Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Appropriateness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Preservation commission approves rear‑addition changes at 1140 Hinman Avenue, 8‑1 with two abstentions
Summary
The Preservation Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness to remove a second‑floor sleeping porch, reconfigure rear fenestration and build a new covered rear porch and deck at a contributing Lakeshore Historic District house; vote was 8 yes, 1 no, 2 abstentions.
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Appropriateness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Evanston Preservation Commission on Tuesday approved a certificate of appropriateness for exterior alterations at 1140 Hinman Avenue, a contributing property in the Lakeshore Historic District.
Applicant Stuart Cohen of Cohen and Hacker Architects presented plans to remove a non‑original second‑floor sleeping porch and several later additions at the rear of the Charles Ayers–designed brick house, reconstruct a new covered rear entry and raised deck, alter rear fenestration with new French doors and double‑hung windows, and apply stucco and new trim details to simplify and unify the rear elevation.
Why it matters: The house is a contributing structure in the Lakeshore Historic District; commission members weighed the loss of the sleeping porch against the proposal’s effort to simplify the building’s rear, restore compositional balance and continue prominent dentil trim and column‑capital details on the porch posts.
Key details and discussion
- Stuart Cohen, representing the applicant, said the rear of the house is a “hodgepodge” of several nonhistoric additions and that the sleeping porch “sits precariously” on a roof overhang. He described the design intent as cleaning up the rear elevation and replicating the front porch’s dentil molding and column capital detail in wood trim, while using painted stucco for portions of the rear where matching historic brick proved impractical.
- Commissioners asked about materials and structural condition. The applicant said the single‑story rear addition would receive stucco skirting down to a water table detail on a full foundation, and that the existing sleeping porch is glazed and “structurally sound” though functionally unused.
- Several commissioners expressed mixed feelings about removing the sleeping porch because it is an older feature, but most said it appeared to be a later, awkward addition that did not contribute positively to the house’s character. Commissioners noted the proposal retains and extends several original details (dentil molding and the porch capital motif) and that the work would be visible only from limited vantage points (an alley and partial street views).
Vote and action
The commission approved the application under the cited standards — alteration standards 1–10 and construction standards 1–8, 10–13 and 15 — by a vote announced as 8 yes, 1 no and 2 abstentions. The motion (as read in the meeting) approved demolition of the covered rear entry porch, raised open deck, first‑floor bay and second‑floor sleeping porch at the rear volume; construction of a new covered entry porch and raised deck; reconstruction of the existing roof where it extended over the second‑story sleeping porch proposed to be removed; and alteration of the pattern of fenestration at the rear volume including new French doors and new double‑hung windows in existing and new openings, as presented.
Public comment
Regina Wooten, who lives at 1028 Hinman Avenue, supported the proposal and thanked the applicant for a “thoughtful renovation” in the face of nearby larger developments.
Clarifying details
- Case number read into the record: 25PRES0010, 1140 Hinman Avenue (Lakeshore Historic District). The staff read the applicable standards aloud before testimony. - Motion text (as presented in the meeting) and the commission’s stated applicable standards were recorded on the record; final tally announced as “8 yes, 1 no, and 2 abstentions.”
Ending
The commission approved the application and closed deliberations on that item; staff recorded the vote and the application will proceed according to normal permitting steps.

