►
From YouTube: Preservation Commission Meeting 9/11/2018
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
The
first
item
of
business
under
the
under
old
business
is
the
consideration
of
the
approval
of
the
report
and
resolution
asking
the
city
manager
to
transmit
the
Commission's
recommendation
to
designate
2010
Dewey
Avenue
is
in
Evanston,
landmark
the
property
owner
family
focus
has
asked
to
do
a
brief
presentation
and
I
see.
Deano
Robinson
is
here,
and
you
know
if
you
also
would
like
to
do
that,
that's
fine!
So
would
you
like
to
start
or
Bridget?
Do
you
want
to
go
first
once
once
just
for
the
Commission's
purposes?
A
B
Third
time
good
evening,
Matt
for
the
record,
my
name
is
Bridget
O'keefe
I'm,
an
attorney
with
the
Aspen
AMA
and
I'm
here
tonight,
on
behalf
of
family
focus,
I'm
accompanied
by
Mary
acts
who's
the
executive
director
of
family
focus.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
continue
the
conversation
about
the
proposed
landmark
designation
of
the
2010
juhi
building
since
the
July
vote.
You
know,
we've
come
to
the
realization
that
there
is
far
less
interest
in
the
building
which
was
placed
on
the
market
in
in
late
June.
B
We've
been
informed
by
family
focuses
broker
that
that
any
initial
interest
was
there
is
gone.
So
we
talked
to
the
broker
and
we
worked
with
the
broker
about
to
explore.
Is
there
a
way
to
work
with
the
Commission
on
the
landmark
designation
to
still
provide
you
know
some
flexibility
in
the
language
that
would
help
make
this
building?
B
You
know
still
attractive
for
adaptive,
reuse
at
the
hearing
in
July
and
if,
during
the
staff
report
that
was
issued
on
Friday,
it's
been
stated,
the
building
is
being
designated
not
for
its
architecture,
but
it's
for
its
historic
and
cultural
significance
to
the
city
of
Evanston.
So,
given
the
recognition
by
everybody
that
the
building
is
not
architectural
significant,
we
saw
the
opportunity
to
build
flexibility
into
the
designation
language
in
an
attempt
to
make
the
property
more
attractive
to
either
the
community
group
that
may
potentially
seek
to
purchase
the
property
or
other
entities.
B
So,
as
a
result,
we
submitted
this
proposed
landmark
designation
language
for
consideration,
I'd
like
to
just
kind
of
briefly
walk
you
through
it,
and
explain
why
we've
suggested
what
we've
suggested
and
the
benefits
we
think
it
provides.
So
we
agree
with
the
staff
that
the
period
of
significance
is
from
1905
until
1979,
which
is
when
the
school
closed,
we're
proposing
that
the
landmark
designation
only
extend
to
the
exterior
of
the
building
and
make
it
clear
that
it
does
include
the
interior
of
the
building,
which
allows
maximum
flexibility
to
modernize
the
building
for
alternate
uses.
B
We
also
state
that
the
landmark
designation
shall
not
include
the
surrounding
land
located
on
the
outs
of
record,
which
are
associated
with
the
building.
The
reason
we
specifically
proposed,
excluding
the
vacant
land
from
the
landmark
designation,
which
is
allowed
by
the
Evanston
code.
If
you
specifically
exempt
it,
you
are
authorized
to
do
so.
We
we
believe
that
there
may
be
portion
of
that
vacant
land,
particularly
they--it
land.
Okay,
today
to
the
north
of
the
building,
which
holds
a
parking
lot,
they
could
be
sold
for
a
low-density
residential
development
under
the
existing
r4
zoning.
B
It
would
exempting
it
from
the
landmark
designation
would
reassure
potential
purchasers
of
the
land
who
are
concerned
who
might
be
concerned
about
potential
delays
or
increased
costs
of
having
to
obtain
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
The
community
would
remain
protected
because
the
development
would
still
be
subject
to
the
zoning
and
building
codes
and
the
processes
that
have
to
go
with
that,
but
it
would
simplify
the
process
by
removing
a
layer
of
approval.
B
As
we've
stated
previously,
the
building
in
the
land
is
the
only
asset
owned
by
family
focus
and
they
have
a
fiduciary
duty
to
maximize
its
value.
As
a
result,
we
believe
that
this
redevelopment
or
selling
of
this
small
parcel
of
land,
which
we
have
not
even
discussed
with
anyone
we're
coming
to
you
first
may
represent
the
only
opportunity
family
focus
has
to
offset
some
of
the
lost
value
of
the
building
posed
by
the
designation.
So
we're
asking
the
Preservation
Commission
to
limit
the
landmark
designation
to
the
building
itself.
B
We
also
provide
that
new
additions
could
be
allowed
on
the
roof
or
a
secondary
elevation
of
the
building
so
long
as
such
additions-
and
this
is
to
provide
protection,
are
designed
to
be
compatible
with
the
massing
size,
scale
and
architectural
features
of
the
building
and
to
distinguish
them
from
the
original
structure.
These
are
standard
preservation,
protections
that
are
often
built
into
designations.
B
We
want
to
do
that
because
we
feel
that
sensitive
additions
should
be
allowed
to
the
secondary
facades
in
the
roof.
We're
particularly
concerned
about
the
staff
reports
designation
of
the
following
critical
features:
the
flat
roof,
the
stone
lintels
on
the
west
facade
and
the
stone
bans
on
the
North
facade.
All
of
these
would
be
deemed
secondary
facades.
All
of
these
features
putting
this
language
and
would
deter
future
additions,
which
may
potentially
be
needed
to
make
the
building
viable.
B
That's
why
we
think
it's
important
to
call
out
that
additions
would
be
considered
as
something
that
you
know
could
go
through
the
process
and
would
be
given
the
flexibility
to
provide.
We
think
it
provides
Futurist
users
with
some
assurance
that
additions
would
be
allowed
as
long
as
they
meet
the
traditional
standards
governing
rehabilitation
of
historic
buildings
and
understand
that
such
review
would
be
subject
to
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
B
We
also,
then
provide
language
that
provides
flexibility
with
regards
to
windows.
We
feel
that's
needed
because
there's
many
different
kinds
of
windows
on
the
building
that
were
put
in
over
a
variety
of
times
and
the
staff
report
and
then
I
want
to
go
into
a
little
more
the
language
of
the
staff
report
right
now.
B
But
rather
you
know
for
its
historic
and
cultural
significance,
but
this
language
is
very,
very
broad,
and
if
you
were
it's
very
generic
and
it
doesn't
provide
any
specific
clarity
to
someone
who
might
come
in
and
want
to
purchase
the
building
it
if,
for
example,
if
you
read
this
building
this
language,
if
you
were
thinking
about
buying
the
building
and
putting
on
in
addition,
do
you
think
you
would?
If
you
read
this,
would
you
think
you
had
the
right
to
do
that?
B
It's
not
as
clear
as
the
language
were
suggesting
if
you,
if
you're
thinking
about
work
being
done
proposed,
is
compatible
with
the
building
as
it
had
evolved
up
to
1979.
It
would
not
be
expected
to
go
back
and
build
a
replica
of
the
1905
building
or
the
like.
We're,
not
sure
what
that
means,
because
the
building
evolves
significantly
between
1905
and
1979.
B
You
know
what
direction
does
this
provide
to
a
future
owners
seeking
to
make
improvements
there
to
add
on
to
the
building
the
report
states
that
one
must
discount
the
appearance
of
windows
from
the
1990s
and
been
more
in
keeping
with
the
windows
that
were
there
in
the
1979.
But
there
were
windows
from
every
era
in
the
building
every
area
era
the
buildings
been
there,
they
were
all
there
in
1979,
so
this
this
just
doesn't
provide
the
level
of
clarification
that
we
think
is
needed
to
provide
comfort
to
a
potential
purchaser.
B
That
improvements
will
be
allowed
to
modernize
the
building
and
make
it
functional
in
today's
economic
environment.
So
we're
asking
for
the
Commission
to
acknowledge
the
important
services
and
family
focus
is
provided
to
Evanston
for
decades
and
a
significant
financial
investment.
It
is
made
the
decision
we
believe
the
decision
for
you
tonight
is
very
important,
because
the
language
chosen
will
determine
if
the
building
can
be
successfully
marketed
or,
if
we're
creating
a
white
elephant
that
may
ultimately
be
closed
and
become
a
blight
on
the
community.
B
Family
focus
is
asking
you
to
approve
this
language
and
work
with
us
to
provide
the
neatest
flexibility
to
provide
more
certainty
for
future
owners.
We
believe
this
would
benefit
not
only
a
potential
private
purchaser,
but
also
the
foster
Center
one
place
group,
which
is
a
community-based
organization
seeking
to
identify
funding
to
purchase
the
building.
We
believe
it
benefits
everyone
if
the
language
is
draft
as
expansively
as
possible,
because
in
the
end
we
all
share
the
same
goal,
which
is
to
save
the
building,
because
no
one
benefits
from
the
building
not
being
sold
for
productive
reuse.
B
B
You
know
we,
we
don't
believe
that
the
building
has
historic
integrity.
So
we
chose
the
entrance
the
primary
entrance
to
the
building
as
and
the
one
that
focuses
on
the
park
and
on
the
community
center
across
as
being
the
most
visible
and
there's
no
and
and
chose
to
look
at
the
west
and
the
north
facades,
where
there's
parking
lots
or
on
the
South
facade,
where
there's
kind
of
a
childcare
new
additions
from
61
as
being
the
secondary
facades.
Okay,.
B
The
remember
the
the
east
aside
that
land
there
is
very
narrow
when
the
east
facades
a
primary
facade.
So
it's
really
the
land.
That's
there
really
from
us.
You
have
to
look
at
the
zoning
code
and
what
kind
of
lot
dimensions
do
you
have
to
have
to
be
able
to
create
and
subdivide
a
lot
that
lends
itself
mostly
to
the
the
north
parking
lot,
because
that's
of
a
rectangle
of
a
sufficient
size
that
you
can
actually
get
the
setbacks,
the
minimum
lot
area
etc.
B
D
Okay,
stating
for
the
record,
my
name
is
Dino.
Robinson
I
represent
the
surrounding
community
and
the
author
of
the
proposal
to
designate
the
2010
Dewey
property
as
historic,
landmark
in
all
from
what
the
previous
were
family
focus
representatives
said
have
presented
today,
really
falls
in
line
with
the
same
spirit
of
what
we
were
trying
to
address
with
designating.
This
is
a
landmark
for
its
history.
D
I
do
want
to
see
or
assure
that
any
bodies
that
want
to
invest
in
that
building
have
that
flexibility
to
do
things
they
need
to
to
make
it
viable,
especially
on
the
interior,
to
have
that
flexibility
to
tear
down
walls
reconfigure
for
plants,
whatever
is
needed
to
make
it
more
viable
for
the
outside.
If
there's
any
additions
put
to
it
as
long
as
it
falls
and
fills
within
the
criteria
of
said
zoning
and
building
criteria,
as
long
as
it
fits
within
that
we
should
be
fine.
D
I
just
want
to
prevent
like
a
frame
structure,
tagged
onto
with
aluminum
siding
I
mean
that's
not
gonna,
work
very
well,
but
from
what
was
proposed
by
family
focus
has
its.
It
falls
in
line
with
the
spirit
that
we
have.
We
did
have
a
short
conversation
before
this
meeting
about
the
lot
north
to
the
north
of
the
building,
which
is
perfectly
fine
with
the
the
feeling
of
the
proposal.
I
won't
think
the
community
is
going
to
push
back
on
that
at
all
for
appropriate
development.
D
The
east
side,
I
think
knows
it's
the
front
facing
building
that
people
are
familiar
with
I,
don't
see
any
development
happening
on
there,
but
as
that's
the
primary
space
as
you're
talking
about
so
I
think
what
their
family
folk
was
trying
to
do
to
make
this
building
as
viable
as
possible
and
clear
as
possible
for
any
potential
investor
to
know
that
they
have
flexibilities,
while
maintaining
the
integrity
of
the
building.
So
that's
pretty
much
my
comment
great.
A
A
B
A
subdivision
ordinance
if
you
meet
certain
requirements,
it's
there's
not
a
lot
of
discretion
in
it,
and
and
there's
underlying
zoning
protections
that
go
with
density,
height,
setbacks,
etc.
I
think
what
I'm
trying
to
ask
for
here
is
a
recognition
that
this
is
not
a
private
developer.
This
is
a
non-profit,
this
nonprofit.
If
they
cannot
make
that
land
valuable
or
that
building
viable,
then
it's
gonna
end
up
a
white
elephant
which
no
one
wants.
B
This
is
one
of
the
few
buildings,
that's
not
a
landmark
because
of
its
architecture,
so
thus
that
visibility
question
isn't
as
important
as
long
as
you're,
still
maintaining
the
character
of
the
building
and
you're,
maintaining
the
character,
largely
maintaining
the
character
of
the
primary
building
primary
facade
that
everyone
sees
in
equates
with
foster
school,
which
is
really
the
East
facade,
because
that's
the
deadness.
Everything
else
is
backs
on
an
alley
or
as
parking.
It's
not
got
the
presence
of
the
East
facade,
which
is
where
the
park
is.
B
So
we
would
ask
for
flexibility
and
an
understanding
that
this
is
a
unique
situation,
but
that
this
does
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
financial
ability
of
family-focused
to
if
they
can
recoup
some
of
their
losses
on
the
land,
then
that
may
make
it
more
affordable
on
the
building.
For
someone
to
save
the
building,
I
mean
it's
all
give-and-take.
B
I
have
to
be
honest,
I'd
also
want
to
look
at
and
I'm
being
really
asked.
I
would
want
to
look
at
the
West
or
the
site.
I
want
to
look
at
the
West
or
even
potentially
the
South
I
haven't
looked
at
it
from
the
standpoint
of
looking
at
his
owning
view
of
either,
because
really
it's
to
the
north.
That
is
the
easiest
to
do.
It
is
the
most
obvious,
but
but
the
most
obvious
presence
that
you
want
to
maintain
is
the
east.
That's
the
mama
need
lots
of
record.
B
A
I
guess
the
question
that
we
have
is
is:
did
you
hear
from
the
question
that
we
have
is
about
whether
or
not
we
can
take
extra
time
to
do
this
because
of
the
amount
of
time
you
know
before?
We
have
to
submit
it
to
Council
and
to
really
kind
of
work
through
these
issues,
because
I'm
not
sure
we're
actually
gonna
solve
them
tonight.
I.
C
Mean
I,
don't
I
mean
I.
Read
these
really
carefully
before
coming
and
I
think
the
I
mean
I
think
we
would
have
to
write
these
differently.
To
me,
I
mean
III,
think
the
ideas
are
fine,
but,
for
example,
this
one
would
would
allow
you
to
build
something
right
in
front
of
the
East
facade.
I
mean
you
know
we
could
write,
there's
the
only
developable
am
looking
at
there.
Ariel
is
north
parking
lot,
I
mean
the
rest,
there's
no
land.
C
So,
for
example,
we
could
say
that
the
you
know
the
recommend
mean
it
were
only
allowed
to
include
recommendations
for
future
development,
but
we
could
say
that
the
for
future
review-
your
time
can
appear.
So
we
could
figure
that
out,
but
we
could
always
say
that
it
wouldn't
prevent
a
subdivision
and
separate
use
of
the
that
northern
personal,
for
example.
The
language
that's
in
here
is
broad
enough
to
cover
an
actual,
not
separate
use,
but
an
actual
addition
to
the
building,
as
opposed
to
a
sale
in
a
subdivision
but
I
think
throughout
here,
but.
B
C
A
C
C
B
You
can
I
think
your
code
gives
you
the
ability
to
specifically
exempt
out,
and
no
it
does
vacant
land
from
the
designation
of
a
landmark,
and
so
thus
the
landmark
and
we
can
define
vacant
land
as
we
choose
to
you
could
say
vacant
land
to
the
north.
But
if
the
vacant
land
is
not
part
of
the
landmark
I
would
I
would
suggest,
you
may
not
need
to
come
back.
E
It
would
certainly
get
flagged
in
the
city's
process,
as
Atlanta's
landmark,
but
then
may
be
able
to
just
stay
in
a
staff
level.
If
it's
already
on
record
that
the
north
fifty
feet
of
the
parcels
excluded
and
someone's
subdividing
forty
nine
and
a
half
feet
in
that
zone
and
maybe
wouldn't
need
to
come
to
the
Commission
I.
Don't
know.
C
A
That's
that
that's
a
question
I
have
for
Scott
in
terms
of
deadlines.
When
do
we
need
to
because
we
have
to
the
reality
is:
is
we
have
to
meet
the
70-day
requirement
to
get
the
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
and
my
understanding
is
we
can't
reopen
the
public
hearing,
so
we
we've
kind
of
got
to
figure
out
how
we're
gonna
approach
this?
A
Is
it
something
that
we
spend
some
extra
time
on
this
language,
and
maybe
do
this
as
an
approval
as
an
approval
among
the
Commission
that
and
post
it
publicly?
How
can
we
handle
that
Scot,
where
we,
you
know
where
we
potentially
do
it
electronically
and
it
gets
posted?
Is
there
a
way
that
how
can
we
do
that?
Yes,.
F
Sir
Williams,
thank
you
for
pointing
out
the
language
and
the
ordinance
about
the
70
days
from
close
the
public
hearing
that
the
Commission
should
make
that
recommendation.
So
since
July
10th
is
when
the
the
public
hearing
was
closed,
we're
running
up
towards
that
70
days
there.
So
I
would
recommend
that
if
the
the
language
and
the
staff
report
is
recommended
to
be
amended,
particularly
regarding
that
point
for
with
the
design
guidelines
that
we
should
be
as
specific
as
possible
this
evening.
C
A
A
C
We've
got
one
more
week,
I
guess,
if
permissible,
my
thought
would
be
that
we,
you
know,
have
we
agree?
Generally,
that's
something
like
you
know
to
this
effect
will
be
included
and
then
over
the
next
week
we,
which
I
think
is
the
deadline
we
get
in
place
language
that
we
write
after
this.
That
then
both
parties
get
to
see
and
comment
on,
but
we
generally
do
this
effect,
but
might
be
more
precise,
I.
B
Let's
see
but
see
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
I'm
trying
to
take
the
language,
that's
in
the
staff
report
and
make
it
very
clear
for
a
potential
purchaser
if
they're
coming
in
and
looking
at
this
report,
what
they
canning,
where
they've
got
the
flexibility
and
I
know
what
you're
saying
about
the
interior.
Not.
But
if
you
put
this
here,
then
someone
looks
at
and
says:
okay
I
know,
I
can
do
clearly.
I
know
what
I
can
do.
What
I
want
on
the
inside
well
and
I'm.
A
B
But
you
have
design
you
have
in
your
report.
You
have
design
guidelines
and
number
four,
even
if
you
put
in
language
that
said
something
to
the
effect
maybe
not
put
this
in,
but
in
the
design
guidelines
saying
as
known
in
the
as
known
by
the
landmark
ordinance
of
Evanston.
This
does
not
apply
to
the
interior.
That
way,
then
you
can.
You
know,
reaffirm
that
that's
what
the
code
provides,
but
it
does
say
it
for
the
layman.
Looking
at
it,
just
a
thought:
I'm,
just
throwing
it
out.
F
We
have
language
or
direction
that
you
may
not
have
to
be
precise
language,
but
should
be
clear
direction
about
the
design
guidelines
that
are
asked
to
be
implemented.
So
if
the
Commission
we're
looking
to
exclude
review
of
that
area
between
the
North
facade
of
the
building
and
the
north
property
line,
you.
F
H
I
just
have
cake,
can
I
just
ask
a
question:
I,
don't
really
and
I,
don't
know
how
I
would
be
able
to
evaluate
anything
without
any
kind
of
you
know,
looking
at
zoning
and
possible
subdivisions
and
how
close
it
could
be
to
the
existing
building
and
what
that
means
so
that
I'm,
very
I'm,
just
uncomfortable
with
I
mean
the
language
of
the
last
item,
because
I
I
mean
I,
don't
really
know
what
that
means.
Well,
I
mean
unless
we
actually
see
some
see.
B
We
don't
know
we
don't
know,
but
what
the
use
is
going
to
be,
but
we
do
know
that
our
for
zoning
allows
single-family
homes
and
townhomes
right,
and
we
know
that
there's
setback
requirements
in
the
rear.
We
know
that
the
northern
portion
of
the
of
the
building
has
limited
visibility
as
compared
to
the
southern
portion
of
the
building,
which
is
visible
to
the
street,
as
is
the
East
portion
of
the
building
which
is
visible
to
the
street.
So
what
we're
trying?
B
B
There's
no
option
to
not
to
get
any
value
out
of
this
building
right
now
we're
in
a
really
difficult
situation.
We
have
no
one
interested
in
the
building,
except
for
one
nonprofit,
that's
gone
silent
and,
and
then
the
community
group
who
you
is
yet
to
be
able
to
identify
the
financial
viability.
So,
that's
why
this
parcel
small
as
it
is,
does
have
some
value
I.
E
Mean
I,
guess
I
personally
I'm
open
to
splitting
off
some
basically
having
you,
the
owner,
proposed,
basically
all
almost
a
subdivision
and
just
say:
okay
to
meet
the
zoning
set
back
on
the
north
for
the
existing
building.
The
property
line
would
have
to
be
here
so
therefore
that
would
exclude.
However
many
feet
it
is
of
the
north
part
of
the
parcel
we'd
have
to
be
very
specific.
B
B
E
F
Yes,
the
commissioners
I
did
you
know
the
hypotheticals
as
you're,
noting
it
does
get
a
little
more
complex.
Even
the
setback
of
the
existing
structure
would
depend
whether
it's
a
residential
structure
or
non-residential
structure.
So
the
potential
future
use
were
to
be
residential
would
be
a
five
foot
side
yard
setback
where,
if
it
could
be
non-residential,
be
a
15
foot,
side
yard
setback.
There
are
minimum
lot
width
in
the
are
four
district,
those
different
for
single-family
and
to
family
versus
townhome,
single-family
attached
or
other
uses,
so
decided.
E
I
guess
I
guess.
My
point
is
just
that:
we're
trying
to
do
something
to
help
make
it
more
marketable
and
so
we're
sort
of
taking
a
worst-case
scenario.
So
it'd
be
go
15
feet
off
the
north
wall,
draw
a
line
and
say
that's
the
limit
of
landmark
review
and
not
that
some
other
situation
couldn't
happen.
It's
just
giving
them
the
flexibility
and
to
make
it
marketable,
not.
F
B
A
Here
right
and
that's
what
makes
it
very
challenging
when
we're
talking
about
this,
because
I
think
you
know,
we
don't
know
that.
You
know
I
understand
your
issue
when
it
comes
to
marketability,
but
the
issue
is
is
when
there
is
something
concrete:
that's
out
there,
if
it's
not
the
same
kind
of
animal,
it's
it's
really
hard
to
think
about
what
that
might
be
and
kind
of
wrap
yourself.
Your
head
around
that,
and
so
that's
that's
kind
of
the
fundamental
issue
that
I
have
I.
Have
some
precedent.
A
Concerns
about
doing
this,
but
I
understand
from
your
perspective
and
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
you've
come.
You
know
to
talk
about
this
and
that
the
that
the
neighborhood
and
Dino's
group
is
really
on
board
with
this.
So
I
think
what
we
want
to
do
is
come
up
with
something
that
we
can
live
with,
that
we
feel
meets
the
ordinance
spirit
and
the
standards
and
go
from
there.
So
I
don't
know
if
someone
has
a
suggestion
in
terms
of
potential
motion,
but.
C
C
It's
true-
and
you
know,
I
realized
I
mean
rather
than
being
trying
to
be
creative
about
it,
which
I'm
not
you
know,
but
my
fear
is
once
we
also
try
to
say
something
like
at
least
15
feet.
Then
it
could
be
a
it's
equally
possible
that
could
hurt
you
is
that
can
help
yeah.
So
my
thought
is
to
keep
it
simple
between
us,
since
we
have
to
get
it
done
and
just
simply
take
the
language.
C
The
sentence
that
was
already
written
for
the
Commission
report
that
that's
on
the
product
page
about
not
discouraging
future
I,
mean
just
simply
to
modify
this
language
so
that
for
the
first
paragraph,
just
to
add
something
about
you
know
about
without
limitation.
The
you
know
it's
something
about
the
types
of
approvals
that
that
might
be
granted,
which
would
include
you
know,
changing
the
windows,
potential
development,
potential
subdivision
and
development
of
the
north
parking
lot.
And
then
you
know
something
about
the
roof
and
about
other
elevations,
so
we
would
still
have
to
approve.
H
I
just
want
to
say
something:
you
know,
I,
don't
know,
there's
really
nothing.
I
think
that
the
East
was
East.
Facade
is
also
a
mix
of
stuff,
and
what,
if
somebody
wanted
to
do
like
a
really
great
addition
beyond
that
entry,
so
that
they
made
a
courtyard
and
it
was
off
of
the
East
facade?
That
would
be
mean,
that's
something
that
we
may
end
up.
H
B
B
But
what
we're
saying
what
you
would
be
saying
by
putting
in
some
version
of
some
of
this
is
that
we're
gonna,
give
you
a
little
more
latitude
here
and
not
as
much
like
on
the
north,
south
and
west,
and
not
as
much
latitude
on
the
east.
We're
gonna
say
that
a
rooftop
edition,
sensitive
rooftop
edition,
is
something
that
we
contemplate
and
could
feel
comfortable
with
the
this
kind
of
specificity
is
what
helps
us.
If
you
leave
it
too
generic,
it's
just
not
helpful
it.
B
H
D
E
B
I'm,
just
going
by
what
the
broker
told
me,
the
broker
told
me
that
this
kind
of
language
would
help
her
market
the
building
she
signed
off
on
this.
She
said
that
that
in
her
market
world,
she
needs
to
be
able
to
go
to
a
potential
purchaser
and
say:
hey.
You
have
some
flexibility
with
regards
to
what
you
can
do
to
the
building
additions.
H
Say
that
because
it's
all
part
of
you
know
it
is
true,
that's
what
we
said
it's
like
to
put
it
just,
you
know
a
broker
if
they
really
understood
the
language
in
the
ordinance.
That's
what
happens
you
know
it's
like
since
it's
so
it's
the
it
seems
to
me
the
more
general
it
is
and
I
understand,
you're
looking
for
specificity,
but
why
do
we
have
to
put
that
in
the
language
I
I
represent.
B
A
lot
of
developers
that
develop
historic,
rehabbed
I've
seen
them.
They
take
that
what
they
call
the
language
which
governs
significance
of
the
landmark
building,
which
is
what
basically
this
is,
and
they
want
to
see
it.
They
want
to
review
it
and
they
want
to
know
where
their
limits
are
and
where
their
opportunities
are
and
the
language.
B
If
it's
too
generic
that
it
doesn't
say
anything
and
then
then
you
know,
for
example,
if
you
looked
at
the
languages
drafted
right
now
and
you'd
see
a
critical
feature
as
a
flat
roof
that
would
say
to
a
developer.
You
cannot
put
an
addition
on
a
flat
roof
because
that
it
impairs
the
critical
feature
of
the
building.
If
you
look
at
the
West
facade-
and
it
says
the
lintels
over
the
windows
that
says
to
a
developer,
you
can't
put
an
addition
up.
B
That's
going
to
cover
up
the
lintels
or
on
the
North
facade,
that's
going
to
cover
up
the
banding
they're
gonna
read
that,
like
those
critical
features
which
are
very
specific
and
they're
gonna,
say
you
know.
Unless
somewhere
it
says
it's
okay
to
do
an
addition.
Despite
these
critical
features
that
provides
that
offset.
C
Yeah
I
mean
I,
don't
even
have
the
power
to
approve
any
kind
of
addition
today,
so
I
think
to
the
extent
it
would
help
you
for
us
to
say
to
identify
certain
things
that
may
be
acceptable,
and
so
there
would
be
words
I
mean.
So
there
be
words
in
the
report
that
you
could
then
point
people
to
and
say
look
they
knew
right
here
that
you
might
replace
the
windows.
They
knew
right
here
that
you
might
put
things
on
the
roof.
C
It's
in
here
I
mean
it's
not
going
to
be
binding
on
us
either
way,
and
so
everything
I
think
we
can
get
I
think
we
can
use
a
lot
of
your
words
so
that
you
would
have
something
to
point
to,
rather
than
be
just
completely
generic,
but
it's
still
going
to
have
to
go
through
a
commission
process.
No
matter
what
we
say,
I
mean:
that's,
not
it's
not
an
alternative
to
have
something
of
right.
Well,.
B
C
C
Say
whichever
I
mean,
or
one
foot
or
two
feet
or
no
say
another
lot
and
no
setback?
So
if
you
wanna
propose
something
specific
for
us
to
consider,
we
could
consider
it
just
covering
it,
but
I
mean
but
I
mean
you
can
see
that
the
problem
is
we're
not
I
mean
your
language
would
literally
mean
you
could
have
a
building
that
abuts.
This
no.
B
No,
we
couldn't,
because
it
has
to
comply
with
code,
see
we
what
we
we
you
can't.
You
can't
approve
anything
that
does
not
comply
with
the
zoning
or
the
building
code,
so
whatever
setback
work
is
required,
be
it
non
residential
or
residential.
Whatever
lot
size
is
required,
you
know
that
all
we
still
have
to
comply
with
that.
That's
the
protection
that
comes
to
the
village
come.
C
B
I
think
we
I'm
going
to
respectfully
disagree
because
the
language
and
the
code
allows
you
to
exempt
out
the
vacant
land.
It
specifically
says
the
landmark
can
will
include
the
site
and
the
building
unless
you
would
specifically
exempt
out
the
vacant
land.
So
you
could
do
that.
Do
you
have
the
citation
it's
in
the
definition
of
the
word
landmark
in
your
historic
preservation,
ordinance,
there's
a
definition
of
landmark
and
it
specifically
calls
that
out.
I
can
get
it
on
my
phone,
no
I've
got
it.
I've
got
it
here.
F
I'll
just
to
clarify
and
thank
you
for
bringing
that
up-
miss
O'keefe,
local,
landmark,
designation,
sorry,
local,
landmark
definition:
it's
a
building
structure,
Sider
object
as
made
it
as
a
landmark
by
the
council
as
a
high
degree
of
historic,
cultural,
architectural
or
archaeological
significance
to
the
city
of
Evanston
for
the
purposes
of
this
chapter
and
unless
otherwise
expressly
provided
by
Council
in
the
ordinance
for
designation.
All
designation
shall
presumptively
include
the
lots
of
record
associated
with
the
structure
or
object
designate,
as
landmark
says,.
B
That
would
give
the
council
the
right
to
exempt
out
a
portion
of
that
and
that
could
I
assume
that
could
be
included
in
your
staff
report.
Your
a
report
that
you
make
to
the
City
Council
if
this
is
something
better
deferred
to
City
Council,
that
that
also
is
a
possibility,
but
I
interpreted
that
language
is
giving
you
that
freedom.
C
G
B
F
Part
of
the
part
of
the
report
includes
number
five
and
the
reports,
a
map
showing
the
location,
the
nominated
landmark.
So
it
suggests
if
the
Commission
wanted
to
make
that
change
it'd
be
directing
staff
to
make
it
change
that
map
that
exhibit.
That
shows
the
location
of
the
nominated
landmark
right
now.
It
highlights
the
entire
parcel
there.
F
B
We
could
look
at
the
dimensions
it
a
lot
a
little
more
carefully
and
get
back
to
you
in
the
next
couple
days
with
you
know,
because
there
are
limits
on
lot
size
and
and
setbacks
that
really
limit
where
you
can
put
that
deadline,
and
we
could
get
back
to
you
on
that.
If
that's
something
that
you'd
be
willing
to
consider.
E
B
B
Is
essential
to
what
makes
the
building
a
landmark
and
that
it
is
something
because
it's
a
passive
land
vacant
with
no
which
could
be
separated
easily
from
the
building
without
adversely
affecting
the
historic
aspect
of
the
building.
It's
saying
that
we
understand
the
flexibility
should
be
given
to
make
sure
that
this
building
remains
viable,
because
that
that
it's,
what
what
makes
that
building
a
landmark
is
not
that
land.
B
It's
really
it
really
isn't.
And
so
what
you're?
Just
saying
in
your
staff
report?
Is
we
recognize
that
that
land
isn't?
What
makes
this
building
a
landmark
as
an
historic
or
cultural?
You
know
criteria,
so
it's
not
so
much
to
lay
a
subdivision,
because
ultimately,
council
makes
a
decision
if
a
building
should
be
a
plan
should
be
subdivided
or
not.
It's
not
something.
B
That's
within
your
jurisdiction,
you're
just
saying
that
this
land
really
isn't
what
lends
to
the
character
of
the
historic
character
of
the
building,
so
that
when
we
go
back
for
a
subdivision,
then
we
can
say
you
know
it
was
recognized
at
the
time
that
this
wasn't.
It
wasn't
important
or
essential
to
the
preserving
the
historic
aspect
of
the
building.
That's
what,
in
my
opinion,
it
does
thoughts.
F
F
You
know
if
you
can
do
a
35
foot
wide
lot
to
put
a
single-family
home.
There,
however,
need
to
wider
a
lot
if
you're
going
to
do
multifamily
and
then
the
number
of
units
there
it
depend
on
the
lot
size
all
that
would
have
to
be
determined
at
the
time.
I
think
it
comes
down
to
whether
the
the
Commission
would
like
to
see
any
proposal
for
the
future
of
that
portion
that
northern
portion
a
lot
or
not
the
subdivision
process.
F
You'll
have
seen
a
subdivision
recently
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago
or
so
subdue
certain
process
is
relatively
straightforward,
does
not
go
to
the
Planning
Commission.
It
only
goes
to
the
City
Council.
So
go
to
go
to
the
the
Commission
for
a
recommendation.
Then
it
would
go
to
the
Planning
development
committee
for
a
resolution
to
approve
the
subdivision.
It's
not
a
very
time
intensive
process
as
far
as
our
zoning
processes
and
certainly
a
lot
quicker
than
the
plan
development
process
that
may
be
involved
depending
on
potential
future
developments
of
the
lot.
F
C
Think
there
there
may
be
a
couple
of
choices.
What
we
could
do
one
would
be
to
simply
draw
the
line
to
exclude
the
northern
lot,
which
I
think
I'd
be
against,
because
you
could.
It
would
be
nothing
to
do
with
a
subdivision.
You
could
literally
just
built
an
additional
location,
so
I'd
be
against
that.
The
other
would
be
to
say
that
we
that
I
mean
we
don't
have
any
power
to
pre
a
purpose
of
division.
In
fact,
what
we
could
certainly
say
that.
D
C
C
G
C
A
We
need
flexibility
in
the
issue
that
I
have
is
I.
Think
when
it,
if
we're,
if
we're
talking
about
any
sort
of
market
certainty,
I,
think
the
idea
that
a
potential
development
or
a
subdivision
of
this
in
order
to
achieve
a
development
objective
would
be
you
know
if
it
if
we're
giving
an
indication
that
it
would
be
reviewed
positively.
I
think
that's
pretty
much
all
we
can
do
at
this
point
frankly,
but
I
and
I
also
think
that
that
would
provide
a
certain
level
of
market
certainty.
So
you.
B
Know
it's
it's
better
than
it's
not
as
far
as
we'd
like
to
see
it,
but
it's
it's
better
than
not
having
anything
I'm
not
trying
to
be
ungrateful.
I
appreciate
your
willingness
to
to
look
at
that.
But
can
we
also
talked
about
language
regarding
editions
and
language
regarding
roofs
and
windows
and
some
adding
some
more
of
that
general
language
in
the
staff
report
under
the
desired
guidelines
and
a
similar
flavor
to
help
provide
a
little
comfort.
G
E
Right
answer
is
just
to
take
kind
of
the
point
you've
raised
that
are
apparently
of
concern
in
the
real
estate
market
and
just
reiterate
that
the
Commission
reviews
these
kinds
of
things
and
that
these
types
of
projects
would
be
favorably
considered,
but
the
specifics
of
it.
They
still
have
to
come
for
review,
but
well.
A
You
know
see
the
way
and
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
right
now,
I'm
in
terms
of
our
ordinance,
what
we're
looking
at
as
it
is
things
that
are
visible
from
the
public
way
and
so
I'm
not
sure
we
can
necessarily,
especially
with
a
building
like
this,
that's
pretty
open
and
out
there
I'm,
not
sure
that
we
can
get
away
from
the
public
way
description
on
that.
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
some
of
because
it
is
being
designated
for
historic
and
cultural
reasons.
A
H
B
H
To
what
I'm
saying
is
why
list
what
the
primary
facades
are,
and
it's
everything
basically
landmark
building
is,
is
all
the
facades.
So
if
you
list
one
it's
like
somehow
that
might
a
message
to
a
developer
or
a
builder
I'm
not
going
to
touch
that
facade
I'm,
just
gonna
change
the
windows
and
we're
not
even
being
that
specific
about
that.
So
it
seems
I'm
just
saying
some
of
the
language
might
you're
trying
to
open
it
up,
but
it
might
actually
close
down
some
possibilities
when
someone's
really
looking
at
it.
You
know
I'm
just
going
with.
B
What
the
broker
told
me,
if
the
other
way
to
look
at
it
is
maybe
we
amend
the
critical
features
and
we
don't
put
down
a
flat
roof.
We
don't
put
down
the
stone
lintels,
we
don't
put
down
the
banding
as
critical
features,
because
that
will
make
it
easier
if
that
discussion
comes
through
and
that's
something
that's
within
your
ability
to
do.
When
you
amend
the
report.
B
It's
where
I,
like
your
general
language,
you
see
I
like
your
general
language,
with
regards
to
something
like,
for
example,
when
we
suggested
language
that
something
like
Editions
have
to
be
designed
with
the
mass
and
scale
size
and
architectural
features
of
the
building.
That
is,
that
is,
and
that
distinguish
themselves
from
the
original
structure
that
is
fairly
common
standard
language
in
a
preservation
ordinance,
it's
fairly
generic.
H
I
have
a
question
so
for
the
commissioners,
do
you
feel
I
mean
yeah,
there's
a
horizontality
of
the
building?
Do
we
need
to
specify
them
that
can
if
we
said
the
Commission
in
the
future
would
look
favorably
on
a
broader
interpretation
design
standards?
Do
we
have
to
list
that's
a
question?
Do
we
need
to
list
these
things,
I?
Think.
H
Because,
if
we
didn't,
it
would
mean
that
it's
the
broader
interpretation
and
you're
not
pointing
out
you
know:
we've
got
some
aluminum
windows,
we
got
I
mean
if
somebody
was
building
on
top
I.
Don't
know
how
you
know.
I
would
not
be
opposed
since
this,
since
we
have
that
statement,
the
broader
interpretation
modification
of
the
building
that
we
do,
we
have
to
how
do
people
feel
listing
these
elements.
A
H
I
mean,
let's
just
have
a
question.
Let's
say
someone
said:
ok,
like
nothing
was
listed,
I'm
just
gonna
stucco
over
the
whole
building.
Let's
just
pose
these
things.
I'm
just
gonna
do
that
it's
all
gonna
be
cohesive
and
I'm
developing
this
and
it's
all
stucco,
and
it's
is
that
you
know
that
would
be
not
listing
anything.
That's
the
price
somebody
could
write
come
before
us
and
say
that,
and
then
I
guess
is
that
and
then
this
is
like
another
weird
question,
but
then
is:
is
it's
so
different?
This
isn't
you
know.
H
B
You
need
to
have
some
language
in
there.
I
mean
I.
Do
because
I
do
think.
You
don't
want
somebody
to
come
in
if
the
building's
red,
brick
and
it's
always
been
red
real
red
brick
for
the
last
moon
for
since
1905
and
people
have
a
recognition
of
a
red
brick
building.
You
wouldn't
want
to
stucco
that
over
that
wouldn't
be
appropriate.
B
But
if
you
put
in
language
like
if
you
look
at
the
one
two
three
fourth,
fourth
paragraph
where
it
says
designed
to
be
compatible
with
the
massing
size,
scale
and
architectural
features
or
you
can
put
design
of
the
building
and
distinguishes
themselves
in
the
original
structure-
that's
fairly
standard
language.
It
gives
you
something
generic
that
would
prevent
somebody
coming
in
and
saying
it's
okay
to
do
an
inappropriate
design
because
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
think
it's
ever
gonna
happen
that
someone
wants
to
come
in
and
do
an
appropriate
design.
B
I
think
they're
gonna
want
to
maybe
do
a
discreet
addition.
They
might
want
to
put
in
a
discreet
addition
on
the
roof
setback.
That's
when
your
certificate
of
appropriateness
standards
comes
in,
that's
where
your
federal
standards
come
in
about.
What's
what's
normal
when
you
setback
a
and
a
rooftop
edition
from
the
you
know
from
the
elevation
line,
so
that
it's
not
visible
from
the
public
way,
there's
a
whole
series
of
regulations
that
govern
that
type
of
thing,
but
it
doesn't
get
it
specific
as
what
the
critical
features
are
in
the
staff
report.
So
this.
C
C
C
Don't
think
the
report
is
inaccurate
as
far
as
it
goes,
I
think
that
it
to
the
extent
it
would
help
the
owner
to
simply
get
you
know
elaborate
on
the
changes
that
would
be,
you
know,
could
be
considered
the
broader
scope
of
changes
and
usually
be
considered
and
try
to
address
some
of
the
specific
criteria
the
borrower
thought
somebody
might
want
to
look
at.
So
when
they
look
at
me,
but
I
think
if
we
could
achieve
I
mean
that's
the
most
working
to
achieve
this
week
and
there's
just
no
chance,
we
can
achieve
right
angles.
C
C
C
A
F
Just
specifically
Wade,
since
we
were
focusing
now
more
on
that
the
report
itself
and
then
the
five
point
in
the
in
the
report
that
are
they're
called
for
the
ordinance,
the
one
through
five.
Maybe
we
could
just
specify
which
one
we're
looking
at
if
it's
number
four
the
proposed
design
guidelines
or
three
the
the
criteria
and
then
maybe
look
at
something.
I
can
pull
up
that
report.
If
it
be
useful
as
well.
F
E
G
H
A
E
A
C
G
C
G
G
A
H
Right
can
I
just
say
what
I
think
and
page
16
though
we
can
we
take
out.
The
Commission
will
consider
whether
the
work
that
is
being
proposed
is
compatible
with
the
building,
as
it
has
above
up
to
seven
1979
I,
don't
can
we
just
get
rid
of
it
would
be
expected,
it
would
not
be
expect
you
to
go
back.
We
go.
B
G
A
C
A
G
A
A
K
We
are
proposing
a
little
bit
of
changes
for
the
for
a
landmark,
single-family
home
this.
The
previous
meeting
that
we
have
the
it
was
a
little
bit.
The
plans
were
a
little
bit
incomplete
and
there
was
it
was
lacking
information,
so
we
added
all
the
information
that
it
was
requested
in
the
previous
meeting.
K
K
K
K
K
This
is
the
front
elevation.
Like
I
said
we
are
not
modifying
anything
in
the
front.
As
per
the
recommendation
of
the
Commission,
we
are
not
replacing
the
windows
in
the
main
structure
of
the
house,
we're
gonna,
refurbish
the
windows,
the
windows.
Right
now
there
are
like
wood
windows,
double-hung
wood
windows
with
a
aluminum
storm
window.
On
top,
you
can
see
it
in.
K
You
can
see
it
here
in
the
North
and
South
elevation,
it's
kind
of
hard
to
take
pictures,
because
the
house
that
they're,
like
kind
of
close
to
each
other,
so
it's
kind
of
hard
to
take
pictures
in
there
and
there's
a
little
bit
vegetation,
especially
now
in
the
summer.
But
you
can
see
the
storm.
The
aluminum
strong
wind
on
the
windows,
including
the
front.
K
So
this
is
North
elevation.
The
only
change
that
we're
proposing
here
are
these
two
windows
and
then
adding
this
window
in
here
and
then
I'm
going
to
show
you
the
floor
plan.
That's
why
we
are
these
two
windows,
this
window,
that
is
becoming
these
two
windows
is
because
we
are
putting
the
kitchen
in
there
and
those
the
existing
window
is
too
low
for
a
regular
height
countertop
in
the
kitchen.
K
K
For
the
addition,
the
reason
we
are
enclosing,
that
is,
to
put
a
half
bathroom
on
the
first
floor
and
mudroom
everything
else
stays
the
same
the
size
and
you
can
see
how
this
is
the
original
siding
that
we're
going
to
maintain
and
then
on
the
last
part
of
the
house.
It
has
wood
vertical
siding
as
well
as
the
back
facade.
We
are
going
back
to
the
same,
siding
matching
the
existing
structure
and
the
secondary
structure.
K
That's
the
rear
elevation
right
again
right
now
has
very
cold
wood,
siding
the
windows
are
not
not
even
close
to
the
original
windows
of
the
main
structure,
which
is
it
this
one.
The
door
is
like
a
regular
door
with
no
panels,
no
nothing
and
then
we
are
proposing
to
add
a
deck
in
the
back
of
the
house.
These
windows
that
we
are
proposing
in
the
in
the
new
back
facade
all
the
measurements
are
coming
from
windows,
existing
windows
from
the
main
structure.
K
So
we
are
not
introducing
new
sizes
or
windows,
a
new
style,
they're,
all
double
hung
and
they're
all
wood
windows.
The
windows
in
here
they're,
all
beyond
repair.
This
house
has
major
lacking
maintenance.
So
this
all
this
rear
edition
is
in
really
bad
shape.
It's
not.
There
is
not
much
you
know
to
save
in
there
anyway.
F
K
Basically,
you
are
seeing
this
is
the
second
floor
second
floor.
This
is
the
first
floor.
These
are
the
two
windows
that
I
was
saying
on
the
North
elevation
that
we
are
going
from
one
window
to
two
windows
and
then
also
right
now,
the
height
of
the
existing
window.
That
is
in
that
place,
it's
probably
like
20
inches
from
the
floor,
so
it
doesn't
allow
us
to
do
a
nice
layout
for
the
kitchen
and
then
all
the
way
home.
And
then
all
the
windows
are
the
same
height.
It's
not
like.
K
H
This
is
just
a
construct
like
the
wave
drawing
and
how
it
was.
It's
really
gonna
be
in
reality
on
your
North
elevation,
where
your
roof
slopes
down,
you
have
window
trim,
but
it
I
don't
think
that's
actually
gonna
work
that
way.
Architectural
I
think
that
Wallace
would
be
thicker
and
it's
going
to
turn.
You
know
I'm
talking
about
where
you're
I
can't
point
to
it.
It's
where
yeah.
H
This
right
there
because
the
slope
is
coming
down
and
your
tap
to
turn
the
corner
right
there
and
it
looks
like
it's
I,
don't
know
like
five
inches
or
I
just
I.
Just
don't
think
that
is
actually
figure
it
out,
but
I
also
have
a
question:
did
you
lower
you
can
so
thank
you.
Did
you
lower
this
roof
on
the
addition,
because
why
did
you
do
that?
I
mean
I
know
it's
narrower,
but
why
did
you
not
just
continue
the
roof
that.
H
It's
just
gonna
I
think
it's
just
gonna
create
like
a
problem
with
your
trim
and
everything
else,
because
you
get
that
it's
it's
like
you've
drawn
it
like,
miraculously
it's
all
going
to
intersect,
but
so
I
personally
would
not
be
opposed
if
you
continued
other
commissioners
night.
But
if
you
continue
that
roof
line
across
I
mean
it
is
narrower,
but.
K
E
K
K
H
H
Their
Marvin,
okay,
so
I
would
just
ask
you,
you
should
look
at
it
and
you
should,
because
we
don't
have
a
section
of
it.
You
should
just
look
at
the
thickness
of
the
muttons,
because
a
true
divided
light
window
as
opposed
to
a
Marvin
SDL.
It
will
have
a
thicker
mutton
and
it
may
look
very
different
from
the
existing
windows.
So
I
would
tell
you
to
actually
look
at
it.
I
went.
A
A
C
A
E
I
move
we
issue
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
the
renovation
project
at
1505,
Ashland
Avenue,
with
the
understanding
that
one
window
on
the
North
elevation.
If
the
second
floor
will
be
shifted
to
avoid
the
conflict
with
the
roof,
as
well
as
construction
of
a
detached,
2-car
garage,
applicable
standards
for
alteration
one
through
seven,
nine
and
ten
and
standards
for
construction
1
through
5,
7,
8,
10
and
12
through
15
apply,
is.
A
A
I
G
A
M
So
in
advance
of
today,
we
submitted
three
separate
documents
which
I
believe
you
guys
all
have
so
the
application
itself,
a
supplemental
document
that
is
a
detailed
summary
of
the
home
and
then
this,
which
is
this
PowerPoint
presentation,
which
is
a
bit
more
of
a
narrative
about
about
the
house.
So
all
of
those
documents
are
a
result
of
a
series
of
research
and
conversations
that
we
had
had
with
the
shipwright
family
with
our
primary
architect.
That's
working
with
us
on
the
house
right
now,
Jeff
Harding.
M
We
also
met
with
Mary
McWilliams
to
go
through
the
process
and
had
her
review
the
presentation
for
tonight
as
well,
and
then
we
talked
to
several
people
that
knew
George
personally
and
so
there's
a
detailed
biography
at
the
end
of
our
presentation,
as
well
as
a
bibliography.
So
you
can
see
some
of
the
people
that
we
spoke
with.
M
So
one
thing
that
I
would
say
is
the
the
detailed
document
that
we
submitted
was
a
bit
more
archetypes,
very
specifically,
architectural.
This
again
is
a
bit
more
of
the
narrative
of
who
George
is
and
the
story
of
the
home,
so
this
first
page
is
really
just
a
reflection
of
the
criteria
that
we
think
the
home
meets
in
terms
of
designation.
So
in
Section
294
a
number
three
and
number
four.
M
So
first
this
is
George.
So
this
is
the
architectural
eligibility,
the
architect
eligibility
I.
Some
of
you
may
have
known.
George
George
is
known
to
be
one
in
apprentice
himself,
so
he
was
a
direct
apprentice
of
Mies
van
der
Rohe
as
well
as
Caldwell,
and
those
are
two
people
that
in
talking
with
his
family,
very
specifically,
he
very
much
considered
his
mentors
and
will
see
that
throughout
the
throughout
the
buildings
that
he
had
he
had
architected.
M
M
When
you
look
at
George's
story,
George
was
born
in
South
Dakota
as
a
young
man.
He
took
interest
in
architecture
and
he
it
was
said
that
he
would
scour
the
library
as
soon
as
he
had
gotten
out
of
the
military
and
he
would
sit
in
the
architectural
library
for
hours
and
hours
on
end
fascinated
with
architecture.
It's
what
he
would
say
was
where
it
was
all
happening
at
the
at
the
time,
and
so
what
he
decided
to
do
in
his
early
20s
was
applied
to
IIT.
M
He
specifically
had
interest
in,
and
arrow
and
I
think
had
interest
in
and
working
under
him
and
studying
under
him.
So
in
the
50s
he
spent
two
years
at
IIT.
He
never
finished.
While
he
was
there,
he
was
asked
by
Caldwell
and
Mies
van
der
Rohe
to
work
as
an
apprentice
in
their
shop
and
he
he
worked
there
for
several
years.
While
he
was
working
there,
he
was
sent
to
he
worked
on
on
many
buildings.
M
Obviously
he
learned
of
a
lot
of
his
architectural
focus
there,
but
he
was
sent
to
New
Jersey
while
he
was
working
for
them
and
while
he
was
working
on
a
residential
building,
he
was
approached
by
another
company
who
had
received
several
proposals
to
work
on
Lake
Point
Tower.
They
were
not
happy
with
the
proposals
that
were
submitted,
and
so
George
was
pretty
much
handed
the
opportunity
to
build.
M
Like
point
towers,
he
then
approached
a
friend
of
his
from
IIT
and
together
they
became
the
architects
for
Lake
Point
Tower,
which
we
all
know
is
a
pretty
iconic
building
in
Chicago.
So
in
his
30s
he
was
off
building
this
iconic
site,
which
he
considered
the
best
site
in
the
world
and
one
of
the
biggest
opportunities
of
his
career,
his
partner-in-crime.
That
was
building
it
with
him,
thought
it.
M
At
the
same
time,
it
was
one
of
the
biggest
Gamble's
that
they
could
take
because
they
thought
that
the
site
presented
some
challenges,
so
he
he
was
building
like
point
Tower,
which
I
think,
as
we
all
know,
was
the
tallest
apartment
building
at
the
time,
and
he
also
took
the
licensing
exam.
While
he
was
building
Lake
Point
Tower.
M
Would
he
finished,
Lake
Point,
Tower?
Sorry
when
he
finished
Lake
Point
Tower,
he
decided
to
start
his
own
architectural
firm
and
during
that
time
he
was
given
the
opportunity
to
build
a
couple
of
key
buildings
here
in
Winston.
So
he
worked
on
the
state
bank
in
the
rotary
building.
He
also
worked
on
several
buildings
in
in
Chicago,
and
then
he
decided
to
buy
the
property
at
12:25.
M
So
while
he
was
building
in
Evanston,
he
decided
that
this
was
what
he
where
he
wanted
to
call
home,
and
so
he
bought
the
site
and
decided
to
build
a
single-family
residence
there
for
himself,
so
that
pretty
much
marks
and
we
can
go
through
some
of
the
the
specific
buildings,
but
that
that
marks
his
period
of
architecture.
So
he
went
from
the
apprentice
to
being
the
architect
himself
and
then
in
the
80s.
M
So
again,
his
primary
inspiration
was
nice
van
der
Rohe,
and
this
idea
of
less
is
more
Caldwell
in
talking
with
his
family.
Caldwell
had
an
even
bigger
influence
on
him,
so
he
was
very
much
passionate
about
you
know
bridging
the
spaces
of
indoors
and
outdoors
and
making
them
feel
like
one
continuous
space.
He
really
believed
in
getting
architecture
back
to
its
absolute,
pure,
purest
form
and
believed
in
spaces
that
were
plain
and
unornamented
and
really
getting
back
down
to
skin
and
bones.
M
So,
as
you
all
know,
there's
various
definitions
of
the
modernist
movement,
which
I'm
sure
we
don't
have
to
go
through
all
of
them.
But
you
know
Architectural
Digest
has
them
the
Chicago
architectural
foundation
has
them.
Perhaps
the
most
regarded
is
MoMA's
definition
of
the
modernist
movement,
which
is
the
rejection
of
symmetry
and
the
emphasis
on
architectural
volume
over
mass
and
the
rejection
of
decoration
and
ornamentation.
And
so
what
you
see
consistently
throughout
all
of
shipwrights
work
is
that
they
are
elegantly
plain.
M
Rectilinear
and
geometric
forms
are
a
hallmark
of
his
style,
consistently
flat,
roofs
again,
no
applied
ornamentation,
the
the
use
of
innovative
technology
at
that
time,
glass
and
reinforced,
concrete
and,
of
course,
bridging
the
indoors
and
the
outdoors.
So
this
is
like
Point
Tower.
As
we
all
know,
that's
George
studied
doing
his
studies.
Apparently
he
was
doing
them
most
days
with
his
with
his
partner
on
his
dining
room
table.
M
The
indoor,
the
interior
spaces
of
Lake,
Point
Towers,
are
all
meant
to
bridge
the
indoors
and
the
outdoors
and
have
you
know,
glass,
steel
and
and
concrete
frames,
and
then
I
believe
you
guys
all
know
that
the
that
the
parking
lot
of
Lake
Point
Towers
what
had
a
or
has
a
two
and
a
half
acre
park
that
sits
on
top
of
it,
which
is
really
one
of
his
big
commitments
of
again
bridging
indoors
and
outdoors
and
Caldwell,
was
whose
very
specifically
worked
to
design
that
space
I'm
in
Evanston.
He
he
designed,
1603
or
inton.
M
So
you
can
see
some
of
those
same
elements
in
the
space
there.
The
rotary
building,
which
again,
is
really
trying
to
use.
You
know
flat.
Roofs
on
applied,
ornamentation
really
get
down
to
the
basics
and
the
bones
of
the
structure
and
then
in
Chicago.
These
are
a
few
of
his
buildings
as
well
atrium
Village,
Asbury
Plaza,
and
he
also
designed
the
sural
building
that
was
in
Skokie,
so
George
overall,
as
as
an
architect
has
won
many
awards.
M
He
is
considered
somebody
who
has
designed
has
designed
buildings
that
have
enduring
significance
and
has
been
recognized
by
by
many
leading
provider
by
many
leading
organizations.
So
we
think
that
as
an
architect,
he
is
one
of
note
and
there
is
eligibility
based
on
him
as
a
as
a
leading
architect
and
in
Chicago.
M
So
that's
the
that's
the
first
criteria.
The
second
criteria
is
the
home
itself,
which
again
is
1225
asbury
and
we
believe
it's
an
example
of
it
exemplifies
the
modernist
style.
This
was
George's
primary
residence
that
he
was
building
for
himself.
It
is
the
only
single-family
home
that
we
are
aware
of
that.
He
has.
He
has
designed
an
architect
n'
and
he
very
specifically
built
this
home
for
his
personal
use.
M
So
when
you
talk
with
his
family
about
what
guided
a
lot
of
the
decisions,
that
certainly
was
his
mentors
in
the
and
the
modernist
style,
but
it
was
also
very
much
function
over
over
form
for
him,
so
those
same
qualities
of
elegantly
plain,
rectilinear,
structures,
flat
roofs,
no
applied,
ornamentation,
glass
and
reinforced
concrete
precast,
concrete
floors
and
ceilings
and
bridging
of
the
indoors
and
outdoors.
Those
same
philosophies
carry
over
into
this
home.
M
So
when
you
look
at
12:25
relative
to
where
it
sits
in
the
in
the
neighborhood,
you
can
see
the
surrounding
homes
in
this
photo
in
these
photos
and
1225
definitely
conforms
to
the
standards
of
the
surrounding
homes,
with
a
pretty
standard
setback
in
space
for
for
landscaping,
as
well
as
the
horizontality
of
the
home
relative
to
the
surrounding
home.
So
while
the
surrounding
homes
are
all
from
the
1800s
in
many
respects,
he
really
did
try
and
and
align
the
home
with
the
with
the
surroundings.
M
When
you
look
at
the
exterior
construction
of
1225,
you
see
the
flat
roofs,
you
see
the
asymmetry,
you
see
the
horizontality,
you
see
all
of
these
classic
examples
of
the
modernist
movement.
Certainly
this
space,
as
you
can
tell
from
the
photo,
is
devoid
of
any
applied
ornamentation
in
molding.
It
really
is
truly
a
sculptural
structure
unto
itself
and
it
has
a
lot
of
feeling
of
regularity
and
rhythm
and
again
horizontality
and
balance.
M
So
that's
the
the
front-facing
facade
when
you
look
at
the
rear
of
the
home,
so
there's
a
extreme
sensitivity
to
light
in
space,
so
the
entire
back
of
the
home
is
has
floor-to-ceiling
sliding
doors
and
horizontal
banded
second-floor
windows.
There
are
five
exterior
horizontal
balconies
in
total
and
a
full
rooftop
deck
for
the
house,
which
is
his
absolute
attempt
to
bridge
the
indoors
and
the
outdoors.
So
these
are
some
historical
photos
of
the
house.
You
know,
as
we
talked
through
it
with
our
architect,
that
we're
working
with
right
now
his
commentary
was
this.
M
Is
a
house
is
in
superb
condition
from
the
exterior?
It
is
virtually
identical
to
the
original
construction
and
the
design.
So
you
can
see
from
1980
what
the
home
looked
like
in
the
front
and
in
the
rear
and
on
the
right
you
can
see
where
we
are
today
here
you
can
see,
we've
tried
to
collect
photos
of
the
home
over
time
and
we
don't
know
the
exact
dates
of
each
of
the
photos,
except
for
the
one
on
the
right,
which
is
modern
day,
but
all
of
the
others.
M
Every
single
angle
in
the
home
is
a
right
angle,
so
to
see
this
arched
greenhouse
off
of
the
house
and
that
clearly
is
a
typical
of
of
the
forum
itself,
so
that
we
believe
is
not
original
to
the
building.
Based
on
on
what
we've
seen
and
in
our
architecture
believes
it's
a
pretty
egregious
thing
to
have
that
on
the
house,
so
we
are
going
through
some
current
restoration
right
now.
M
So
it
is
helpful,
I
think
to
also
you
know,
while
the
landmark
designation
and
the
criteria
is
based
on
the
exterior
of
the
home,
we
do
think
that
it's
interesting
to
also
take
a
moment
to
look
at
the
interior
as
well,
because
the
interior
fabric
of
the
home
has
really
main
maintained
would
have
been
virtually
unchanged
as
well.
So
the
interior
construction
is
also
asymmetrical,
with
the
same
rejection
of
ornamentation.
Again,
it
is
absolute
function
over
form
the
rooms
are
dominated
all
by
natural
light.
M
They
are
all
right
angles
and
it's
definitely
on
a
gridded
structure.
So
these
two
photos
give
you
a
bit
of
a
glimpse
of
you
know
what
it
looks
like
from
so
on.
The
left
is
from
the
front
of
the
house
and,
interestingly,
the
the
circle
that
sits
on
the
front
of
the
house
is
nearly
identical
to
what
you
see
in
Lake
Point
towers.
With
that
same
with
that
same
circle,
and
then
the
one
on
the
right
is
is
to
see
how
the
back
flood
the
light
floods
in
all
throughout
the
house.
M
So
all
throughout
the
house,
you
can
see
that
there's
varied
height,
so
this
is
where
a
lot
of
the
asymmetry
comes
into
play
of
each
of
these
spaces.
So
here
and
here
as
well
as
here
you'll,
see
there's
spaces
in
the
house
that
are
all
intended
to
maximize
light
in
the
in
the
home.
So
while
the
front
of
the
house
looks
like
a
very
concrete
structure,
the
entire
home,
as
you
walk
into
it,
is
flooded
with
the
light
that
has
been
tried
to
be
optimized
from
every
angle.
M
You
can
see
more
of
that
in
these
photos,
regardless
of
the
room
or
the
space
that
you're
in
it
is
all
designed
to
maximise
and
bridge
the
indoors
and
the
outdoors
just
as
for
reference.
These
are
the
the
floor
plans
of
the
house,
they're,
not
the
official
architectural
floor
plans,
but
they
are
what
was
used
in
a
recent
sale
so
similar
to
some
of
the
recognition
that
George
received
for
for
his
work.
He
he
definitely
he
received
awards
on
this
house
as
well,
so
it
has
been
recognized
by
design
Evanston.
M
This
was
taken
from
one
of
the
brochures
from
2015
and
I.
Think
the
jury's
comment
here
very
much
reflects
kind
of
true
to
form
the
house,
which
is
that
you
know
the
project
excels
and
its
spatial
exploration
and
its
incorporation
of
the
landscape
into
the
volumes
of
the
house.
It
uses
innovative
construction
technology,
it
uses
passive
energy
strategies
and
it's
a
forward-thinking
project
that
continues
to
be
relevant
over
four
decades
later.
So
I
really
think
that
they
did
a
nice
job
at
summarizing
the
house.
M
In
addition,
they
featured
the
house
in
the
hundred
and
fifty
years
of
Evanston
150
places
of
Evanston,
so
switching
gears
to
the
integrity
of
the
landmark.
So
we
believe
that
it
meets
all
of
the
criteria.
It
has
the
integrity
of
the
location
and
that
remains
in
the
exact
original
location
of
the
integrity
of
design,
its
superbly
intact.
M
So
we
think
that
the
house
is
in
exceptional
candidate
for
landmark,
designation
based
on
the
two
criteria.
We
don't.
We
won't
go
through
it
tonight,
but
there
is
also
some
interesting
local
lore
around
the
house
and
stories
that
have
emerged
around
the
architect
himself
and
you
know
what
happened
and
did
he
ultimately
live
in
the
house,
and
so
we
did
manage
to
get
some
really
interesting
information
from
his
family.
H
A
With
that,
any
questions,
final
questions
comments.
Do
we
want
to
entertain
a
motion
to
nominate
1225
or
yeah?
I
was
gonna,
get
there
to
nominate
1225
Asbury
for
landmark
designation
and
direct
staff
to
prepare
the
report
and
the
resolution
asking
the
city
manager
to
transmit
the
Commission's
recommendation.
You
can
just
read
it
from
2010
Dewey,
okay,.
I
G
A
Okay,
then,
oh
yes,
thank
you.
I
had
that
in
my
notes
too,
if
we
can
have
a
nominee
or
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing
on
1225
Asbury
I.
A
I
A
A
There
a
second
Julie
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
the
opposed
any
abstentions.
Okay.
Moving
on
to
new
business,
the
first
item
is
834
Madison,
Street
and
I
assume
that's
what
your
folks
are
here
for.
So
if
you
can
step
up
and
if
you're
going
to
speak
sign
in
please
and
introduce
yourself
and
you
can
bring
in
your
presentation.
L
Unfortunately,
was
not
able
to
make
it
either,
but
Steve
came
in
place.
I
did
want
to
point
out
that
the
existing
pictures
and
the
proposed
replacements
that
Timothy
had
given
to
Carlos
there
were
some
visible
glass
measurements
that
he
put
on.
That
I
noticed
that
are
actually
wrong
and
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
existing
house
that
we're
replacing
the
windows
on
our
visible
glass,
you
would
actually
lose
about
seven
eighths
of
an
inch
on
each
side
and
width
and
then
total
height,
there's
about
an
inch
and
a
quarter
of
visible
glass.
L
That's
lost
when
compared
to
the
existing
windows
that
would
be
polled
versus
our
window.
That
goes
in.
There
are
an
insert
application,
but
I
think
it
should
be
noted
that
the
the
existing
home
has
storm
windows
that
would
be
removed
and
the
storm
windows
take
up
a
considerable
amount
of
coverage
of
the
existing
windows.
So
once
those
come
off,
I
think
that
the
look
of
the
home
versus,
what's
now
you'd,
actually
be
gaining
a
visibility
of
a
clear
view
that
would
be
increased
with
those
being
removed.
L
L
L
These
were
the
existing
visible
glass
sizes
that
he
has
so
if
I
go
to
you'll
notice,
sign
like
on
the
the
B
designation
window,
I'll
just
use
as
an
example,
because
this
is
pretty
much
consistent
throughout
the
project,
with
what
the
homeowner
had
submitted
to
Carlos
the
35
and
a
half
by
36,
visible
glass
that
you
actually
end
up
with
our
window.
Invisible
Glass.
It
ends
up
being
33
and
7a
so,
and
he
puts
35
and
1/8.
L
L
L
The
existing
one
buys
which
that
the
fact
the
customer
would
just
be
repainting
themselves,
so
our
window,
there
isn't
any
any
coil
they're
capping
this
being
put
on.
We
use
our
fiber
X
material
as
we
have
little
L
l-shaped
caps
that
that
connect
the
window
to
the
existing
a
painted
outer
frame
of
the
of
the
building.
So
none
of
the
stucco
or
those
one
by
one
by
fours
I
believe
what
they
are.
What
would
would
stay
on?
L
L
There's
considerable
dry,
rot
on
these
check
rails
and
in
the
sash
frames
of
the
windows
and
I
didn't
have
any
information
from
from
the
homeowner,
but
I
mean
he
felt
that
the
condition
of
these
windows
kind
of
pointed
him
in
the
direction
of
having
the
windows
replaced.
Instead
of
try
to
have
it
restored,
they're
pretty
dry
rotted.
L
L
L
Its
squared
off
this
job
does
not
have
any
grilles
per
se
being
used,
even
though
the
sample
shows
that,
but
our
dimensions
that
we
do
at
Anderson,
we
try
to
mimic
exactly
what
what
typical
double-hung
dimensions
are
on
size
frames
and
the
the
bottom
sill
plates
and
it's
mortise
and
tenon
corners.
So
you
don't
have
that
vinyl
welded.
Look
that
you
typically
would
see
on
some
replacement
windows
and
the
the
glass
is
a
is
a
dual
pane
insulated
glass
package
and
the
screens
would
be
full
screens
that
come
with
the
window
itself.
L
Any
questions
on
the
product
I
mean
I,
guess
my
assumption
is
inside
the
venden
that
I
spent
probably
a
couple
years
since
I've
been
here
and
and
we've
we've
presented
our
windows
before
and
they
have
been
approved
by
the
Commission
and
in
projects.
So
I
don't
know
of
any
other
questions
that
you'd
have
concerning
our
window.
H
A
G
L
H
L
L
H
A
H
You
know,
I
I
know
that
the
Commission
Preservation
Commission
probably
has
come
a
long
way
since
absolutely
saying
no,
you
must
you
know
our
it
actually
to
refurbish
and
restore
is
kind
of
what
we've
you
know
been
I
mean
I,
think
it's
even
in
the
language
that
that
is
first
and
foremost
so
not
to
see
any
information
on
any
of
that
is,
you
know,
kind
of
unfortunate
from
the
owner,
but
so
we
have
I
know:
we've
accepted
wood,
SDL
windows
and,
in
some
cases
clad,
but
I
just
have
never
I,
guess
I'm,
just
uncomfortable
with
the
material
of
this
window.
H
H
Yeah
with
a
vinyl
so
like
I
guess,
my
question
is
where
okay,
this
is
a
question
for
the
Commission.
Where
do
we
draw
the
line
like
what?
If,
because
this
we've
been
down
this
path,
where
what,
when
there's
and
I
know
it's
not
a
vinyl
window,
but
you
know
is
we
are
accepting
all
types
of
windows
and
accept
vinyl
or
how
does
that
all
play
out
and.
A
Well,
I
think
that
to
me
the
question
is
even
within
your
line
of
windows.
Is
there
a
particular
reason
why
this
was
selected
over
something
like
a
wood
window
that
was
either
a
wood
window
or
a
wood
steel-clad
or
some
other
option
and
I?
Guess
I'd
like
to
know
what
that
what
the
process
was
for
that.
L
L
Vinyl
gets
a
pretty
bad
rap,
because
there's
so
many
different
extrusion
designs
out
there
and
they've
they've
historically
been
a
larger,
bigger
bulky
type
of
design
that
that
you
have
massive
amounts
of
glass
loss.
Where
here
you
really
don't
you
do
simply
because
this
is
being
used
as
an
insert
application
and
he's
not
tearing
out
the
entire.
The
rough
opening
of
the
window.
L
L
L
Yeah
you're,
taking
like
what's
the
process
of
this
job,
would
be
taken
out.
All
the
the
storm
storm
window
frames,
the
sash
is
there
and
then
you're
taking
out
the
sashes
and
the
spline
and
the
the
rope
and
weights
of
the
original
and
then
that
weight
pockets
are
being
reinsulated
prior
to
the
new
window.
Being
put
it
in
is.
L
I
I
L
J
E
J
J
J
C
I
E
Kind
of
a
sequence
of
logic
where
it's
it's
almost
like
the
goal
posts
keep
getting
moved
so
it
starts
out
like
okay,
the
the
goal
would
be
restore
the
existing
windows.
Oh
well,
they're,
not
restorable,
so
people
replace
them
it's
like!
Well,
we
want
to
replace
them,
but
we
don't
want
to
match
the
original
material
of.
Would
we
I
think
the
wood
would
run
out
too
fast?
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
use
aluminum,
clad
over
the
on
the
outside
of
the
wood
to
make
the
wood
last
longer,
and
then
it's
like
okay.
E
L
A
The
gentleman
I
don't
know
I
don't
want
to
sound.
So
we
understand
that,
but
I
think
that
what
ken
is
suggesting-
and
perhaps
at
the
same
time,
maybe
looking
at
other
options
there
that
you
know
we're
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
with
and
have
approved
on
landmark
homes
in
the
past
I
think
would
be
helpful.
A
H
G
H
I'm
so,
for
instance,
I'm
just
wondering
on
the
front
of
the
house
that
some
of
them
are
being
replaced,
but
some
aren't
right
so
I
don't
know
in
the
end,
what
they're
really
going
to
look
like,
because
this
is
so
diagrammatic.
So
maybe
a
section
like
the
you
know,
I
think
the
typically
when
we
look
at
windows
were
actually
looking
at
true
elevation
of
the
existing
window
compared
to
the
new
window
and
then
a
section
through
it.
That's
that
is
actually
would
you
document.
H
I
L
I
J
H
A
A
A
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
was
the
approval
of
the
minutes
from
July
10th
2018
I
talked
with
Scott
earlier
today
and
I
think
that
those
minutes,
the
draft
minutes
need
to
be
reduced
in
size
and
made
more
of
meeting
minutes.
Carlos
I
think
was
under
some
pressure
since
he
was
leaving
town.
So
what
I'm
gonna
do
in
his
absence,
as
I
told
Scott,
is
take
a
crack
at
writing
the
minutes
and
we'll
take
a
look
at
it
next
month.