►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 12/1/2015
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
and
welcome
this
is
a
public
hearing
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
of
the
city
of
Evanston.
The
zoning
ordinance
directs
this
body
to
hear
applications
for
major
variations,
special
uses
and
appeals
from
decisions
of
the
Zoning
Administrator,
depending
on
the
type
of
matter.
This
board
will
either
make
a
final
determination
or
send
its
recommendation
to
City
Council.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll
Mary.
C
D
B
A
With
six
members
present,
we
do
have
a
quorum,
though
also
present
tonight
is
zoning
planner
Melissa
clots.
This
is
a
formal
meeting
and
there
are
rules
that
govern
our
proceedings.
Most
importantly,
only
one
person
speaks
at
a
time,
so
all
testimony
may
be
accurately
recorded.
Anyone
who
wishes
to
address
the
board
regarding
any
matter
on
the
agenda
will
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
at
the
appropriate
time.
A
Our
procedure
is
to
hear
from
staff
on
the
documents
on
file
and
then
receive
testimony
and
other
evidence
from
the
applicant
or
appellant
next.
Persons
who
wish
to
make
a
statement
regarding
the
matter
may
do
so
at
that
time,
any
person
with
a
legal
interest
in
property
located
within
500
feet
of
the
subject.
Property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses
or
seek
a
continuance
of
the
hearing.
When
all
supporting
and
opposing
testimony
and
statements
have
been
heard,
the
applicant
or
appellant
will
be
given
the
opportunity
for
rebuttal
or
a
closing
statement.
A
Then
the
board
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations.
All
testimony
will
be
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence.
Please
limit
your
testimony
or
statement
to
your
personal
knowledge
when
you
address
the
board,
please
state
your
name
and
address
and
sign
in
on
the
provided
sheet.
Our
meetings
are
audio
and
video
recorded.
Please
make
sure
that
you
are
at
a
microphone
when
asking
questions
or
making
statements
so
that
you
can
be
properly
recorded.
All
proceedings
are
subject
to
broadcast
at
a
later
date.
A
Any
matter
not
concluded
it's
Knights
hearing
will
be
continued
to
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting.
We
do
have
three
items
on
the
agenda
this
evening.
I
know
one
of
them
has
requested
a
continuance
of
which
is
the
second
item,
but
is
the
applicant
for
1450
963
elmwood
avenue
present
and
48
60
henman?
Thank
you.
We
have
had
a
request,
as
I
mentioned,
to
continue
1303
Rosalie
straight
to
our
meeting
on
the
fifteenth
I'm,
assuming
that
fits
in
with
our
not
having
more
than
four
items
on
our
agenda.
Is
there
a
motion
to
do
so.
A
E
E
A
That
matter
will
be
moved
to
our
meeting
on
December
15,
with
that
we
will
move
to
the
first
item
on
our
agenda
this
evening,
which
is
the
approval
of
minutes
from
our
meeting
on
november.
Seventeenth,
as
everyone
had
an
opportunity
to
look
through
those
and
are
there
any
continue,
are
there
any
edits
or
changes
that
need
to
be
made?
If
not,
is
there
a
motion
to
approve?
I
move
that
we
approve
the.
B
Jeffrey
k,
property
owner
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
two-story
addition
and
second
story.
Addition
in
the
d1
downtown
fringe
district.
The
applicant
proposes
to
construct
a
two-story
addition
for
a
new
dwelling
unit
with
the
requested
zero
foot,
rear
yard
setback
where
ten
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code
section
6,
11,
26
e,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
A
F
F
The
property
at
1459,
through
1463,
Elmwood
Avenue,
backs
up
to
the
train
tracks
on
the
east
side,
has
a
parking
lot
to
the
north
side
and
a
pump
station
building
to
the
south
across
Elmwood
is
the
police
station.
The
current
building
has
a
zero
foot
setback
in
the
rear
against
the
train
tracks,
with
no
alleyway
in
the
rear
or
access
on
the
sides.
The
trash
and
recycling
area,
along
with
the
parking
is
forced
to
the
front
of
the
site.
F
That
approach
would
be
through
state
staining
all
the
bricks
and
using
stuck
on
the
upper
upper
portion.
The
new
portion,
and,
as
far
as
we
can
see,
this
wouldn't
impact
any
of
the
adjoining
properties
as
none
of
them.
It's
a
parking
lot
and
a
pump
station
and
the
train
tracks.
So
hopefully
that
would
just
improve
the
area
by
making
the
building
look
better.
That's
about
it.
F
Is
currently
on
like
three
commercial
spaces,
one
of
them
is
completely
unfinished.
The
other
two
are
rented
by
meas
meals,
which
is
a
kind
of
a
small
catering
company.
There
are
no
client
yeah.
The
public
is
never
on
site,
it's
just
workers
that
are
there
and
yeah
that
South
section
that
we'd
be
building
over.
That's
currently
just
used
for
storage,
it's
not
finished
at
all.
So
that's
why
we'd
be
building
over
that
section
and.
F
D
F
F
E
F
G
F
G
F
F
F
F
G
C
C
G
C
F
G
G
F
G
F
Since
its
back
farther
yeah,
we
could
support
it
with
the
way
the
staircase
walls
are
going
to
support
it,
but
they
don't
quite
go
back
far
enough.
We'd
have
to
split
that
lower
office
in
half.
To
get
the
structure,
we
need
for
a
two-story
addition
above
it
with
just
the
roof
access
room.
We
can
structurally
hold
it.
I
guess.
F
I
think
that
unit
would
be
out,
oh
just
under
2,000
square
feet.
It's.
A
F
A
D
C
Think
also
adding
the
dwelling
unit
to
this
project
is
very
much
in
accordance
with
the
intention
of
the
city
in
having
the
fringe
core
downtown
area
that
would
create.
You
know
a
transition
to
the
residents
from
core
downtown
and
it
it's
a
it's
an
interesting
building.
It's
a
really
vast
improvement,
I
mean
that's,
that's
a
beautiful
structure,
so
I
think
it's
a
great
plan.
G
So
I,
like
the
concept
of
it,
I
think
that
the
architecture
is
certainly
an
improvement,
and
I
do
agree
that
allowing
them
to
build
a
second-floor
addition
over
the
existing,
absolutely
fine
I'm
in
complete
agreement.
That
my
issue
is
that
garage
space
and
the
second
floor
above
that,
because
that
is
not
the
minimum
change
necessary
and
they
haven't
given
me
a
compelling
reason
that
they
can't
build
it
in
a
conforming
location,
except
that
they
don't
want
to.
A
Alright,
with
that,
we
will
go
through
our
standards.
We
do
have
seven
standards
that
we
must
find
our
map
for
us
to
make
a
positive
finding
on
this
particular
project
and
we
will
go
through
those.
The
first
is
the
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
youths,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
This
is
a
unique
property
in
the
fact
of
where
it
is
situated.
It
does
but
right
up
against
railroad
tracks.
It
has
a
utility
pumping
station
to
the
to
the
one
side.
A
It
has
a
parking
lot
to
the
other
side
and
a
police
department
directly
across
the
street,
and
we
do
find
it
in
this
oddly
named
fringe
district,
of
which
there
are
very
few
buildings
that
fall
under
this,
but
the
fact
that
the
neighboring
properties
are
not
really
ones
that
have
residents
we've
not
had
anyone
speak
to
us
to
the
fact
that
they
would
see
any
change
in
their
use
of
property.
I
believe
this
standard
is
met.
Number
two.
The
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
A
The
zoning
ordinance
does
hope
that
people
will
repurpose
existing
structures.
Make
them
fit
the
needs
that
we
have
today,
as
opposed
to
maybe
their
original
use
by
new
uses
for
buildings
rather
than
tearing
down
necessarily
and
replacing
them,
and
also,
as
was
mentioned
with
us,
being
the
fringe
district,
helping
provide
somewhat
of
a
buffer
between
our
downtown
core
area
and
the
residential
areas
that
surround
it
on.
This
seems
like
an
appropriate
use
of
the
space,
so
that
standard
is
met.
A
Number
three
of
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property
when
looking
at
the
requested
variation,
part
of
this
building
will
be
built
upon
an
existing
wall,
which
is
something
that
we
almost
always
approve
when
we
have
a
second-story
addition
being
built
on
the
first.
We
have
had
some
discussion
about
whether
the
new
garage
edition
off
to
the
off
to
the
one
side
is,
is
necessary
to
to
have
that
same
setback
or
if
it
can
be
adjusted
so
that
it's
conforming
but
I
do
believe
that
this
particular
property.
A
G
C
The
hardship
is
that
the
the
berm
to
the
El
tracks
are
but
right
up
to
it.
So
if
they
push
the
garage
in
than
what
he's
doing
is
creating
a
useless
cul-de-sac
behind
the
building,
it
would
serve
no
other
purpose.
So
if
you,
if
you
go
and
you
look
at
the
building
and
you
see
what
simply
makes
sense
in
terms
of
completing
that
addition
to
create
a
dead
end
cul-de-sac
there
for
no
other
reason
than
to
be
in
greater
conformance,
just
doesn't
really
make
sense.
A
As
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience,
if
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out,
we've
just
had
a
discussion
on
that.
I
tend
to
be
of
the
belief
that
creating
an
odd
space
behind
there
because
of
the
L
track
are
the
metro
tracks
that
butt
up
against
it
just
creates
a
an
odd
little
space
behind
there,
and
so
I
tend
to
feel
that
this
standard
is
met
and
I
will
note
that
miss
burns
probably
will
disagree
with
me
on
that.
One
I.
G
Do
disagree?
I
think
it's
no
different
than
other
developments
throughout
town,
where
there
are
kind
of
indium
units
or
townhouses,
that
back
up
to
train
tracks,
and
they
have
very
small
backyards.
I
think
outdoor
space
is
something
that
zoning
we,
as
a
zoning
board,
have
been
supportive
of
for
tenants
and
homeowners
and
I.
Don't
think
that
this
is
any
different.
A
A
My
feeling
is
that,
with
the
with
what
we've
been
discussing
here
on,
a
setback,
I
think
we're
talking
about
less
than
five
feet.
I,
don't
know
that
that's
going
to
drastically
create
additional
income
for
the
property,
as
opposed
to
if
it
were
developed
totally
within
the
space
that
we
all
would
like
it
to
be
so
I
believe
that
this
standard
has
been
met.
A
Number
sixty,
alleged,
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
interest
in
the
property.
The
property
is
basically
being
developed
on
top
of
and
beside
an
existing
structure,
and
that
structure
has
been
in
existence
for
a
number
of
years,
and
this
particular
owner
has
not
been
involved
in
creating
that,
so
that
standard
also
is
Matt
and
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
ZBA.
A
This
is
one
where
we
will
again
have
disagreement,
probably
as
to
whether
or
not
the
setback
on
on
the
garage
area
needs
to
fall
within
the
the
the
10
feet
or
of
if
it
should
be
permitted
to
go
into
that
10
feet.
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
it
is
that
it
is
fine
that
it
is
works
to
go
into
that
10
feet.
I
know
that
there
will
be
dissension
off
to
one
side
of
me.
I.
G
A
A
That
I
will
ask
if
there
are
any
conditions
that
we
want
to
put
on
the
property
outside
of
what
we
discussed.
I.
Think
that
the
the
fact
that
we
is
already
developing
an
area
for
refuse
collection
in
the
front
things
like
that
have
already
been
discussed
and
part
of
the
testimony.
So,
if
not
I,
anybody
would
like
to
make
a
motion.
D
A
G
A
A
vote
of
five
to
one
the
motion
carries
and
the
project
is
approved
and
you
can
work
with
staff
on
what
the
next
steps
will
be
for
you.
Thank
you
with
that.
We
will
move
on
to
the
second
item
on
our
agenda
this
evening,
which
is
the
matter
of
860
hinman
avenue,
and
would
you
please
read
that
into
the
record.
B
Kathleen
berry
attorney
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
convert
44
rooming
house
units
to
multiple
family
residential
units
for
a
total
of
102
multi,
multiple
family
residential
units
with
nine
existing
parking
spaces
in
the
c1,
a
commercial
mixed-use
district.
The
applicant
proposes
to
convert
44
rooming
house
units
to
multiple
family
residential
dwelling
units
where
58
multiple
family
residential
dwelling
units
currently
exist
for
a
total
of
102
dwelling
units
where
a
maximum
40
dwelling
units
are
permitted.
B
Zoning
code,
section,
6,
10
34,
and
to
increase
the
parking
by
zero
spaces
where
an
increase
of
55
parking
spaces
is
required
and
nine
parking
spaces
currently
exist.
Sewn-In
Code,
section,
6,
16
12,
see
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
makes
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
A
B
Is
a
site
plan
of
the
typical
current
condition
of
the
property?
However,
because
of
the
construction
of
the
building
next
door,
the
dumpsters
for
this
property
have
temporarily
been
moved
out
of
the
alley
and
into
some
of
the
parking
spaces
just
for
the
duration
of
construction.
But
typically
there
are
nine
parking
spaces
on
site,
so.
A
The
dumpsters
will
move
back
to
the
other
property
once
construction
on
that
property
is
done,
correct.
Okay,
at
this
point,
anybody
who
wishes
to
speak
to
us
in
the
matter
of
860
him
and
I
would
ask
to
please
be
sworn.
Do
you
swear
our
firm
to
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings?
I
do
thank
you
and
if
you'd,
please
come
up
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
H
So
everyone's
familiar,
this
is
the
old
Evan,
Shire,
hotel,
860,
henman,
basically
lucky
platter,
two
brothers
k
and
then
a
bit
there
on
Henman
so
main
in
hinman.
The
building
historically
was
a
hotel
of
sorts
over
the
years
it
was
converted
into
apartments.
Some
of
the
apartments
I
think
the
only
real
thing
that
differentiates
a
dwelling
unit
and
a
and
rooming
our
housing
unit
is
the
cooking
appliances
that
are
built
in
like
a
stove
in
an
oven.
That's
something
that
these
apartments
are
extremely
small.
It's
not
exactly
necessary.
Most
people
live
with
them.
H
You
know
hot
plate,
no
microwave
or
whatever.
So
this
is
just
something
that
it's
just
a
bit
of
confusion.
You
know
why.
Why
doesn't
mine
isn't
my
apartment?
You
know
that's
the
same
size
as
my
next
door,
neighbor's
apartment.
Why
don't?
Some
of
them
have
all
of
the
same
amenities.
So
it's
something
that
we've
taken
on
right
now
to
clear
up
the
zoning
and
to
make
it
clear
that
all
of
them
can
have
cooking
appliances.
H
So
the
issue
where
we
don't
comply
as
with
parking.
But
again
this
building
is
extremely
old
in
this
building.
Has
you
know
neighbors
on
all
sides,
and
you
know
a
bigger
building
is
going
in
on
the
farther
west
side
of
it.
So
we
don't
have
any
additional
parking.
Bgb
evanston
does
manage
other
buildings
in
the
area,
so
we
do
have
other
parking
options
for
our
tenants,
but
being
so
close
to
the
train.
Why
would
why
would
somebody
need
you
know
the
car
in
that
area?.
H
H
You
know
it's
got
an
annunciator
panel
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
and
it's
fully
upgraded.
But
it's
just
a
matter
of
safety,
and
you
know
we
know
what
cooking
appliances
people
have.
If
we
have
an
oven
and
a
stove
in
there,
you
know
they
make
really
nice
ones.
Have
you
seen
the
new
stuff?
So
they
have
these
like
little
smaller
than
this,
that
you
can
have
two
burners
and
a
nice
oven.
H
C
H
Will
can
we
will
actually
put
in
the
cooking
appliances?
I've
looked
back
and
I
do
think
we
we
did
when
we
did
the
electrical
upgrade
on
the
building.
I
think
we
put
the
individual
breaker
in
everything.
In
already
it
may
not
be
a
huge
construction
project
to
install
these
appliances.
But,
yes,
we
will.
We
are
planning
to
install
these
appliances
for
summer
16,
if
approved.
Oh,
no,.
H
Oh
yeah
it'll
all
be
electric
okay
and
we've
done
a
full
electrical
upgrade
to
the
building.
So
it's
not
going
to
be
a
huge
construction.
Somebody
brought
up,
you
know,
do
you
have
a
new?
You
have
cooking
areas
and
yes,
we
do
have.
You
know
ample
with
one
person.
These
are
small
apartments,
it
is
there
it
is
anybody
ever
seen
these
buildings
I
mean
like
these
are
small
apartments,
like
maybe
150
200
square
feet,
something
like
that.
So
small
little
yeah
they're
exactly
what
you
need.
I.
E
H
850
900
dollars
a
month,
so
I
mean
it's
not
super
cheap
775
somewhere
in
there.
It's
kind
of
the
you
know:
they're
nice
they're,
very
nice.
I
would
say
I
mean
I
don't
know
that
I
don't
know
what
the
word
affordable
in
evanston
exactly
means,
but
they
would
not
be
technically
affordable
in
chicago.
Does
that
make
sense,
but
are
they
affordable?
You
make
thirty
thousand
dollars
or
$25,000
year.
H
D
E
H
D
H
Residents
do
park
there,
yes,
they're
parka
yeah
as
of
right
now,
if
you
did
go
back
and
look,
thank
you.
So
there
are
there
dumpsters
and
then
residents
rent.
The
six
spots
are
some
of
these
bonds
that
are
there
yeah,
it's
all
rental,
okay,
yeah
and
its
nominal.
Like
we
were
talking.
You
know
it's
not
big
big
money
maker,
but
it's
just
a
nice
amenity
that
you
can't
have
parking
if
you
like,
I,
know,
guy
work,
for
you
know
it
worked
great
like
so
he
had
to
drive
every
day
and
he
got
home
late.
H
D
Get
a
CTA
sorry
yeah
can
I
ask
Melissa,
can
ask
you
a
question,
so
the
materials
suggest
that
the
maximum
is
40
dwelling
units
for
a
building
of
this
size.
So
can
you
just
explain
what
the
purpose
of
that
limitation
is
so
that
we
can
understand
one?
Why
it's
why
there
are
currently
58
one
phone
Lee
40
are
allowed,
but
also
what
the
effect
of
adding
44
more
quote.
Unquote
dwelling
units
would
be
the.
B
Maximum
of
40
dwelling
units
is
related
to
the
size
of
the
property.
So,
typically,
that's
a
regulation.
That's
employed
is
to
control
the
densities
that
you
don't
get
an
extremely
large
building
on
a
very
small
property
and
that
can
then
sort
of
overpower
the
neighborhood.
In
a
case
like
this,
where
the
building
is
existing
and
is
not
going
to
be
expanded
in
any
way
it,
it
almost
becomes
a
moot
point.
B
H
A
A
With
that
will
we
will
close
the
record
begin.
Our
deliberation
general
thoughts
from
people
I
mean
we're
kind
of
just
changing
some
terminology
here
and
then
allowing
kitchens
to
be
put
in
where
they're
already
cooking
it's
just.
They
aren't
cooking
on
a
stove,
they're
cooking,
a
hot
plate
totally.
D
Agree:
I,
don't
think
any
this
proposal
doesn't
change
anything
about
the
building
and
this
facilities
that
current
currently
serve
it
and
with
the
testimony
that
there's
no
plan
to
increase
the
rent.
As
a
result
of
this,
it
doesn't
implicate
the
financial
interest,
so
I
think
we
should
recommend
City
Council,
allow
this
and.
A
A
I
didn't
fully
rented
yet
so
with
that
we
again
will
have
the
same
standards
that
we
have
to
go
through
the
one
thing
that
will
be
different
on
this.
One
is
because
it
does
involve
parking.
We
will
be
making
a
recommendation
to
City
Council,
but
the
first
standard
for
variations
is
the
requested.
Variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
youths,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
A
Most
people
living
next
to
this
property
will
not
notice
a
difference
whatsoever
because
of
the
fact
there
is
no
change
being
made
to
the
density
to
the
outside
of
the
structure
or
the
existing
parking
or
anything.
Unless
people
actually
go
into
the
physical
units,
they
probably
shouldn't
notice
a
difference
so
that
standard
is
Matt
number
two.
The
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance
again.
A
This
is
a
little
weird
I,
don't
know
what
the
zoning
ordinance
specifically
intends
to
do
with
rooming
units,
but
the
fact
that
we
are
keeping
this
building
viable
and
are
making
use
of
a
building.
That
seems
to
be
fully
rented
at
this
time
and
not
relocating
people
or
anything
else.
I.
Think
is
a
positive
and
I
think
this
is
only
ordinance
says
something
about
that,
so
that
standards
met
number
three.
The
alleged
hardship
of
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
A
This
particular
property
is
standing
as
is,
and
has
for
some
time
the
fact
that
there
are
certain
units
that
were
designated
as
rooming
house
units,
as
opposed
to
residential
dwelling
units,
does
make
this
a
unique
property
and
therefore
I
believe
that
standard
has
been
met.
Number
for
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical.
Difficulty
is
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience
that
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out.
I
don't
know
that
they're.
A
There
is
a
true
hardship
in
this
case
other
than
the
fact
of
trying
to
to
bring
these
units
into
compliance
with
the
with
the
other.
Fifty
eight
units
that
currently
exist
in
the
building
and
make
the
building
more
uniform
throughout,
but
also
then
record,
especially
worse
since
there
were
issues
of
you
know
hot
plates,
not
necessarily
being
a
safe.
The
stoves
sometimes
but
the
building
mean
being
sprinklered
and
stuff
like
that.
But
I
believe
that
this
standard
is
also
met.
A
Number
five:
the
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property.
We
have
had
testimony
from
the
applicant
that
there's
not
a
rent
increase
that
is
going
along
with
converting
these
forty
four
units.
So
therefore
there
doesn't
appear
to
be
any
additional
income
generated
from
this
change
in
designation,
so
that
standard
has
been
met.
A
Number
sixty,
alleged,
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property
on
this
building
was
built
originally
with
uses
hotel
rooms
and
therefore
the
kitchens
were
not
necessarily
part
of
that,
and
so
they've
been
kind
of
continuing
with
some
of
these
rooms
being
basically
nothing
more
than
a
hotel
room
for
for
practical
purposes
of
what
amenities
are
provided
within
the
room
and
so
I
believe
that
standard
number
six
is
also
met
and
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires.
A
The
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
is
among
them,
feasible
options
identified
before
the
ZBA,
noting
that
the
one
thing
that
we
are
talking
about
here
is
parking.
The
least
deviation,
I,
think
is
kind
of
for
us
to
just
kind
of
go
with
the
status
quo
that
currently
is
in
place
with
the
nine
parking
spaces
that
are
there.
The
building
is
covering
most
of
the
lot
I,
don't
know
that
we
can
fit
any
more
parking
spaces
in
so
I
believe
that
that
standard
has
been
met.