An Evanston couple’s bid to change their landmark home was rejected for a second time Monday night, this time by three members of Evanston City Council.
Chris and Nancy Hoppa of 610 Callan Ave. were appealing a decision made in January by the Evanston Preservation Commission that barred them from renovating their house. The commission said raising the roof of the Hoppas’ house by six feet to create a second floor would take away from the house’s historic character.
The Planning and Development Committee voted 3-1 Monday to uphold the commission’s ruling.
“I figured this was going to happen,” Nancy Hoppa said.
The Hoppas can appeal their case to Cook County Circuit Court, but Nancy Hoppa would not say whether the couple planned to do so.
Alds. Arthur Newman (1st), Melissa Wynne (3rd) and Steven Bernstein (4th) voted to prevent changes to the house, while Ald. Stephen Engelman (7th) voted to allow them.
The Hoppas and the Preservation Commission debated March 25 the impact of making changes to the house. Both sides had a few minutes Monday to repeat their arguments.
“We are supposed to be the homeowners of our home, but now Chris and I feel the Preservation Commission owns our home,” Nancy Hoppa said. She said the couple would lose income because they would be unable to rent space without a second floor.
Barbara Gardner, chairwoman of the commission, said raising the roof of the narrow house by six feet would significantly change its appearance.
“It is going to be unrecognizable as the house style that it originally was,” Gardner said.
Aldermen disagreed on whether the preservation law allowed the Hoppas to make changes.
New siding added in 1998 took away from the property’s historic value, Engelman said. Because changes already had been made, those proposed by the Hoppas would not be a big deal.
“I don’t think it will be as significant as it would have been back in 1986 when it was first designated (as a landmark),” Engelman said.
Bernstein said it “stinks” that the city’s preservation law takes control out of the hands of the homeowner. But he said he did not have the power to change the law Monday, only to rule whether the commission had acted properly in rejecting the Hoppas’ request for a change.
“I would like not to do what the law tells me to do,” Bernstein said. “You may become a poster child for the reason the ordinance is not good,” he told Nancy Hoppa.
Newman defended the ordinance.
“There is a community interest in preservation,” Newman said. “If you’re not ever going to vote to preserve land, you don’t have an ordinance. You have nothing.”
Hoppa said she thought the committee would recommend an action to City Council, which would then make the final ruling. But her appeal never made it to the council.
Newman, the Planning and Development Committee chairman, and a city attorney agreed that the committee – not the full council – was authorized to vote on the issue.
“I don’t think this was communicated well enough at the (March 25) meeting,” Nancy Hoppa said. “Now we’re being penalized by not being able to go before the whole City Council.”
Nancy Hoppa criticized the committee’s decision. She said she believed Newman wanted the matter to go to court.
“Is this really what the City Council wants to pursue?” she asked.