►
From YouTube: Zonning Board of Appeals Meeting 3-21-2017
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).
B
C
E
B
C
E
B
Favor
Hey
any
old
business.
Okay
on
to
new
business.
First
I
am
going
to
now
swear
in
anyone
who
plans
to
give
testimony
in
any
of
the
cases
scheduled
for
tonight.
Could
you
raise
your
right
hand?
Do
you
swear
and
affirm
that
the
testimony
you
provide
in
connection
will
this
case
will
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
Thank
you.
Unless
it
did,
you
read
the
first
record.
A
1121
Sherman
Avenue,
Matt
Rogers
zoning
consultant
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
second
story.
Addition
at
a
single
family
residence
in
the
r32
family
residential
district.
The
applicant
proposes
a
1.9
foot,
north
interior
side
yard
setback
where
five
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code,
section
68
for
7
a-3
and
a
nine
point.
Four
foot
front
yard
setback
where
13.2
feet
is
required.
A
nine
point.
Four
feet
currently
exists:
zoning
code,
section
641
905,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
A
G
G
The
developers
looking
to
build
a
force
four-bedroom
house
on
the
property
without
changing
any
of
the
footprints
of
the
building,
and
it
is
proposed
that
this
is
not
a
teardown
we're
proposing
that
fifty
percent
of
the
wall
structure
will
be
maintained
in
order
to
to
keep
the
setbacks
where
they
are.
The
developers
also
looking
to
remove
some
of
the
impervious
surface
on
the
property,
because,
since
it
is
a
substandard
lot,
there
is
not
a
lot
of
yard
around
and
she
is
doing
what
she
can
in
order
to
make
the
property
as
pervious
as
possible.
G
With
this,
this
board
have
quite
often
heard
cases
where
we
have
where
you
have
excuse
me,
where
you
have
looked
at
properties
that
were
being
built
on
an
existing
footprint.
To
add
a
second
story
addition:
this
property
is
one
that
sort
of
falls
into
line
with
that.
It's
always
been
discussed
that
it
is
a
burden
to
ask
a
property
owner
to
build
setbacks
on
a
second
story
where
they
do
not
exist
on
a
first
story
because
of
issues
of
weight,
distribution
of
issues
of
just
the
general
construction
practices.
G
That
would
need
to
be
done
in
order
to
move
that
setback
in
the
number.
The
particular
neighborhood
that
it's
in
does
have
a
number
of
houses
that
already
exist
that
are
in
the
two
and
a
half
story:
three
story
height.
This
was
not
a
height
variance
that
we're
being
asked
for
that.
We're
asking
for
here
we're
building
within
the
x
y&z
of
the
building
envelope
and
would
hope
that
you
would
approve
this
particular
project.
I'll.
Take
any
questions
that
you
might
have
I'm.
B
G
C
H
F
G
A
H
G
F
C
Just
a
couple
questions
to
summarize
my
understanding
of
the
application
tonight.
It's
my
understanding
that
the
application
being
made
is
simply
to
obtain
permission
to
build
straight
up
from
the
existing
footprint
of
the
house.
That
is
correct
and
there's
no
further
encroachment
on
the
second
story
than
there
is
on
the
existing
first
story.
That.
C
B
C
I'll
just
kick
off
the
deliberations,
which
is
I,
think
the
applicant
thumbed
up
nicely
that
in
the
past,
when
this
board
has
considered
application
similar
to
this,
that
involves
simply
building
up
and
without
further
encroachment
that
it's
been
our
practice
to
approve
these
projects
in
the
best
interest
of
modernizing
and
allowing
growth
of
existing
non-conforming
properties
in
the
city
and
I,
be
in
favor
of
that.
In
this
case,
ok,.
E
F
Think
it's
a
good
proposal,
I'm
looking
at
the
the
variant
standards-
and
this
is
a
question
that
I
have
for
those
members
of
the
board
that
have
been
serving
longer.
So
when
it
comes
to
the
issue
of
whether
this
is
this
proposals
based
on
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
or
public
benefit,
I
could
see
the
public
benefit
aspect
to
this
proposal,
as
the
property,
as
I
understand,
has
been
sitting
vacant
and
has
not
been
cared
for
etc.
F
C
C
Don't
have
in
front
of
me
the
standard
but
there's
another
potential
exception
as
well
in
the
event
that
it
is
being
developed
solely
to
generate
additional
income,
which
this
case
I
believe
it
probably
is,
and,
however
the
pennant,
the
public
benefit,
I
think,
is
strong
of
having
a
rather
than
a
dilapidated
single-story
home
having
a
newly
renovated
developed,
two-story
home
on
a
block
that
has
other
two
story.
Homes
I
would.
B
Agree
also,
I
would
like
to
add
that
bringing
this
property
putting
the
second
story
on
most
of
the
ones
that
are
surrounding
it
are
built
like
this
or
have
a
second
story.
So
this
brings
this
property
up
to
the
market
and
kind
of
standardized.
The
entire
area
so
I
see
the
public
benefit
in
that.
Well,.
D
The
other
thing
is
that
the
variance
that
is
looked
for
it
is
for
the
setback
we
aren't
talking
for
variance
about
the
second
floor,
so
it
is
only
about
how
much
this
encroachment
indoor
setback
is
connected
to
additional
profit.
I,
don't
think
that
it
does
the
case.
It's
simply
a
second
floor.
Its
renovation
I
would
agree.
Eight.
The
project
is
sensitive
to
the
neighbor
on
the
north,
so
I
think
it's
okay.
B
Okay,
I'll
move
on
to
the
standards
now
I'll
I'll
read
them
and
then,
if
you
have
a
comment
you
can,
let
me
know:
okay,
the
standards
for
major
variations
number
one.
The
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
youth
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
I
feel
like
it
will
bring
this
up
to
the
adjoining
properties.
C
B
C
B
F
C
D
B
Other
kind
of
standard
has
been
that
stand
at
number
five.
The
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property,
or
a
public
benefit
is
provided.
I
feel
like
this
standard
has
been
met
in
providing
a
public
benefit
in
bringing
this
property
up
to
the
marketing
level
of
the
rest
of
the
block.
I
agree.
C
B
Six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property.
Of
course,
the
owner
of
the
property
is
asking
for
this
variation.
However,
it's
the
only
way
that
this
property
can
be
developed,
so
I
feel
like
this
standard
has
been
met,
agreed
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
issues
of
suspicion
or
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
F
C
A
Joel
heininger
architect
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
second
story
addition
to
a
single
family
residence
in
the
r-1
single-family
residential
district.
The
applicant
proposes
an
8.5
foot
street
side
yards
that
back
where
15
feet
is
required
and
6.6
feet
currently
exists.
Zoning
code,
section
6,
8,
28
a
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
I
Evening,
my
name
is
Joel
heininger
and
the
owner
of
JH
design,
architects
and
I've
been
contracted
by
Matt
and
Julie
Pella
right,
who
are
the
owners
of
22-16
wesley.
They
purchased
the
house
in
2015
and
have
really
enjoyed
living
in
the
city
of
Evanston.
The
growing
family
has
necessitated
more
habitable
space.
They
have
three
young
children,
ranging
in
ages
of
eight
months
to
five
years
old.
I
The
current
layout
has
two
bedrooms
and
one
bathroom
on
the
first
floor,
but
this
is
not
enough
space
for
the
family.
The
existing
addict
has
Headroom
down
the
center
of
the
house,
but
due
to
the
relatively
low
roof
peak
height
and
the
roof
slope,
there
is
not
much
usable
area.
There
is
certainly
not
enough
area
to
create
multiple
bedrooms
and
bathrooms.
The
solution
we
came
up
with
was
to
create
a
new
stairway
leading
to
the
second-floor
addition.
I
The
new
addition
will
include
bedrooms
bathrooms
a
small
laundry
and
furnace
room
to
accommodate
the
needs
of
their
growing
family.
This
is
shown
in
the
set
of
drawings
that
was
previously
submitted.
The
house
is
located
on
the
corner
of
wesley
avenue
and
north
street.
The
proposed
edition
wall
on
the
north
side
is
aligning
with
the
current
exterior
wall
of
the
first
floor
below
for
the
zoning
variance
we
are
requesting.
The
existing
8.5
dimension
be
allowed
instead
of
the
15-foot
side
yard.
I
This
will
allow
for
an
efficient
layout
for
the
bedrooms
and
bathrooms,
as
well
as
help
to
create
attractive
elevations
and
a
smaller
massing
facing
north
street.
We
have
incorporated
gable,
roof,
dormers
and
a
recess
at
the
scare
way
as
added
elements
to
create
visual
interest,
instead
of
just
a
plain
vertical
wall.
I
D
B
E
D
B
C
B
Number
two:
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
since
the
original
footprint
is
what
we're
following
those
variations.
If
this
is
going
to
be
done
with
the
testimony
presented,
it's
in
keeping
with
those
same
original
footprint,
so
I
agree
to
standard
internet.
Yes,.
D
B
D
B
Five,
the
purpose
of
this
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property,
or
a
public
benefit
is
provided.
I
think
that
this
standard
has
been
met
in
both
ways.
It
provides
a
public
benefit
by
bringing
this
property
up
to
the
surrounding
properties,
and
it
also
is
not
for
additional
income,
but
additional
space
for
this
family,
so
I
believe
the
spent
standard
has
been
that
agreeing.
C
B
I
C
C
D
C
A
Just
a
reminder
that
you
probably
got
an
email
yesterday,
I
believe
for
your
County
ethics
statement.
Make
sure
you
do
that
one,
the
county
does
come
after
you
and
give
you
a
ten
dollar
fine
and
make
my
life
difficult.
If
you
don't
fill
it
out
on
time,
so
please
make
sure
you
do
fill
it
out
on
time.
In
addition,
you'll
get
one
in
the
mail
that
is
the
city,
one
that
one
has
to
be
returned
to
the
city,
so
they
are
two
separate
things
so
watch
for
that.