Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, November 7, :00 P.M. Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, James C. Lytle City Council Chambers AGENDA

Transcription

1 Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, November 7, :00 P.M. Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, James C. Lytle City Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES of August 1, 2017, August 30, 2017, and October 3, NEW BUSINESS A Lincoln Street ZBA 17ZMJV-0092 Gerald Brennan, property owner, applies for major zoning relief to locate a previously constructed solar house single family residence in the R1 Single Family Residential District. The applicant requests a 10 front yard setback where 27 is required (Zoning Code Section A-1), a 26.4 rear yard setback where 30 is required (Zoning Code Section A-4), and 47.0% impervious surface coverage where 45% is permitted (Zoning Code Section ). The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. B McDaniel Avenue ZBA 17ZMJV-0091 David & Robyn Schoessow, property owners, appeal the Zoning Administrator s decision to partially deny minor zoning relief (case number 17ZMNV-0076) to construct a two-car detached garage in the R2 Single Family Residential District. The appellant was granted minor zoning relief to construct a 1-car detached garage with a maximum building footprint of 12 x 22 in compliance with all required setbacks and subject to the removal of the north concrete walk within the front and side yards, for a maximum building lot coverage of 43.8% and impervious surface coverage of 56.8%. The appellant was denied minor zoning relief for a 20 x 22 detached garage with 49.7% building lot coverage where a maximum 40% is permitted (Zoning Code Section ), 65.5% impervious surface coverage where a maximum 55% is permitted (Zoning Code Section ), 48.9% of the rear yard occupied by an accessory structure where a maximum 40% is permitted 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 Evanston 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 Evanston 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 (Zoning Code Section ), a 2 south interior side yard setback where 3 is required (Zoning Code Section ), and a 1 south interior side yard setback for an eave (yard obstruction) where an eave may extend 10% or 6 into a setback (Zoning Code Section ). The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. DISCUSSION 7. ADJOURNMENT The next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is scheduled for UTuesday, November 21, 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 Evanston 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 Evanston 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 MEETING MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, August 1, :00 PM Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Council Chambers DRAFT NOT APPROVED Members Present: Mary McAuley, Kiril Mirintchev, Violetta Cullen, Lisa Dziekan, Mary Beth Berns, Scott Gingold Members Absent: Myrna Arevalo Staff Present: Melissa Klotz, 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 July 11, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting were motioned for approval by Ms. Cullen and seconded by Ms. Dziekan. The minutes were approved 5-0 with one abstention. Old 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. The case was continued from the July 11, 2017 ZBA hearing with testimony open. Marco Rodriguez, 1123 Madison St.: Objects that an appeal was allowed more than 10 days after the determination of the minor variation. Page 1 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals

4 Mario Treto, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this issue has already been discussed and is outside of the scope of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Treto provided Mr. Rodriguez with a letter stating that the appeal was timely. Melissa Klotz, Zoning Planner, clarified the appeal is of the Zoning Administrator s determination that the gravel area is a patio. It is not an appeal of the Minor Variation case. Mr. Rodriguez explained the following: Provided project history of hardscape patios installed without permit, minor variation case, appeal, etc. Showed photos from the last week - shows umbrella in gravel area, table and chairs, plastic underneath the gravel as it was being constructed, and fire pit Photos show the use of the area is a patio including people sitting at the table and chairs Melissa Klotz received copies of the 10 photos, Neighbor s Exhibit 1-10, from Mr. Rodriguez. Scott Mangum, Zoning Administrator, clarified that the standard of lot coverage in this case is 45%. Mr. Rodriguez continued: Owner also added a lot of flagstone that puts the impervious area over 52%. Ms. Klotz clarified stepping stones do not count towards impervious surface. The ordinance is clear - it doesn t matter if the zoning office provided inconsistent information to the homeowner. A 10 x 15 area is not a path. Issue is about the use of the space. Showed photos of a neighbor s side yard patio that was mentioned at 7.11 hearing. Chair Berns clarified that is a different property and has no bearing on this case. Questioned how a tenant that moved into the neighborhood in April 2017 was supposedly helping Ms. Lambert with the area in question since the situation began in November Submitted a letter, Neighbor s Exhibit 11, from a neighbor who could not attend tonight. Mentioned a gravel area at 834 Madison - property is currently for sale. For consistency, that should be enforced the same as this case. Ms. McAuley noted she lives next door to that house and has seen the area used for seating, parties, a play area, etc. which are sometimes loud and other times a non-issue. The use of the space changes depending on the need. Page 2 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals

5 A walkway is defined as a narrow path that leads from one area to another. 10 x 15 is far beyond a walkway, even if it is nicely decorated with pots like this area is. Intent of the ordinance is to not overcrowd or bother neighbors. This patio location will detract from the value of his home. Use of space was a patio when it was hardscaped, and is still a patio now that it is gravel. Photos prove it. Requested to read a submitted letter out loud. ZBA has a copy of the letter and already read it, so no need. Ms. Klotz clarified it is the letter that was passed out at the beginning of the meeting. DonnaLee Floeter, Ms. Lambert s architect, stated: Has often found that residents of Evanston don t realize they need a permit for a patio. More plants, planters, and sculptures have been recently installed, and more will be. Space is used as a path to get from the front to the back, with a rock garden/zen garden surrounding. Ms. McAuley asked why the umbrella was there in the last week. Ms. Lambert explained the umbrella was stuck in the ground to shade her while she was working in that area. Umbrella was only there for 3-4 hours while work was being done. No seating is in that area. Ms. Lambert described submitted rock/zen garden plan submitted. Mr. Rodriguez asked to rebut Ms. Floeter and Lambert s rebuttal: Showed side by side of the rock/zen garden plan vs. photo of gravel area with umbrella in it. Side by side shows the 10 x 15 gravel area is still there. No need for the gravel in that entire area to traverse from front to back yard. Chris Oakley, 3115 Thayer, stated: Considering a new home in Evanston and all homes looked at will need work and maybe variations, so have been watching recent cases. For this case, the issue is not whether or not the area is patio. Per the zoning ordinance, a side yard is only the 5 nearest the property line. Beyond that it is not. Patios are allowed once out of that required 5 side yard. Mr. Rodriguez requested to rebut. Mr. Treto acknowledged the ZBA followed their Rules allowing a rebuttal already, so further rebuttal is not needed. Page 3 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals

6 The ZBA entered deliberation. Zoning Administrator Scott Mangum stated that concern that the Zoning Ordinance states that patios are allowed in the side yard is not the issue at hand and therefore not relevant to the case at hand. Confirmed by Mr. Treto. Chair Berns suggests denying the appeal because this is a use issue. Ms. McAuley agrees that this is a use issue, and the primary issue of Mr. Rodriguez is the intrusion of privacy in that area. There is arborvitae screening it. Understand there may be noise. Noise is part of using a yard. Good example is a dog run is permitted in a side yard and that would be much louder. There have been many modifications to the area in question and great efforts to create a gravel garden area. A denial is a denial of using a side yard, which should not be done. The use will continue to change over time and that use should not be denied. Mr. Gingold stated that people should only be allowed to use their properties as the Zoning Ordinance allows. So the area may be used, just not for a patio. Question is, is the area being used as a patio? It looks like a walkway has been added to the space, but then why not remove the gravel and tarp under it. Issue is the Ordinance prohibits the use as a patio, and the onus is on a neighbor to complain if there is a patio. Just because a table and chairs are removed, it doesn t mean it isn t a patio. Ms. McAuley responded that the message has been made clear and there is testimony that the area will not be used as a patio. ZBA shouldn t micromanage the aesthetics of a property. Mr. Gingold suggests the gravel beyond the path area should be removed if the function is not a patio. Ms. Dziekan explained the gravel creates a sense of space. The gravel area is the size it is because that was the design of the original patio. It is not a perfect situation, but understandable why the space is the 10 x 15 size. Mr. Mirintchev believes the issue is how the space is used. It was originally a patio. The Zoning Ordinance is not precise. The current plan is a different project to consider. The opposed neighbor never stated why he is against the project. Assume it Page 4 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals

7 is noise/privacy, but that was not stated. Looking at the use alone, the current project should be approved. Chair Berns clarified that the ZBA first has to decide whether the gravel area is a patio or not. Second, the ZBA needs to decide whether the rock/zen garden proposal is a walkway or not. Zoning Administrator Mangum clarified the question is whether the original gravel area is a patio, and/or whether the current proposal is a patio or not. Melissa Klotz suggested two separate motions be taken - one for the gravel area as it was in May, and a separate one for the current rock/zen garden plan. Zoning Administrator Mangum clarified the material used is pertinent due to the definition in the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Berns responded that the use of the space is pertinent because there are hardscape areas (like landscaping walls) that are not considered patios. Motion by Ms. McAuley that the Zoning Administrator was incorrect and the gravel area in the side yard is not a patio. Motion failed to gain a second. Motion by Mr. Gingold that the Zoning Administrator s determination that the gravel area in the side yard was used as a patio as of May 1, 2017 based on the use of the space. Seconded by Ms. Cullen. Approved 4-1 with one abstention. Motion by Mr. Gingold that the current plan and use of the property is no longer a patio and is therefore a permitted use and does not require any gravel to be removed. Zoning Administrator asked for further clarification on the use within the motion. Chair Berns stated the use of the space is limited to a walkway or garden. Ms. McAuley suggested there not be permanence of patio things such as a permanently built BBQ or fire pit. Amended motion by Mr. GIngold that the side yard is primarily used as a walkway and a garden and is therefore not a patio. Seconded by Ms. Cullen. Approved 6-0. New Business 325 Greenwood Street 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 Page 5 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals

8 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. Ms. Klotz read the case into the record. Paul Janicki, architect, explained the proposal: Will demolish the existing one-car detached garage to create more open space. Current mudroom is unusable space, so will remove that. There will be more open space overall, though the building lot coverage percentage is increased because the proposed open parking space counts as 200 sq. ft. Existing home encroaches into the rear yard already. Driveway will be pervious pavers. Bay addition is minimum necessary because a family area is needed near the kitchen so that the family can be in the same vicinity while meals are prepared. Looking at the interior layout of the first floor, you can see how there is no family area near the kitchen without the bay addition. Bay addition will have a small storage area underneath for bicycles, etc. since there will not be a garage anymore. Basement will be underpinned and exterior drain tiles will be added. Current garage is too small and fire damaged so it is not used anyway. The ZBA entered deliberation. Mr. Gingold noted the lot is quite small, so it makes sense to demolish an unusable structure that is taking up space on the property. Ms. McAuley and Ms. Cullen agreed. Chair Berns agreed and noted the proposal is the minimum change necessary. Standards: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. Yes Page 6 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals

9 7. Yes Ms. Cullen motioned to recommend approval of the requested zoning relief with the condition the project be developed in substantial compliance with the documents and testimony on record. The motion was seconded by Ms. McAuley and unanimously approved. Other Business Discussion Ms. Klotz reminded the ZBA that they can refer text amendments to the Plan Commission. Chair Berns recommended that members bring ideas to the next meeting. Ms. McAuley agreed, and suggested bringing ideas related to side yard uses and patios. The meeting adjourned at 9:10pm. Page 7 of 7 Zoning Board of Appeals

10 MEETING MINUTES Joint Meeting of the PLAN COMMISSION & ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, August 30, :00 PM Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Council Chambers DRAFT NOT APPROVED Plan Commission Members Present: Plan Commission Members Absent: ZBA Members Present: ZBA Members Absent: Staff Present: Presiding Member: Jim Ford, Peter Isaac, Terri Dubin, Colby Lewis, Simon Belisle Jolene Saul, Andrew Pigozzi, Carol Goddard, Patrick Brown Myrna Arevalo, Kiril Mirintchev, Violetta Cullen, Mary Beth Berns, Mary McAuley, Lisa Dziekan Scott Gingold Meagan Jones, Melissa Klotz, Scott Mangum, Mario Treto Jim Ford Declaration of Quorum With a quorum of both the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals present, the meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm. Election of Joint Meeting Chair Ms. Berns motioned for Mr. Ford to serve as Chair of the joint meeting, which was seconded by Mr. Lewis and approved 10-0 with one abstention. New Business 1829 Simpson Street 17PLND-0037 & 17ZMJV-0065 Rita Kats, property owner, requests a map amendment to rezone the property located at 1829 Simpson Street from the R3 Two-Family Residential District to the B1 Business District (Zoning Code Section 6-3-4, Title 6 of the City Code). The applicant also requests a special use permit for a Type 2 Restaurant in the B1 Business District (Zoning Code Section ), and major zoning relief for a 4.3 east interior side yard setback for a roofed patio and one-story addition where 10 is required (Zoning Code Section E). The Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals make recommendations to City Council, the determining body for this case. Page 1 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

11 Ms. Jones presented an overview of the requested map amendment, special use, and major zoning relief. Arkady Kats, applicant, explained the proposal: Purchased the property in October 2016 Restaurant will serve as a gateway from the west side entrance to the City. Restaurant will have a nice view of park to the west Will serve Mediterranean and Eastern European food combined with a good atmosphere and pricing Attended the neighborhood meeting in June to hear concerns Back portion of building is in terrible condition so needs to be torn down and rebuilt. New addition will be at least 4.3 from side property line (existing is at 0 ) but extending further back. Mr. Kats is also a General Contractor with experience Clarified the portion to be torn down is an old 16 x 10 addition and will be replaced with a larger addition that is further away from the east property line. Addition is needed for kitchen prep area for the bakery Fence will surround property to mitigate noise generated from the outdoor patio space. It will be a solid fence on the east side and open fence on the west to provide a view of the park. Patio won t be used for special events; it will be used by restaurant customers only. Restaurant will be owner operated Outdoor sports field is at least 30 north of patio on City property and there is of landscaping on the restaurant property to buffer from that. Outdoor fireplace will make the outdoor space more inviting Garbage will be enclosed to discourage animals from getting at refuse. Roll-out garbage cans are acceptable by Groot. Garbage will be picked up once a week. Ms. Berns suggested garbage should be picked up more than once a week since this is a commercial use. Ms. McAuley suggested Groot should roll the garbage cans out so that the cans don t sit out on the parkway in view often. Mr. Kats responded that other businesses in similar situations pay extra for the cans to be rolled out by Groot instead of leaving them out. Ms. McAuley noted this project should be held to a high standard given its proximity to a large park. Building aesthetics were then discussed. Applicant will attempt to restore Page 2 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

12 the original brick on the building, but it has been painted over many times so that may not be feasible. Original brick is light red. Mr. Kats continued: Agree to follow the Sustainability Plan for recycling, etc. Old addition that will be demolished is 170 square feet and the new addition will be 320 square feet. Kitchen prep area will have large mixers and large tables, freezers, and rolling equipment to make the best use of the small space. Ovens and possibly a deep fryer will be along the east portion of the building near the ordering area and near the display refrigerators that will feature cakes, pastries, frozen dough and frozen fruit. Most commissary deliveries will be brought in by personal vehicle, but large amounts of flour will be delivered approximately every 6 weeks, on Simpson St. - one pallet delivery. There will not be a weekly box truck delivery like many restaurants have. Hours of operation are proposed from 11am - 8:30pm for customers. Up to 4 employees per shift Plenty of parking on the street so employees that drive will park on the street. Intend to hire local teenagers and teach them restaurant skills. Have experience running a restaurant - previously ran one for 3 years and then the lease ended. No sound system or music will be played outdoors. Fast-casual concept that will take 5-10 minutes per order. Hood vent will go through the roof 3-4 away from the east property line with a parapet surrounding it. Ms. Arevalo suggested the vent not be so close to the residential property to the east to mitigate restaurant smells. Mr. Kats explained he can move it a few feet further west. Ms. Berns asked for clarification about where the parapet will be raised and Mr. Kats explained it will be raised all the way around the building. Mr. Ford then asked for clarification on where the HVAC equipment would be located and Mr. Kats responded that it will be on the rooftop and be screened by the parapet. Mr. Isaac asked if the applicant is open to installing a scrubber given the concern of the restaurant odor and close proximity to residential. The applicant answered he would look into it, and there may be other ways to address the issue depending on the hood type that is used. Page 3 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

13 Mr. Kats explained customers will only be able to enter the premises from the front door. Customers can take their food to go. There will even be an option to text your order in. Customers that eat in the rear patio will have outdoor garbage cans as well as indoor. Customer garbage is on the east side of the property. Ms. Arevalo asked about the proposed fence, explaining an open fence on the west side of the property by the park may allow garbage from outdoor patrons may blow through the fence into the park. Ms. Berns explained the applicant is responsible for collecting all garbage within 250 of the property per the Litter Collection Plan required of all Type 2 Restaurants. Ms. Berns asked if it would be possible to construct a trash enclosure in the parkway, and Ms. Klotz explained the City does not want permanent structures in the parkway, but the garbage can issue could be addressed by either limiting the time garbage cans can be out in the parkway or by requiring the garbage pickup company to roll the cans through the building themselves if possible. Ms. Dubin asked for clarification on the garbage cans and Mr. Kats clarified they will be small cans similar to residential garbage cans, not metal dumpsters. There is no alley access or other area to locate the garbage for pickup. Chair Ford noted a continuance may be requested in writing, to a date certain. There were no requests for a continuance. Public Comment: Former City Clerk Rodney Greene - clarified a majority of the residents in the area of the restaurant are not in favor of the requested zoning change because it will increase traffic, and because there are many rodents in the area already even though there isn t any restaurant waste currently. Bringing the garbage through the restaurant out to the parkway could contaminate customer food in process. The property is not a good fit for a restaurant. Many nearby residents were not contacted, including the residents immediately next door. Mr. Greene asked the procedure to request a continuance. Chair Ford explained a continuance may be requested but those that testify tonight cannot testify again at the next meeting. Mr. Greene continued to explain there is not ample parking for the restaurant, and street parking is often full. Betty Ester explained she was previously told the property could not be used for affordable housing because the area was owned by MWRD. Previous request for Page 4 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

14 cabinet-making was denied due to the fumes that would be emitted. Ms. Esther asked what the correct property lines are since there is conflicting information, and will the restaurant use any part of the City or MWRD land for the restaurant or access to the patio area. Ms. Esther noted residents have not been aware of the proposal since October 2016 as stated by the applicant. Ms Klotz noted a survey approximately 100 years old shows the property at 152 feet long, but the current survey as well as the neighboring plat of survey show the property is 159 feet long. Either way, there is no part of the proposal that is affected by the 7 discrepancy. Carlis Sutton, 1821 Darrow Ave., spoke in opposition to the proposal. Building has never been a restaurant. It was a convenience store and beauty shop. Priscilla Giles stated there was never a restaurant at the property, but there was a snackery that sold candy for a short time. Nothing was cooked on site. Housing similar to what is next door could be designed for the site. There used to be a driveway on the property where the park now is (which wasn t there at the time) that lead to the house that used to be on the property. The rear patio invites trash and rodents to the area. A restaurant does not fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Kats explained the property to the east is 80 feet wide and this property is 27 feet wide so it is not feasible to build something similar to what is next door. Tina Foster, 2026 Dodge Ave., sees rats crossing Dodge regularly and is therefore very concerned about garbage and rodents at the restaurant. Ms. Foster also noted concern over the aesthetics of the building and whether it will improve the neighborhood or not, and the lack of parking. Ms. Foster prefers to park on the street rather than her driveway for safety reasons, and often cannot find one parking space. Madelyn Ducre, 2039 Brown Ave., noted the area has lost a lot over the years. The applicant does not appear to know exactly what he wants to do at the property. The neighborhood needs to know all exact details. Ms. Ducre asked the following: If the applicant runs out of money will he request money from the City to complete the project? What happens if the restaurant does not work out, or if a liquor license is requested? What will be done with the patio in the winter? Former Alderman Delores Holmes noted she will only speak about the rezoning, and stated as Alderman last October she was notified by City staff of a proposal to convert the building to a residence and add a second story. The building was not previously vacant - the previous owner illegally operated a business. Neighbors have said they are Page 5 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

15 not comfortable with the property being used as a restaurant. Neighbors who are renters feel their voices have not been heard and they do not have a say. With rezoning to B1, many other uses would be allowed such as a brewery. The zoning change is not appropriate for the neighborhood. Former Mayor Lorraine Morton, 2102 Darrow, explained public housing is located next door. Ms. Morton spoke to one of the residents of that property who is not in favor of living next door to a restaurant. Ms. Morton used to own the property and sold it to Cook County years ago for housing. The 5th Ward has had a revival and has had many improvements, so a bad project could be detrimental to the neighborhood. Parking will be an issue. There are trees surrounding the property that may be harmed. There are small animals that will get into the garbage. Daphne Watson, 1822 Simpson requests the rezoning be withdrawn. Ms. Watson was not aware the building was sold or anything was proposed until very recently. There is no street parking available. This business will not serve the community. What happens when the restaurant fails - what will come in next? The neighborhood does not need another place that draws in people from other neighborhoods, it needs something that serves and uplifts this neighborhood such as a library. Elizabeth Brasher stated she is concerned that Mr. Kats has not adequately answered many of the questions raised. People will not want to eat in a restaurant that garbage cans have to be carried through, and no one wants to look at the garbage cans in front of the property. It appears Mr. Kats is not aware what the community wants, and was a market study done to determine what type of food the area would want. There is not ample parking currently so there definitely will not be ample parking with a restaurant there. The restaurant will not last. Chair Ford closed the Public Comment, and explained both the Plan Commission and ZBA are recommending bodies so it is possible the Commission and Board make conflicting recommendations that move forward to the City Council The Plan Commission entered Deliberation: Mr. Belisle stated he had difficulty seeing how the second standard for rezoning was met, given the more recent rezoning and that the proposed rezoning would break the continuity. Mr Isaac responded that the property has been rezoned from a commercial use, however, other properties have been recently rezoned after fairly recent broader rezoning. He agreed that the proposed rezoning would break the continuity of zoning in the area but that seems to speak more to the first standard for rezoning. Page 6 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

16 Chair Ford stated that the proposal looks like spot zoning and agreed that there may be an issue with the second standard. Mr. Belisle stated that if the adjacent residents were property owners they would likely have concerns about the restaurant use affected their property values, affecting the third rezoning standard. Mr. Lewis asked what could be built on the property given its zoning and current lot size and Ms. Klotz explained since the property is already existing, a single family home is permitted even though the minimum lot size is not met for the R3 District. The lot size and building setbacks are legally-nonconforming. Mr. Isaac asked if there is any permitted use in the R3 that the property can be used for currently, and Ms.Klotz explained a single family residence is permitted but either parking would have to be added or a parking variation granted. For other R3 uses it would depend on the exact use and parking requirement, but yes some uses could locate there. Mr. Belisle asked what the basis for denying the previous attempt to rezone the property was. Staff was unaware of precisely why the project was not approved outside of ultimately not meeting the standards for approval. Mr. Isaac asked if the lack of public alley adjacent to the building affects the property s ability to meet standard number four which speaks to adequacy of public facilities and services. He stated that he believes that without the access to have trash picked up from an alley and having additional trash generated from the restaurant that the fourth standard may not be met. Chair Ford inquired about the driveway on the adjacent property and if the possibility of obtaining an easement to use that driveway had been pursued. Mr. Kats stated that he looked into that but that discussions did not get very far. Mr. Belisle motioned to recommend approval of the map amendment. With no second, the motion died. Mr. Belisle motioned to recommend denial of the map amendment, which was seconded by Ms. Dubin. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0 to recommend denial to City Council. Ayes: Belisle, Dubin, Ford, Isaac, Lewis Nays: none. ZBA Deliberation: Page 7 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

17 Ms. Berns asked staff if the public notice is deficient with regard to the raised roof that is not shown in the plans and therefore was not stated as a variation in the public notice. Ms. Klotz responded staff is looking into the situation in conjunction with Law, so for the time being the meeting should continue to move forward with the case. Ms. McAuley noted there has been a lot of positive work along Simpson St. and plans are to re-activate Simpson St. as a commercial corridor. However, this proposal does not meet the Standards of upholding excellence in the community for a park-side establishment. The proposal does not take into account the requests of the neighborhood given the proximity to the neighborhood and details are not finalized. Ms. Cullen agreed, noting the parkway is not adequate for commercial garbage pickup. Without an alley, a restaurant is not appropriate at the property. Ms. Dziekan stated there are too many unanswered details and inconsistencies. Mr. Mirintchev agreed that not all details are set yet and noted the property is an extremely challenging lot. The property is not conducive for a residential use, but the proposal as presented is not adequate. Ms. Arevalo agreed the proposal is not fully thought out since there were many questions that were answered with I don t know and we ll see. The property is appropriate for a restaurant but only if it is integrated into the community and the park for the proper cohesion. That has not been planned or displayed to the community. Ms. Berns stated she believes the proposal is appropriate. She understands that some questions may not have specific answers at this point and that sometimes it is appropriate to wait and see. It appears that a lack of sophistication in presentation hurt the entire proposal. This proposal is extremely similar to the last request for a Type 2 Restaurant the ZBA reviewed for 2628 Gross Point Rd., where questions were raised and the applicant responded that they would do what is best for the community. That project was recommended for approval. Standards for Major Variation: 1. No; Yes - Berns 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No; Yes - Berns 7. Yes Page 8 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

18 Ms. McAuley motioned to recommend approval and was seconded by Ms. Dziekan. With a vote of 1-5 for approval, the requested variation is recommended for denial. Standards for Special Use 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No; Yes - Berns 4. No; Yes - Berns 5. No; Yes - Berns 6. No; Yes - Berns 7. NA 8. NA 9. Yes Ms. McAuley motioned to recommend approval of the special use with conditions, which was seconded by Ms. Dziekan. With a vote of 1-5 for approval, the special use was recommended for denial. Conditions: 1. Hours of operation shall not exceed 10:30am - 8:30pm 2. No amplified music outside 3. Fencing shall be installed as shown on the plans except that there shall not be a gate on the fence on the west side of the property leading to the park 4. Employees shall park in a City parking lot 5. Trash in the rear must be in a lockable enclosure 6. Lighting shall be dimmed when the restaurant is not in operation, to the minimum level adequate for safety. 7. The restaurant must have an aggressive monthly rodent control plan. 8. Commercial garbage pickup is required at least two times per week and must be picked up by the garbage company directly from the trash enclosure and wheeled through the restaurant so that at no time are there garbage cans sitting out on the parkway 9. Substantial compliance with the documents and testimony on record including Sustainability Plan The meeting adjourned at 10:05pm. Page 9 of 9 Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals

19 MEETING MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, October 3, :00 PM Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, Council Chambers DRAFT NOT APPROVED Members Present: Mary McAuley, Kiril Mirintchev, Violetta Cullen, Lisa Dziekan, Mary Beth Berns, Myrna Arevalo Members Absent: Scott Gingold Staff Present: Melissa Klotz, Mario Treto Presiding Member: Mary Beth Berns Declaration of Quorum With a quorum present, Chair Berns called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Approval of Minutes The minutes from the September 5, 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 1029 South Boulevard ZBA 17ZMJV-0071 Dale & Candace Fochs, property owners, apply for major zoning relief to split one zoning lot into 2 zoning lots in the R2 Single Family Residential District. The applicant requests a 3.1 west interior side yard setback where 5 is required for a principal structure (Zoning Code Section A-3), and a 3.2 west interior side yard setback where 4.5 is required for a front porch (yard obstruction) (Zoning Code Section B), for the east zoning lot. The applicant also requests an accessory structure (detached garage) on a property without a principal structure (Zoning Code Section A) for the west zoning lot. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. Ms. Klotz clarified the case had a pending vote of 2-3 for approval of the accessory structure (detached garage) variation. Members absent from the September 5, 2017 ZBA hearing noted they reviewed the meeting minutes or video. Ms. McAuley noted the hardship was following staff s recommendation to proceed with variations. Ms. Dziekan noted the request was not the least deviation necessary from the applicable regulation. With a final vote of 3-4 for approval, the accessory structure variation was denied. The Page 1 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals

20 previous motion from the September 5, 2017 ZBA hearing therefore stood, with a final determination for approval of the principal structure and porch setback variations and the condition the garage be removed from the property. New Business 1026 Davis Street ZBA 17ZMJV-0079 Marty Cless, property owner, applies for a special use permit for a special use permit for a Commercial Indoor Recreation facility, Spenga, in the D2 Downtown Retail Core District (Zoning Code Section ). The Zoning Board of Appeals makes a recommendation to City Council, the determining body for this case. Ms. Klotz read the case into the record. Marty Cless, property owner, and Kathleen Smith, operator, explained the proposal: The building was constructed in 2016 and now contains restaurants on the first and second floor. There is one remaining vacant space on first floor for this use. Spenga will feature 20 minute segments of spinning bikes, yoga, and strength training. The front of the space will feature a reception area, locker rooms, and kids room to provide daycare during workouts. Operator opened a franchise in Glenview on March 1, The Glenview location took about 3 months to generate awareness before there was a big surge in membership. Profits are increasing every month and the location is now doing well. Evanston location will feature up to 22 customers per class plus 2-4 staff. Classes are clustered into a morning block, lunch time, and evening block. Operator may subsidize employee parking via public transit or parking garage permits. Noise will be mitigated by the following: east wall of the space will have another layer of drywall added; west wall will have an additional layer of drywall and spray foam; rear wall already has spray foam and drywall, and is closest to yoga area which will be a quiet use. Hours of operation are anticipated from 5:30am - 8pm. Reception area at the front mitigates noise from traveling out the front door. Property owner also owns 1030 Davis next door, which is currently vacant, and expected to lease to a restaurant or activity-based use. Bruce Foyer stated his only concern is parking, but there should not be a large impact on parking since classes are limited to 22 customers. Deliberation: Page 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals

21 Ms. McAuley stated Spenga is a good use for the site, and there is a good target market with the downtown condos and NU students nearby. Ms. Dziekan stated Spenga is a great use to activate a vacant space, and appreciated the planned noise mitigating efforts. Ms. Cullen stated she was originally concerned with 5:30am opening, but since the neighbor who spoke was not concerned about noise at that time it appears okay. Parking is not a concern because there are nearby City parking lots too. Ms. Arevalo stated she was concerned about noise early in the morning. Chair Berns responded the airlock towards the front of the space, along with the noise-proof door at the rear of the space should stop noise from traveling. Ms. Cullen noted the noise ordinance is in effect from 7am - 7pm. Mr. Mirintchev stated the operator should consider adding an office/break room for employees, and make sure to use a great ventilation system. Also, there are noise systems/mitigating products to further mitigate noise if that is a concern. Ms. Dziekan noted DAPR suggested a bicycle rack be added. Chair Berns stated staff can work with the applicant on that if it is needed. The Standards were addressed: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. Yes 7. Yes 8. Yes 9. Yes Ms. Cullen motioned to recommend approval with conditions, which was seconded by Ms. Arevalo and unanimously recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation shall not exceed 5am - 10pm 2. Employees shall not utilize on-street parking. 3. Substantial compliance with the documents and testimony on record. Other Business Page 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals

22 Discussion Ms. Klotz explained a ZBA training session would occur immediately following the close of the hearing. The meeting adjourned at 7:50pm. Page 4 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals

23 1402 Lincoln St. 17ZMJV-0092 ZBA Determining Body

24 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 1402 Lincoln St. ZBA 17ZMJV-0092 ZBA Determining Body Date: November 1, 2017 Notice Published in the Evanston Review on October 19, 2017: Gerald Brennan, property owner, applies for major zoning relief to locate a previously constructed solar house single family residence in the R1 Single Family Residential District. The applicant requests a 10 front yard setback where 27 is required (Zoning Code Section A-1), a 26.4 rear yard setback where 30 is required (Zoning Code Section A-4), and 47.0% impervious surface coverage where 45% is permitted (Zoning Code Section ). The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. Recommendation City staff and DAPR recommend approval of the requested zoning relief to locate a previously constructed solar house single family residence in the R1 Single Family Residential District. The applicant has complied with all other zoning requirements and meets all of the standards for major variations in this district. Site Background 1402 Lincoln St. is located just south of Lincoln St., with street frontage on the west side of Wesley Ave., which dead-ends at Canal Shores Golf Course, in the R1 Single Family Residential District. The property is immediately adjacent to the following zoning districts: North: R1 South: OS East: OS West: R1 Single Family Residential District Open Space (Canal Shores Golf Course) Open Space (Canal Shores Golf Course) Single Family Residential District & Open Space The property currently features a one-story single family residence with a one-car detached garage in front of the house near the front property line. The house and garage will be deconstructed by Evanston Rebuilding Warehouse to salvage materials. The property is the only lot on the block that fronts Wesley Ave., and is surrounded by

25 similar single family residences to the north and west and open space to the south and east. Proposal The applicant proposes to deconstruct the existing single family residence and detached garage, and then locate a previously constructed solar house on the property. The solar house was designed and constructed by Northwestern University students as an energy-efficient and technologically advanced single-story home suitable for aging in place. The house competed against 11 teams from around the world in the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon in Denver recently, where it won multiple awards including the Student s Choice Award for Most Awesome House. With the competition complete, the applicant proposes to permanently locate the house at 1402 Lincoln St. and reside in it. The one to two bedroom, two bath, 1,400 square foot single-story solar house is long and narrow as constructed, and requires orientation with a southern exposure for the solar panels. The applicant has worked extensively with staff to modify the house where possible to reduce the variations needed. The applicant has agreed to remove the enclosed deck, exterior ramp, and built-in planter boxes to meet side yard setbacks. The renderings provided depict the house with the enclosed deck, ramp, and planter boxes as originally designed. Additionally, the applicant proposes to extend the driveway into the rear yard to provide a second required parking space since house only features a one-car garage.

26 The property is substandard in lot size at 5,000 square feet where 7,200 square feet is required. All hardscape on the property, including the entire driveway and parking pad, are comprised of brick to reduce the impervious surface on the property as much as possible. Open parking must be within the rearmost 30 of the property, thus the long driveway is necessary but then triggers an impervious surface variation for 47% where a maximum 45% is allowed. Given the property s proximity to open space (Canal Shores Golf Course) to the south and east, it is preferable to obtain an impervious surface variation rather than a parking variation to eliminate one required parking space. It is also preferable to locate the required parking on the property since the street leading to the house is unpaved and frequently has standing water, which makes street parking problematic. The property is 100 deep. With front and rear setbacks, the buildable area of the property is only 43 deep. The house is 63.6 long, which makes it impossible to comply with the required front and rear yard setbacks. The applicant explored detaching the garage from the house, which would then make the house approximately 50 long and would require minor setback variations. However, detaching the garage is not possible due to the location of the solar mechanicals within the house and positioning of the solar panels. The applicant proposes a 26.4 rear yard setback where 30 is required, and a 10 front yard setback where 27 is required. A 10 front yard setback would not typically meet the Standards for approval. However, 1402 Lincoln St. is the only property on the dead-end block that faces Wesley Ave., and the property s current condition features a detached garage in the front yard that is 10 from the front property line as well as the existing house that is located right at the rear property line. Therefore, the request will not negatively impact adjacent properties and will decrease the nonconformity from what is currently on the property. The proposal is unique in that the applicant hopes to locate a previously constructed house that cannot be modified to meet the zoning requirements. The proposal will

27 provide a public benefit by demonstrating the ability to create a financially feasible stateof-the-art residence that functions off of environmentally friendly renewable energy. The solar house will be a great example of a functional, sustainable single-family residence in Evanston, while also allowing an Evanston resident to age in place. City staff is not aware of any objections from adjacent property owners. Ordinances Identified for Requested Relief: : Minimum yard requirements for the R1 district are as follows: A-1: Front Yard A-4: Rear Yard : The maximum allowed impervious surface ratio in the R1 District is 45%. Design and Project Review (DAPR) Discussion and Recommendation: The Design and Project Review Committee found the proposed solar house to be an opportunity to locate a unique and sustainable single-family residence in Evanston that meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and does not negatively impact adjacent properties. Variation Standards: For a variation to be approved, the ZBA must find that the proposed variation: 1. Will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining properties: The property is the only lot with street frontage on the block, there are no adjacent structures near the rear of the property, and there is ample open space at the canal/golf course to the south and east. 2. Is in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance: Setbacks are required to ensure adequate open space and minimal impact on adjacent properties and uses. Maximum impervious surface coverage is intended to ensure properties to not cause drainage issues on their own or adjacent properties. 3. Has a hardship or practical difficulty that is peculiar to the property: The 100 property depth makes it difficult to construct a residence with a typical building footprint, and the lack of alley access makes it difficult to comply with the impervious surface coverage due to the need for a long driveway. 4. Property owner would suffer a particular hardship or practical difficulty as distinguished from a mere inconvenience: The solar house has already been constructed and cannot be drastically changed to accommodate all zoning requirements due to the solar panels and mechanical equipment layout. 5. Is not based exclusively upon a desire to extract additional income from the property or public benefit to the whole will be derived: The applicant intends to live at the property, and the solar house is a public benefit since it demonstrates the feasibility of living within a sustainable single family residence. 6. Does not have a hardship or practical difficulty that was created by any person

28 having an interest in the property: The property has existed at its platted size and depth, with no alley access, since before the current ownership. 7. Is limited to the minimum change necessary to alleviate the particular hardship or practical difficulty: The applicant has agreed to all feasible changes to the solar house, accessory structures, and parking to minimize the variation request from the original five variations that included 35% building lot coverage and 51.4% impervious surface coverage. Attachments Variation Application submitted October 9, 2017 Zoning Analysis Plat of Survey Site Plan Elevation Renderings Image of Property Aerial View of Property Zoning Map of Property DAPR Draft Meeting Minutes Excerpt October 25, 2017

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52 1402 Lincoln St. October 20, 2017 User drawn points Tax Parcels 1:1, mi km City of Evanston IL, Imagery courtesy Cook County GIS Copyright 2016 City of Evanston This map is not a plat of survey. This map is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind. See for more information.

53 1402 Lincoln St. October 20, 2017 User drawn points Zoning Boundaries & Labels 1:1, mi km City of Evanston IL, Imagery courtesy Cook County GIS Copyright 2016 City of Evanston This map is not a plat of survey. This map is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind. See for more information.

54 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED DESIGN AND PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DAPR) MINUTES October 25, 2017 Voting Members Present: J. Leonard, S. Mangum, I. Eckersberg, J. Nelson, M. Tristan, L. Biggs, M. Jones, G. Gerdes, P. Zalmezak, K. Knapp Staff Present: S. Flax, J. Velan, J. Lasik Others Present: Presiding Member: J. Leonard A quorum being present, Ms. Leonard called the meeting to order at 2:32 pm Lincoln Avenue _ Recommendation to ZBA Gerald Brennan, property owner, submits for major zoning relief for a 10' front yard setback where 27' is required, a 26.4' rear yard setback where 30' is required, and 47% impervious surface coverage where 45% is permitted to locate a previously constructed "solar house" in the R1 Single Family Residential District. APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: Gerald Brennan, Property Owner DISCUSSION: Proposed solar house to replace existing house. House will be taken apart in modules, transported to the site and reconstructed. Mr. Mangum inquired about ability to detach the garage as it would then have a lesser setback requirement. Garage will be rebuilt on site once the house is constructed. Ms. Klotz stated that the same variation would be triggered if the garage was detached but the variances would be minor and the garage houses equipment for the solar panels. Changes to the plans have been made per staff requests to lessen variations. Northwestern has inquired about adding a plaque or marker to the home. Ms. Leonard stated concern over possible larger sign, a smaller plaque is appropriate. Existing home on site to be deconstructed instead of demolished. Sewer line running through 1400 and 1404 Lincoln to also be removed (not completely eliminated) which will benefit neighbors. Southern exposure important for the location of the solar panels. Infrequent tours and small groups to visit the home, possibly students from Haven Middle School who will walk to the site. Once a month is estimated frequency of visits. Impervious surface exceeds permitted maximum but the location near the canal lends to it reducing possible effects. Stormwater must not affect adjacent properties and grading must be checked once house is installed. Street leading to the home is unpaved. Driveway exists with a small stretch of

55 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED sidewalk south of it. Would like to remove driveway as water pools in that area. Mr. Gerdes made a motion to recommend approval of the project to ZBA. Seconded by Mr. Tristan. The Committee voted, 10-0, to recommend approval of the project to ZBA. There was a brief discussion regarding looking into how the Committee prepares for review of larger projects and standards for review. Discussion to continue at a future meeting date. Adjournment: Ms. Biggs moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Nelson. The committee voted unanimously 10-0, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:01 pm. The next DAPR meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 2:30 pm in Room 2404 of the Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, Meagan Jones

56 1015 McDaniel Ave. 17ZMJV-0091 ZBA Determining Body

57 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 1015 McDaniel Avenue - ZBA 17ZMJV-0091 ZBA Determining Body Date: November 2, 2017 Notice- Published in the October 19, 2017 Evanston Review: David & Robyn Schoessow, property owners, appeal the Zoning Administrator s decision to partially deny minor zoning relief (case number 17ZMNV-0076) to construct a two-car detached garage in the R2 Single Family Residential District. The appellant was granted minor zoning relief to construct a 1-car detached garage with a maximum building footprint of 12 x 22 in compliance with all required setbacks and subject to the removal of the north concrete walk within the front and side yards, for a maximum building lot coverage of 43.8% and impervious surface coverage of 56.8%. The appellant was denied minor zoning relief for a 20 x 22 detached garage with 49.7% building lot coverage where a maximum 40% is permitted (Zoning Code Section ), 65.5% impervious surface coverage where a maximum 55% is permitted (Zoning Code Section ), 48.9% of the rear yard occupied by an accessory structure where a maximum 40% is permitted (Zoning Code Section ), a 2 south interior side yard setback where 3 is required (Zoning Code Section ), and a 1 south interior side yard setback for an eave (yard obstruction) where an eave may extend 10% or 6 into a setback (Zoning Code Section ). The Zoning Board of Appeals is the determining body for this case. Recommendation City staff recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals affirm the Zoning Administrator s decision to partially deny zoning relief to construct a 2-car detached garage. City staff also recommends that the ZBA affirm the determination that zoning relief to allow a 1-car detached garage with a maximum building footprint of 12 x 22 for a maximum building lot coverage of 43.8% and impervious surface coverage of 56.8% meets the Standards for Minor Variation. A larger garage, as originally proposed, with 49.7% building lot coverage, 65.5% impervious surface coverage, 48.9% of the rear yard occupied by an accessory structure, and a 2 south interior side yard setback with a 1 eave is not the least deviation necessary from the applicable regulations.

58 Site Background 1015 McDaniel Ave. is located on the east side of McDaniel Ave., midblock between Lee St. and Nathaniel Pl. in the R2 Single Family Residential District, and is surrounded by the following: North: R2 East: R2 South: R2 West: OS Single Family Residential District Single Family Residential District Single Family Residential District Open Space (Harbert Park/North Shore Canal) The property in question features a single family residence with no on-site parking. Proposal The appellant originally applied for a minor variation to construct a 20 x 22 two-car detached garage in the rear yard with alley access. The property does not currently have on-site parking, and is substandard in lot size at 3,000 square feet where 5,000 square feet is required, as well as lot width with 25 where 35 is required. Minor Variation Site Plan: The property does feature hardships with both the lot size and lot width. The 25 width makes it impossible to construct a typically-sized garage with compliant 3 setbacks. The 3,000 square foot lot size and existing principal structure leave only 150 square feet of available building lot coverage for a garage. As noted by the appellant, 12 of the 17 homes on the block feature garages, though most of those properties feature larger lot sizes and smaller house footprints. Additionally, the two 25-foot wide properties to the south of the subject property also do not contain garages. The appellant believes a two-car garage is necessary due to the family s situation. As noted in the Appeal Application, one of the property owners is disabled and unable to remove snow from street-parked vehicles, or move the family s three vehicles to switch parking spaces on the street and/or garage. This information was not stated in the Minor Variation application.

59 The proposed 2-car garage triggered the following Minor Variations: Zoning Ordinance Requirement Existing Proposed Minor Variations Approved Minor Variations Building Lot Coverage 40% 35.0% 49.7% 43.8% Impervious Surface Coverage Rear Yard Occupied by Accessory Structures South Interior Side Yard Setback South Interior Side Yard Setback for Eave 55% 48.8% 65.5% 56.8% 40% 0% 48.9% Denied 3 NA 2 Denied 6 inches into setback NA 1 into setback Denied Staff Determination Variation requests that bring properties into compliance for parking are often considered favorably. However, the request for 1015 McDaniel Ave. is significant because it includes five variations, all of which are currently compliant without the parking. All five variations are regulations that intend to preserve open space and minimize impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed 20 x 22 garage would utilize a significant portion of the rear yard and effectively overbuild the property with structures. Not only is a 20 x 22 garage inappropriate for 1015 McDaniel St., but approval of such a request could set a precedent for the two properties immediately south that feature the same building footprint and lack of on-site parking. The Zoning Administrator considered the significant number of variations requested, loss of open space, impact on adjacent properties, and precedent, compared to the need and expectation of on-site parking at single family residences in Evanston. The Zoning Administrator also considered the availability of street parking in the immediate neighborhood, which is typically ample with parking permitted on both sides of McDaniel and no residences on the west side of the street. To reduce the variations to the least deviation necessary, a 12 x 22 garage was approved that would provide one on-site parking space. The approval was a compromise intended to alleviate the parking issue while also maintaining open space in the rear yard. The smaller garage also reduced the variations needed from five to two: building lot coverage and impervious surface coverage, which are then less than 4% beyond the maximum allowed as opposed to the 10% increase originally proposed. City staff did not receive any comments or objections to the Minor Variation request or the Appeal. Revised Proposal On November 2, 2017, the appellant submitted a revised site plan. The site plan

60 includes a smaller garage footprint of 20 x 20 compared to the original request of 20 x 22. The modification brings the requested building lot coverage to 48.4% (instead of the original 49.7%), impervious surface to 61.7% (instead of the original 65.5%), and the rear yard occupied by accessory structures to 44.4% (instead of the original 48.9%). The setback and eave variations remain the same. The appellant feels a 20 x 20 garage is the minimum size needed to accommodate the family. The Zoning Board has the authority to uphold or rescind any decision of the Zoning Administrator or grant a modified proposal. Ordinances Identified for Requested Relief : The maximum lot coverage for the R2 district is 40% : The maximum impervious surface ratio for the R2 district is 55% : Detached accessory buildings, structures and uses: Accessory buildings, structures or uses shall cover no more than 40% of a rear yard when located in a rear yard : Yard Requirements: The minimum yard requirements for the R2 district are: Accessory Uses and Structures: Side (rear) yard : Yards: Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards: Yard obstructions attached to the principal or an accessory structure on a site shall include but are not limited to overhanging eaves A yard obstruction is any of these items extending outside of the allowable building envelope and into a required yard. A yard obstruction may extend into no more than ten percent (10%) of the depth of a required yard, except in cases of overhanging roof eaves and gutters for new additions to existing structures. In such cases eaves and gutters may be constructed so to match or more closely match the existing roof eave and gutter, provided that such projection does not encroach upon an adjacent lot line. Appeal Procedure: Pursuant to Section E of the Zoning Ordinance (Procedure for Minor Variations and Fence Variations), the applicant filed an appeal within 10 working days of the Zoning Administrator s mailing of the notification. Section B (Appeals) states that the appeal procedure is provided as a safeguard against arbitrary, ill-considered, or erroneous administrative decisions. It is intended to avoid the need for legal action by establishing local procedures to review and correct administrative errors. It is not, however, intended as a means to subvert the clear purposes, meanings, or intent of this Ordinance or the rightful authority of the Zoning Administrator to enforce the requirements of this Ordinance. To these ends, the reviewing body should give all proper deference to the spirit and intent embodied in the language of this Ordinance and to the reasonable interpretations of that language by those charged with the administration of this Ordinance. Further, Section D states The Zoning Board of Appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order or final decision as in its opinion ought to be made in the premises, and to that end has all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken.

61 Variation Standards: Since the appealed determination is for a proposal that is within the threshold of a Minor Variation, the Standards for Minor Variations should be utilized for determining the appeal. For the Zoning Administrator to grant approval of Minor Variations, the Zoning Administrator must find that the proposed variation(s) meet the following standards: 1. The practical difficulty is not self-created: The proposed garage is a standard size for a two-car garage, and the substandard lot size and lot width are existing conditions not created by the current property owner. 2. The requested variation will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining properties: Standard not met the proposed variations will have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining properties by increasing the bulk on the property, creating overcrowding by structures, and substantially reducing the amount of green space within the rear yard. 3. The requested variation is in keeping with the comprehensive general plan and the zoning ordinance: Standard not met - the proposed variations will increase the bulk, create overcrowding by structures, and reduce greenspace within the rear yard on the property. 4. The requested variation is consistent with the preservation policies set forth in the comprehensive general plan: NA 5. The requested variation requires the least deviation from the applicable regulation among the feasible options identified before the Zoning Administrator issues his/her decision regarding said variation: Standard not met A smaller garage would reduce the number of and the degree of variations. Additionally, there is adequate on-street parking available and the need for off-street parking was not provided. Attachments Appeal Application October 6, 2017 Minor Variation Application August 25, 2017 Staff Findings of Fact (Standards) of Minor Variation Denial Zoning Analysis Plat of Survey Site Plan Elevations Modified Site Plan submitted November 2, 2017 Minor Variation Public Notice Minor Variation Final Determination Notice

62 Aerial View of Property Image of Property Zoning Map of Property

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70 MEMO DATE: October 24, 2017 TO: FROM: RE: Melissa Klotz, Zoning Planner Michael Griffith, Development Planner Findings of Fact 1015 McDaniel Street Appeal of a minor variation administrative decision Proposed construction of a 20 x22 detached garage The requested variations for: a. Proposed building lot coverage of 49.7% where 40% is permitted; b. Proposed impervious surface coverage of 65.5% where 55% is permitted; c. Proposed 48.9% of the rear yard occupied by an accessory structure where 40% is permitted; d. Proposed 2 setback from the south property line where 3 is required; and e. Proposed 1.5 setback from the south property line for the garage roof overhang where 2.5 is required, were denied based on not meeting the applicable minor variation standards, Section A: 1. The practical difficulty is not self-created. Standard met, the proposed variation is not self-created. 2. The requested variation will not have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining properties. Standard not met, proposed variation will have a substantial adverse impact on the use, enjoyment or property values of adjoining properties by increasing the bulk on the property, creating overcrowding by structures and substantially reducing the amount of green space within the rear yard. 3. The requested variation is in keeping with the comprehensive general plan and the zoning ordinance. Standard not met, the proposed variation is not in keeping with the zoning ordinance since it would increase the bulk, create overcrowding by structures and reduce greenspace within the rear yard on the property. 4. The requested variation is consistent with the preservation policies set forth in the comprehensive general plan. Standard met, proposed variation is for property located outside a historic district, also, not a landmarked property.

71 5. The requested variation requires the least deviation from the applicable regulation among the feasible options identified before the Zoning Administrator issues his/her decision regarding said variation. Standard not met, proposed variation is not the least deviation from the applicable regulation among the feasible options identified before the Zoning Administrator. Off-street parking could be achieved by an open parking pad, while not addressing the specific building lot coverage regulation, open parking pad would not have added bulk to the property and would have kept the rear yard open to the air. A smaller garage could be constructed reducing the degree of required variations. Additionally, there is adequate onstreet parking available and the need for off-street parking was not provided. Findings of Fact 1015 McDaniel St Page 2

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83