HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 17 2016 EPC Minutes Approve APPROVED
MEETING MINUTES
EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2404
7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Robert Bady, Elliott Dudnik, Julie Hacker, Amy Riseborough, Tim
Schmitt, Jack Weiss, and Diane Williams.
Members Absent: Sally Riessen Hunt, Ken Itle, and Karl Vogel
Staff Present: 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, D. Williams called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. OLD BUSINESS
No old business
3. NEW BUSINESS
A. 1124 Asbury Avenue (L/RHD) – Sebastian Koziura, applicant. Tear down existing
south side 12'x16' addition. Build a 1-story 15' x 21' addition on same location with
wood landing and stairs on the rear west elevation. Applicable standards:
[Construction] 1- 8 and 10-16; [Demolition] 1-5.
Sebastian Koziura presented the project to tear down an existing 1950s addition on
the south side of the house and build a new addition for a family room-kitchen
combination. The new addition will have the same size as the existing windows on
the front and match color and wood material, and same exterior brick as the house.
The roof line is 4 inches below the second story window.
Elliott Dudnik said the addition is being treated as a porch; the front windows are
different than the proposed windows on the addition. S. Koziura said the new
windows are the same size as the bay windows and double up. D. Williams had
issue with the decorative element (panels) below the windows, because it takes
away from the special feature of the bay. J. Hacker said the proposed windows
seem to be fine. J. Weiss had issue with the flat roof on the proposed addition.
Preservation Commission Page 2 of 11
Sebastian Koziura said the material between the windows is brick and below the
windows is wood paneling. E. Dudnik said to take clues from the front of the house.
He noted that there are no sills below the new window. S. Koziura said they could
use the limestone sill under each window and paint the brick.
It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (R. Bady) to issue a COA for the addition
at 1124 Asbury in that standards 1-7 and 10-16 apply and that the treatment of the
addition’s façade will have limestone sills for the windows and only brick below the
windows. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
It was motioned (J. Weiss) and seconded (E. Dudnik) to issue a COA for
demolition [for the existing side addition] at 1124 Asbury in that standards1-5 apply.
The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
B. 714 Forest Avenue (LSHD) – Michael Hauser, applicant. Replace degrading rear
porch and stair (not original) with new wood porch, deck and stair. Applicable
standards: [Construction] 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 12-15; [Demolition] 1-5.
Michael Hauser presented the project for the replacement of a 30 year old rear
porch and for building a larger porch and a deck outside the porch. The existing 2-
story addition is in the back. The proposed addition is working with the sight lines
and keeping two kitchen windows intact. The new addition is scaled so that the
mass of the roof sits between two window sections on the right hand side. The wood
porch will be painted, the deck will be stained. The new addition will have lighter
stucco above a dark brick. The same color will be on the base of the porch.
Elliott Dudnik asked what determined the height of the panels on the porch, because
it does not align with anything else. M. Hauser said the porch’s structural
components, such as the height, have to do with where the roof can sit. What one
can see that from the inside is what determines the height. The back porch is more
negative space than positive space. E. Dudnik had issue with the proposed porch
height. J. Weiss said the roof line is almost flat. J. Hacker said there are
opportunities to use the existing datum lines.
It was motioned (T. Schmitt) and seconded (E. Dudnik) to issue a COA for the
project at 714 Forest Avenue, with redesign of the windows’ head height and the
slope of the roof (to match existing); in that standards for construction 1, 3, 7, 8, 10,
and 12-15 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
It was motioned (T. Schmitt) and seconded (A. Riseborough) to issue a COA for
714 Forest Avenue [demolition of existing rear porch] in that standards for demolition
1-5 apply. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
C. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) – Elliot Flaws, applicant. Construction of a new
single-family residence with 1-car attached garage and a 2-car garage in front of
house and connected to house via a loggia. Applicable standards: [Construction] 1-
13, and 16.
Preservation Commission Page 3 of 11
Fred Wilson presented the project. He said back in 1922, 917 Edgemere Court had
a 2-story flat roof structure, and was demolished in 2005. There were few projects
that came in front of the Commission; one of them has been approved three times.
Back then when Mary McWilliams analyzed the neighborhood she made a quote:
“that the difference of the undulation of the block and the types is what it makes it
very interesting.” The original building was pushed in the back and projected further
back the building to the south at 911 Edgemere. In the block, the rear yards are 1-
story elements. The typology of the block, where the 917 Edgemere lot sits, they
considered as the mediation lot between the north half of the block, which has a
certain type of context, and the south half of the block, which has a different
typology. To the north, there is somewhat of a front yard; to the south there are north
loaded garages with courtyards to the south of those. The house that was on 917
Edgemere was pushed back, with a courtyard in the front. 919 Edgemere is kind of
the middle or odd context (is pushed back forward).
At 925 Edgemere they have the garage on the south with a courtyard on the north.
The two buildings south of 917 (911 and 907) maintain the south facing garage. The
garages at 901 face west. In regard to the proposed house they brought up forward
part of the house to maintain the street edge (925, 919, 917 and 911). The buildings
to the south of 917 all have 1-story garages that follow suit. The buildings north of
917 are 2.5-story structures.
At the water’s edge at 901 the coast line deeps in into a cove, and the relationship of
the rear yards to the coast for those three buildings (901, 907 and 911) is relatively
the same. 917 is the longest site, they followed the coast line and came up with an
implied setback line on the water’s edge. The little piece of the structure that projects
beyond that line is a 1-story structure. Regarding the bulk, they are not maximizing
the building footprint. They are allowed 5,511sq. ft. footprint; they are proposing
5,394 sq. ft. The building that was approved three times at 917 was 7,924 sq. ft.
Regarding the height, the front corner of the south front corner is 30’-4” (5’ below the
allowable height). The building that was previously approved was about 40’. The
building north of 919 is about 42’. The roof of the proposed building to the north is
31’-5”. The front façade mediates from 31’-5” down to 30’-4”; the rear south portion
is 32’-7”. The tallest point is 34’-8” (under the allowable height).
Regarding the ratio of square footage of homes to square footage of the lot, 917 is
10th out of a list of 16 lots, where the percentage of house to lot is 29%.
Fred Wilson the 713 and 729 Sheridan buildings are pushed closer to the coast line,
same as the proposed 917 Edgemere. Flat roofs are labeled as a style in Evanston
and considered as contributing. The former 917 and 925 Edgemere that were torn
down had flat roofs. The floor plan shows a single car attached with an open plan in
the back that cascades away from 911 (kitchen, family room, screened porch, four
season room, dining room, and hang out space in the back). In the front is the
library, a play room/bedroom in the first floor. On the second floor is the master
suite, a home office, master bedroom, master bath, kids’ rooms, guest room, and
stairs. The front elevation with punched openings for more of wall to window
relationship, the back has more large glass expressing the views. The heights in the
front are 30’-4” on the right, and 32’ to the left. Looking south or the north elevation,
Preservation Commission Page 4 of 11
the 1-story garage is to the right, and the building to the rear. Looking east or the
west elevation, there is additional parking or carport behind the front garage. The
rear elevation opens up to the views with large expanses of glass.
Regarding the standards for construction:
height, the building is cascading down from 919 which is approximately 35’ to
the ridge, then stepped down in the front with 31’-5’ and down to 30’-4” and
mediate to 911, which is 1 ¾ -story house.
The three homes to the south of 917 have the garages in the front with the
structures in the back. To the north of 917(other than 925) the homes are
much more façade oriented structures with garages tucked underneath. 917
has more width to height relationship to the primary facade in terms of the
scale of width to height.
The proportion of the openings, 917 has a relationship from solid to void in a
more contemporary expression, a style that is accepted in the historic district.
The spaces between buildings,
917 is maintaining the spaces between structures. 917 is zoning approved
and not requesting any variations in regard to the placement of the home.
The rhythm of spaces on the street, south of 917 there are the buildings with
the courtyards and garages, and the buildings to the north are more of a
façade.
The rhythm of entrances, the front entrance at 917 is slightly to the right side,
off center, as 925 and 929.
The relationship of materials and texture, 917 is brick and stucco.
Roof shape, former 925 and 917 had flat roofs. Currently there are four
homes on the block (926, 930, 935 and 940) with flat roofs or a combination
of flat roofs. There are some 30 homes with flat roofs in the [Lakeshore]
historic district.
The walls of continuity, the buildings at 907 and 920 have fences. 917 will
have a fence for a play area in the back; the court yard could be a play area
too. There is a landscape wall at 911 and 919 that is the same line that works
in terms of continuity.
Scale of structures, addressed earlier referring to the buildings to the south of
917 and the size of the homes.
The directional expression [of front elevation], based on previous cases, the
vernacular talks about vertical and the more contemporary is talking about
horizontal. 917 is the site in the middle, trying to have that expression. 919
has an interesting horizontal quality to it. 917 is picking up that horizontal line.
The vertical piece is mediating between the vertical and horizontal
expression.
Original qualities, the old house at 917 was pushed back, the context that was
at one time for 80 years.
Archaeological resources, nothing was found on the vacant site.
Sue and Adam Sabow, owners of 917 Edgemere Court, long term Evanston
residents, said they always have an affinity for contemporary design. They have two
small children. They are thrilled to raise their kids and to build their home in
Evanston. They tried to be very thoughtful about the preservation context and the
neighbors as they were designing the house. Their design meets the standards and
Preservation Commission Page 5 of 11
balances well in fitting with the neighborhood and the context. They tried to improve
upon the front setback from what it was originally there. They tried to align the
garage with the other neighbors, and not be fully setback, but have a continuing line
on the front. In the rear, they could have gone much further out, but they wanted to
maintain similar contour of the Lake, and backyard sizes are consistent with the
neighbors to the south. They want to be good neighbors and they have a strong
sense of community. They want to make best use of their land that has been empty
for 10 years. Anything that goes up is going to impact views and the neighborhood.
They look forward to living in the block and being part of the neighborhood.
Discussion:
Diane Williams asked when looking at Edgemere Court, and given what is there in
terms of the positioning of 917, and the other structures that are lined up the way
they are, what the thought process for 917 was. F. Wilson said the second story of
917 steps back because of the jog, and with the 1-story portion [at the rear] is in
context with where the cove is. That is the line that mediates with the deeper lots
and coming around with the shallow lots.
Elliott Dudnik said the three houses to the south of 917 have garages relatively close
to the house and to some extent are part of the volume or the mass of the building,
essentially contributing to the front elevation. In this case, the garage is removed. He
was concerned with the courtyard behind the garage. F. Wilson said the front
setback is where it should be in relation to the buildings on either side of 917. E.
Dudnik said the mass of the 919 building is on the front, whereas, 917 has a discrete
element that happens to have a walkway.
Public comment:
Diane Williams said the Commission received letters in opposition to the project from
property owners on Edgemere Court: Robert and Monica Breslow at 925, Michael
Arrington at 929 and Leon Floerchinger at 907.
Gary Morrison at 930 Edgemere said the house at 917 as is setback, is going to look
much smaller. Every house on the east side of the street have an attached garage,
917 has a 2-car garage way out in front. He said his house is not 4,000 sq. ft. it is
2,900 sq. ft. 917 would be the 4th largest house on the narrowest lot. The street
doesn’t have street lights and is dark. He had issue with the courtyard at 917 in the
front, because it would be dark. He also said the 700 block of Sheridan Road is not a
private street. He asked how much further back the proposed house is from the
former house. If the Commission approves the proposed house at 917 it should
make sure that the back of the house has bullet proof glass because the huge chunk
of ice flying out from the Lake in winter.
Donna Floerchinger at 907 Edgemere Court spoke on behalf of her husband Leon
Floerchinger. She said in reference to his letter, the contextual Lake side referencing
the 700 block of Sheridan Road, three blocks south, is not in contextual at all with
their property. Those properties were subdivided to allow development. There is no
historical context of the proposed design to what exists in the neighborhood. The
Preservation Commission Page 6 of 11
garages of the properties south of 917 are extensions of the houses. When
remodeling their property, they treated the façade of their building as one façade.
Talking for herself D. Floerchinger said when remodeling their property, they did not
expand the existing building. The three buildings south of 917 align with the Lake
side and enjoy the sense of back yards and the green space before they get to the
Lake. Preserving the rear yard setback and their views to the Lake is the big issue
for them. Approving the project would set a bad precedent. One should not build at
the expense of their neighbors.
Harry Lowrance at 919 Edgemere Court. H. Lowrance said he and his wife have
lived in their home for 43 years. He made the following observations:
The survey submitted with the application is dated October 9, 1912. He was
provided with a 2006 survey with 334’ x 50’ dimensions as opposed to the 1912
survey showing 373’ and 364’ x 50’. He asked that a new survey be provided to
reflect the actual buildable space and determine that the plans are compliant or
not.
The chronology of 917 is: In March/April of 2005, Mr. Nesbitt bought 917 and
925. He was granted permits to demolish the properties. There were plans to
build a house at 917, but there was no decision as to what could be build there.
In February 2008, Mr. Nesbitt was trying to sell 917 to Augustus Augunas. The
project was reviewed from the public way which included the Lake side. The
Augunas plan was denied with an 8-0 vote. In March of 2008, the second
Augunas plans were submitted, that too was rejected. In November/December of
2008, Mr. Nesbitt returned to the Preservation Commission for a third time. The
revised plans decreased the height of the eastern setback at 917, and in so
doing, would be more compatible with the lines of adjacent houses as requested
by the Preservation Commission and the neighbors. On December 16, 2008, Mr.
Nesbitt appeared in front of the Commission with Mr. Lowrance and three other
neighbors with new plans that would not go further east than 911and the roof line
was lower than 30’. The Commission approved the plans with a 6-0 vote.
Sometime in January 2009, Mr. Nesbitt submitted revised plans with a maximum
height of 26’. Nothing was ever built.
It appears that the Commission has already set precedent for 917; it has to be
evaluated on the street side and the Lake side. The Commission approved a plan
for 917 where it aligned with the east line of 911, and no higher than 26’.
The proposed plan will create a canyon for his landmark property. The proposal
goes within 70’ of the water, inhibiting his privacy.
From the street side, the proposed primary residence starts in the middle of his
yard and behind the other houses, with 60’ portico (to connect the garage to the
main house) that attempts circumventing zoning ordinances and disrupts the
rhythm, openness, and continuity of the street.
In regard the perspective from the Lake, the proposed house breaks the lines of
the houses facing east, violating visual rhythm, openness and continuity of flow.
This plan will create for the neighbors to the south obstructed views to the
northeast, and to the neighbors to the north obstructed views southeast.
For the reasons stated before, Harry Lowrance urged the Commission to deny the
proposed plans for 917 Edgemere Court.
Preservation Commission Page 7 of 11
William McGrath at 943 Edgemere Court said he was concerned with precedent. If
the Commission were to approve the project, it may create a race to the water and
build closer to the Lake. He asked the Commission to think about that.
Jens Welin at 920 Edgemere Court said his major concern about the design and
style of the house are the large windows which are not appropriate for the street,
especially competing with the house to the left of 917, which is the oldest house on
Edgemere Court.
Phil Crihfield at 900 Edgemere Court said what is relevant is that 9 of 16 home
owners who want to be the applicants’ neighbors oppose the proposed plan for 917
for reasons of fundamental fairness. It is not fair to the neighbors to the south and
north. It would affect the use and enjoyment of their property. He asked the
Commission to consider that as they evaluate the project.
Sarah Morrison at 930 Edgemere said the house that the applicants and their
architect designed is magnificent, but it is just a little bit wrong for the block. The
biggest concern is the setback of the house. If they were to take the house, remove
the loggia and moved it up and attach it to the front garage, she believed they will be
welcomed with open arms.
Ron Lenzi at 935 Edgemere Court said there was a storm with winds 95 m/h from
the northeast in February in1987; they are 60’ south of the jetty, that jetty was
literally under water when the storm came. The sea wall next to them was cracked
by the storm. Their back yard was filled up with water; there was a sink hole in front
of the sea wall. He said the proposed house is too close to the Lake.
Diane Williams read the letters from the Breslows at 925, Michael Arrington at 929
and Leon Floerchinger at 907 Edgemere in opposition of the proposed house.
The Breslows urged the Commission to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness, due
the proposed setback that affects the entire eastern line of the homes presently
situated on Edgemere Court, as well as potential future owners who may wish to
build along the Lake front. The setback of 917 as proposed will break the rhythm of
the entire street, and would be a negative impact at 919 to its north, 911 and the rest
of the houses to the south. Their main concern was the positioning of the proposed
home, it includes a 67’ portico, stretching from the front garage to the main
residence, which appears to circumvent zoning ordinances and position the home as
close to the Lake as possible. With this plan, they will be creating obstructing walls
to adjacent neighbors’ views. The proposed plan will adversely affect Lake front
home owners. The letter concluded asking the Commission to deny the plan as
submitted and requested that the home owners rework their plan to eliminate the
extreme setback, so that all owners will be able to enjoy their beautiful Lake front
properties.
Michael Arrington, a resident for 61 years, and in those years he has only seen one
project, 925 Edgemere Court that breaks the harmony of this private street, because
of its height, disruption of the rhythms of the existing homes. He urged the
Commission to not duplicate the error that was made in 2005 with 917 Edgemere.
The plans for 917 would duplicate another behemoth structure on the smallest lot on
Preservation Commission Page 8 of 11
Edgemere. It will create another imbalance and a sandwich effect for 919 and the
rest of the block. The other negative is the high wall effect it creates for the north and
the northeast of another landmark home, 911 Edgemere. The proposed setback of
the 917 residence in relation to the other homes on the east side of Edgemere is too
far east. It breaks the visual rhythm, openness, continuity and flow of the other
properties from the public way of the street and the public way of the Lake. The
garage being placed in front of the property and then attached with a 68’ portico,
defies the spirit of the zoning regulation, where the roof of the attached garage must
be connected to the roof of the main residence. This tactic circumvents that rule and
is disrespectful with the adjacent home owners. Even the 925 structure did not
violate the line of the homes on the east. He implored the Commission to deny the
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Leon Floerchinger at 907 Edgemere Court wrote he was in favor of development of
the parcel at 917. However, the proposed development is not in keeping with the
City’s Lakeshore Historic District. Approval of 925, two lots north of 917, resulted in
controversy. The applicant suggests that the physical positioning of the house, so
much closer to the water than other structures along the east side of Edgemere
Court, is in context with 700 block of Sheridan Road. Those structures were
developed as a result of the owners subdividing their property(s) and selling off for
development. He did not know that the features of that block (700 Sheridan) should
be duplicated on Edgemere. The proposed siting of 917 is not consistent with the
balance of the east side of Edgemere Court.
The applicant indicates that the flat roof similar to the flat roof of the prior home is in
context with the Historic District and in particular with the Edgemere block. Those
earlier characteristics of the earlier structures did not make them consistent with the
other homes on the block. While an attractive design, it fails to reference any
historical context of Edgemere.
Further Discussion:
Adam Sabow said he appreciated the feedback and advice from the neighbors. He
said is important to point out that the original 917 structure was set way back. They
wanted to do something quite similar to that. With respect to the garage, they
created the loggia and keeping the house set back, a created a continuing line in
front. They would be happy to forget about that continuing line, and go back where
the house originally was set. Also, move the garage back and right in front of the
house. The east line follows the contour of the Lake’s water edge. They have 1-story
structure that passed that contour line. They thought that was fair giving that there
are other 1-story structures. He passed around a revised drawing of that 1-story
structure not passing beyond that contour line. From their perspective, this is nothing
about a race to the Lake or the water.
Diane Williams said the Commission will discuss the application as presented and
whether or not it meets the standards for construction. J. Hacker asked, is this
particular structure compatible in this neighborhood today. She said regarding
standard 16, the proposed house is not compatible with the neighborhood. In regard
to proportion on the front façade, at looking at the front facades on the east side of
the street, we are dealing (style aside) with a historic traditional vocabulary of
punched openings, a certain kind of composition, roof forms, a rhythm of solids to
Preservation Commission Page 9 of 11
voids, those things are very different from what is a very nice modern building, but it
is not in part compatible in this context. In regard to roof shapes, she did not think
that the argument that a hip roof or a sort of a flat roof or a gambrel roof is related to
this particular structure. She said by purely looking at the standards she did not
believe that the proposed house belongs in the neighborhood.
Jack Weiss asked what the size of the lot is; what survey the Commission should
look at; does the property line extend to the center of Edgemere Court, and all the
others extend to the center of Edgemere Court. Damir Latinovic said Edgemere
Court is a private street, so the front property lines of the lots go into the Edgemere
Court street, some closer to the eastern edge of the roadway, some of them go to
the other side of the Edgemere Court road way, it meanders through all the lots. In a
typical neighborhood the property line is set adjacent to the sidewalk (sidewalk,
parkway, and street on the other side) all of that in the public right of way. In the
case of Edgemere Court, there is no public right of way. In regard to the dimensions
of the lot, staff reviews what is submitted, and when looking at the legal description
of the property, it said that the eastern edge goes to the water’s edge. Because the
lot is vacant, the 1912 survey is current. If the Commission feels that the water’s
edge has substantially deviated, the Commission can ask for new survey to be
submitted.
Robert Bady said he drove by the property and looked at the submittal, and what he
saw around the neighborhood, he felt there was a stark difference. He issue with
compatibility.
Tim Schmitt, referring to the rear of the property in the contextual setback, said the
layout of the original house was pleasing. If the developers then would have shown
what is proposed now, that would not have been designed, because of the canyon
that is being created. That goes to standards 5 and 7which hint to the rhythm of the
spaces of the structures and the relationship with the other properties and the public
way. There was a note from the attorney that said public way does not include the
Lake. Diane Williams said there are a couple of different opinions about that. In the
Commission’s work in the years she has been in the Commission, the Lake is
considered a public way. Damir Latinovic said this is something staff needs to
investigate. Because the rules and regulations of the Commission, specifically talk of
the public way, where the street and alley is defined as the public way, Lake
Michigan is one of those things that is not defined. However, those are the rules and
regulations, is not the City Code. Staff needs to look through the City Code, if there
is anywhere public way is defined that includes water ways, and if that is the case,
the City Code supersedes the rules and regulations. With that D. Latinovic
encouraged the Commission focus its review from Edgemere Court, rather than
Lake Michigan, at least for the time being.
Diane Williams said in terms of building on the comments from J. Hacker and T.
Schmitt, they are talking about something that relates to standard 9 as well, which
relates to walls of continuity. She said Edgemere Court is a special place that has a
host series of continuums that are inherent in the building structures there. Her
concern is the proposed structure does not fit within that context. She was not
concerned as much with design issues, but with rhythm, continuity, and the street
wall.
Preservation Commission Page 10 of 11
Elliott Dudnik referring sheet EX-4 said there is a fairly defined rear yard. The old
917 was further back than the others. Referring to sheet EX-5, suddenly the
proposed building is very far and way out from there (the old 917). In terms of
neighborliness, like it or not the proposed building is cutting everybody’s view (it is
not architectural criteria or the Commission’s criteria). He said it is really about
standard 9, the walls of continuity on the rear of it; is not about the design of the
building. He said he did not think this is an issue of modern design or not, because
he thought some of these homes were more modern than the ones that were there.
Amy Riseborough said she felt that there are many standards the proposed house
does not meet. She does not believe the contemporary design is the issue, she
would like to see something contemporary and beautiful that works better. She said
that is very unlikely that the owners are going to get a fence in the front yard fence.
However, if they choose that space with the fence mentioned, she was not sure it
will work for the owners. They have a rear yard that is little.
Diane Williams said what she is hearing from everyone is that the proposal in front of
the Commission in not really meeting the standards for construction that they need
to approve it. The Commission would like to table this until next month and give the
applicants the opportunity to work on a current design that they have come up with
and come back to the Commission.
Jack Weiss said that the proposed project does not meet standard 2 for construction
related to the proportion of front facade. Looking at the front elevation, the garage is
in front, and the house is way back, so there is no proportion of front façade.
Adam Sabow asked how they should think about the front setback of the previous
structure that was on that lot. Commissioners said that was not relevant, it is new
construction and is has to correspond to existing buildings.
It was motioned (R. Bady) and seconded (A. Riseborough) to table discussion on
917 Edgemere Court to the next meeting on June 21st (assuming the applicants
submit an up to date plat of survey and a 3-D rendering). The motion passed
unanimously. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays
4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of February 16 (revised) March 15, and
April 12, 2016.
The Commission approved the February 16, 2016 as revised.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Working Groups)
A. Preservation Ordinance Review Sub-Committee - Update.
Diane Williams reported that the Sub-Committee started its review of the
Preservation Ordinance at a meeting on April 28, 2016. Members were assigned
sections of the Preservation Ordinance that at the time did not receive any
comments. The next Sub-Committee meeting is on Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 8
a.m.
Preservation Commission Page 11 of 11
6. VOLUNTEER REPORTS
A. Preservation and Design Awards – Update
Carlos Ruiz reported that 13 projects were selected by a jury to receive a 2016
Preservation & Design Award. The Awards presentation is on Monday, May 23,
2016 at 7 p.m. at a reception, followed by a 10 minute presentation of the award
recipient projects at City Council.
B. Design Guidelines Volunteers - Update
Jack Weiss said volunteers started working on the Design Guidelines every other
week. They anticipate that a lot of work is involved to bringing the Design
Guidelines in sync with the Preservation Ordinance.
7. STAFF REPORTS
A. Chicago Suburban Preservation Alliance Meeting, Saturday, May 21, 2016,
Masonic Block Building / 24050 W. Lockport St. / Plainfield, IL 60544. Hosted by
Landmarks Illinois and the Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission.
Diane Williams announced the Chicago Suburban Preservation Alliance in Plainfield,
IL on May 21, 2016
8. DISCUSSION (No vote will be taken)
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. on Tuesday May 17, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
Carlos D. Ruiz
Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator