1 of 1 EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, July 19, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Ro

Owner/applicant or representative is required to attend the meeting

EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, July 19, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room 2404

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM

2. OLD BUSINESS

A. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) – Elliot Flaws, applicant. Construction of a new 2-story, brick and stucco single-family residence with an attached 1-story, 3-car garage in front. Applicable standards: [Construction] 1- 13, and 16

B. 2623 Lincoln Street (L) – Consideration of Preservation Commission’s Report and Recommendation to City Council regarding David and Rebecca Kimbell application for rescission of landmark designation of their house at 2623 Lincoln Street – For action.

3. NEW BUSINESS

No new business

4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of June 21, 2016.

5. COMMITTEE REPORTS (Working Groups)

A. Preservation Ordinance Review Subcommittee - Update.

6. VOLUNTEER REPORTS

A. Design Guidelines Volunteers - Update

7. STAFF REPORTS

9. DISCUSSION (No vote will be taken)

10. ADJOURNMENT

Next Meeting: TUESDAY, August 16, 2016 at 7:00 P.M.

1 of 1

2. OLD BUSINESS

A. 917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) – Elliot Flaws, applicant. Construction of a new 2-story, brick and stucco single- family residence with an attached 1-story, 3-car garage in front. Applicable standards: [Construction] 1- 13, and 16

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

Joint Statement to the Evanston Preservation Commission July 19, 2016

Re: 917 Edgemere Court (Lakeshore Historic District))

On behalf of the following Edgemere Court Neighbors (* indicates within 250 feet of 917):

900--Crihfield* (Landmark)

901--Walchak/Rothenberg* (Landmark)

907--Floerchinger*

911--Contract Purchasers* (Landmark)

919--Lowrance* (Landmark)

920--Welin*

926--Wirtz*

929--Arrington*

930--Mintz*

932--Zulkey* (Landmark)

935--Lenzi*

938--Bless* 940--Goldstein 943--McGrath

Legal Adviser: Jeffrey P. Smith, Esq., Law Offices of Jeff Smith, 708 Church St., Suite 232, Evanston,

IL 602010, [email protected] Architectural and Preservation Adviser:

Healy Rice, Healy M. Rice P.C., 934 Elmwood Avenue, Wilmette, Illinois 60091 847-853-0824, [email protected].

Contents I. Introductory Statement II. Joint Statement Thesis III. What is Edgemere Court? IV. How Was Edgemere Court Created and Developed? V. How Is Edgemere Court Managed and Maintained? VI. Edgemere Court Is Bounded by Public Ways VII. Position Statement of Edgemere Court Neighbors VIII. Walls of Continuity (Standards #6, #9 and #11) IX. Height (Standard #1) X. Rhythm of Spacing (Standards #4 and #5) XI. Scale of Construction (Standard #10) XII. Placement of Bulk of Construction (Standard # 10) XIII. Visual Compatibility (Standards #1, #4, #5, #6, #9, #10 and #11) XIV. Summary and Conclusion XV. Exhibits

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

I. Introductory Statement

Edgemere Court. Edgemere Court is a subdivision created in 1911 and consists of 16 parcels. Five such parcels (900, 901, 911, 919 and 932) have Landmark designations and five such Granacki Historic Consultants in its parcels (900, 911, 919, 929, and 932) were cited by 2012 study commissioned by the Evanston City Council, Architectural Resources in the Lakeshore Historic District . Please see Exhibit A. Edgemere Court is an important link in the Evanston Lakefront Trail between Clark Square Park and Sheridan Road on the south and Lee Street Beach and Lake Shore Boulevard on the north. Please see Exhibit B.

Who Are the Edgemere Neighbors? Following the June meeting of the Preservation Commission, the owners/purchasers of 14 parcels in Edgemere Court signed a Position Statement addressed to the Preservation Commission regarding the proposed development of 917 Edgemere Court (the “Proposed 917 Development”). This signed Position Statement was separately submitted to the Preservation Commission and a copy is attached as Exhibit C. These 14 owners/purchasers are listed above and referred to in this Joint Statement as “the Edgemere Neighbors”. The owners of 917 and 925 declined to sign the Position Statement. The Owners of 925 submitted a separate letter to the Preservation Commission at the May meeting objecting to certain aspects of the Proposed 917 Development.

Joint Statement. Subsequent to the June meeting, the Edgemere Neighbors retained legal counsel and an independent adviser on preservation matters and with the help of these advisers developed this Joint Statement. All of the Edgemere Neighbors endorse this Joint Statement and support the positions which it reflects. The owners of 917 and 925 (referred to as the “Nesbitt Properties”) are the the only owners/purchasers of property in Edgemere Court who have not joined in this Joint Statement. [For historical reference, the “Nesbitt Properties” have been the subject of continuous development and development efforts for over 10 years. Please

see “History of Development” at Part IV.] The Edgemere Neighbors respectfully request that this Joint Statement be published by the Preservation Commission along with other materials relating to the Proposed 917 Development and that this Joint Statement be

included in its entirety with the minutes of the July meeting.

Context: Proposed 917 Development. This Joint Statement is submitted to the Preservation Commission in the context of proposed development of 917 Edgemere Court--but only in the context of proposals submitted at previous meetings and withdrawn. At the time of submission of this Joint Statement (one week prior to the July 19 meeting), there is no specific proposal to which this Joint Statement is addresses because a specific proposal, while expected, has not been furnished to the Edgemere Neighbors and is not expected to be published by the

Preservation Commission until July 15, only 4 days prior to the July 19 meeting. The Edgemere Neighbors respectfully request that if a proposal is made regarding 917 which the Edgemere Neighbors regard as inconsistent with the position reflected in this Joint Statement, the Edgemere Neighbors request that consideration of any such proposal be

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

continued until the next meeting to allow the Edgemere Neighbors and their professional representatives and advisers the opportunity to review the proposal properly and submit

a formal commentary.

Significance of this Matter: The Edgemere Neighbors respectfully request that the Preservation Commission consider carefully the historical information, preservation analysis, legal opinion, exhibits and related materials submitted with this Joint Statement. Of particular significance is the analysis of the walls of continuity, spatial relationships, and massing characteristics the proposed home on 917 in relation to the surrounding neighborhood with which it is inextricably linked. The decision of the Preservation Commission in this case will become a precedent for future projects on the Lake Michigan side of Edgemere Court. The Edgemere Neighbors sincerely believe that if a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued for the Proposed 917 Development, as reflected in materials previously submitted, the historical character, architecture quality, and community fabric of Edgemere Court that (with the sole exception of the Nesbitt Disruption described in Part V of this Joint Statement) has existed for over a century will not be preserved and will be precedent for, and even encourage, future development adverse to the historical values of which the Edgemere Neighbors are privileged to be the beneficiaries and feel duty bound to protect. The Edgemere Neighbors appreciate the time, attention and service of the members of the Preservation Commission to the important cause of preserving the unique and historical character of Evanston, the Historic Lakeshore District, and Edgemere Court in particular.

II. Joint Statement Thesis

The Edgemere Neighbors acknowledge that the owners of 917, the Sabows, appear to be a wonderful family and will be a welcomed addition to Edgemere Court. This Joint Statement is not about the Sabow family, nor is it about the owners of the properties adjacent to 917--the Lowrance family (919) and the purchasers of 911--who will be the most acutely affected by new construction on 917. This Joint Statement is not about people; it is not about an architect; it is not about the price paid for the 917 lot; it is not about objecting to construction on 917; and it is not about the dimensions of the 917 lot. Like all lots in Edgemere Court, the 917 lot is a defined parcel. Over half of the 16 lots in Edgemere Court are smaller in gross area than 917, and several have a relatively similar width. The owners of the 917 lot knew the width of the lot and its location within Edgemere Court and the Lakeshore Historic District when they purchased it, and they benefit immensely from these circumstances.

This Joint Statement is solely about preservation and precedent:

● Preservation of the physical nature and character of Edgemere Court,

● Preservation of Edgemere Court as a social enterprise (a “commons”) and its social and cultural interaction,

● Preservation of Edgemere Court’s park-like environment linking Clark Square Park and Elliott Park (Lee Street Beach) along the Evanston Lakefront Trail,

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

● Preservation of Edgemere Court as an important part of the visualization of the City of Evanston when viewed both by day and night from Lake Michigan and the Lake

Michigan shoreline and the beaches and parkland to the north and south of Edgemere

Court,

● Precedent for future development in Edgemere Court that may be set by action taken by the Preservation Commission with respect to the development of 917, and

● Precedent and guidance for development of 917 which would allow for construction of a lovely home on 917 within the massing, setback, spacial and height parameters of the Preservation Standards as outlined in this Joint Statement.

The Edgemere Neighbors support the position that the Preservation Commission has jurisdiction and a duty to consider the many aspects of construction at 917, including the views from the south (Clark Square Park public way), north (Lee Street beach public Way) and from the Lake Michigan side of a riparian lot, especially those aspects relating to mass, setback, height and spatial relationships with other structures and objects (including trees and vegetation that are integral to the park-like environment of Edgemere Court) and other public spaces, objects and ways.

III. What Is Edgemere Court?

Edgemere Court is both real property and a voluntary social enterprise. It is, in effect, what is referred to as a “commons”. The concept is similar to open squares and courtyards which were popular in London and New England in the 19th century. It is a property concept that has been used for millennia (earliest use cited by Wikipedia is 6000 B.C.) and was adapted to urban environments from commonly owned grazing lands in an agricultural economy. As a cultural concept, its origins are even earlier and were central to tribal societies (e.g., the Potawatami

Indians and our other native American forefathers who previously occupied Edgemere Court). The development concept of Edgemere Court is a predecessor to modern planned developments.

Real Property. As real property, Edgemere Court was carved out of two distinct subdivisions and combined together into a new subdivision (Edgemere Court) prior to separation into discrete lots. This subdivision was created in 1911 and is bounded: ● on the west by a public alley running north-south immediately east of Sheridan Road, ● on the north by Lee Street, Lee Street Beach and Lake Shore Boulevard, ● on the east by Lake Michigan, and ● on the south by Clark Square Park and Sheridan Road.

Today Edgemere Court consists of approximately 8 Acres varying daily in gross acreage as Lake Michigan rises and falls and the easternmost riparian edge of Edgemere Court fluctuates. Although riparian, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard the easternmost edge of Edgemere Court--i.e., the area that can be protected from erosion without special authorization--as the highwater mark of 581.5’. This highwater mark is defined in IGLD-85 (the International Great Lakes Datum-1985). As a matter of property

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

law, however, riparian means the water’s edge and property cannot be accreted simply by building out over the water’s edge.

Private Commons Bounded by Public Ways. Edgemere Court is bounded on all 4 sides by public rights-of-way, including on three sides by Evanston owned rights-of-way and on the east side by the public trust right-of-way to walk along Lake Michigan’s water’s edge and to swim, boat, dive and fish anywhere in the Lake Michigan waters all the way up to the water’s edge. Within Edgemere Court, there are no publicly owned roadways or walkways and no street lighting. There are, however, 2 private north-south walkways which the property owners in the Edgemere Court subdivision (the “Edgemere Owners”) leave open for permitted public use and a private driveway serving the residents of Edgemere Court entered through the north gate. Please see Exhibit D.

; Courtyard. This private driveway is commonly referred to as Edgemere Court however, it is only a part of Edgemere Court. The “court” is shared space--literally a courtyard or “commons. It is 66’ wide and approximately 0.9 Acre in gross size, bounded by 5’ wide concrete sidewalks approximately 600’ long on the east side and 567’ long on the west side and by gates on each of the north and south ends--around which the houses built in the Edgemere Court subdivision are gathered and face (the “Courtyard”).

Pedestrian Access along Evanston Lakefront Trail. Originally, the south gate of Edgemere Court is believed to have been open for through passage by vehicles. As automobiles became more common in the 1920’s, use of this gateway was discontinued and eventually this gate was permanently closed for reasons of public safety. The State of Illinois later built a guardrail around the turn in Sheridan Road at the south end of Edgemere Court. The Edgemere Owners have allowed the pedestrian entrances at both of the north and south entrances to remain open. These sidewalks provide an important link in the Evanston Lakefront Trail between Clark Square Park and Sheridan Road on the south and Lee Street Beach and Lake Shore Boulevard on the north. Please see Exhibit B.

IV. How Was the Edgemere Court Created and Developed?

Easement Documents. Prior to subdivision into 16 discrete lots, certain easement documents were recorded against the gross property tracts of the Edgemere Court subdivision (Doc # 4879602 and Doc # 6201850, collectively, the “Easement Documents”). These Easement Documents created the 66’ wide open Courtyard to be perpetually unobstructed and available for the use, benefit and enjoyment of all Edgemere Owners. The Easement Documents required, among other things, the installation of a 20’ wide winding paved roadway, curbs, water mains, sewer, parkways and 5’ wide uniform concrete sidewalks on either side of the easement. These sidewalks, in effect, created the outside perimeter of the Courtyard. All improvements were installed by 1916, and they have been maintained by the Edgemere Owners for the past 100 years. No part of these improvements were made by the City, and no property within the confines of the Edgemere Court subdivision is owned by the City of Evanston. All

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

improvements within the central Courtyard are maintained by the Edgemere Owners. The Easement Documents required the Edgemere Owners to contribute $0.25 per frontage foot per year for 10 years for maintenance of the common improvements. Since then, these improvements have been maintained on a voluntary basis by the Edgemere Owners.

Centerline and Shared Property. The western edge of the Courtyard lies parallel to the public alley on the west side and is uniformly 150’ from the alley resulting in lots on the west side of the subdivision that are uniformly 183’ in depth (150’ + half of the 66’ easement). The centerline of the Courtyard is a straight line beginning on the north end of the Courtyard at the inside of the northwest gatepost and running straight to a point between the center of the gates and the southeast gatepost on the south end (the “Centerline”). Lots on the east side of the centerline are riparian. Initially, they were of the same approximate building depth as those on the west side because the lakeside was marshy, sandy and the water line was continually in flux. The private easement lies 33’ on each side of this Centerline and the prescribed 5’ wide concrete sidewalks running down the east and west sides of the easement generally define the Courtyard.

History of Development. The history of the development of the east side of the Courtyard is relevant to the issue of preservation. This development was not pursuant to any master plan, but rather the product of a natural progression over the course of several decades, where each subsequent home was planned and built within the limits of its lot, and consistent with massing, spatial and visual harmony with its then existing neighbors and the principles now embodied in the Preservation Commission’s Standards. Please reference Exhibit E. ● 919 is landmarked and was the first home built on Edgemere Court in 1912. It is believed that further development of the east side of Edgemere Court was delayed because of the pendency of riparian rights litigation involving the Edgemere Court subdivision.

Please see Brundage v. Knox, 279 Ill. 450 (Ill. Supreme Court, 1918). ● Once that case was resolved, the next home to be built was in the early 1920’s at 917 immediately next to 919. While 917 was setback from 919, given the open space to the north of 919 and the south of 917 and to Lake Michigan on the east, there was no visual incompatibility at the time. ● 939 and 943 at the north end were developed in the late 1920’s, and 929 was built in 1934 to fill out the north end. Those three structures line up to form continuous visual whole, the North Bookend”, and given the spacing between 919 and the “North Bookend”, visual continuity was preserved. ● There was a hiatus in development during the great depression and World War II. ● Post WW II saw the development of the south end at 901 (landmarked), 907, 911 (landmarked), with 901 being built last in 1955.. Those three structures line up to form a visual continuous whole, the “South Bookend”, that on the west side lines up with 919, creating and preserving visual harmony with between the South Bookend and 919. On the east side, the South Bookend lined up with 917 (before it was torn down by Nesbitt) creating and preserving visual harmony between the South Bookend and 917.

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

● 925 was built between 919 and 929 in 1954. Before it was demolished by Nesbitt, it lined up with the North Bookend and with 919 creating visual harmony among the five homes to the north. ● Over the course of more than 4 decades, the east side of Edgemere Court developed naturally, with each subsequent development respecting what was there at the time, creating a harmonious, continuous visual whole, in a park like setting of which the Edgemere Neighbors are the current beneficiaries. ● The harmony was disrupted in 2004 and early 2005 when Mr. Nesbitt purchased the Nesbitt Properties (917 and 925) and immediately obtained demolition permits and immediately demolished the structures. Please see the “Nesbitt Disruption” in Part V. ● Nesbitt began construction of the current Hacienda-style structure on 925 in 2007, and construction work is continuing. It is believed by the Edgemere Neighbors that a Certificate of Occupancy has never been issued for 925. ● There have been several proposals for the development of 917, including two submitted by Mr. Augunas (a contract buyer) in 2007 and another two submitted by Mr. Nesbitt in 2008. The issues in both of these matters were the same and, coincidentally, the same as presented by the proposals on behalf of the current 917 owners: ○ Was Lake Michigan a public way to be considered by the Preservation Commission? Answered “yes” in both the Nesbitt and Augunas matters. ○ What height would be allowed for construction on 917? Answered maximum height of 26’ in second Nesbitt submission as approved by the Preservation Commission. Please see City of Evanston Lakeshore Historic District Re-Survey Continuation Sheet at Exhibit F and Exhibit R. ○ Would construction and development be allowed east of the setback line connecting the rear of 925 with the rear of 911? Answered “no” in both the Nesbitt and Augunas matters. Revisions to each proposal moved the buildings away from the lake to line up with the 911-925 lakeside setback line. ● Ownership of 917 has changed a couple of times since 2007, and no construction has occurred on the 917 property (other than clearing of the land and removal of one or more historic trees).

Relevance of Centerline. The Centerline is significant relative to the determination of the gross buildable lot size. Because there is no publicly owned land within Edgemere Court, all land within the central Courtyard is privately owned. The lots on the east and west sides of Edgemere Court are actually contiguous to each other along the Centerline of the Courtyard. Please see an aerial view showing the contiguous nature of the properties along the Centerline attached as Exhibit G.

Thus, unlike lots in the rest of Evanston--where the streets, parkways and sidewalks are city owned property and lot lines begin at the inside of the sidewalk--roadways, parkways and sidewalks in Edgemere Court are privately owned but located in the 33’ of required open Courtyard in each lot. Please see Exhibit G.

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

Buildable Area. The open Courtyard area in front of each lot (sidewalks, parkway and driveway)

are not buildable due to the restrictions in the Easement Documents. In the case of 917, this

33’’ open court area constitutes 1,650 sq. ft. (33’ X 50’). This Courtyard area appurtenant to

the 917 property is shown in red on Exhibit H. Also shown in blue on Exhibit H is the property

(approximately 1,000 sq ft.) included in the survey of 917 that is outside of the current water’s edge. As noted above at “Real Property” in Part III, as a matter of property law riparian means the water’s edge and property cannot be accreted simply by building out over the water’s edge. Please see Exhibit I for a more accurate illustration of the approximate location of the current riparian property line. Moreover, in addition to the 66’ wide easement, Document # 6201850 further provides the following: a building line is to be established and maintained on each side of said Edgemere Court, 40 ft. back from the street line of said Edgemere Court, said building line to extend through from Lee St., on the North to Sheridan Road on the South.

V. How Is Edgemere Court Managed and Maintained?

Voluntary Social Enterprise. Edgemere Court is a self-managed and voluntarily-funded social enterprise. There are no formal organization, association or contractual agreements or commitments. Everything done by the Edgemere Owners is by consensus and is dependent on goodwill and integrity of the several Edgemere Owners. It continues today as a “commons”.

Writing about “commons”, Hartmut Zückert has commented that managing a commons

is “based on social and cultural interaction”. The Commons--A Historical Concept of Property

Rights published in Wealth of the Commons, edited by David Bollier and Silke Helfrich.

Commons. The historical concept of a “commons” became a subject of social commentary after

publication of Garrett Hardin’s social commentary in 1968 entitled The Tragedy of the

Commons. Investopedia defines the “Tragedy of the Commons” as follows: The tragedy of the commons is an economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource…. the tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society in the pursuit of personal gain. The tragedy of the commons is a very real economic issue where individuals tend to exploit shared resources….

Nesbitt Disruption. For almost 100 years, management and funding of expenses was a harmonious social and cultural interaction among the Edgemere Owners. In 2004, this harmonious interaction was temporarily interrupted when Chris Nesbitt and his affiliates purchased the Nesbitt Properties (917 and 925). For a short period, Mr. Nesbitt brought social chaos and discord to the neighborhood (the “Nesbitt Disruption). He took a developer’s approach apparently placing personal economic benefit ahead of any respect for the values and economic interest of other Edgemere Owners or the public at large (the “Nesbitt Influence”). He sponsored an effort focused on limiting--or eliminating--use of Edgemere Court pedways by non-residents of Edgemere Court; he denigrated the importance of neighborhood social and cultural interactions; and he aggressively trespassed against the rights of all other Edgemere

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

Owners with respect to the Courtyard. Ultimately, it took litigation to extinguish the Nesbitt Influence on Edgemere Court.

Saying “No” To Nesbitt Influence. Today, harmony and mutual respect has been restored as a

general matter among the Edgemere tribe--as evidenced by the overwhelming neighborhood support for the Position Statement and this Joint Statement. It is the hope and intent of the

Edgemere Neighbors that the Nesbitt Influence does not come back to life in the development of the 917 property.

VI. Edgemere Court Is Bounded by Public Ways.

Definition of Public Way. Edgemere Court is bounded on all four sides by public ways and lies at a critical connection link in the Evanston Lakefront Trail. Please see Exhibit B. There is no definition of a “way” or “public way” in the Evanston City Code. However, the common sense understanding and common dictionary definition of a “way” includes roads and sidewalks, as well as paths, alleys, lanes or other passageways. A public way would then logically be any way dedicated to or commonly used by the public. Whether such use is specifically granted by law or private conveyance, created by usage or simply permitted without formal documentation or permission, does not matter.

Title 7, Chapter 17, Section 3 of the Evanston City Code defines “public right of way” as:

“Any street, alley, other land or waterway, dedicated or commonly used for pedestrian, vehicular traffic, or other similar purposes….”

June 15 Memo from Assistant City Attorney. From this definition, the Assistant City Attorney incorrectly concluded in a memo dated June 15, 2016 that Lake Michigan was not a “public way” as used in the Preservation Commission’s Standards Applicable for Review. This legal opinion ignores history, actual present use, state and federal law, and Evanston’s own municipal code. To reach his conclusion, the Assistant City Attorney must assume either:

● that only property owned by the City of Evanston can be a “public way”, or ● that pedestrians have no right to walk along the water’s edge of Lake Michigan, or that boaters, swimmers, divers and fishermen/women have no right to be on Lake Michigan adjacent to the Edgemere Court subdivision.

Incorrect Assumptions. There is nothing in the Evanston City Code or the Preservation Standards for Review to support the first alternative assumption. Clearly there is an intention to distinguish between (i) private ways, such as private driveways, and (ii) ways dedicated or commonly used for pedestrian, vehicular traffic, or other similar purpose. However, the definition shows no intent to distinguish between a way “dedicated” for pedestrian, vehicular traffic, or other similar purpose and a way “commonly used” for pedestrian, vehicular traffic, or other similar purpose. As in the case of Edgemere Court, permissive rights of way can exist in addition to rights of way arising out of public ownership and dedication. If the opinion is based on the second assumption, then it is clearly wrong. The public’s right to walk along the water’s

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors edge of Lake Michigan is clearly established under federal law and is well recognized by both the US Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court. Power boats, sailboats, kayaks, surfboards, jet skis, and other watercraft have the right to move up and down Lake Michigan in front of Edgemere Court, and swimmers and divers can swim and dive in the waters in front of Edgemere Court.

Evanston City Code. In terms of the City Code definition, what is Lake Michigan if it is not a

“...waterway, dedicated or commonly used for vehicular (i.e., a device or structure for

transporting persons or things--including watercraft), pedestrian or similar purposes….”

(definition of vehicle in italics added)

Counsel for Edgemere Neighbors. Jeffrey P. Smith, Esq., an experienced natural resources lawyer, (Law Offices of Jeff Smith, 708 Church St., Suite 232, Evanston, IL 602010) has been retained to review this issue and provide appropriate legal advice. A copy of his legal Legal Memorandum addressing these issues is attached as Exhibit J.

The Edgemere Neighbors support the position that the Preservation Commission has jurisdiction to, and should, consider the many aspects of construction at 917, including the view from the Lake Michigan side of a riparian lot, especially those aspects relating to mass and spatial relationships with other structures and objects (including trees and vegetation that are integral to the park-like environment of Edgemere Court) and other public spaces, objects and ways.

VII. Position Statement of Edgemere Neighbors.

The Edgemere Neighbors have signed and filed with the Commission the following Position Statement (Please see Exhibit C):

We value preservation of the park-like environment of Edgemere Court. We request the Preservation Commission and City Council to construe strictly and adhere rigorously to all preservation standards applicable to review of construction within the Edgemere Court private subdivision. In particular, we support strict construction of, and rigorous adherence to, standards regulating: ● east and west setback "waves of continuity" facing the north-south pedestrian walkways (the “pedways”) (i) along the Lake Michigan water’s edge and (ii) through the central court area of Edgemere Court connecting Clark Square Park and Sheridan Road with Lee Street beach and Lake Shore Boulevard, ● compatibility of height with neighborhood structures, ● the rhythm of spacing between neighboring structures, ● the overall scale of construction, ● the placement of the bulk of new construction in a manner visually compatible with neighboring structures and open spaces, and ● the visual compatibility of new construction with neighboring structures and open spaces (including visualizations from both of the north-south pedways, Lake Michigan, and both of Clark Square Park and Lee Street Beach).

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

VIII. Walls of Continuity (Standards # 6, # 9 and # 11)

9. Walls of continuity. Facades and property and site structures, such as masonry walls, fences and landscape masses, shall, when it is a characteristic of the area, form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street, to ensure visual compatibility with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which such elements are visually related.

6. Rhythm of entrance porches, storefront recesses and other projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visually related.

11. Directional expression of front elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visually related in its directional character, whether this be vertical character, horizontal character or nondirectional character.

The Edgemere Neighbors support strict construction of, and rigorous adherence to, standards regulating east and west setback "walls of continuity" facing the north-south public ways, including: 1. Lake Michigan and along the Lake Michigan water’s edge, and 2. The pedestrian sidewalks through the central Courtyard of Edgemere Court connecting Clark Square Park and Sheridan Road with Lee Street beach and Lake Shore Boulevard.

The Edgemere Neighbors believe that the most important wall of continuity that is required in any new construction on 917 are cohesive walls of enclosure along the east (Lake Michigan) public way to ensure visual compatibility with the houses (911, 919 and 925) to which such elements are most closely visually related. Accordingly: A. To achieve this continuity, a setback line on the east facing wall is required no closer to the east than a setback line connecting the easternmost face of 925 with the easternmost face of 911. A illustration showing the natural and recommended setback line (heavy red line running north-south on the east face of Edgemere Court) required to maintain such visual compatibility is attached as Exhibit K. B. The dominant feature of 917 (as previously proposed), when viewed from the surrounding public ways, will “stick out” from the neighboring structures with which it is visually related, thereby destroying any sense of walls of continuity, rhythm or visual compatibility in directional expression. a. When viewed from the lakeside public way, any extension of the east elevation entrance, terraces and porches to the east of the easternmost line drawn between the east sides of 911 and 925 will not be visually compatible with the

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

homes to the south, (911, 907 and 901) and to the north (919, 925, 929, 935 and 943). b. When viewed from the Clark Square Park public way, the south and east elevation entrance, terraces and porches will not be visually compatible with the homes to the south (911, 907 and 901). c. When viewed from the Lee Street beach public way, the north and east elevation entrance, terraces and porches will not be visually compatible with the homes to the north (919, 925, 929, 935 and 943).

The Edgemere Neighbors note that they believe that Petitioner's Exhibit EX-9 is misleading in several ways: A. There is no proposed alignment of enclosures facing the Lake Michigan public way. B. It includes a structure in the rear yard of 925 which does not exist and Petitioner knows that such structure does not exist (please refer to Neighbors’ Exhibit K). C. It depicts several one story structures as two story structures--particularly on the east facades (such as east-side portions of 943 and 911). D. It depicts several open sided gazebos as one story structures. E. It does not illustrate sight lines from Clark Square Park (south) and Lee Street Beach (north).

IX. Height (Standard # 1)

1. Height. Height shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visibly related.

The Edgemere Neighbors support strict construction of, and rigorous adherence to, standards regulating compatibility of height with neighborhood structures. Accordingly:

A. Height must be measured from street grade. It appears that proposed development may seek to push height limitations, so it is imperative that all measurements of height take into account not only actual constructed height but also height attributed to (or accreted by) grade elevation. B. Any proposed construction at 917 must take into account that property immediately adjacent on the south side (911) is only 26’ high and other properties on the south side are of similar relatively lower height. Substantial portions of the construction at 911, 907 and 901 are 1 1/2 story construction C. Therefore the east elevation should not exceed the average of the allowable height and the height of the east elevation of 911.

In 2008, the Preservation Commission faced the same question when first Mr. Augunas and later Mr. Nesbitt submitted development proposals. After hearing guidance from neighbors and

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

the Preservation Commission, the Preservation Commission issues a COA for proposed construction having a 26’ maximum height. Please refer to Exhibits F and L.

The Edgemere Neighbors note that they believe that Applicants’ Exhibit EX-1 is misleading in several ways: A. It depicts the height of 917 as though it were to be in line with 911 and 919. In reality, the bulk of the height of 917, as previously proposed, would be in line with open spaces (the lakeside yard of adjoining properties), thus grossly understating the relative height of

917, as proposed, to the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visibly related. B. It depicts the height of 911 based on the highest roof peaks, whereas 911 for the most part is a 1 ½ story structure.

X. Rhythm of Spacing (Standards # 4 and #5)

4. Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front facade of a structure shall be visually compatible with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visually related.

5. Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visually related.

The Edgemere Neighbors support strict construction of, and rigorous adherence to, standards regulating the rhythm of solids to voids and the rhythm of spacing and structures between neighboring structures. Accordingly:

A. It is noted that most structures in Edgemere Court allow more side yard than the minimum required by zoning ordinance. This openness is necessary to preserve the park-like quality of Edgemere Court and to avoid overbuilding on any of the properties. B. In May and June submissions to the Preservation Commission, the developers of 917 have offered an Exhibit (EX-4) showing spacing between proposed construction on 917 and 911 and 919. This exhibit is misleading because it does not include lot lines. The Edgemere Neighbors believe that the spacing relied upon by the 917 developer is spacing provided by adjoining properties (911 and 919). Please see Neighbors’ Exhibit J showing lot lines between 911 and 919 and the inconsistency of the proposed 917 development when visualized in this context. C. The existing rhythm of spacing and rhythm of solids to voids has been observed more or less from the beginning of development. The existing rhythm would be broken by one structure extending further east or west than the neighboring

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

structures with which it is visually related, because there would be no spatial reference between an extended structure and its neighbors. In this instance, extension of the proposed structure east of the line drawn between 911 and 925 would not be visually compatible with the properties, sites, structures, public ways and places to which it visually relates namely from the Lakeside public way, the Clark Beach Public Way and the Lee Street Beach Public Way. Please see Exhibit H. D. An elevated yard, such as that previously proposed for 917, creates a closed space in much the same way as a full sized wall. An elevated yard, if permitted, to the extent that it is above grade and incorporated into the structure (as opposed to an outside patio) should be treated as construction and area coverage much like any other construction, notwithstanding that it may have grass or other vegetation as its “roof”. E. Long solid walls on either side of 917, as proposed, create a vision of a prison wall rather than a garden wall which would be more appropriate in the current park-like setting of Edgemere Court. Proposals for development of 917 have not addressed, and need to address, this issue. F. If construction, as proposed, is permitted for 917, people viewing 917 will be presented by “shotgun-style” architecture--such as found in New Orleans or Malibu--in spite of efforts to mask the situation with architectural distractions. Moreover, the use of shotgun architecture in the development of 917 will create a shotgun environment for 919. It is noted that 901, 907 and 911 could have been developed in a “shotgun-style”, but owners of these properties have resisted this approach. The Edgemere Neighbors oppose the “shotgun-style” of architecture for the development of 917 and urge the Preservation Commission to reject this style as reflected in the May and June proposals regarding 917. G. Developments proposed for 917 at the May and June meetings did not address the “Lighthouse Effect” that will be visible from the Lake Michigan, Clark Square Park, and perhaps even Lee Street Beach public ways by the proposed development. H. The Edgemere Neighbors believe that trees along lot lines--particularly existing trees that are 50-100 years old--are an important element of Edgemere Court and that any development proposal should take these tree lines into account. Neither of the May or June development proposals address this important preservation issue, and it appears that the development of 917, as proposed, will certainly endanger and probably kill several historic trees as a result of disrupting their root structures with construction digging and concrete foundation walls. Please see the current 917 tree lines illustrated on Exhibit M.

The Edgemere Neighbors note that they believe that Applicants’ Exhibit EX-4 is misleading in several ways: A. There is no illustration of voids on the east elevation facing the Lake Michigan public way. If such illustration were to be provided it would graphically illustrate the complete

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

lack of visual compatibility with properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which it is visually related. B. It includes a structure in the rear yard of 925 which does not exist and Petitioner knows that such structure does not exist (please refer to Neighbors’ Exhibit K). C. There is no illustration of the tree lines that are an important part of the park-like setting of Edgemere Court.

The Edgemere Neighbors note that they believe that Applicants’ Exhibit EX-5 is misleading in several ways: A. Most importantly, it does not illustrate lot lines between adjacent properties. Most of the spacing between 917 and 919 and between 917 and 911, as proposed, comes from 919 and 911 since 917, as proposed, pushes against the side yard restrictions on both the north and south sides unlike any other property on the east side of Edgemere Court. Please see Neighbors’ Exhibit N for an illustration of the 917 lot lines B. There is no illustration of the tree lines that are an important part of the park-like setting of Edgemere Court, and no description of historic trees that are intended to be removed or which most likely will be killed by excavations damaging to their root structures.

XI. Scale of Construction (Standard # 10)

10. Scale of a structure. The size and mass of structures in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, porches and balconies shall be visually compatible with the properties, structures, sites, public ways, objects and places to which they are visually related.

The Edgemere Neighbors support strict construction of, and rigorous adherence to, standards regulating the overall scale of construction. Accordingly:

A. Scale not compatible with 901, 907, 911, 919, or any other property except those built on double lots (900 and 932) on the west side of the Courtyard or 925 after increasing the lot size by over one-third by reclaiming the existing beach with landfill. Please see the before and after in Exhibit E (pre 2005) and Exhibit G (current). B. Reduction of area to reflect property owned in Courtyard but not part of the buildable site--a reduction of buildable area by 1,650 sq. ft. Please see “Buildable Area” in Part IV. C. Reduction of area to exclude land publicly owned, but occupied by a concrete deck extending into the water on the east side of 917---a reduction of buildable area by approximately an additional 1,000 sq. ft. Please see “Buildable Area” in Part IV. D. Please see Exhibits H and I.

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

XII. Placement of Bulk of Construction (Standard # 10)

The Edgemere Neighbors support strict construction of, and rigorous adherence to, standards regulating the placement of the bulk of new construction in a manner visually compatible with neighboring structures and open spaces. Accordingly:

A. The Edgemere Neighbors believe that the bulk of the 917 construction should be in line with the bulk of construction on every other lot on the east side of Edgemere Court. B. The east side of Edgemere Court should be visualized as a consistent whole. The three houses at the north end are each more or less regular in shape and in line with each other. If a rectangle is drawn around these 3 houses (approximately 75’ on the east-west edge) and then extended south through 925 to include the 3 houses at the south end, the bulk of all construction on each lot would be included in the rectangle. All of 943, 935 and 929 would be included, as well as all of 911, 907 and 901 (with the exception of parts of the one story garages on the west side of these structures and a small portion the one story extension on the east side of 911). The substantial bulk of 925 and 919 would also be included inside of this rectangle. C. The Edgemere Neighbors believe that the bulk of the 917 construction should also be inside of this rectangle in order to be visually compatible with neighboring structures and open spaces. Please see Exhibit O.

The Edgemere Neighbors note that they believe that Petitioner's Exhibit EX-10 is misleading in several ways: A. The view from the Courtyard understates the mass of the proposed construction and misleads the Commission about the mass and location of the Proposed 917 Development, B. Neighbor’s Exhibit P is a better representation of the mass proposed and the location of the mass on the development site.

XIII. Visual Compatibility (Standards #1, #4, #5 #6, #9, # 10 and #11)

The Edgemere Neighbors support strict construction of, and rigorous adherence to, standards regulating the visual compatibility of new construction with neighboring structures and open visualizations from both of the north-south pedways and both of Clark Square Park and Lee Street Beach). Accordingly:

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

A. The Proposed 917 Development seems more suited for a highly dense neighborhood, not the park-like environment of Edgemere Court B. Photos showing existing visualization and adopted to show the block out expected to result from the Proposed 917 Development--Please see Exhibit Q. a. View from Clark Square Park b. View from south facing north c. View from north facing south d. View of lakeside elevation of 925 showing the absence of any one-story structures as depicted in Petitioner's presentation materials.

The dominant feature of the Proposed 917 Development (as previously proposed), when visualized from the surrounding public ways, will “stick out” from the neighboring structures with which it is visually related, thereby destroying any sense of walls of continuity, rhythm or visual compatibility in directional expression: ● When viewed from the lakeside public way, any extension of the east elevation entrance, terraces and porches to the east of the line drawn between 911 and 925 will not be visually compatible with the homes to the south, (911, 907 and 901) and to the north (919, 925, 929, 935 and 943). ● When viewed from the Clark Square Park public way, the south and east elevation entrance, terraces and porches will not be visually compatible with the homes to the south (911, 907 and 901). ● When viewed from the Lee Street beach public way, the north and east elevation entrance, terraces and porches will not be visually compatible with the homes to the north (919, 925, 929, 935 and 943).

The Edgemere Neighbors reject the notion that exceptions need to be made to Preservation Standards due to the width or other features of the lot. The second Nesbitt proposal approved by the Preservation Commission in January 2009 provides an example of, and an idea for, a lovely 6,000 sq ft home with 3 car garage that could be built on 917. Please see Exhibit R.

The currently Proposed 917 Development will not preserve the visual harmony that has characterized the historical park like setting of Edgemere Court that has existed for over a century.

XIV. Summary and Conclusion

It is the desire and hope of the Edgemere Neighbors:

● That Edgemere Court will not become another chapter in the unfolding Tragedy of the Commons

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

● That the Nesbitt Influence does not come back to life in the development of the 917 property, ● That precedent is not established favoring continuing (Nesbitt-like) erosion of natural walls of continuity, spatial relationships, and mass which are critically important to Preservation, and ● That 917 would be developed on 917 consistent with the massing, setback, spacial, and height parameters of the Preservation Standards as outlined in the Joint Statement, such as the lovely 6,000 sq.ft, 26’ high, 3 car garage proposal previously approved for 917 by the Preservation Commission in 2009. Please see Exhibit R.

XV. Exhibits

Architectural Resources in the Lakeshore Historic District A. Excerpt (page 70) from Evanston Illinois, 2012 . B. Evanston Lakefront Trail C. Position Statement of Edgemere Neighbors D. Private Driveway Sign on Edgemere Court Gatepost E. Illustration of Historical Edgemere Court Development, Rhythm, and Bulk F. City of Evanston LSHD Re-Survey G. Zillow Image of Edgemere Court Lot lines H. Survey of 917 Showing Courtyard Area I. Waterline--Publicly Owned Land Occupied by 917 Owners J. Legal Opinion re: Public Way K. Diagram Illustrating Proposed East-side Wall of Continuity L. Diagram Illustrating Previously Approved Height Limitation M. Tree Line N. Side Yard Illustration O. Diagram Illustrating Proposed Boundaries for Bulk of Construction P. Scale Q. Photos Illustrating Visual Impact R. Previously Approved Construction for 917

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT A

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE LAKESHORE HISTORIC DISTRICT EVANSTON, ILLINOIS Summary and Inventory Prepared for the City of Evanston by: Granacki Historic Consultants 1105 West Chicago Avenue, Suite 201 Chicago, IL 60642 2012

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT B

Evanston Lakefront Trail

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT C

Position Statement of Edgemere Neighbors

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT D

Private Driveway Sign on Edgemere Court Gatepost

Here is the end of the bike path part of the Evanston Lakefront Bikeways route at Lee Street.

The sign on the post says "Edgemere Court Private Driveway" but it is actually an accessible road that you can ride on (a very short distance) to get to the rest of the trail. Source: www.about-bicycles.com/BikeTrailPages/evanston-lakefront-trails-pics3.html#.V30QaLgrLbI

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT E

Illustration of Historical Edgemere Court Development, Rhythm, and Bulk

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT F

City of Evanston LSHD Re-Survey

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT G

Zillow Image of Edgemere Court Lot lines

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT H

Survey of 917 Showing Courtyard Area

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT I

Waterline--Publicly Owned Land Occupied by 917 and Other Riparian Owners

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT J

Legal Opinion re: Public Way

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT K

Diagram Illustrating Proposed East-side Wall of Continuity

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT L

Diagram Illustrating Previously Approved Height Limitation

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT M

Tree Line

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT N

Side Yard Illustration

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT O

Diagram Illustrating Proposed Boundaries for Bulk of Construction

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT P

Scale

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT Q

Photos Illustrating Visual Impact

917 Edgemere Court (LSHD) Joint Statement of Neighbors

NEIGHBORS’ EXHIBIT R

Previously Approved Construction for 917

45 2. OLD BUSINESS

EVANSTON PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT

APPLICATION FOR RESCISSION OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION 2623 LINCOLN STREET

JULY 19, 2016

Summary At the June 21, 2016 public hearing, Mr. Kimbell, owner of the property at 2623 Lincoln Street, requested that the landmark designation of his property be rescinded. The Preservation Commission held a public hearing on June 21, 2016 and found the property still meets criteria in Section 2-8-4 (A) 3, (A) 4 and (B) of the Preservation Ordinance. Based on its findings, the Commission passed a motion recommending City Council deny the application for rescission of landmark designation of the property at 2623 Lincoln Street.

Application for Rescission of Landmark Designation – 2623 Lincoln Street At the June 21, 2016 public hearing, Mr. Kimbell, the applicant and owner of the property commonly known as 2623 Lincoln Street, requested that the landmark designation of his house at 2623 Lincoln Street be rescinded. The applicant stated the house does not meet criterion 4 in Section 2-8-4 (A) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and because there is no City record, namely a Statement of Significance, that demonstrates why the house is a designated landmark.

Mr. Kimbell stated that the 1982 Evaluation Committee notes cited proposed criteria A9 (property included on the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures Survey) and A5 (exemplifies the work of a nationally or internationally known architect or major local architect) for 2623 Lincoln Street as the basis for designation. The notes showed Joseph H. Bristle as the architect. Mr. Kimbell however argued that there is no evidence of recognition by the City of Evanston for Mr. Bristle’s work. He noted that of the 276 structures in the 1972 survey, 2623 Lincoln was the only Bristle home. He said there are 16 other homes identified as Bristle homes in Evanston and none of them received historic landmarks status due to criterion A5, unlike other architects such as Robert Seyfarth who has five homes on the 1972 list because of criterion A5.

Regarding criterion A9, Mr. Kimbell stated A9 is not one of the current ten criteria for landmark designation. The suggestion on the Preliminary List of Sites in Area III that criterion A9 and A5 are met for landmark designation of his house, is not supported by any records or actions.

Mr. Kimbell stated that landmark designation puts an undue burden on them and the value of their home.

Commission Findings of Fact Per Section 2-8-4 Criteria for Designation, every landmark must meet one or more of the specified criteria for designation outlined in subsection 2-8-4 (A) and must also meet the subsection criteria of subsection 2-8-4 (B). The Commission found the landmark house at 2623 Lincoln Street still meets criteria (A)3, (A)4 and criteria (B) of Section 2-8-4.

Criterion 2-8-4 (A)3: “Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.”

This criterion is the equivalent of Criterion (f) in Ordinance 57-0-78, and A9 in the 1982 Commission Evaluation Committee’s Preliminary List of Sites in Area III.

The house at 2623 Lincoln Street is listed in Ordinance 23-0-75 on page 2 of 1972 Survey of Historic Structures as part of Schedule B – A. “Structures identified by the Illinois Historic Structures Survey as being of architectural significance.” The Historic Preservation Ordinance 57-O-78 designated all structures listed in Schedule B of the 1972 Survey as Evanston Landmarks, including the property at 2623 Lincoln Street.

The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency confirmed in an email to City staff that 2623 Lincoln Street was included in the Illinois Historic Structures Survey of 1972.

The 1982 working notes of the Commission’s Evaluation Committee entitled “Preliminary List of Sites in Area III” list 2623 Lincoln Street as constructed in 1929 by Joseph. H. Bristle, the architect that meets criteria A5 and A9. As such, the property was listed as a Landmark in Historic Preservation Ordinances 57-0-78 and 33-O-82. The property was also later re-designated a Landmark by the City Council in Ordinance 12-0-94.

Criterion 2-8-4 (A)4: “Its identification as the work of an architect, designer, engineer or builder whose individual work is significant in the history or development of the City, the State, the Midwest region or the United States.”

This criterion is the equivalent of Criterion (b) in Ordinance 57-0-78, and A5 in the 1982 Commission Evaluation Committee’s “Preliminary List of Sites in Area III.

Per Section 2-206 of Ordinance 57-0-78, the property was designated as Evanston Landmark because it was at least 25 years old and met Criteria b): “Exemplify the work of a nationally or internationally known architect, or major local architect or master builder.”

Joseph Henry Bristle (1885–1955) worked in Chicago, Evanston, and Highland Park. He designed at least 24 buildings in Evanston, including two Evanston Landmarks (2636 Lincoln Street and 2200 Central Street) and contributing structures in three Historic Districts: 619 Library Place (Northeast), 1118 Lake Street (Ridge), 1106 Judson Avenue, and 915 Sheridan Road (Lakeshore).

Bristle designed a 1926 Tudor Revival house on Ravinia Court (now 248 Ivy Lane) which is rated as significant in the Architectural Resources Survey conducted by the City of Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission in 2002. Bristle-designed buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Rosemont Historic District in Alexandria, Virginia.

Criterion 2-8-4 (B): Integrity of Landmarks and Districts. “Any area, property, structure, site or object that meets any one or more of the criteria in Subsection 2-8- 4 (A) shall also have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or restoration.”

The City’s 2015 Inventory of Evanston Landmarks outside Evanston Historic Districts found that the condition of the structure at 2623 Lincoln Street is “Excellent” and retains its integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship. The Inventory classifies the architectural style of 2623 Lincoln Street as “Tudor Revival.” It highlights some of its architectural details such as the arched entry portico, prominent chimney, half timbering of gables, stonework and stucco finish. The report also noted that standards in Section 2-8-9 for review of alterations, construction, demolition and relocation still need to apply.

Commission Recommendation Based on the findings of fact listed above, the Preservation Commission finds that house at 2623 Lincoln Street still meets criteria (A)3, (A)4 and (B) for landmark designation in Section 2-8-4 of the Preservation Ordinance and unanimously recommends to the City Council denial of the application for rescission of landmark designation.

The Preservation Commission reaffirms the landmark designation of the property. The basis for landmark designation originated with the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures Survey (IHSS). The property was identified as being of architectural significance by Ordinance 23-0-78, and designated an Evanston Landmark by Ordinance 57-O-78 and re-designated as a landmark by Ordinances 33-O-82 and 12-0-94.

Attachments 1. Application for Rescission for Landmark Designation – 2623 Lincoln Street 2. Ordinance 23-0-75 – Schedule B; Ordinance 57-0-78 – Section 2-206 and Schedule B; Ordinance 33-0-82 – Schedule B; Ordinance 12-0-94 – Section 2-8- 4 and Schedule B 3. Paper from Mary McWilliams and Anne O. Earle 4. 2623 Lincoln Street Inventory Sheet (2015) 5. Intensive Study Areas 6. Comparison of Old Criteria and 1994 Criteria 7. Bristle’s AIA application and list of Bristle homes 8. Comparison of A5’s in NW Evanston 9. Statements of Significance for A5’s

ATTACHMENT 1

Application for Rescission for Landmark Designation – 2623 Lincoln Street

ATTACHMENT 2

Ordinance 23-0-75 – Schedule B

Ordinance 57-0-78 – Section 2-206 and Schedule B

Ordinance 33-0-82 – Schedule B

Ordinance 12-0-94 – Section 2-8-4 and Schedule B

2-8-4. - CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION.

Every nominated landmark or district must meet one or more of the following specified criteria for designation. (A) The Commission shall limit their consideration to the following criteria in making a determination on a nomination of an area, property, structure, site or object for designation by ordinance as a landmark or historic district: 1. Its location as a site of a significant historic or prehistoric event or activity which may or may not have taken place within or involved the use of any existing improvements on the property; 2. Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological or related aspect of the development of the City, State, Midwest region or the United States; 3. Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship; 4. Its identification as the work of an architect, designer, engineer or builder whose individual work is significant in the history or development of the City, the State, the Midwest region or the United States; 5. Its exemplification of important planning and urban design techniques distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design or detail; 6. Its association with important cultural or social aspects or events in the history of the City, the State, the Midwest region or the United States; 7. Its location as a site of an important archaeological resource; 8. Its representation of an historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological or related theme expressed through distinctive areas, properties, structures, sites or objects that may or may not be contiguous; 9. Its unique location or distinctive physical appearance or presence representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; 10. Its exemplification of a pattern of neighborhood development or settlement significant to the cultural history or traditions of the City, whose components may lack individual distinction. (B) Integrity of Landmarks and Districts. Any area, property, structure, site or object that meets any one or more of the criteria in Subsection 2-8-4(A) shall also have sufficient integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or restoration.

(Ord. No. 12-0-94; Ord. No. 8-0-12, (47-0-11(exh. B, § 2-8-4)), 1-23-2012)

2-8-5. - NOMINATION, CONSIDERATION AND DESIGNATION OF LANDMARKS AND DISTRICTS.

(A) Initiation of Nomination. Nomination of an area, property, structure, site or object for consideration and designation as a landmark or district shall be submitted to the Commission on a form prepared by the Commission, and may be submitted by any of the following: 1. A Commissioner or member of the Commission. 2. A member of the Plan Commission. 3. A member of the Council. 4. The Mayor. 5. Any resident of the City.

Page 1

6. Any not-for-profit organization with its principal place of business in the City. 7. An owner of record. (B) Withdrawal of Nomination. A nomination may be withdrawn by the person or persons who submitted the nomination form at any time prior to the Commission scheduling a public hearing under Subsection 2-8-5(C). Requests for withdrawal of a nomination after the Commission schedules a public hearing shall be granted only upon an affirmative vote of at least eight (8) Commissioners. (C) Notification of Nomination and Public Hearing. 1. Owners of record shall be notified, by regular mail, of completion and submission of a nomination form within ten (10) business days of receipt of the nomination. 2. The Commission shall schedule a public hearing on the nomination within forty five (45) days following receipt of the completed nomination form. Notice of the time, place and purpose of such hearing shall be given by the Commission at least five (5) business days prior thereto by the following methods: (a) By mailing of notification to each owner of record of a nominated landmark or owner of record of a property, structure, site or object in a nominated district; and (b) By mailing of notification to every association of residents or owners that has registered with the Commission for this purpose. (D) Procedure. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the pertinent Section of the rules of the Commission. The Commission shall consider all testimony or evidence relating to the designation criteria in Subsections 2-8-4(A) and (B), from any person who makes written submissions or appears at the public hearing. The owner of any nominated landmark or of property, structure, site or object within a nominated district shall be allowed reasonable opportunity to present testimony or evidence concerning the applicability of the designation criteria in Subsections 2-8-4(A) and (B). (E) Recommendation by Commission. Within thirty five (35) days following the close of the public hearing, the Commission shall make a determination upon the evidence as to whether the nominated landmark or district does or does not meet the criteria for designation in Subsections 2-8-4(A) and (B). If the Commission determines that the nominated landmark or district does meet the criteria for designation, the Commission shall direct the City Manager or his/her designee to transmit its recommendation to the Council or its duly authorized committee. Such a recommendation shall be passed by a resolution of the Commission and shall be accompanied by a report to the Council or its duly authorized committee containing the following information: 1. Explanation of the significance or lack of significance of the nominated landmark or district as it relates to the criteria for designation; 2. Explanation of the integrity or lack of integrity of a nominated landmark or district; 3. Identification of critical features of the nominated landmark or areas, properties, sites and objects in a nominated district to provide guidance for review of alteration, construction, demolition or relocation; 4. Proposed design guidelines, if any, for review of alteration, construction, demolition or relocation; 5. A map showing the location of the nominated landmark or the boundaries of the nominated district; and 6. A list, including the address, of every property, structure, site and object in each nominated district classifying each as being of contributing significance or noncontributing significance based on their degree of historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance. If the Commission fails to make its recommendation within thirty five (35) days following the close of the public hearing or if the Commission finds that the nominated landmark or district does not meet the criteria for designation, the nomination process shall end. If the Commission fails to make its recommendation within thirty five (35) days following the close of the public hearing or if the

Page 2

Commission votes not to recommend a proposed designation to the Council or its duly authorized committee, the Commission may not reconsider the proposed designation, except as provided in Subsection 2-8-5(H), for a period of two (2) years from the date of the passage of the thirty five (35) days from the close of the public hearing or the date of the negative Commission vote, whichever is applicable.

(F) Notification of Commission Recommendation. Notice of the recommendation of the Commission, including a copy of the report, shall be transmitted to the Council or its duly authorized committee and sent by regular mail to the owner of record of a nominated landmark and to all owners of record within a nominated district, and to the nominator within five (5) business days following adoption of the resolution and report. (G) Designation by Council. 1. The Council shall, within one hundred twenty (120) days after receiving the recommendations of the Commission regarding the nominated landmark or district, and without further required public hearing, either designate the landmark or district by ordinance or reject designation by resolution. In reaching its decision the Council shall review the evidence and testimony presented to the Commission together with any comment from subsequent public hearings. Should Council fail to reach a decision within one hundred twenty (120) days after receiving the recommendations from the Commission, the interim protection provided under Section 2-8-7 shall no longer be enforceable and the nomination shall be deemed denied. 2. The designation of a nominated landmark or district, shall require the affirmative vote of a simple majority the members of Council. 3. Notice of the Council's approval of the designation ordinance and effective date of the action of the Council shall be provided by regular mail to the nominator, the owner of record of the nominated landmark, or owners of record of all properties within the nominated district. The notice shall include a copy of the designation ordinance and shall be sent within five (5) business days following notification of the Division of Planning and Zoning. A copy of each designation ordinance shall be sent to the Commission, the Plan Commission and the Division of Building and Inspection Services. 4. If the Council has refused to designate a proposed landmark or district, the Commission may not reconsider the proposed designation, except as provided in Subsection 2-8-5(H), for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Council's refusal to designate. (H) Reconsideration of Previously Nominated Landmarks and Districts. The Commission may reconsider previously nominated landmarks and districts within a period of two (2) years of the Commission's failure to make its recommendation within thirty five (35) days of the close of the public hearing under Subsection 2-8-5(C) or of the Commission's finding that the nominated landmark or district does not meet the criteria for designation or of the Council's refusal to designate the proposed landmark or district only where: 1. Significant new information concerning the previously nominated landmark or district relating to the criteria for designation, under Section 2-8-4, is provided, and 2. The Commission votes by an affirmative vote of at least eight (8) Commissioners to reconsider the previously nominated landmark or district.

(Ord. No. 12-0-94; Ord. No. 8-0-12, (47-0-11(exh. B, § 2-8-5)), 1-23-2012)

2-8-6. - AMENDMENT AND RESCISSION OF DESIGNATION.

(A) Designation may be amended or rescinded, only after a period of two (2) years following the designation, upon petition to the Commission and compliance with the same procedures and according to the same criteria set forth herein for designation as follows:

Page 3

1. Petitions for amendment or rescission of a designation may be submitted by the same persons authorized to submit nominations pursuant to Subsection 2-8-5(A). 2. Properly submitted petitions are referred to the Commission for public hearing as provided in Subsection 2-8-5(C). 3. In the case of a rescission of a landmark designation or part or all of a district designation, the Commission shall consider whether the landmark or district no longer meets the criteria for designation, and make a recommendation to the Council or its duly authorized committee as provided in Subsection 2-8-5(E), including a report concerning whether the landmark or district does or does not continue to retain significance and integrity. (B) The Council shall rescind or amend a designation only after all of the above procedures have been followed. The Council shall rescind a designation only upon a finding that the designated landmark or district no longer meets the criteria for designation in Section 2-8-4.

(Ord. No. 12-0-94; Ord. No. 8-0-12, (47-0-11(exh. B, § 2-8-6)), 1-23-2012)

Page 4 ATTACHMENT 3

Paper from Mary McWilliams and Anne O. Earle To: The Evanston Preservation Commission

From: Mary B. McWilliams and Anne O. Earle, Associate Commissioners

RE: Application to rescind the individual landmark designation of 2623 Lincoln Street

The owner of 2623 Lincoln Street has applied to have the landmark designation of his house rescinded. This document provides information to assist the Preservation Commission and the City Council in their deliberations of the rescission request and was prepared with the approval of the Preservation Commission Chair, Diane Williams.

HISTORY Before the Preservation Commission began its survey work in 1977, commissioners identified ten Intensive Study Areas that contained clusters of buildings that could possibly be designated Evanston Landmarks. Area Three, in which 2623 Lincoln Street is located, is in Northwest Evanston. (See attached map)

The boundaries for Area Three are the north side Noyes Street on the south, east side of Lawndale Avenue on the west, the south side of Central Street on the north, and the west side of Brown Avenue on the east. Most development here took place in the first third of the twentieth century.

In 1977 the Preservation Commission hired architectural historian Dr. C. William Westfall to work with the Commission to identify Evanston’s architecturally significant buildings; Dr. Westfall was to write statements of significance for the buildings deemed eligible to be Evanston Landmarks. Rather than work as a committee of the whole, the commission formed the Evaluation Committee comprised of commissioners and associate commissioners who worked with Dr. Westfall to present the full commission with a vetted list of possible landmarks. The process began in 1977 on the east side of Evanston, where the concentration of possible landmarks was greatest. Research on Area Three began in 1982 and concluded in 1985. At regular intervals the Preservation Commission sent a list of nominated landmarks to the City Council, which made the official designation of Evanston Landmark status.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE CRITERIA IN THE ORIGINAL PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND IN THE 1994 PRESERVATION ORDINANCE The 1975 Preservation Ordinance established the Evanston Preservation Commission, delineated the responsibilities of the commissioners, and listed the criteria for determining landmark status. Framers of the ordinance used the list of Evanston buildings on the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures Survey as the foundation

1 for the Evanston preservation program. According to the 1974 Report of the Evanston Preservation Planning Conference: Frequently, when a community or group wants to develop a preservation project, which involves more than a few very closely associated structures, it lacks sufficient basic historical or architectural data … Years can elapse before a preservation program is developed…. Evanston is fortunate in having available to it both the remarkable resources of the Evanston Historical Society and a State survey of Evanston architecture completed in 1972.

The State’s Inventory of Historic Structures in Evanston, Cook County: Interim Report became the basis for the [Evanston Preservation Planning] Conference’s planning activities.

The 1975 Evanston Preservation Ordinance appended the lists Evanston buildings of the 1972 Survey the Evanston Historical Society as Schedule B. The house at 2623 Lincoln Street is on page 2. (1975 Ordinance and Schedules A & B attached) Section 2–203, Purposes and Goals of the Commission, explains the significance of including the list: It shall be the purpose of the Commission to identify and evaluate the historic resources and elements of fine visual character of the City of Evanston; …to review these specific preservation problems affecting those building[s] listed in Schedule B and to make recommendations pertaining to them….

It is clear that the drafters of 1975 Preservation Ordinance intended that the buildings on the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures Survey should receive special attention from the Commission as soon as the ordinance was passed. Buildings on that list were officially designated Evanston Landmarks in the first group of buildings the Commission sent to City Council. Although the Statement of Significance for 2623 Lincoln Street is missing, the lack of that document does not negate the building’s designation as an Evanston Landmark. The building is listed as an Evanston landmark in the Revised List of Evanston Landmarks issued in 1987, further confirming the landmark status of the building.

The Illinois Historic Structures Survey laid the foundation for the historic preservation work that followed in the state, as well as in Evanston. Architectural historian Dr. Paul Sprague, who was then on the faculty of the University of Illinois at Chicago, directed the Illinois survey, which was “acknowledged as one of the best surveys of this type being conducted in the nation,” according to the 1974 Evanston Preservation Planning Conference Report. Surveyors included architects, architectural historians, architecture students, and others with a working knowledge of the architectural resources in Illinois. Dr. Sprague and architect Jon Pohl surveyed Evanston.

Dr. Sprague later joined the faculty in the Department of Art History at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and is now professor emeritus. His studies in architectural history have included extensive research on the careers of Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, Walter Burley Griffin, and Marion Mahony Griffin. Architect and former Evanston resident Jon Pohl had a long and distinguished career with the firms Perkins and Will and American architecture-engineering firm HOK (formerly Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum); both are large firms with an international clientele. Jon Pohl worked in the aviation section at both firms and served two separate terms on the Evanston Preservation Commission. The firm of Perkins and Will was founded by Evanston architects Lawrence B. Perkins and Philip Will. Perkins was the son of Dwight Perkins, who designed and built his own house at 2319 Lincoln Street.

When Congress enacted the preservation act in 1965, the prevailing idea was to identify and preserve the most outstanding examples of historic and architectural importance—Mount Vernon, the White House, Fallingwater. As preservationists learned quickly—and the 1974 Evanston Preservation Planning Conference

2 Report acknowledged—the character of a streetscape, a neighborhood or a community is not determined by the work of the architectural stars—the Frank Lloyd Wrights of the world. Those architects comprise a small, select group, whose work by its rarity becomes an architectural centerpiece in a community. It is the work of the second-tier architects and local builders that defines the the architectural character of a community. The second-tier architects produced designs that were more than competent—in some cases, they were outstanding. Evanston streets are lined with their work, as are the streets in communities across the country. These buildings are the essence of the historic districts and comprise the majority of the individual Evanston Landmarks. An equally important factor in what was built was the rise in the cost of living. As land, building, and labor costs increased in the early twentieth century, houses became smaller. The Evaluation Committee took into consideration all of these very significant factors when surveying buildings.

Landmark determination was based on eleven criteria set out in the Preservation Ordinance. There were three historic criteria, six architectural criteria, and two general criteria. To become an Evanston Landmark, a building had to meet only one criterion. A copy of the original criteria is attached.

In 1993, at the request of Third Ward Alderman Sue Brady, the City Council authorized the revision of the Preservation Ordinance to give the commission binding power over the alteration and demolition of properties designated as individual Evanston Landmarks and the properties in historic districts. An attorney whose specialty was preservation law worked with the City Council and the Preservation Commission to draft the new ordinance. It was essential that the criteria for designation be the same in both ordinances so that the work of the Preservation Commission could continue without interruption. (copy of new criteria attached) The language of the criteria in the new ordinance clarifies the criteria in the old ordinance. It is important to understand that the criteria in the old ordinance do not correspond numerically with the criteria in the new ordinance, but every criterion in the old ordinance has an equivalent in the new ordinance. Criterion 4 in the old ordinance, for example, is criterion 3 in the new ordinance. A spreadsheet (attached) compares the criteria of the old and the new ordinances and assigns each criterion in the old ordinance its equivalent in the new ordinance. Criteria Seven and Eight in the new ordinance have no equivalent in the old ordinance; those new criteria focus on issues—archaeology and historic districts—not addressed in the old ordinance.

Because 2623 Lincoln Street was designated under the criteria A5 and A9 in the original ordinance, this document addresses only on those two criteria. Information on the buildings in Area Three comes from the working records of the Evaluation Committee from 1982 to 1985. The working papers that documented the work of the Evaluation Committee in 1982 are from the files of Mary McWilliams (attached). Included as well are Statements of Significance for most of the A5’s in Area Three.

Criterion A9 states that a building had been “selected for inclusion on the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures Survey. All Evanston buildings listed on the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures Survey were designated Evanston Landmarks. Many of the A9’s received additional designation. An example of the language in a statement for an A9 building that had not yet been evaluated by the committee is one for 914 Ashland Avenue—Washington School. In 1978 the commission had Dr. Westfall conduct a separate survey of Evanston schools. Washington School received the additional designations of A4 and A5: Your house has been designated an Evanston Landmark because it was identified as architecturally significant in the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures Survey. The Evanston Preservation Commission began its own intensive survey in 1976. Because a thorough and accurate evaluation is a lengthy process, the Commission has completed its study in six of ten designated areas.

Your house is located in one of the four unsurveyed Intensive Study Areas. When the Commission completes its evaluation of these areas, additional information on your house will be sent to you.

The A9 houses at 2623 Lincoln Street and 2444 Pioneer Road, another building included in this report, received the additional designation of A5, according to the working documents of the Evaluation Committee (attached).

Criterion A5 states that a building “Exemplify the work of a nationally or internationally known architect or major local architect or master builder.” The equivalent of A5 in the old ordinance is Criterion 4 in the new ordinance. Criterion 4 states that a building is “identified as the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose individual work is significant in the history or development of the City of Evanston, the State of Illinois, the Midwest region, or the United States.” The essential meaning of both criteria is identical.

All of the architects whose buildings received an A5 had designed several buildings in Evanston. Criterion A5 was unique in that buildings being considered for this designation had to undergo two tests. First, the building had to be determined to be a good example of its style or building type. Second, the building also had to be determined to be a good representation of the work of the architect who designed it. When the Evaluation Committee members encountered the work of an architect with whom they were not familiar, the practice was to defer designation until they had looked at other examples of that architect’s work. The notation to hold 2623 Lincoln Street until the committee had looked at other houses by Bristle was simply a normal step in the evaluation process.

As the Preservation Commission completed the survey of the Ten Intensive Study Areas commissioners looked at other areas that might be potential historic districts. In 1987 the commission received a grant to survey the areas outside of the Ten Intensive Study areas to identify possible individual landmarks in the unsurveyed areas and additional historic districts. The grant identified two possible districts—Northeast and Northwest Evanston. The historical information that follows comes from a proposal for a Northwest Evanston Historic District, written by Anne O. Earle. Area Three lies within the larger boundaries of that proposed district.

COMING OF AGE IN THE TWENTIES; THE DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHWEST EVANSTON IN THE FIRST THIRD OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY Anne O. Earle “The proposed Northwest Evanston Historic District is an area of owner-occupied single-family houses built during the first third of the twentieth century. …The establishment of the new residential community at the edge of a nineteenth century suburb began in 1895, when a complementary trio of houses was built on an undeveloped block at the edge of North Evanston. (2444, 2450, 2454 Pioneer Road, Robert C. Spencer, Jr. architect) Arts and Crafts style houses… and derivative Foursquares followed… But it is the twenties houses that give the proposed district its dominant character…

“The dominant character of the district…is formed by the ensemble of houses constructed during the building boom between the end of World War I and the early years of the Great Depression. Although each house is different from its neighbors, a feeling of cohesiveness unites the proposed district. The core of the district is the seven-block area of twenties houses that lies between Grant and Harrison streets, on Ewing Avenue, Lincoln Street, Forestview Road, Lincolnwood Drive, Central Park Avenue, Marcy Avenue, and part of Lawndale Avenue. Large revival houses designed by local architects for original owner-occupants are interspersed with equally large revival houses built by contractor-builders for speculation…

4 “Two broad streets, Lincoln Street and Central Park Avenue, lead to the core of the proposed Northwest Historic District. Each has a 100-foot wide right-of-way and very broad parkways. Large houses with very generous setbacks on wide, landscaped lots contribute to the feeling of graciousness and gentility.

“Lincoln Street is an extension of a street laid out in the platting of North Evanston in 1868. Lincoln was, and remains, the major entrance to the district from the east… Lot sizes, prevailing setbacks, and house sizes on Lincoln are significantly larger than to the east… The houses on Lincoln reflect the successive stages of development from the dominance of Arts and Crafts houses near Hartrey Avenue to the dominance of eclectic styles near Lincolnwood Drive.

“…Fifty-two houses within the proposed Northwest Evanston Historic District are designated Evanston Landmarks; twenty-one of those are also listed on the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures survey.”

STYLES AND BUILDING TYPES With the exception of 2444 and 2450 Pioneer Road, which were built in 1895, all of the Area Three buildings designated A5 were built between 1904 and 1931. The majority of the thirteen A5 houses in Area Three were built between 1915 and 1931 and were built in revival styles, and most of those houses were designed in the Tudor Revival style.

According to archcitectural historian Susan Benjamin, who wrote Section 8 in the Northeast Evanston Historic District Nomination, “the Tudor Revival style was popular in America between 1893 and 1940, although the great surge in popularity occurred in the late teens and the 1920s. The style is based loosely on English Medieval prototypes, with small cottges as well as large country homes categorized stylistically as Tudor Revival. The small cottages attracted homebuyers because they evoked the image of a sweeter, simpler way of life…At the other end of the economic spectrum, a large English country manor was equally attractive, expressing symbolically a homeowner’s elevated economic status and implied respectability. Somewhere between the quaint cottage and the sprawling country house stands the handsome suburban Tudor Revival house that was so commonly built in northwest Evanston and throughout the North Shore. Although builders constructed some of the smaller houses from available plans, most were architect-designed.

“Features of the Tudor Revival style include picturesque massing; asymmetrical plans; steeply-pitched, front- facing gable roofs; tall, narrow windows, usually casements in multiple groups with multipane or diamond glazing; prominent brick chimneys frequently crowned by chimney pots; decorative, not structural, half- timbering; and doorways topped with Tudor (flattened, pointed) arches or shouldered, flat arches. Some entrances have a projecting vestibule covered with a steeply pitched, asymmetrical ‘catslide’ gable roof. Unlike the wood clapboard or shingle Queen Anne or Stick Style houses, which also drew on Medieval English precedents, Tudor Revival houses have walls of stucco, brick, brick veneer, or some combination of materials… Athough stone trim was popular, Tudor Revival houses are most commonly built of brick. As masonery veneer became widespread during the 1920s, brick homes were possible even for those on a modest budget.” (Susan Benjamin, Northeast Evanston Historic District Nomination, 1999, Section 8, Pages 95–96)

5 ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS As Anne O. Earle stated in her 1988 proposal for a Northwest Evanston Historic District, houses in the proposed Northwest Evanston Historic District were largely purpose built by an architect or builder for a specific client. The biographical information architectects who designed the A5 houses in Area Three comes from the Appendix prepared by Barbara J. Buchbinder Green in Evanstoniana: An Informal History of Evanston and its Architecture, Margery B. Perkins, compiled and edited by Barbara J. Buchbinder Green, 1984 (BJBG); the information compiled by Susan Benjamin in the Northwest Evanston Historic District nomination, 1999 (SB); and the Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased), Henry F. Withey, A.I.A. and Elsie Rathburn Withey, 1956, reprinted 1970 (HFW). It is worth noting that in the Statements of Significance Dr. Westfall referred to several of the architects as important Chicago area architects—specifically, Dwight Perkins, Elmo Lowe, and John Bollenbacher.

Below are brief biographies of the architects who designed the buildings designated A5 in Area Three. The source of the biographical information is identified by the initials of the authors of the sources (see above):

Robert Closson Spencer, Jr. (1864–1953) A graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Spencer also had a degree from the University of Wisconsin in mechanical engineering…He studied in Europe for several years and upon his return he worked for the Boston firm of Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge and later moved to their Chicago office… In 1895 Spencer opened his own office; in 1897 he moved into Steinway Hall…BJBG

Dwight Heald Perkins (1897–1941) studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In charge of the office of Burnham & Root while Burnham was busy with the 1893 World’s Columbian Exhbition, Perkins established his own office in Steinway Hall, his first independent commission… From 1905 to 1911 he was the architect for the Chicago Board of Education and designed approximately forty schools. A close friend of landscape architect Jens Jensen, Perkins … worked to establish the Cook County Forest Preserve System. He lived in Evanston. BJBG

Hermann Valentien von Holst (1874–1955) & James L. Fyfe (dates unknown) Hermann von Holst was born in Germany; his family immigrated to the U.S. in 1891, when his father assumed a position at the University of Chicago. Hermann graduated from the architecture program at the University of Chicago in 1893 and the architecture program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1896. He began his architectural career as a draughtsman at the Chicago office of Shepley, Rootan & Coolidge. In 1909 he opened his own practice with offices in Steinway Hall. When Frank Lloyd Wright went off to Europe with Mrs. Cheney, von Holst, along with architects Isabel Roberts and John Van Bergen, agreed to oversee Wright’s unfinished projects. Von Holst proved highly capable for the task. In 1920 he moved to Florida, where he continued his architectural practice. He was in parthership with James L. Fyfe from 1910 to 1917, when Fyfe joined the US Army. Their office was in Steinway Hall, designed by Dwight Perkins.

Robert Edward Seyfarth (1878–1950) was born in Blue Island, Illinois and attended the Chicago Manual Training School; after graduation he went to work for prominent Prairie School architect George W. Maher. Maher’s introduction to Evanson came when he worked on Maher’s designs for Northwestern University’s Patten Gymnasium and Swift Hall of Engineering. He also supervised the construction of James A. Patton’s house on Ridge Avenue, according to biographical notes. A Wikipedia entry states, “Seyfarth’s work was distinguished … as a distillation of prevailing revivalist architecture, characterized by…strong geometry, a highly refined sense of proportion, and the selective, discriminating use of historical references.” In 1909 Seyfarth opened his own practice on the North Shore, and in 1911 built himself a home in Highland Park. In the 1910s and 1920s he designed houses in many Chicago-area suburbs, including Evanston.

6 Edgar Ovet Blake (1866–1953) was born in Evanston and graduated from Evanston Township High School. In 1881 he began working for Chicago architect John M. Van Osdel [but] left the firm to attend the Art Institute of Chicago, completing his architectural studies in Paris. Blake worked on the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893 before settling into an architectural practice in Evanston. While the bulk of his practice was single-family residential architecture, Blake also designed office buildings, churches, and apartment houses. Blake was a versatile designer who worked in many of the architectural styles popular in the early twentieth century. SB Elmo Cameron Lowe (1876–1933) was born in Illinois, graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1905, and worked first as a designer for architect Bertram Goodhue. From 1908 to 1924 Lowe was in partnership with John C. Bollenbacher, retiring from the firm in 1930. BJBG

John Carlisle Bollenbacher (1884–1939) was born in Bloomington, Indiana, and received his education in architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He returned to the Midwest and began to work for Elmo C. Lowe, later becoming a partner in the firm. (see above) Lowe & Bollenbacher designed many churches and other public buildings in the Midwest. When Elmo Lowe retired in 1930, Bollenbacher entered into partnership with Alfred Hoyt Grainger. HFW

Edwin Hill Clark (1899–1967) & Chester Howe Walcott (1883–1947) Chester Walcott and his brother Russell grew up in Evanston. In 1903]Chester earned a B.S. in architecture at Princeton University… According to Withey, Walcott continued his studies in Italy and in Ateliers of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris. From 1912 to 1917 Chester Walcott was in partnership with Arthur C. Brown; from 1919 to 1920 with his brother; and from 1920 to 1922 with Edwin Hill Clark; after which he (Chester) practiced alone. Edwin Clark had been a partner of architect William A. Otis from 1909 to 1920. BJBG, HFW

Raymond F. Houlihan (1902?–1955) was a Beaux Arts-trained architect who practiced in Evanston and the North Shore and for many years was the head architect for developer Charles A. Hemphill (see below).

Charles A. Hemphill (dates unknown) was a prolific North Shore builder. A job offer brought Charles A. Hemphill to Chicago from New York in 1924. Finding he was unhappy with his new position, Hemphill… began building houses and soon formed a successful full-service construction company based in Evanston… In the early days of the firm, he always used architect Raymond Houlihan, a Beaux Arts-trained arachitect… (see above) The houses Hemphill built between 1937 and 1939 were typically constructed of lannon stone and were either French Eclectic or Tudor Revival…The business continued under the direction of his sons James and Robert until 1993. SB

Joseph Henry Bristle (1885–1955) was born in Chicago. He trained as an architect and worked in Chicago, Evanston, Highland Park, and elsewhere on the North Shore. Sometime between 1900 and 1915 Bristle participated in a two-year architecture program sponsored jointly by the Art Institute of Chicago and Armour Institute (now Illinois Institute of Technology.) During World War I Bristle worked for the Virginia Shipbuilding Corporation in Alexandria, Virginia. After the war he and his family moved to Northwest Evanston (2505 Park Place). Bristle did not design 2505 Park Place, but he did make alterations to the building, according to the building permits on file at the Evanston History Center. In 1911 Bristle was a member of the Chicago Architectural Club at the same time that Elmo C. Lowe was president of the club. (see above) Fellow members at the time were Dwight Perkins, Alfred H. Granger (see Bollenbacher entry, above), and Evanson architects Daniel H. Burnham and Thomas Tallmadge. He was a member of the Chicagao Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) from 1926 to 1935. Elmo C. Lowe, John C. Bollenbacher, and Charles H. Hammond were Bristle’s sponsors. All three designed a number of buildings in Evanston in the early

7 twentieth century and would have been familiar with Bristle’s work. Hammond worked in partnership with Melville C. Chatten; in 1927 Dwight Perkins joined that firm. Between 1928 and 1930 Hammond was president of the AIA and Supervising Architect of the State of Illinois from 1929 to 1936. (BJBG) Bristle was also a member of Illinois Society of Architects. He designed many houses in Evanston, including several for Evanston developers J. P. Bauer, E. C. Harms, and Thomas B. Carson. Several of the buildings attributed to Carson are Evanston Landmarks. Since developers usually listed themselves as the architect of record, we do not have a full record of all the Evanston houses Bristle may have designed. Bristle designed at least 24 houses in Evanston, as verified by permit research. The earliest known Bristle-designed buildings are two two-flats, or duplexes as they are described on the building permits, built in 1915; the latest Bristle building is the house at 915 Sheridan Road, built in 1941. A list of known Evanston houses designed by Bristle is attached.

8 ATTACHMENT 5

2623 Lincoln Street Inventory Sheet (2015) City of EVANSTON 2623 LINCOLN STREET

BEGINNING STREET NUMBER 2623 END STREET NUMBER STREET # SUFFIX STREET NAME Lincoln Street PIN 10-11-207-015-0000

LOCAL WITHIN LOCAL DISTRICT? No LOCAL DIST CONTRIB/NON-CONTRIB? LOCAL LANDMARK? Yes YEAR 1985 LOCAL LANDMARK ELIGIBLE? CRITERIA A5: Exemplify the work of a nationally or internationally known architect, or major local architect or master builder; A7: Exemplify an architectural style, construction technique or building type once common in the City; A9:Be selected for inclusion on the 1972 Illinois Historic Structures Survey. PHOTO ID: 10-11-207-015-0000-01.jpg

NATIONAL REGISTER NR DISTRICT CONTRIB/NON-CONTRIB NR ELIGIBLE? No CRITERIA ALTERNATE ADDRESS? WITHIN DISTRICT? No NR LANDMARK? No YEAR

GENERAL INFORMATION CATEGORY Single Family Residential CONDITION Excellent SECONDARY STRUCTURE NR SECOND INTEGRITY Excellent CURRENT USE Single Family Residential HISTORIC USE Single Family Residential

ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION Tudor Revival ROOF MATERIAL Slate FOUNDATION Stone PORCH portico DETAILS Arched entry portico, half timbering, stonework. WINDOW MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1929 OTHER YEAR WINDOW MATERIAL 2 WINDOW TYPE Casement DATE SOURCE Landmark Nomination WINDOW CONFIGURATION Multi Light SIGNIFICANCE WALL MATERIAL (CURRENT) Stone WALL MATERIAL 2 (CURRENT) Stucco PLAN T Shape HISTORIC FEATURES Arched portico, prominent chimney, half timbered gables NO OF STORIES 2 ROOF TYPE Cross-Gabled ALTERATIONS Replacement windows

Page 425 ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO ID: 10-11-207-015-0000-02.jpg

HISTORIC INFORMATION

OLD ADDRESS (CITY DIR.YEAR) BUILDING MOVED? BUILDER O. A. Johnson SURVEYOR Douglas Gilbert, AIA

MOVED FROM ORIGINAL OWNER Walter M. Mitchell SURVEYOR ORGANIZATION The Lakota Group

SURVEY DATE SURVEY AREA ORIGINAL ARCHITECT Joseph H. Bristle ARCHITECT SOURCE Permit July 23, 2015

PERMIT/HISTORIC INFORMATION PERMIT MOVING INFORMATION

CURRENT ADDRESS 2623 Lincoln Street OLD ADDRESS DATE OF CONSTRUCTION 1929 MOVING PERMIT # DATE MOVED

ORIGINAL PERMIT INFORMATION

BUILDING PERMIT # 18978 DATE 1929.5.8 OTHER PERMIT INFORMATION

BUILDING PERMIT DESCRIPTION COA INFO 2-sty stone veneer family dwelling and attached gar. 13PRES-0206: Replace existing steel casement winds with vinyl casement and double hung winds, replace below grade basement winds some with glass block COST ORIGINAL OWNER OCCUPIED? and others with vinyl slider windows; 03HIS0000000207: Install lawn sprinkler system. EXTERIOR ALTERATION PERMITS HISTORIC INFO OTHER SOURCES 13WNDR-0102: Install 32 steel casement winds with vinyl casement and double hung winds- no change in size or placement, replace basement winds below grade some with glass block and other with slider windows. HISTORIC INFO COMPILER VOLUNTEER A. McGuire

Page 426 ATTACHMENT 6

Intensive Study Areas

ATTACHMENT 7

Comparison of Old Criteria and 1994 Criteria COMPARISON OF OLD CRITERIA AND 1994 CRITERIA OLD 1994 CRITERIA 1 Exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social 6. Its association with important cultural or social aspects or heritage of Evanston. events in the history of the City of Evanston, the State of Illinois, the Midwest region, or the United States.

H2 Be the site of an historic event 25 years in the past. 1. Its location as a site of significant historic or prehistoric event or activity which may or may not have taken place within or involved the use of any existing improvements on the property. H3 Be associated with a nationally, regionally, or locally 2. Its identification with a person or persons who significantly prominent person who has been dead 25 years or a locally contributed to the historic, cultural, architectural, prominent organization. archaeological, or related aspect of the development of the City of Evanston, the State of Illinois, Midwest region, or the United States.

A4 Exhibit a high quality of architectural design without regard to 3. Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design the time built or historic association. distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship. A5 Exemplify the work of a nationally or internationally known 4. Its identification as the work of an architect, designer, engineer, architect or major local architect or master builder. or builder whos individual work is significiant in the history of the City of Evanston, the State of Illinois, the Midwest region, or the United States. A6 Exhibit a high quality of architectural design that is the result of 3. Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design a change or a series of changes to an original structure. distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship A7 Exemplify an architectural style, construction technique, or 3. Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design building type once common in the city. distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship A8 Exhibit an unusual, distinctive, or eccentric design or 9. Its unique location or distinctive physical appearance or construction technique, which contributes to the architectural presence representing an established and familiar visual feature of interest of its environs as an accent or counterpoint. a neighborhood, community, or the City of Evanston. A9 Be selected for inclusion on the 1972 Illinois Historic 3. Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design Structures Survey. distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship E10 Be selected for inclusion on the 1975 Historic Landmarks 1. Its location as a site of significant historic or prehistoric event or Survey. activity which may or may not have taken place within or involved the use of any existing improvements on the property. GE11 In addition, certain places which have long provided an 10. Its exemplification of a pattern of neighborhood development established and familiar visual feature in Evanston by virture of their or settlement significant to the cultural history or traditions of the unique locations, distinctive physical characteristics or historical City of Evanston, whose components may lack individual association, may be designated Evanston Landmarks. distinction. Nothing comparable 7. Its location as a site of an important archaeological resource.

Nothing comparable 8. Its representation of a historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological or related theme expressed through distinctive ares, properties, structures, sites or objects that may or may not be contiguous. (Historic Districts) ATTACHMENT 8

Bristle’s AIA application and list of Bristle homes

EVANSTON HOUSES DESIGNED BY JOSEPH H. BRISTLE

1. 619 Library Place, Duplex for Mrs. A.E. Ketchum, 1915

2. 1106 Judson Avenue, Duplex for O.F. Andrews, 1915

3. 2312 Hartzell Street, House for Joseph Bristle, 1921

4. 2316 Hartzell Street, House for Joseph Bristle, 1921

5. 1327 Lincoln Street, H.W. Carlson House, 1921

6. 2600 Orrington Avenue, G.H. Thompson House, 1922

7. 1322 Rosalie Street, R.W. Hardman House, 1923

8. 2422 Lincolnwood Drive, Fred Bristle House, 1924

9. 2738 Grant Street, House for J.P. Brauer, 1924

10. 2914 Colfax Street, E.C. Harms House, 1925

11. 2807 Harrison Street, Oscar Johnson House, 1925

12. 2312 Ewing Avenue, Paul C. Milner House, 1925

13. 2200 Central Street, Medical Office for Dr. Wilson K. Fisher, 1926

14. 1118 Lake Street, Ralph A. Hunt House, 1926

15. 2209 Central Park Avenue, John H. Brinker House, 1926

16. 2311 Lincolnwood Drive, A.C. Johnson House, 1927

17. 2403 Orrington Avenue, House for W.H. Lyman, 1928

18. 2407 House for W.H. Lyman, 1928

19. 2330 Ewing Avenue, A.W. Bays House, 1928

20. 2714 Lincoln Street, E. Edwards House, 1929

21. 2623 Lincoln Street, Walter Mitchell House, 1929

22. 3130 Thayer Street, F.R. Kirkpatrick House, 1936

23. 2705 Simpson Street, Walter E. Hardy House, 1937

24. 915 Sheridan Road, ____ House, 1941 ATTACHMENT 9

Comparison of A5’s in NW Evanston

EVANSTON BUILDINGS DESIGNED BY JOSEPH H. BRISTLE

619 Library Place, Duplex for Mrs. A.E. Ketchum, 1106 Judson Avenue, Duplex for O.F. 2312 Hartzell Street, for Joseph Bristle, 1921 1915 Andrews, 1915 Northeast Evanston Historic District Lakeshore Historic District

2316 Hartzell Street, for Joseph Bristle, 1921 1327 Lincoln Street, H.W. Carlson House, 1921 2600 Orrington Avenue, G.H. Tomlinson House, 1922 Northeast Evanston Historic District EVANSTON BUILDINGS DESIGNED BY JOSEPH H. BRISTLE

1322 Rosalie Street, R.W. Hardman House, 2422 Lincolnwood Drive, Fred Bristle House, 1924 1923

2738 Grant Street, House for J.P. Brauer, 1924 2914 Colfax Street, E.C. Harms House, 1925 2807 Harrison Street, Oscar Johnson House, 1925 EVANSTON BUILDINGS DESIGNED BY JOSEPH H. BRISTLE

2312 Ewing Avenue, Paul C. Milner House, 2200 Central Street, 1926, Evanston 1118 Lake Street, Ralph A. Hunt House, 1926 1925 Landmark Evanston Ridge Historic District

2209 Central Park Avenue, John H. Brinker House, 1926 Left: Before 1982 remodeling Above: Today 2311 Lincolnwood Drive, 1927, A.C. Johnson House EVANSTON BUILDINGS DESIGNED BY JOSEPH H. BRISTLE

2043 Orrington Avenue, House for W.H. 2407 Orrington Avenue, House for 2330 Ewing Avenue, A.W. Bays House, 1928 Lyman,1928 W.H. Lyman, 1928 Northeast Evanston Historic District Northeast Evanston Historic District

2714 Lincoln Street, E. Edwards House, 1929 2623 Lincoln Street, Walter Mitchell House, 1929 Evanston Landmark, A5, A9 EVANSTON BUILDINGS DESIGNED BY JOSEPH H. BRISTLE

3130 Thayer Street, F.R. Kirkpatrick House, 1936 2705 Simpson Street, Walter E. Hardy House, 1937

915 Sheridan Road, 1941 Evanston Lakeshore Historic District HOUSES DESIGNATED A5 IN AREA THREE, BUILT BETWEEN 1895 & 1912

2444 Pioneer Road, House for C.A. 2450 Pioneer Road, House for C.A. Wightman, 2319 Lincoln Street, Dwight H. Perkins House, 1904, Wightman, 1895, Robert C. Spencer, Jr. 1895, Robert C. Spencer, Jr. architect, A5 Dwight H. Perkins, architect, A5, H3* architect, A5, A9

*H3 The property is “associated with a nationally, regionally, or locally prominent person who has been dead 25 years or a locally prominent organization. 2319 Lincoln Street was Dwight Perkins’ own house.

2405 Lincoln Street, W.A. Colledge House, 2727 Lincoln Street, C.H. Hurlbut House, 1912, von Holst & Fyfe, 1906, Dwight H. Perkins, architect, A5 architects, A5, A9 HOUSES DESIGNATED A5 IN AREA THREE, BUILT BETWEEN 1915 & 1931

2733 Colfax Street, Earl Rapp House, 1915, Robert Seyfarth, 2320 Lincolnwood Drive, A.A. Mueller House, 1925, Robert architect, A5 Seyfarth, architect, A5

2510 Lincoln Street, Roy Ozane House, 2516 Lincoln Street, F.H. Pattee House, 1923, Lowe 2518 Central Park Avenue, Edgar O. Blake House, 1922, Clark & Walcott, architects, A5 & Bollenbacher, architects, A5 1923, Edgar O. Blake, architect, A5, H3 HOUSES DESIGNATED A5 IN AREA THREE, BUILT BETWEEN 1915 & 1931

2525 Colfax Street, William J. Mauer House, 1925, Elmo C. Lowe, architect, 2623 Lincoln Street, Walter M. Mitchell House, 1929, A5 Joseph Bristle, architect, A5, A9

2426 Lincolnwood Drive, W.L. Claffey House, 1928, 2425 Lincoln Street, House for C.A. Hemphill, 1931, Raymond H. Houlihan, Charles A. Hemphill, builder, A5, A9* architect, A5 A COMPARISON OF AREA THREE A5 TUDOR REVIVAL HOUSES BUILT BETWEEN 1922 AND 1929

2510 Lincoln Street, Roy Ozane House, 1922 2516 Lincoln Street, F.H. Pattee House, 1923 Clark & Walcott, architects, A5 Lowe & Bollenbacher, architects, A5

2525 Colfax Street, William H. Mauer House, 1925 2426 Lincolnwood Drive, W.L. Claffey 2623 Lincoln Street, Walter M. Mitchell House, 1929 Elmo C. Lowe, architect, A5 House, 1928 Joseph Bristle, architect, A5, A9 Charles A. Hemphill, builder, A5, A9 ATTACHMENT 10

Statements of Significance for A5’s