►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 6/20/2017
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
this
is
a
public
hearing
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
The
zoning
ordinance
empowers
us
to
hear
references
from
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
will
be
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
to
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.
A
Each
case
will
be
introduced
by
staff,
and
a
list
of
documents
will
be
read
into
the
record
when
the
applicant,
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.
A
D
B
E
A
Then
I
will
move
on
to
swear
in
anyone
who
plans
to
give
testimony
in
any
of
the
cases
scheduled
for
tonight.
Please
raise
your
right
hand.
If
you
plan
on
getting
testimony,
do
you
swear
and
affirm?
The
testimony
you
will
provide
in
connection
with
this
case
will
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
Thank
you
first
case
8:18
Lake
Street.
B
Charles
Davidson
project
manager
applies
for
a
major
zoning
relief
to
raise
the
roof
of
an
existing
one-story
commercial
building
and
add
a
second
story:
mezzanine
level
in
the
c2
commercial
district,
the
applicant
requests
a
0
foot,
front
yard
setback
where
5
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code,
section
610
for
7a,
is
zero
foot,
west
interior
side
yard
setback
where
15
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code,
section
610
for
7
C
and
a
0
foot,
Street
side
yard
setback
where
5
feet
is
required.
B
Zoning
code
section
6
10
for
7b
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
Documents
included
as
part
of
the
record
include
variation
application,
submitted,
May
11th,
2017
standards,
form
zoning
analysis,
plat
of
survey,
site
plans,
elevations
and
renderings
image
of
property,
aerial
view
of
property,
zoning
map
of
property
and
dapper
meeting
minutes,
excerpt
of
May
3rd
May,
17th
and
May
31st
2017.
B
F
G
Evening,
everyone
Charles
Davidson
14:28
9/7
to
Illinois
I'm,
the
project
manager,
development
manager
for
the
project
I
have
with
me
Lee
Katz
and
Danny
Blair.
The
property
owners,
the
property
before
you
formerly
the
Allegretti
rug
store
at
8
1,
8,
Lake
Street,
has
operated
since
1970.
The
existing
building
on
the
property
has
a
5,000
square-foot
single-story
facility,
two
brick
building
built
to
the
property
line
on
the
front
in
both
side
yards.
G
The
rear
of
the
building
has
a
service
garage
with
a
setback
along
the
east
line
at
what
is
Sherman
Avenue
at
the
main
Sherman
Avenue,
but
more
of
a
side
lot:
Sherman
Avenue.
The
property
is
bordered
by
Lake
Street
to
the
north
lake
street.
On
this
neighborhood
Lake
Street
on
this
block
consists
of
the
Metropolitan
pumping
station
across
the
street,
the
police
station
on
the
corner
of
elm
wood
to
the
west
to
the
west.
G
We
have
the
Living
Hope
Calvary
Church,
which
continues
until
Lake
Elmwood,
and
then
we
have
a
few
homes
that
border
our
property
on
the
rear
to
the
east
of
the
property.
We
have
Sherman
Avenue
and
the
L
and
metro
tracks.
It's
not
B
Sherman
Avenue,
though
I
kind
of
confusing,
because
of
Sherman
Avenue
on
the
west
side
of
the
metro
tracks
as
well
so
to
the
south,
is
an
alley.
G
The
city
of
Evanston
alley
and
across
from
there
is
a
parking
lot
which
my
clients,
also
on
with
the
with
the
building
and
I,
continue
south
the
Leapfrog
development
that
addressed
on
Greenwood,
as
Melissa
stated,
the
application
for
you
is
for
an
office
facility.
The
plan
is
to
leave
the
existing
building
footprint
as
it
is.
The
request
is
to
raise
the
parapets
on
the
front
of
the
building,
which
I'll
show
you
on
the
slides
to
align
with
the
existing
building.
G
Parapets,
it's
kind
of
a
unique
feature
of
the
building
the
front
of
the
building
is
slightly
lower
than
the
rest
of
the
buildings
were
part
of
our
renovation
is
actually
to
raise
that
to
one
level
in
the
interior
of
the
building
will
be
gutting.
The
building
out
to
construct
the
new
offices,
there'll,
be
new
windows
on
the
east
side
and
new
vertical
skylight
panel
for
the
bring
natural
Lighting's
facility.
So
at
this
time
the
applicant
is
the
applicant
we're
requesting
a
zero
front
yard
setback
as
we
stated,
and
it's
zero
side
yard
setbacks.
H
G
Correct,
and
so
if
you
want
to
look
at
this
slide
between
columns
a
and
B
on
the
right-hand
side
of
the
building,
that
is
that's
the
existing
footprint,
those
parapets
we
are
raising
to
match
the
parapet
height
that
goes
from
column
lines
B
to
G
it
just.
It
just
happens
that
they're
a
little
bit.
You
know
the
way
the
building
set
up,
it's
a
little
bit
shorter
in
the
front.
The
18
inches
is
the
difference.
G
And
so,
if
you
want
to
kind
of
walk
you
through
the
plans
and
kind
of
give
you
a
little
bit
of
a
background
to
it
so
again,
that's
the
front
facade
as
it
is
today
in
the
upper
left
hand,
photograph
the
lower
left
hand.
Photograph
is
the
garage
in
the
back,
we're
not
doing
any
work
to
the
garage.
We're
going
to
do
some
restoration
work
on
the
exterior
painting,
but
we
don't
have
any
plans
to
do
any
renovation
work
for
the
garage.
G
This
is
the
existing
footprint
as
it
is
today.
We'll
look
at
the
stated
will
gut
the
interior
with
the
request
before
it
really
affects,
what's
happening
between
column
lines,
a
and
B
on
the
right
hand,
side.
This
is
a
layout
of
the
proposed
office
space.
It's
a
covert
facility
that
we're
proposing
to
construct
here
kind
of
mixed
of
closed
offices,
open
offices,
a
lot
of
natural
light
in
open
space.
G
This
is
the
roof
plan
kind
of
giving
you
an
outline
part
of
this.
Our
permit
plans
will
be
to
construct
a
skylight
down
the
middle,
which
is
the
large
bar
in
the
middle
there
and
then
have
a
open,
sunroom
recreation
space
on
the
top
floor,
which
we're
not
planning
any
guests
up
there,
but
it's
more
of
a
gathering
space
for
the
facility
with
the
stair
that
goes
up
to
it,
for
you
is
the
front
and
rear
elevations
on
the
upper
left-hand
side.
G
You
can
see
what
we're
doing
with
the
roof,
we're
going
to
be
taking
the
existing
building
down
and
then
bringing
up
a
new
facade
and
a
facade
that
more
aligns
with
the
rest
of
the
east
and
west
side
of
the
buildings
south
of
d-line.
The
parapets
between
a
and
B
will
reconstruct
up
to
that
same
line,
and
some
of
that
is
lasers,
not
working.
So
a
lot
of
that
you
can
see
on
the
plant
the
drawings
below
the
photograph
to
the
upper
right.
G
I
C
G
A
G
A
G
Let's
just
get
you
the
slides
for
you,
so
on
the
upper
photograph
we
have
the
East
elevation.
Currently,
there's
smaller
glass
block
windows,
like
you
see
in
the
rear
of
the
building,
we're
going
to
open
it
up
and
provide
glass,
but
you
know
more
natural
light
facing
Sherman
Avenue
and
the
Metro
Rail
stop
on
the
east
side
on
the
west
side.
Rather,
we
really
don't
have
anything
going
on.
We
don't
have.
We
don't
have
the
ability
there
with
a
setback
you
can
kind
of
see.
G
If
you
look
at
the
lower
left,
you
can
kind
of
see
the
line
of
the
existing
parapet
remaining.
That's
really.
What
we're
asking
for
today
is
to
raise
that
parapet
up
on
the
West
elevation.
You
can
kind
of
see
the
faint
line
on
the
west
side,
that's
kind
of
where
we're
bringing
that
up
and
as
well
raising
the
front
parapet.
High
more
of
a
perspective
of
the
office
space,
a
cut-through
of
the
of
the
rooftop,
a.
G
Little
better
perspective
of
the
front
facade
so
again
with
the
application.
The
footprint
of
the
buildings
not
changing.
It's
just
the
height
of
the
building,
so
kind
of
walk
you
through
the
interior
of
the
building
will
consist
of
about
40
desks.
The
space
will
be
designed
for
a
co
work
facility
will
be
broken
out
there.
Private
offices,
conference
rooms,
open
office,
space
break
rooms,
some
additional
amenity
space,
the
attentive,
a
very
open
space
with
a
lot
of
natural
light.
G
The
second
floor
addition
with
the
skylight
will
increase,
you
know,
will
increase
the
window
size
to
help
contribute
to
the
design
intent
for
this
project
kind
of
our
target.
Tenants
are
Evanston
residents
who
live
nearby.
You
know
we're
seeking
the
lifestyle
in
connection
of
having
an
office
in
Evanston.
It
allows
them
to
have
a
convenient
office.
You
know
that
they
have
all
the
amenities
where
they
can
share
the
cost
and
not
necessarily
have
to
bring
that
into
the
house.
Can.
H
K
G
Went
through
that
at
dapper,
it's
permitted
at
its
height,
okay,
thanks,
correct,
so
project.
You
know
it's
kinda
products
is
really
an
adaptive
reuse
to
the
building
the
areas
you
know
really
considered
part
of
downtown.
It's
a
walking
really
part
of
the
walking
neighborhood
with
a
connection
at
is
Dempster
corridor,
the
location
as
a
characteristics.
Our
clientele
desire,
you
know,
benefits
from
having
a
mix
of
land,
uses
it
clear
and
convenient
transportation
alternatives
and
multiple
public
transportation
hubs.
G
A
A
A
J
H
J
I
see
okay,
because
I
didn't
understand.
I
didn't
understand
that
my
only
other
question
would
be.
Where
are
these
people
going
to
park
that
are
going
to
work
here,
because
it
sounds
like
you're
going
to
add
like
what
40
to
50
occupants
in
here,
because
there's
no
parking
in
this
area
now
so
I
just
wondering
where
people
are
going
to
park
their
work
here.
You.
G
You
know
so
our
target
market
is
more
of
a
clientele.
We
see
them
using
all
modes
of
transportation
inside
the
existing
facility.
We're
going
to
have
bike
parking
for
them,
I
see
them
coming
through
public
transportation,
as
well
as
as
parking
so
I
mean.
We
recognize
that
there's
some
parking
issues
in
the
neighborhood
in
South
downtown,
but
you
know
with
the
forty
desk,
we
see
an
average
daily
occupancy
of
about
20
people
in
the
office
in
that
facility.
Right
now.
Currently,
Allegretti
has,
you
know
had
when
it
when
they're
at
their
prime.
G
G
H
J
Not
I'm
not
saying
it
isn't
possible,
I'm
just
saying
what
you
know
for
thought
has
gone
into
that,
because
you
guys
have
already
created
a
parking
lot
there
for
leapfrog
and
they
are
parked
there
double-parked
in
there,
as
it
is
now
just
the
current
leapfrog
employees
for
the
building.
That's
it
was
at
8:07.
Greenwood
is
at
the
the
address.
So
if
you're
going
to
add
another
30
to
40
people,
you
know
I'm
just
wondering
where
they're
going
to
park.
If.
J
About
is
where
there's
a
construction
how's
the
construction
traffic
going
to
work
during
this
project,
because
when
there
is
construction
going
on
at
the
other
building
construction
trucks
just
pulled
into
the
le
stopped
and
parked
there
and
blocked
everybody's
garages
and
whatnot,
and
it
was
unpleasant
to
say
the
least.
So
I
just
wondering
is
well
I.
G
C
So
there
are
a
couple
of
co-working
facilities
and
on
Chicago
Avenue
close
to
Main
Street,
where
there
really
is
a
dearth
of
parking
as
well
always
has
been,
and
and
truly
the
majority
of
the
clients
who
use
the
co-working
facility
on
Chicago
Avenue
by
Main
Street
come
via
to
L
or
the
metro
or
their
local
I
met
the
entire
reason
they
want.
The
co-working
space
is
because
they
have
their
home
office,
but
they
need
a
professional
professional
appearance
on
occasion
and
that's
why
they
go
to
the
co-working
facilities.
C
J
C
L
A
C
F
M
M
M
Parking
is
so
bad
that
this
year
my
street
hasn't
been
cleaned
at
all
or
all
last
year,
because
there's
always
air
and
cars
around
the
same
thing
with
snow
going
and
the
thought
of
even
more
people
than
100
people
hanging
around
my
neighborhood
all
day,
long
frankly,
it's
intolerable
now.
This
would
even
be
more
intolerable.
Thank
you.
L
My
name
is
Galen
Immersion
and
I
have
the
property
of
1440
71st
Street?
Oh
I'm.
Sorry,
that's
the
wrong!
One!
I
have
the
property
of
a
kid
914.
What's
my
address
14th
one?
Okay,
my
property
is
doing
14:19
veggies.
Thank
you,
I'm,
a
little
nervous.
My
property
is
directly.
My
garage
is
open
directly
out
into
the
Leapfrog.
L
Please
parking
lot
behind
me
and
the
Leapfrog
folks
have.
Basically
they
feel
that
that's
very
alley.
Sometimes
I
cannot
back
out
of
my
Park
out
of
my
garage
I,
see,
there's
parties
that
go
on
in
that
area.
I
feel
like
having
this
other
building
to
the
north
of
that
is
going
to
cause
more
of
that
kind
of
appropriation
of
the
alley.
So
that's
one
of
my
problems.
The
other
problem
is
that
they'll
see
the
garbage.
L
The
way
that
garbage
is
handled
at
the
first
facility
is
that
boxes
cardboard
boxes
that
should
be
put
into
a
recycling
bin
are
used,
are
shoved
into
the
garbage
cans
and
they
keep
the
lids
up.
So
our
alley
is
one
of
the
alleys
in
Evanston
that
has
a
rat
problem
because
there's
food
in
those
things
that
there
are
bears
when
the
boxes
are
put
in
there.
There
is
no
way
to
keep
the
rats
out.
So
there's
there's
that
and
the
other
thing
that
I
would
like
to
take
issue
with
is
this
is
not
downtown
Evanston.
L
It
is
on
the
other
side
of
the
tracks.
It
is
in
a
residential
area.
And
again
my
thing
is
parking.
It's
like
there
is.
You
know
we
have
apartment
buildings
across
the
street
from
us.
We
have
condos
across
the
street
from
us
there
number
of
people,
it's
not
just
single-family
residence.
We
already
have
a
lot
of
parking
on
our
street
and
I
know
that
Lee
has
rented
spaces
for
tour
leapfrog
at
the
pilot.
What
was
the
Holiday
Inn
and
is
now
another
I'm?
L
A
H
Then
you
know
I
just
address
that
I
think
these
are
really
great
comments
from
the
neighbors
and
thank
you
all
for
coming
in.
Just
to
remind
you.
The
scope
of
what
we're
here
to
decide
tonight
is
whether
or
not
to
grant
a
variation
to
build
straight
up
from
the
existing
facade
of
the
building.
I.
Think
the
kinds
of
concerns
you're
raising
are
the
exact
kinds
of
concerns
you
should
raise
with
your
neighbor
and
it's
a
writ
as
a
residential
neighborhood.
H
As
I
said,
I
visit
the
leap
front
property
quite
a
bit
they're
a
client
of
mine
and
I
know
what
it's
like
to
try
to
park
on
those
streets,
and
but
there
they
are.
This
dis
building
is
in
a
c2
commercial
district,
even
though
it
neighbors
on
residential
properties-
and
these
are
conversations
that
you
should
be
having,
especially
about
trash
and
litter
and
the
problems
that
it
causes
conversations
to
have
with
your
neighbor
and
trying
to
resolve
these
things.
But
I
do
think.
C
A
G
H
I,
just
just
a
comment:
further
I
do
I,
do
appreciate
the
neighbors
comments
and
I
they're,
not
exactly
within
the
scope,
but
I
certainly
would
encourage
the
applicant
as
the
other
neighbor
in
the
equation,
to
try
to
work
with
your
neighbors
to
make
the
construction
smooth
flow
smoothly
and
to
make
the
operation
of
your
property
flow
smoothly
for
your
neighborhood
and
other
than
that.
This
case,
this
type
of
case
is
fairly
routine
for
us
as
a
board.
H
I
think,
most
of
the
time
when
we're
faced
with
existing
non-conforming
properties,
where
an
applicant
seeks
to
legally
build
up
and
just
needs
the
permission
to
do
that,
it
seems
like
we
routinely
grant
this
type
of
request,
and
this
project
seems
like
a
great
repurposing
of
this
existing
property
and
I.
Don't
see
why
our
analysis
in
this
case
would
be
different.
I.
C
Agree
that
it's
a
really
nicely
put
together
project
I
know
that
there
were
times
that
Allegretti
had
large
numbers
of
people
coming
to
his
warehouse,
and
so
I
think
that
there
will
be
a
flow
of
people
in
and
out
here
the
repurposing
of
the
building.
You
know
by
right.
They
could
have
really
built
up
on
this
property
and
they
chose
to
do
an
adaptive
reuse.
That
is
very
much
in
scale
with
what
was
there
and
just
improving
the
appearance
of
it
and
repurposing.
C
A
B
D
A
D
Standards
for
major
variations,
zoning
Orban
section
six,
three,
eight
twelve
standards,
four
major
variations
number
one:
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
joining
properties.
I
think
this
standard
has
been
met,
even
though
we've
heard
from
neighbors
regarding
issues
that
they
have,
and
they
have
voiced
tonight
but
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
requested
number
to
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met.
D
D
This
standard
has
been
met.
The
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
as
distinguishing
from
a
mere
inconvenience
if
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out,
as
stated
before
this
property,
since,
as
as
is
right
now
it's
not
being
changed
footprint,
it
is
only
going
up
in
height
number.
Five
of
the
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property
or
public
benefit
is
provided,
there's
nothing.
It's
a
commercial
property.
D
The
Allah
number,
six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship,
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property,
it's
just
being
developed
to
create
a
better
property
and
a
better
use
for
the
property,
as
it
sits
right
now,
so
I
believe
standard
six
has
been
met
and
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identify
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
issues,
a
decision
or
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
Regarding
said
variation,
I
believe
that.
H
That
all
the
standards
have
been
met,
I
would
just
add,
with
respect
to
the
substantial
adverse
impact
factor,
the
first
standard
that
it's
not
that,
while
there
have
been
concerns
about
the
impact
the
project
may
have
on
the
neighborhood,
none
of
them
are
tied
to
the
requested
variation,
which
is
what
the
standard
pertains
to
and
therefore
I
think
the
standard
is
met
with
respect
to
the
variation
being
requested.
I
agree.
H
B
Brown
and
Carl
Vogel
property
owners,
okay,
the
field
of
Zoning
administrators
decision
to
partially
deny
minor
zoning
relief
case.
Number
seventeen
zmn
V,
zero,
zero
to
six
to
construct
a
three
car
detached
garage
in
the
r1
single-family
residential
district.
The
applicant
was
granted
minor
zoning
relief
for
a
22
foot
by
22
foot,
two
car
detached
garage
for
a
maximum
building
lot
coverage
of
31%,
where
30%
is
permitted
sown
in
Code,
section
six
8
to
7,
but
denied
minor
zoning
relief
for
a
three
car
detached
garage,
but
they
requested
34%
building
law
coverage.
B
The
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
is
a
determining
body
for
this
case.
Documents
included
as
part
of
the
record,
include
appeal:
application
submitted,
May,
5th,
2017
standards
form
minor
variation;
application
submitted,
March,
28th,
2017,
minor
variation
correspondence
regarding
comparable
garages
staff
findings
of
fact,
or
standards
of
minor
variation,
denial.
Zoning
analysis,
plaintiff
survey,
site
plan,
elevations
minor
variation,
public
notice,
minor
variation,
final
determination
notice
precedent,
research
from
app
from
appellant
letters
of
support,
six
aerial
view
of
property,
image
of
property,
zoning
map
of
property
and
Preservation
Commission
meeting
minutes,
excerpt
of
March
21st
2017
Thank.
N
Name
is
Jeremy
Brown
I
live
at
10:18,
Michigan
Avenue.
Our
plan
is
to
demolish
our
existing
one,
our
garage
that's
falling
apart
and
put
up
a
three-car
garage
in
its
place.
You
can
see
from
the
plans
that
were
provided
that
it's
not
going
to
be
three
individual
stalls,
but
a
a
two
in
a
single
it's
a
little.
N
So
we
need
so.
We
need
three
more
percent
to
get
since
the
garage
we're
asking
for
the
garage
in
our
packet
of
nearby
properties
approval
that
we
provided
our
neighbors
at
10:21
for
us
and
1014
Michigan
built
garages
that
were
larger
than
what
we
were
asking
than
what
we're
asking
for
and
were
given
much
larger
variances
us
thirty,
six
percent
and
forty
percent
part
of
our
practical
difficulty
is
that
we're
already
at
twenty
nine
percent
lot
coverage.
So
any
kind
of
addition
or
improvement
to
our
home
is
going
to
put
us
over.
N
N
H
N
It's
in
the
yard,
I
part
of
its
at
the
neighbors.
If
you
know,
I
want
to
use
any
of
that
equipment.
I
have
to
pull
my
car
out
park
it
out
on
the
street
front
in
order
to
get
stuff
in
and
out,
the
current
garage
door
is
only
7
a
half
or
eight
feet
wide,
so
I
can
barely
even
get
my
own.
You
know,
I
barely
get
my
car
in
as
with
this.
So
clearly
you
need
in
your
garage
yeah
yeah.
N
So
this
is
a
case
where
you
know
I
just
want
I
have
a
have
a
space
to
put
all
of
our
personal
lines.
We
looked
across
the
alley
and
we
hey
they.
Have
they
have
that
I
want
that
too,
but
it
part
of
the
reason
our
neighbors,
that
are
in
favor
of
it
and
that
it
would
help
our
neighborhood
out
and
help
our
street
our
streets
very
congested.
N
Oftentimes.
There
isn't
room
to
park
out
in
front
of
our
house
because
the
one
block
south
of
us
there
isn't
sufficient
parking
for
the
condos
and
apartment
buildings
that
are
there.
So
they
end
up
parking
on
our
block
instead,
so
I
feel
like
it
would
be
a
benefit
not
only
to
our
neighbors
but
to
the
neighborhood
itself
to
be
to
be
able
to
remove
all
of
our
vehicles
from
the
street
out
front.
Did.
N
C
N
I
C
You
did
a
remarkable
amount
of
homework
and
assessing
almost
every
variance
that
has
been
granted
in
excess
of
30%
of
lot
coverage
in
the
last
oh
gosh,
12
years,
maybe
more
years,
but
but
also
in
your
immediate
neighborhood
that
there
are
similar
types
of
structures.
And
so
you
know
that's
something
that
we'll
be
discussing
after
the
fact.
N
At
houses
before
that
have
garages
of
that
size,
and
it
doesn't
give
you
big
beyond
to
cars,
you
can't
get
in
the
rest
of
your
equipment,
you're
forced
to
either
put
it
in.
You
know
and
look
in
your
basement
or
in
a
shed
out
back,
or
this
just
seemed
like
an
easier
and
cheaper
way
for
us
to
help
improve
our
property
and
the
neighborhood
as
well.
F
How
about
if
you
think
in
the
future
I
mean
these
things
are,
let's
say
both
possible
and
time.
Thinking
loudly,
let's
say
we
as
good
people
say:
ok,
we
will
allow
him
sicker
garage,
but
if
he
agrees
to
demolish
or
remodel
part
of
the
building
in
the
future,
the
prompts
which
is
very
difficult
for
us,
because
people
change
with
time
and
owners
change
properties.
F
The
adoption
with
these
you
take
the
granted
two-car
garage
and
enlarge
it
in
the
future
when
you
remodel
the
home
and
shorten
or
reduce
the
size
of
your
addition
of
the
building
so
that
you
fit
in
about
31%
what
coverage.
So
is
it
possible
for
you
to
think
that
you
can
build
now
a
two-car
garage?
And,
let's
say
after
some
years,
when
you
remodel
the
home,
you
add
a
one
car
garage
to
it,
this
structure
and
architecture.
It's
absolutely
possible,
as
you
know,
because
you
can
easily
add
something
you're.
F
N
N
Hoops
more
more
time,
my
fear
is
that
the
cost
of
ripping
off
that
addition
and
replacing
it
it's
going
to
not
within
the
budget
the
you
know
soon,
I,
don't
I,
don't
know,
maybe
we're
that's
what
we
bought
the
houses
we
wanted
to.
You
know
this
was
our
intent
was
to
do,
but
before
estimates
started
coming
in.
C
C
So
so
I
am
wondering,
based
on
again
the
exhaustive
research
that
the
applicant
has
done
in
in
pointing
out
that
this
kind
of
relief
has
been
granted
on
numerous
occasions
in
the
past.
I
don't
know
exactly
what
has
changed
our
lovel
we're
sorry,
Lowe's
isn't
a
lot
a
lot
of
those,
but
that
aside
I
be
a
couple
of
things
that
I
would
like
to
say.
C
So
the
fact
that
they
would
take
more
vehicles
off
the
street
I
think
is
not
an
insignificant
public
benefit.
I
bring
those
those
issues
up
because
I
think
that
they
are
worth
consideration
as
we
deliberate
whether
or
not
we're
the
determining
body
here.
So
you
know
I'm
wondering
if
we
couldn't
perhaps
condition
an
approval
of
their
garage
plan
on
a
commitment
that
you
know
or
I
don't
know
if
we
can
attach
this
to.
C
The
property
deed
going
forward,
but
that
future
additions
cannot
exceed
the
the
34
percent.
So
if
you
take
that
little
addition
down
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
put
up
anything
that
is
greater
than
that
but
I,
it
does
seem
to
me
as
though
they've
they're
complying
with
the
Preservation
Commission.
They
got
all
of
the
approvals
through
preservation.
They
want
this
for
the
practical
use
of
their
family
and
there
have
been
numerous
examples
of
this
variance
being
granted
in
that
particular
neighborhood.
So
I'm
struggling
with
denying
this
on
those
basis,
those.
H
Are
all
really
good
points
and
actually
I
do
commend
all
of
the
researches
I
think
way
more
effort
than
anybody
ever
puts
into
these
applications?
That
said,
they're
not
precedent
to
it
to
the
board.
We
don't
have
to
follow
them,
meaning
there
a
precedent,
meaning
we
don't
have
to
follow
them
in
to
your
point.
H
The
lion's
share,
if
not
all
of
them
were
written
before
this
applicant
even
bought
the
house
in
2008
and
certainly
before
any
of
us
was
on
the
Zoning,
Board
I,
think
my
tenure
being
the
longest
and
that
tonight,
since
2009
I
can
say
this
zoning
board
since
I
have
been
on.
It
has
been
particularly
tough
on
lot
coverage
issues
and
particularly
when
they
involve
garages
in
the
more
in
the
more
recent
history.
I,
don't
think
the
examples
submitted
with
this
application
are
representative
of
I've.
H
The
way
they
have
since
they've
lived
there
since
2008
and
parking
one
car
on
the
street
as
they
have
since
they've
lived
there
since
2008
or
using
the
two
cars
for
parking,
as
the
zoning
ordinance
would
intend.
I
know
personally,
I
would
love
to
have
another
parking
space,
so
I
could
put
another
car
in
a
garage,
but
I
don't
have
that
luxury
and
I.
Imagine
most
ovens,
onehans
or
many
of
them
would
line
up.
H
But
the
comment
that
Kiril
made
resonated
with
me,
which
was
it,
is
easy
to
add
on
to
a
project
and
if
a
two-car
garage
garage
can
be
built
now,
while
this
family
has
two
cars
and
can
accommodate
the
current
need,
then
why
not
wait
and
add
on
a
third
car
at
the
point,
when
they're
also
able
to
subtract
from
the
existing
lot
coverage
by
removing
the
addition,
that's
in
their
long-term
plan?
In
any
event,
so
for
all
of
those
reasons,
I,
don't
I,
don't
believe
the
standards
for
a
variation
are
met
here
and
I.
C
H
Agree
completely
with
you
that
there
is
a
public
benefit,
just
as
there
is
a
public
benefit
every
time
someone
would
ask
for
a
third
car
garage
to
pull
one
of
their
cars
off
of
a
street
any
Street
in
Evanston
and
create
more
public
parking,
so
I
do
think,
there's
a
benefit
I.
Don't
think
that,
certainly
that's
not
there's
not
a
cost-benefit
analysis
that
goes
into
whether
the
Vette,
whether
the
standards
are
met.
That's
that's
not
one
of
the
standards
we
weigh.
Is
there
a
public
benefit
that
outweighs
all
the
rest
of
this?
In
my
view,.
C
It
is
a
it
is
a
mitigating
factor
in
our
granting
variances
and
typically
a
major
factor.
I
I
do
have
to
say
that
if
we
apply
the
standards
as
they
are
written,
the
the
least
amount
that
you
can
do
to
alleviate
your
hardship
is
what
you
should
do
and
I
think
that
zoning
did
try
to
make
the
compromise
to
allow
you
a
two-car
garage
at
the
end
of
the
day.
C
It
does
not
meet
the
standards
for
the
variance
if
we
apply
them
and
you
know
even
the
strict
you
know,
the
strict
application
will
create
a
terrible
inconvenience
for
you.
There
is
no
question
about
it,
but
I
have
to
say
it's
not
going
to
create
a
hardship
to
only
have
two
car
garage
as
opposed
to
a
three.
It
will
be
more
of
an
inconvenience
I.
H
Would
agree,
I
just
want
to
reiterate
my
agreement
that
I
with
you
Mary
that
I
do
think
there
is
a
public
benefit
to
the
variation
being
requested,
but
I,
in
my
view,
that
it
doesn't
and
it's,
and
it
is
a
mitigating
factor
for
us
from
time
to
time.
But
in
my
view,
this
one
is
not
near
the
gray
line
for
for
where
we
would
consider
that
factor.
I.
A
Also,
concur:
I
have
lived
in
this
neighborhood
and
I
know
how
hard
it
is
to
park
over
there.
It's
almost
impossible.
There
is
a
public
benefit.
However,
the
requirement
of
most
properties
in
Evanston
is
that
two
cars
be
to
prove
two
parking
spaces
be
required,
and
so
I
actually
concur
with
the
decision
of
the
Zoning
administration.
What
is
which
is
all
already
a
variance
you
know
more
than
what
would
be
allowed,
but
not
what
you're
asking
for.
F
Even
you
can
play
with
the
sizes
of
the
garage
so
that
you
can
achieve
your
goal
and
take
our
garage
so
yeah.
Of
course
you
can
look
at
your
answer
no
matter.
The
record
is
closed,
I
believe,
but
this
is
what
I
would
a
kind
of
recommend
to
everybody
that
wants
to
put
a
little
bit
more
of
a
percent
percentages
using
the
footprint
than
what
a
minor
variation
is
agreeing
with.
A
A
N
N
Like
rain
water,
we
could
talk
about
rain
barrels
or
I
have
a
site
by
the
site
plan.
I
can
present
a
smaller
three-car
Garage.
The
minor
architect
already
drew
up.
You
know
if
this,
if
the
current
plan,
what
if
you're
denying
the
current
when
I
can
I
have
a
smaller
version,
I
can
present
to
the
board.
If.
I
B
We
we
can
it.
The
question
was:
can
we
consider
this?
So
you
guys
can
as
part
of
the
appeal
process,
the
Zoning
Board
does
have
the
authority
to
grant
any
eligible
variation.
So
if,
if
the
new
plan
is
for
a
different
version
of
the
garage
and
essentially
nothing
else
on
the
property
is
changing,
then
I
can
work
out
the
numbers,
while
you
guys
are
discussing,
and
if
you
choose
to
go
that
route
I
can
tell
you
exactly
what
the
permitted
building
lock
coverage
would
be
if.
B
B
B
Alternatively,
if
you
guys
are
not
comfortable
with
that,
you
can
always
choose
to
continue
the
case
and
either
ask
the
applicant
to
return
to
preservation,
to
have
a
new
plan
reviewed
or
just
to
provide
more
time
for
you
guys
to
think
about
the
new
plan
and
for
staff
to
do
a
full
zoning
analysis.
If
you
choose.
C
I
have
a
tendency
to
want
to
move
things
forward
if,
if
the
rest
of
my
colleagues
are
in
agreement,
I
don't
want
to
force
anything.
But
you
know
this
is
the
time
when
people
get
things
done
and
zoning
applications
are
already
backed
up,
and
maybe
we
can
take
a
little
bit
of
extra
time
and
try
to
conclude
this.
H
H
H
Car,
but
one
of
the
standards
we're
supposed
to
consider
is:
is
it
the
least
deviation
necessary
from
the
applicable
zoning
ordinance
and
you're
from
you've
seen
those
standards?
So
why
are
we?
Why
did
we
spend
the
better
part
of
a
half
hour,
considering
a
plan
that
you're,
ultimately
you're
presenting
something
different
to
us
that
you're
willing
to
accommodate
I
had.
C
I
F
C
Know
this
is
a
hard
case
again
people
work
really
hard
to
make
use
of
their
property
that
they
bought
that
they're
trying
to
accommodate
their
family
and
they
they
come
upon
these.
Oh
my
gosh.
What
we
can't
build
this
garage
that
we
want
they.
They
have
researched
this
exhaustively
they've
gone
through
a
huge
process.
They've
gone
before
preservation
they've
worked
hard
with
the
Zoning
administrators.
They
have
come
up
now
with
their
version
of
a
compromise
and
I.
Think
that
this,
as
what
did
you
come
up
with
Melissa
there,
I.
C
So
my
feeling
is
that,
on
one
point,
two
percent
over
the
compromise
that
the
zoning
staff
came
up
with
is
a
fairly
reasonable
compromise.
I
would
be
inclined
to
grant
this
proposal
and
I
think
that
they've
worked
really
hard
to
meet
the
requirements
and
that
it
is
a
pretty
minimal
overage
beyond
what
is
allowable,
and
certainly
it
is
consistent
with
what
we
see
in
the
lakeshore
historic
district.
So
it's
not
as
though
the
other
factor
once
again,
I
think
those
public
benefit
and
I
think
that
there
has
been
an
inordinately.
C
H
I
respectfully,
disagree,
I
still,
don't
think
it
meets
the
requirements
for
minor
variation
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
the
least
deviation
from
me
applicable
possibilities
that
have
been
identified.
I,
don't
think
a
family
in
Evanston
needs
a
three-car
garage
and
I.
Don't
think
that's
what
the
comprehensive
general
plan
provides
for.
H
I
think
it's
something
if
people
would
like
to
have-
and
in
this
case
the
family
has
been
living
in
their
property
for
eight
years
or
nine
years
with
a
one
car
garage
and
has
gotten
by
and
the
deviation
that
staff
has
proposed,
which
is
over
the
lock
coverage
and
still
would
require
us
to
grant
a
variation
is
for
a
two-car
garage
which
increases
twofold.
The
amount
of
space
they
currently
have
for
parking
and,
in
my
view,
is
the
least
deviation
necessary.
A
H
All
right
standards
for
considering
a
minor
variation,
which
is
what
we're
considering
on
appeal
tonight
standard
one.
The
practical
difficulty
is
not
self-created
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met.
This
is
a
home
that
was
purchased
in
2008
with
a
single
car
garage
and
the
property.
The
lot
coverage
at
twenty-nine
point
X
percent,
and
so
the
practical
difficulty
was
not
created
by
this
owner
standard
number.
Two:
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.
H
The
neighbors
in
fact
seem
to
support
the
project
standard
number.
Three.
The
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
comprehensive
general
plan
and
the
zoning
ordinance
I,
don't
believe
this
standard
has
been
met,
I
believe
the
comprehensive
general
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
provide
for
Evanston
homes
to
have
two
spaces
of
parking
and
I
believe
this
requested
variation
is
not
consistent
with
that.
If.
C
I
may
respectfully
disagree
under
the
circumstances.
I
think
that,
because
they're,
the
comprehensive
plan
also
comprehends
that
that
family's
needs
will
change
and
that
there
are
sometimes
hardships
because
of
location
that
there
are
sometimes
needs
for
families
to
alter
their
properties
to
meet
their
family's
needs.
That's
why
they
come
to
us
for
variances
and
because
they
have
demonstrated
that
they
have
a
need
and
that
there's
public
benefit.
I
think
that
standard
has
been
met.
H
And
the
other
comments
on
that
standard
standard
number:
four:
the
requested
variation
is
consistent
with
the
preservation
policies
set
forth
in
the
comprehensive
general
plan.
I,
don't
agree
that
this
standard
has
been
met
either
in
terms
of
preservation.
Policies
were
discussed
that
the
variation
requesting
specifically
deals
with
lot
coverage,
and
there
were
alternative
proposals
put
forth,
including
the
removal
of
a
distant
existing
lot
coverage
through
the
addition
in
the
back,
for
which
there's
a
long-term
plan
to
get
rid
of
it
and
applicant
has
reject
that
pass
for
now
and
therefore
I
don't
believe.
C
C
Simply
point
out
that
was,
they
went
before
preservation
and
the
Preservation
Committee
found
that
they
gave
them
a
certificate
of
acceptability
for
the
the
plan
with
34
percent
coverage.
I
think
recognizing
that
in
that
particular
neighborhood
there
that
that
is
very
much
the
norm
and
that
does
not
detract
from
the
lakeshore
historic
district
look
and
feel,
and
in
fact,
removal
of
cars
from
the
street.
Might
aid
in
that
I
also.
H
Number
five:
the
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
Zoning
Administrator
when
he
issued
his
decision.
Regarding
said
variation
at
this
point,
I
would
remind
that
the
variation
were
discussing
is
the
revised
variation
that
would
put
the
lot
coverage
at
32.2%
rather
than
the
34%
that
was
initially
submitted
with
the
application.
That
being
said,
in
my
view,
this
standard
has
not
been
met
because
the
Zoning
Administrator
determined
that
the
least
deviation
possible,
which
also
would
give
an
excessive
lot
coverage
above.
H
F
I
have
a
court
on
that
I
I
would
partially
agree
with
you
Scott,
because
that's
that's
true,
although
once
again,
this
is
a
process
and
I
agree
that
this
was
not
in
front
of
the
Zoning
Administrator
when
he
made
his
decision
now.
There
is
a
new
proposal
and
we
see
the
reduction
in
area.
So
to
guess
what
would
be
the
Sonics
at
least
the
Zoning
Administrator
decision
in
this
case
is
I
would
say
hard
to
predict
and
it's
not
good
to
go
for
him
back
so
on
this
variation.
F
H
Through
this
factor,
I
also
come
back
to
not
just
this
applicant,
but
every
other
applicant
that
will
come
in
front
of
the
Zoning
Board
after
this
that
says,
I
want
a
three-car
Garage.
Why
can't
I
get
my
one
or
two
or
3%
to
build
it
and
that's
why
I
believe
we
need
to
be
stricter
about
the
standard
I.
C
Would
simply
say
and
I
understand,
I
understand,
certainly
a
reasoning.
Scott
I.
Think,
though,
to
Carol's
point
the
lease
deviation
presented
to
zoning.
This
was
not
one
of
the
options
that
was
presented
to
zoning
for
the
three-car
garage.
This
is
the
smallest,
the
least
deviation
and-
and
you
know,
I
I
have
a
real
problem,
saying
that
it's
up
to
us
to
decide
whether
somebody
is
reasonable
or
not
reasonable,
to
wanted
to
make
our
garage
over
to
our
garage.
They
have
needs
that
they've
identified
for
this.
C
Don't
think
that
this
creates
a
precedent
that
we
have
to
apply
to
every
place,
but
houses
in
the
lakeshore
historic
district,
where
parking
is
a
problem
where
there
are
many
similar
properties
with
larger
garages.
I
think
they've
worked
really
hard
to
bring
a
lease
deviation
to
achieve
what
they
need
for
their
family.
So
I
would
still
say
that
that
standard
has
been
met.
I.
K
Thank
you,
Scott
Mangum,
Planning
and
Zoning
Administrator
attic,
madam
chair
and
board,
just
taking
a
quick
look
at
the
plan
here
again,
it
is
a
three-car
garage,
it's
being
proposed,
whereas
the
zoning
code
requires
a
minimum
of
two
parking
spaces
for
a
single-family
dwelling.
So
in
that
was
the
rationale
and
previously
denying
or
partially
denying
the
variation
for
previous
three-car
garage.
That
would
likely
be
the
same
analysis
here.
K
B
C
Have
another
question:
if
because
this
is
a
new
proposal
that
that
the
Advocate
has
brought,
if
we
does,
the
applicant,
have
the
option
of
saying
vote
on
the
old
plan
and
going
back
to
the
administrator
and
presenting
this
plan
I'm,
seeing
that
this
can
go
through
as
opposed
to
I
mean
I
at
one
way
or
the
other.
We
can
reject
this
new
plan
or
we
can
reject
the
old
plan,
which
I
think
then
leaves
them
at
least
open
to
presenting
the
new
plan
to
zoning.
C
H
Think
it's
a
good
question
and
I
I'm,
not
sure
I'm,
not
sure
as
a
matter
of
procedure,
whether
we
should
be
on
appeal
which
the
issue
on
an
appeal
is
the
disowning
administrator,
get
it
right.
I,
don't
know
that
on
appeal,
we
should
be
considering
a
new
proposal
at
all
in
deciding
did
the
Zoning
Administrator
get
it
right
as
opposed
to
if
this
were
coming
to
the
Zoning
Board
for
a
decision
on
whether
the
variation
should
be
granted
or
not?
That's
not
what's
at
issue.
A
C
C
H
C
H
I
may
comment
further
to
the
board.
I
I
feel
if
we
uphold
the
zoning,
the
administrators
decision
and
this
applicant
is
permitted
to
build
to
31%.
It
still
allows
the
applicant
to
make
choices
now
or
in
the
future
about
how
they
want
to
use
that
excessive
lot
coverage.
They
could
build
a
two-car
garage
now
and
build
onto
it
in
five
years
when
they
remove
other
lot
coverage
or
they
could
build
it
two-car
garage
now
and
not
remove
their
addition.
Some
years
from
now,
and
it's
still
an
overage
of
what
the
zoning
ordinance
permits.
H
C
H
We,
if
we
all
agree
or
if
enough
of
us,
agree
that
it's
not
then
I,
would
make
an
affirmative
decision
to
uphold
the
zoning
administrators
decision,
which
is
my
position,
but
if
it
seemed
like
the
rest
of
the
group
feels
that
a
thirty
two
point,
two
percent
variation
would
be
fine.
Then
somebody
should
make
on.
C
F
C
Well,
I
think
that
I
don't
have
the
number
of
the
case
in
front
of
me
all
right.
In
the
case
of
ZB
a17
z,
MJ,
v,
0
0,
3,
8,
4,
10,
18,
Michigan,
Avenue
I
would
motion
to
approve
the
revised
plan
that
the
applicant
submitted
to
have
a
reduced
size,
three-car
Garage,
resulting
in
a
total
lack
of
egde
of
32.2%
of
the
lot,
provided
that
the
the
building
would
take
place
in
compliance
with
the
documents
that
have
been
presented.
The
provides
documents
that
were
presented
as
Exhibit
A
this
evening.
H
B
E
B
Catherine
G
Bill's
attorney
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
expand
an
office
use
and
construct
new
exterior
stairs
in
the
r32
family
residential
district.
The
applicant
proposes
to
expand
a
legally
non-conforming
youth
in
a
legally
non-conforming
structure,
previously
approved
in
ordinance,
102
Oh
91.
That
includes
a
condition
limiting
the
use
of
the
storefronts
for
youth
counseling
offices.
Only
where
the
expansion
of
a
legally
non-conforming
use
in
a
legally
non-conforming
structure
is
not
permitted.
B
Zoning
code
section
six,
six:
four:
five:
a
a
five
foot:
north
interior
side
yard
setback
for
an
exterior
stair
more
than
four
feet
above
grade
yard
obstruction.
Where
thirteen
point
five
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code
Section
six,
four
one:
nine
b1
and
a
10-foot
South
interior
side
yard
setback
for
an
exterior
stair
more
than
four
feet
above
grade
yard
obstruction.
Where
thirteen
point
five
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code
Section
six,
four
one,
nine
b1,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals-
is
the
determining
body.
For
this
case.
B
Documents
included
as
part
of
the
record
include
variation
application
submitted,
May
25th,
2017
standards,
form
zoning
analysis,
ordinance,
102,
o
91,
plaintiff
survey,
site
plans,
floor
plans,
elevations
to
letters
of
support,
image
of
property,
aerial
view
of
property,
zoning
map
of
property
and
dapper
meeting
minutes.
Excerpt
of
June
7th
2017.
E
Evening
again,
Katherine
Bill's
attorney
for
the
applicant
also
here
is
Robert
Fisher,
principal
and
manager
of
the
applicant
and
Rod
Kelly,
my
clients,
architect,
for
any
more
technical
questions
you
may
have.
Regarding
the
site
plan,
my
client
is
proposing
a
remodel
of
the
existing
structure
to
improve
the
safety
condition
and
aesthetic
of
the
building
for
use
as
a
small
office
building
with
a
small
show
room
in
the
front
storeroom
area,
given
that
for
the
past
26
years,
the
structure
has
been
used
as
youth
counseling
offices.
E
E
E
The
result
is
that
inside
the
structure
in
the
area
where
those
two
structures
connect-
it's
not
easily
navigable,
so
my
client
is
proposing
putting
code
compliant
staircases
for
emergency
egress
for
safety
reasons,
because
of
that
currently
there's
a
non
code
compliant
staircase
there.
We
also
want
to
bring
that
up
to
date.
So
if
you
have
any
specific
questions,
we're
we're
happy
to
answer
them.
A
I
A
O
Wanted
to
reduce
myself,
my
name
is
Robert
Fischer
I
own
10:27,
Sherman
Avenue,
LLC
I
also
am
the
owner
of
a
long-term
business
that
is
at
10:01,
Sherman,
Avenue,
I
own,
my
I'm,
third-generation
owner
and
operator
of
Evanston
lumber
and
obviously
what
well
I'm
not
sure
it's
obvious.
But
our
intention
is
to
put
office
space
in
that
the
old
y-o-u
building,
which
is
at
10:27,
okay,.
C
E
C
A
H
It
just
related
to
the
91
grant
for
why,
oh
to
use
it
for
counselling,
yes,.
F
E
Mr.
Fisher
said:
Evanston
lumber
is
a
long-standing
member
of
the
neighborhood,
and
you
know
as
a
the
same
principle
at
10:27
Sherman,
Avenue
LLC.
We
really
hope
to
look
forward
to
putting
the
property
back
to
productive
use,
updating
the
property,
updating
the
look
of
it
and
making
it
really
more
of
a
safe
structure.
That's
our
goal
here
tonight:
okay,.
H
A
A
A
The
purpose
of
a
variation
is
to
relieve
a
particular
hardship
of
practical
difficulty
that
the
regulations
of
resulting
ordinance
may
impose
upon
a
landowner
because
of
the
special
or
peculiar
characteristics
of
the
property
that
may
compliance
with
the
zoning
ordinance,
difficult
or
impossible
standards
for
major
variations
number
one.
The
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
A
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met
number
two:
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
so
this
property
has
gone
back
and
forth
and
is
most
recently
for
26
years,
been
used
as
commercial
I
agree
that
that
standard
has
been
met,
number
three,
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property,
since
the
property
will
be
having
to
go
through
adaptive
reuse.
In
order
to
become
a
successful
part
of
the
community.
Again,
I
believe
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
A
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
or
to
be
carried
out.
I
believe
that
if
this
building
was
not
rehabbed
and
the
stairs
were
not
built
in
accordance
with
the
testimony
that
it
would
be
a
hardship
and
you
would
not
be
able
to
conduct
your
business
there,
so
I
believe
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
A
Number
five.
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
certainly
see
Evanston
lumber
and
their
steady
presence
in
the
community
as
a
public
benefit.
So
I
believe
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
number
six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship,
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property.
I
believe
that
the
building's
difficulties
and
hardships
came
from
the
previous
use,
so
I
also
believe
that
in
changing
this,
the
standard
would
have
been
met.
A
Number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
for
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
issues,
its
decision
or
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
Regarding
said,
variation,
I
believe
this
is
a
reasonable
and
least
deviation
from
the
regulation.
So
I
believe
that
this
standard
has
been
met
as
all
do
we
all
concur?
Yes,
yes,
can
someone
please
make
the
motion.
A
A
B
Matthew
schöner
project
coordinator
applies
for
a
special
use
permit
for
a
type
2
restaurant
pono,
Oh
nope,
okay
at
16:30,
Chicago
Avenue,
1630,
Chicago
Avenue
is
located
in
the
d3
downtown
core
development
district,
which
requires
a
special
use
permit
for
a
type
2
restaurant
to
operate.
Zoning
code,
section
611
for
3
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
makes
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
A
F
A
P
We
just
handed
you
is
a
week
what
we
call
a
design
package,
so
it's
the
development
of
the
project
interior
exterior,
basically
I'd
like
to
kick
it
off
with
Jack
he'll.
Tell
you
a
little
bit
about
the
business
operations
of
the
project
and
then
I'll
go
into
more
about
the
the
work
being
done
to
the
to
the
current
property
and
what
we're
envisioning
it.
Thank.
Q
You
so
it's
a
basic,
fast
casual
concept,
really
small
focus
menu
will
be
doing
pokeballs,
which
are
more
kind
of
becoming
more
popular.
You
may
have
seen
one
there's
one
over
just
around
the
corner
for
basically
sushi
bowls
also
be
doing
fresh
pressed
juices.
We
remove
them
from
11
to
8
I
mean
idea
is
to
have
kind
of
a
lot
of
quick
in-and-out
business.
You
will
take
you
to
go.
There
will
be
plenty
of
seating
space.
We
have
49
seats,
available,
no
snow
weight
service
to
order
at
a
counter.
Q
Q
There's
a
couple
different
options
right
now:
we're
in
negotiation
with
the
landlord
about
providing
parking
in
their
adjacent
garage.
Everyone
that
works
in
the
building
right
now
parks
there
and
the
garage
is
almost
ever
full
right
now.
There's
the
building
managers
out
of
town,
so
we
haven't
be
able
to
correspond
super
promptly
with
them,
but
they're
looking
into
it.
We
also
have
parking
up.
The
street
I
know
we're
not
allowed
to
park
on
on
that
street,
but
there
are
several
garages
in
the
area.
Q
P
Street
parking
paid
meters
in
the
area
and
then
just
to
expand
upon
the
existing
building
space.
Right
now
it
was
a
flower
shop
and
right
now
the
it
exists
as
interior
partitions
and
a
few
decorative
elements,
nothing
structural
will
be
removed,
so
we'll
be
demoing.
Those
partitions
and
building
up
a
space
for
the
exterior
no.
P
H
Q
Q
F
Q
Some
of
the
similar
areas,
the
dumpsters,
are
there's
like
an
area
we
have
a
who
can
have
deliveries,
pull
up
to
similar
distance
from
our
back
door.
I've
confirmed
with
the
building
management
that
we
can
use
that
space,
so
they'll
pull
in
from
a
back
alley.
It
won't
be
from
the
front
from
Chicago
Avenue
at.
Q
D
Q
A
P
P
A
A
A
R
Name
is
David
Nash
I'm,
going
to
associate
with
Arya
group
architects.
Matthew
works
for
our
company
I'm
here,
observing,
seeing
how
he
does
just
kind
of
seeing
they
make
sure
that
everything
is
okay
for
him
and
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
I'll
just
stand
in
the
back
and
observe
for
now.
If.
C
A
Any
other
questions:
okay!
Well,
thank
you
for
your
testimony.
You
may
be
treated
I'm,
going
to
close
the
record
and
we
will
read
the
standards
go
into
celebration.
First,
okay,
committing
any
questions
about
this.
You
want
to
say
anything
about
it,
I
think
it's
a
great
business
I
like
that,
there's
not
an
empty
storefront
there
with
the
developments
that
have
been
going
on
in
Chicago
Avenue
in
that
area,
it
will
fit
in
well
I.
C
A
Your
worries-
thank
you.
Okay,
I'm,
going
to
read
this
I'm
going
to
read
the
standards
for
special
use.
Now
special
uses
are
uses
that,
because
of
their
potential
adverse
impact
on
the
immediate
neighborhood
in
the
city
as
a
whole,
require
a
greater
degree
of
scrutiny
and
review
of
site
characteristics
and
impacts
to
determine
their
suitability
in
a
given
location.
A
As
such,
the
determination
of
special
youth
as
appropriate
should
be
contingent
upon
their
meeting
of
set
of
specific
standards
and
the
weighing
in
each
case
of
the
public,
need
and
benefit
against
the
local
impact,
giving
effect
to
the
proposals
of
the
applicant
for
ameliorating
adverse
impacts
through
special
site
planning
and
development
techniques,
and
contributions
to
the
provisions
of
public
improvement
sites,
right-of-ways
and
certain
services,
and
will
read
the
standards
for
the
special
use
number
one.
The
required
special
use
is
one
of
the
special
uses
listed
in
the
own
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
A
This
restaurant
type,
2
is
one
of
the
special
uses
listed
in
the
zoning
ordinance
number
2.
The
required
special
use
is
in
keeping
with
the
purposes
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
general
plan
in
the
zoning
ordinance
as
amended
from
time
to
time.
This
standard
has
been
met
because
the
comprehensive
general
plan
allows
for
businesses
in
this
location
number
3.
A
The
requested
special
use
will
not
cause
a
negative
genitive
effect
when
it's
effective
and
considered
in
conjunction
with
the
community
cumulative
effect
of
various
special
uses
of
all
types
on
the
immediate
neighbourhood
and
the
effect
of
the
proposed
type
of
special
use
upon
the
city
as
a
whole.
I
think
this
standard
has
also
been
met.
Number
4,
the
requested
special
use
does
not
interfere
with
or
diminish
the
value
of
the
property
in
the
neighbourhood.
A
I
think
this
business
will
be
a
asset
to
the
neighbourhood
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met,
number
5,
the
requested
special
use
can
be
adequately
served
by
public
facilities
and
services.
As
long
as
you
comply
with
the
parking,
as
noted
in
your
testimony
and
the
letter
collection
and
the
deliveries.
As
noted
in
your
testimony,
I
believe
this
standard
has
been
met.
The
requested
special
use
does
not
cause
undue
traffic
congestion
at
deliveries
are
in
the
back,
and
your
food
deliveries
are
in
the
back
I
believe
this
standard
will
have
been
met.
A
Number
7,
this
requested
special
use,
preserves
significant
historical
and
architectural
resources.
I
think
that
standard
is
not
applicable
number
eight.
The
requested
special
use
preserves
significant
natural
and
environmental
features.
I
also
believe
this
standard
is
not
applicable
number
nine.
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
extent
such
regulations
have
been
modified
through
the
planned
development
process
or
the
grant
of
a
variation
I
believe
that
standard
also
has
been
met.
Do
we
concur?
A
H
In
the
matters
EBA
17
zmj
v
dash
two
zero
zero,
four
seven
with
respect
to
the
property
at
16:30,
Chicago
Avenue
that
we
recommended
City
Council,
grant
the
special
use
for
a
type
two
restaurant
that's
been
requested,
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
one
that
the
hours
of
operation
be
limited
from
6:00
a.m.
to
midnight,
two
that
the
businesses
employees
be
prohibited
from
using
metered
parking
on
the
streets
or
other
street
parking.
H
Three
that
the
applicant,
the
applicant
seems
to
be
aware
of
the
garbage
collection
processes
for
the
building,
but
that
the
applicant
read,
review
and
comply
with
the
city's
garbage
and
litter
collection
plans,
and
for
that
the
property
otherwise
be
developed
and
used
in
accordance
with
the
testimony
and
evidence
submitted,
including
with
respect
to
the
delivery
of
with
deliveries
taking
place
in
the
rear
of
the
property
and
in
morning
hours.
To
the
extent
possible
is.
A
B
Just
a
few
things
to
note:
we
do
have
the
C
math
workshop
on
June
27th
next
Tuesday
at
six
five,
five
o'clock
really
F
five
o'clock-
hope
to
see
everyone.
There
I
think
only
two
of
you
confirmed
at
this
point.
So
if
you're
not
planning
to
attend,
please
think
about
it,
and
then
we
do
have
our
additional
CBA
hearing
on
July
11th
and
then,
after
that,
we
are
back
to
our
regular
schedule.
Okay,.