►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 6/6/2017
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
evening,
everyone,
this
is
a
public
hearing
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
My
name
is
Violetta
Cullen.
The
zoning
ordinance
empowers
us
to
hear
references
from
the
City
Council
petitions
from
other
parties
for
variances
and
special
uses
and
appeals
from
the
decisions
of
the
Zoning
Administrator.
We
hear
testimony
from
those
in
attendance
and
then
make
formal
findings
of
fact,
based
on
the
evidence
presented,
which
consists
of
testimony
and
exhibits
and
on
our
knowledge
of
the
community.
A
We
then
either
make
a
determination
or
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
testimony
is
taken
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence
and
procedures.
We
ask
that
you
keep
your
testimony
relevant
to
the
proposal
as
it
relates
to
the
standards
contained
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
When
you
testify,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
print
your
name
on
the
sign-in
sheet
provided
outside
the
door.
Each
case
will
be
introduced
by
staff
and
a
list
of
documents
will
be
read
into
the
record.
A
Then
the
applicant
will
give
an
explanation
of
the
proposal
after
that.
Those
who
wish
to
testify
as
either
proponents
or
opponents
of
the
case
will
have
the
chance
to
do
so,
and
then
the
applicant
will
have
a
chance
to
respond
any
case
not
concluded
at
tonight's
hearing
will
be
continued
to
our
next
meeting.
Melissa.
Please
call
the
roll
Lisa.
C
A
D
D
A
Will
now
swear
in
anyone
who
plans
to
give
testimony
in
any
of
the
cases
scheduled
for
tonight?
Anybody
that
plans
on
speaking.
Will
you
please
raise
your
right
man?
Do
you
swear
and
affirm
that
the
testimony
you
will
provide
in
connection
with
this
case
will
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth,
Thank
You
Melissa.
You
want
to
read
the
first
case.
B
13:24
to
1326
Dodge,
Avenue,
Netanya
mints
potential
lessee
applies
for
a
special
use
permit
for
a
commercial
indoor
recreation
facility,
sharp
edge
CrossFit
13
24
to
1326
Dodge
Avenue
is
located
in
the
i2
general
industrial
district,
which
requires
a
special
use
permit
for
a
commercial
indoor
recreation
facility
to
operate
sewn-in
Code,
section
614,
3
3,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
makes
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
Documents
included
as
part
of
the
record
include
special
use.
E
A
A
F
A
F
F
Typically,
these
gyms
usually
open
around
5:30
in
the
morning
and
then
last
class
is
around
6:30
or
7:00
p.m.
their
one
hour
class,
and
it's
not
the
entire
day.
It's
a
few
in
the
morning,
maybe
one
or
two
in
the
afternoon
and
then
a
few
more
in
the
later
evening.
We
use
weights.
We
have
we're
going
to
have
a
rig
where
you
can
do
pull-ups
and
squat
racks,
it's
kind
of
a
bearable.
It's
a
pretty
bare-bones
kind
of
gym
facility.
F
It's
nothing
like
a
24
hour
fitness
or
a
lifetime
fitness,
it's
just
mostly
open
empty
space
for
us
to
be
able
to
workout
with
free
weights,
barbells
and
then
other
than
the
rig,
the
pull-ups.
Where
you
do
pull-ups
and
whatnot.
It's
just
open
space.
We
do
play
music,
I
mean
it's
not
it's
not
offensively
loud
and
then
the
space
also
has
six
garage
doors,
which
was
my
biggest
appeal
because
be
nice
in
the
summer,
when
you
can
open
the
doors
and
have
it
nice
air
circulation,
there
also
glass
doors.
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
I
have
to
sign
up
for
the
class
and
be
a
part
of
the
class
okay.
It's
not
it's
not
a
revolving
door.
So
if
there's
no
class
going
on,
then
you
know,
unless
I'm
there
doing
work
or
something,
then
the
doors
could
be
closed.
No
one
should
ever
come
to
the
gym
and
expect
to
go
work
out
if
they're
not
coming
to
a
class
and.
C
F
F
E
D
E
D
B
You
look
at
an
old
site
plan
of
the
entire
property,
that's
up
on
the
screen,
so
this
is
the
building
here.
So
this
is
the
the
CrossFit
area
and
then
these
are
all
parking
spaces
along
here
and
then
this
is
all
still
part
of
the
same
property
that
has
parking
all
the
way
along
here
and
coming
down
towards
here
and
then
right
here.
That's
the
McDonald's
parking
lot
and.
G
D
F
Definitely-
and
it's
funny
you
bring
up
tires
because
everyone
always
so
these
crosses
with
tire
zones
because
of
Jim's
like
that
and
I.
Don't
it's
like
the
last
thing
on
my
list
to
get
over
is
a
tire,
so
I,
don't
if
we
run
when
we
run
it's
going
to
be
you're
running
you're,
not
certainly
not
carrying
tires
around.
D
D
F
It's
pretty
empty
right
now,
so
there
are
some
oil
tanks
in
there
that
need
to
be
removed,
we're
getting
rid
of
the
wall,
that's
separating
13,
26
and
30
24,
and
then
we're
going
to
build
another
wall
to
separate
13,
24
and
a
half
but
other
than
that.
There's
already
like
perfect
office
space
and
bathrooms
in
13:26
we're
leaving
all
of
that.
So
the
biggest
thing
is
taking
that
wall
down,
but
other
than
that,
we're
keeping
it
big
open
space
and.
A
F
The
music
will
be
playing
if
the
doors
are
open
and
it's
early
in
the
morning
or
late
at
night.
Again,
I
do
not
want
to
offend
anyone
in
the
neighborhood
or
impose
on
anyone
in
the
neighborhood,
so
the
music
would
certainly
be
turned
down
or
the
doors
would
just
be
closed
if
the
music,
for
whatever
reason
we're
loud
enough
to
you
know,
but
other
people
could
hear-
and
it
was
early
in
the
morning,
then
to
your
question:
I
mean
you
lose.
F
C
F
G
One
point
of
clarification:
I
thought
I
understood
in
the
dapper
minutes
that
there
you
were
going
to
be
applying
for
a
storefront
modernization
grant,
but
then
it
says
that
no
changes
are
being
planned
to
the
exterior.
So
can
you
is
that
true
that
you're
applying
for
storefront
modernization
grant
and
how
would
those
monies
be
used
if
the
exterior
is
not
being
changed?
The.
G
G
Yeah,
and
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
you
said
that
you've
been
a
part
of
spit
for
four
years,
like
what
sort
of
business
experience
you
have
with
CrossFit
or
running
gyms,
or
you
know
coaching
in
this
kind
of
capacity,
I've.
F
Never
owned
a
gym,
I
have
an
MBA
and
a
JD
from
Marquette
and
I've
coached
CrossFit
for
almost
for
about
four
years
now
at
different
gyms
I
mean
I,
can
just
tell
you
that
I've
coached
at
so
many
gyms
and
learned
so
many
things
from
so
many
different
gym
owners
every
that
the
course
was
not
a
franchise.
It's
everyone's
own
business,
so
everyone
runs
their
gym
very
differently.
F
F
G
It's
it's
vacant
space
I
think
this
is
an
appropriate
business
coming
into
a
commercial
area.
I
think
it's
a
good
reuse
of
a
space
I
agree.
C
B
C
B
C
B
E
D
B
D
C
D
C
A
B
A
A
The
requested
special
use
will
not
cause
a
negative
cumulative
effect
when
its
effect
is
considered
in
conjunction
with
the
cumulative
effect
of
various
special
uses
of
all
types
in
an
immediate
neighborhood
and
the
effect
of
the
proposed
type
of
special
use
upon
the
city
as
a
whole.
Does
everyone
agree
that
standard
hasn't
been
that
number
four?
The
requested
special
use
does
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
value
of
property
in
the
neighborhood
I
think
this
would
improve
the
property,
so
the
standard
has
been
met.
A
Number
five:
the
requested
special
use
can
be
adequately
served
by
public
facilities
and
services
other
than
the
question
for
the
parking
which
is
probably
going
to
be
able
to
be
covered.
I
think
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
six.
The
requested
special
use
does
not
cause
undue
traffic
congestion
if
the
parking
is
done
in
congestion.
In
accordance
with
this,
testimony,
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met
as
well.
Any
other
questions,
any
comments
with
someone
like
to
make
a
motion
I'll
make
them.
A
Wait
a
minute
I
have
a
couple
more.
The
requested
special
use
preserves
significant
historical
and
architectural
resources.
I
think
that
that's
not
applicable
in
this
case
because
of
the
building
number
eight,
the
requested
special
use
preserves
significant
natural
and
environmental
features
other
than
Mary's
question
about
the
tanks.
I
think
that
this
standard
has
been
that
any
questions.
A
Applicable
the
requested
special
use
complies
with
all
other
applicable
regulations
of
the
district
in
which
it
is
located
and
other
applicable
ordinances
except
to
the
set.
Such
regulations
have
been
modified
to
the
planned
development
process
or
the
grant
of
a
variation
I
believe
that
has
been
met.
I
agree.
C
Move
in
the
matter,
DBA
17:17,
zmj,
v,
0
0
for
2,
with
respect
to
the
application
for
13
24
to
1326
Dodge
Avenue,
that
we
recommend
to
City
Council
to
approve
the
special
use
requested
on
the
condition
that
it
come
with.
A
restriction
on
hours
of
operation
from
5:00
a.m.
to
11:00
p.m.
and
that
a
further
restriction
on
the
playing
of
music
with
the
garage
doors
open
between
the
hours
of
7
a.m.
and
7
p.m.
C
B
Andrew
and
Linda
Mendelssohn
property
owners
appealed
a
zoning
administrators
decision
to
partially
deny
minor
zoning
relief
case
number
17,
the
MN
v
0
0
to
2
to
construct
a
one-story
sunroom
addition
in
the
r1
single-family
residential
district.
The
applicant
was
granted
minor
zoning
relief
to
allow
7
feet
between
a
principal
structure,
the
house
and
an
accessory
structure.
The
detached
garage
where
10
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code,
section
6,
4,
6,
2
C,
but
denied
minor
zoning
relief
for
32.1%
building
lot
coverage
where
a
maximum
30
percent
is
allowed.
B
Zoning
code
section
6,
8,
2
7,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
Documents
included
as
part
of
the
record
included
appeal
application
submitted,
April
26,
2017
standards
form
minor
variants,
application
submitted,
March,
13,
2017
staff,
findings
of
fact,
or
standards
of
minor
variation,
denial,
zoning
analysis,
plat
of
survey,
site
plans,
elevations
minor
variation,
public
notice,
minor
variation,
final
determination,
notice,
images
of
property
from
from
applicant
aerial
view
of
property.
Zoning
map
and
zoning
map
of
property.
I
Thank
you.
I
have
a
couple
of
letters
from
neighbors
that
I
wished.
E
E
I
All
right,
thank
you.
We
appreciate
the
time
and
attention
you're
giving
to
this
matter.
This
is
basically
a
request
to
allow
us
to
add
a
relatively
minimal
addition
to
our
house
to
further
the
functionality
of
our
primary
living
space,
which
is
the
family
room
of
our
home
throughout
our
tenure
in
this
house,
and
we've
been
35-year
Evanston
residents
coming
up
on
19
years
on
this
property.
I
As
you
can
tell
from
the
property
the
two-story
residents,
that's
not
hashed
was
the
original
house
and
the
brick
garage
we
are
able
to
have
access
from
Rosalie
Street.
As
the
homes
on
the
south
side
of
Rosalie
Street
have
that
provides
a
certain
amount
of
restriction
on
the
buildable
area
of
the
home
in
that
family
room
addition,
that
is,
at
the
south
end
of
the
south
end
of
the
house.
That
was
really
the
only
place
where
that
addition
could
go
previously.
I
The
house
had
a
very
small
kitchen
kind
of
a
small
maid's
room
and
had
no
family
room
space
at
all,
so
that
addition
accommodated
a
kitchen,
a
family
room
with
the
dining
function
within
the
family
room.
It's
a
very
nice
house.
It
was
built
in
1929,
but
we
all
know
that
what
worked
in
1929
it
does
not
necessarily
work
in
2017
and
even
what
was
done
in
1999
doesn't
necessarily
function
properly
for
our
needs.
In
2017.
I
We
are
doing
this
project
to
improve
the
functional
use
of
that
family
room
space.
We
have
two
adult
children
who
live
in
the
area.
Both
are
imminently
going
to
be
married
and
planning
children
of
their
own.
We
anticipate
having
a
role
and
helping
to
care
for
our
future
grandchildren,
and
we
have
a
pretty
good
idea
as
to
what
kind
of
functional
space
we
need
to
have
in
our
house,
and
we
have
determined
that
this
is
the
place
where
that
needs
to
go.
I
The
area
of
the
addition,
which
is
described
in
the
staff
report
as
a
patio
is
actually
a
raised
stone
deck
with
an
existing
brick
wall
and
a
full
concrete
foundation
below
it.
It
was
designed
to
be
solid
and
for
the
potential
of
enclosure,
initially
as
a
porch.
We
thought,
but
not
where
we
would
like
it
to
be
a
permanent
room.
I
It's
a
space
that
is
usable
for
us
as
an
outdoor
patio
on
days
like
we've
had
today
and
perhaps
over
the
last
week,
but
as
we
know
with
our
climate
here
in
Evanston,
not
very
many
months
of
the
years
or
you're,
looking
to
capture
that
space
for
functionality
throughout
the
year,
I
do
have
a
series
of
photographs
of
the
property
to
demonstrate
the
character
of
the
house.
The
extent
of
the
landscaping
and
to
demonstrate
the
minimal
to
to
no
impact
that
this
addition
will
have
it's
going
to
basically
be
an
extension
of
the
existing
home.
I
I
So
here's
a
view
of
that
existing
raised
area
behind
the
tree.
This
is
where
the
addition
is
going
to
go
and
it
will
not
require
any
foundation
work
because
of
the
way
the
foundation
existing
foundation
is
in
place
in
the
way
the
structure
of
the
floor
is
going
to
be
cantilevered
off
the
south
end,
there's
a
view
looking
back
towards
the
house,
and
you
can
see
the
the
character
of
the
home.
So
the
floor
will
come
even
with
the
existing
French
doors.
D
Easier,
yes,
I!
Stop
you
for
a
second!
So
will
the
because
I
think
that
what's
important
here
is
just
how
again
you
say
that
the
32%
is
that
the
2%
is
a
very
small
amount
of
space,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
understand
staff
had
proposed
a
compromise
that
you
reduce
the
size
of
the
addition
in
order
to
stay
within
the
30%
lot
coverage,
that's
required
by
the
zoning.
D
I
The
ordinance
at
30%
lack
coverage
allows
about
a
7-foot
addition
from
the
point
of
the
outdoor,
so
it's
probably
about
the
edge
of
that
rug
and
what
we
are
pressing
is
going
out
about
an
additional
nine
feet.
So
it's
going
to
extend
about
two
feet
past
that
lowest
step
in
this
direction.
So
for
us
to.
C
D
D
I
No
I'm,
sorry
we're
not.
We
are.
We
are
going
right
over
the
top
of
it.
That's
stone
itself
may
be
removed
and
filled
in
with
with
concrete,
but
there's
going
to
be,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
pretty
good-sized
step
up
into
the
into
the
family
room,
there's
going
to
be
wood,
joists
that
are
going
to
come
and
they're
going
to
be
supported
on
a
wall.
That's
going
to
be
built
off
the
stuff
and
that's
gonna
enable
a
cantilever,
okay,.
I
J
I
J
J
C
I
The
property
is
restricted
by
the
you
know:
proximity
of
the
the
driveway
axis
and
the
garage
itself
that
were
in
place
when
we,
when
we
bought
the
house
it's
it's
simply.
We
designed
this
space
and
wrecked
the
dimensions
they
look
like
they're.
It's
like
a
19-6
8
by
18
on
the
outside,
so
it's
somewhat
less
than
that
on
the
inside,
and
we
built
what
we
thought
would
be
functional
20
years
ago
or
18
years
ago,
and
it
is
no
longer
functional
for
us
because
of
the
furniture
we
have
in
there
and
the
way
we
live.
I
I
I
I
We've
been
told
that
items
1
3
&
5,
are
not
met
the
first
being
the
practical
difficulty
is
not
self
created
again
I'm
having
a
hard
time,
quite
understanding
that
the
reason
was
the
fact
that
we
did.
In
addition,
and
as
I
said,
we
did
that
addition,
you
know
18
years
ago
when
we
knew
what
we
knew
at
the
time
about
the
way
we
lived
and
we
built
what
we
could
afford,
and
you
know
so,
if
it's
the
self
creation,
there's
a
there's,
not
much
more
I
can
say
about
that.
I
I
think
the
staff
acknowledges
that
it's
the
product
will
not
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
the
adjoining
property.
The
shorter
letter
letter
that
you've
received
is
from
our
immediate
neighbor
to
our
East.
They
are
the
only
property.
It
really
looks
out
onto
our
property
and-
and
they
are
supportive
of
that.
In
addition,
my
neighbor
Carl
Bulova
is
here
who
wrote
the
other
letter
and
he
will.
He
will
speak
to
that.
I
The
point
he's
made
in
that
letter
I
will
disagree
with
the
staffs
statement
that
we
have
not
met
the
standard.
As
far
as
keeping
with
a
comprehensive
general
plan
and
the
zoning
ordinance,
the
zoning
ordinance
does
allow
variants.
In
six
point
three
point:
eight
point:
three,
a
variances
are
allowed
up
to
35%
on
a
lot
coverage
situation.
I
What
we
are
asking
for
on
a
percentage
basis
is
7%
we're
asking
for
an
additional
2%
as
compared
to
the
30%,
which
is
which
is
7%
and
my
reading
of
both
the
zoning
ordinances
that
were
allowed
up
to
you're
allowed
to
make
a
decision
up
to
35%
and
then
item
number
five.
The
requested
variation
requires
a
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
amongst
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
Zoning
Administrator
issues,
his
or
her
decision.
Regarding
said
variation.
G
C
I
I
The
at
the
bottom
of
the
second
page,
you
know
had
this
addicted.
Referring
to
the
1999
edition.
Had
this
edition
been
constructed,
the
current
sunroom
proposal
would
be
compliant
with
building
lot.
Coverage
have
not
been
constructed
that
this
project
wouldn't
even
exist.
Okay,
so
the
sunroom
is
being
added
to
that
addition.
There's
also
you
know
their
dimension
above
that
about
a
modest
150
square
foot
addition,
that's
the
seven
feet
times
the
width
of
the
of
that
space
is
simply
not
useable
to
us
and
we
would
not
do
the
project.
I
With
that
minor
amount
of
floor
space
is,
you
know,
constructions
expensive
on
a
per
square
foot
basis
and
it
gets
even
more
expensive
per
square
foot.
The
smaller
you
get
on
the
next
page,
there's
commentary
about
sun
rooms
and
whether
or
not
you
know
single-family
properties,
normal
Evanson
normally
have
Sun
rooms.
I,
don't
really
understand
the
relevance
of
that
and
then
there's
a
discussion
about
the
Sun
Room,
the
the
sunroom
up,
the
living
room
at
the
bottom
could
be
demolished
and
then
the
property
could
construct
a
260-foot
sunroom
off
the
family
room.
I
D
H
I
So
anyway,
we
we've
gone
through
the
probably
spent
most
of
this
year
going
through
the
process.
We
had
every
expectation
of
having
this
approved
at
the
administrative
level
understand
from
the
documentation
why
it
wasn't.
It
was
surprising
so
so
here
we
are
again
it's
relatively
insignificant,
particularly
relative
to
a
few
other
properties
that
have
been
approved
almost
on
the
immediate
black
to
orient
you
to
those
and
I'll,
ask
mr.
bola
to
speak
to
that
a
little
more
thoroughly
Melissa
if
he
could
scroll
ahead
to
some
of
those
aerial
shots.
I
I
So
this
first
photo
locates
our
property
with
the
red,
with
the
red
dot
up
there
and
then
call
attention
to
a
property
more
in
the
lower
right
hand,
corner
of
the
photo
which
will
show
up
on
the
next.
If
you
scroll
down
a
little
bit,
it's
a
little
bit
hard
to
read
at
1319
Lincoln,
which
appears
to
have
lot
coverage
of
over
40%
and
I
was
unable
to
find
in
the
archives
the
meeting
minutes
or
any
of
the
plans,
but
there's
precedent
for
allowing
additional
lot
coverage.
Our
immediate
block,
almost
so.
I
C
I
D
We
can
ask
staff
if
there
have
been
variations
granted
for
lot
coverage
in
excess
of
the
30%
minimum
when
there
is
large-scale
acceptance
and
even
enthusiasm
on
the
part
of
the
neighbors
and
it's
a
minutes.
You
know
I
understand
that
there
are
zoning
ordinances
for
reason
and
so
I
get
that
at
a
certain
point.
You
have
to
say
we
have
there's
only
one.
That's
in
effect
for
this
reason,
but
there
are
variances
granted.
D
Have
there
been
I
know
that,
just
recently
we
had
a
case
where
the
the
hardship
that
was
claimed
was
questioned
because
the
owner
had
built
a
garage
that
was
closer
to
the
house
and
he
and
he
claimed
and-
and
we
affirmed
his
claim,
that
he
had
not
anticipated
at
that
time
that
his
family
would
grow
so
much
and
then
the
garage
was
where
the
garage
was
and
then
that
created
the
hardship
for
the
addition.
So
I
guess
that
I'm,
you
know
people
do
put
on
a
small
addition
and
then
their
circumstances
change.
D
B
Have
it
Altima
T
comes
down
to
a
number
of
of
reasons:
why
is
the
property
itself
substandard
and
lot
size
so
that
30%
limitation
is
smaller
than
what
the
zoning
ordinance
anticipated?
What
is
the
Edition
for?
What
kind
of
room
is
it
for?
How?
How
does
that
fit
in
with
the
rest
of
the
house
to
the
house
already
have
a
room
like
that?
It's
all
of
those
things
combined,
which
is
why
I
just
got
point
it.
B
E
G
G
I
Really
only
is
one
alternative,
and
that
would
be
to
extend
that
same
room
out
a
smaller
dimension,
there's
again
we're
looking
for
contiguous
family
living
space.
Where
you
know
open,
you
know
the
open,
great
room
effect
and
just
making
it
more
functional
for
us,
it
would
not
be
logical
for
us
to
expand.
You
know
the
original
sunroom
or
expand
the
dining
room
or
any
other
area.
On
the
first
floor,
why.
J
J
J
J
C
J
But
I
also
think
the
answer
is
the
project.
It
does
not
believe
that
any
neighbor
visuals
I
mean
this
is
gonna,
be
glancing
close.
This
property
1319
doesn't
have
freedom,
I
mean
it's
a
box,
it's
a
big
big,
solid
box.
It
just
keeps
going
and
going
and
going-
and
this
is
an
aesthetically.
You
know
a
healing
object
to
anyone
who
can
go
and
see
it
and
I
mean
we
would
have
to
invest
a
lot
of
money.
I
B
Just
to
clarify
so
the
lot
size
is
7,500
square
feet,
the
required
lot
size
for
that
zoning
district
is
7,200
square
feet
and
then
the
building
lot
coverage
numbers
that
were
given,
that
is,
for
the
footprint
of
all
structures.
So
that
is
including
square
footage
of
the
garage
and
it
is
not
counting
all
floors
together.
Only
the
footprint,
because.
C
K
K
I
G
K
K
H
I
We
can
do
that.
We
don't
need
to
do
that
from
a
structural
standpoint.
I
have
not
gotten
very.
You
know
in
many
in-depth
discussions
with
the
building
department
about
that
I
know
there
will
need
to
be
a
probably
opposed
to
some
kind
of
concrete
tube
in
the
ground
to
you
to
deal
with
the
steps
that
will
come
off
the
back
of
that,
but
the
house
itself
it
is
designed
so
that
I
don't
need
to
pour
foundation
just
to
support
it.
My.
H
H
I
H
We
we
have
seen
cases
and,
like
probably
you
mentioned
until
you
noticed
that
people
come
doing
some
kind
of
addition
or
some
kind
of
impervious
surface.
Then
they
come
again
for
another
addition.
Then
there
is
a
next,
the
next
owner-
and
he
says
okay,
but
I
want
something
else,
and
it
is
an
avalanche
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
worsens
everything
not
only
in
this
lot
but
in
the
neighborhood,
because
people
need
both
clinic
area,
but
they
need
free
space
and
planting
can't
oldest
tea.
H
I
appreciate
the
planting
that
you
did
already,
but
I
am
concerned
not
to
allow
an
avalanche
of
actions
that
will
actually
worsen
the
situation
regarding
free
space
and
all
these
things.
That's
why
there's
nothing
to
do
at
the
moment,
but
I
have
a
kind
of
appeal
to
you
not
to
extend
things
that
you
should
not
extend,
no
matter
what
our
decision
is
tonight
right,
I
appreciate.
C
C
J
Now
we
only
have
seating
for
three
four
five
six
people
but
sit,
and
you
know
between
two
couches,
a
three
seater,
a
two
seater
and
the
chair
and
sit,
and
so
we
want
to
use
this
space
for
more
seating
area
and
a
place
for
people
to
go.
Basically,
you
know
because
it's
just
it's
just
it's
just
under
you
sized,
basically
so
we're
a
family
of
five
right
now
soon
to
be
six
and
it's
it's
just
just
very
tight
and
with
the
ended
eating
tables
for
four
people.
So
it's
it's
very
tight.
J
C
L
Bova
1322
Rosalie
Street
about
four
houses
down
from
the
east
of
the
Mendelsohn's
I
live
kitty
corner
from
the
1319
building,
I,
say
kitty
corner
I'm
on
Rosalie
Street.
The
Lincoln
address
is
obviously
on
Lincoln
an
important
point
here.
That's
been
at
least
partially
brought
up
by
the
Mendelsohn's
insofar
as
we
have
no
alleys,
and
that
does
create
an
unusual
circumstance
in
which
not
only
do
you
increase
the
amount
of
impervious
surface,
but
it
does
limit
in
terms
of
how
you
then
can
use
the
space
as
demonstrated
by
the
Mendelsohn's.
L
That
is
a
hardship
and
it
can't
be
overcome
at
any
rate,
I'd
like
to
read
part
of
my
my
letter
to
you
and
then
comment
a
little
further
about
some
of
my
observations
about
some
of
the
areas
that
I
have
seen:
variances
granted
and
my
rationale
for
not
understanding
why
they
were
granted
and
how
obnoxious
they
really
are
and
I
don't
think
anybody
on
this
board.
This
present
board
has
acted
on
any
of
these
issues.
L
At
any
rate,
the
addition
will
be
tastefully
executed
and
add
to
the
tax
base.
It
will
not
be
visible
from
the
street
upon
my
review
of
the
documentation
for
the
case.
I
find
it
an
unusual
burden
to
suggest,
as
documented
by
staff
report,
that
the
applicant
demolish
a
perfectly
functional
living
space
to
avoid
a
2%
overage
tacking
on
a
reduced
area.
Addition
is
not
reasonable
either.
Mr.
Mendelson
has
gone
through
some
of
the
economics
associated
with
it
and
it's
quite
frankly,
not
reasonable.
L
By
contrast,
I've
noticed
that
this
body
to
have
granted
zoning
relief
to
applicants
with
far
more
significant
and
visible
encroachment
of
one
kind
or
another,
just
a
couple
of
doors
down
to
the
to
the
west
at
2507
Jackson,
it's
a
corner
lot.
The
homeowner
almost
completely
cover
his
property
and
avoided
the
maximum
building
coverage
by
buying
the
house
next
door
demolishing
it
then
combining
the
two
Lots
into
one.
L
Some
might
call
that
rude
who
gains
from
this
by
golly
that
house
meets
code,
but
it
surely
looks
well
out
of
place
to
see
what
amounts
to
an
empty
lot
next
to
a
huge
building
footprint,
there's
a
net
loss
in
property
taxes.
So
we
pay
for
this
one
at
twenty
five.
Forty
five
Asbury,
which
is
I
believe
on
the
corner
of
Chancellor,
the
first
Street
north
of
central
and
Asbury
its
proximate
to
the
golf
course,
a
homeowner
and
I.
L
Remember
this
vividly
a
homer
gained
approval
for
encroaching
well
into
the
twenty
five
foot
front:
setback
in
the
front
yard,
going
from
what
was
once
an
unweathered
screened-in
porch
to
a
four
season
space
in
one
zoning
appeal.
As
pointed
out
earlier,
a
second
action
permitted
the
owner
to
expand
the
one-story
to
two
storeys.
L
L
At
13,
19
Lincoln,
it
extends
an
excessive
distance
from
front
to
rear
I
believe
that
house
actually
goes
to
the
absolute
maximum
distance.
It
could
be
from
the
rear,
which
is
I,
believe
30
feet.
It
is
truly
overwhelming
and
creates
a
visible
wall
for
all
the
neighbors
to
see
no
sunlight,
it's
two
stories.
L
L
Might
add
that
that
particular
addition
being
so
proximate
to
my
house
has
actually
caught
it
on
cause
my
property
to
flood
more
so
than
it
did
before.
As
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
rear
yards
are
used
for
storage
of
stormwater,
and
this
one
encroaches
so
far
into
the
into
that
zone
that
that
storage
is
lost
and
therefore
it
has
no
place
to
go
but
onto
adjacent
properties.
Thank
you.
L
None
of
these
situations
exist
with
the
Mendelsohn's
application
and,
if
Evanston
value
sustainability
as
much
as
it
claims,
then
it
is
clear
that
the
Mendelsohn's
addition
is
sustainable
by
continuing
to
use
the
existing
space
rather
than
demolishing
it.
In
my
opinion,
it's
also
unreasonable
to
expect
the
Mendelsohn's
to
build
a
smaller,
less
functional
space,
no
shrewd
maneuvering
of
lots.
No
second
time
visits
to
the
Zoning
Board,
no
unsightly
wall,
no
lack
of
airspace
circulation
and
no
possibility
of
a
decrease
in
property
values.
L
A
I
C
C
That
said,
it's
not
just
a
little
bit.
It's
2%
over
what
the
zoning
ordinance
requires
and
in
order
to
gain
relief
from
that,
we
as
a
board
have
to
find
that
all
of
the
standards
for
a
variation
have
been
met.
Variations
are
allowed,
but
only
under
the
conditions
that
the
standards
for
them
are
met,
and
it's
only
then
that
we
can
say:
okay
well,
2%
is
reasonable
here
or
not.
In
my
view,.
C
There
are
several
the
standards
that
are
not
met
here
and
I
do
agree
with
the
zoning
administrator's
analysis
of
this,
as
Carol
raised
earlier.
There's
a
danger
when,
when
property
owners
or
even
a
series
of
property
owners
add
on
to
their
homes
in
anticipation
of
one
need
and
then
decide
later
on,
that,
there's
a
need
to
continue,
adding
and
perhaps
continue
adding,
and
in
fact
that's
exactly
what
happened
here.
Is
you
add
it
onto
your
home
in
1999
at
a
time?
C
The
problem
has
been
created
by
this
owner
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
you
did
build
on
in
1999
and
you're
now
facing
a
problem
due
due
to
the
restrictions
that
that
build
on
has
caused.
You
and
I
also
believe
that
I
believe
in
the
judgment
of
the
Zoning
Administrator,
that
an
adequate
addition
of
150
feet
is
feasible
and
would
keep
you
within
the
requirements
of
the
zoning.
Ordinance
and
I
would
encourage
you.
In
the
event,
the
board
agrees
with
me
to
consider
reconsider,
making
that
addition,
without
the
need
for
a
variation.
C
D
D
A
B
C
Number
one:
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met,
there's
been
positive.
Testimony
only
submitted
from
the
neighbors
that
they
believe
and
documents
that
they
believe
that
the
requested
development
in
excess
of
the
of
the
allow
allowable
lot
coverage
would
have
a
positive
impact
on
their
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values.
So
I
believe
that
standard
is
met.
C
Standard
number,
two,
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
while
the
zoning
ordinance
hat
does
have
a
general
intent
to
allow
property
owners
to
make
use
of
their
homes
and
to
build
to
certain
standards.
It
also
imposes
a
maximum
lot
coverage,
which
is
at
issue
in
this
in
this
case,
and
it
only
allows
variation
from
those
standards
under
certain
circumstances
and
because
several
of
them
I
believe,
are
not
met.
Then
this
variation
doesn't
keep
with
that
intent.
C
In
this
case,
the
property
owner
has
expressed
a
desire
to
exceed
the
30%
lot
coverage,
but
has
rejected
a
city
proposal
that
would
allow
the
property
to
be
developed
in
compliance
with
the
regulations
if
it
is
stated,
desires
to
add
more
space,
proceeding
and
a
desire
to
avoid
spending
an
additional
amount
of
money
on
a
per
square
foot
basis
on
having
a
compliant
extension
and
therefore
I
believe
the
owner
has
described
an
inconvenience
of
carrying
out
the
letter
of
the
regulations
rather
than
a
particular
hardship
in
doing
so
standard
number.
Five.
C
The
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
or
public
benefit
is
provided
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met,
there's
no
testimony
or
evidence
that
the
owners
are
attempting
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
here.
Standard
number:
six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property
I
believe
this
standard
has
not
been
met
because
the
hardship
is
a
direct
result
of
the
owners
expand
on
expansion
in
nineteen.
C
Ninety
nine
of
the
property
standard
number
seven,
the
requested
variation-
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
clickable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
in
City,
Council,
I
believe
or
M
the
Zoning
Administrator.
Sorry,
in
this
case,
several
alternatives
were
identified
to
the
owner,
including
one
that
allows
it
to
comply
with
the
ordinance
in
terms
of
lot
coverage
and
the
owner
has
rejected
those,
and
therefore
this
variation
is
not
the
least
deviation
possible.
I
believe
that
standard
hasn't
been
met.
A
C
G
A
B
Marilyn
firoozeh
contractor
applies
for
a
special
use
permit
for
a
public
utility
ComEd
and
offense
variation.
2506
Green
Bay
Road
is
located
in
the
b1,
a
business
district
in
the
OCS
C
Central
Street
overlay
district,
which
requires
a
special
use
permit
for
a
public
utility
zoning
code,
section
6,
9,
5
3.
The
applicant
proposes
two
concrete
walls,
fences
that
are
16
feet
and
20
feet
in
height,
where
concrete
material
is
not
permitted
for
fences.
B
M
My
name
is
carlo
Cavallaro
on
appearing
for
maryland.
Prusa
address
would
be
51,
90
Church
in
Skokie,
60
77,
so
I'm,
a
Carla
Caballero
external
affairs
manager
for
Commonwealth
Edison,
I'm
working
with
our
engineers
and
Marilyn
as
project
manager
for
this
is
referred
to
as
DCC
83.
They
give
you
the
background
on
what
we're
doing
and
why?
M
What
you
look
at
in
you
know
in
the
attention
Paquette
the
these
c83
is
a
existing
4
kv
station,
what
we're
going
through
in
the
process
of
eliminating
we're
in
a
long-term,
limiting
4
kv
and
transitioning
to
12
kV,
because
that
is
truly
the
standard
of
the
electrical
utility
industry.
For
this
part,
increased
capacity
obviously
go
from
4
to
12
additional
reliability,
availability
of
equipment,
because
12
kV
is
the
standard,
and
so
that's
the
big
picture.
M
Motivation
why
this
is
the
station
is
one
piece
of
this:
we
need
the
variance
for
the
station
itself,
it's
being
configured
to
a
DC
in
a
box
configuration
from
the
equipment,
original
equipment,
you'll
see
you'll,
see
that
the
new
design
is
basically
five
devices,
a
transformer
regulators
and
a
switch.
So
it's
a
cleaner
look.
It's
much
much
more
modern
and
efficient
the
in
conjunction
with
this
work
throughout
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
which
goes
for
several
blocks.
M
There's
a
bunch
of
there's
incidental
distribution
work
to
also
change
the
distribution
system
from
4
cv
to
12
TV,
so
that
includes
changing
transformers
and
lines
and
poles
and
upgrading
all
those
facilities.
So
this
is
kind
of
the
central
cog
in
the
piece
of
a
major
upgrade
for
the
neighborhood.
Is
the
easiest
way
to
describe
it
our
borders?
We
always
get
asked.
Can
you
tell
me
a
guideline?
We
don't
follow
the
grid
system
for
our
for
our
distribution
network.
M
So
when
I
say
the
general
area,
I
think
it
goes
west
beyond
Ryan
field,
it
goes
actually
into
Wilmette
and
then
extends
south
several
blocks
in
introduction
of
obviously
can't
go
that
far
east
thanks
for
the
lake
to
go
through
this
station,
I
think
with
the
facility
to
get
directly
to
the
concrete
walls.
The
concrete
walls
are
part
of
a
new
internal
standard
that
ComEd
has
for
fire
protection.
So
that's
the
baseline
rationales
for
why
the
why
the
walls
is
a
fence-
and
you
say
fire.
M
M
We,
basically
the
configuration
of
the
equipment
on
the
facade,
the
site,
along
with
the
the
was,
was
factored
and
it's
designed
in
the
way
to
have
the
transformer,
as
you
look
at
that
to
the
left
and
the
regulator's
to
the
other
side,
because
we
only
need
it
in
two
walls.
The
height
gives
you,
like.
The
height
is
part
of
that
study
going
to
the
facilities,
the
the
surrounding
properties
to
provide
that
perceived
protection.
So
that's
that's
the
reason
why
walls,
instead
of
a
fence
these
devices,
do
not
require
physical
protection.
M
We
don't
intend
for
people
to
be
playing
on
them
or
around
them,
but
you
can
walk
up
to
them.
It's
not
that
they're
they're,
inherently
unsafe,
it's
just!
They
do
not
require
the
fencing
for
security
purposes.
So
that's
generally
the
rationale
for
the
wall.
I
think.
The
other
reason
for
the
variance
is
simply
because
we
sit
in
this
zoning
district
as
a
utility
we're
making
changes
to
it.
M
The
facility
itself,
the
existing,
if
you
start
at
the
front
page
color
we're
going
we're
together
than
the
walls
significantly
lowering
the
liberal
footprint
for
the
equipment,
the
probably
the
tallest
piece
of
equipment.
Homicide
currently
now
is
probably
close
to
13
to
15
feet
on
the
end
wind
up
with
nine
foot,
six,
which
is
the
tallest
piece,
which
is
the
transformer
itself.
The
regulators
are
about
sixty
in
this
image,
which
is
about
the
I
think
the
switch
is
about
six
feet.
Regulators
are
about
five
feet.
M
There's
spec
sheets
for
everything
in
here
for
the
dunyah
for
the
specifics
in
the
back,
the
last
two
sheets
or
the
design,
give
you
the
actual
specifics
for
those
Heights
on
the
equipment
and
not
to
be
brief,
but
with
the
time
I'm
really
just
available
for
questions.
If
you
need
anything
else,
I'm
happy
to
answer
that.
Yes,.
G
The
DC
in
a
box
on
Church
Street,
so
recalling
that
I
drove
by
that
one
because
I
don't
recall
a
wall
there
and
sure
enough,
there's
just
a
fabric
sense,
so
what
I
would
call
a
fabric
line
sense.
So
is
this
the
first
of
what
will
be
many
applications
for
all
of
these
type
facilities
or
why
are
we
asking
for?
Why
are
you
asking
for
this
kind
of
structure
here
at
this
DC
in
a
box,
the.
M
The
true
answer
is
it's
half
yes
and
or
maybe
I
mean
because
it
really
goes
to
the
spacing
the
the
nature
of
the
equipment.
So
a
DC
in
a
box
configuration
depending
on.
What's
it's
adjacent
to?
Is
it
non?
You
know
it's
it's
fire
rating.
Well,
in
certain
areas,
we
can't
predict
what
they
built
next
to
us,
so
you
go
on
the
site
that
you
are.
We
do
the
thermal
dynamic,
the
internal
studies
changed
or
the
internal
standards
changed
literally
in
the
middle
of
DC
54.
M
M
We
would
have
been
presenting
that
before.
While
you
was
even
began
construction
we
would
have.
We
would
have
tackled
that
issue
at
this
stage.
Right
now,
I
do
plan.
We
do
have
designs
to
request
whether
that
goes
forward
or
not.
We
haven't
determined
yet.
So
it's
still
a
question
as
to
going
forward
whether
each
site
would
need
one.
It
really
is
going
to
depend
on
what
is
surrounding
the
site
and
and
what's
going
to
go
there.
We
continue
to
have
part
of
the
benefit
of.
M
This
is
there's
always
new
fluids
and
new
equipment
and
new
standards
and
studies
and
rationales
as
they're
doing
this,
because
they're
you're,
really
on
the
the
you
know
worst
case
worst
case
worst
case
kind
of
practice.
You
know
standards
there,
and
this
truly
is
it.
This
is
the
highest.
It's
an
internal
comment.
This
is
beyond
the
Illinois
fire
protection
or
the
city
code.
This
is
our
own
internal
standards,
so
we
look
at
those
as
a
one-off,
so
but
the
beauty
that
would
be
before
you
again
how.
M
M
M
C
M
C
I,
just
not
comfortable
with
a
conclusion
like
that,
our
scientists
concluded
this
is
necessary
without
actually
seeing
it
and
I.
Don't
I'm,
not
saying
they're
wrong,
but
I'm
just
I'm
not
comfortable
with
that
answer,
as
evidence
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
why
we
need
to
have
variation
for
a
wall.
That's
16
to
20
feet,
high
and
I
think
we're
we
recommended
to
City
Council
on
this
I
mean
I.
I
would
condition
anything
that
we
decide
on
to
the
council.
Seeing
that
study
and
being
convinced
themselves
that
this
measure
is
necessary.
C
G
M
D
Mean
I
because
I
think
in
you
know,
for
me
it
is
more
if
it's
if
it's
a
safety
issue,
certainly
I
think
it's
a
foregone
conclusion.
But
in
addition
to
that
I
think
it
looks
better
than
the
chain-link
fence,
but
I
think
that
it
if
it
dwarfs
the
height
of
the
building
adjacent,
it
could
look
monolithic.
You.
M
Know
it
there's
no
need
for
it
to
be
evolved,
it's
it
because
even
with
y-o-u,
it's
not
going
to
go
above.
It
was
never
been
proposed
to
be
the
same
okay.
So
it's
just
it's
just
to
contain
the
you
know
the
heat
that
explosions,
so
you
have
so
they're
16
feet
tall,
and
then
we
have
20
where's,
the
height
of
our
wall.
Here.
J
G
J
J
M
C
In
my
interpretation
of
that,
you've
got
a
nine
foot
tall
transformer
and
you've
got
a
16
foot
tall
building,
that's
approximately
six
feet
away
from
it
right,
and
so
your
line
of
sight
argument
is
well.
We
need
a
16
foot
tall
wall
there
to
protect
the
16
foot
tall
building.
That's
next
door
right
right.
So
why
do
we
need
a
20
foot
tall
wall
on
the
alley
side,
when
the
nearest
structure
that
we're
trying
to
protect
is
all
the
way
across
the
alley,
because.
M
M
E
G
A
question-
and
this
might
be
for
Melissa
versus
the
applicant.
This
seems
like
a
fire
and
Safety
Code
issue
as
opposed
to
a
zoning
issue.
So
I
mean
we're
calling
it
of
sense
because
that's
the
default
definition,
but
I
can't
interpret
fire
and
Safety
Code,
certainly
by
something
that
I
don't
have
in
front
of
me.
But
this
seems
like
a
fire
and
Safety
Code
issue
as
opposed
to
a
zoning
issue,
so
I'm
a
little
perplexed.
Maybe.
B
B
C
M
There's
a
there's,
actually,
no
I
mean
we
get.
We
get
general
permits
for
the
work
being
done
in
the
area
and
then
for
the
change
in
the
station.
There's
a
general
permit
because
there's
it's
it's
electrical
distribution
network,
so
I
mean
what
they're
going
to
permit
is
really
just
us
doing
the
work.
M
So
we
apply,
we
apply
for
the
permit
to
do
the
general
work,
but
not
the
specifics,
and
even
if
they
did
a
fire
safety
code,
if
it
went
to
them
these
standards
that
we're
building
to
go
far
beyond
the
city
code
and
we
can
satisfy
that
and
our
contractor
would
would
attest
to
that
in
a
heartbeat.
So.
C
C
Remember
one
applicant
a
long
time
ago
apply
like
he
wanted
to
put
his
attach
his
garage
where
it
was
previously
detached,
and
we
said
that
we
couldn't
do
that,
because
there
was
a
fire
safety
issue
and
something
something
like
that.
It's
obviously
a
much
different
case,
but
someone's
deciding
what's
required
from
a
fire
safety
standpoint
right,
I.
C
Does
but
it
doesn't
it
because,
in
my
view,
the
correct
recommendation
for
us
to
make
is
heck
yeah.
You
can
put
up
a
fence,
that's
as
high
as
it
needs
to
be
minimally
to
be
safe
from
a
fire
standpoint,
but
I'm,
not
comfortable,
saying
it
needs
to
be
16
feet
or
20
feet,
because
we
a
we,
don't
have
the
study
that
concluded
that
and
B
I
don't
know.
Well
so
I.
M
We
can
time
with
that.
We
have
no
problem
because
we
can
get
circle
back
with
staff
and
make
sure
that
this
you
know
they
have
the
information
they
need
and
if
we've
got
to
meet
with
whether
it's
the
fire
marshal
or
the
fire
department
to
show
them
that
it
goes
beyond
the
safety
standards.
Because
the
reality
is
we
go
the
you
know
the
fire
department
will
show
up,
but
without
our
area
operator
they're
going
to
you
know
they'll,
either
spray
foam
or
wait
for
us
to
get
there.
M
I
mean
it's
just
really
the
way
these
things
are
monitored,
24/7
by
us
and
they
ring
directly.
So
we
call
the
fire
department
before
they're
called
by
anybody
else.
I
mean
it's
all
extreme
circumstances,
of
course,
but
to
the
other
point,
I
don't
want
to
gloss
over.
You
know
for
the
aesthetics
of
the
law
itself,
there's
a
form
liner
proposed
the
color,
the
color
scheme,
to
be
matching
the
area,
so
it
blends
in.
So
we
do.
We
have
attempted
to
accommodate
that
as
well.
So
I
think
to
your
point.
M
A
M
D
M
M
C
Actually,
a
great
point,
because
by
getting
rid
of
the
fence,
you're
actually
creating
a
litter
collection.
Receptacle,
that's
shaped
like
this,
so
whatever
blows
down
the
alley
or
whatever
other
people
throw
it
down
on
your
space
is
going
to
collect
around
these
heat
generating
transformers
that
are
a
threat
to
create
a
fire
by
not
having
a
loll
around
that.
Well.
H
M
H
M
M
H
M
H
M
Pretty
good
so
I
mean
there's
really
it's
the
best
material
that
we
come
to,
plus
you
factor
in
cost,
so
I'm
sure
there's
something.
That's
probably
that
could
probably
be
better.
That
would
be
more
expensive,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
what
that
would
be
and
if
it,
and
if
we're
not
familiar
with
it-
and
it's
not
an
industry
standard,
we're
not
going
to
try
it
out.
G
M
Know
that
I
mean
I
haven't.
This
is
my
first
one
with
the
walls.
The
standard
went
into
place
last
well,
just
women
last
night
in
our
last
year.
So
so
and
then
again
it
depends
on
the
configuration
we
have
many
of
these
DC
and
boxes
that
are
in
transmission,
right
aways,
which
there's
nothing
adjacent
to
them,
so
they
wouldn't,
they
wouldn't
need
anything.
So
when
we
end
up
in
more
of
the
urban
area,
then
yes,
they
would.
A
D
Think
it
sounds
like
this
is
necessary.
I
think
that
the
wall
is
aesthetically
more
pleasing
than
the
fence
that
was
there.
I
do
agree
with
Carol
that
I
would
really
like
to
see
lights
on
that
area
as
a
matter
of
public
safety
in
the
alleyway,
and
you
know,
probably
a
slightly
more
pleasant
venue
overall,
just
walk
it
down
the
alley,
and
so
and
I
don't
know.
D
If
that's
something
that
the
contractors
would
consider,
but
I
think
that
that
might
be
a
good
idea
other
than
that
I
I
think
that
we
certainly
would
I
would
be
inclined
to
approve
this
project
predicated
on
its
necessity
as
a
safety
measure
and
also
because
on
balance,
I
think
it
is
aesthetically
very
much
acceptable.
I.
G
Agree
with
Muffy's
comments,
my
question
would
be
as
if
we
talked
about
lighting
the
site,
whether
there
would
be
light
pollution
that
would
spill
over
I
think
it's
an
adjacent
residential
building
just
to
the
west
of
that
alley,
and
if
I
have
my
bedroom
window
looking
out
over
the
site,
I'd
rather
see
a
dark
brick
wall
and
a
lit
DC
in
a
box
spilling
into
my
my
bedroom
window.
So
that
would
be
my
only
concern
with
talking
about
lighting
the
site.
G
C
D
C
So,
just
in
my
view,
I
agree,
I
think
this
is
a
safety
issue
and
I
think
we
should
recommend
that
City
Council
approved
some
form
of
a
fence
and
whatever
the
right
height
is,
should
be
City,
Council's
determination.
But
in
my
view,
the
conditions
we
should
impose
on
the
recommendation
are
one:
the
addition
of
lighting
that
mitigates
against
the
safety
hazard
created
by
enclosing
a
space
with
concrete
walls
and
two
that
the
heat
dispersion
study
that
was
conducted.
That
gives
rise
to
the
conclusion
that
these
are
the
appropriate
wall.
Heights
be
shared
with
City
Council.
A
Actually
agree
with
you
all
when
you
talk
about
this
security
issues
in
especially
because
it
is
so
close
to
the
school,
and
there
is
a
new
residential
right
across
the
hallway
across
the
alleyway
from
it.
I
do
agree
that
some
type
of
camera
some
type
of
softer
light.
It's
not
really
a
sense.
When
it's
a
concrete
wall,
it's
not
feed-through!
You
can't
see
anybody
standing
back
there
and
I
did
see
cars
parked
adjacent
to
it
as
well.
A
K
A
A
A
Number
two,
the
requested
special
uses
in
keeping
with
purposes
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
and
the
zoning
ordinance
is
amended
from
time
to
time
and
utilities
upgrade
are
included
in
that,
so
that
standard
has
been
met.
The
requested
special
use
will
not
cause
a
negative
cumulative
effect
when
its
effect
is
considered,
in
conjunction
with
the
communicative
effect
of
various
special
uses
of
all
types
in
the
immediate
neighbourhood
and
the
effect
of
the
proposed
type
of
special
use
upon
the
city
as
a
whole.
A
Since
the
DC
in
the
Box
technology
is
new
and
has
been
moving
into
all
of
the
sites
and
Evans
and
I
believe
that
standard
has
been
met,
then
requested
special
uses
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
value
of
property
in
the
neighborhood
I.
Believe
that
step
the
standard
has
been
met.
Does
anyone
agree?
Yes,.
G
C
A
A
We
can't
make
their
determination
I
mean
I
can
anyway,
okay,
number
six.
The
requested
special
use
does
not
cause
undue
traffic
congestion,
I
think
that's
not
applicable
in
this
point
number
seven,
the
requested
special
use
preserves
significant
historical
and
architectural
resources.
I
think
that's
not
applicable.
In
this
point,
the
requested
special
use
deserves
significant
natural
and
environmental
features,
I'm,
not
sure
that
that's
even
applicable
in
this
point
and
number
nine.
C
C
A
C
G
A
In
favor
aye
any
opposed
okay,
special
youth
has
been
granted
now
we'll
go
through
the
standards
for
major
variation,
and
this
is
applicable
for
the
sense
of
16
and
20
foot.
Concrete
wall
fences
around
the
DC
in
a
box,
okay,
the
first
standard,
the
requested
variation-
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
the
adjoining
properties.
G
E
A
A
A
Okay
number:
four:
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience.
It's
a
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
to
be
carried
out,
not
that
this
is
so
very
applicable,
but
I
do
believe
that
you
do
need
a
wall
around
this
concrete
I
haven't
seen
the
study.
I,
don't
know
if
it
needs
to
be
16
to
20
feet.
Well,.
D
A
Opposition
okay
standard
has
been
met,
number
5.
The
purpose
of
this
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property,
or
public
benefit
has
provided
I
see,
the
public
benefit
is
being
provided
in
the
upgrade
of
the
utility,
so
I
feel
like
this
standard
has
been
met.
Any
comments,
number
six,
you
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship-
does
not
be
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property.
I
think
this
is
not
applicable
number
seven.
A
G
A
G
C
I'll
make
a
motion
then
sure
in
the
matter:
zba
6:17,
zmj,
b,
0,
0,
3
5,
with
respect
to
the
property
of
2506
Green
Bay,
Road
I,
move
that
we
recommend
I,
move
that
we
recommend
to
City
Council
that
they
grant
the
major
variation
requested
on
the
following
conditions:
one
that
the
city
have
received
in
advance
and
considered
comm
Ed's.
The
study
comment
commissioned
that
specific
to
this
property
and
specific
to
this
design
that
studies
the
effects
of
heat
dispersion
from
these
transformers.
G
C
So
two
condition
is
that
the
variation
should
be
granted,
but
only
to
the
minimum
extent
required
for
what,
for
concrete
wall,
slash
fences
to
be
erected
that
meet
the
requirements
of
that
heat.
Dispersion
study
3
that
B,
that
the
property
owner
slash
project
developer
be
required
to
include
lights,
on
lights,
on
the
interior,
and/or
exterior
of
these
walls
to
the
extent
necessary
to
mitigate
against
the
safety
problem
caused
by
building
a
16
to
20
foot
high
concrete
wall
enclosure
and
for
that
the
property
otherwise
be
developed.
In
accordance
with
the
testimony
and
documents
submitted.