Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 1, :00 P.M. Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, James C. Lytle City Council Chambers AGENDA

Transcription

1 Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 1, :00 P.M. vanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, James C. Lytle City Council Chambers AGNDA 1. CALL TO ORDR / DCLARATION OF QUORUM 2. APPROVAL OF MTING MINUTS of July 11, OLD BUSINSS A Madison Street ZBA 17ZMJV-0048 Robert & Betty Lambert, property owners, appeal the Zoning Administrator s determination that the gravel area in the east side yard is a patio (Zoning Code Section , Definitions). The Zoning Administrator's determination requires the removal of the gravel/patio as patios are not permitted in side yards (Zoning Code Section Table 4A-10) and a previous variation request to allow a patio within the east side yard was denied. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. 4. NW BUSINSS A. 325 Greenwood Street ZBA 17ZMJV-0056 Paul Janicki, architect, applies for major zoning relief to demolish a one-car detached garage and establish one open parking space in the east interior side yard, and to demolish a mudroom to construct a one-story bay addition in the R1 Single Family Residential District. The applicant requests a.5 east interior side yard setback for open parking where 5 is required (Zoning Code Section C- 3), a 12.9 rear yard setback for the bay addition where 30 is required and 15.9 currently exists (Zoning Code Section A-4), and 46.6% building lot coverage where a maximum 30% is allowed and 44.6% currently exists (Zoning Code Section ). The Zoning Board of Appeals makes a recommendation to City Council, the determining body for this case. Order & Agenda Items are subject to change. Information about the ZBA is available at: Questions can be directed to Melissa Klotz at The City of vanston is committed to making all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Any citizen needing mobility or communications access assistance should contact the Community Development Department 48 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting so that accommodations can be made at (Voice) or (TYY). La ciudad de vanston está obligada a hacer accesibles todas las reuniones públicas a las personas minusválidas o las quines no hablan inglés. Si usted necesita ayuda, favor de ponerse en contacto con la Oficina de Administración del Centro a 847/ (voz) o 847/ (TDD).

2 5. OTHR BUSINSS 6. DISCUSSION 7. ADJOURNMNT The next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is scheduled for UTuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:00pm in James C. Lytle City Council Chambers of the Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center. Order & Agenda Items are subject to change. Information about the ZBA is available at: Questions can be directed to Melissa Klotz at The City of vanston is committed to making all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Any citizen needing mobility or communications access assistance should contact the Community Development Department 48 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting so that accommodations can be made at (Voice) or (TYY). La ciudad de vanston está obligada a hacer accesibles todas las reuniones públicas a las personas minusválidas o las quines no hablan inglés. Si usted necesita ayuda, favor de ponerse en contacto con la Oficina de Administración del Centro a 847/ (voz) o 847/ (TDD).

3 MTING MINUTS ZONING BOARD OF APPALS Tuesday, July 11, :00 PM Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Council Chambers DRAFT NOT APPROVD Members Present: Myrna Arevalo, Mary McAuley, Kiril Mirintchev, Violetta Cullen, Lisa Dziekan, Mary Beth Berns Members Absent: Scott Gingold Staff Present: Scott Mangum, Mario Treto Presiding Member: Mary Beth Berns Declaration of Quorum With a quorum present, Chair Berns called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Approval of Minutes The minutes from the June 20, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting were motioned for approval by Ms. Cullen and seconded by Ms. Arevalo. The minutes were approved 4-0 with two abstentions. Old Business 1018 Michigan Avenue ZBA 17ZMJV-0038 Jeremy Brown & Karl Vogel, property owners, appeal the Zoning Administrator s decision to partially deny minor zoning relief (case number 17ZMNV-0026) to construct a 3-car detached garage in the R1 Single Family Residential District. The applicant was granted minor zoning relief for a 22 x 22 2-car detached garage for a maximum building lot coverage of 31% where 30% is permitted (Zoning Code Section ), but denied minor zoning relief for a 3-car detached garage with a requested 34% building lot coverage. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. With an open motion for approval of a modified proposal for a smaller 3-car detached garage with a 3-2 vote, Member Dziekan and Chair Berns, who were not present at the June 20, 2017 ZBA hearing, cast votes in opposition for a final vote of 3-4. With four votes in opposition, the motion failed and the original determination by the Zoning Administrator was therefore upheld. Page 1 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals

4 New Business 1125 Madison Street ZBA 17ZMJV-0048 Robert & Betty Lambert, property owners, appeal the Zoning Administrator s determination that the gravel area in the east side yard is a patio (Zoning Code Section , Definitions). The Zoning Administrator's determination requires the removal of the gravel/patio as patios are not permitted in side yards (Zoning Code Section Table 4A-10) and a previous variation request to allow a patio within the east side yard was denied. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. Zoning Administrator Mangum read the case into the record. Chair Berns clarified the appeal is to determine whether or not the area in question is a patio, and whether or not a patio is permitted in a side yard. Zoning Administrator Mangum followed up explaining the history of the gravel area in question: Previously, patios were installed in the side and rear yard without a permit. The City made the owner aware a permit was required, so the owner applied for a permit. However, the permit denied the side yard patio since patios are not permitted in side yards, and the patios increased the maximum allowed impervious surface on the property. The owner applied for minor variations to allow a patio in the side yard and to exceed the maximum allowed impervious surface on the property. The minor variation to allow a patio in the side yard was denied, but the impervious surface variation was granted at 46% to allow the rear yard patio. The owner was given until May 1, 2017 to remove the side yard patio. The owner contacted staff and was told gravel is not considered impervious. Staff inspection on May 1, 2017, found the slate patio in the side yard was removed and replaced with gravel in the same 10 x 15 area. The Zoning Administrator determined the gravel area constituted a patio. DonnaLee Floeter, 826 Grey Ave., friend of owner, explained: Mr. Mangum explained the situation well. The material in the side yard does matter because the gravel is permeable just like mulch or grass. Both the owner and Ms. Floeter separately contacted different zoning staff and were told gravel is considered a permeable surface so the owner went to the expense of installing the gravel. Area features a path through it, and a nearby hose for dog washing. There are no table or chairs set up. Chair Berns asked if the original patio was constructed with a concrete slab below it, and the owner, Ms. Lambert, explained the original patio was only set on a gravel base, which was removed by the homeowner when the area was replaced with the gravel in Page 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals

5 question. The claim that there was ever concrete under the patio was false, and was verified by an officer who visited the property and noted it in his report. Ms. Lambert also clarified the original patio was bluestone, not slate. Chair Berns explained the issue is not about the material on the ground, it is about the size and shape and feel of a patio. The imperviousness is not the issue, it is whether a patio is allowed in a side yard. Ms. Floeter explained the images provided show the area is not used as a patio and instead has a stone path through it. Ms. Lambert confirmed there was a table and chairs there at the May 1, 2017 staff inspection because the area was still under construction. Ms. Lambert further explained the area is still under construction now. The intention once completed, is that the area will be a rock/zen garden with a path through. There is no intention to add a table, chairs, or fire pit like a patio typically has. Ms. Dziekan asked if the intended use of the area was originally, and if the intended use has now changed. The owner said yes, originally the intention was for a patio, but now the intended use is a rock/zen garden. Chair Berns asked what other work will be done, and the owner explained the rock area will be expanded over where the gravel area currently is closest to the house, to be a larger rock garden. Ms. Floeter agreed to provide a plan of how the area will look once completed. Ms. McAuley stated the owner did receive conflicting information from staff so it seems the staff determination was arbitrary, which is an injustice to the homeowner. However, it is problematic that the area is rectangular shaped like a patio. A path would be simpler. Zoning Administrator Mangum clarified and apologized that staff did provide conflicting information verbally to the homeowner, but the written language and formal minor variation documentation provided was clear. Given the conflicting verbal information, staff did waive the appeal fee for the applicant. Ms. Cullen asked if the owner provides a new plan showing a path rather than a rectangular area, would that be considered a patio or would it comply with zoning. Zoning Administrator Mangum said it would depend on the dimension of the path and the intended use of the area. Ms. Lambert verified the space has not been used as a patio since the bluestone was removed. Ms. McAuley noted the area does look like a patio, but generally speaking, what constitutes a patio. For instance, if you occasionally put a table and chair in a part of the yard, is that space considered a patio? Zoning Administrator Mangum responded that a patio is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as a portion of a lot improved with a Page 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals

6 hardscape material at grade. Ms. Floeter asked for a definition of impervious surface and asked if the gravel material is considered impervious. Zoning Administrator Mangum said the Zoning Ordinance does not define hardscape material, so the determination was made based on research including how other communities define hardscape. Research of other definitions and other communities regulations state hardscape is any nonorganic material. Skip Weber, 743 Asbury Ave., asked when an area is considered a sidewalk vs. a patio. Chair Berns explained it is up to the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator, but typically a sidewalk is between feet in width. Pam Johnson, 807 Madison St., explained she did not know a permit was needed for a patio either, and that Ms. Lambert got the idea for the patio area because another neighbor a few doors down has the same thing. Ms. Johnson also noted there are other things that are far more intrusive, like her neighbor s enclosed porch that is right below her bedroom window. Chelsea lward, 1204 Madison, restated a letter from the neighbor to the west, who is a botanic garden expert that explained the usefulness of the gravel area, which is more environmentally friendly than grass that requires frequent watering. ZBA members requested an updated plan of the rock/zen garden be provided prior to the next ZBA hearing on the case. With a written request for a continuance from a property owner within 250 of the subject property, Ms. Cullen motioned to continue the case to August 1, The motion was seconded by Ms. McAuley and unanimously continued to August 1, Discussion There was no additional discussion. The meeting adjourned at 7:40pm. Page 4 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals

7 1125 Madison St. 17ZMJV-0048 ZBA Determining Body

8 MMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Johanna Leonard, Director of Community Development Scott Mangum, Planning and Zoning Administrator Melissa Klotz, Zoning Planner 1125 Madison St. - ZBA 17ZMJV-0048 ZBA Determining Body Date: July 28, 2017 Notice- Published in the June 22, 2017, vanston Review: Robert & Betty Lambert, property owners, appeal the Zoning Administrator s determination that the gravel area in the east side yard is a patio (Zoning Code Section , Definitions). The Zoning Administrator's determination requires the removal of the gravel/patio as patios are not permitted in side yards (Zoning Code Section Table 4A-10) and a previous variation request to allow a patio within the east side yard was denied. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. Case History: The case was heard at the July 11, 2017 ZBA hearing. At the request of a property owner within 250 of the subject property, the case was continued to the August 1, 2017 ZBA hearing with testimony open. The appellant provided an updated site plan of the gravel/patio area in question as requested at the July 11, 2017 hearing. Attachments Rock/Zen Garden Site Plan submitted July 28, 2017 Letters provided at ZBA July 11, 2017 (not included in July 11, 2017 ZBA packet)

9

10

11 To the Zoning Board of Appeals Statement by Amy Parker, 920 Madison St. July 6, 2017 Thank you for the opportunity to submit my statement in support of Bob and Betty Lambert and the work they have done in their side yard. I live about one block east and frequently pass the Lamberts house while walking my dog. Betty s garden is beautiful and a great inspiration to me. She and I share an interest in dogs and gardens, often swapping plants or taking care of each other s dogs. The Lamberts made a mistake when they installed hardscape in their side yard without checking with the City first and obtaining the necessary permits. Clearly, they have complied with City ever since in a good faith attempt to rectify the problem. The initial installation of a bluestone paver patio was out of compliance with storm-water management rules specifying the ratio of permeable-to-non-permeable surface. Once the pavers were replaced with gravel, they were advised that the permeable surface issue was resolved and the graveled area was permissible. And then, all of a sudden, the graveled area was deemed a PATIO and was once again out of compliance with the statute limiting patios in side yards. Why were the Lamberts told the graveled surface was IN compliance one week and OUT of compliance the next? What happened in the interim that caused the City to change its mind? The Lamberts next-door neighbor has been picking on them about their property for years, apparently based on some concern about drainage. The situation seems to have escalated in recent months. He has called the police on them numerous times. He has had city inspectors out for every violation of code that he can find, including forcing the removal of a small section of 24-inch tall decorative fence that was about six inches over the permitted height. That just seems petty. specially since it had been in place for years and I have since observed similar fences in many other yards nearby. It would not surprise me if it was his continued outcry that caused the City to revise its position on the permissibility of the graveled area. I think this neighbor may be using the City of vanston to harass the Lamberts. I am really concerned about this. ight calls to police in one weekend? Is the City going to allow itself to be used as an instrument of harassment? What if he decided to harass me? Or another household? He s bullying people. It s just unconscionable. If I were in the Lamberts position, I d be considering legal action. I urge board members to allow the Lamberts a variance and bring this turmoil to a conclusion. The Lamberts are quiet, generous people. They work hard to keep their property beautiful. They bring value to the neighborhood. They ve turned a costly mistake into a pretty garden feature that complies with City ordinances. They are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and they have every right to enjoy their yard, as do we all. I sincerely hope the board will allow the variance and let that be the end of it.

12

13 325 Greenwood St. 17ZMJV-0056 ZBA Recommending Body

14 Memorandum To: From: Subject: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Johanna Leonard, Director of Community Development Scott Mangum, Planning and Zoning Administrator Melissa Klotz, Zoning Planner 325 Greenwood St. ZBA 17ZMJV-0056 ZBA Recommending Body; City Council Determining Body Date: July 7, 2017 Notice Published in the vanston Review on June 29, 2017: Paul Janicki, architect, applies for major zoning relief to demolish a one-car detached garage and establish one open parking space in the east interior side yard, and to demolish a mudroom to construct a one-story bay addition in the R1 Single Family Residential District. The applicant requests a.5 east interior side yard setback for open parking where 5 is required (Zoning Code Section C-3), a 12.9 rear yard setback for the bay addition where 30 is required and 15.9 currently exists (Zoning Code Section A-4), and 46.6% building lot coverage where a maximum 30% is allowed and 44.6% currently exists (Zoning Code Section ). The Zoning Board of Appeals makes a recommendation to City Council, the determining body for this case. Recommendation City staff, DAPR, and the Preservation Commission recommend approval of the requested zoning relief to establish one open parking space and construct a one-story addition in the R1 District. The applicant has complied with all other zoning requirements and meets all of the standards for major variations in this district. Site Background 325 Greenwood St. is located on the north side of Greenwood St., midblock between Forest Ave. and Judson Ave. in the R1 Single Family Residential District and the Lakeshore Historic District. The property is immediately adjacent to the following zoning districts: North: R1 South: R1 ast: R1 West: R1 Single Family Residential District Single Family Residential District Single Family Residential District Single Family Residential District The property features a 2.5-story single family residence and is surrounded by similar

15 homes. Proposal The applicant proposes to demolish the existing one-car detached garage at the rear of the property and establish one open parking space at the end of the existing driveway, along the east side of the house. The existing garage is not original to the house, not historically significant, fire damaged, and too small to accommodate a vehicle. The homeowners prefer to eliminate the garage in order to create more open space in the small rear yard. The current greenspace in the rear yard is approximately 16 x 35, and there is very little greenspace throughout the rest of the property. The open parking space is proposed in the location of the existing driveway and is located within 30 of the rear property line as required. The existing home is located 11.4 from the east property line, which does not leave enough space to compliantly locate an 8.5 x 18 parking space as well as the required 5 east interior side yard setback. The applicant proposes the open parking space aligned with the driveway, which then creates a.5 east interior side yard setback. The driveway will be replaced with brick so that the impervious surface on the property remains the same with the one-story addition taken into account. xisting garage (to be demolished) and proposed open parking space (on driveway): The existing garage is 160 square feet, and open parking spaces count as 200 square feet of building lot coverage. So, although a structure will be removed from the property and there will be more greenspace, the building lot coverage calculation increases. The applicant also proposes to remove a small mudroom porch off of the rear of the house and construct a one-story bay addition to increase the size of the small sitting

16 room (family room) to approximately 150 square feet. The existing mudroom that will be demolished features a legally-nonconforming rear yard setback of 15.9, which will be reduced to 12.9 with the proposed addition. The property features legallynonconforming setbacks everywhere except where the driveway is located (east side yard), so there is no compliant location for an addition to the house. The bay addition increases the footprint of the house by 31 square feet. In total, the amount of structures covering the property will decrease by square feet. With the 200 square feet calculated for the open parking space, the building lot coverage calculation increases from a legally-nonconforming 44.6% to 46.6%. The property size is substandard at 3,480 square feet, which is less than half of the required lot size in the R1 District. The small lot size and existing home location are hardships that make building lot coverage, impervious surface coverage, and setbacks impossible to achieve. City staff is not aware of any objections to the proposal. Ordinances Identified for Requested Relief: : Minimum yard requirements for the R1 district are as follows: C-3: Side Yard 5 (parking) A-4: Rear Yard : Building Lot Coverage: The maximum allowed building lot coverage in the R1 district is 30%.

17 Historic Preservation Commission: The Preservation Commission reviewed the variation requests at its June 20, 2017 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the requests in addition to approving a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project. Design and Project Review (DAPR) Discussion and Recommendation: The Design and Project Review Committee found the proposed zoning relief appropriate for the property, and voted unanimously to recommend approval to the ZBA. Variation Standards: For a variation to be approved, the ZBA must find that the proposed variation: a) Will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining properties; b) Is in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance; c) Has a hardship or practical difficulty that is peculiar to the property; d) Property owner would suffer a particular hardship or practical difficulty as distinguished from a mere inconvenience e) Is not based exclusively upon a desire to extract additional income from the property or public benefit to the whole will be derived; f) Does not have a hardship or practical difficulty that was created by any person having an interest in the property; and g) Is limited to the minimum change necessary to alleviate the particular hardship or practical difficulty. Attachments Variation Application submitted June 21, 2017 Standards Form Zoning Analysis Plat of Survey Site Plans levations Photos of Property (from Applicant) Image of Property Aerial View of Property Zoning Map of Property Preservation Commission Draft Meeting Minutes xcerpt June 20, 2017 DAPR Draft Meeting Minutes xcerpt June 28, 2017

18 MAJOR VARIATION APPLICATION CAS #: zoning office use only 1. PROPRTY Address Permanent Identification Number(s): PIN 1: PIN 2: (Note: An accurate plat of survey for all properties that are subject to this application must be submitted with the application. 2. APPLICANT Name: Organization: Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: Work: _ Home: Cell/Other: Fax: Work: Home: -mail: What is the relationship of the applicant to the property owner? Please circle the primary means of contact. same builder/contractor contract purchaser potential lessee architect attorney lessee real estate agent officer of board of directors other: 3. PROPRTY OWNR (Required if different than applicant. All property owners must be listed and must sign below.) Name(s) or Organization: Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: Work: _ Home: Cell/Other: Fax: Work: Home: -mail: Please circle the primary means of contact. By signing below, I give my permission for the Applicant named above to act as my agent in all matters concerning this application. I understand that the Applicant will be the primary contact for information and decisions during the processing of this application, and I may not be contacted directly by the City of vanston. I understand as well that I may change the Applicant for this application at any time by contacting the Zoning Office in writing. Property Owner(s) Signature(s) -- RQUIRD Date 4. SIGNATUR I certify that all of the above information and all statements, information and exhibits that I am submitting in conjunction with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant Signature RQUIRD Date Page 1 of 6

19 5. RQUIRD DOCUMNTS AND MATRIALS The following are required to be submitted with this application: (This) Completed and Signed Application Form Plat of Survey Date of Survey: Project Site Plan Date of Drawings: Plan or Graphic Drawings of Proposal (If needed, see notes) Non-Compliant Zoning Analysis Proof of Ownership Document Submitted: Application Fee (see zoning fees) Amount $ plus Deposit Fee $150 Note: Incomplete applications will not be accepted. Although some of these materials may be on file with another City application, individual City applications must be complete with their own required documents. Plat of Survey (1) One copy of plat of survey, drawn to scale, that accurately reflects current conditions. Site Plan (1) One copy of site plan, drawn to scale, showing all dimensions. Plan or Graphic Drawings of Proposal A Major Variance application requires graphic representations for any elevated proposal-- garages, home additions, roofed porches, etc. Applications for a/c units, driveways, concrete walks do not need graphic drawings; their proposed locations on the submitted site plan will suffice. Proof of Ownership Accepted documents for Proof of Ownership include: a deed, mortgage, contract to purchase, closing documents (price may be blacked out on submitted documents). Tax bill will not be accepted as Proof of Ownership. Non-Compliant Zoning Analysis This document informed you that the proposed project is non-compliant with the Zoning Code and is eligible to apply for a major variance. Application Fee * IMPORTANT NOT: xcept for owner-occupied residents in districts R1, R2 & R3, a separate application fee will be assessed for each variation requested. The fee application fee depends on your zoning district (see zoning fees). Acceptable forms of payment are: Cash, Check, or Credit Card. Page 2 of 6

20 6. PROPOSD PROJCT A. Briefly describe the proposed project: B. Have you applied for a Building Permit for this project? NO YS (Date Applied: Building Permit Application #: ) RQUSTD VARIATIONS What specific variations are you requesting? For each variation, indicate (A) the specific section of the Zoning Ordinance that identifies the requirement, (B) the requirement (minimum or maximum) from which you seek relief, and (C) the amount of the exception to this requirement you request the City to grant. (See the Zoning Analysis Summary Sheet for your project s information) (A) Section (ex ) (B) Requirement to be Varied (ex. requires a minimum front yard setback of 27 feet ) 1 (C) Requested Variation (ex. a front yard setback of feet ) * For multiple variations, see IMPORTANT NOT under Application Fee & Transcript Deposit on Page Page 3 of 6

21 B. A variation s purpose is to provide relief from specified provisions of the zoning ordinance that may unduly impact property due to the property s particular peculiarity and special characteristics. What characteristics of your property prevent compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements? 1. The requested variation will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment, or property values of adjoining (touching or joining at any point, line, or boundary) properties. 2. The property owner would suffer a particular hardship or practical difficulty as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. 3. ither (a) the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to extract income from the property, or (b) while the granting of the variation will result in additional income to the applicant and while the applicant for the variation may not have demonstrated that the application is not based exclusively upon a desire to extract additional income from the property, the Zoning Board of Appeals or the City Council, depending upon final jurisdiction under , has found that public benefits to the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole will be derived from approval of the variation, that include, but are not limited to any of the standards of The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been self-created, if so, please explain. Page 4 of 6

22 5. Have other alternatives been considered, and if so, why would they not work? City of vanston DISCLOSUR STATMNT FOR ZONING HARINGS (This form is required for all Major Variances and Special Use Applications) The vanston City Code, Title 1, Chapter 18, requires any persons or entities who request the City Council to grant zoning amendments, variations, or special uses, including planned developments, to make the following disclosures of information. The applicant is responsible for keeping the disclosure information current until the City Council has taken action on the application. For all hearings, this information is used to avoid conflicts of interest on the part of decision-makers. 1. If applicant is an agent or designee, list the name, address, phone, fax, and any other contact information of the proposed user of the land for which this application for zoning relief is made: Does not apply. 2. If a person or organization owns or controls the proposed land user, list the name, address, phone, fax, and any other contact information of person or entity having constructive control of the proposed land user. Same as number above, or indicated below. (An example of this situation is if the land user is a division or subsidiary of another person or organization.) 3. List the name, address, phone, fax, and any other contact information of person or entity holding title to the subject property. Same as number above, or indicated below. Page 5 of 6

23 4. List the name, address, phone, fax, and any other contact information of person or entity having constructive control of the subject property. Same as number above, or indicated below. If Applicant or Proposed Land User is a Corporation Any corporation required by law to file a statement with any other governmental agency providing substantially the information required below may submit a copy of this statement in lieu of completing a and b below. a. Names and addresses of all officers and directors. b. Names, addresses, and percentage of interest of all shareholders. If there are fewer than 33 shareholders, or shareholders holding 3% or more of the ownership interest in the corporation or if there are more than 33 shareholders. If Applicant or Proposed Land User is not a Corporation Name, address, percentage of interest, and relationship to applicant, of each partner, associate, person holding a beneficial interest, or other person having an interest in the entity applying, or in whose interest one is applying, for the zoning relief. Page 6 of 6

24 Standards for Major Variations Zoning Ordinance Section : Purpose (of Variations): The purpose of a variation is to relieve a particular hardship or practical difficulty that the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance may impose upon a landowner because of the special or peculiar characteristics of the property that make compliance with the Zoning Ordinance difficult or impossible. Zoning Ordinance Section : Standards for Major Variations: 1. The requested variation will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining properties. 2. The requested variation is in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance. 3. The alleged hardship or practical difficulty is peculiar to the property. 4. The property owner would suffer a particular hardship or practical difficulty as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. 5. The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to extract additional income from the property or a public benefit is provided (see additional Public Benefit Standards). 6. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person having an interest in the property. 7. The requested variation requires the least deviation from the applicable regulation among the feasible options identified before the Zoning Board of Appeals issues its decision or recommendation to the City Council regarding said variation.

25 Zoning Ordinance Section : Public Benefits (Alternative to Standard 5): The public benefits to the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole that are intended to be derived from the approval of planned developments, include, but are not limited to: A. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space. B. A pattern of development which preserves natural vegetation, topographic and geologic features. C. Preservation and enhancement of historic and natural resources that significantly contribute to the character of the City. D. Use of design, landscape, or architectural features to create a pleasing environment or other special development features.. Provision of a variety of housing types in accordance with the City s housing goals. F. limination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation. G. Business, commercial, and manufacturing development to enhance the local economy and strengthen the tax base. H. The efficient use of the land resulting in more economic networks of utilities, streets, schools, public grounds, buildings, and other facilities. I. The substantial incorporation of generally recognized sustainable design practices and/or building materials to promote energy conservation and improve environmental quality, such as level silver or higher LD certification.

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33 xisting Site Proposed Site IV SIT PLAN 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

34 xisting Basement Floor Plan Proposed Basement Floor Plan V BASMNT FLOOR PLAN 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

35 xisting First Floor Plan Proposed First Floor Plan Garage XIST. STAIR 10'-7 3/16" S I T T I N G NW RGISTR 36" RF. BUILT-IN SINK K I T C H N D I N I N G R O O M 30"DOUBL OVNS D I N I N G R O O M NO CHANG STAIR UP STAIR DN 12R POWDR L I V I N G R O O M STAIR UP 10 R L I V I N G R O O M H A L L H A L L STAIR DN 6 R STAIR DN 6 R 6'-5 1/4" 14'-7 1/8" 4'-4 7/16" K I T C H N 30"DOUBL OVNS STAIR UP STAIR DN 12R POWDR STAIR UP 10 R VI 1st FLOOR PLAN 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

36 xisting Second Floor Plan Proposed Second Floor Plan (no Change) S T U D Y S T U D Y M A S T R B D R O O M M A S T R B D R O O M BATHROOM BATHROOM MASTR BATHOOM WALK IN CLOST LINN CLOST CLOST STAIR DN MASTR BATHOOM WALK IN CLOST LINN CLOST CLOST STAIR DN SHOWR HALL STAIR DN 7 R SHOWR HALL STAIR DN 7 R STAIR UP 17 R STAIR UP 17 R F A M I L Y R O O M G U S T R O O M F A M I L Y R O O M G U S T R O O M VII 2nd FLOOR PLAN 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

37 xisting Attic Plan Proposed Attic Plan (No Change) ROD ROD BNCH BNCH SHOWR SHOWR B D R O O M B D R O O M B A T H B A T H STAIR DN 17 R STAIR DN 17 R X I S T I N G B D R O O M X I S T I N G B D R O O M CLOST CLOST VIII ATTIC PLAN 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

38 xisting Front levation Proposed Front levation (No Change) IX SOUTH LVATION 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

39 New Bay Addition Wood Panels and Pilasters xisting Mudroom Bay to be Removed xisting xterior Stair to be Removed and Rebuilt Brick to Match xisting New xterior Stair (Wood) x i s t i n g Si d e l e v a t i o n Pr o p o s e d Si d e l e v a t i o n X AST LVATION 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

40 CLG. CLG. CLG. CLG. THIRD FLOOR THIRD FLOOR THIRD FLOOR THIRD FLOOR CLG. CLG. CLG. CLG. SCOND FLOOR SCOND FLOOR SCOND FLOOR SCOND FLOOR CLG. CLG. CLG. CLG. xisting Fence FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR CLG. BASMNT CLG. BASMNT CLG. BASMNT CLG. BASMNT xisting xterior Stair to be Removed and Rebuilt New xterior Stair (Wood) xisting Mudroom Bay to be Removed Brick to Match xisting Wood Panels and Pilasters New Bay Addition New Stair to Basement Railing to Match xisting x i s t i n g Re a r l e v a t i o n Pr o p o s e d Re a r l e v a t i o n XI NORTH LVATION 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

41 x i s t i n g Si d e l e v a t i o n New Bay Addition xisting Mudroom Bay to be Removed Wood Panels and Columns Railing to Match xisting New Basement ntrance FIRST FLOOR CLG. BASMNT 9'-2" NW BASMNT FLOOR Pr o p o s e d Si d e l e v a t i o n XII WST LVATION 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

42 Fr o n t (St r e e t) l e v a t i o n - Un c h a n g e d Side levation Side levation Re a r l e v a t i o n XIII PHOTOS OF XISTING 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

43 xisting Mudroom Bay (to be removed) xisting Mudroom Bay (to be removed) xisting Mudroom Bay (to be removed) xisting Mudroom Bay (to be removed) XIV PHOTOS OF XISTING 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

44 xisting Garage (to be removed) xisting Garage (to be removed) XV PHOTOS OF XISTING 325 GRNWOOD ST., VANSTON, IL P A U L J A N I C K I A R C H I T C T S

45 325 Greenwood St.

46 325 Greenwood St. - Aerial Map June 23, 2017 User drawn points Tax Parcels 1:1, mi km City of vanston IL, Imagery courtesy Cook County GIS Copyright 2016 City of vanston This map is not a plat of survey. This map is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind. See for more information.

47 325 Greenwood St. - Zoning Map June 23, 2017 User drawn points Zoning Boundaries & Labels Zoning Overlay Districts ocsc - Central Street Corridor odm - Dempster-Main Overlay oh - Hospital Overlay ord - Redevelopment Overlay ow- West vanston Overlay Tax Parcels 1:1, mi km City of vanston IL, Imagery courtesy Cook County GIS Copyright 2016 City of vanston This map is not a plat of survey. This map is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind. See for more information.

48 NOT YT APPROVD MTING MINUTS (XCRPT) VANSTON PRSRVATION COMMISSION Tuesday, June 20, 2017 Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Room :00 P.M. Members Present: Robert Bady, lliott Dudnik, Ken Itle, Julie Hacker, Mark Simon, Tim Schmitt, Karl Vogel, and Diane Williams Members Absent: Staff Present: Sally Riessen Hunt Carlos Ruiz, Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator Presiding Member: Dian Williams, Chair CALL TO ORDR / DCLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 7:11 pm with a quorum present. NW BUSINSS F. 325 Greenwood St. (LSHD) Paul Janicki, applicant. Remove existing rear mudroom bay, and exterior stairs. Add a new bay and exterior stairs. Demo existing garage; add pavers to replace asphalt driveway and also pour concrete at front entry steps. Requires Zoning variations A-4: 30 rear yard setback required (12.9 rear yard setback proposed at addition); : Maximum 30% building lot coverage permitted (46.6% building lot coverage proposed 44.6 % existing; C-3: 5 interior side yard setback required for open parking (.5 east interior side yard setback proposed for open parking). Applicable standards: [Alteration] 1-10; [Demolition] 1-5; [Zoning Variation] A and C. Paul Janicki presented the project. The house is a brick Queen Anne with wraparound porch and double hung windows. An existing bay with windows at the rear of the house will be demolished and replaced with a bay at the northwest corner. The existing nonoriginal brick garage built in 1924 will also be demolished. On the east side elevation of the house, the proposed bay has a French door next to a double hung window. On the north rear elevation the proposed bay has a brick base, with double hung windows, and new stairs and landing. On the west side elevation the proposed bay has two double hung windows. Also, new French door on the house, with stairs below grade to the basement. Commissioner Dudnik asked about the lower pitched roof over the proposed bay. P. Janicki said considering all the other roof pitches on the main house; he tried simplifying the pitch of the roof on the bay. Commissioner Dudnik asked about the height of the

49 NOT YT APPROVD proposed windows, which appear taller than the existing windows. P. Janicki said he wanted to have more light inside the bay. Commissioner Simon asked about the major zoning variation, is it needed because parking is on the proposed driveway? P. Janicki said, yes. Commissioner Hacker made a motion to issue a COA for 325 Greenwood St. for alteration, standards 1-10, to remove the existing rear mudroom bay and exterior stairs. Adding a new bay, exterior stairs, replace the asphalt driveway with pavers, and pour concrete at front entry steps, seconded by Commissioner Dudnik. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Commissioner Hacker made a motion to issue a COA for 325 Greenwood St. for demolition, to remove the existing mudroom bay, and existing garage. Applicable standards are 1-5, seconded by Commissioner Bady. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Commissioner Hacker made a motion to recommend the Zoning variations, standards A and C for 325 Greenwood St. as described above, seconded by Commissioner Simon. The motion passed. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays. ADJOURNMNT Commissioner Bady made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:37 pm seconded by Commissioner Simon. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Respectfully Submitted, Carlos D. Ruiz Senior Planner/Preservation Coordinator

50 DRAFT NOT APPROVD DSIGN AND PROJCT RVIW COMMITT (DAPR) MINUTS XCRPT June 28, 2017 Voting Members Present: J. Leonard, S. Mangum, G. Gerdes, I. ckersberg, J. Nelson, M. Tristan, P. Zalmezak, L. Biggs, M. Klotz, M. Jones. Staff Present: Ana Asilis, Katherine Knapp Others Present: Presiding Member: J. Leonard A quorum being present, Ms. Leonard called the meeting to order at 2:30 pm. Approval of minutes June 21, 2017 DAPR Committee meeting Mr. Gerdes moved to approve the minutes from June 21, 2017, seconded by Mr. Nelson. The Committee unanimously voted 9-0, with one abstention, to approve minutes from the June 21, 2017 meeting. New Business Greenwood Street Recommendation to ZBA Paul Janicki, architect, submits for major zoning relief to establish one open parking space with a.5' east interior side yard setback where 5' is required, a 12.9' rear yard setback for a one story addition where 30' is required and 15.9' currently exists, and building lot coverage of 46.6% where 30% is permitted and 44.6% currently exists, in the R1 Single Family Residential District. APPLICATION PRSNTD BY: Paul Janicki, Architect DISCUSSION: Mr. Janicki stated that there were two sister houses built on one single zoning lot in the 19 th century in Queen Anne style and currently, the plots have been divided and the two houses are located on relatively small lots. The property is designed in a typical Queen Anne style with a front porch and a shed in the rear yard which was meant to be used as a mudroom. There exists a garage that is not in compliance with the Queen Anne style and is not historically important.

51 DRAFT NOT APPROVD The applicant has obtained a demolition permit and approval from the Preservation Commission to demolish the garage and the shed to make way for a bay in the sitting room at the rear of the house as shown in plan, along with a new brick-paved driveway. As Mr. Janicki stated, the elimination of the garage and locating the car parking on the paved driveway would result in creation of more open space and green space. However, the zoning code requires that 200 square feet of open parking are counted toward building lot coverage. The one story, flat roofed addition will consist of wooden windows matching the existing style of windows, wooden and pilasters and railings to match the existing style. Mr. Gerdes stated that the construction of the stairwell on the west side would impact the adjacent property and that the applicant would need to sign a restoration agreement with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Gerdes also mentioned that the demolition of the garage would require a separate demolition permit as well as the Cook County Department of nvironmental Control permit. Mr. Janicki clarified to Mr. Mangum that the additional space in the basement would be now used to store bicycles and that the addition on the first floor would be used as an additional family space. Mr. Janicki also clarified that the asphalt driveway would be replaced by brick. Ms. Biggs voiced her concern over the addition of building lot coverage to the property present on a small plot. Mr. Janicki clarified that the proposed changes are to demolish the garage and the shed, essentially creating more open space in the lot. Mr. Mangum also noted that the zoning code requires an additional 200 sqft of parking space to be included. Mr. Janicki stated to Ms. Biggs that the drainage would be directed towards the northeast and northwest of the lot with downspouts. Mr. Janicki responded to Ms. Biggs question that the downspouts were direct connected and that they are not allowed to go back into the system Mr. Nelson noted that a variance exists to redirect the drainage connection. Ms. ckersberg stated that she would prefer an impermeable material to cover the surface of the driveway instead of brick pavers which could result in dampness infiltrating into the basement. Mr. Janicki noted that the neighborhood consists of sand and the water percolates fast enough to avoid resultant dampness. He also stated that if an impermeable surface were to be used, the runoff would impact the neighbor s basement. Mr. Mangum asked if it was necessary for the new driveway to be impermeable all along its course. Mr. Janicki responded that the driveway could be reduced in length and a paver-walk could be added to help reduce the impervious surface ratio to conform to zoning code standards. Mr. Janicki also confirmed to Mr. Mangum that the Preservation Commission gave a unanimous approval to proceed with the proposed changes. Ms. Biggs asked if the size of the driveway could be reduced to which Ms. Klotz responded that that would trigger a variation with respect to open parking present outside of the rear 30 feet of the yard. Mr. Janicki stated that the garage is currently unusable for modern day cars and

52 DRAFT NOT APPROVD is also fire damaged, thus making it unsalvageable. Ms. Biggs voiced her concerns that increasing the building lot coverage and interfering with the foundation might result in unintended consequences to neighboring properties. She stated that interfering with the brick foundation in an area where the space between houses is very less, infiltration into the ground near old structures might result in unintended consequences Mr. Janicki assured her that the usage of brick pavers would benefit the neighbor as opposed to the impermeable asphalt present now. He also stated that usage of brick pavers is encouraged from a green architecture perspective. Ms. ckersberg suggested removing the driveway first and testing the basement for any infiltration from rainwater. Mr. Janicki suggested the addition of a waterproof membrane going around the perimeter of the foundation. Ms. Biggs suggested that the applicant consider the usage of a trench drain in the basement which would be less likely to clog. Mr. Gerdes moved to approve a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Mangum. The committee voted unanimously 10-0, to approve the recommendation to the ZBA for 325 Greenwood Street.