1-story, 3-car garage in front. Applicable standards: [Construction] 1- 13, and 16. Adam Sabow, owner and Fred Wilson, architect presented the application with revisions. F. Wilson said the following: The new survey shows a lot of 16,480 SF. The building front setback lines up with the buildings to the north and south. The second story lines up with the second story of the building to the south. A cut out on the north elevation alleviates the canyon effect on 919 Edgemere Court. The building is pushed back 32’ for the one-story structure and 41’ for the 2-story structure. The front yard setback is 90’. There is a 2-story context to the north of 917 Edgemere, and the 1-story garage is the first building at 925 Edgemere to the south. The loggia piece was eliminated from the original design. APPROVED Preservation Commission 2 of 10 Fred Wilson said they shifted the bedrooms to the first floor and the living spaces to the second floor to maximize the view of the Lake. The building height is 33’, the east-west ridge is 31’. The rear has a more contemporary expression. The front has gable roofs. The historic piece of the building is finished in stone. The courtyard and side elevations are finished in stucco and the windows are dark bronze aluminum windows. The garage has a coach house feeling. No longer is there a fence on the west front yard. Addressing the standards for review of construction Fred Wilson said: 1. Generally buildings are over 35’. The building would the 10th highest building on the block; 925 Edgemere is 0ver 42.94’ 2. The properties to the south all have the 1-story garages in front 3. A tall window on the front elevation is similar to a window at 900 Edgemere. Other windows are grouped together 4. The garage is in front of the house [as the garages to the south] 5. The garage is loaded from the south 6. The entry has steps cascading up to it. 7. Materials include stone and stucco 8. There are gables than run north/south reflecting the context 9. The 2-story section aligns with the adjacent 2-story homes 10. They have the narrowest lot (50’); they kept the rhythm of the block with open spaces in between 11. The garages are south facing doors 12. There is nothing left on the lot 13. Any archaeological findings will be reported 14. The house has a contemporary design 15. There are no additions 16. They worked very carefully on the Edgemere street side Adam Sabow said they considered the Commission’s feedback and that of the neighbors. They continued to have dialogue with the neighbors over the last month. Sue Sabow said they addressed the concerning issues such as the front is set back too far with the loggia issue, and it might be a little bit too contemporary. They pulled out the alignment so it will be in line with the other neighbors. The new design has a pitched roof, traditional windows on the front. Regarding the tunnel effect, the courtyard used to be on the front. The courtyard on the north provides relief to 919 Edgemere. Regarding the rear setback, they pulled back the first floor 30’ and the second floor 40’ from the lake. E. Dudnik asked about the north court yard shielded by a 2-story house. Adam Sabow said it provides relief for 911 Edgemere. J. Weiss said addressing standards 9 and 11; he would rather see the massing brought back down in line with others on the block. E. Dudnik said regarding standard 14, the traditional portion on the front and the neo contemporary at the back, they should be compatible with the size and scale of other structures. Regarding standard 10, the window openings on the front vs. the large picture windows at the back; in that transition the rhythm and character of the block is lost. Fred Wilson said the back does not match the context of the front. The use of APPROVED Preservation Commission 3 of 10 materials is a translation of how they move from the front to the rear, which is not visible from the street. Diane Williams read the Memo from legal department that states the Lake Michigan does not fall in the definition of public way. Julie Hacker said if the rear were an addition, the Commission would be asking why it was made so different and not compatible with the front. It feels discombobulated. Ken Itle said regarding the total height, the perception of height and where the ridge and eave lines are, is important. It seems that datum line is quite a bit higher than the rest of the block. Public Comments: Diane Williams said the Commission received three letters from property owners at 925, 920 and 907 Edgemere. They all had issues with the application as revised. The following Edgemere Court neighbors spoke against the proposed new house at 917 William and Mary McGrath of 943; Philip Crihfield of 900; Michael Errington of 929;  Maintain the front and back yards  Lake Michigan is a public way  Preserving the quality of the neighborhood which is in Lakeshore historic district and preserving the integrity of the preservation process  Bring the house setback at the rear to the east side of 911 Gary Morrison of 930 suggested building a 3-story house if they wanted to have a 4,500 SF house and instead of pushing the house to the back, make it like everybody else’s. He did not have a problem with the rear. Harry Lowrance of 919 said his concern is with the footprint and setback. If the house is aligned with 911 Edgemere, they would allow the removal of two 70’ maple trees and open up the vista of the lake. He referred to Ald. Wynne’s letter about the narrow lot where bigger is not better. H. Lowrance requested the Commission table the matter based on the legal opinion about Lake Michigan being a public way. Ron Lenzi of 935 said the asphalt shingles on the house are not compatible with the tile and slate roofs on other houses on the block. John Leonard of Morgante Wilson said the zoning regulations changed for the height of the building. It used to be 35’ to the mean point. Many structures on the block are higher than 35’. Discussion: Karl Vogel said he initially was for the project, but after the neighbors’ comments he thinks the house is pushed back so far. Jack Weiss asked a question regarding walls of continuity, could the Commission reject a request on one criterion, or did there have to APPROVED Preservation Commission 4 of 10 be a number of criteria in which the Commission would reject. D. Williams said the question is which of the standards 1-13 and 16 do apply, and does what the Commission is reviewing meet those standards. Carlos Ruiz said one does not necessarily need to meet all the standards to receive approval, nor meet all the standards to receive a denial. There is a tipping point where everything looks fine, but there could be a very significant standard that is not met that makes the difference, and just because of that it could be denied. The Commission should carefully consider what the balance is. From the legal opinion the Commission will not be able to review the design of the rear, because the Commission cannot see it from the lake. The Commission is looking at the footprint of these buildings and the solids and voids, giving the Commission information to make a decision. Diane Williams said the role of the Commission is to determine whether or not this meets the standards in the Preservation Ordinance. Are the standards that have been identified the proper standards. E. Dudnik said that most likely the side elevations can be seen from the street and towards the back. K. Itle referring to standard 10 said there is a mass at the back in what feels like a continuous open space of the entire block with its back yards, and there is a large mass in that open space. Adam Sabow said the intent is to maintain a similar backyard size. There is no single setback line. J. Weiss said his comment on standard 9 has nothing to do with the lakeshore at all, it has to do with the way the proposed structure relates to the other structures on the block, it protrudes away from the standard wall of continuity created by the rest of the buildings on the block. Adam Sabow asked what the precedent is set between 907 and 911, where there is a difference of 15’ between those. K. Itle said it’s about volume and mass. If it was a 1-story screen porch that goes 5’ past 911, they will not have this conversation, instead it is a 2-story mass, 40’ beyond, and is the bulk of the living space. E. Dudnik said the problem with the drawings is the two dimensional representation. One of the things missing here when talking about the massing is the volume. With exception of 925, the character of all the houses, all are very compact; they are nearly square and somewhat rectangular. The proposed structure is a very different structure, in the way of massing and the internal volumes. That piece is an extension of mass well beyond the bulk of all others. Adam Sabow asked the Commission to table their application and they come back. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (T. Schmitt) to table the motion for 917 to the next meeting on July 19, 2016. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. NEW BUSINESS A. 1800 Block of Chicago Avenue and 1800-2400 block of Sheridan Road – Charles Davidson, applicant. Install Tallmadge light poles along Chicago Avenue, north of Clark Street to Sheridan Road (both sides of the public way) and then Sheridan Road, north of the intersection of Chicago Avenue and Sheridan Road to Lincoln Street (on the west side of the public way). Applicable standards: [Construction] 1, 5, 7 and 10-13. APPROVED Preservation Commission 5 of 10 Carlos Ruiz read a communication from Lara Biggs of Public Works regarding specific requirements for the installation of the light poles on the public right of way. C. Ruiz said that City staff recommends that whatever the Commission’s decision is, that it is subject to Public Works approval. D. Williams recused from the discussion and vote and asked Jack Weiss, Vice Chair, to preside the meeting for this application. Charles Davidson of Northwestern University presented the application. C. Davidson said NU is proposing 26 street lights from Clark Street to Lincoln Street, down Chicago Avenue to Sheridan Road. The proposed poles are Tallmadge lights. Only two areas of the project are in the Northeast Historic District. They are proposing Tallmadge lights on both sides of Chicago Avenue. On Sheridan Road existing Tallmadge lights are at the end of the perpendicular streets. The proposed setback from the curb is 3’. However Public Works is asking for a 6’ setback. This will be worked out with Public Works. Emerson to Foster is in the Historic District where three Tallmadge lights (16’ high pole). There are slight variations in distance between the fixtures, the goal is 160’ spacing, but is some areas the spacing is reduced. The existing Tallmadge lights will stay. John D’Angelo, of NU, Vice President of Facilities said they will use the City’s specifications and manufacture for the Tallmadge and spacing on similar roads. On the location between the curb and the lights, they are working with the City. The west side of Sheridan is dark. E. Dudnik said NU has to consider the location of trees because they will have an effect on lighting levels. J. D’Angelo said they will work with professional light designers. It was motioned (K. Itle) and seconded (T. Schmitt) to approve the application for installation of the Tallmadge light poles along Chicago Avenue and Sheridan Road in that standards 1, 5, 7 and 10-13 for construction apply and are met. This approval is subject to the review of the project by Public Works. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 abstention (D. Williams). Mark Muenzer left the meeting at this time. B. 746 Forest Avenue (LSHD) – Paul Fisher, contractor. Demolish existing 4-car wood frame garage and construct new 4-car garage with stucco finish to match the main house exterior finish (same location and size). Applicable standards: [Construction] 1- 5, 7-13 and 16; [Demolition] 1-5 Paul Fisher presented the application. P. Fisher said they are demolishing the existing garage and building a new garage on the same location. The new garage is the same style as the existing to match the siding and stucco finish, with windows and an entry door facing the house. It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (E. Dudnik) to approve a COA for a 4-car garage at 746 Forest Avenue and that standards for construction 1- 5, 7-13 and 16 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. APPROVED Preservation Commission 6 of 10 It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (T, Schmitt) to approve a COA for demolition for the garage at 746 Forest Avenue and that standards for demolition 1- 5 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. C. 325 Davis Street (LSHD) – Beth DeBaker, applicant. Demolish existing rear enclosed deck and construct new covered porch entry and mud room. Four rear north elevation windows to be removed and relocated with new windows; two first floor windows on the west elevation to be removed and relocated with new windows; two windows and a door on the east elevation to be removed and relocated with four new windows for new interior layout. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-5 and 7-10; [Construction] 1, 3, 5-10 and 12-16. Beth DeBaker and Jeff Eichhorn presented the application. B. DeBaker said the project is to remove a covered deck and landing at the back of the house and replace that with a new mudroom addition and reconfiguring the windows on the back. J. Eichhorn provided a brief history of the house built in 1874. The house was remodeled and added on. There are casement and double hung windows. The shutters on the front will stay, but the remaining shutters will be removed. E. Dudnik asked to retain the corner board on the west elevation where the addition meets the existing house. It was motioned (T. Schmitt) and seconded (J. Weiss) to issue a COA for the project at 325 Davis Street in that standards for alteration 1-5 and 7-10 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. It was motioned (T. Schmitt) and seconded (J. Weiss) to issue a COA for the project at 325 Davis Street in that standards for construction 1, 3, 5-10 and 12-16 apply, and that the corner board on the west elevation be added. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. D. 703 Forest Avenue (L/LSHD) – Preston Fawcett, applicant. 2-story frame addition - with screen porch with roof top deck and reworked existing decks. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-5 and 7-10; [Construction] 1- 16, [Demolition] 1-5. Preston Fawcett presented the application for a 2-story addition on the side and rear of the house at 703 Forest Avenue. They explored the single windows on the front elevation, instead of the proposed double windows. Discussion/Comments:  The existing 2-story bay is an important and key design feature and it has been blocked by the addition. The addition as proposed obliterates the bay and it is out of scale  Intersection of volumes and roof is problematic (random roofing)  Move away the addition from the bay and pick up the eave line APPROVED Preservation Commission 7 of 10  Look at the back elevation and get rid of the conflicting features, instead of the front stronger features such as the bay.  Understanding how all the aspects of the proposed work fit all together. Diane Williams said there is one letter in favor and another against the project. It was motioned (K. Vogel) and seconded (J. Hacker) to table 703 Forest to the July 19, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. E. 470-498 Sheridan Road (L) – Elliott Dudnik, applicant. Replace existing aluminum framed double hung and fixed storm windows with new aluminum framed double hung and fixed storm windows - Three phase project. Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-7, 9 and 10. Elliott Dudnik presented the application. E. Dudnik said the existing storm windows are double hung (with fix panels on the top floor). A number of the existing casement windows have been repaired and some windows at the rear have been replaced (panning and vinyl windows). The project will be done in three phases (around 600 storms and done in three years). Some of the casement windows are 74” inches high. There are no casement storm windows. At the northeast corner there is a set of windows with round tops with no storm windows at the rounded top. The proposed storm windows have a reveal rather than the other option being flushed. The east elevation will be done first. It was motioned (J. Hacker) and seconded (J. Weiss) to approve a COA for replacing the existing framed double hung storm windows with new framed double hung storm windows with the reveal storm/screen sash, for the project at 470-498 Sheridan Road, and the applicable standards for alteration 1-7, 9 and 10. The motion passed. Vote: 6 ayes, 1 abstention (E. Dudnik) 4. PUBLIC HEARING – Application for Rescission of Landmark Designation A. 2623 Lincoln Street (L) – David and Rebecca Kimbell, applicants. Application for Rescission of landmark designation of 2623 Lincoln Street. With a quorum present the public hearing was called to order at 10:15 p.m. David Kimbell in his presentation noted the following:  The City does not have a Statement of Significance of 2623 Lincoln Street, therefore we don’t know what criteria (under the current 10 criteria) put the home on the list [of landmarks]  The house was included in the 1972 Illinois Historical Structure Survey (among 276 structures). In the current 10 criteria, the inclusion on this list in it and itself, is not part of Section 2-8-4 (Preservation Ordinance). There is no documentation APPROVED Preservation Commission 8 of 10 stating the significance or otherwise that would either confirm or suggest why the home met any of those criteria.  Figure 4 in the packet, which is a proposed criteria and notes of the process that was done in 1982, when the area in Northwest Evanston (Area III) was considered for [a historic district]. Some hand written notes of this proposed [historic district] and preliminary list. This is the only indication; this is not a formal City of Evanston record. In the preliminary list there is a note “A5” next to 2623 Lincoln Street, suggesting that the home was ‘designed by a nationally or internationally known or major local architect.’ The architect of this home is Joseph H. Bristle.  There is another Bristle home at 2200 Central Street that was classified “A5.” That home is not later classified “A5” but “A7.”  The six Bristle homes in Figure 4 (Northwest Evanston), [2623] Lincoln is the only one with landmark status due to Bristle. 2200 Central is also a landmark, but not due to “A5.” The only one suggested “A5” is 2623 Lincoln.  Some of the notes and research suggest that “A5” was the reason [for landmark designation of 2623 Lincoln], but there is no documentation that confirms that, one way or the other.  Joseph Bristle was prolific in Evanston, but there is no evidence of recognition by the City of Evanston or any official group. From the 276 structures in the 1972 list, 2623 Lincoln was the only Bristle home. There were 16 homes identified as Bristle homes in Evanston; none of them were marked with landmark status due to “A5” designation (renowned architect). Architect Seyfarth in Northwest Evanston has five homes on that list [1972]; all five of them were “renowned architect” designation.  In the 1972 list, several architects were on that list (Mayo, Maher). There is no evidence other than this one note [in the document] that Bristle received any kind or recognition.  Their home was included in the 1972 list, but that in it of itself, is not one of the ten criteria. No official City of Evanston document reports the rational for inclusion on that list or any other subsequent list (1978, 1982 or 2015).  The suggestion on that document is not supported by any records or actions or anything else, other than the one note seen in that preliminary list.  David Kimbell respectfully submitted that 2623 Lincoln does not meet any of the ten criteria. There is no evidence that ever met any of them in any official way. David Kimbell requested that the landmark designation be rescinded. Mary McWilliams, Associate Member, comments:  Anne O. Earle and she were in the Evaluation Committee that looked at these buildings. It is her hand writing in the notes. APPROVED Preservation Commission 9 of 10  All it was needed was to meet one criterion to be designated as a landmark and “A9” was considered a valid criterion for designation. It did not matter that it was “A5” or not, it still is a landmark with equal standing with all the other landmarks in the City. Carlos Ruiz said he contacted Julia Johnas, Highland Park Public Library. She provided information on J. H. Bristle. He designed a 1926 Tudor Revival house on Ravinia Court (now 248 Ivy Lane) which is rated as significant in the Architectural Resources Survey conducted by the City of Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission in 2002. Bristle-designed buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Rosemont Historic District in Alexandria, Virginia . Also, Anthony Rubano of the Illi nois Historic Preservation Agency confirmed that 2623 Lincoln Street is in the 1972 Illinois Historic Significant Structures. David Kimbell said there is a Bristle home 3 doors down the Street on Lincoln that is not a landmark. D. Kimbell said they believe that legally it puts an undue burden on them on the value of the home. D. Williams said in most places, landmark designation and property values generally increase. The impact in economic value is better. David Kimbell said they looked at several landmark homes and avoided them. They did not know their home was a landmar k. D. Kimbell said Bristle’s grandchild donated his grandparent’s blueprints. They have a copy of the blueprints of their home. Elliott Dudnik asked about criteria A5 and A9. M. McWilliams said they are the old criteria for landmark designation A5 for the architect (Bristle) and A9 for being listed in the 1972 survey. D. Bristle said part of his argument is that A9 is not one of the current criteria. There is no idea whe n was put on the list. Jack Weiss addressing D. Kimbell’s letter regarding standard A4 said Bristle was a member of the Chicago Architectural Club, fellow members of the time included D. Perkins, D. Burnham and T. Tallmadge. He was a member of the AIA for almost two decades, and the Illinois Society of Architects. Standard A5, two broad streets, Lincoln Street and Central Park Avenue lead to the core of the proposed northwest historic district; each has 100’ wide right of ways and broad parkways. Large home with very generous setbacks and wide landscaped lot contribute to the felling of graciousness and gentility. David Kimbell said there are 16 homes designed by Bristle. Designating landmarks is random and arbitrary. How one explains that a house three doors down from his house, is by the same architect, built the same year and is not a landmark , he asked. T. Schmitt said that it is not the case of architects that were menti oned where every single of their works was then considered is a landmark. APPROVED Preservation Commission 10 of 10 Carlos Ruiz said not all buildings that should be landmarks are landmarks. Perhaps other Bristle buildings that are not landmarks should be. It was motioned (K. Vogel) and seconded (K. Itle) to recommend denial of the application for rescission of landmark status of 2623 Lincoln Street in Evanston. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. The Commission closed the hearing at 10:50 p.m. 5. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of March 15, April 12, and May 17, 2016. It was motioned (T. Schmitt) and seconded (K. Itle) to approve the March 15, April 12 and May 17, 2016 minutes, subject written suggestions sent to staff by Friday June 24, 2016. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays. 6. ADJOURNMENT It was motioned (T. Schmitt) and seconded (K. Itle) to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 21, 2016. The motion passed unanimously. Vote 7 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully submitted, Carlos D. Ruiz Preservation Coordinator