10-0approved spaarc minutes for oct. 8, 20148-14+spaarc+minutes+apprvd

8/10/2019 10-0Approved SPAARC minutes for Oct. 8, 20148-14+SPAARC+Minutes+APPRVD

1/4SPAARC Meeting Minutes October 8, 2014 Page 1 of 4

APPROVED

SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE (SPAARC)MINUTES

October 8, 2014

Members Present: S. Berg, I. Eckersberg, J. Ferrera, M. Klotz, J. Nelson, C. Ruiz, M.Tristan

Staff Present: D. Latinovic, E. Cholewa

Presiding Member: L. Pearson

A quorum being present, Ms. Pearson called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.

New Bus iness:

1) 1231 Hinman Avenue Recommendation to ZBA Request for major zoning relief to construct a 2-story addition with building lot coverageof 38.1% where a maximum of 30% is allowed and 34.2% currently exists 52%

impervious surface coverage where 45% is allowed, and a 3 south interior side yardsetback where 5 is required.

APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: Julie M. Liska Architect

GENERAL DISCUSSION:Ms. Pearson explained the process to the applicant. Details from the application werediscussed and other issues were raised:

Propose to demolish a non-original addition which is in poor condition, replace steepbasement stair that does not currently meet code, and add living space to modernizea small home

The proposed 3 side yard setback will be an improvement upon the existing 2setback

Lot coverage will increase to accommodate interior and exterior stairs and newfamily room

Existing screened porch to be converted into habitable space Compliance with side yard setback requirement would mean completely changing

floor plan and being non-compliant with other building codes Neighbors have verbally approved of the project Mr. Berg noted that this lot is ~2,400 sq ft smaller than normal lot size Current impervious surface coverage is 48%

Ms. Klotz noted that impervious surface coverage could be reduced if front sidewalkwere to be replaced with pervious pavers

Mr. Berg moved to recommend approval of the variance, seconded by Mr. Ruiz.

The Committee voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the variance.

2) 3146 Harrison Avenue Recommendation to ZBA Request for major zoning relief to demolish a one-story rear area, and construct a 2-story addition and deck. The applicant requests a 1.1 east interior side yard setback



where 5 is required, a 1.1 east interior side yard setback where 3 is required, and60.9% impervious surface coverage where a maximum 45% is allowed and 57.2%currently exists.

APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: Thomas Engel Property ownerBrent Norsman Architect

GENERAL DISCUSSION:Ms. Pearson explained the approval process to the applicant. Details from theapplication were discussed and other issues were raised:

Propose to construct a 2 nd story addition above front porch, a 2-story addition with adeck at rear, and repair the existing garage.

Addition plays off of original architecture and keeps the building footprint the same House has been vacant and neighbors have verbally approved of improvements Will consider pervious materials if that will ease impervious surface concerns Only demolishing rear portion due to foundation issues. The remaining foundation

on the house is sound. Ms. Klotz noted that if they shifted the addition to the west, the east side yardsetback would become compliant. The ZBA would be more receptive to the projectand it would reduce the number of requested variances.

Mr. Ruiz moved to recommend approval of the variance with the conditions thatthe applicant align the new structure to accommodate setbacks and use pervioussurfaces for s idewalks, seconded by Mr. Ferrera.

The Committee voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the variance.

3) 715 Milburn Street Recommendation to ZBA Request for major zoning relief to reconstruct a one-car detached garage. The applicantrequests a .9 rear yard setback where 3 is required, and 4 between the principal andaccessory structure where 10 is required.

APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: Andrew Venamore Zoning Specialist


Replace existing flat roof garage due to water leakage and general disrepair Unusually shaped garage makes it difficult to utilize. Aim is to modernize forpracticality

Reconstruct garage in same location, but difficult due to lot size and orientation The garage cannot be constructed anywhere else on the lot. There are no neighboring structures in the vicinity of the garage and owners have

been asked to confer with neighbors about the project. The proposed plan is only 20 square feet larger than the existing building lot

coverage on the property



The existing garage was probably constructed in conjunction with the house

Mr. Berg moved to r ecommend approval of the variance, seconded by Mr. Tristan.

The Committee voted unanimously 8-0 to recommend approval of the variance.

4) 2045 Brown Avenue Recommendation to ZBARequest for major zoning relief to construct a dome above the second story for areligious institution. The applicant requests a building height of 44.1 where a maximum35 or 2.5 stories, whichever is less, is allowed.

APPLICATION PRESENTED BY: Khaled Noman Architect


Shared some of the background of this property:o Structure built as a church, but was never completed or occupiedo Structure never fully completed to what was envisioned, and has been

under construction for ~15 yearso In 2007, received approval from City of Evanston for design and plan

changes, but work ceased due to lack of funding and permits expired. Current owners intend to use building as a mosque Since the 2007 plan, the dome placement has been moved to accommodate

structural issues and is more centered. Dome is believed to be a positive contribution to the building and will act as a

gateway from McCormick Avenue via Bridge Street while providing buildingsreligious identity.

Mr. Noman stated that the dome is found non-compliant at a height of 47.1. Ms.Pearson noted that the legal notice specified a height of 44.1 since the plans noted44.1 as the dome height. Mr. Noman clarified that the total height of the dome, fromgrade, measures 47.1 the 44.1 measurement is from the base of the first floor tothe top of the dome. The Law Department will need to be consulted as to whetherthe item will require a new legal notice with the dome height measuring of 47.1

Mr. Ruiz asked if there were any other protrusions in the roof and if it was necessaryfor the dome to be that tall. Mr. Noman responded the heating supply/return ductsfor the mechanical deck need to go through the roof, so dormers were added to thedesign to better hide the venting and that he originally was not aware of the Citysheight requirement and wanted the dome to be visible at multiple levels from aninterior standpoint.

Mr. Ruiz inquired if the height requirements had changed since the previousproposal, to which Ms. Klotz responded that height used to be measured to themean slope of the roof, but is now measured at the peak. The proposal extendsbeyond the maximum allowed peak height, and is also more than the maximumallowed 2.5 stories.

Mr. Latinovic asked whether there were any changes proposed to the existing glassblock windows on the building and the existing Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) blockexterior to which Mr. Noman responded that glass block windows will be used at the


4/4

10-0approved spaarc minutes for oct. 8, 20148-14+spaarc+minutes+apprvd

Documents