Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1999SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 29,1999 Room 2404 Members Present: P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, R. Fahlstrom (for C. Smith), M. Mylott, S. Nagar, R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, J. Wolinski. Design Professionals Present: Design Professionals Absent: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: Other Attendees Present: Commencement S Nagar motioned to appoint M. Mylott acting chair. P. D'Agostino seconded the n. CommNt+ee anoroved the motion (6-0) to aoaoiint M. Mylott acting chair. M. Mylott determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-165 1009 Oakton Street Preliminary and Final lnstaff air-conditioning condenser approximately 5 feet from side /at line of property containing single-famr7y residence, requiring major variation Mr. Michael Gilbert (property owner) presented an Application for Major Variation #ZBA 04-01.V(t7, indkigfng a site plan and site and area photographs, to install an air-conditioning condenser approximately 5 feet from the side lot line of 1009 Oakton Street M. Gilbert stated that the contractor installed the air-conditioning condenser along the east side of his house, north of the chimney, approximately 5 feet from the lot line. without a permit M. Gilbert stated that the air- conditianing condenser does not have electrical servtce yet. M. Gilbert stated that the east side of his property is nearly inacces&bie, given his nefghbors fence and garage that are along the common lot line. M. Gilbert stated his neighbor to the east requested that he move the air-conditioning condenser to the south side of the chimney, but rt would still be recessed back from the front of the house. M. Gilbert stated that, if he cannot put the chimney at the proposed location, he would have to put it within his small backyard, just north of a bay SAA FlhVPM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE FZ17Ey CoMWTTEE December 29.1 W9 Page 1 d 3 x window. M. Gilbert stated that trees and bushes screen the proposed kn t:on M Gilbert stated that 0W3m School is across the street S. Nagar asked M Gilbert: does the neighbor have any objections to I,* appncatxv? h1 Gilbert resparaied: no, if the air-onditioning condenser is moved south of the chimney M. Mylott asked P. D'Agostino: is the level of existing landscaping s0f,crent to screen me air-condibmirg condenser'? P. D'Agostino responded: yes. M. Mylott asked At Gilbert would all existing landscaping remain? M. Gilbert responded: yes. S. Nagar asked M. Gilbert wcuU the air-condibowg condenser be visible from the sleet? M. Gilbert responded: possibly during the Mir but at all oUw times, it would be very difficult to see it P. D'Agostino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and acoearance review approval. R. Dohal seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (fi-0) to airar-t Dreliminary and final site otan and aooearance review aoaroval. The plat of survey and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearwze Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-165). SPAARC 99-166 910 South Boulevard Preliminary and Final Construct 1-story screened porch, attached to south side of existing 2-story single-family, requiring major variation. Mr. Richard Kalish and Mrs. Ellie Kalish (property owners) presented an application for Major Variation #IZBA 00-02-V(F), including a site plan, floor plan, elevations, plat of survey, and site and area photographs, to construct a 1-story screened porch, attached to the south side of existing 2-story single-family residence located at 910 South Boulevard. E. Kalish stated that they are proposing a 17-foot rear yard setback faf their screened porch whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-foot setback. E. Kalish stated that they chose this location for the screened porch for its privacy. E. Kalish staled that her neighbors have no complaints about the proposal. M. Mylott stated that he is concerned that a portion of the construdxln may create an area in which a burglar could hide R. Wak=k asked the applicants: does the area between the screened porch and residence have visibility from other locations? E. Kalish responded yes. E. Kalish stated that that area would also be well lit. M Mylott asked the applicants: of what building materials would you construct the screened porch? E. Kalish responded wood, glass, and screens. P. D'Agostino asked the applicants would the screened porch be vLs,bte from Oakton Street? R. Kalish responded:no P. D'Agostino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee aavroved the motion f6-M to raa nt oreliminary and finglsite Man and aDDearance review amroval. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-166). SUMMARY OF FLNOINGs SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE December 29. 1999 Page 2 of 3 SPAARC 99-168 Communication. Distribute phoOxopy of Internet arWe: MMded We Sprawf' The Atlantic Mbnthty Kbb Sfte (two part)- M. Mylott dsr bated a photocopy of the tnb met article: 'Divided We sprawl" from The Atlantic Monthly web Site (two parts). SPAARC 99-1 fig Communication Distribute ptw&=py of Internet article: 7&6b &xftywg Robot, Emerging Consftaron Technologies Web site. M. Mylott distributed a photocopy of the Internet articie: 'Mobile Bricklaying Robot" from the Emerging Construcbm Technologies Web Site. Ad(oumment The meeting adjoumed at 3:20 p.m. r , • /. RespectfuAy submitted,' t Marc Steven tiifylati, Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS f1Ki SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE Deownber 29.1999 Page 3 ar 3 )(I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 15, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A Alterson, P. D'Agostino, M. Mylott, S. Najar, C_ Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent: J. Aiello, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, K. Kelly. D. Marino,-,J. Wolinski. Design Professionals Present: Design Professionals Absent: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: Other Attendees Present: Commencement S. Lufkin, J. Minear, C. Ruiz. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3.15 p.m SPAARC 99-160 2640 Broadwav Avenue Pimliminary and Final Construct one-story addition to single4amily residence, requinng major variation. Mr. Richard Bergfors (architect) presented Application for Major Variation *ZBA 99-57-V(F), including a site plan, floor plan, elevations, perspective, and site and area photographs, to construct a one-story addition to the single-family residence located at 2640 Broadway Avenue. R. Bergfors stated that the addition would be 12 feet by 16 feet and located at the rear of the single-family residence. M. Mylott stated that the project would require a grant of variation from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the rear yard set back requirement of the Zoning Ordinance; the addiction would be 10 feet from the rear lot line whereas the Inning Ordinance requires a 30-foot setback. R. Bergfors stated that the shed in the rear of the property would be removed. C. Smith asked R. Bergfors: have the neighbors expressed any coneems? R Bergfors responded, no. R. Bergfors stated that he would provide letters from the neighbors signifying that they do not obj-ect to the project C. Smith asked R. Bergfors: would the materials of the addition match the existing materials? R. Bergfors responded: yes, the roof pitch would match as well. SUMMARY of F> OOM SM PLAN AW APPEARANCE REVIEW COWr ME December 15, IM Page I of 5 k- k C. Smith stated that the request'seems reasonable'. R. Bergfors stated the eonfigurabon of the hoi;�� c-sakes it difficult to do the project any other way. A. Alterson asked R. Bergfors is the building on a slab? R. Bergfors responded yes C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. V mytott seconded the motion. Committee aoDroved the motion (5-0) to grant oreliminary and final site Plan and appearance review aooroval The site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Cani ttee folder for this case (SPARC 99-160). Y SPAARC 99-156 2224 Cleveland Street Preliminary and Final Erect a 6-foot high chain fink fence (Izui Photography, Inc.). Mr Richard lzui and Mrs Fumi lzui (property owners) presented Applicabon for Building Permit #99-1159, including a site plan, plat of survey, and site and area photographs, to erect a 6-foot high, chain lirrlk fence accessory to Izui Photography, Inc located at 2224 Cleveland Street. A. Alterson stated that the fence would be paid for through the funds generated by excess sales tax from Home Depot; the Econom►c Development Committee has approved this project R. Izui stated that they are proposing two sections of fence. R Izui stated that the first section would start near the northeastern -most comer of the buildings and proceed easterly to the lot line, parallel to Cleveland Street; the fence would include a sliding gate. R. Izui stated that the second section would start rear the northwest comer of the projecting entrance of the large central building. R. Izui stated that this fence would head north approximatety 3 feet, including a swinging gate; turn west and run along the loading dock to the Pitner Avenue lot line; and turn south and run along the Pitner Avenue lot line, stopping near the southwest comer of the property. R lzui stated that this fence would have additional gates at the loading dock (swinging), along the Pitner Avenue lot line near the projecting entrance (sliding), and at the curb cut rmw the southwest comer of the property (swinging). R. Izui stated the fence would have white slats, running oreAM only, permitting limited visibility R. Izui stated that the fence would be 6 feet high, but he would build an 8-fagot high fence if the City permitted it. M. Mylott stated the Zoning Ordinance permits an 8-foot high fence within this zoning district (11/oRD) C Smith stated that a swinging gate may not swing into the right-of-way R. Walczak stated the proposed slating should be eliminated for safety reasons cited in Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTEQ) studies, the fence would eliminate any natural surveittanoe to the property, creating places where burglars could hide R. Walczak stated that he would rather see no fence. F. Izui stated that they open their shop doors for air, but their very expensive equipment is highly viskAe; si August, they have had items removed from their property, but they have not been broken into F. Uxiti staled that, in addition to privacy, another reason for the fence is to prevent dumping of debris and abandoned cars; the City has removed these items but at his cost. F. Izui stated that they have chests come from Chicago and the fence would reduce the some of this unsightliness. A. Alterson stated that he does not mind the fence, but it should not be slatted. M. Mylott agreed, and stated that, while he appreciates the owners' concerns, turning their track on the street onty perpetuates the problem. M. Mylott stated that he is hopeful that the neighborhood will turn around, but the chances of this occurring are diminished if everyone'walls himself or herself in'. C. Smith stated that the applicant could consider ding landscaping to provide an additional buffer that still permits visibility. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 1 S. 1999 Page 2 of 6 a *A ' C. Smith stated that she would recommend that the appbcam erect the chain tnr fence without the sum d the problem is not imprm-ed, the applicants can return to t'e Commfftee and rea.�est to install the slan S_ Nagar agreed. R. Izui asked the Committee can we add s:ats around the entrance and [coding dock? C. Smith responded- that alternative seems reasoraOle S Nagar agrees C. Smdl motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan arc appearance rev** approval for a fence not to exceed 8 feet high with single slating only within that portiow of the fence a,, ...... ,.,.wII north of the sal:Rhem wall of the large central metal building (m and around the prctectmg entrance and is ding dock). R_ Wak=Ik seconded Ike motion. Discussion: A Alterson asked the applicants c d the Economic Deve.00ment Committee have any comments? F Izui responded we were not present Committee aporoved the motion (6-01 to grant preliminary arc final site plan anC_d ear-dnce rev2ew ac for a fence not to exceed 8 feet hioh with single staff wxhin that of zhe fence a north of the southern wall of the large central metal building (in and around the pm eC ng entrance and loading dock) The site plan, plat of survey, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Ptara and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-156) SPAARC 99-162 2643 Orrinaton Aventlle Preliminary and Snal Demdish one -car attached garage to north side of residence and aanstruct one-story addition to residence, requiring a major variation Mr, John Holbert (architect) presented Application for Major Variation OZBA 99-59-V(rr/R), IncWding a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and site photographs, to demolish a one -car garage attached to the north side of, and construct a one-story addition to, the single-family residence located at 2643 Orrington Avenue. J. Holbert stated that the existing garage is 8 feet 6 inches wide-, a vehicle may enter. but the doors will not open. J. Holbert stated that the new addition would mirror what is an the other side of the residence. J. Holbert stated that the Preservation Commission has approved the proposal. J. Holbert stated the existing driveway would not change. M. Mylott stated that the variations relate to the new location for the parking space currently within the garage. M Mylott stated that the new parking space would be approximately 3 feet from the side lot line w1wreas a 5-foot setback is required, it would be partially located within the front yard, and it would be approximately 70 feet from the rear lot line whereas it must be vnthin 30 feet of the rear lot line M. Mylott stated that. d the Zoning Board of Appeals decided that the more appropriate course of action was to eliminate the patrKvlg space, the proposal would go to the City Council for final approval. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Division has heard of no otyections from the neighbors_ J. Hobert stated that he has signatures from seven neighbors stating they have no objections to the proposal. A. Aftersan stated that, while the site conditions would not change, the Zoning Ordinance prohibits a permanent parking space at this location, but permits the use of the driveway for temporary parking. C. Smith stated that she sees no other alternative; the City does not want the vehicle on the street SUMMARY OF F SETE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUrnME December 15.109 Page 3 d 5 k C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance revsew appraovai. S. Najar seconded the motion. Discussion- A. Alterson stated that this motion is to approve the parking space at tie proposed location rather ttian eliminating it. C Smith agreed Committee aaoroved the motion (6-0) to grant oreliminary and final site olan and awearance review a%Egm 1. The site plan, plat of survey, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-162). SPAARC 99-163 2111 Orrinaton Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct screened porch along south side of the single-family residence, requinng major var iii on. Mr, Richard Rasmussen (architect) presented Application for Major Variation *ZBA 99-58-V(F). anclud'u1g a site plan, floor plan, elevations, plat of survey, and site and area photographs.:o construct a screened porch along the south side of the single-family residence located at 2111 Orrington Avenue R. Rasmussen stated that he worked on the remodeling to the second floor master suite, but did not work on the existing library addition R Rasmussen stated that the screened porch *could to- flush with the east wall of the library R. Rasmussen stated that the existing residence does not comply win the rear yard seUmck; the existing residence and the proposed screened porch would be 4 feet from the rear lot line whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-foot setback. R. Rasmussen stated that the property owner informed him that he received a variation to construct the library addition C. Smith asked R. Rasmussen. when did you submit the Application for Building Permit? R. Rasmussen responded? I cannot remember. C Ruiz stated that, if the application was submitted to the Building Division after October 19, 1999, the Preservation Commission must review the applicatson because the property would be within the proposed Northeast Evanston Historic District C Ruiz stated that If the applicant could transmit 13 copies of an Application for Certificate of Appropriateness and the support documentation to his office by December 15, 1999, he could be on the Preservation Commission agenda for December 21, 1999, C. Ruiz stated the applicant should bring higher quality photos of the property to the Preservation Commission meeting. M. Mylott stated that the Preservation Commission and the Zoning Board cf Appeals could hear the application on the same night C. Smith asked M. Mylott: have any neighbors commented on the application? M. Mylott responded: some residences are vacant, so the objections may be limited C. Smith stated that she has some concerns about how two attachments would look on an already linear house; d looks 'very busy' R Rasmussen stated that an existing hedge along the street would reduce the visibility of the porch C Smith stated that she would defer to the Preservation Commission on this matter. C. Ruiz stated that the architect might reconsider the architecture after he reads the standards against which the Preservation Commission evaluates proposals, making the design more complementary rather than a departure, unless the architect feels that the current proposal offers a strong design concept R. Rasmussen stated that the project is a screened porch — it will look 'a little different" C Ruiz stated that the architect should be prepared to address commer.'s much like his from the Preservation Commission. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COUMiTrEE Deoemaer 15, 1099 Page A of 6 x A Atterson stated that he is not troubled by the proposal, because the proposed location of the screened porch functions as the back yard A Alterson stated that such a proposal would not be uncommon if the residence was a ranch house. C Smith stated that the proposal looks like three separate buildings; adding on to an octagon shape is not easy. C Smith stated that she has a problem with permitting this much wall along an adjacent property, however, no neighbors have objected. C. Smith stated that the property is a comer lot. A Alterson motioned to grant preliminary approval S Najar seconded tl-e motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that a preliminary approval aliowvs the applicant to return to this Committee and report on the dscussions of the Preservation Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Committee avoroved the motion (6-0) to orant oreliminary site Dian and aDDearance review an rgMW. SPAARC 99-164 1501-1503 Howard Street Concept Construct second -story addition to child day care center (Toddler Town) Mr. Angelo Nikolov (owner) presented Application for Zornng Analysis *9940778-27A, inducting a site plan, fl= plans, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs. to construct a second -story addition to the child day care center (Toddler Town) located at 1501-1503 Howard Street. S. Lufkin stated that, if the project were approved, it would be funded through the 2000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); the applicant would have S35,0O0 with which to work. A. Nikolov stated that the purpose of tyre addition is to enclose an open balcony, the balcony leaks during rainy weather unless he shovels the rain from the flat roof. A. Nikolov stated that the addition would be brick or siding, depending upon the amount of funding; he hopes to be able to match the existing brick or siding. M. Mylott asked A. Nikolov: have you discussed the zoning issues with the zoning officer? A Nikolov responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that the addition is too close to the north and east lot lines; the applicant may also require a new special use permit. A. Alterson stated the applicant should talk to the neighbors to the north about the project. M. Mylott motioned to grant concept approval, provided the initial bid iricWes a brick exterior and a wood - siding exterior alternate C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aDDroved the motion (6-0) to arant concept approval, provided the initial bid includes a beck exterior and a wood -siding exterior alternate. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-164). SUMMARY OF FiNDM6S SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMIXTTEE l7eoember 15,19% ep Pale 5 of 5 SPAARC 99-161 1209 Monroe Street Preliminary and Final Corrsirtact second -story addition to single-family resdence, requirog moor vartjtrons Mr. Steven SkWl and Mrs. Susan Sidell (property oaners) presented Applicat�n for Mapr Variation *MA 99- 60-V(F), including a site plan, floor plans, elevations. and site and area photVraphs. to construct a second - story addition to the single-family residence located at 1209 Monroe Street M. Mylott stated that the applicants require major var*rtions for both skies of the proposed addition. U Mytoa stated that the applicants should bring a drawing of the proposed front elevabon to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. P. D'Agostino stated that the eastern neighbors' eave overhangs the lot tine. C. Smith stated dial the applicant might have to adjust the real plan to apt for gutters. Su. Sidell stated that they plan to reside the entire t*use. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you talked to the neighbors about your proposal? Su. Sidell responded: I have had a petition signed. C. Smith stated that windows are prohibited within a wail less than 3 feet from a tot line unless the appricant receives a variation from the Building Code. C. Smith stated that the applicants could consider skylights win lb the roof, especially considering the windows would not have much of a view anyway. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. R. Wakzak seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-01 to orant o_ rebmminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-161). Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of the December 1, 1999 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meeting. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-0) to approve the Summary of Findinos of the December 1. 1999 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Mmear, Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �G+ December 1 S. 1999 i/`J'�� Page 6 or 6 1� SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 8, '1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky, P. D'Agostino, R_ Dahal, R. Fahlstrom, D. Marino, M. Mylott. Members Absent: L. Black, D. Jennings, K. Kellyl, C. Smith. Design Professionals Prmwnt: Design Professionals Absent: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: Other Attendees Present: Commencement J. Minear, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz- M. Mylott motioned to appoint A. Alterson acting chair. P. D'Agostino seoonded the motion. Commit -tee approved the motion (7-01 to aDDoint A Alterson actznq chair. A Alterson (acting -chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-158 1860 Maple Avenue Preliminary Construct three-story office building (Evanston NorMwestem Hospital Laboratory Building). Mr Watt Eckenhoff and Mr Bob Pliebanski (Eckenhoff Saunders Architects). Ms, Alice Rebechini (Mesirow Stein Development Services, Inc ), and Mr. Leopold Selker, Ph.D. (Evanston Northwestern Hospital) presented an Application for .Zoning Analysis #99-1171-ZA, inciuding a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, to construct a 3-story office building (Evanston Northwestern Hospital Laboratory Building) at 1860 Maple Avenue L Selker stated that Evanston Northwestern Hospital (ENH) received a charter to become a not -for -profit research company in 1996; at that time, the program was a $5 million program. L. Selker stated that the program doubled in 2 years rather than 5 years as originally thought; today, the program is $12 mdhon program L Selker stated that the program has 135 physicians as prsnapal investigators for over 500 research projects L. Selker stated that ENH must have viable research to recruit the best clinicians; ENH has committed to doubling its space. L. Selker stated that approximately 50,000 square feet is committed to research, and that number will double during the next 3 to 5 years; the new space would be provided at the proposed office building and ENH SUMMARY of FINrWYGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM[ I IEE December $_ 19" Page i or 51 9 A Alterson asked the applicants, to what extent would this building serve as a teaching institution? L Sell ar responded: pre- and post -operative students would come through the labs to learn, D Marina asked re applicants: is teaching accessory to the primary purpose of research? L. Seilker responded: yes. A Aran asked the applicants: would the building contain classrooms? W. Eckenhcfl responded the building would contain a small conference room, seating 30 to 50 persons. this room can be dmded into three smaller roerrts. A. Rebechini stated the conference room would not be considered a classroom from the zoning perspecdw. A Alterson asked the applicants. is the teaching part of 'class work' conducted elsewhere? A. RebecMini responded: no W Eckenhoff stated that the building would be three stories high and include a full basement: the gross ffcor area would be approximately 87.000 square feet (approximately 22,000 squ.-" feet per floor). W. Eckenhoff stated that the floor -to -floor heights are 15 feet due to research functions and ventilation requirements W. Eckenhoff stated that the building is 'L-shaped' because the footprint is consistent with Other buildings wRli n the Research Park and this shape is an efficient layout for ENH W Ecicenl"off stated that the building would 'follow the spirit and intent' of the Northwestern University/Evanston Research Park Master Ptan a Development Guidelines. W. Eckenhoff stated that ENH would provide a 7 ,mot utility easement akxng Maple Avenue and a 3-foot setback from this easement. W Eckenhoff stated that building would be set back fr= the north and west lot lines by approximately 10 feet and 'just inside" the scc.oth lot line W Eckenhoff stand that pedestrian entrances would be at University Place and within the Inside cf the -L University Place is less congested for drop-off purposes and the City parking garage would be located to the south. W Eckenhoff stated the building would have two types of labs — approximate,y 12,000 square feet of *wet lab' (faolities with benches fume hoods. sinks, etc ) and 41 000 square feet cf "dry lab' (facilities much We standard office space in which personal computers are used to conduct research) W Eckenhoff stated that the basement would contain an approximately E.500 square -foot animal facttity (vivanum) to be used in conjunction with the research conducted in rest of the building, animals used for research would be limited to rodents M. Mylott asked the applicants- is tfse vivarium a holding fac*ty for animals or a place in which research is conducted upon the animals? W. Eckenhoff responded: the vrearurn contains holding areas, care areas. and procedure rooms for researches M Mylott asked the applicants-. are procedure rooms assigned to a particular researcher. functioning much lice a researchers office, or do researchers use procedure rooms on an as -needed or first -come, first -serve ;.asis? W Eckenhoff responded: researches would leave their offices or research areas and use the procedure rooms within the vivarium on an as -needed basis W Eckenhoff stated that researchers prefer to keep the animals in one environrt+ent rather than transporting them from one area to another throughout t~e day; however, should such transportation be required. an elevator assigned solely for this purpose woc:id be available. A Berkowsky stated that the applicants would require a second exit from the storage potion of the basement W Eckenhoff stated that truck dock facilities would be provided at the rear of the building, including a dedicated dock for the animal facility and two general docks; the docks would be accessed from Univensrty Place W Eckenhoff stated that they propose to screen the docks with an 8-foot high. curved, masonry wail. M Mylott asked if the building would have special fitters for cleaning research devices, such as test tulaes. W Eckenhoff responded the laboratories would use delontzed water and an 'industrial waste system' tit has not yet been developed. A Rebechini stated that they are working on me waste system as well as the air supply system, they will report back to the City with the results W Eckenhoff stated that exterior of the building would -blend with the Research Park". the building materials are common to the Research Park. W. Eckenhoff stated that building ^ould have a brick 'skin' with a limestone -like base the brick would consist of 3 shades standard -reddish' dark gray, and dark red aci en;;ts. SUMMARY OF I=rNDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9 1999 Part 2of9 X B Fahlstrom asked :he applicants. are you providing arty reveals? W. Eckenhoff responded: the brivi ties 'a flat skin or a taugntness that is synonymous with ti-e use of the building'. W. Eckenhoff stated &at a building designed in this fashion is also simpler to bulk M. Mylott asked the applicants: what size brick do you propose to use? W. Eckenhoff responded: standard_ but it could be jumbo. W. Eckenhoff stated Viar they would have a more definitive answer regarding brick size at their neat presentation. M. Mylott said that; setae the brick used on the two adjacent buildings is standard sized, the developer should use standard brink an this building. M Mylott stated that the proposed building would form the comer of the two adjacent btuldrigs. and a different size brick would 'severely jeopardize tNs critical relationship'. W Eckenhoff stated that the windows at vision areas would have tinted but not reflective glass; those bried windows that relate to lab modules would have dear glass above them to permit more daylight to enter the building. W Eckenhoff stated the building would include a 'fairly significant screen": however, the elevations make the screen appear more significant that it really would be. W. Eckenhoff stated that the screen is necessary to screen the rooftop equipment M Mylott asked the applicants: is the screen open on top? W Eckenhoff responded: yes, except a small. closed elevator pennouse. J Aiello asked the applicants: is the screen setback from the edge of the building? W. Eckenhoff responded. yes. M. Mylott stated that the screen looked like a 'bad haf on an otherwise well -designed building_ M. Mylott stated that the screen should appear as if it was designed in conjunction with the building, not simply stuck on top of it. W. Eckenhoff stated that they would continue to look at the screen. A Alterson states that he wants to see what the rooftop unr',s kick like. A Alterson stated that the screening stmuld be removed. J. Aiello and M. Mylott disagreed. C Rutz stated that a higher parapet would decrease the visibility of the rooftop units. W Eckenhoff stated that he would look at reducing the area of the dark brick band and increase the width of the precast coping. B Fahlstrom stated that the budding is 'handsome" B Fahlstrom stated that the dark brick band suggests that the precast coping protects, which would be 'nice'. n would give the "brick skin a nice cap'. W. Eckenhoff stated he could use a dark color brick underneath " coping to make it appear as if it projects, fi ke the technique used on the 1880 Oak Street building M hilylott stated that he does not believe that technique is successful at accomplishing the desired result. if a shadow is desired, the elements necessary to create a shadow should be installed A Alterson stated that a projecting coping would make the screen less visible as well; a projecting coping would also serve to 'stop tyre eye" W Eckenhoff stated that a projecting taping might be less consistent with the 'taught skin" of the facade; however. he would look at it. R Walczak asked the applicants- would the budding be open 24 hours per day? A. Rebechini responded: yes_ W Eckenhoff staled that access to the building would be by key card; during regular business hours, a receptionist would be available W Eckenhoff stated security cameras might be used A Rebechini asked the Committee why was the loading "denied' within the Zoning Analysis? A Alterson responded the access to the loading area is not a public alley A Rebechini stated that cross easements exist J. Aiello stated that the alley north of parcel 6 was vacated D Marino asked the applicants how many employees would this building contain? L Selker responded: the number varies due to the different types of research A Alterson asked the applicants- what is the maiCimum Population of the budding at any one time? W Eckenhoff responded I will get that information to Ow City. A Rebechini stated that the number of wet tabs might increase in the future; as a result, the population may decrease over time A Berkowski asked the applicants would the building contain a generators W Eckenhoff responded' yes W Eckenhoff stated that he is not sure what would power the generator or where it would be located; tie SUMMARY OF FIJt ONGS SITE PLAN ARID APPEARANCE REVIEW COANMrME December 5,1999 eo Page 3 of 9 k would prefer to place it within the basement W_ Eckenhoff stated that he would provide this Infonnabw to the City. D. Marino asked the applicants: who would own the building? A Rebechini resporroed: Mesirow Stan. J Aiello asked the applicants: would the property remain on the tax rolls? A Rebecitirr responded: that issue needs to be discussed. J. Aiello stated that this Lom * would be included within the retie% o ment , y -, , -1 A. Alterson asked the applicants: would you provide on -site parking? W. Eckenf'aff responded: no- A Alterson stated that the parking might need to be configured such that a person could return to the hospital quickly in the event of an emergency D. Marino asked the applicants what is the projected construction cost? A. Rebe&ini responded: the core and shell of the building would cost approximately $10 million because the basemerris expensive. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J Aiello seconded #* motion. ❑iscussiom A. Alterson stated that the building is -handsome' except for re screen, but he would like to see the landscaping and more development of the elevations. A. Abterson stated that he does not believe the Committee has enough information for preliminary site plan and appearance review approval D Marino disagreed, and stated that the applicants have presented more to the Ccrnmittee than typically reviewed for preliminary site plan and appearance review acaroval A. Alterson stated that he would like to see what would be hind the screen. Committee aooroved the motion (8-11 to grant_preliminary site otan and nnoeararcip review aporaval A Alterson cast the dissenting vote. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan artid Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-158) SPAARC 99-137 1633 Chicago Avenue Preliminary, Review signage for retail services establishment (Office Max PDQ) as conddion of previous approval for separate entrance and vestibule for future basement tenant. Mr Gene Nichols (North American Signs, Inc.) and Mr. Greg Davis (Office Max PCQ) presented a revised sign plan and site and area photographs for the proposed retail services estabriishme-t (Office Max PDO) at 1633 Chicago Avenue as a condition of the previous approval for a separate entrance and vestibule for a future basement tenant. Mr. Jon Bergschneider, Mr. John Abell (agent for property clw-ner), Mr. Bors Eliersla (North American Signs), and Mr. Dick Copeland (North American Signs) were avalatTe to answer questions. G Nichols stated that this case was tabled at the last Committee meeting. G. Nichcis stated that he walked through the downtown to understand its character G Nichols stated that he has Aorked with Office Maas PDO, but he has not talked with the owner of Dave s Italian Kitchen, he understands at this person is wMing to work with the concept the Committee approves. G. Nichols stated that he proposes seeping the -PDQ* high above the center door, keeping a non -Illuminated sign immediately over the door. reducing the size of ft large signage over the window and removing the vinyl signs from the window G Nichols stated that the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE rr December 9. 1999 i�*�'}7 Page 4 of 9 t� D signage for Dame's Italian K=hen would be increased in size to approximate, and raised to the same height . as, the large signage for Office Max PDO. C. Ruiz stated that Chicago Avenue is pedestrian oriented; the proposed signage is designed for V*Wing from vehicles traveling at 65 mpti along a highway. C. Ruiz stated that customers do not seek out places to have photocopies made based on their signage; this signage can be reduced. G. Davis stated that proposed large signage is smaller than the signage for Whole Foods. G Danis stated that an integral part of business is recognition; however, they took the Comm&"-:ee comments 'to heart' and downsized the large sign try 20 percent, deleted the vinyl window signs, and retained the double doors. G. Davis stated that this store -oust produce $2 million in sales; without the signage as proposed, reaching that number will be difficult. A. .person stated that he is'puzzled by how the size of a sign relates to sales'. M. Mylott stated that this budding began as a one -use building; now the building contains two uses. M. Mylott stated that he does not have a problem with the sign plan as presented. provided that the proposed metal panels underneath the large Office Max PDO sign are removed. B. Fahlstrom agreed. G. Davis stated that Office Miax PDO has more to offer than other photocopy establishments; he will attempt to keep the windows Gear of obstructions. M. Mylott stated that keeping the wndows Gear of obstructions is in the best interest of the business. C. Ruiz stated that the large sign could be lowered. G. Davis stated that he would not want to cross the lines within the granite fagade C Ruiz stated that having the sign in the middle of the facade is worse G. Davis stated that he w atild remove the small sign proposed immediately above the door and the metal panels. M. Mylott motioned to approve the sign plan, provided the small sign immediately above the door is deleted and the metal panels behind the large sign are deleted. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Discussion: A Alterson asked the Committee: does the 'PDO' sign located high above the door require approval from the Sign Review and Appeals Board? B. Fahlstrom responded: yes. M Robinson stated that this approval would release the building permit for the entrance and vestibule for Dave's Italian Ktchen Committee aimroved the motion (6-1) to aoorove the sign plan, orovtded the small lion immediately above the door is deleted and the metal panels behind the iarae sign are deleted A- Alterson cast the dissenting vole The sign plan and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-137). suLWARY Or- FiNONG.S stTE PLm AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COL"TTEE oecftTd r IL 19" Page 5 of 9 x SPAARC 99-157 1633 Central Street Prelindnart Construct second-stofy addition to office building (Manufacturer's News, Inc.). Mr. James Murray presented a Zoning Analysis Application #99-156-ZA, inducing a site plan, floor plans, alit elevations, to construct a second -story addition to the office building (Manufacturer's News, Inc.) located at 1633 Central Street J. Murray stated that the building was built in the early 1980's. J. Murray stated that the applicant wistm to construct a second floor for office area and stock moms immediately above the exdsbrig first floor, the Ilootprint would not increase. J. Murray stated that the addition would match the existing budfng in terms of rnaterials, colors. and fenestration. B. Fahlstrom asked J. Murray is Manufacturers' News, Inc, the only tenant? J Murray responded- yes. J. Murray stated that the property is located within the 01 Office District. A. Afterson asked J. Murray- is the house to the north used residentially? J. Murray responded: I believe so; that house appears to be within the 01 district as well. J. Murray stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 27-foot setback along Central Street. M. Myk)d asked J. Murray: is the building on the Central Street lot line? J Murray responded the building is 1 foot from the Central Street lot line. A. Berkowskl stated that he is concerned about the amount of paper storage in the building. M. Mytcd asked J. Murray is the building sprinklered'? J. Murray responded' no. A. Berkowski stated that he would review whether or not the building must be sprinkiered. A. Berkowski stated that he would also evaluate the safety needs of the building as a whole, additional systems may be required. J. Murray stated the business leases 15 parking spaces within Lot 64 from the City; the Zoning Analysis indicates the proposal requires 16 parking spaces. J. Murray stated that he is not certain whether or not an additional parking space is available for rent. R. Dahal stated that he would prefer that the applicant eliminate the parking space closest to Central Street. J. Murray stated that that parking space, and all parking spaces shown on the site plan, is existing. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval P D'Agostino seconded the motion Dt=ssion: R Dahal asked J Murray: what time are deliveries to this building? J_ Murray responded. I have seen delivery trucks at the building in the morning and a?�ernoon. J. Murray stated that Manufacturer's News, Inc. issues 40 commuter passes (Metra) to its staff to minimize the parking problem M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Analysis Summary Sheet erroneously lists the project as short 160 parking spaces, rather than 16 parking spaces Committee aooroved the motion (6-01 to errant, rimliminary site plan and appearance review a re --al The site plan, floor plans. elevations. and zoning analysis have been placed within the Site Ptan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-157). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE r�+ December E 1999 i/`�'7 Page 6 of 9 rt� x SPAARC 99456 2224 Cleveland Street Preliminary and Fhol Erect 5-afoot high chain link fence in street side yard. Applicant did not attend. M. Mylott motioned to table this item. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Commd" Noroved the mom f6-01 to table this item. SPAARC 99-151 2114 Central Street Recommendation to Sign Board Install ncn-conforming, non -illuminated, roof -mounted sign for retail sales establishment (AdindscWw Adornments). B. Fahisbw presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 899-16). including elevations and site photographs, to install a non -conforming. non -illuminated, roof -mounted sign for tt+e retail sales estabtishrraffl (Mindscape Adornments) located at 2114 Central Street B. FahlsVom stated that the sign would be bolted to a railing, and this location was not the original l caWn of the signage for this storefront. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the application. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion, Committee aDoroved the motion f.W) to rAmmmend that the Sion Review and ADDeals Board denv the application. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-151). SPAARC 99-152 430 Asbury Avenue Recommendation to Sian Board Install non -conforming, illuminated, wall signs for retail sales establishment (Osco Drug). B. Fahlstrom presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB *99-15), including a site plan, elevations. and site photographs, to install non -conforming, illuminated, wag signs for the retail sales establishment (Osco Drug) located at 430 Asbury Avenue B. Fahlstmm stated that the monument sign meets the Sign Ordinance. A Alterson stated that the monument sign is 'needless' B. Fahlstrom stated that the wall signs would be approximately 16 to 17 feet high whereas the Sign Ordinance limits the height to 15 feet 6 inches. M. Mylott stated that this application is consistent with the plans that the Committee has already approved. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the application. A Berkowsky seconded the motion Committee anoroved the motion 15-11 to recommend that the Sion Review and AoDeals Board anDrove the application A. Alterson cast the dissenting vote The Sign Ordinance Vanation Application has been placed Krithin the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-152) SUMMARY OF FINDtfM �(.� SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �`/Jf'7 DecenibW8, 3fili9 eo Page 7 of 2 x SPAARC 99-153 P" "c4go Avenue Recanmendadon to Sion Bo rid Install two temporary, freestarcwv real estate sign for pn *x d 9-start', mbred-use developmwnt (grourrd- Rw financial institution and retad sales or services establishment and Upper -floor residential). B. Fahlstrorn presented a Sign Orwance Variation ApPlication (SRAB s99-17), mduding a site plan, to in=1 two temporary, fre&dandng_ reW estate signs W the proposed S-s� . mixed -use development (ground -floor financial irzstlb Wn and reta# sales or services establishment and upper -floor residential) located at 905 Chicago Avenue B. Fahtsttom stated that app:cartt requests a sign at the comer of Main Street and Chicago Avenue and asgn facing Chicago Avenue for 2 years, the Sign Ordinance limits such signs to no more than 7 items of informabon and 30 days. M. Myiott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the application. provided the signs are removed withers 1 yew and the signs shall not be erected until such time that the City issues a building permit for the, project (at least a foundation permit). P. D'Agosuno seconded the motion. Comnutlaeq aporovect the motion (6-0) to recommend that the Sian Reyie+r ani aoQeals Board approve -the app r vid me irons are removed within 1 Year and the signs, s.ha_'I nnk t P_rectr�rt until such time that the Cfit issues a buddinq permit for this oroiect fat least a foundatx>n oerrrsitl. The Sign Ordinance Vanaton Application has been placed w thin the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-153) SPAARC 99.154 2500 Ridge Avenue Recommgndatinn to Sian Board Install non -conforming, freestanding sign for office building (The Cos Sudding). B. Fahlstrorn presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB #99-18), including a plat of survey and site photographs, to install non -conforming. freestanding sign fat an office building (The Cos Building) loc_sled,,. at 2500 Ridge Avenue. B. Fahistrom stated that the Sign Ordinance limits such signs to no more than 7 items of information. M Mylott stated that he is not certain where this sign will be located or whether it is perpendicular or parallel to the right-of-way A Alterson motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the application. provided the sign is installed at a legal location and the plastic A -frame sign btled -Cos Building Entrance' is removed. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aocroved the motion (6-0) to recommend that the Sion Review and Appeals Board aoprove the application. provided the Sion is installed at a legal location arXl the plastic A -frame Sion titled "Cos Buildina Entrance' is removed The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed wdhm the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-154). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVfF-W COMMITTEE December 8 1999 Page B of 9 a SPAARC 99-1SS 1724 Sherman Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Install non -conforming wall sign for retail sales estathment (Kaehler Luggage). 8. Fahistrom presented a Sign Ordinance Vanadon Application (SRAB #99-19), including site photographs, to install a non -conforming wall sign for" retail safes establishment (Kaehler luggage) located at 1724 Sherman Avenue. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sagn Review and Appeals board deny the appfication. B. Fahlstrom seconded the motion. Committee accrovecl the motion (6-01 to recommend that the Sion Review and Appeals Board deny the aaolication. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-155). SPAARC 99-159 Communication Various articles related to EIFS, Indk4ng such topics as the installation of EIFS and litigation invdving EIFS. M. Mylatt distributed various articles related to EIFS, including such topics as the installation of EIFS and btigation involving EIFS. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Minear Recording Secretary SUMMARY of FD4)04G5 SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COYltirriEE Dewnber8,1M gorg Z6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 1, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present A. Atterson, R. Dahal, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, S. Najar, C. Smith. R. Walczak (for L Black), J. Wolinski, Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, D. Jennings. K. Kelly, D. Marino. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: Other Attendees Present: Commencement C. Ruiz, R. Schur. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-137 1633 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Change entrance to retail services establishment (Office Max PDQ). Mr. Jon Bergschneider and Mr. John Abell (agent for property owner) presented Building Permit Application #99-1040, including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, and site photographs to change the entrance to the retail services establishment (Office Max PDQ) at 1633 Chicago Avenue. J. Abell stated that Office Max PDQ originally wanted to retain the double doors, but the parrots plans reftest a single door with sidelight concept_ J. Abell stated that, as the owner, he is'indifferenV; he does not believe a single door with sidelight is a "material difference'. C. Smith agreed, and stated that the proposal is "not a big deal", provided the glazing of the door and sidelight match the glazing of the existing doors and windows. J Abell stated that, as he considers the proposal, he would prefer to have two operable doors. Oe single dog is 'a little awkward'. A. Alterson agreed. M Mylott stated that he believes that the entrance should remain as is -- double doors M. Mylott stated that he voted against the proposal to create a separate entrance for the basement tenant, but that basement tenant attempted to match the existing conditions. now, the existing conditions are being changed. M. Mylott stated that the Committee is seeing the 'continual degradation of this building'. J. Abell staled that he will inform Office Max PDQ that he and the Committee 'strongly suggest that the entrance remains a double door, however, he is not certain how much control the owner or the City SU16MA Y OF FINDMCS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C.0MMMME December 1. TM Pape 1 d 10 Y hay sL_h an issue. C. Smith stated that the issue could be construed as a site plan issue as a single doc• and sidelight matr confuse pedestrians. A. AtuNwn stated that he does not understand why Once Max PG!: %%ould want to remove the double doors, especially if a person was carrying a Large box A. A'erson motioned to deny preliminary and final site plan and appearance review. M Mylon seconded the mct - us -fission: M. Mytott stated that the Committee might want to phrase the motion `positively. A Alterson amended the motion as such: grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the entrance to the Office Max POO consists of two doors rather than a single door and sidelight. M Myioa amended his second to be consistent with the amended motion Cc , -ea :ooroved the motion (7-01 to grant oreliminary site Dian and appearance review as oroval• provided gr:•- to the Office Max POO consists of two doers rather than a sinale door and sdebc L H. Friedman abz.ea SPAARC 99-137 1633 Chicago Avenue Condition of Previous Apmoval R= s 7 -age for retail services establishment (Office Max PDQ) as condition of previous approval for -ante and vestibule for future basement tenant. Mr _ . a ; chols (North American Signs) and kqr John Abell (agent for property awned presented two ve s c` . fie signage plan and site photographs to consider the signage for the retail seNnes establishment (;-" '',.: ADO) at 1633 Chicago Avenue: the review is a condition of a previous approval for a separate ent -_e arI vestibule for a future basement tenant. Mr. Jon Bergschneider, Mr Bors Elierski (North Ar- -an c 3ns). and Mr Dick Copeland (North American Signs) were available to answer questions. G sated that the proposed signage is appropriate for the building from a pedestrian and vehicular pe r G. Nichols stated that the large "Office Max POO' consists of a 34-inch high 'O', and he rest of are 18-inches high. G. Nichols stated that the red letters are channel letters illuminated with ra• -- a back J Abell stated that the "PDQ' with the large'Office Max PDQ" and the `PDQ' located l' he entrance are shallow boxes G Nichols stated that the signage immed;atety above the er- s -2-inch high, non -illuminated letters G Nichols stated that the signage within the windows is vinyl. C i ed that the signage proposed for Dave s Italian Kitchen is very nice, and Office Max POO should re- ;nd C Smith stated that the signage plan should demonstrate that sorreone has thought that tr i ; are within the same building. C. Smith stated that it does not make sense to have as much s.. „- r> >roposed by Office Max POO: this proposal is "overkill to the max'. C. Smith stated that, as a re = .I a )roposed signage by Office Max PDQ, the entire elevation is unbalanced J Wolinski stated that tt•- ;r = Mthin the windows looks `tacky". J Abell stated that the window signage is necessary if a person VI: 3'_ g the street is to see Office Max PDQ M. Mylott stated that he "completely disagrees' A fated that this building 'started out very nice"'. then Office Max POO informed the City that it does hare its entrance with Dave's Italian Kitchen, which is 'very unfortunate" A Aiterson stated that ,)f signage proposed is meant to identify Office Max POO 'across the board. not at this specific Akerson stated that he 'finds it hard to believe' that this location will lose 'one dime of business' -'3es not have the amount of signage proposed. A. Alterson stated that the amount of signage appropriate for a strip center development: here, it is 'completely super- sous' J. Abell stated lax POO must be able to capture impulse buyers: the canopy of the exrstmg street trees hides FINDINGS D APPEARANCE REVIEW CommirrEE A N9 r Val X a large amount of the signage from view from the street. C. Smith disagreed. A. Alllerson stated that Office Max PDO is not an ;mpuEse type of business; 'a person walking by Office Max POO does not suddenly recognize that he needs to make photocopies' M. Mylott agreed J. Abell stated that, rf the signage for Office Max PDO is limited to the signage immediately above the door, it would suggest that Office Max POO is 'kmer and smaller' than Dave's Italian Kitchen. C. Smith stated that Office Max PDQ could place its signage above the bay window, like the signage for Dave's Italian Kitchen. C. Smith stated that she suggests that the applicants work with Dave's Italian Kitchen to present an organged approach to this facade. J Abell stated that Dave's Italian Restaurant is a restaurant, and Office Max POO is a retailer; their signage reeds are different. A_ Akerson stated that he believes that the signage needs for Dave's Italian Restaurant are greater than those for Office Max POO, especially considenng the impulse aspect of choosing a imtaurant C. Smith stated that Office Max POO has windows, denxxistrating what type of use it is, Dave's Italian Kitchen does not. A. Alterson stated that Office Max PDQ 'appears to be trying to pretend that Dave's Italian Ktchen does not exist'. J. Abell stated that they do consider the uses separate entities for example Office Max POO could not use script signage like that proposed for Dave's Italian Kitchen C. Smith stated that sne is not suggesting the same style of signage. M. Myloft stated that he has often said that an applicant could propose the nicest building ever designed, and completely -louse it tip' with signage, no one would ever know that the nicest building ever designed was underneath, because they could not 'get past the signage'. M. Mylott stated that the proposed signage detracts f-om a nice t>,uilding and it 'clutters the streetscape'; he is surprised that Office Max PDQ would want that type 3f'corporate reputation' M. Mylott stated that he "could lrle with' the large Office Max PDQ, provided it was reduced by one 'square' and the signage for Dave's Italian Kitchen was moved up to occupy the middle three "squares' above its entrance however, r1e would not support any other signage anywhere else on the budding. C. Smith disagree' and stated that she would support signage above the bay window, respecting the size and location of the sviage proposed for Dave's Italian Kitchen, and signage located high above the entrance; however, she would not support large signage mounted to the facade, immediately above the door, or within the window G. Nichols sued "the cannot alter the 'Office Max PDO' arrangement, because it is a registered tracemerk C Smith disagreed, and stated that she often sees examples of reconfigured corporate logos. M. Mylc- asked the applicants wnat material are you proposing behind the large -Office Max PDO" letters? G Nic:-- s responded aluminum, panels mounted over the granite panels. C Smit --lotioned to table this rtem until such time that the applicants propose a more satisfactory sign plan. M My'= seconded the motion Discussion C Smith stated that. because this item is a condition of the approval for the separate entrance for the future basement tenant, she will not issue a demolition permit for the separate entrance until this item is resolved. J. Abell asked C. Smith: can they receive a building permit for the interior work only? C. Smith responded. yes. B Fahlstrom stated that the applicants should review the reduction requirements within the Sign Code Commlree aaoroved the motion (8-0) to table this item until such time that the applicants OroDOSe a more satisfac-:-v sicin plan The tw_ versions of the signage plan have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Con'm folder for this case (SPARC 99-137) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS S1TE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COS Decembers 1999 Page 3 or 10 SPAARC 99-147 630 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Install ATM (LaSalle Bank) Mr. Mike Radis (property owner) presented a Building Permit Agpfigb pin #99-1136. including a s+te pbui. elevation, section, and ATM specifications, and a site photograph altered to include tl"e ATM to instal; an ATRA (LaSalle Bank) at 630 Davis Street Ms. Donna Magnuson (LaSaalie Bank) and Mr John Salazar (Jeet ire) wens avai'abie to answer questions. M. Radis stated that the ATM has been presented to the Committee before, and the Preservation Cornmmuwion has approved it M. Radis stated that the ATM would be located react to the lobby entrance. M Radis stated that the ATM would replace the glass; the framing would be untouched M Radis stated that the only s9nage on the ATM is that signage depicted within the altered photograph M Radis stated that a metal halide street lamp is located approximately 10 feet from the ATM R. Walczak stated that the proposal is acceptable, given the existing Ighbng and open courtyard J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. C Smith seconaed the motion. Discussion: H Friedman asked the applicants- why d+d you choose to use a blank panel above the ATM? M. Radis responded: the area oehind the panel Is unfinished drywaq M. Radis stated that the panel would match voe caior of the window frames. C Smith stated that the applicants could install Spandrell glass. M Radis stated that a future tenant will install canapes that will cover -riost of this area, and it is not visible from the street. C. Ruiz asked the applicants of what material is the ATM made? M- Radis responded: fiberglass and plastic C Ruiz stated that the panel should be constructed of a materal found on the ATM such that it appears as if the ATM fins the entire storefront frame. H Friedman. 1A Mylott, and C Smith agreed. M. Radis asked C Ruiz' will the Preservation Commission have a problem with such a modifications C. Rutz responded no. the Preservation Commission only wanted to -� ensure that the frames were not being removed J Wolinski amended me motion as sucr grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided 7',e material of the panel above the ATM matches the finish of the ATM such that ;! appears as if the ATM was desgned to fill the entire storefront frame C Smith amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion Committee approved the motion (M) to Grant crelsminary and finat srle otan and appearance review arioroval, provided the material of the aanet above the ATM matches the finish of tt"e ATM such that it appears as d the ATM was desiqned to fill the entire storefront frame The elevation, section. ATM specifications. and sne photograph altered to include the ATM have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder fcr this case (SPARC 99-147) SUMIJAR" OF FikdNNW SITE ^LA:. ANDAPPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Novezber .7, IM Pape 4 of 0 X SPAARC 99-148 239 Greenwood Street Preliminary and Final Install parking area near northeast comer of single-farrn7y resider=, requiring variaDons, as part of application before ZonmV Board of Appeals to separate portion d bt aonfawWrg coach house firm portion of W containing single-family residence, requiring variations. Mr. Howara Komacki presented an Application for M.ator Variation (ZBA 99-56-V(F)) to install a parking area near tie -ortheast comer of the single-famffy residerce, requirirng variations, as part of an application before the Zoning Board of Appeals to separate a portion of the lot containing a coach house from the portion of the lot o:-Raining a single-family residence, requiring variations, at Z39 Greenwood Street H. K7rr2;ki stated that the lot is 100 feet wide by 29S feet deep -H Kcrnacki stated that he would like to split the [at of record into two zoning lots — 7,200 sq.ft for *w-- coach house (Lot 2) and the remainder of the original lot to, the principal single-family residence (Lot 1). H Komacki slated that he has lived at the residence for apprrx,r"3tety 40 years and can no longer maintain tre property as weal as he would like. H. Komacki stated that 'tee proposed split would not increase population or traffic tore area H. Komacki stated that he has had the ent,re property for sale, and it is "virtually not sellaale'; people trove expressed interest in the property, but not the coach house H. Karr+ar-ki stated that he is proposing to construct Lne parking area to satisfy the zoning requirement of two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. H. Komacki stated nat he could have boated the parking area in the m .idle of the backyard of proposed Lot 1, etminatng the need for some of the variances, but the park •e =rea would have reduced the size of the backyard, and ,n would have been much more visible. H. Korrack sta e:i that the eastern lot line, near the area proposed to tie improved with the parking surface, con!* -.s 12- tc 14-toot high Arborvitae. M. Mylott stated that the exssang property rs credited with two open, off -scree: parking spaces along the north side of the coach house H Komacki stated that the coach house has •vu zove►ed parking spaces as well, H. K., ma.;kt stated that he shares a driveway with the property owner to the east: Ns driveway would provide acce .;�s t- the parking area for proposed Lot 1 H Komacki states that the necessary easements for this Joint drive v-; already exist. M ti a;. stated that staff will ask the Zoning Board of Appeals Z continue this rase to January 4. 2000 to allov the Preservation Commission to comment on thus case. the Preservation Commission would not have deci, on- nak,r.g authority over this case unless it requires a plat cf subdivision. J Wolinski asked M. Mylott: why =P n t rhis application require a plat of subdrvis+on? M. Myron responded: the Plat Act contained within the t rc- ; Statutes permits a one-time split of premusty recorded property under 1 acre in size, provided that the s •i - :as -irt involve any new easements or access to streets M ►.'ylott stated that the process by which the z!;p, ;:ant %il divide the property, either through a plat of suD^Jrvis+on or under the Plat Act exemption, wou i ce detz.,mined by the applicant and his attorney C R. �z s-atea t`,at the property is located within the Lakeshore Htstorc District, but it is not a landmark. J lr`-1 r v a: red H. Kornacki: in what condriion is the coach housel H Komacki responded: excellent. C. Smr a =<ec -i Kornakci: are you proposing any work besides the installation of the parking area? H. Korr •c , -_r,a-ded' no, this project involves no demolition or construction H Komacks stated that the parks ,g p; may be oversized for two parking spaces M f 'y-ott rlclic-ned to grant preliminary and final srte plan and appearance review approval C Smith secs'ioea tre notion. StrmMARY of FLO$11NGS 51TE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COPAUMEE Dumber 1, 1999 Page 5 of 10 k Discussion. J. Wofinski asked H. Komacki: how much are you asking for die property fry its entirety? H. Komacki responded: $2 million. H. Komacki stated that he has had offers for the entire property. H. Kcrrwiu stated that one applicant wanted to tarn the principal residence into a bed and breakfast, and the Indian Consulate war4W to install a fan to exhaust the smell of Curry_ H. Komacki stated that he takes too much pride in his work to allow these types of owners. K Myiott stated that the applicant to:d him that splitting the existing tit is ex t imminent* rather the applicant simply wants the option should it prove H. Komacki agreed and stated that. he will offer the property in its entirety ito a prospective purchaser Corr - nittee aooroved the motion (F-21 to arart oreliminary and f5nW site clan and aanearance review as naval. H. F'iedi-nan and J. Wolinski cast dissenting votes. SPAARC 99-949 3200 Grant Street Preliminiry Con.: truc. accessory building to contain natural gas generators (Presbyterian Homes). Mr. F;+:lip Barr (Presbyterian Homes) and Mr. Dave Patricoski (LaSalle Associates, Inc.) presented a Zaning Ana: j sis application #99-1152-ZA, including a site plan. floor plans. elevations. and acoustic study, and site phot:3rajhs and before -and -after photographs to construct an accessory building to contain natural: gas ge ;r =tt s fr r t►, a Presbyterian Homes located at 3200 Grant Street. P r?:rr stated that Presbyterian Homes wishes to construct this t-story building to generate their own 'reliable, cost :ffe :thve source of electricity" P Barr stated that this system would operate in parallel with Co- -nor:.-ea',- Edison P Barr stated that Presbyterian Homes has two sources of Commonwealth Edson elec'. icity and coth were lost for over 11 hours last year. B. F=hlst'om asked the applicants: do some of your buildings have emergency generators now? P. Barr resp . nde: a-, tr.a main buildings have diesel emergency generators. C wh a;ke-d -ne applicants. have the neighbors been informed of this proposal. P. Barr responded` not ye?' ,. A 'em- i-' stated that the proposal would require variations to the separation and height requirements for r yes �or�r U Adings, part of the variation process would tnGude notification to taxpayers of record wythin 500 -aet 3, the subject property. P E rr 5 i te.-- -tint they hired an acoustics expert to study the effects of the generators. P. Barr stated that their axp_rts`cund that the ambient noise levels on the site currently exceeded the levels of the proposed ger - 'ato ; as �t -esult. they concluded that the noise from the generators would be minimal. M. Myfott stated that le F 'DCvS•;d building is over 200 feet from the north lot line. C z e :. : applicants. does the site contain other flat -roofed accessory buildings? P. Barr responded: yes .ne s located immediately behind the location of the proposed accessory building. C. Ruiz asked the apr: 'an,- s_ : "- architecture of the proposed building the same as that used for the new garage? P Sari` res.-. ndE . tr : •oposed building would be constructed of the same brick and limestone as that found cn the ma' '1ty r ` t)L-�.1 rgs on campus P Barr stated that the proposed building would relate to an adjacent service bu-'" ig '"o'h stated that she does not necessarily want the building to relate to the contemporary style of :I- ga age S'. -R% .:F " ..NGS S - 1�r ,`.0 'EARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE NO•.: per t� a rd: �a k 41 C. S -IM asked ;tie applicants: will the rooftop of the proposed accessory buadtng contain nWhanicalts'? D. Pat; cask+ responded: yes. D. Patricoski stated that the adjacent service building contains rco" mec.-anicals D. Patricoski stated that the parapet would screen some of the mechanicals C 5 nah as'-ked the applicants: does the accessory building attach to the principal building? P Barr rest: nded yes pipes run between the two buildings, but other utilities are underground A. r.'-emn mot:cned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. C. Smith seconded ttue MCI Disc.,isslon: C. Smith stated that, for final site plan and appearance review, the applicants wi need to provide working drawings, but building material samples are not necessary. Cc- —ittee aro-7ved the motion f7-01 to orant nreliminary site plan and appearance review ao rp oval. Th: ,e p.an fi;,or plans, elevations, plat of survey, acoustic study, site photographs, and before -and -after ph:.t_ ;ra;hs ha 4e been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (Sr,-�C 99-149). SP -.4R., .. S?-124 1822 Ridge Avenue Preliminary Cc . c ` s:.: -},. multi -family residential building (36 dwelling units). W :k ... k =_ = L (Chicago Associates Planners Architects) presented a Zoning Analysis Application 099- 11=: -ZA- .r l ,.ding a site plan, floor plans. and elevations, to construct a 6-story, multi -family residential bu:, _ .9 (36 d%k alling units) at 1822 Ridge Avenue. R. skated that the number of dwelling units has been reduced from 39 to 36: the revisions meet the de- = :• rF _ X' i-�ents of the Zoning Ordinance, but not the floor area ratio requirements R. Lukasik stated tht p•o;e-: would also require a major variation to height and a special use to permit a residential use. R c --•= . _ d that the plans include six floors at six dwelling units per floor, the dwelling units are -ac -xlr.- ? bedroom units' R Lukasik stated that the height has been Increased by 1-story, but the flo- _-fir - ,ht has been reduced; as a result, the building height has only increased 3 feet. R. Lukasik s-a :r :: )t for the loft areas, the proposed elevation is 'roughly equivalent' to the adjacent building. P gar - ' ­�d that the floor -to -ceiling height would be between 9 feet 2 inches and 9 feet 4 inches. R _ -.as: s.a:ad that each sixth -floor end unit would have a stair to a sleeping or office area and private rot,- a C. Lukasik stated that the plans include a common rooftop deck. R. Lukasik stated that they ad := - t* ::. = _. within the 10-foot sideyard setbacks. R -a: < t- *ed that the elevations include. an B-inch x 8-inch, rusticated, concrete -block base: a rer_. ==a :e ne band around the bu►Ming; and face brick and 8-inch x 8-inch, ground -face, concrete-bk� W he .. stones C :r -- : that within the southern elevation, the horizontal articulation between the windows should c: Jott stated that the applicant could raise or lower the horizontal articulation such that 4 rca.. -ve . : ;der or sill. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS �C• SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RSIIEW COMMrr EE December 1. 1999 !� Page 7 or 10 x C. Sr :tth asked R. I uicasik: what size brick are you proposing? R. Lukasik , ..,r . '*- d: 44nch x 124nch, utility - size _ rck C. Smith stated that the appicdru should use a brick more reflective of the Pulver Brothers budding kxr -•:o ir-mediatey to the north. R. Lulawk stated that they would use a size trick that provides three bricks to = -y c ie concrete block. C Smith agreed and stated that the brick should not be longer than common bn:. r. C Z -�,th stated that she does not like the staked application of the concrete block within the base; the base loc Ae a curtain wall. M. Myiatt agreed. and stated that the base should be a running bond. R. Lukasik sta•_ fiat the stacked application would kK* more like tile. R. . 43s•- stated that the balconies world be precast concrete, and the railings would be painted steel bars. R -(as.:( stated that the balconies would have a joint at the base, and he could bevel the comers. C. Smith sta ::that the balconies need some reveal at the top and the bottom. B. Fahlstrom agreed C •r• Mated that the cornice should be larger. R. stated that the address of the building is inset into precast concrete top. C. Smith stated that the en: -eeds 'a IdW more attention to detail; it is somewhat brutal". R. Lukasik stated that he would review the _ _ of one entrance. R _..3s;� stated that the building would be fully spnnklered. R stated that the lot to the south is only 50 feet wide; with the required side yards subtracted, any )i.-i ,irg would only be 30 feet wide R. Lukasik stated that a 30-foot wide building would not be that to' ! . <as- stated that his clients have tied to purchase the property, and he understands that the present 0*4 f: L nd tenants. R * : stated that they would reuse the existing ramp to the below -grade parking, but it would need to be ref:. to iy will maintain the existing spacing of the columns below grade. R. Lukasik stated that the plans inc vi.,ht to nine more parking spaces than are required by the Zoning Ordinance. B- Fahistrom stated tha = 3 •pli: ant could not use the ramp as a means of egress from the basement C : l R. Lukasik: is the alley paved? R. Lukasik responded: no. C. Smith stated that that alley is a: hS -:. =U-1 that the brick enclosure along the rear lot line should be reduced to no more than 36 inches in - •tee applicant could top the brick enclosure with a wrought iron fence. S �d R Lukasik how does the proposed building coverage compare to the exWng conditions? R c —sponded we would cover approximately % the area currently covered. R. Lukasik stated that surface would be less as well A = s- .led that 'this stretch along Ridge Avenue is breathtaking", and this development changes the as e re r; he does not think that the applicant has considered this issue. H. Friedman stated that the Iss f .a!ed to zoning. R. Lukasik stated that the proposed building "dresses up an otherwise very M. _ •ra the new building would look 'significantly better just in materials' M Myton agreed. C. Smith s--: - _ would like to see a model of the site and its environs to understand the massing. A - - _. • s, ted that this site is a place for a -very, very upstate project"; the drawings 'do not look bad, but the 1 - )t ; -eciaf A Alterson stated that the building 'looks like an anywhere building' R Lukasik stated lhtC4s s " :PPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE g Pa_ thy* . •a area ,s not upscale, meaning greater than 55W.000 per Nelling unit A. Altarson swd tflst It is `not a f-e building in a fine location'. M. ' 1,'ott nol oned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval C. Sm th seconded the me,... C session- C. Smith stated that she wants to see some of the changes tfiaat the Committee discussed during the next review. M. Myiott asked R. Lukasik: what is the expected sale price? R. Lwkasik responded= approximatety 5200 per sq.ft, and the dwelling units range from g00 to 1,300 sq.R Cc _,tte !_ ar-oroved the motion f4-21 to orant oreliminary site plan and appearance review aonroval. Th_ - e Fear floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Cc- Lej fc der for this case (SPARC ag-124). SF.:!=C 99-1so 1126 Monroe Street Preliminary and Final Er, a is.,i ?g front porch and construct (tiff second -story addition to single-family residence, requiring major va is M: -th a-aziofr (property owner) presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-55-V(F)), including as =:ar il--ar plans. elevations, and plat of survey, and site and area photographs to enclose an existing frc c' r, - f construct a full second -story addition to the single-family residence located at 1125 Monroe Str C ' r%li :t2:ed that she is not expanding the building footprint M -t . ►a• -d that the variation for building lot coverage may not be required because ft Zoning Officer mc�-. _ : e a = = timed that the porch was not covered. M. Mylott stated that the addi'don appears to the same si7 if -1v smaber than, the existing footprint- C = J that she has no objections to this apptication. C n -,`. .:ned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. R. Walczak se PJ 'notion. Committee aooroved the motion f6-01 to orant oreliminary and final site olan and aS n - -_new approval Tt : F _ • oor plans, elevations. plat of survey, and site and area photographs have been placed within the p a- =nd Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-150). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RmEW COMMITTEE December 1. 1999 Noe 9 of 10 673 SP-=.RC 99-159 EIFS Discumion OF 7. - GENC A ITEM: Various articles related to EIFS, including such topics as the installation of97F.S and frtig: -cn irvr,-?✓ing EIFS. H. - - ecma,- stated that he has conducted an Internet search on EIFS and found a 'considerable hisaary of lay- .its' Friedman stated that, while much literature relates to problems with home instaltaticn, the pr. . :: s-stioned In some cases. H. Friedman stated that some of the literature relates to instaittation upc :r = �--=me, but the problems can be extended to concrete bbdc construction. H. Friedman staged that so-- _ :rsc -a- -e companies would no longer Insure EIFS, and some window manufacturers would no lianger ins- -, -- M. -►down with EIFS. M -a stprz-d that H. Friedman may provide him with copies of the information, and he would place the item on ' ? r?kt C :,mmittee agenda as a communication. Sr- Pr a� •D122 Bindinq ADoearance Review Communication, Of-; „GE 01.4 ITEM: Distribute registration form for Chaddock Technical Workshop, 'Anti -Monotony Or. :,,_ rchitectural Review and Appearance Codes" C :~ c, %ded the registration form for the Chaddock Institute of DePaul University's technical workshop er '.Aonotony Ordinances: Architectural Review and Appearance Codes" on December 8, 1999. S. iif Findings C d that references to *Building Permit*" should read 'Building Permit Application V A. -4ioned to grant approval of the Summary of Findings of November 17, 1999, provided re : Building Permit #' are changed to 'Building Permit Application V. S Levine seconded the mr : � nittee approved the motion i6-01 to orant aooroval of the Surnmary of Fmdinas of November ii _ _ cded references to -Building Permit #' are chanaed to 'Building Permit Aoolication #'. Ar h ,,-r r � nt Tt . • - 5joumed M 4:55 p M. f�� . T .-• �tarn�ttedr, , L Mr - Tyiott, Secrot .0 a�E REVIEW COMMITTEE P�. x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 17,1999 Room 2444 Members Present: A. Atterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Najar, C. Smith, R. Waksak (tor L. Siai*), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, D. Jennings, K Kelty_ Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present Other Attendees Present: Commencement S. Lufkin, J. Minear, M. Robinson, R Schur. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-137 1633 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Create separate entrance and vestibule for future basement tenant. Mr. Jon Bergschneider and Mr. Chad Henson presented Building Permit 899-1098, hcluding a site plan. Am plans, and elevations, and site photographs to create a separate entrance and vestibule for a future basement tenant at 1633 Chicago Avenue. J. Bergschneider stated that Office Max PDO would occupy the first floor and Dave's Italian Kitchen would occupy the basement. J. Bergschneider stated that the plans create a separate entrance for the basement tenant; the plans for the interior of the restaurant will be submitted at a later date. J Bergschneider stated that they plan to remove the glass from the bay vAndow, but keep the roof to the bay window, a new entrance would be constructed flush with the main building facade and under the roof, creat ng a covered entrance. J. Bergschneider stated that the paving material to the new entrance and landscaping would match the existing patter C Smith asked the applicants can you provide granite at the base of the sidelights? C. Henson responded we could reuse what is removed C Smith stated that that woL !d look more consistent with the overall facade C. Smith stated that the glass sidelights should extend up to the bottom of the roof structure, and the transom above the door should be glass. C. Henson stated that the bottom of the proposed transom aligns with the top of the existing entrance. C. Henson stated that he wcc-id remove the vertical divider; from the sidelight and transom fixtures, creating one large transom spanning the sidelights and door. SUMMARY OF FINDOM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C)WATTEE November 17. 1Ii'B9 Page 1 of 6 x M. Mylott asked C. Henson: could all customers enter size exist;N entrance then proceed to their desired location? C. Henson responded: Office Max PDO wanted separate entrances for both businesses because of security concerns. M. Mylott stated that the space permits a sm%d entrance vestibule with separaw z terxr entrances. M. M&tt stated that separate exterior entrances are r_rfortunate; the building has a good bailance with a central means of ingress and egress and matching bayvrrdows flanking the entrance. H. Frredman agreed. J. Wolinski asked M. Robinson: did the ongmat discussw with the owners of Dave's Italian K chen included discussion about separate entrances'? M Robinson responded: yes. C. Smith stated tt-at she believes that the Issue is 'identity'. judging from the 'horrendous' signage proposal from Office Moot PDQ. C. Smith stated that the signage for Dave's Italian Ktchen 'seems appropriate". C. Smith stated that too much signage on the building, in terms of quantity and variety. could create'a big mess', and this Committee should consider signage in this case C Smith stated that tt^e separate entrances are driving the "need` fcr more signage. M. Mylott stated that this Committee should not evaluate t * proposed signage for Office Max PDO as it is only provided for information: it is not the subject of this review J Wolinski agreed M. Mylott stated that moving back the bay window for Office Max PDO but retaining the roof as a canopy, in the same manner as the proposed entrance, might better restore the balance to the facade. A. Alterson motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, provided: 1) the base at the new entrance is granite, 2) the glass transom above the new entrance is one piece, and 3) any additional modifications to the remainder of the building, including signage, are reviewed by and receive approval from the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee C Smith seconded the motion. Discussion M. Robinson asked C Henson what is 7te time frame for the project? C. Henson responded: February is the 'target date' M. Mylott stated that he has nothing against architects. however. the proposal is not appropriate. H Friedman agreed Committee aDDroved the motion (5-2) to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, provided: 11 the base at the new entrance is granite 21 the glass transom above the new entrance is one piece. and 31 anv additional modifications to the remainder of the buildino, including sitinane, are reviewed by and receive approval from the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. M. Mylott and H. Friedman cast dissenting votes A copy of the site plan, floor plans, and elevations, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plait and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-137). SPAARC 99-146 1002 Washinaton Street Preliminary and Final Rebuild two open -roofed porches formulti-family residential buddAng Mr Marek Frackiel and Ms. Bonnie Frackiel presented Building Permit #99-1090, including a site plan. floor plan, and elevations, to rebuild two open -roofed porches for the multi -family residential building located at 1002 Washington Street. J Wolinski stated that the Property Standards Division had uteri violations on this property C. Smith asked the applicants. where are the porches? Mr. Frackiel responded at the rear of the building. C. Smith asked the applicants. will the porches be replaced in kind? M. FracJael responded. yes. C. Smith stated that the project must comply with all City codes; the 'winders look questionable'. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 17 19N Page 2 of 6 Lj J. WolirmW motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. C Stmtth seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion f7-01 to arant areiiminary and fmal sit Non avd appearance review aDoroval A copy of the site plan, floor plan, and elevations have been pieced within the Site Plan and Apoamamae Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-146). SPAARC 99-143 1913 Central Street Preliminary and Final Install air-condibonrng unit for retail services establishment (Tno Hair Salon) Mr. Alex loannau presented a Building Permit tf "11. inGuding a plat of survey, specifications for the a)r- conditioning unit and site photographs, to install an air-corCition:ng unit for the retail services estabilishment (Trio Hair Salon) at 1913 Central Street A loannou stated that his business is a new use at this location: the former tenant was an optician. A loannou stated that the air-conditioning unit would be either vnstaaed on the roof or on the wall of the buiidir.g, most Likely on the wall above the dumpsters. C. Smith stated the air-conditioning unit would be located wihh the service area of the building. J. Wolinski asked A. loannou who is the landlord? A. loannou responded., Barry Realty. J. Wolinski stated that, if other air-conditioning units within the service area are not functional, they should be removed. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided: 1) tte air-mnditioning unit does not compromise means of ingress and egress, 2) the support structure is designed to accommodate the air-conditioning unit, and 3) the air-condrborsrng unit is located within the service area or court yard of the [wilding. A. Alterson seconded the motion Discussion, C Smith stated the applicant must subn..c a plat of survey to the Zoning Division showing the location of the air-conditionmg unit Committee aocroved the motion (7-0) to Grant creliminary ar,d final site plan and aooearance review aooroval. provided: 1) the air-conditionina unit does not comoromise means of inaress and egress. 2) the su000rt structure is designed to accommodate the air-conditionlna unrt and 31 the air-conditieonina unit is boated within the service area or court Yard of the building The plat of survey. specifications for the air-conditioning unit and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder fcr this case (SPARC 99-143). SPAARC 99-099 3308-3320 Central Street Final Construct t single-family attached dwelling unit between existing single-family attached dwellings (ibrurgrrg total to 8) and construct a detached garages Mr Robert Saicnek presented Budding Permit #'s 99-1099 thru 99-1104 and 99-1106, including a site plan. floor plans, and elevations, to construct one single-family amxzea dwelling unit between existing filly attached dwellings (bringing the total number of dwelling units to 8) and construct four detached garages.. SUMMARY OF FIN SME PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW GOB November 17 11M Page 3 O V C. Smith asked R. Saichek is the egress window within the light wlr R Saichek rresp=ded: yes, this dmsign matches the existing windows. C. Smith stud that the egress must meet City code. C. Smith asked R. Saichek: will the exterior of the new single-famtty attached dwelling and match the ex*rior of the existing dwelling units? R. Saichek responded: yes. but the skylights need to be added to the plans. A. Alterson asked R. Saichek: is the property currently improved with garages? R Saichek responded no. C. Smith asked R. Saichek: what material would you use for the exterior of the new garages? R. Saicflek responded: vinyl siding with gable roofs. R. Saichek stated that the garage roofs' ridge would run eaWavat. C. Smith asked R. Salchek: what is the pitch of the garage roofs R. Saichek responded: 4112. M. Mylott asked R. Saichek. what are you prc)posing for landscaping? R Saichek responded: the existing bushes located between the existing single-family attached dwelting units would be moved to the froc:t of the new dwelling unit. A. Alterson motioned to grant Final site plan and appearance review approval J Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated the building would be very long. R. Saichek stated We Fire Department approved the project, and the addition will keep people from walking between the existing dwelling units Committee aonroved the motion r7-01 to orarrt final site olan and gooearance review anpyA[. SPAARC 99-073 1421 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct 6-story mixed -use building (ground -floor office and 23 dwelling units within upper noors). Mr. Tom Roszak and Ms. Kan Omon presented Building Permit #99-1087, including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and plat of survey, a rendering, and building material samples to construct a 6-story mixed -use building (ground -floor office and 23 dwelling units within upper floors) at 1421 Sherman Avenue. J. Wolinski stated that "it is great that T. Roszak is now an Evanston -based developer C. Smith agreed. T. Roszak stated that the concept for this building was to construct 'a neighboring building' with 1415 Sherman Avenue. T Roszak stated that they would use similar materials in a different way, creating'txother and sister buildings, not twin buildings'. T Roszak stated that the back is Spanish red, matching the brick at 1415 Sherman Avenue. renaissance stone would be used along the balconies. revaals or other 'interior parts. T Roszak stated that, while the renderng shows the west face of the penthouse as brick, it would be renaissance stone T. Roszak stated that the faced window parts would be a'creamish gray', and the movable window parts would be a "delicate yellow/'. the windows at 1415 Sherman Avenue are while T. Roszak stated that the proposed windows would give 'a lives-ness to the building' C Smith asked the applicants- are the windows sliding w widows? T Roszak responded yes T Roszak stated that the plan includes courtyards to meet the tight and ventilation requirements cf the City code T Roszak stated that the railings would be painted gray, not yellow as shown in the rendering. T Roszak stated that the plan includes landscaping on the fifth -floor roof terrace, approximately 'h of the roof terrace is public space J. Wolinski asked the applicants what is the price range for the units? T Roszak responded: $145.000 to $410,000_ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �C+ November 17, 1999 �/+}'�7 Page 4 of 6 tl� MA C. Smith Stated that the base of 1415 Sherman Avenue s cav stone, but we entire front fdpde of 1421 Sherman Avenue would be brck. C Smt't stated that she a .....�:....�J thaat t:-te pedestrian Ievel'wonl read'. T. Roszaic stated he wants b keep the design simple T Roszak stated tla. vrhere the front facade `tum a comer'. the brick protects appro> y I % inches k,-rV er than the , .-e state to create an 'interesting detail'. the soutrrwest corner would be the res,oental entrance. and the northwest comer would be the office entrance T Roszak stated :."sat he intends to rmmll landscaprg along the base of the building: however, it is not shown on tract plans C Smith stated t!= -,*mMg is 'lost a: "I)e pedestrian level - C. Smith stated that while she likes a 'Dean and asp' front facade --e proposal is 'pretty dull" C Smith stated that the applicants may consider tending, something more dercratrve at the base or further explorabon of using the'delicate ,11aW M Mytca stated tra: the appi cants ccuic consider a thir base, up to the bottom of the ground -floor windows. C. Smith stated :!-,at she too does not want the bu+iriug to be the Saute as 1416 Sherman Avenue. H Friedman stated the: the applicant st,cutd look to enharcre the parapet wall of the kweir level of the front facade H Friedman stated that perhaps vie applicants could 'break up' the parapet with piers or introduce railings or masonry. C Smith agreed. C S-ndh stated dw- overall, the 4-story facade at Sherman Avenue needs more developrrent H Friedman agreed, and state0 that proportions are good. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the building be built to the front lot line, the proposed landscaping in front of the building would be within the right-& way. M. Mylott staled that the aPPkWft wautd require a Parkway Planting Permit from P D'Agostino and the Division of Parks and Forestry T. Roszak stated that two parkway trees are existing, and they would *e to install two more parkway trees. C. Smith asked the applicants will you replace the landscaping if it dies? T Roszak responded yes T. Roszak stated the sidewalk has a 7-fool clearance. C Smith stated that T Roszak should discuss the width of the sidewalk with P D Agostino and the Division o) Parks and Foresay the minimum width for the sidewalk should be 5 feet. C. Smith asked the applicants do the light fixtures include a lens to screen the Itght source? T. Roszak responded, yes C Smith asked the applicants. do the light fixtures on the west elevation comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act? T. Roszak responded. yes I Wolinskl asked the applicants has the office/retail portion teen filled? T. Roszak responded: no. D. Marino stated that they should have 'no problem' filling the officeiretail space. C. Swath stated that the office/retail space is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. T. Roszak stated that Kaehrer Luggage is movtng to a site near the Starbucks on Sherman Avenue S Nagar asked the applicants are you replacing an cmpemcus surface? T Roszak responded the site was covered with building C Smith stated that the applicants should ensure that the rear doors do 5wsr4 into the ioad,ng zone. C Smith asked the applicants are you proposing to use lot -tine footings? T Roszak responded yes, with shoring along the perimeter C Smith asked the applicants what is the proposed construction type? T. Roszak responded the buikitrg is a post -beam steel structure with penmeter rrretat stud wafts and a masonry veneer T Roszak stated that the floors are open web, steel joist, and steel decking with a 2-xich concrete pour C Smith asked the applicants do you have complaints about noise w74j, this approach? T Roszak responded no R Dahal stated that the proposed parking configuration would make maneuvering difficult for large vehicles, such as sport utility vehicles or vans T Roszak stated that �Z is his experience that users team to adjust SUMMARY OF FINDWW SITE PLAN AND APPEARX14CE REVIEW t:nAi UMEE November 17. 1999 Page 5 of 6 k M. MylW motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the kX043tion only. the applicant must present to the Committee how he responded to tv Committee aoncems about the front facade. A. Alterson seconded the motion. ComrrMee aooroved the motion t7-01 to grant oreiimingy and final site plan and aooearance review aQomval fgr the foundation only- dw a r►licant must onesent to till Committee how he responded to the Committee concerns about the front facade. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, plat of survey, and rendering have been placed within titre Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-073). Summary of Findinas C. Smith motioned to grant approval of the Summary of Findings of November 10. 19". k Akerson seconded the motion Committee acoroved the motion 17-01 to grant aoenoval of the Summary of Fndina!q of November 10. 1999. SPARC 98-0122 Bindina Atmearance Review Discussion Discuss scheduled special reefing of November 19, 1999 and 'next steps' C. Smith stated that, because of a lack of a quorum, the special meeting of the Committee to discuss binding appearance review scheduled for November 19. 1999 rs canceled A. Alterson asked the Committee. what Is the purpose of this special meeting? C. Smith responded: the Committee has approved the concept of the binding appearance review, new. It must discuss the'ho►', such as the structure of a binding appearance review committee A. Alterson stated that the Committee would be 'going down a mighty long road' without knowing if the decision -makers support the concept of binding appearance review. M. Mylott agreed. J. Wolinski stated that a critical part of the concept of binding appearance review is understanding who is making appearance review deasjons. J Wolinslu stated that the Plan Commission needs this Committee's assistance in determining the composition of a binding appearance review committee. and this Committee 'owes it to the Plan Commission to do the best possible job. and that includes a complete package' J Wolinski stated that he would like to complete this Committee's work in two meetings C Smith stated that design guidelines would not be Included within this next stage of work. C Smith asked the Committee does anyone object to rescheduling the sper-.sal meeting of the Committee to December 6 1999 from 9 00 a m to 11.30 a m ? Nc Committee member objected The Committee determined that the new date for the soeclal meetlno of tyre Committee to discuss binding aovearance review is December 6 1999 from 9.00 a m to 11.30 a m within Room 2404 Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4 35 p.m Respectfulty submitted. Jo Ann Mlnear, Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE {�.� November 17 i M i`'T Page 6 of e x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE FLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 10, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. A#erson, R. Dahal, M. MylotL S. Najar, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent: L. Black, P. D'Agostino, K Kelly, J. Aiello, J. Wordv0d. D. Marino, D. Jennings. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent Other Staff Present: Other Attendees Present: Commencement S. Levine, J. Minear, M. Robinson, R. Schur. C SmiM (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 105 p.m. SPAARC 99-140 2122 Sheridan Road Concept, Change playground at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. Mr John Hallas and Mr. Todd McDowell presented an agenda for playground improvements, a site plan, and site photographs to reconfigure the equipment at the Seabury-Western Theological Seminary playground located at 2122 Sheridan Road. J Hallas stated that they are at the earty stages of upgrading the campus playground equipment; they are seeking Committee guidance. J. Hallas stated that the playground area is 40 feet by 60 feet, but existing site features reduce the usable area below that dimension. J Hafts stated that some of the playground area has been converted to parking J. Hallas stated that the proposed playground equipment Is commercial grade: it typically does not last as long as institutional grade playground equipment. C. Smdh stated that the current location is good. C. Smith stated that the playground should not be pushed any further toward Sheridan Road for safety reasons. C. Smith stated that the proposed playground equipment is not compatible with the building architecture. the equipment has a residential scale in contrast to the 'massive" stone building. SUMMARY OF FINDOM SITE PLAN AmDAPPEARma REVIEW COMIYtrf rU November 10. IM pne 1 da x S. Levine stated the proposed playground egu4xrxnt aray have to comply with the safety standards of tyre Consumer Product Safety Comrr<ssion (CPSC) and Arr er m Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) for rob lky reasons; the proposed equipment does not appear to conform to those standards. S. Levine started lfto playground equipment that conforms to these safety standards requires more room titian v e existing provided; the applicants may find that they cannot install as much equipment as they have now. S. Levine stated that the appicants should consider accessibility issues related to surfacing and the type of equipt>em C. Smith asked the applicants: who uses the playground? J. Hallas responded: the children of the residents of Seabury-Westem Theological Seminary only. T. McDowell stated that the playground has one enrance. and low hedges form a natual barrier along Sheridan Road. R Walczak stated that the play area s'rould be open: the site plan shows shrubs that seem to create a wall along the south side of the playgmurdr M. Myfott stated that those shrubs might be an acceptable trade-eff to visibility because they provide good screening from the parking lot; views to the playground from cther directions remain for safety purposes. C. Smith agreed, and stated that the shrubs along the south side of the playground could be trimmed to increase visibility while maintaining a screen. ii Alterson stated that the shrubs could be cut to a height e 3 feet. S. Levine stated that other types of barriers, such as fencing could replace the shrubs. C. Smith sated that the applicants could consider lighting. A Alterson asked the applicants: is the playground used -such after sunset? J. Hallas responded: no. A. Alterson stated the playground must be 27 feet back from the Sheridan Road lot line as required by the Zoning Ordinance A Alterson stated that the applicam must submit an Application for Zoning Analysis: the applicant will need to receive a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. C. Smith stated that the Building Division would not issue a Curlding permit for playground equipment, but preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval frcm the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee is required. A. Alterson stated that, while this project may not need to be reviewed by the Preservation Commission, the Preservation Coordinator should be notified H. Friedman asked the applicants- how many children use the facility? J Hallas responded: the number vanes: currently 12 to 15 children of various ages use tl-e playground. H Friedman stated that the applicant might not have allooved enough room for the playgrourd equipment. S. Nagar stated grading plans must be submitted if the area is regarded. M. Mylott motioned to grant concept approval. C Smith seconded the motion. The Committee aoaroved the motion (8-0) to grant concept approval. The agenda for playground improvements, site plan, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-140) SPAARC 99-136 711 Monroe Street Preliminary and Final Rebuild existing rear porches and steps for mulft-family residence. Mr Nevin Belser of Reba Place Fellowship presented ar. Application for Building Permit 1031, including a site plan, elevation. and plat of survey, to rebuild the rear porches and steps for the multifamily residence located at 711 Monroe Street, N. Belser stated that the proposal replaces the rear porches in -kind; the only change is the configuration of the stairs N. Belser stated that the existing stairs are 'vrtnders', located at the comers of the porches; they SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN ANO APPEAFRANCE REVIEW COMMrME November 10, 1999 Page 2 of 8 x are -dangerous`. N. Belser staffed limit the contrail wxx I , ► that the guandrails and handrairs arR bs constructed according to the building code; all wood a pressure -treated. H. Friedman asked N. Belser is the roof fiberglass? N Belser responded: the existing roof remains; howrow. he is proposing a new small roof over the new stairs m shed wager off the stairs. C. Smith stated that aye niew roof is a building code requirement: the fiberglass wcuid let fight through. C Smith asked N. Belser is V* fiberglass white? N. Belser responded: yes. C. Smrrh stated that she does not have a problem wish tile+ fiberglass roof. M. Mylott asked N Belser: what are the adjacent taro uses? N. Belser responded' single- and two-family dwellings; the two-family dwelling located to the west of the subject property is owned by Reba Plaice Fellowship. S. Nigar asked N. Belser are you proposing any changes to the rear of the property, especially regar&V ft drainage? N. Betser responded: no. A. Alterson motioned to grant preliminary and final site p+an and appearance review approval. C_ Smith seconded the motion. Committee awmved the mobon ("I to arant oreliminary and final site otacn &4 _ owrance review aonroval. A copy of the site plan and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-136) SPAARC 99-139 3318 Grant Street Preliminary and Final Construct additions to single-family residence, requiring major variations M Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-52-V(F)), including floor plans, elevations, and a plat of survey, to construct additions to the single-family residence, located at 3318 Grant Street. M. Mylott stated that the first addition is a new front stoop; the second addition is 2-stories high, is bcated at ttie rear of the residence, and connects the residence to the existing garage. M. Mylott stated the front stoop would be 25 feet from the front lot line, whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 27-foot setback. M_ Mylott said the existing garage is 1 foot from the side lot tine and 28 feet from the rear lot line; by connecting the house to the garage. the garage becomes part of the pnnopat building. M Mylott stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 5-foot setback along the side lot tine and a 30-foot setback along the rear lot line. C Smith motioned to grant preliminary and Final site plan and appearance review approval. R Walczak seconded the motion Discussion S. Nagar stated that he receives many calls from neighbors of residents who change elevations during constructian� the changes affect the drainage on the block, and the neighbors can be flooded by the run off. S. Nagar stated that applicants should submit grading plans for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. S. Nagar stated that the Committee should require that grading plans be submitted before approval may be grant-ed C Smith stated that this issue relates to the building permit process; she would discuss this issue with him at a later date_ Committee apprnve(f the motion f8-01 to Grant orefiminary and final site otan anci aooearance review approval SUIULMY OF FMADV= SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COI64111111111rrU November T0.1999 Page 3 of 8 SPAARC 99-144 2929 Central Street Recommendation to Sign 8twrd Reface freestanding sign for office (CoktK wll Banlrerj. C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 99-13) to reface a freesum&V WJM aK Caldwell Banker, located at 2929 Central Street- C. Smith stated that the proposal seeks to reestabbsh a second ceding sign on the property, i f a only one freestanding sign is permitted: the sign w K ld be too tall for its proposed location: and the sign vemuld be too close to a circulation lane. C. Smith stated that approximately 12 to IS months ago, this issue was before the Sign Review and Appeals Board; this same request was denied. and the applicant was instructed to work with the owner of a ,,..,,,.' freestanding sign on combining the signs. C, Smith slated that the sgn is now blank. C. Smith stadttut because the Sign Review and Appeals hoard consists of new members, CobNell Banker resubrl>ftdiibt application for variation. C. Smith stated that this sign is 'superfluous'. A. Alterson asked C. Smith_ is this sign subject toy , L",-.'h ., o in 2003? C. Smith responded: if the variation is denied, she will inform Coldwell Banker that it must be removed. C. Smith stated that, if the Sign Review and Appeals Board grants the variations, the requeamd relief could supercede an otherwise required removal in 2003, or the requested relief could expire Jarawy 1, 2003. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Revrewd and Appeals Board deny the Sogn Ordinance Variaticrt Application. C. Smith seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that Colctwell Banker has been functioning without a free-standma sign for 2 years, and two signs would be confusing to the public. M. Mylott stated that Coldwetl Banker has signage on its building. Committee anvroved the motion (M) to recommend that the Sion Review and Aooeals Board dery (he Scan Ordinance Variation Application. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site plan and Appearance Review C mirnittim folder for this case (99-144). SPAARC 99-145 818 Lake Street Recommendation to Sian Board Retain three illuminated walls signs for retail sales establishment (Allegretti Rug Masters). C Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application, including site and area photographs, to retain three Illuminated wall signs for the retail sales establishment (Allegreth Rug Masters) located at 818 Lake Street. C. Smith stated that this application was filed because someone complained about the existing signs: the owner erected the signs without a permit. C. Smith stated that the east and west wall signs do not face a public thoroughfare, and the north wall sign has approximately 15 items of information, whereas 7 items of information are permitted. C. Smith stated that all three signs are illuminated above. C. Smith stalred strata SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMRTEE November 10. IM Paps 4 or 8 single-family residence is located immediately west of the subject property. but this prvaRy owner was nct the complainant. A Alterson stated that the west -facing wall sign faces a single-family residence M ht}lott stated that the pavement along the east side of the property may be a sbmt- A Alterson stated the plat ce survey labels the area as'Raitroad Avenue'. A Alterson stated that alley sign is the least offensive of ry three signs; A Alterson stated the north -facing wall sign is not in character with the other two signs or tr,* budding. M. Wott motioned to recommend that the Sign Revtew and Appeals Board deny the norn- and west -facing signs and recommend the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the east facing sign. A Attwwn seconded the motion. Committee WQMMO the nx ion L84 to recaommend that the Sqn Fiririew arxf Aganb Board denv the north- and west -facing signs and recommend the Sian Review and ADc*sls Board apwuu C_A th�8st facin si n. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Comirri e folder for this case (SPARC 99-144). SPAARC 99-138 323 Sherman Avenue PreliminarM And Finn Construct single-family residential structure. William James presented a site plan, door plans, elevations. plats of survey, and area photographs to construct a single-family residential structure at 323 Sherman Avenue M. Mylott stated that Zoning Board of Appeals conditioned approval of major variaborzs upon Commime*e review and approval. W. James stated that the 300 block of Sherman Avenue consists of primarily 1940's and 1950's two -flame some homes are older. W. James stated that the design goal for 323 Sherman Avenue was "to create a vintage -looking single-family dwelling of size and scale fitting the neighborhood". W. James stated thatd* front of the building would be wood siding except for some window caps: the sides and track of the structure would be vinyl or cement siding. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review aporoval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated the projecting element of the front fagade is 'nice% but the north side of this projection is blank H. Friedman stated that this kcabon seems ideal for windows. W. James agreed, and stated that he would add windows to MW elevation. C. Smith asked W. James: will you add windows to both floorn? W. James responded: yes. H. Friedman asked W. James: of what type of material would ycu clad the chimney? W. James responded: siding. S. Nagar stated that he is concerned about how detention wrs be compensated. C. Smith stated that that issue would be reviewed during the permit process. C. Smith asked W. James: will you include landscaping? W. James responded: Ow front of the residence will include a brick walk. curvilinear planting beds with plants StMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE November 10. TM Pape 5 d a in from of evergreen shrubs, ornamental trees, and a canopy tree or evergrem tract at Vw mouttrnrest corner to `de down the elevation'. C. Smith asked W. Jars 1M you submit a landscape plan with your Application for Building Permit? W. James responded: yes. M. My" amended the motion as such: grant prersminay and final site pbn and appearance review approval, provided the applicant submit a landscape pt'an u th the Appiication for Building Permit A. Afterson amended his second to be ooresient with dV amended motion. Committee aoorovW the mode (8-01 to orant nrehmirtary and final site otan and anoearanae reviiT&Xgc2OL provided the applicant submit a lanrif4aoe clan with the Application for auildinrd Permit The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-138). SPAARC 99-135 1035 Weslev Avenue Preliminary and Final Modify exterior; including corlstruc tng open dock on top of coach house. !. T. Weber presented a Building Permit #99-1029, including a site plan, floor plans, elevations. and site photographs, to modify the exterior of the building, including constructing an open deck upon the top of the coach house. at 1035 Wesley Avenue T Weber stated that this work relates to the coach douse, it was originally a Irvery stable. T. Weber stated the appearance of the building would change in mo ways, 1) he would remove the overhead door from the south elevation and install three windows, and 2) he would remove the overhead door from the north elevation and install a transom, two side tights, and a glass door C. Smith asked T. Weber abong the street elevation, why aren't the windows lower? T. Weber responded: the use behind the windows is an office. M. Mylott stated that he did not have a problem with higher windows; the Committee has certainty seen worse treatments at the street_ A. Afterson asked T. Weber what use occupies the retail space? T. Weber responded: a violin repair shop. C Smith asked T. Weber: Is the space designed as a irvetwork? T. Weber responded: no. C Smith asked T Weber: of material are the windows made? T. Weber responded aluminum Gad wood; he would replace all the windows T Weber stated that the street eievaton includes a stairway to the roof deck; the deck would include a 6-foot high, privacy fence to *make it more pleasant for people on the deck'. T. Weber stated that, while the plans show otherwise, he would like the fence to be solid up to 4 feet high plus 2 feet of tretrts. C. Smith stated that that fence 'imposes upon the street'; an open, traditional deck 'has more appear C Smith stated that the fence should be reduced to a railing between 42 inches and 4 feet high, designed to meet the building code. A. Afterson agreed, and stated that this property is located within an urban setting; within such a setting, the building should have 'interplay vnth the street' M, Mylott stated that a railing provides more visibility to the deck, increasing safety. C Smith asked T Weber. to what part of the building does the deck access? T. Weber responded: the residential portion. R. War=ak stated that he is very concerned about restrictng visibility to the deck. R_ Walczak stated that this issue is a classic CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) issue: a solid fence would provide a burglar with the opportunity to attempt to axes the residence without being seen SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN ANDAPPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Naverrrber 10, IM Page 6 Of 8 T. Weber asked the Committee: under what auihoriity can the Committee di" t 1, that Cte deck be tta Md +sift a ralirg rather than a fence? C. Smith responded: the Site Plan and Appearance Review Corns - only offers recrammendations regarding the a,,, c. < � - ofa buildetg. but it has Minding authority over site plrnning issues. C. Smith stated that, while one may contend that the issue of the deck treatment is an appawanoe issue, she believes that it is a safety issue. A Alterson, M. Mylott, and R. Wakzak agreed. M. tlrlyk= sullied that he appreciates what the applicant was trying to accomplish, however, it is more important to c reare a safe environment M. Mybtt motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, scto removing the fence from the deck and installing a railing between 42 inches and 4 feet high and mrx wtse designed to meet the building code. A Atter^son seconded the motion. Discussion: T. Weber asked the Committee: what is the appeal process regarding deowons of this Committee? C. Smith responded: the applicant may write a letter to the Planning & Development Committee of the City Counol, stating the appeal. QQMmbw @Roroved the motion n-1110 grant 2MRM—iMry arul tnal a and aooearance review womraL subkKA to removing the fence frnm the dieC* anri initalfina a raTma betwee i 4 inches and 4 feet hi to t art¢ otherwise designed to meet the building code. H. Friedman cast the dissenting vote. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, plat of survey, and photocopies of the site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-135). SPAARC 99-143 1913 Central Street Preliminary and Final Install roof -top air-conditioning unit for retail service establishment (Trio Hair Salon). Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 99-033 1508 Elmwood Avenue Revision to Preliminary Convert building to multi -family dwelling (7 condominiums). A. Wilson presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and model to convert the building to a mura-family dwelling at 1508 Elmwood Avenue. A. Wilson stated that the original proposal was for eight condominiums; the density has been recuaed to seven dwelling units. A Wilson stated that the proposed addition violates the rear yard setback regLownwt. M. Mylott stated that plans submitted with the Application for Major Variation differed enough fmrn those originaly reviewed by the Committee that, in his opinion, a re -review was warranted. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would consider this matter on November 23, 1999, A. Wilson stated that one new element is the sign. A Wilson stated that the sign is 'tied into the geometry of the building', it overhangs the sidewalk by approximately 2 feet A. Wilson stated that the front of t`te sign is a transparent material connected to tubular steel; he would like to illuminate the sign. C. Smith sraoad that massing of the sign is *too much for the nice, quaint facade'. A. Wilson stated that he respects the buldding; if he did not, he would have demolished it. A Wilson stated that he feels the entrance needs a 'dcrninant element-, but the model may portray the sign as `more imposing' than he envisioned. A Wilson staled that he could review its size as well. SUMMARY OF FAGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C0NUrrTEE November 'tO. 1999 P29e 7 of 8 M. MyIW stated that the addition comes further toward Elmwood Avenue gran portrayed within dw acWh drawing. A Wilson stated that he made this change to develop more space for unib 1, 2, and I A Wilson stated that the existing building is brick; the addition will include standing seers rtww�e>jl, concrete wallboard, and corrugated metal. A Wilson stated that the parking configuration has not changed- it is un lemeath the buflding. A Wison staled that the windovrs would be removed, but the screens would remain. C. Sr}+h shied that A Wilson sfxxM review the Burt ring code to determine if adequate ventilation is provided for open parking. A Wson st ftd that, beta-ase the parking is so difficult at this site, they would install mechanical ventilation if required_ C. Smith stated that the south wall must be a 2-hour fire -rated wall. A Wilson stated that they are pmposarg glass bkx* and one hopper window within the existing openings of the south wait,. C. Smith stated mat the south was might exceed the permitted amount of openings_ A Wilson stated that those openings are necessary to meet light and ventilation requirements. C. Smith stated that A Wilson should work with B. Fahlstrorn as soon as possible on this issue. C. Smith stated thaw the east elevation is not an issue A VYfi m stated that ewey are working to acquire the alley along the north side of the btAding, such that adequate setback would be provided and the north elevation would conform to the building code. C. Smith stout flit the openings within the addition could come into question as well. S. Nagar stated that the Department of Public Works will need 1t3-foot by 10-foot spot elevations: also, they will need to review the gutters and other water collection devices C. Smith stated that such items would be included w M the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (1AWRD) permit applica'. on A. Wilson stated that the alley contains sufficient manholes. A. Wilson stated that MWRD representatives have requested conflicting drainage solutions. C. Smith motioned to grant approval of revision to preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, subject to further investigation of the openings and including a recommendation to reduce the sole of the awning. A Atterson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (7-01 to grant aooroval of revision to oreliminary site clan and appearance review anoroval. subject to further investigation of the ooeninas and including a recommendation to reduce the scale of the awning The site plan. floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-033) Approval of Summary of Findings A. Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of November 3. 1999. C. Smith seconded the motion. Cotnmrdm approved the motion to approve the Summary of Findings of November 3, 1999. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p m Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Minear, Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDwNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �C+ November 10. IM ii"�7 Page a of 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 3, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. AHerson, A. Berkawsky, R. DahaL D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. My.ott, S. Najar, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: L Black, P. D'Agostino, K. Kelly. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: B. Fahlstrom, S. Levine, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz Other Attendees Present: Mr. Martin Stem, U.S. Equities, Inc. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 2:05 p.m. SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Final Construct Main Pavilion in Research Park Mr. Tom White, Arthur Hilt Company; Mr. John Lewis and Ms. Rebecca Alcoa, DeStefano & Partners: and Nick Patera, Teska Associates presented working drawings, including floor plans and elevations, landscape draanngs, and building material samples to construct the Main Pavilion within Church Street Plaza. R. Alcatt stated that the plans presented to the Committee are the same plans as those submitted for permit C. Smith stated the Committee granted preliminary approval on July 26, 1999. R. Ak:att stated that the building would be constructed of red brick with darker brick accent pieces. spot accents. and accent bands; a dark -color prairie stone base; white metal panels with attema*V bands of metasic silver metal panels; and alternating, translucent- and fritted-glass stair wells and light boxes. R_ atcott stated that the glass at the ground floor would be clear. R. Akott stated that the frames would be finished in silver. T. Whig stated that the sign consultants are not finished with the sign package. T. White stated that he would present the entire package at one time, rather than presenting it to the Committee one piece at a Ome. T. White stated that the outstanding issue is how to treat the east elevation if the panels do not contain graphics. SUMMARY OF FlNGOM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWAFTTEE N YwomberI I Ps2e h of a x T White stated that this elevation would include five inset; smooth -face panels to contain changeable giao cs, the number of panels was reduced from six H. Friedman stated that the areas in question could carram a masonry pattem. T Whiile agreed, and stated thhat if the graphics are eliminated. V* dot tray- will return to the Committee to propose a masonry pattern, T. White stated that the development team wcua (Ike to make the December meeting of the Sign Review and Appeals Board. M. Myiott asked the Crrr-icee is the Sign Review and Appeals Board the determining body on whether or not the rear elevation wit =ontaln graphlcs7 J Aiello responded yes. C Smith stated that the s.,gn package wou:Id be requlaW as a Unified Business Center Sign Plan. J. Aiello stated that this Comm,tee would have an opportunity to torment on the sign package, because It makes a recommendation to the Sign Review and Appeals Board on Ac +canons for a Unified Business Center Sign Plan T. White stated tha: the marquee would be included *Vl,ir the sign package C Srnrth stated that the south elevation contained projecting bays at one time. R. Alcott sated that the prclectmg bays were eliminated. T White stated the development team fcund that the caissons associated with "me projecting bays extended through an existing electric vault C. Smim staged that the projec&V bays could cantilever over the existing vault T White stated that the projecting bays have always been a problem, both !rom a cost and construction perspective C Smith stated that the previous elevations portrayed a 'sense of enrichment', and moving everything to the same plane reduces `the richness of the project'. C. Smif stated that the development team should 'hold onto the little details. because, if those fall away, the building looks cheaper' C Smith stated that a steel beam within the south elevation indented the brick columns at one time. R. Aioott statee that the beam continues behind the brick and attaches to the columns C. Smith stated that 'details of a ;r+oject make up Its richness" T W-Ae stated that the north elevation has not changed the glass towers are clear glass. H. Friedman stated that ahe treatment of the glass area above the awnings is different within the elevation R. Alcott stated that she carried over that treatment from the original design by Elbasani Logan Architects. C. Smith stated that that area changes depending upon the treatment of the brick above. H. Friedman asked the applicants: are you proposing metal frames within the glass areas above the awnings? R Alcott responded yes. C. Snrnth asked the applicants are you maintaining the trick inset? R. Aicatt responded: yes, the brick would be inset % of one inch. C Smith stated that maintaining that tolerance during construction would be dditcult C Srn2h asked the applicants would each panel be illuminated? T White responded: no, light will shine up from above the awnings C Ruiz asked the applicants why isn't the pattern within the brick within the north elevation carried throughout all brick within the north elevation? R. Alcott responded: a design choice; also. the flat plane of the brick would not detract from the adjacent lighted starweils. M. Myiott asked the applicants are you proposing to use jumbo- or utility -size bride T White responded: no, the bndc is standard size C Sminn read the Committee checklist regarding landscaping within Church Street Plaza from July 30, 1999. N Patera stated that paving treatment along Maple Avenue, Clark Street, and Church Street would be the same as within downtown. the design changes within the plaza at the comer of !Maple Avenue and Church Street. N. Patera stated that the pavers would be buff and beige, and they are very durable. N. Patera staled that 'an elements' would be provided at the corners N Patera stated that the street furniture would Include two sit-down benches with arms, multiple seat walls surrounding the perimeter of the plaza, planters, bicycle racks and trash receptacles N Patera stated that the seat walls would be scored to compliment the budding N Patera stated that the plaza would Include three ribbon bicycle racks, and a bicycle rack is proposed at the alley Intersection with Church Street and Clark Street N Patera stated that the trash receptacles are the same as those within the downtown SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW commjTTEE �jC. NovernCer 3, 1999 i`'? Page 2 of 8 K A. Afterson asked the applicants: how marry bicycles does a ribbon rack hold? N. Patera responded l do not know. J. A60o stated that she believes Mad one ribbon rack holds four bicycles. A Aterson staled that the site plan does not include enough bicycle racks in the area_ N. Patera stated that the trees within the plaza will have up rights, but lights are not provided within the street tree grates J Aiello asked the applicants are the street tree grates within the right-of-ways N. Patera responded: yes. J. Aiello stated that the City does not want lights within the street tree grates. N. Patera stated that staff told him not to irrigate Vie street tree grates either. M. Mylott stated that he liked the 'interplay of the circle's and squares' within the plaza. C. Smith asked the applicants: what is thle feature at the middle of the plaza? N. Patera responded: an 8-foot diameter planter with a tree. N. Patera stated that a trench drain surrounds this central planter. R. Walczak stated that the plaza will be a 'good space' during the day, but he is concerned that kids will congregate there at night_ N. Patera stated the seat malls have been designed to maintain natural surveillance, and the area will be well lit T. White stated that the portion of the building used for Wolfgang Puck's restaurant would have double doors, opening to the plaza. N Patera stated that the plaza would include flange -foot fencing (movable) to det+neaW an outdoor eating area. J. Aiello Stated that the maintenance plan must still be prepared. J. Aiello asked the applicants: will you incorporate discovery art within the planters? N. Patera responded: yes C. Ruiz stated that he is concerned that skateboarders would destroy the seat walls. N. Patera stated the seat walls do not have long skid walls. M. Mytott asked the applicants: did you remove the kiosks? N. Patera stated that a location for such a feaWre is still available. J, Aiello stated that kiosks present an opportunity to work with Evmark, but VW are not a requirement of this developer. H. Friedman stated that he did not understand why the City would continue to use a fight color paver given the problem with staining; 'the City should seam from its mistakes'. A. Alterson agreed. J. Aiello stated that the proposed color would connect with the rest of the downtown. J. Aiello stated that the tack of maintenance was partially the fault of the City, and the maintenance agreement will need to address this Issue. C. Smith agreed. and stated that connecting with the downtown is more important than switching paver color, the City should work on another solution. N. Patera stated the paving pattern outside the entrance to the cinema and the residential budding may be modified to work with the anterior of the lobby of each building C Smith stated that the number of trees along Church Street and Clark Street as 'somewhat light'. J. Aiello stated that this issue should be referred to the Division of Parks and Forestry A. Berkowsky stated that the landscaping should be reviewed to ensure ft does not block Fire Department connections. C Smith motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval by the Division of Parks and Forestry of the landscape plan. review and approval by the Sign Review and Appeals Board of an Application for Unified Business Center Sign Plan, and review and approval by the City Manager's office of a maintenance agreement SUMMARY OF F1NDWW SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COArtMMME November 3 1M Page 3 of 6 �I Discussion: A Alterson stated that the amount of bicycle parkrog is 'paltry' T Whft added that the previous plan included parking for 40 bicycies: they were removed because of security ccncems. J. Aiello sated that bicyGe parking can a"s be added. C. Smith stated that P. D'Agostm and S. Levine can look at this issue wAmm they review the landscape plan. A_ Alterson stated that, d tra east elevation does not Indude some forth of changeable graphic, the City has 'lost an opportunity to do something really great'. The Committee ppor ved tfie mati�x+ (9 —71 to grant I s nlan and acoearance rev w+ 12 oval, SubjW to review and aaaroval fW the Division of Parks and Forestry of the landscape elan, review and approval by the Sion Review and ADoeals Board of an ADolication for Unified Business Center Sion Plan and review and aporovat by the City Manaoer's Office of a maintenance agreement. A. Alterson cast the disserltirg vote, and H. Friedman abstained. The elevations, details, and landscape plan have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (97-0065). SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza (Hotel) Preliminatry Construct hotel (Hilton Gardens) +i,7thm the Church Street Plaza Mr. Reid Freeman, Regent Partners and Mr. Ken Crockett, Winston Hotels presented a site plan, Maple Avenue elevation, and photographs of applications of EIFS to construct a hotel within Church Street Plaza. Mr Bruce Reid, Arthur Hill Company was available to answer questions R. Freeman stated that this building is a masonry building that they have chosen to finish with EIFS (Dryvit). R. Freeman stated that EIFS can be detailed better than other materials. C. Smith disagreed. R. Freeman stated that EIFS has been used at a number of urban settings and within freeze -thaw climates. R. Freeman stated that EIFS has problems when it 'comes in contact with people' and when it is applied over studs; at this location, the ground -floor building material is masonry. and EIFS would be installed over a concrete block wall. J. Aiello stated that the City asked M. Stem of U.S. Equities. Inc. to investigate the use of EIFS. M. Stem stated that he focused on the issue of 'constructablility' M. Stem stated that EIFS can be installed well or poorly; if the right techniques are used. the job can be done well. M. Stem stated that the 'trade off' with EIFS is less cost; if EIFS cannot be installed well, the City should not consider the trade off M. Stem stated that the Building Division would be charged with ensuring the EIFS is mstalled well R Freeman stated that the question of installation techniques apply to brick or precast concrete. J. Wolinski stated that he visited the Hatton Garden at Addison. Illinois, and he was 'not terribty impressed' J. Wolinski stated that many hotel chains are using sandstone -colored EIFS, these tend to 'look like something from the Foreign Legion' J. Woknsiu stated that he visited a Hilton Garden at 220° Street this hotel was the best one that he visited J Wormski stated that the EIFS of the Hilton Garden at 22n4 Street was treated to make it took like precast K Crockett asked J Wolinski how many stories were the hotels that you visited? J. Wolinski replied. 4 to 6 K Crockett stated that the 4- to 13 U" hotels that J. Wolinski visited are wood frame, and they do not compare to the proposed type of construction. C. Smith stated that she visited a Hilton Gardens in Oakbrook. Illinois: she was `not that impressed' SAN FINDINGS ✓ SITEITE PLAN 1N AND APPEARANCE REVIEW GOA,trittTTEE i►/'�'}{7� November 3, 1999 Page 4 of 8 x C. Smith stated that the Hilton Gardens at downtown Chicago is not an EIFS bulling. R. Freeman sfale0 that this hotel could not charge Ltie rates and would not have the same eccupancy as the HOW Cardees at downtown Chicago. C. Smith stated that the land costs are higher at oowritown Chicago. R. Freeman stated that the issue rs rates. C. Smith stated that the issue is economics, and this Committee does not have the information that the applicants used to perform value engineerir+g J Aiello staged that the City must have that information C Smith stated that other items should be'sac flced to ensure a higher quality exterior building material' such as the clear story connection to tine rear entrance. C. Ruiz stated that he finds 'netting outstanding and nothing speciar writh this building; it will not "enrich Evanston'. C. Ruiz stated that he would be willing to listen to the merits off Ein. but he sees "nothing above grade that is too interesting'. C Ruiz stated that this hotel looks like a hcfW hound anywhere else. C. Rutz stated that he wants Phis project b work, but it should be improved; so mein eficxt was spent on other tactls of this project that he feels 'sorr4what let down". J. Wollnski stated that he would like the Committee to split its vote on siting and appearance. J. Aiello stated that the Committee only has one elevation with which to work, and issues of design can be very personal. H. Friedman stated that he agrees with C. Smith and C. Ruiz. H. Friedman stated that he asked P. BuD ck if he had walked through Evanston to see its architectural features; P Buttock detained to answer. H. Friedman stated that this building rs not the kind of budding that belongs within an urban center. H. Friedman stated that EIFS is 'not a material of Itself"; it is supposed to look like someeiing else. H. Friedman stated that EIFS is a 'phony material'. H. Friedman stated do not bring this type of building here; this building is not an Evanston building. M. Mylott stated that he saw EIFS installed on a building at the comer of Grove Sheet and Elmwood Avenue, and, while he is not an expert on building materials, the product *did not look bead, even close up'. M. MykM stated that he believes that the true issue is installation; the City will have to put the appropriate docvmentatim in place to ensure a quality application. M. Mylott stated that he has trouble telling an architect that he cannot use EIFS when the Committee permitted an applicant to use concrete block as an exterior building material. R. Freeman stated that the round element proposed for the comer is pnced as metal panel. M. Mylott stated that he hopes that the architect is not proposing pink EIFS, as the elevation portrays. R. Freeman stated that the EIFS would be limestone color C. Smith stated that she could provide regional numbers regarding the dif'lerence in price between EIFS and brick and precast R Freeman stated that they are using a local con?Tactor that is the source of their Information. J. Aiello stated that such numbers should be provided to the City Council B. Reid stated that. in reality, people do not see above 14 feet. C. Smith disagreed, and stated that that is 'absolutely not true'. C. Ruiz stated that, if EIFS must be the exterior building material, perhaps the architect could explore reducrrg the amount of EIFS by Introduang a third building material within that portion of the facade located belowtlte signage. R. Freeman stated that this project is already $500,000 over budget, but he is determined to continue with the project. R Freeman stated that the City must make a decision about dollars relates to exterior building materials J. Aiello stated that the City should continue to explore design features and their economic feasibility SUMMARY OF FINDOOM SITE PLAN A'a APPEARANCE REVIEW CAS November 3. 1M9 ] PMX 5 of 8 )91 tt tiilyiott motioned to grant preliminary site plan review approval. D. Martino seconded the maftt. the motion 1 -0 to arant Drelininary site plan review acbroval. B. Fahlstrorn stated that, if the building material is to be EIFS, the architect shoedd further develop the bga* it can be Weatly improved by enhancing the joints and finishing the EIFS like semi e. B. Fahlstrom stated that such changes would not be costly. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary appearance review approval, subject to: 1) the Citys continued exploralion of design features and their economic feasibility. and 2) further development of the fagade, irictud'rng but not limited to enhancing the joints and finishing the EIFS to resemble stone, if the buil&V matedal must be EJF$. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated that the Committee only conskter+ed materials. H. Friedman stated that the building is 'dull and has no character H. Friedman stated that he hopes 'visitors will avoid this mistake of a building': try building 'is not Evanston'. C. Smith disagreed, and stated that the building lust needs some work. H. Friedman stated that his criticism is not directed as P Bullock or the firm he represents; he believes P Bullock is a good architect but his skills have not been applied. A. Alterson stated that he has given much thought to the role of the Committee - should it simply review the appearance of this building orr provide advice to the Cfty Manager's Office, A. Alterson stated that simply evaluating a project on its appearance -goes against his gut' which evaluates whether the project is good or bad. A. Alterson stated that this project is a good project A. Alterson stated that he does not want to say whether EIFS is a good matenai or a bad material; however, he does not want this much EIFS on a building in dovrhtown Evanston A. Alterson stated that there have always been economic reasons for building buildings; maybe we have come to a time in our culture that buildings do not hold the same place that they once did. A. Alterson stated that we may be at time where there are no more long-lasting buildings. J. Wolinski stated that, during the last review, he recommended that the City go so far as to gap the finances to improve the exterior building materials. J. Wolinski stated that. since that time, he has talked with other Cry staff and has been made aware of the importance of this project to Church Street Plaza. J Wolinski stated that he has seen too many other projects 'go down " tubes' at this location; if it meant eliminating a vacant Sot. he would 'stomach Dryvd' Committee aDDroved preliminary appearance review {9-31. subject to: 11 the Ce�f's continued exploration of dglign features and their economic feasibility. and 21 further development of tf>e facade. includino but nOR limited to enhancing the ioints and finishina the EIFS to resemble stone. if the b0dina material must be EIFS H. Friedman, C. Smith, and R. Walczak cast dissenting votes. and S. Najar ac-stained The applicants used the same boards as those presented to the Committee on September 29. 1999; those boards have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee file for this case (SPARC 97-0065). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS StT'E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW commirrEE Navembw 3.1999 Page s at e X SPAARC 99-134 1907 Lincoln Street Modify tower features of multi -family residence. rAillicid Ms. Trisha Hamlin, Secretary to the Condominium Association, presented site photographs to evaltarte VW removal of tower features for the multi -family residential building +ocaom at 1907 t sncoln Street. T. Hamlin slated that the building has four decorative peaks above tr►e tads. one has been removed because it was about to fall, and one has been rebuilt. T. Hamlin stated that while stw would not want to refnare the peaks, she is seeking input from the Cdy as to how 4 would respond to surh a potential request H. Fnedman asked T. Hamlin: what will you do if the peaks are not restoned7 T_ Hamlin responded: we would rebuild the parapet as is. T. Hamlin stated that the peaks rest on a steel beam be find the parapet. J. Wotinski asked T. Hamlin., is the building a landmark? T. Harrnlin responded, no. M. Mylott staled VW T, Hamlin should research the history of the building before making a decision J_ Aiello indicated that the peaks are really not visible from the street A Atterson stated that the porbon of the building without the peaks looks the hest. C Smith stated tha: the peaks are such an 'unusual detalr. H Friedman agreed. C. Smith stated that the peaks could toe photographed, disassernb bed. and stored until such time that the Condominium Association would like to restore them C. Smith sta'-ed that if the Condominium Association wanted to ensure that future work to the building would maintain its cN racter, they could nominate the budding for landmark status C. Smith stated that, given the location of the peaks, she is not cermin tftat their reconstruction is worth the money, she would support the consensus of the Condominium Association C Smith motioned to recommend that the applicant further investigate me construction details to determine whether or not the peaks are original. if such research proves that me peaks were not an original feature of the building or if the Condominium Association desires to eliminate the peaks, the Committee finds no compelling reason that the peaks should be maintained. A. Berkowsky seconded the motion. The Committee awroved the motion (9-01 to recommend that the apolicant further invest,aate the construction details to determine whether or not the peaks are odainal; if such research proves than the peaks were not an original feature of the building or if the Condominium Association desires to ekmsnate the peaks. the Committee finds no compellinq reason that the peaks should be maintained. SPAARC 99-136 1036 Weslev Avenue Preliminary and Final Modify exterior, including construct open deck on top of coach house Applicant did not attend SPAARC 99-136 711 Monroe Street Preliminary and Final Rebuild existing rear porch and steps for multi -family residence Applicant did not attend SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REWEW CQMMMME November 3,19% Page 7 of a SPAARC 98.0122 Binding Appearance Review u F Announcen%6M OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Reschedule special meeting of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Corrx� to discuss binding appearance review C. Smith stated that the specie! meeting of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee to discuss binding appearance review will be Friday, November 19, 1999 from 9:00 am. to approxdrnwlely 11:30 a.m. at Room 2404. SPAARC 98-0122 Aindina Aocearance Review Communk aHon OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Distribute photocopy of magazine arWe: 'Design Review Reviewed, Adrn**&8dHe versus Discretionary Methods' American Planning Assorrafion Joumal, Autumn 1999 A Afterson distributed photocopies of an article from Me American Pt raN Association Joumal titl®d,."Oeaign Review Reviewed, Administrative versus Discretionary Methods% SPAARC 98-0122 Bindinp Amearance Review Announcement OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Announce Chaddock Technical Woyirshop, 'Anti -Monotony Oenances. Architecfural Review and Appearance Codes'. C. Smith stated that the Chaddock Institute of DePaul University wig be Conducting a technical workshop entitled, 'Anti -Monotony Ordinances: ArchitecbwW Review and Appearance Codes' on DecemberS. 1999. C. Smith stated that she has more information and would make that information available to anyone who is interested. Approval of Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to grant approval of the Summary of Findings of October 20, 1999. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (9-01 to arAyove the Summary of Findinvs of October 20. 1999. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 410 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aran Minear Site Plan Review Recording Secretary Novembers 1999 SUMMARY OF SNOINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �✓ Novernber 3, IM {`'T Page 5 of a x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 27, 1 999 Room 2404 and City Council Chambers Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. JennOW, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Woiinski. Members Absent: R. Dahal, K. Kelly. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: Other Attendees Present: Commencement R. Crum, B. Fahistrom, T. Kerr, S. Lufkin, M. Robinson, M. Rubin, R. Schur. Alder -man Newman; Mr. Ron Koboid, Chair of the Plan Commission; Mr. John Lyman, member of the Plan Commission; Mr. Marty Stem, U.S. Equities, Inc. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 1.45 p.m. SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza (Hotel) Concept Construct hotel (Hilton Gardens) within Chum Street Plaza. Mr. Reid Freeman (developer) and Mr. Pope Bullock (architect) presented a site plan, Maple Avenue elevation, and photographs of uses of EIFS to construct a hotel within Church Street Plaza. Mr. Craig MacKenzie was available to answer questions R. Freeman stated that Regent Partners and VAnston Hotels would own this hotel in partnership; it would be leased to an operator, and that operator would be a franchisee of Hilton. R. Freeman stated that this hotel will have 179 bays and between 165 to 175 moms. P. Bullock stated that Hilton Gardens were orig�nally envisioned for suburban kx ations; he worked with Hilton Gardens to recognize that their prototype would not fit within urban locations. P. Bullock stated that the development team recognizes that this building is a piece of a larger mixed -use development. P. Bullock stated that the development team recognizes that this building would be located on a comer, making it more 'distinctive' than a building located midblock. P. Bullock stated that they used horizontal datum and similar SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEA, 4-MCE REVIEW CdW[TTEE J October 27.190 Pape 1 of a x� materials to incorporate Mis building with the p Mwtg garage and main pard,utr P Bullock stated* mat tihey designed a rotunda for the comer. P. Bullock stated that this building would haws `peOestrian-fnendly sidewalks fronted win actrvrty r*Ther tttw service-. P, Bullock stated that a lobby and restaurant would tmnt Maple Avitnue and the administrative offices wauid front University Ptace P. Bullock stated that the design includes an arcade connected to the parking garage to provide protection from poor weather P Bulkz�k sated that ti a building would have a multi -story entrance that cuts through the building' to the rear entry P_ Bullock s" I I tat services would be provided at the rear of the buikfing. P. Bullock stated that the building would hm-e a masonry base, using the back from t^ne parking garage or main pavilion to 'stick it together' with the parking garage. P. Bullock stated that the upper levels would be 4-inch, limestone -colored, synthetic stucco cc EIFS over a CMU wall, including 2-+ncn reveats. P_ &Aocit stated that the coping would be pre -cast SUCfr that it is 'crisper'. P Bullock stated tl%at the comioe of the arcade would be metal or EIFS. R. Freeman stated that the EIFS would only be used `above where people cannot touch'. Jr Wolinski asked the applicants; how high is the hotel? R. Freeman responded. sic stories, appr=i nra" 65 feet. C. Smith asked the applicants: would you have a lower level? P. Bullock responded: no. C. Smith asked the Committee: do the standards within the Research Park Mas'uer Plan apply to this development? J Aiello responded* those standards do not apply to entertainment -related uses C Smith asked the applicants, would you use your parent company for constructor:? R Freeman, I no; we will use a local contractor. C. Smith stated that she would like to compriment the developer and architect on meir presentation and documentation, especially the way in which they included the adjacent use. C Smith stated that Tv public spaces were laid out well, and the arcade is *welcome'. C. Smith stated that the responses to site plan issues were 'very good'. H. Friedman stated that he Is 'impressed' by the planning of the budding. C. Smith stated that, within the elevations, the proportions and massing were 'very nicely handled'. C. Smith stated that the response to the comer was 'good. but it could be more emphasized' C Smith stated that she feels very strongly that, at this location and at least on the three 'public sides', the architect should use "durable materials'. C. Smith stated that EIFS Is not an appropriate material, and she does not grant this building "routinely pointed out as a mistake the Crty should not have permitted'. P Bullock stated Man people would point to this building as a good example P. Bulbck stated that he views EIFS as an 'improved stucco'. P. Bullock stated that the EIFS would be adhered to a CMU wall, would be well detailed and come with a 10- year warranty. P Bullock stated that this application ,s used in coastal environments. P Bullock stated that he wanted to articulate the base, middle, and top of the building, brick would be 'too Persistent% and EIFS would be 'more successful' than metal panels H Friedman stated that he Is "disappointed' with the elevation, the building should Ce built of 'servicabie, reliable, and durable materials that will survive' H. Friedman stated that Evanston has more severe winters than the climates the architect used as examples, EiFS is "inappropriate at this location, in this City_ and in this climate'. P. Bullock stated that the issue is the application of the EIFS P Bultoci. stated that EIFS is used in all climates throughout the country, its high performance and acceptance dnve Its use by the r4ustry, P. Bullock stated that 48 out of the last 50 buildings he designed and built were built with EIFS. C Smith stated that EIFS is a 'cheap material and that is why you want to use it' P. BuAock stated that he woufd prefer to use precast but the detailing would not be as great the end result would be a building that was not as weg designed. R. Freeman stated that a precast building 'is not in the cards'. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 27, 1999 Page 2 of 8 X R. Freeman stated that other requirements of the City, such as the amount of meeting space, ilftrlCt tfteir ability to spend more money on materials. J. Aiello stated that, as part of the Request for Proposals Fr-010ess, the City mandated a minimum of 4,000 sq.fL of meeting space and other amenities not typicrall$ : -I L. J with this type of hotel at this type of location. J. Aiello stated that economics must be 'facteced Er= the equation'. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: how much more money would be required to increaft r* Quality of materials? P. Bullock responded: $10 to 12 per sq.ft or 5 to 8 percent of the construcrCan cost. C. MacKenzie responded: between $500,000 and 51,000,000 P. Bulkxk stated that the construction is cost is approximately $10.500,000; the total development cost is approximately $20.000,000. M. Stem stated that he hears that the building is well designed, except for the building materials: We devek*w should provide 'good examples' of the use of EIFS. B. Fahlstrom stated that he agrees with C. Smith on the general use of EIFS; however, the Committee should look at the 'state -of -the -,art application'. C. SmiM sMF., that such a review is 'reasonable', but she still does not agree with its use. C. Smith Stated that; v nft the exception of Petsmart, the Committee has successfully kept EIFS out of the community; therefore: it is diiflcult to provide many *bad examples'. C. Smith stated that EIFS 'looks cheap, and people associate it vAh cheap construction'. J. Aiello stated that, if the Committee and City are going to 'blatantly ban EIFS, something must give' for development to continue in an area with other high cost factors. J. Aiello stated that the Committee should provide rationale as to why EIFS cannot be used so the applicant may respond. C. MacKenzie stated that site planning features, such as the arcade, are also expensive. C. Smith stated that the interior quality could be compromised, she is sure that Hilton has its own standards, but the Committee is not aware of what those standards are C Smith stated that she is certain that value engineering can occur. R. Freeman stated that he would not get 51 more per night if the hotel was constructed out of precast and they used harder mattresses and installed smaller television sets A Akerson stated that the consumer does not have to live with the budding; the City does A Atterson stated that staff must be able to point to the results of this partnership, as it negotiates other such partnerships, as an example of a successful partnership. P. Bullock stated that other municipalities use their EIFS buildings of good examples. P. Bullock stated that he has already 'broken five or six of the Hilton rules of design". if the City does not use this developer, the next developer will propose a prototype building as well. J. Aiello stated that. if the City is to have a hotel, the proposed hotel is the product type that the market can support C. Smith stated that the Committee likes and supports the idea of a hotel; however, the proposed material is 'a problem' C. Smith asked J. Aiello: do the decision -makers realize that requiring meeting space produces a Dryvit building? J. Aiello responded: yes. C. Smith stated that she would sacrifice the meeting space to have a higher -quality building material. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval J. Aiello seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott asked the applicants: do I understand the situation correctly, it you are to build this building. it will be EIFS? R Freeman responded: yes. M. Mylott asked M. Stem, do you agree that the building can only be built with EIFS? M Stem responded: the City would eventually assume any additional cost for exterior materials. R. Freeman stated that they would like to begin construction in March 2000 and open in April or May of the following year Committee aporoved the motion (7-31 to grant concept approval R Walczak abstained The site plan, Maple Avenue elevation, and photographs of uses of EIFS have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee file for this case (SPARC 97-0065) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMIME October 27. S OV9 ]� PsJ" 3 of 8 X SPAARC 97-OM Church Street Plaza Rlid Construct Citypartang garage within Church Street Plaza. Mr. Tom White (developer) and Ms. Beth Kay (architect) presented working drawings to construct a City parking garage with Church Street Plaza. C. Smith stated tt1a: the applicants have submitted an Application for Bufting Permit. M. "tt asked the applicants: are the pians you are presenting to the Committee the same plans as that you have submitted for a building permit? B_ Kay responded: yes. B. Kay stated that she addressed the issues raised by the Committee at the last review, including "blending the brick' and 'down -playing' the southern -most stair tower. B. Kay that she centered the column within the area of the east facade between the two southern stair towers. C. Smith stated that the architect should add a 'break' along the northem side of the southern -most stair tower to provide a visual distinction between the southem-most stair tower and that area of the facade attributed to the storefront B. Kay steed that that area would have an expansion joint, or she could setback the brick portion of the facade between the two soutluff t stair towers (at the ground floor) approximately 6 inches. C. Smith stated that she prefers the setback. B. Kay stated that she would make that change. B. Kay that she increased the width of the glass within each stair tower. B. Kay stated that the canopy has a fritted glass cover, not metal panels as depicted within 9* plans. B, Kay stated that the canopy would have a gutter M. Mylott asked the applicants: do you plan to Include artwork within the grills? T White responded: we have a line item within the budget for artwork within the grills. T. White stated that the development team Is waiting for additional information from the City, including the names of local artists. J Aiello stated that she plans to present this item to the Public Art Committee during the first week of November. C. Smith asked the applicants: are the metal grills painted? B Kay responded: no, the metal grills are galvanized. C. Smith asked the applicants: do you plan to include awnings? T. White responded: yes, the awnings voll match those awnings used on the Main Pavilion D Jennings asked trie applicants: have you incorporated the changes suggested by the representative of the Parking Committee? B. Kay responded we have increased the size of the office, changed the configuration of the islands, and added an accessible parking space near, and fink to, the north stair tower. J Aiello stated that she would like to compliment B. Kay on 'excellent work through a difficult process". C. Smith agreed. C. Smith stated that the Maple Avenue elevation is 'very successful'; the only improvement would be the addition of artwork M. Mylott asked the applicants: does the west elevation cantilever over E Railroad Avenue? T. White responded: yes B Kay stated that the development team was able to configure the west elevation such that the number of parting spaces did not change, the parking garage still contains 1,402 parking spaces. C Smith asked the applicants how Is the interior of the parking garage illuminated B Kay responded: from lights located within beam pockets; the lights would not extend below the beams C Smith motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Aiello seconded the motion. Committee aDoroved the motion (10-0) to grant final site Dian and appearance review approval. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS srrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �+ OGober 27.1999 Page 4 of a x SPAARC 99-0" Sherman Plaza Pro -application Confefume Conduct pre-apprrzboon conference for mixed -used development oxiticling department store (Sears). pa l2V s&uctuure, and retirement community, within block bounded by Church Streef, Sherman Avenue, Davis S3mK and Benson Avenue. Mr. John Terrell (developer) presented 20 boards, including, but not Urnited to, an existing and proposed see plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, renderings, and site and area ptx*)graphs, to construct a mixed -+aired development, including a department store (Sears), parking structure, and retirement community, within Cie block bounded by Church Street, Sherman Avenue, Davis Street, and Benson Avenue. Mr. James Klutz iK* and Mr. Maury Frshdr. T. J. Klut2it & Company, Mr. Dan Coffey and Mr. Dan Dolan, Daniel P. Coffey 3 Associates, Ltd.. and Mr. Adam Richmond, Katten Muchin & Zavis were available to answer questions. J, Terrell stated that the development team has submitted its Application for Planned Development. J. TeniO stated that the development team and the City are co -applicants. J. Terrell stated that all structures within the block bounded by Church Sleet, Sherman Avenue, Davis Street, and Benson Avenue would be demolished, except the bank at the southeast comer of Church Street =%d Benson Avenue and the 2-tenant building immediately east of the bank. J. Terrell stated the development team views the Church Street and Sherman Avenue comer as a *100 percent comer'; they would like to make it a'primary retail comer, J. Terrell stated that the 3-story buikfirg would be approximately 67,000 sq.ft J Terrell stated that the number and configuration of tenants is flextile. although they envision two tenants each occupying approximately'h of the first and second floors and a gird tenant occupying the third floor. J Terrell stated that the building would be recessed from Sherman Avenue. providing a plaza and widened sidewalk; this area would have an 'area of repose', an area for "easy transportation', and an area for window shopping. J Terrell stated that M setback also provides a 'signabse comer• for Sears. J Terrell stated that this Sears would be a full -line Sears department store. occupying approximately 120.000 sq.ft. J. Terrell stated that Sears sees an Evanston store as filling 'a void in the market place'. J. Tend stated that Sears would have show windows along the entire street frontage. J. Terrell stated that Sears would have show windows and an entrance along the corridor leading to the parking structure elevators. J Terrell stated that the development team would like to construct a 'far -weather cafd' between the 3-story retail building at the comer of Church Street and Sherman Avenue and Sears; more specifically, the caft would align with the corridors leading to the parking structure elevators J. Terrell stated that this cafe iwd 'activate' the area J Terrell stated that they would like a local restaurant to operate this cafd, J Terrell stated that the development team envisions two tenants of awoximately 10.000 to 15,000 sq_tt within the retail portion of the building at the comer of Davis Street and Sherman Avenue; or, the space could be occupied by one tenant_ J. Terrell stated that 200 dwelling units wou'rd be located above the retail space; 150 dwelling units would be independent living and 50 dwelling units would be assisted living J. Terrell stated that the residential entrance and veh,cular access to underground parking for the residents would be along Davis Street, J Terrell stated that, within the service area, each budding has its own kmding berth and trash area. J. Terrell stated that traffic would enter the seance area from Henson Avenue, and It would exit at Davis Street. J Terrell stated that the parking garage would contain 1,386 parking spaces. he envisions this facility as 'state-of-the-art" with no 'ticket takers' D Jennings stated that. while the Oty discussed automating the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM] I'I OCrON-.1 . 7. 19M 1�, Psc 1, -r 1 parking garage at one time, it may Have one booth operated by a person. J. Terrell stated that me es+nl d configuration of the parking garage provides a stair well at Dogs Street and an elevator and stair -ael at Benson Avenue. J. Lyman asked the applicants: why does Davy Street not have an elevator? D. Jemrungs responded: that was a recommendation from a representative of me Parking Committee- J. Aiello stabW ttsat the configuration of the Davis Street pedestrian entrances and exxs may not be finalized. D. Jennings sired that the issue can be reviewed by the full Parking Committee. J Terrell stated that vehicular entrances aria exits would be located along Davis Street and Benson Avenue. J. Terrell stated that the parking garb is 'well connected" to the Transportation Center. J. Terrell stated that the development team provided an *identity element at the elevators to the paricing garage. J. TerreX stated Mal parking garage inckgless tW space at the comer of Davis Street and Benson Avenue. J. Terrell stated that Sears would have a pared pickup area at the seeond floor of the parking garage. J. Lyman asked the applicants: how many levels ra tthe parking garage? D. Dolan responded- 11 floors above the ground floor, 12 stories total. J. Lyman asked the applicants: is 12 stories too high functionally? M. Fisher responded: the parking garage at 900 N. Michigan Avenue within the City of Chicago is 12 levels, and it functions fire. D. Coffey responded: a person driving a vehicle is most concerned about getting closest to the elevators: in addition, the double -helix design and resulting one-way traffic takes a person up two levels over one trim_ D. Jennings asked the applicants_ have you responded to the questions raised by the representative of the Parking Committee? D. Dolan responded we are prepared to show the responses to those questions: it reazi change the location of Sears' parcel pick. J. Terrell stated that the parking garage would not produce a canycn effect, because no similar building would be built along the west side of Benson Avenue J. Terrell stated that the building materials would be 'indigenous materials that enhance the community'. J. Terrell stated that the retail building at the comer of Church Street and Sherman Avenue would be brick witty precast details, treated to look like finestone; the base would be sane. J. Terrell stated that Sears would be a lighter brick building or precast stone with 'stone-iike' details, the base would be stone. J. Terrell stated that the other retail building would be brick, but of a different color; the tower would be concrete with alunvrwm windows. J. Terrell stated that the development team is still evaluating how the residential tower reiates to the retail base. J. Terrell stated that they intend to use brick and a 'cobred stone -like material' for the parking garage, but the materials will depend upon cost: the grills would be an aluminum or metal treatment_ J. Terrell stated that the landscaping 'carries forward the treatment used throughout Evanston'. J. Terrell stated that the landscaping is 'enhanced in certain places- they would use different materials at 'special places'. J. Terrell stated that trees would be reused as much as possible. J. Terrell stated that they hope to avoid the 'repetitive placement of trees'. instead providing *feature elements' that work with the storefronts. R. Kobold asked the applicants7 is on -street parking provided? J Terrell responded: I do not know_ D. Jennings stated that on -street parking would be provided in some locations. the City will work with the development team to identify various needs of access and loading. R. Kabold stated that the City should identify and strengthen "points of entry' as well J. Terrell stated that their construction schedule is 'aggressive but doable'. J. Terrell stated that they trope to have the planning process and land acquisition completed by the end of this year. J. Terrell stated that Sears wants to be open in October 2001 M. Robinson asked the applicants- are the existing businesses relocating within Evanston? M. Fatw responded Champs will close, Cibbank Is looking elsewhere within the immediate area; the restaurant and grocery store along Davis Street Is looking to locate within the Immediate area, Osco Is looking at several locations within the immediate area, and it may be incorporated into the project; the restaurant along Church Street would like to relocate within the area; and the status of Mt. Olive is uncertain J Aiello asked the applicants: will all relocations be completed privately? M. Fisher responded: yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 27, 1999 Page a of 8 e C. Smith asked the applicants: will Sears limit other potential tenants? J. VJutznick resporWed: no. J. Ilyfflim. asked the applicants: will you have restaurants? J. Terrell responded: restaurants were discussed earth durlrg the planning process, but with the existing amount of restaurants and those proposed within Churctz Strait Plaza, none were needed; the development would include the 'fair-weather caf8' to provide that type of activity. R- Kobold asked the applicants: what am the antieniit n of the residential bower? J. Kkitsni* 1 4 ia- houae dining, hoaaekeeping. transportation, and programming: residents can also walk to the an emfts or downtown Evanston. R. Kobold stated thatthe applicants should be prepared to discuss building height and why the buildings we proposed the way they are. R. Kobold stated that the applicants should be prepared to discuss the relationship of the southeast comer of the site to its environs, especially Fountain Square and the Chandlers Building. R. Kobold stated that the applicants should be prepared to discuss that the parting garage serves mcce than this development, and discuss how the 'identity element' will pull people from the northwest visa 1101n and connections will be important J. Terrell stated that the project would include a comprehensive sgnage avid graphics program. C. Smith stated that the Committee discussed pulling the tower through to the base to reinforce the iden*r. this change would also shorten the 'dead end' corridor. C. Smith stated that she is still troubled by the wide width of unoccupied Davis Street frontage, she is concerned that the City is moving the `dead space" along Sherman Avenue to Davis Street. C. Smith stated that if the pedestrian entrance and exit is reconfigured, it may provide a space for a retail tenant J Terre stated that the development team would consider if an opportunity for activity could occur at that location. J. Klutznick stated that such a space would be difficult to rent. D Dolan stated that he would look at reducing the width of the exit from the service area. B. Fahlstrom stated that he is aware that the architects are reworking the drawings, but he would like to reiterate that the residential tower is too massive to be right on the comer. B. Fahistrom stated that marry of Evanston's tall buildings have setbacks. D. Dolan stated that the development team would use 'every architectural device' to reduce its impact. J. Terrell stated that the building must have 200 dwelling units. D. Dolan stated that the Buck building is similarly proportioned. C. Smith stated that the Buck building is located within the middle of the block. J. Klutznick stated that only the width of the building is located at the corner the breadth of the building is setback from Davis Street. J. Terrell stated that the fenestration and other deters would make the elevation read and feel differently. C. Smith stated that no action is required of the Committee. The applicants used the same boards as those presented to the Committee on September 29. 19K. reduced versions of those boards have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee file for this case (SPARC 99-064) SUMMARY OF FOAX W SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW [TEE Oe ubw 27, zs" r,c 7 :f s Ajd oumment The neat adjowned at 4.45 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott. Zoning Planner SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrTEE Octow 27;1939 Pao. a o1 a eo x SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS October 20, 1999 Members Present: S. Najar, P. D'Agostino, H. Friedman, A. Alterson, C. Smith. DJennings Laszlo Simovc represented the property owner. The original proposal w-as for condo conversion of a 4 plus one building to a 3 story condo building. The owners wanted to add a canvas type canopy to the front of the building. The canopy would encroach on the front yard setback so the owners decided to abort the decision and eliminate the canopy. Mr. Simovc showed plans of the proposal to move the lobby forward by building out the vestibule and remove the glass blocks on the side of the entrance and make it all open. In answer to a question he stated the parking is existing. The Committee approved preliminary and final approval of the project. 2201 Oakton Street 1 reliminary and Final Approval of an Addition and front canopy Jeff Nance, Home Depot Architect, presented the proposal before the Committee. Home Depot proposes to; renovate the exterior of the building: modify the vestibule: renovate the drive-thru "lumber camp" by Fetsmart; and replace the fence by the Garden Center. Mr. Nance indicated that the dryvit will remain. Mr.. Nance showed a plan of the proposal and indicated the intent to add a canopy to extend 59 feet from the face on the southeast corner of the building. When customers purchase materials they may pick up the materials under the canopy. This is intended to keep the elements off the customer in the pick up area. Home Depot would have to eliminate some parking to create a barrier for the staging area for the loading area. D. Jennings indicated there is 533 spaces for parking. so there would be no real problem. A member of the Committee noted that the customer pick up area is also the fire lane. An inquiry was made of the hours.of operation of the "lumber camp." The answer was the same as the regular store (24 hrs) but there will only be single -lane access after normal business hours. After some discussion, it %&as determined that the hours of operation of the "lumber camp" would be open at 7 and close at 10 p.m. C. Smith indicated there were some Fire Department issues; the racks in the loading area with sliding merchandise thru. Mr. Nance indicated they met with Building and Fire Department and at that time there were no issues. He stressed that the canopy would be large enough for a fire truck to go under. Mr. Alterson stated he wants on file the hours of operation of the "lumber camp. Mr. Nance showed elevation drawings. He stated that the front elevation canopy %%ill match the existing ones. There will be a 12 foot clearance same as the orange striping. The side of the building will have 14 foot clearance. All the vestibules will match. The main entrance vestibule will be extended on the %%vst out to the canopy with cart storage an the west side of the building. The roof drains would also be extended. The down spouts will be ranoved to go into the drains. D. Jennings discussed traffic issues: There should be one`n-ay eastts urid pass-thru going %rzi - with sigtiagc and striping on lanes.. The one-way pass thru would prevent problems --vith neighbor in the area with lighting, noise and traffic_ Vegetation in the relocating islands «ems discussed. Should there be mall shrubs or what. It was decided that all the, island vegetation should match. Mr. D'Agostino indicated there should be 2 trees on the large island. Mr. Nance replied by stating the trees will be Honey Locust. Home Depot plans to replace the fence in the garden area % ith a green vinyl chain -link fence. C. Smith discussed the issue of the hot dog stand operating inside in the front of the Home Depot store. Ms. Smith stated the health department reviewed the sanitation aspect. Nothing was ever presented to the Building Department. She had requested a letter regarding the stand, but none has arrived. This must be removed or permission must be received from the City. This must be done prior to permits being issued. l . Fire Department reviews area for access; 2. One-way eastbound traffic at "lumber camp" drive-thru area. 3. All landscaping must match; there must also be 2 trees in the larger island; 4. Roof drains must be tied in to drains; and 5. Document showing hours of operation for drive-thru and pick up areas must be on file. Myles% Marc prom: Minear, JoAnn [Iminear@evanston.govl ent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 9.49 AM To: Aguado, Frank; Aiello, Judith; Alterson. Aalhur, Bericawslcy. Alan; Bush, Carla; Charley. Michael; Crum, Roger, D'Agostino, Paul; Dunn, Civia; Fahistrom, Bob; Fuller, Lynn, Jennings, David; Kelly, Kevin; Levine, Stefanie; Leyendecker, Kristia: Lufkin, Sally; Marino, Dennis. Mylott, Marc; Robinson, Morris; Rubin, Max; Ruiz, Carlos: Schur, Roberta; Sison, MkheW Smith, Carolyn; Terry, Jay; Travis, Mart n- Wolinski, Jim; Wonders, Chris Subject: agenda for 10-20-99 SITE PLAN REVIEW BEGINS AT 3:15 P.M. ON OCTOBER 20. 1999 99-123, 815 Reba Place. Preliminary and Final, convert 17 unit multi -family residential builddng to 17 unit mutti->Family condos and modify exterior. 99-126, 2201 Oakton Street, Preliminary and Final Existing building addition and exterior canopy modification to Home Depot. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 1:. 1999 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings. S. Nagar. P. D'Agostino. D. Marino, C. Smith. R. Walczak 1301 Central Street._ Renlacine existine fence on Evanston Hosnital Proaerty Preliminary and Final Paul Schwab, Schwab Architects, represented Evanston Northwestern Health Care rei rding replacing a permanent fence at 1301 Central Street. Mr. Schwab presented a site plan of the property, along with photos showing the current corrugated metal fencing. %ir. Schwab indicawd the proposed replacement fence %,.ill be wooden and stained a mahogany color, a paint chart was provided showing the chosen color. The fence type is a shadowbox variety with staggered slats. The street side of the fence will have shrubbery in front of it. After discussion_ it was determined that the landscaping for the fence is on the public right-of-way and it is necessary to obtain a plant material permit. P. D'Agostino reminded the applicant that when the plant permit is signed, it is considered an agreement that the hospital will maintain the care of the planting materials. R. Walczak expressed concern regarding the privacy fence. The existing fence is metal and bars and the proposed fence will be board on board. The proposed fence has, no spacing between the boards and he felt that it would be a safetV hazard: and inquired if there could be an alternative type of fence erected. Mr. Alterson stated that Evanston Hospital can certainly afford to erect a fence in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance much easier that some of the residents of Evanston would be able to do. The Committee discussed an alternative of louver fencing as an alternative. H. Friedman presented a sketch of a proposed alumiative. The Committee discussed the proposed alternative presented by H. Friedman. The members felt that the alternative was a good solution. The question w-as asked regarding the view of the proposed fence for the neighbors across the street. Mr. Schwab indicated that Evanston Health Care and the neighbors have worked together to reach an amicable decision regarding the fence that all concerned will be happy with. The Committee moved. seconded and gave preliminary and final approval by a vote of 5 in favor and 2 in opposition. subject to: I !reconfigure spacing and arrangement of slats to match the sketch placed in the record, and 2) obtain a right-of-%2y planting permit. 2800 Central Street. Proposed Blockbuster Video Store Signage Recommendation to Sign Board C. Smith presented the proposal of Blockbuster Video (proposed new tenant in space of former West Coast Video) to place Blockbuster logo on an awning attached to the mansy.-d roof and add a "torn ticket" logo to the existing free-standing sign below the existing White Hen sigm2ge on the existing non -conforming 15' 6"tall sign. A. Alterson moved denial on all counts due to visual clutter with so much signasge. He feh it is not necessary to have so much signage for one place of business. Mr. Alterson felt that Blockbuster signage sells a product not a location of a Blockbuster Video store. D. Mari -no agreed in part by saying that he felt the addition on the pole sign is a good idea but to elhmin2le the signage on the mansard roof. The motion to deny the entire request failed to get a second. A motion to recommend approval to the Sign Board for a sign similar to the one used at West Ciwun Video by vote of 5 in favor and 2 in opposition. 733 Chicago Avenue, Pgddor Nissen request to feface 2 signs Recommendation to Siv Board Rob Paddor Nissen requested refacing 2 existing non -conforming signs to read "Rob Paddor's Used Car Express." C. Smith expressed dismay with the white background and red lettering. Her preference was to have the signage background another color other than white. White background is not acceptable according to the Sign Ordinance. The lettering on a sign must be more outstanding that the background. Discussion ensued regarding removal of any non- conforming signs. C. Smith indicated the elimination date is Jan. 1.2003. She also expressed wishes to have the entire area cleaned up of the clutter of signs. A_ Alterson stated that if the new proposal was not granted the existing signage would remain until 2003. He went on to sag that permitting the requested change would not make matters worse. D. Jennings was in agreement with A. Alterson. A motion which %%w made to approve the signage as proposed, owning to the fact that the Zoning Administrator was not concerned with the color of the background, failed. A motion was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the proposal subject to the change in the background color on the sign. 711 Church Street. Chinolte Mexican Grill Revision to Facade Plan George Sarfatty presented ChipoIte Mexican Grill's revised facade plan. Mr. Alterson reminded the Committee that ZBA recommended approval with Site Plan being binding review over the facade renovation. The project has been introduced at City Council. Mr. Alterson reiterated to Mr. Sarfatty that he should be prepared to answer questions at the Council meeting. The signage for the property will be 15' 6" above the ground, in full accordance with the Sign Ordinance. The proposal includes eliminating the canopy overhead, as there is stainless steel on the underside. The wood door would remain as proposed. Mr. Alterson stated the removal of the awnings was a good idea because the awning gave the false appearance that the restaurant was part of the adjoining place of business. H. Friedman inquired of the muntins on the windows; Mr. Sarfatty replied that there are none. C. Smith stated that the storefront has a subtle appearance. Mr. Friedman found no major problem with the storefront. D. Marino moved that the preliminary and final review be approved. The Committee approved with a Vote of 6 to 1. Summary of Findings The Committee approved the minutes of October 6. 1999 as presented. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jo ann Minear, Acting Secretan• SITE PLAIN REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMNLNRY OF FINDINGS OCTOBER 6, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: A. Altersom P. D'Agostino, R.Dhal. D. Jennings, D. 114wi3s . S. Nagar, C. Smith, R. Walczak MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Aiello, L. Black, R. Crum,14. Friedman. K. Kelh. NL= Mhlott, J. Wolinski C. Smith declared a quorum and the meeting began at 3:05 p.m. 1560 SHERMAN AVENUE J. Kerlander represented Telegent for Concept review for this address. This wireless phaw system is for internet, long distance and is a fibre antenna. This concept is not for cell► lar phones. J. Kerlander explained that the dish is flexible and 18' in diameter. The dish is unob ' e to the street The Sherman Avenue address Aill be the hub site for 16 customer sites. At this pohn, the 16 customers are unknown. The sale to the proposed 16 customers is contingent on the•: approval of this antenna. The rooftop plan to mount this dish allows the dish to be flush mounted on the side of the penthouse. Pedestrians can only see the dish in the immediate area of the biding. The dish must not be obstructed in order to aid the point to point access to the cusaomt= amennas. The antenna will be mounted on the side of the penthouse not to exceed the height of the penthouse. When there is a single antenna Telegent will place it as close to the center cd the roof as possible. This does not create a health hazard nor interfere with services of otfuT rramsceivers. The Committee determined the approval of a permit for 16 users, good for one year. Sint Plan Review must see each customer's request individually on a case by case basis. The cusaonxts to the hub «-ill be accesson- uses to the particular building. The Committee moved and secarxied and unanimously approved preliminary and final a val o the hub site at 60 SheIL rtnzan venue. 820 SEWARD STREET Joe Riccio, architect, presented the plan for the renovation of the 820 Seward Street bui i E:V. He explained there would be no density increase except the landscaping. The plan is for upgrading the electrical and plumbing in the building and tuckpointing the exterior of the building. The interior will be renovated with new kitchen and tile baths and the plumbs= fixtures Ail] be replaced. In essence, a repair permit. The windows will be replaced wi&i =1 change. They will be aluminum clad casement with a powdered finish. One profile of wow throughout the building and the air conditioners Aill be replaced. The rear of the buildimr, contains 12 parking spaces for 16 units. There are two 20 yard trash receptacles in the rt= drthe building. 615 DEMPSTER STREET Donna Oh presented the request for the sidewalk cafe at Cafe Express_ After much discussion, it was determined that the proposed side%mlk cafe would be on the privatc property of the restaurant and not on the public right-of-way; there is no need to apply for a sidewalk cafe permit. The problem is that the restaurant is being operated illegally; that is, it is a type I restaurant operating as a type Il. The applicant was instructed to speak to the Zoning Officer to obtain an application for a special use. It was unanimously moved and seconded to table this case until the special use application could be reviewed. Respectfully submitted. Jo Ann Minear, Acting SPR Secretary x ppr"M e124e0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 29,1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Afterson, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Marino, M. Mybtt, C. Sm*- R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: K. Kelly. Design Professional Present H. Friedman. Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: B. Fahistiorn, J. W. UGm, S. Lufkin, M. Robinson, M. Rubin, R. Schur. Others Present; Ms. Diane Korling, Design Evanston; Mr. Mark Larsen, Design Evanston. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-096 523-525 Howard Street Final Rehab existing mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and residential within second floor). Mr. Drew Hendel (architect) and Mr. Ronald Losczyk {property owner) presented Application for Building Permit M-863, Inctuding working drawings, to rehab an existing mixed -use building located at 523.525 Howard Street. D. Hendel stated that i. the ground floor contains three tenants, and the upper floor contains two apartments. 2. the exterior renovations include repairing the brick; tuck -pointing the entire building; working on the comice; replacing the windows; removing the wood -shingle canopy; and adding new awnings, new signage, and new lighting. Also, they would create a new storefront opening for the middle ground -floor tenant along Howard Street. The awnings would be green Sunbreua-type awnings. 3. the "back wing" is not included with this work. it may be addressed 'in the future'. SULOAARY OF FIND NM SI7E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CC>NUMME a 29,1� Page 1 or 7 042ira4994 Jr A. Alterson stated that he would encourage the property owner to provide bicycle parting. M. Mylott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the property owrw investigates opportunities to provide bicycle parking at the rear. A. Alterson seconded the nu:d=. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to qrant final site Dian and appearance review approval. provided the oroDertv owner investiqates opportunities to provide blcvcte parking at the rear. SPAARC 99-120 1615 Thelln Court Prellminary and Final Demolish existing and construct new enclosed rear porch, connecting to previously detached garage, dnr two-family residential structure, requiring variation. M. Mylott presented Application for Major Variation ZBA 99-47-V(F), including a site plan, floor plans. elevations, and plat of survey, and site photographs to demolish an existing and construct a rarest enclosed rear porch for the two-family residential structure located at 1615 Thelin Court M. Mylott stated that the proposed construction requires a variation because it would be 16 feet from the rear lot line whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-foot setback. M. Mylott stated that the parch would be attached to the currently detached garage; in so doing, the garage would become part of we principal structure. M. Mylott stated that the garage is located approximately 4 feet from the rear lot line J. Wolinski stated that he would like the enclosed porch to be constructed of brick. C. Strut stated drat she understands why the applicants would propose frame construction. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval- D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (8-11 to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski cast the dissenting vote. 4 The site photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for V*s case (99-128). SPAARC 99-129 1928 Dempster Street Preliminary and Final Alter windows within retail sales establishment (Fashion bug) within Evanston Plaza. M. Mylott presented Application for Building Permit #99-889. including working dravrings, to alter the windows within the retail sales establishment (Fashion Bug) kxated at 1928 Dempster Street (within Evanston Plaza). C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinsw seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to orant preliminary gnd fsnat site Dian and appearance review approval. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September29, IW9 Page 2 of 7 eo SPAARC 99-127 733 Chicaao Avenue Preliminary anO final Remodel automobile sales establishment (Evanston Nissan). Ur. Fred Kaplan presented Application for Building Permit 099-W7, including working drawings, arnd site photographs to remodel the automobile sales establishment (Evanston Nissan) kx:ated at 733 C 11:111 o Avenue. F. Kaplan stated that 1 they would like to add a leased car agency by opening up a portion of the building. 2 the proposed windows would match the existing windows. 3 they would seek approval for the signage at a later time. J. Wolinski stated that he would defer to the Sign Review and Appeals Board regarding the question of refacing an existing non -conforming freestanding sign. C. Smith stated dug the proposed signage would 'look nice' as a window sign. J. Wolinski stated that this property is within a special sign district for automobile sales. A Aiterson asked F. Kaplan: are the blue !lags still Rying? F. Kaplan responded: they have been removed. C. Smith stated that work was performed without a permit~ currently, no work is permitted on the sme. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aDvmved the motion (9-0) to grant orellminary and final site Dian end appearance review avaroval_ SPAARC 99-130 1106 Elmwood Avenue Prellminary and Final Demolish existing and construct new detached garage for fwo-family residential structure, mVjidng variation. A4. Mylott presented Application for Major Variation ZBA 0 48-V(F), Including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and plat of survey, and site photographs to demolish an existing and construct a new detached garage for the two-family residential dwelling located at 1106 Elmwood Avenue. M. Mylott stated that the proposed construction requires a variation because it would be too cla5e to the side and rear lot lines; also, the applicant proposes to create a permanent, open, off-street parking space in front of the proposed garage. C. Smith asked Committee members: does anyone stave concerns about the proposed parking space? A Alterson responded: it is a "non4ssue' to me. M. Mylott stated that no one has contacted the Zoning Division regarding this application. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A A1terson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (") to orant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. The site photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-130). SUMMARY OF FPCZiGS SME PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWATTEE September $1299 Page 3 of 7 k SPAARC 99-131 601 Ridae Avenue Preliminary and F%nl Construct new deck for residential structure within street side yard, requiring variation. M. Mylott presented Application for Major Variation ZBA 99-46-V(F), including a site plan. floor p4w4, elevations, and plat of survey, and site photographs to construct a new deck for the single-family chWilog located at 601 Ridge Avenue, M. Mylott stated that the proposed construction requires a variation hecause it would be 5 feet ffrrm the Seward Street lot line whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 15-foot setback. M. Mylott stud that the residence is located approximately 4 feet from the Seward Street lot line. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aDoroved the motion (9-01 to grant Dreliminary and final sate Dlan and appearance review aooroval. The site photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for Mis case (99-131). SPAARC 99-064 Sherman Piaxa Preliminary and Ravision to Preliminary Construct mixed -used development including department store (Sears), parking strudwe, and retirement community, within block bounded by Church Street, Sherman Avenue, Davis Street, and Benson Avenue. Mr. James Klutznick (developer) presented 20 boards, including, but not limited to, an existing and proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, renderings, and site and area photographs. to construct a mixed -used development, including a department store (Sears), parking structure, and retirement community, within the block bounded by Church Street, Sherman Avenue, Davis Street and Benson, Avenue. Mr. Maury Fisher, T. J. Klut`nick $ Company; Mr. John R Terrell, Horizon Group Properties, Inc.; Mr. Dan Coffey (architect) and Mr. Daniel Dolan, AIA, Daniel P. Coffey & Associates, Ltd.; and Mr. James C. Gamble, Land Design Collaborative, Inc. were available to answer questions. C. Smith summarized the Committee Summary of Findings from August 25, 1999 for this case; she stated that the Committee granted preliminary site plan and appearance review approval for all buildings except the residential and retail building. subject to further refinement as discussed and an additional Comnidlbee review pnor to the pre -application conference. J. Kiutznrck stated that 1. they revisited the design of the parking garage elevations and added more detail. They are still considering the material for the panels. The awnings would be from 3 feet to 6 feet out from the fagade. The street trees would be located in between the awnings. They added an 'eyebrovt to further reduce the mass; this feature 'would bring the garage down to a 2-story level'. The 'eyebrow' could be metal or concrete. Finally, they added metal or concrete 'banners'. D. Dolan stated that the sidewalk at this location is only 8 feet wide. D. Coffey stated that the development team recognized that the street is a 2-story street; the 'eyebrow' would be a 'comfort -maker. D. Dolan stated that the 'eyebrow would keep the eye from 'running up the wail'. C. Smith stated that the'eyebroW could be *beefier. SUMAARY OF FINDINGS SrtE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Septmnbw 29.1999 Page 4 of 7 EN A. ARerson asked the applicants: would the "banners' encroach upon V* right-of-way. 0 Dolan responded: yes. D. Jennings stated that, if the appr cants received a license agreenie►t for the awnings, the'banners' would be ptable. C. SmO stated that she sees'no problern'wuh the 'banners". D. Marino agreed M. Mylott asked the applicants: does the Benson Avenue fagade styli include the 'EVANSTON' sign? J. Terrell responded: yes. D Dolan stated that the sign is a 'great opportunity to show that the garage does not take itself so seriously'. M. Mylott stated that he sal likes the sign. C Smith agreed, and stated that sign is like 'a elongated graphic or piece of sculpture"- H. Friedman stated that a 10- to 12-story structure is a 'terrible intrus,on on the character of the community'. 2, they revisited the character of the Church Street and Sherman Avenue plaza. They hired land Design Collaborative, Inc to create an overall streetscape plan and landscape plan. J. Terrell stated that the Church Street and Sherman Avenue plaza would be 'segmented into pieces rather than appear as a wide swath.' J. Terrell stated that the plaza would include a zone for window shoppers, a zone for persons walking through the area, and a zone trial provides a place in which persons could sit. J. Terrell stated that they added awmngs as well. J. Gamble stated that the streetscape plat} relates to the buildings and nas different pavers, but of compatible colors, at special areas. M. Robinson asked the applicants. are the planters Me same as those used elsewhere within the downtown? J. Gamble responded they are similar, but we are propos.-ng planters that are a'little more elegant". J. Aiello stated that the applicants should consider how the planters are designed such that they deter loitering. otherwise the City would have to retrofit mem cater. J. Gamble stated that the grade changes moving along Sherman Avenue; the streetscape would change with the grade stages. D. Dolan stated that the Sherman Avenue streetscape would consist of three groups of six trees each (one group for each of the three buildings). D. Dolan stated that the planters and the trees could be different within each group. D. Dolan stated that the streetscape plan includes streetlights, and they would purchase additional Tallmadge lights for accent features at entrances and within special areas. J. Gamble stated that the location of the streeUights needs to be reviewed. 3. the Sears "comer" would probably not include windows. They would provide some 'relief" within the brick via some other 'architectural texture"; they could include sorre up lighting also. D. Dolan stated that the area could be inset with cast stone, surrounded by brick. A. Alterson stated that he appreciates the attempts to improve this comer, but the work must continue; what was a blank wall is now a recessed blank wall. D. Dolan stated that the City could commission an urban mural for this location. J Aiello, A Alterson, and D. Marino agreed. C. Smith stated that Sears should commission an urban mural. 4. they revisited the entrance to the retail building. D. Dolan stated that they would establish a rhythm along the Church Street and Sherman Avenue plaza of '2-bay space. entrance. 2-bay space'. SL*A&4RY OF FRMINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMME SeptarrAw 29.11999 Page 5 of 7 i: J. Terrell stated that the corridor side of the Sears building would incisude etsptay windows smilar to those within the Sherman Avenue elevation. B. Fahlstrom asked the app:car^S would the south side of the retail building include display windows? J. Terrell responded- yes D. Dolan stated that the end of the corridor leading to the parking garage %csuld he a -bnghdi lighted lobby' where one pays for parking on foot; this area is no longer a 'dead end .^*mdoe' C SmiM asked the applicants: would this system be similar to the one used at the Monroe Street garage within Onicago? D. Dolan responded: yes. J. Terrell stated that the corridor weld still be covered B. Fahlstrom stated that the tower should be articulated such that it terminates vvftfun the lobby. J Terrell stated that the mass would come down to the base. D. Coffey stated that 'the krmunescent column would work down the tower'. B. Fahlstrom stated that this or some other feature shot. id come to the ground. J. Terrell stated that they would look at this suggestion. H. Fnecman stated that he wonders whet1w or not the City wants an elevator tower functioning as a landmark. C. Smith stated that the Davis Street elevation is largely devoted to accommodating vehicular traffic; this design would seem to create a 'wide area of dead space'. J Aiello stated trial she wonders whether or not a second entrance to the garage is necessary. D. Jennings stated that the City wanted to avoid a vehicular entrance and exit along Church Street; the vehicles need to get in and out somehow C Smith stated that the Committee has never discussed this issue. C Smith asked the applicants: can the impact of accommodating vehicular traffic be further minimized? D Dolan responded we can try to 'tighten up' the site plan as much as possible J Aiello stated that tt*e City wanted the retail emphasized along Sherman Avenue, recognizing the mistake it made 30 years ago J. Wofinski stated that this segment of Davis Street has always been 'docile'. J Gamble stated that the sidewalk -paving pattern would 'carry through the curb cuts' J Terrell stated that the landscaping would help the scale as well J. Terrell stated that they struggled with the issue of 'continuity' for the residential and retail building; while they recognize it is one structure, they would like to 'give some identity to the individual pieces — the residential tower and the retail base' J Terrell stated that assisted living and independent living would be further differentiated within the tower. J. Terrell stated nat common materials would tie the structure together. such as brick and painted concrete. D. Dolan sta±ed that the Davis S>reet elevation, within the setback above the retail portion of the building, Includes some 'unique elements' that project toward Davis Street. J. Terrell stated that the structure is built on the Sherman Avenue lot line. D. Dolan stated that some elements within the Sherman Avenue elevation are recessed, suet as the glazing_ C. Smith stated that it is "realty hard to reckon with an approximately 200-foot high building right on Sherman Avenue'. D. Dolan stated that the building is only 80 feet high at the comer C. Smith stated that the parapet makes the building look even taller. J. Klutznick stated that they could review that feature. J. Aiello asked the applicants: does this building include outdoor facilities on the roof? J_ Klutznick responded: no. B. Fahlstrom stated that the facade is "confused*. C. Smith stated that the building is 'very disjointed from the base all the way up'. A. Altersor stated that the rr ddle of the tower portion is 'very flat'. C. Smith agreed, and stated it 'reads strange'. D Dolan stated that that portion of the building would be recessed approximately 2 feet, the resulting shadows would provide depth. A. Alterson stated that perhaps vertical elements of the tower should extend through the base of the building. D. Dolan stated that such features are already included. C. Smith stated that the horawlal elements are so strong that they 'break up any sort of vertical read'. J. Klutznick stated that the hcr=ntal elements represent changes in use C Smith stated that there are "hundreds of different ways' to differentiate uses. D. Coffey stated that perhaps some horizontal elements are too strong. B. Fahlstrom stated that this elevation needs 'a whole lot more study', it reads as four different elements J Aiello stated that the applicants must be careful not to make the building appear as `one solid mass'. she is most troubled by the area just above the retail'. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 29, 1999 Page 6 or 7 COO r D. Dolan stated that the Davis Street and Sherman Avenue corner needs further development; it could be another plaza. D. Dolan stated that this area could contain a 'green oasis and an architectural arbor or trellis'. D. Dolan stated that the arbor or trellis would be a 'companion st ucture' to the fair-weather cafE, although it would be smaller, this feature would offer a 'nice gesture to Fountain Square'. J. Aiello stated that the City has long-range plans for improving Fountain Square. C. Smith stated that the signage is 'very unorganized': she realizes that the drawings are conceptual, but each retailer is 'probably counting on a certain amount of signage'. J. Terrell stated that they will submit a Comprehensive Sign Plan to control signage. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary sate plan and appearance review approval for the residential and retail building and to grant approval of the revision to the previous preliminary site plan and appearance review approval for all other buildings (8/25199). J. Woiinski seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (9-1) to grant Dreliminary site plan and aDpearance review acoroval for the residential and retail buildinq and to grant approval of the revision to the previous oreliminary site plan and appearance review approval for all other buildings (812SM9). C. Smith cast the dissenting vote Reduced color versions of the 20 boards, including, but not limited to, an exzsting and proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, renderings, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-064). Summary of Findinas C. Smith stated that, for 1201 Chicago Avenue, the phrase 'City Traffic Engineer within the motion to approve the revisions to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval subject to conditions should read 'an engineer. A. Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the September 22, 1999 meeting, provided that, for 1201 Chicago Avenue, the phrase 'City Traffic Engineer' within the motion to approve the revisions to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval subject to conditions should read 'an engineer. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (9-0) to ap mm the Summary of Findings from the September 22, 1999 meebnq, provided that, for 1201 Chicago Avenue. the phrase'City Traffic Engineer within the motion to approve the revisions to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval subiect to conditions should read 'an enoineer. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. qStev Ily subm` itted. t�M�en Mylott, AICP 0 Secretary SUMMARY OF FihDrNGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COOAWrrEE September 29. 1999 Pale 7 d 7 �1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2Z 1999 Room 2404 Members Present A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino M. Mylott. C. Smith. R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent: J. Aiello, J. Worinski. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: B. Fahistrom, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. Other Attendees Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-100 555 Howard Street Final Replace all fuel purr3ps and erect flat -roof canopy at automobde service station (Marathon), rmqu *V varistion. Mr., Ronald Cox (general contractor) presented a site plan, detailed planter plan, a maintenance plan, a photometric plan, a lighting catalog cut sheet and a lens cover to replace the fuel pumps and construict a flat - roofed canopy accessory to the automobile service station (Marathon) located at 555 Howard Street. M. Mylott gave R. Cox a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals approval letter (ZBA 99-39-V(ir)) R. Cox stated that P D'Agostino has reviewed and approved the detailed planter plan and associated landscaping. R. Cox stated that the planters are 6-inch by 6-0v-h landscape timbers, not railroad ties. M. Mylott stated that D. Jennings has reviewed and approved the photometric plan. M. Mylott stated that, once the maintenance plan is approved, it must be recorded with the Cook County Recorder's Office. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals asked the Committee to consider whether or not additional opportunities for landscaping are available along Howard Street. P. D'Agostino stated that he could see no additional opportunities for landscaping, given the existing curb cuts. SUMMARY C LGAMGS 5rM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COYiBtiEE September 22- IM Page 1 of 10 Fn C. Smith asked R. Cox; is the western pWraw square or rectmigular? R. Cox responded: rectangutar. C. Smith asked R. Cox- what are you proposing within the rectangular planter? R Cox responded: Grow Low Sumac around the edges. P D'Agast into stated that the Grow Low Sumac will cover the remainder of tsne planter, plus, this area %nil not get much sun as it is under the canopy of the tree C Smith stated that signage along the canopy will require a variation from the Sign Ordinance. M. Mylott motioned to grant final site pin and appearance review approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (9-01 to grant final site plan and aooearance review aoaroral. The site plan, detailed planter plan, maintenance plan, photometric plan, and lighting catalog cut sheet have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee file for this case (SPARC 99-100), SPAARC 99-122 1935 Sherman Avenue ConeW Demolish existing structure and constnr,7:t 4-story, 9-unit, muttl•-famify reaicdendiai building (concdominfrm>;s). Mr Ryan Nestor (architect) presented a site plan, plat of survey, and site and area photographs to demofi 0 the existing building and construct an 4-story, 8-unit mufti -family residential building at the property commcrhy referred to as 1935 Sherman Avenue. R Nestor stated that his client has applied for a demolition permit. C. Smith asked R. Nestor. who is your client? R. Nestor responded: Thomas Arthur Development Corporation. R. Nestor stated that they are reworking the elevations to 'get nd of the City of Chicago look' and provide a design `more appropriate for Evanston' C. Smith stated that the applicant should review the Building Code to determine how the proposed side yard setbacks affect the required fire rating and the amount of openings. R. Nestor stated that he would review that issue. R Nestor stated that the proposed trash removal program includes providing individual garbage cans w rd* a screened enclosure; the current enclosure is a masonry wall designed to match the building. C. Smith stated that eight dwelling units will require a private service, and the question of individual garbage cans versus a dumpster will depend upon that provider. C. Smith stag that the applicant must screen a dumpsite as well as provide devices that keep a dumpster from migrating from its designated location. R. Nestor stated that the site plan includes ten paering spots; the access aisle is 12 feet wide R. Dahal staters that the access aisle Is wide enough, If a garbage truck can get In and out of the site R. Nestor stated that the proposal includes face brick on the west elevation and split -face concrete block on the sides. R Nestor stated that the west elevation would also include limestone details and steel balconies M Mylott asked R. Nestor. what size fade back are you proposing? R. Nestor responded: standard size, not jumbo or utility -sized brick. C. Smith stated that she is not `overly enamored' with concrete block. C Smith stated that concrete black may be acceptable within the south elevation, but the north elevation is verl exposed as a result of the sitting of the ad;acent structure C Smith stated that the applicant could use a brim banding within the side elevations to "help M the elevations together'. H. Friedman stated that the appiirartt should "take cues' regarding wrapping the face brick from the budding south of the subject property. C. SmiM stated that commenting on such detaits is difficult without seeing the elevations SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN ARID APPEARANCE REVIEW COMRH TEE [l'� September 22. 1M �,sv� Page 2 of 10 L71 C. Smith stated that, considering the detail of the neighborhood buildings, she is concerned that the west elevation will not be compatible. R. Nestor stated that, at this time, the entrance ts recessed. however, such details cannot be seen because the roof eave does not reflect this relief A. Afterson stated that the applicant is proposing a lot of pavement over areas that now contain grass. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor: will you landscape the rear yard? R. Nestor responded because the area is so smaiQ, it will remain grass. R. Nestor stated that their tree experts do not believe that a 53-inch Elm tree located along the north lot line will survive excavaoon. P. D'AgosUno agreed. R. Nestor stated that their tree experts believe that the tree is not in "terrific healh`. R. Nestor stated that the two property owners are seeking to resolve the issue of ownership of this tree- R. Nestor stated that the property to the north may be developed in the near future; therefore, even if they could save the tree. they could not guarantee that the property owner to the north would as well. H. Friedman asked R. Nestor: is the subtect property a double lot? R. Nestor responded: no. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor. does the building have a basement? R. Nestor responded: yes; it contains the bottom floor of 'duplexed' units, storage. and a pump room. R. Nestor stated that the dwelling units are approximately 1,700 sq.ft. each. R. Nestor stated that they plan, to submit for a zoning analysis soon; he believes the proposal meets the Zoning Ordinance. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval. C. Smith seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that the Committee should evaluate whether or not eight dwelling units are appropriate at this location. M. Mylott stated that the question of density should be left to the Zoning Ordinance. C. Smith stated that the density within this neighborhood is very mixed, and the proposed density is at the middle of that range. M. Mylott asked the Committee: is this property within the proposed historic district for northeast Evanston? D. Marino responded: I do not think so. C. Ruiz responded: I believe the property is too far south, Committee aooroved the motion (8-11 to grant concept aoaroval. A. Alterson cast a dissenting vote. The site plan, plat of survey, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee file for this case (SPARC W122). SPAARC 99-123 816 Reba Place Concept Convert 17-u► it, multi -family residential building-frentao to 17-unif, mulfPfamlly residential building (condominiums) and modify exterior. Mr. Laszlo Simovic (architect) presented a sde plan, floor plans. elevations, and site photographs to convert a 17-unit, multi -family residential building (rental), located at 815 Reba Place, to a 17-unit, multi -family residential building (condominiums) as well as modify the exterior of the budding L. Simovic stated that the developer would like to install a canvas canopy and replace corrugated fiberglass panels installed on the sides of the budding with glass block L Simovic stated that the developer is considering individual awnings over each mr►dow, but that decision has not yet been finalized L Simovic stated that the developer would like to resurface the existing asphalt areas SUMMARY OF FINDINGS {�(.. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMWITrEE r� September 22. IM Page 3 of 10 7 C. Smith asked L Sior+ovic: are you r>ekacing ire windows*) L Simovic responded- VM vutth doLb*-hw g windows. D. Marino asked L Senom are you aware of me City coroomn,um reguiawns7 L S4M_'Nv! ,+esPoraa2 yea- 13. Fahlstrom asked L Simovic. have you submgwd for review against Chapter 34? L SMTOVic reSPonded: yes. C. Smith asked L Simovic: does the prop" contain a caltth basin? L Sunovic responded: huts, at to rear - A. Alterson asked L Simovic. how many parting spaces does the pmp" contain? L Simovic responded: 19 parking spaces Rw 17 dwelling ufwM L S+movrc stated that tt" are not 'touching' the dMVewagS. C. Smith stated that the applicant shou4 consider somecwV 'more substantial' than canvas for the awrtiV. such a proposal will not help the appearance of the budding C Smith stated that the applicant should consider something permanent wfth appropriate lighting M Mytott agreed, and stated that the aOPOSW awning does reflect the character of Uv buikhng. C. Smith stated that she does not belneve that glass block Is necessary R. Walczak stated that; from a security perspective, the glass block 'gets in the way'. L Simovic stated that he would remove the corrupted fiberglass panels and not install glass bioc k. L. Simovic stated that the developer would like to extend the lobby with a storefront systerr, Vwards Rena Place. C. Smith stated that the idea of expanding the lobby Is 'very good'. B. Fahlstrom stared that the idea of expanding the lobby 'makes sense' M. Mylott stated that the proposed expansion is not eliminating parking spaces. M. Mylott motioned to grant concept approval. provided the applicant (1) removes the corrugated fiberglass panels and does not install glass block, and (2) investigates a more permanent awning. C. Smith seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson asked L Simovic: do you plan to remove the security bars from the windows? L. Simovic responded yes. we will use a security system C. Smith asked L Simovic: do you plan to replace the air-conditrcning units? L Simovic responded, they will be replaced with units at the same k=Wion. C Smith stated that the applicant should bring examples of the proposed windows to the next Committee review Committee aooroved the motion l9-01 to Grant concept aeoroval. provided the aaolicant t t i removes the corrugated fiberglass Danels and does not Install loss block. and Q2 invesbastes•a more vier; sanent awning. �- The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and photocopies of the site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee file for this case (SPARC 99-123). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �+ September 22, 1 M {`�'7 PV* 4 of 10 a x SPAARC 97-0076 1201 Chicago Avenue Rwision to Firi,� Reconsider landscaping in relationship to proposal to construct new canopy (Shell Oat Crr npano Mr. Ron Ambrose (architect) presented a site plan to reconsider the landscaping as 0 relates to a propos- to construct a new canopy for the automobile service station (Shell 00 Company) located at 1201 Chicagr Avenue. M. Mylott gave R. Ambrose a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals approval letter (ZSA 99-38-V(Fl} R Ambrose stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals asked the Committee to evaluate whether or not the she had additional opportunities for landscaping, specifically between the two curb cuts along Chicago Avenue. R. Ambrose stated that Shell Oil Company is "very image conscious'. R. Ambrose stated that the drive between the pump islands and the Chicago Avenue sklewak Is only 13 feet R. Ambrose stated that the property owner is concerned that plating additional landscaping between the tv., curb cuts along Chicago Avenue will restrict the exiting capabilities of delivery tracks. C. Smrth staged that the configuration along Chicago Avenue does not lend itsetf to additional landscaping. R. Ambrose stated that he would like to suggest reducing the width of the curb cut along Hamilton Street and increasing the size of the planter at the southwest corner of the subject property. R. Ambrose stated the Shell Oil Company "would do something" witthin the Hamilton Street right-of-way as well. R. Ambrose stated that the width of the northern curb cut could be reduced. and the size of the northern planter increased A Alterson asked R. Ambrose: can you `dress up" the canopy as we 9 R Ambrose responded: we can place large flowerpots with annuals at the pump islands. C Smith stated that R. Ambrose should work with P. D'Agostino and R. Dahal on a revised site plan and revised landscape plan in accordance with the suggestions of the applicant. C. Smith stated that the proposed revisions change the Application for Building Permit; it will need to be amended as well. C. Smith motioned to approve the revisions to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant work with the Superintendent of Parks and Forestry and the City Traffic Engineer to produce a site plan and landscape plan in accordance with the suggestions of the appricant M. Mytott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-0) to aoorove the revisions to the Drevious Final site plan and appearance review approval. Drovided the aoolicant work with the Superintendent of Parks and Forestry and the City Traffic Engineer to produce a site Dian and landscape Dian in accordance with the suggestions of the applicant. The site plan has been placed within the Site Platrand Appearance RevieWCominittee Me for this' case (SPARC 97-0076). SPAARC 99-124 1822 Ridge Avenue Preliminary Construct &story, mutti-family residential bui7ding (39 dwelling units) Mr Rick Lukasik (architect) presented an Application for Zoning Analysis (99-0758-ZA), induc-rig a sw plan, floor plans, elevations. a plat of survey. and site and area photographs. to construct a 5-story. muta-famdy Su uaa.z:rr of t=a,Dr4GS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REIAEW COUMT TEE a SeMmew zz. ,tom Pages of 'fit) W residential bthldrg at the property commonly referred to as 1822 Ridge Avenue Mr Ibrahim Shilmad (developer) and Mr Robert Homer (developer) were available to answer questions R. Lukasik stated the building would be five stories high, contain 39 dwelling units, and have at -grade and underground paMing for approximately 40 vehicles plus two accessible parking spaces R Lukasik stated that the interior would be like lofts; the floor -to -floor height is approximately 11 feet M. Mylott asked -- a applicants: do you Intend to demolish the existing building? R. Lukasik responded yes,, but we will use a part of the existing basement roof for the at -grade parking area. C Smith stated that ft Building Division wuM have to review that proposal wrth the applicants structural engineer. M. Mylott stalled that the ramp to Moe basement is a common ramp. M. Mylott asked the applicants- do you intend to have your ramp at the same location. R. Lukasik responded yes, we *11 rebuild our half of the ramp. D. Jennings asked the applicants: does the existing ramp include a divider? R Lukasik responded. no. C. Smith stated that, even with a 10-foot setback, the Building Code restricts the amount of openings within a wall. the architect should review the respective sections of the Building Code. K. Kelly stated that the Fire Department will require a Knox box an the rear gate. R. Lukasik stated that they plan to landscape the rear and add fighting; however. they are not yet at that level of detail. R. Lukasik stated that the east elevation would be face brick with a concrete black base, either split- or ground -face. C Smith stated that the base should be a more pedestrian -scale material, such as brick or limestone. R. Lukasik stated that they would use brick. M. Mylott asked the applicants- are you proposing jumbo- or utrdity-size brick? R Lukasik responded: no M. Mylott asked the applicants what is the material within the balconies? R. Lukasik responded. brick. R. Lukasik stated that the face of the penthouse is brick. R. Lukasik stated that they have not yet developed the side elevations; however, the brsdc would wrap the comers, and the building material would switch to a colored concrete block. C. Smith stated that the south elevation is very visible with no clear opportunity to change material, this elevation should be brick. C. Smith stated that, along the northelevation, the brick should extend back to the first setback, approximately 42 feet from the front of the budding. M. Mylott stated that commenting on particulars such as binding materials and where they could or could not change is very difficult without seeing the elevations. C Smith agreed. I. Shihadeh stated that they want to construct a 'good-looking building' A. Afterson stated that the applicant will require a special use, and the proposal may contain two to three more dwelling units than the underlying density allows. D Marino stated that this location is 'great' for higher density. C. Smith stated that the applicants must demonstrate that the loading is functional, because she does not believe a truck could get enter or exit the loading dock If vehicles are parked north of It. D Jennings agreed. A Alterson stated that he Is concerned that the alley is becoming a small street_ R. Horner stated that the amount of traffic from the new development would be less than the traffic generated by the existing uses on site. C. Smith stated that the alley is unimproved, and that is a 'big problem" D Marino stated that it is not appropriate to pass such a cost on to 'the last one in' D Jennings stated that the City has an existing process whereby alle fs are considered for paving C. Smith asked the applicants from where do the utilities come? R. Lukasik responded: electrical comes from the alley; all others came from the street SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE r September 22. 1999 i�'j'�7 Page 6 of 10 X C. Smith asked the applicants: would the building be sprinkled? R. Lukasik responded: yes. the biii ft we be noncombustible. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion Discussion: D. Marino stated that he wants to see the building materials utter developed D. Jennings stated that he wants to see more detail regarding the ramp. C. Smith stated that the applicants need to address the layout of the loading area� the landscaping, and the exterior lighting. A. Alterson stated that he is concerned that the applicants are 'trying to do too rnuW at this site. D. Marino disagreed, and stated that the proposal presents far teas impact than the existing uses; the site, based on entering and existing patterns, is test suited for residential. C. Smith stated that the market has determined that this site is viable for residential, and it is not urxxgnmon within Evanston for high -density uses to be across an alley from single-family residential uses R. Homer stated that they would like to install balconies alorg we southern ekivati= the hies would be approximately 7 feet from the lot fine. R. Homer stated that the balconies would help 'break up the mass'. C. Smith stated that she liked the idea of balconies along the southern elevation. D. Manno agreed. Committee aporoved the motion (8-01 to grant content avoroval. A. Alterson and H. Friedman abstained. M. Mylott stated that he would like to congratulate the developers on the townhouse development at Crain Street and Dodge Avenue; the work to date looks 'very good'. D. Marino stated that he would like to compliment the developers for the Clyde Street condominiums. The site plan, floor plans..elevations, plat of survey. and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee file for this case (SPARC 99-124). SPAARC 99-041 300 Dodge Avenue (James Park) Final Renovate field house at James Park. S. Levine presented an Application for Building Permit (#99-603), including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, to renovate the Field house at James Park. S. Levine stated that this phase of the work includes renovating the field house, installing a bike and Jogging path, and constructing anew children's' playhouse. S. Levine stated that the east and west additions to the field house will be used for storage: these areas wilt not be heated, although they do Crave electrical service. S. Levine stated that the restrooms and concession area will meet the accessibility code; the exterior entrances to the restrooms were reconfigured such that the restrooms will be open when the building is not open but the park is open SLUMARY OF FINOINM SfTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE September 22.1999 Pays ?of 10 M. Myk* staged that during the last Committee review, the Committee suggested recessing the lights so b7A vandalism. P. D'Agostino stated that he believes that the fghts are recessed. S. Levine stated that site woLdd check that item. M, Mylott stated that, during the last Committee review, the Cornrrnttee suggested running the kit her; extutist through the chimney. S. Levine stated that the chimney and fireplace have been eliminated. C. Smith asked S. Levine: are you proposing to screen the air-cor ditioner condensers? S. Levine responded: yes, with a fence and landscaping. D. Jennings motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. A. Afterson seconded the motion. Discussion, M. Mykkt asked S. Levine: does this prgxnW include krcing the sled hill? S. Levine stated that that element has been removed due to insufficient funding. C. Smith asked S. Levine., when do you plan to begin construction? S. Levine responded., probably next year. Committee aoordved the motion ("I to grant final site Dlan and aooearance review afloroval. P. D'Agostino abstained. SPAARC 98-0034 1910 Dempster Street Revision to Finial Revise landscape plan for new grocery sfore (Dominiclr's) and feW tenant within Evanston Plaza. D. Jennings presented a revised landscape plan in conjunction with the new grocery store (Dominick's) and retail tenant within Evanston Plaza. D. Jennings stated that the applicant is the owner of the shopping center. D. Jennings stated that he has no involvement in this propdsal, except that the landscape plan was sent to him for approval; he sees no work within the right-of-way. D. Jennings stated that the applicant proposes to add and rearrange bushes and flowers; the applicants are not touching the trees. C Smith stated that the applicant should propose how the new Landscape material will be maintained. P D'Agostino stated that the new owner of the shopping center 'does a good job' at maintaining the existing landscape material. P D'Agostino motioned to approve the revision to the previous final F*z plan and appearance review appnNW, provided that the species of any new canopy trees installed within the parking area would match the species of existing proximate canopy trees within the parking area. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion f9-01 to approve the revision to the orevious final site plan and aonearance review approval, provided that the species of anv new canoDv trees installed within the parkins area would match the species of existing proximate canoov trees within the Darkina area SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �v September 22,1999 {/'�7 Papa a of 10 x SPAARC 99-0121 711 Church Street Preliminary and Final Modify exterior of storefront for type 2 restaurant (Chrootfe Mlex=en Gn7l), requiring special use o&imanc+e_ Mr. George Sarfatty (architect) presented a site plan, floor plan, sde and area photographs, and ptictc9rapeRs of a typical Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant to modify the exterior of the storefront for a type 2 rearrd (Chipotle Mexican Grill) at 711 Church Street A. Alterson stated that the proposed use requires a special use from the City Council. C. Smith stated that the Committee will not review the proposal for a sidewalk cafe at this time- A Ali rsaa stated that the business must apply for a sidewalk ca(d permit annually G. Sarfatty stated that they propose to remove the existing storefront and install steel -framed. bil'ci'µfaCeC windows and a door. G. Sarfatty stated that the open, steel -frame awning proposed above the stcvv*or4 would contain lights shining up and down. G. Sarfatty stated tha: the metal sign is not internally alumiinalSe4, but the lights within the steel -frame awning illuminate it C. Smith stated that while the proposed sign is 'nice', this storefront may be contt'oW by a unified husirim center sign plan- she will investigate whether or not such contras exist C. Smith stated that suciTr a plan would regulate the awning as well. G. Sarfatty stated that he was not made aware of such rest. M. Mylott stated that the proposed changes to the storefront are a 'dramatic departure' from the existing conditions. H. Friedman stated that he "remembers La Madeline all too well", and he is "totally opposed to this' proposal. C Smith agreed, and stated that, while the existing storefronts do nc< have the same soacirg, the base and materials provide 'an important consistency". B Fahlstrom stated that the proposed changes are well designed, but they are not consistent with the character of the existing storefront systems. G. Sarfatty asked the Committee: to what extend must the owner conform to Commcae comments? C Smith responded: Committee comments regarding appearance issues are recommendations only. M. MyicC st;ited that, because you are seeking a special use from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), the ZBA could recommend, and the City Council could require, that commentary regarding appeararloe be bkxb,% A. Alterson asked the applicants: to what extent is 'the trade' similar to the previous user? G. Sarfatty responded: the food is prepared as the customer 'walks down try line',- a customer can eat in or carry out G. Sarfatty stated that the food is not as "transportable" as that from Taco Bell, the portions are largea. B. Fahlstrom stated that the applicant had proposed a duct rurn.-)g up the back of the building. G. Sarfatty stated that the duct is not within the alley: it does not overhang ary right-of-way, and , is adjacent to comer like ducts C. Smith stated that she does not have a problem with b-,e proposed duct. C. Smith stated that the door swings into the right-of-way, it must either be recessed or switched M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan review approval. P DAgostino seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (8-0) to arant orehmrrary and final site elan review aDDrovarl M. Mylott motioned to deny preliminary and final appearance re• -,ew approval, citing the extreme deeiation from the character of the existing storefronts within this building C Smith seconaed the motion Discussion C. Smith stated that the two critical existng elements are tre vase and the ar od¢ed aluminum storefront systems SUMMARY OF FINDINIM S17E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUTI M September 22. IM el Pa, e 9 of 10 x G. Sarfatty asked the Committee: what If the scope of the rerrrodeing to the skmkint was reduced to a birch door within an anodized aluminum storefront syssem? C. Smith responded: she would have to see the proposal before she could , L C Smith stated that she has seen excellent examples of wood doors within metal storefront systems. Committee aooraved the motion 17-11 to clenv preliminary and finpl appearance review ayoroval. c&q- ,i,¢ extreme deviation from the character of the existino storefronts within this buiidinq. A Alterson cast a dissenting vote. SPAARC 99-126 2201 Oakton Street Concept Modify exterior of retail sales estatIfthment (Home Depot). Applicant did not attend. Approval of Summary of Findings P. D'Agosstima motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of September 15, 1999. H. Friedman seconded the motion Committee anoroved the motion t8-01 to a2R_rgw the SULnmary of Findinas of Se2Mr1hK Z., 1999. Adjournment adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, AIC� Zoning Planner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrI-TEE L September 21, 1999 06 Page 10 8r to e0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 17, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings. W Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly, D. Marino. H. Friedman. C. Ruiz, C. Wonders. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and Megan the meeting at 9:10 a.m. SPAARC 98-0122 Binding Appearance Review Discussion Discuss Legislative Sub -committee recommendation regarding amended SPAR Ordinance, amended SPAR Design Guidelines, and new Rules and Procedures. C Smith stated that the purpose of this meeting is to revisit the discussion about binding appearance review. C Smith stated that, since our last meeting on this topic, the Plan Commission subcommittee talked with representatives of Skokie and Park Forest about their binding appearance review processes. C. Smith stated that one of the problems the Committee faces is how to identify what the Committee is trying to uphold or prevent; if the Committee could resolve the guidelines, it would be 'over a big hurdle'. C. Smith stated that the Committee notes Le Madelin as an example of a bad decision; however, the Committee approved it C. Smith stated that that type of proposal is what the Committee should guard against_ C. Smith stated that the Committee should not be `design police'; it should not set standards that prohibit particular styles. M. Mylott stated that the design guidelines that were originally submitted to the Committee from the Legislative Subcommittee 'need work'. M. Mylott stated that he has read additional material since that time, and, based upon that reading, he agrees with previous comments from Committee members regarding subjectivity. M. Mylott stated that the proposed guidelines ^are headed in the right direction', but they need graphics to further clarify the meaning of certain definitions. M. Mylott stated that, before the Committee debates standards, it should reach a consensus as to whether or not it wants to recommend that the City Council adopt binding appearance review. J. Wolinski stated that he has changed his philosophy since talking to other communities; he Neves that some form of binding appearance review could work. J. Wolinski stated that he remains "a little worried" about the SWMARV OF RNOINGs tDMM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIMN COMMITTEE 5eptembor It. 1999 Pale 1 of 10 scope; he is most concerned about keeping the permit process moving while er swnng good design I Wolinski stated that he suggests the formation of a binding appearance review N%ard comprised of arty design professionals that does not review single-family residential projects, unless they require a M41111pr variation. C. Smith stated that she would extend the exception To two-family res:oential projects as rra. C. Smith stated that the discussion regarding binding appearance review always -everts to questions about the standards; if the Committee could develop what it Is trying to do first, ev�erycne may agree t;l'tat the goals are reasonable. C. Smith stated that design has intarVible components. but agreement about basic issues is achievable. C. Smith stated that, if the Committee "is on the same page, how it VAN flapped will fail into place". H. Friedman stated that he is concemed about `cheap constnsCaon' and its impaC on the integrity of Evanston architecture. H. Friedman stated that "permanence is being supplemer-Ted by cheap construction'; for example, concrete block is made to look like something else, and the City has Dryvit "all over the place". H. Friedman stated that the City has codes that cover construction, but 1t does not halve codes covering building materials. H Friedman stated that the City would have fever problems regarding 'permanence" as well as maintenance if it regulated the type of building materials D. Jennings stated that he does not like 'cheap' materials either, but it is difficult for him to vote against a building material that is legal. D. Jennings stated that these budding materials are commercially available D Jennings stated that he could accept that a particular material is not permitted due to maintenance or other such issues, provided the City can support such a contention; but he 'has a problem' with pros-.ati ling a material because of its appearance D Jennings stated that this issue may not be an appearance Issue, and may be better addressed in another section of the City Code. A Alterson stated that he believes that addressing the design issue is easier than addressing the building materials issues, because no building material should be banned. A- Alterson stated that a prohibition of anything should be a well -documented use of the City's police powers, while arguably appearance is an appropriate reason to prohibit a building material, it is on more 'shaky ground' than citing that it has maintenance problems. A. Alterson stated that every building material has its place, while a 'gigantic wall of Dryvit like those found at Pelsmart look terrible', Dryvit can be 'very delightful" A Alterson stated that the Committee is talking about "throw -away buildings" or buildings that are not'txutt for the ages'. A Alterson stated that a developer within Melrose Park purchased a vacated Jewel, demolished it, and built a Best Buy because it was cheaper than rehabbing the existing building A. Alterson stated that development has a place for 'throw -away buildings", in fact, the majority of buildings that were built up until 200 years ago were probably -throw-away buildings". M. klyiott stated that he agrees with A Alterson the City should have a rationale to prohibit a building matenal other than saying. -we don't like it'. M. Mylott stated that the City could cite examples of increased maintenance, deterioration, and other property standards issues as solid rationale to prohibit a particular material. M Mylott stated that he struggles with the acceptance of building materials over time M. Mylott stated that most Committee members would say that the multi -family residential buildings built along Ridge Avenue 70 to 80 years ago are'very nice buildings' M. Mylott stated that these buildings have a high - quality face brick, but the sides and back are constructed of the cheapest available material at that time -- common brick. M Mylott stated that he images that people at the time were 'appalled' by the treatment of the sides and back. M. Mylott stated that the same thing happens today: "Lincoln Park town homes' have a high -quality face brick on the front and concrete block on the sides and backs. ?A Mylott stated that some may not like -Lincoln Park town homes' today, but the next generation may look at them with the same 'adoration" as we look at the Ridge Avenue multi -family residential buildings A. Alterson stated that quality construction relates to the economic future of Evanston, if the City permits 'cheap` buildings, especially for housing, it cannot expect these buildings to be around for 60 years. A Alterson stated that, while 'cheap' buildings may be appropriate in some instances, in most cases, the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 17. 1999 Page 2 of 10 V community is `writing a prescription for blight', because the residents of those buildings cannot rreairllaiiirl them. A. Atterson stated that two of Chicago's west side neighborhoods experienced severe �.... , .:..:.. disinvestment during the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's — West Garfield Park and Austin. A. Altersci stated that West Garfield Paris was developed from !argety from the turn of the century to the 1920's. and Austtin was largely developed from the 1920's to the 1940's and 1950's. A Atterson stated that, even dxxvh Austin was the newer community. 4 was by far the more 'devastated' communi; f West Garfield Paric, which had suffered economic disinvestment 'or a far greater period. 'held up better', because the buildings were higher quality buildings. J. Wolinski stated that the regulation of building materials might be more appropriate from within the building code. J. Wolinski stated that, if binding appearance review is not approved for whatever mart, the Committee would stir have the ability to deny certain building materials. J Wolinski stated "the building code regulates the use of many materials; for example, the City does rot permit Rornex lsor electrical cable. J Wolinski stated that while Romex is not involve an exterior building material, it is an example of requiring quality. J. Wolinski stated that. while he too is bothered by 'big boxes', he is also concerned about vinyl -sided two flats; the City should mandate brick. C. Smith stated that all masonry constructon for residential buitdungs other than single-family dwelling units would be a 'hard sell' C Smith stated that such a building pattern does not have historical precedent In Evanston. C. Smith stated that siding, especially wood, can be "very lovely". C. Smith stated that the building code is applied universally, whereas a committee with binding appearance review authority could look at projects on a case -by -case basis to evaluate 'what makes sense'. C Smith stated that using the building code to prohibit a building material at a specific Iccation might be valid, such as keeping Dryvit above 6 feet C Ruiz stated that he is concerned about what is visible from the public way; the Committee could require minimum amounts of certain materials within the primary facade, based an the type of development. C. Ruiz stated that Skek,e requires that a certain percentage of residential buildings be brick or wood. H. Friedman disagreed and stated that he would not favor prescribing specific materials. rather he wants to ensure quality materials H. Friedman stated that making concrete block took like renaissance stone is "phony" and that type of construction should not be permitted in Evanston. H Friedman stated that Evanston has 'a long history of solid construction with good materials'. H. Friedman stated that the standards should relate to permanence. H. 'Friedman stated that maybe "big boxes ought to continue to be big boxes', but construction within downtown Evanston, along Central Street, or along Emerson Street ought to include quality materials H. Friedman stated that the new building at 1880 Oak Street 'is a junky building', but the building that he designed at the comer of Maple Avenue and Emerson Street is constructed of quality materials. H. Friedman stated that the client insisted that the building was designed as such. and the client was wring to pay for it. C. Smith stated that many clients are not willing to pay for quality materials H Frie,dman agreed, and stated that developers are particularly not willing to pay for quality materials; they should not be allowed 'to ruin our community for us". D. Jennings asked H Friedman What visible materials are 'junk' at 1880 Oak Street? H. Friedman responded. all of them C. Smith stated that she is not opposed to the overall appearance of the concrete block; however the windows look 'bad", and some problems with details could have been avoided to improve the design. C Smith stated that, in terms of permanence, one cannot argue against concrete block; it is a very permanent material. A. Atterson stated that many brick buildings are 'phonf buildings; they are frame buildings with brick veneer. C. Smith stated that most brick buildings are built that way today. A Alterson stated that, in terms of 'truth in construction' and 'truth in design', frame burgs with a brick veneer are 'phonier' than the concrete block building at 1880 Oak Street SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW 0OLtllirriiEE septewzel 17, 1999 Pne3of10 C. Smith stated that the final appearance of a material depends not only upon its design, but also upon who does the construction and who details it C. Smith stated that three strortg people are required to produce a *good outcome' for any building.- the owner, the architect, and the contractor. C. Smith Staled that, it any one of those people 'tall down on their responsibility', the end product gill not be good'. C. Smith stated that the Committee should realize that many of the problems being discussed are outside the control of the City. C. Smith stated that the Committee needs to clarity its position on things it can controf versus things that simply frustrate it C. Smith stated that the benefit of a committee reviewing appearance issues is that every project is a custom project; no code could hold the level of detail necessary to cover every situation or future material that might arise. C. Smith stated that Evanston is not a 'cookie -cutter community'. C. Smith stated that, at some point, the City must trust the judgment of its committees; at times, some committees are better than others, but committee makeup is part of the community. C. Smith stated that site supports the idea of an outside committee conducting binding appearance review A. Alterson agreed. D. Jennings stated that any structure for binding appearance review must be arranged such that it does not delay the development process. A Alterson and C. Smith agreed. C. Smith stated that the City would need to hire an additional staff person to manage the process D. Jennings stated that the Committee should not count on hiring an additional staff person during 'these economic times' D. Jennings stated that the budget does not have much room for growth, and an additional staff person would require andW $50,000 to $100,000, D. Jennings stated that he believes that binding appearance review will have to occur within the City's existing means A. Alterson agreed, and stated that the City has a surplus of committees. A. Alterson stated that the City should consider combining these committees. A. Nterson stated that a binding appearance review committee could easily be folded into the Sign Review and Appeals Board or the Preservation Commission'. the Preservation Commission could also address site - related functions of the Plan Commission C. Ruiz stated that he does not support the merging of several committees into one committee, even if it meant reducing the time for a project to be approved. C. Ruiz stated that each committee is specialized, and he does not believe that one committee could satisfactorily handle all the points. D. Jennings stated that he should not be voting on appearance issues in a binding manner, he is not trained in that manner. A Alterson stated that he too is hesitant to vote on appearance issues in a binding manner. C. Smith stated that, as a design professional, she hesitates to cast a binding vote with only 15 minutes to review the project. C. Smith stated that she has voted on a case and, after leaving the meeting and having more time to think about the project, thought she should have voted differently. C. Smith stated that binding appearance review would impact peoples' dollars and time. she would want a packet prior to the meeting to adequately review the cases. H. Friedman stated that the Committee discussed creating a larger group of design professionals as part of this Committee by mayoral appointment H Friedman stated that the Committee could vote separately on appearance issues provided a minimum number of design professionals were present. H. Friedman stated that a separate commission. even meeting more than once a month, could delay the approval process; this Committee's structure should be reworked to allow it to handle binding appearance review, even If the votes regarding site plan review are separate from appearance review. Cr Smith stated that she does not believe that this Committee should handle binding appearance review. especially in tight of the time in which this Committee has to review a project. H. Friedman stated that this Committee could always table a project if it needs more time. H. Friedman stated that, with a separate commission, re - reviews of projects must wait until the next month, whereas this Committee meets weekly. M. My;= stated that the perception of a longer review time could work on the City's behalf; if an applicant knows that a "crappy" product will be tabled, delaying their project, he or she may produce a quality product on the first submission. H. Friedman stated that no applicant thinks he or she is presenting a 'crappy' product. C. Smith stated that most other communities have a separate commission. other communities SUMMARY OF FINOINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 17. IM Page 4 or 10 0 use consent agendas to reduce the impact to the approval process. C. Smith stated that other commies' conx-nsron members receive packets ahead of time. C. Smith stated that the person staffing a 5e-,,,awe =r vr.-.s+on could have review and approval authority over small design issues, much Isle the auttxanty extended to C. Ruiz by the Preservation Commission. A. Atterson stated that the City must be v" rr.in„- t Of tine frames, a two meeting delay might mean that an applicant misses a constructor loan A Al*&rson stated that. especially when giving advice to singe -fatuity homeowners, the Commazee pays a^ mpor"ant community seroce when such applicants present plans to the Committee, they are cRen not avare of how the plans wit lock. A Alterscri stated -,-at hcs division sets the agenda `or this Committee, and often he does not look at the agenda until ertenng re meeting. A. Atterscin stated that some members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, wiseh meets twice a month, do not bok W. their 'extensive* packets until they enter the meeting; the Zoning Board of Appeals is an excellent body, but the members have 'outside lives'. A Alterson stated that this Cornmritee should not expect that 7�e members of a separate commission for binding appearance review mg review their packets any rrore than the existing City committees, unless such a commission was ccrnprised of retired people 'with nothing else to do'. D Jennirgs stated teat. as he understands it the Committee is discussing three different elements of review the site plan e;ement. which evaluates how the site functions, the material element, which evaluates durability. and the appearance element, which evaluates aesthetics D Jennings stated that he believes that the first two elements would be bindiN, but the third element would not because he does not believe that aesthetes can be objective, especially using words like 'harmonious' C Ruiz stated that the matenal5 determine design C Smith agreed. and stated that materials are "very, very strong contributors to appearance' C Ruiz stated that, if binding appearance review is to be handled by a separate commiss..-on. then ti-e review of materials should go with the review of appearance M Mylott stated that he believes that sate plan and appearance issues are related, the location of a building and the amount of landscaping would affect his decision on how well the building should be designed C Smith agreed, and stated that if separate committees address site plan and appearance issues, she is uncertain how the overlap would be addressed M Mylott stated that he has talked to many communites with separate committees for site plan issues and appearance issues, and he asked their staff, 'Do the two committees often overlap in responsibilities?" M. Mylott stated that the response was mixed, some communities responded that members of appearance commissions often discussed landscaping, while other communities had committees that maintained very distinct roles. M Mylott stated that he believed that the personalities of the committees would affect the extent of overlap C. Smith stated that personalities would change over time A Alterson stated that M;s discussion is one of "operational models% the various parts -- design as a distinct entity, materials as a distinct entity, financing as a distinct entity, potential tenants as a distinct entity - make up one project. D. Jennings stated that his point can be illustrated as such a cedar-s►ded frame house can be made to look like a brick house simply by cladding the house with %-inch back and mortar D Jennings sated :hat no one would be able to tell that the house was not a brick hcnise. but it would not have the durability of a brick house H Friedman stated that a person could tell the house was not brick once water seeped behind it and the brick began to peel C Ruiz stated that the City will have to determine what is the optimum number of commissioners for a separate body charged with binding appearance review, the Preservation Commission has canceled two meetings this year for tack of a quorum C Ruiz stated that the City should not expect that a separate commission could consist of just design professionals, it should include people who have an interest in design as well C Ruiz stated that the City does not have an infinite number of design professionals. M Mylott stated that with the exception of landscaping, this Committee rarely addresses traditional site planning issues, such as the location of buildings, a large amount of the time spent on reviewing a project is reviewing the appearance of the buildings M. Mylott stated that, if binding appearance review Is given to a separate commission the function of this Committee will revert to its original intent of bringing the SUMMAi7Y OF FINDINGS (DRAFT] SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 17. 19 .) Page 5 of 10 FA applicant and the persons involved with the permit process together early to discuss compliance with various codes_ M. Myloti stated that such a function is stiff important. C. Smith stated that she would We to cite examples that the Committee did discuss traditional site planning issues — Walgreen's and Osoo. C. Smith stated that the Committee debated building locaWn- C. Smith stated that she believes that 6* proposed building at the earner of Main Street and Chicago avenue, to which the Committee granted preliminary approval, is tco close to Chicago Avenue. C Smith stated that the Committee should have mandated that the developer set back the txallding; she regrets that mistake. C. Smith stated that that issue was further complicated because the set back was dictated by the Zoning Ordinance, C. Smith stated that she was disapoointed with the Sears project because site plan issues were not discussed thoroughly, if the Commie does not feel d5 has time to review site plan issues, a project should be tabled. C. Smith stated that the Committee is pressured because r%f "small time slots as well as politically to move some of these prz�ects along% sue.'i pressures will nct disappear. A. Alterson stated that Walgreen's, Osco, the building at Main Street and Chicago Aosnue, and the Sears building each irnotwed either variations or interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance, tecause each building was supposed to be built in a location that he nought was 'lousy' A. Alterson stated that he does not want to discuss specific instances, rather he would like to discuss the set of regulations within which a developer must operate — a developer who is only interested in making money A. Alterscn stated that the developer will pursue the path of least resistance. A Alterson stated treat he hears complaints that developers make money; his task in part is to allow the developers to make money while ensuring that the City receives benefits. H. Friedman stated that tl^�s community'does not have a lot c` time to come to grips with this issue'. H. Friedman stated that development is everyw1here H Friedman stated that the City is about to lose one of the reasons that he and his wife came to Evanston — its appearance and beauty H. Friedman stated that, if such quality of life elements vanish, people will as well H Friedman stated that the residents'pay a tremendous amount of property tax to live in this community, and if the City loses its character, it should be renamed Skokie". H F-,edman stated that there are veryfew communities like Evanston; this 'treasure' must be maintained. H. Friedman stated that this issue is his "push'. H. Friedman stated that the City should not be wormed about slowing a development fcf a few weeks, developers are 'only interested in making money. and they do not give a damn about the community, not a damn' C. Smith stated that she agrees that this issue must be resolved one way or another. C. Smith stated that the Committee must be expeditious, because the City needs to encourage development. C. Smith stated that development can be good for the community, but it needs to be managed. C Smith stated that, for most projects, extra City review time could mean the difference between a developer getting or not getting a loan; however, developers need to include a realistic time tine C Smith stated that she hears applicants complain about City review time quite often, but it is usually because the applicant took so long to receive internal approva's C Smith stated she tells applicants that a plan review takes three to four weeks, a time frame considerably better than Chicago; those applicants who did not factor in City review time believe that their time problems are now hers C Smith stated that, as long as applicants know our time requirements ahead of time, they plan accordingly: onty wren the City cannot tell them a time frame does it become a problem D Jennings asked C. Smutsn Do you think that the World Saving Bank is 'harmonious" with the surroundings? C Smith responded No H Friedman asked D Jennings, do you mean "harmonious' with the shopping center or the residential area? D Jennings responded- I do not consider corrugated stainless steel columns ard big yellow balls 'harmonious' with the shopping center or the residential area H Friedman stated that, if one compares World Savings Bank zo the residential area, it may be incompatible in use, but he does not believe that it could be calved incompatible regarding appearance. H. Friedman stated that, when discussing the use of materials, he does not want to prevent creativity in contemporary design. H. Friedman stated that his house must have been an 'eye sore" to people in 1910; Victorian Houses surround this prairie style house H Friedman stated that his house was not SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RE"AEW COMMITTEE September 17. IM Page 6 of 10 k hanrxmious at the time, but now it is part of the fabric. H. Friedman stated that he agrees with the previous discussion that building is an expression of the time, Evanston has many good examples at variety of architectural styles. H. Friedman stated that we do not want to discourage contemporary expression of good architecture, rather'we must guard agairist garbage'. D. Jennings stated that he is troubled by the fact that the Committee is asked to consider "harmony' with the existing surrounding: taut he is more troubled that the Committee wc0d need to assess potential 'harmony" over time. D. Jenn_nps stated that he does not understand how H. Friedman's house was not always 'harmonious', but somehow it became "harmonious' overtime. H. Friedman stated that ;erhaps a more accurate word is `compaMW; his house relates to the scale, massing, and setback of the neighboring houses. H. Friedman stated Cat 'compatibility leads ultimately to acceptance'. H. Friedman sated that the design guidelines say that, "The appearance and scale of buildings and structures shalt respect the attributes of surrounding development ...'. H. Friedman stated that the guidelines are not necessarily talking about incompatilbie architectural style, rather incompatible scare, massing, and setbacks D. Jennings asked the Committee: what are adverse impacts caused by incompatible architectural st4M — a decrease in the value of the property? C Smith responGed- not necessarily a decrease in value, rather an 'over powering'. C. Smith stated that, when one is not trained in this 'understanding', it is hard to express its components. C. Smith stated that the World Savings Bank and the building at 900 Gnare Street are examples of architectural styles that are not famili2ir to the lay person because this subject is not their interest. C. Smith stated that an example of an inccrnpabbie architectural style causing an adverse impact is the condominium building at 2601 Centrar Street C Smith stated that, while it has quality materials, it is poorly designed; it is 'not really a style at all' C Smith stated that the adverse impact at this location is that the building is not quality desigr C Smith stated that certain design principles, such as using a limited number cf materials. appl,, to design regardless of style A. Alterson stated that he agrees that, if the City is going to e-npower a body of individuals to veto a project, the City must protect the general population against arbitrary design "likes and dislikes'. A. Aiterson stated that he recently mov=_d w a block in which the vast majority of structures, each buitt during the 1950's, are very different; Franklin Park has a very similar quality to its residential streets. A_ Alterson stated that, while these structures are not identical. mey do "harmonize' with each other. A Alterson stated that he is familiar with a great number of Berwyn streets that contain row after now of the same brick bungalows; individually, these structures are 'beai:.difuf , but he does not consider'identicar necessarily 'harmonious" M Mylott stated that driving thro"h the 'spaghetti street subdivisions' of Lake County, where all the homes are the same, a not pleasant, t11t a lay person could very easily contend that his or her house is harmonious with the area solely because is is nearly identical to every other house. C_ Smith stated that the examples of different residential areas are like the variety of plaid fabrics' in some instances, many different colors and styles come together to =reate a one weave, much like Evanston; in other instances, the weave is dominated by one color or type of material, much like the Berwyn bungalows. C. Smith stated that the Commi.tee must keep ir. mind that the reason design guidelines must be unique is that Evanston is unique D Jennings stated that. if the Committee would never tell an applicant that he or she cannot put one style next to an existing style, there is no adverse impact caused cy incompatible architecture styles. M. Mylott stated that. as H Fnedman stated earlier, getter wording would refer to 'incompatible scale and massing'. M. Mylott stated that he encourages the Committee not to 'n' pick' the individual words of the proposed design guidelines M Mylott stated that he readily admits, and stated at the beginning of this meeting, that the document needs 'a lot of work'. M. Mylott stated that the City must craft its design guidelines for the homeowner, not architects; the document must be supplemented with graphics. M. Mylott stated that he believes that the Committee must reach a consensus as to A*iether or not binding appearance review is worth pursuing, and, if so, what our broad tasks need to be tc accomplish those objectives. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS tt]RAF[j SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVILW COMMfTEE Saptemt4u 17.190 Page 7 010 X� D. Jennings stated that the proposed guidelines state, '.. _ colors or surfaces shag be harrncinious to dire color and material of the adjoining stnxtrre ... '. C. Smiim stated that she would disagree with such a standard, but the Committee is not addressing these standards as much as its discussing tt'1e points of binding appearance review. A. Alterson stated that he would look to regulate color to the same extent tfW the Committee would regulate style. A. Alterson stated tfxat the City would neither say that yellow buildings are prohibited nor say that ranch houses are proohibited.- however, binding appearance review would provide a tool to deny or at least mitigate 'outrageous' projects. A. Afterson stated that projects may be much less scrutinized with binding appearance review, because the Committee's 'gun has bullets'; if the Committee could actually 'shoot down a pro",ect, it might be more careful with what it says'. A. Alterson stated that he considers Roger Parris' two or three flat, on the north side of Emerson Street at Wesley Avenue, 'an abominable looking building'; a bunch of buildings like that would discourage future high -quality development on a street that has many econcenic quaWes. A. Alterson stated that that pr�ojed is an example of adverse impact. A_ Alterson stated that appraisers could argue both sides if one asked the impact of this building on a building a block away; however, five of these buildings would have a demonstrable impact. A. Alterson stated that many of the buildings discussed by the Committee today center on designs that are either liked or disliked. A. Alterson stated that, if he had veto power, he might have vetoed Petsmart and he would have vetoed Roger Parris' building; he Is not terrain that he would have vetoed any other projects. M. Mylott asked A. Alterson: would you have vetoed the original Crain and Dodge town homes? A. Alterson responded: 1 do not know. A. Alterson stated that the process allowed the Committee to 'work over' the project in a very positive manner. D Jennings asked A Alterson- would you have vetoed the Ivy Court town homes? A. Alterson responded in retrospect, yes C Ruiz stated that the Preservation Ordinance encourages contemporary design, as long as It is true to the character of the historic district. D Jennings asked C Ruiz: are the historic districts and landmark sites controlled by zoning? C Ruiz responded: yes, but the Preservation Commission has the power to deny a project that does not conform to the preservation guidelines. C Ruiz stated that it took time for the development community to understand the Preservation Commission process; a commission charged with binding appearance review would have the same early problems, such as applicants contending that they knew nothing of the standards. C Ruiz stated that the City would have to promote such a binding appearance review commission. C. Ruiz stated that Evanston has traditionally encouraged affordable housing, but quality materials, such as masonry, are more expensive than vinyl or aluminum siding C Ruiz stated that these projects often require the most design assistance. C. Ruiz stated that the City must balance quality design, such that the housing does not negatively impact the neighborhood, against unit price C Smith stated that, during her time with the Committee, it has not made unrealistic expectations upon applicants that clearly do not have the financial means. C Smith stated that the Committee must 'make a strong stand` with those applicants who 'come Evanston to make a buck off the City and walkaway" C Smith stated that the Habitat for Humanity homes illustrate what could be accomplished from just the design level. C. Smith stated that the Committee is not ready to take a par. kage to the Plan Commission. C. Smith motioned that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee work towards a binding appearance review ordinance. A. Alterson seconded the motion Discussion: C. Smith stated that the motion does not include a recommendation of how binding appearance review would be implemented. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE. REVIEW COMMriTEE September 17. 1999 Page a of 10 W A Atterson stated that a motion is already on the table,, this ma6on vvas tabled December 11, 1998 for more information. A Atterson stated that the motion read: The City should have a mechanism to review the appearance of buildiiiVa. subject to standards, and it should have the power to deny the is, mince of permits based on the failure to comply with those standards. C. Smith withdrew her motion. A. Atterson withdrew his second A Atterson motioned to consider the following motion of A Atterson, tabled on December 11, 1998: 00 City should have a mechanism to review the appearance of buildings, subject to standards. and it should have the power to deny the issuance of permits based on the failure to comply with those standards. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (7-0) to consider the folbwirm motion of A 4},�t efson. tabled can December 11. 1998: the City should have a mechanism to review the aoWarance of buildings, subiect to standards. and 0 should have the oower to denv the issuance of permits based on tlf+e failure to comoty with those standards Discuss'fon- A. Alterson stated that the motion does not include what the standards should be. only that decisions should be based on something. O. Jennings stated that tote motion assumes that this Committee can develop objective standards to'these pretty subjective things'. A. Atterson stated that the motion assumes that the City, not necessarily this Committee. can develop standards objective enough to withstand scrutiny and objective enough to not infringe on land users' rights. C. Smith stated that, without such standards, binding appearance review would not be appropriate D. Jennings stated that he has a problem with the motion: if he votes for the motion, it suggests that he believes that developing a set of design standards is possible. M. Mylott disagreed, and stated that each Committee member would have an opportunity to look at the proposed standards and determine whether or not it accomplishes the objectives as discussed by the Committee C. Smith reiterated the motion by A. Alterson, tabled on December 11, 1998: the City should have a mechanism to review the appearance of buildings, subject to standards, and it should have the power to deny the issuance of permits based on the failure to comply with those standards. C. Smith reiterated that M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion {6-11 that the City should have a mechanism to review the apoearance of buildings, subiect to standards. and it should have the power to deny the issuance of permits based on the failure to comoly with those standards D Jennings cast the dissenting vote A. Atterson stated that he is glad that these proceedings are being recorded, such that the general public and Aldermen have the benefit of the Committee discussion D. Jennings stated that he does not see how aesthetic standards can be developed. A. Atterson stated that he is sympathetic to that point of view A. Atterson stated that that he sees "beautiful. delightful cities' that were built without any regulations. it is possible that the act of regulating, which he viers as a legitimate stand to take, corrupts the natural growth of the urban environment. A. Alterson stated that a problem might be that the quality of our "throw -away' buildings :s higher than it once was. A Atterson stated that, when one looks at the 15" century buildings still standing, that person is boWng at 2 percent of the buildings of that day; the other 98 percent of buildings "crumbled' within 20 years of being erected. A. Atterson stated that, today, Petsmart will last for 40 years: the 15' century equivalent of Petsmart may have lasted 40 days. H. Friedman stated that many European cities are SUMMARY OF FINOINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE gEMEW COMiY I I I septcmbea W. 1990 Pape 9 of it V hundreds of years old. A Alterson stated that the buildings comprising those c s are a smaA of all the buildings in Europe. D. Jennings stated that he has not been able 'to make the leap from the sublecrn+e to re otsjectrre- rw Committee will vote on projects, or parts of projects, that are too subjective. D. Jewirgs sorted that another problem is that people trained as design professionals will disagree C Sm� sued that VW is human nature. D Jennings asked Me Committee_ would Committee members tell an a=l+cant that ewOn though they followed the current standards, they could not build their project in Evanstcr 7 C Smilt1 responded: my belief is that they would not. H. Friedman agreed. A Aft rs<m stated tPaa he could set how the result described by D. Jennings could happen. A Alterson stated that he yews twx1mg appearance review much like he views the Zoning Ordinance — another tool for the City to use to evabA t a project A Alterson stated that he believes that projects would pass binding appearance review 99 percent of the time. C Ruiz stated that individual subjectivity is also reduced to the Tray M1at votes are taken; a project does not have to have unanimous approval to pass. C. Smith stated that the difference between now and then, when 'beautiful' ctbes develCoed of their OWn accord, is role of a developer. C. Srndh stated that buildings were built by the people tiro= would use Brenn. creating an 'ingrained finesse and quality'. C. Smith stated that the majority of office buldings were first corporate headquarters. C. Smith stated that, starting in the 1960's and more so in the t 970's, the owner was removed from the product; the owner did not have a long-term interest, canng only rtstead of ensuring that the building is serviceable for 12 months until it could be leased again or so4 C Smith stated that the impact on the architecture is aside expression'. A Alterson disagreed, ar-id stated that development is thousands of years old. A Alterson stated that Carssias made his money 2.000 years ago by purchasing property destroyed by fire. A. Alterson stated that Carssias would rush his prnrate fire company to the site of fire and ask tree owner if he or she would like to pay for his services. if the owner said no, the place would bum, and Carsses, would offer to buy the 'scorched* land from the owner. A Alterson stated that Carssias bought the land and constructed a development. C. Smith stated that the practice has become more prevalent in our times. M. Mylott stated that one could play 'devil's advocate' and ask, 'Should this Committee mandate higher quality development when society as a whole seems to be relaxing its opinions of the burl, environment?' M. Mylott stated that that person could continue, 'Why would the Committee mandate a level of design that may no longer reflect society?' PA. Mylott stated that this philosophical question is illustrated by the 'cookie -cutter' subdivisions found throughout the outer suburbs: are developers responding to a demand in the market, or are these products successful only because developers are offering no caber choices? M. Mylott stated that the same questions could be applied to the design of commercial or office buildings,- D Jennings stated that the Committee is saying that it wants 'something better for Evanstzon, cheaper projects can go somewhere else' Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m Ae pectfully submittEd. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Planner SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COM.1JitTTEE September 17, 1 M Page 10 of 10 LA SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 15, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Akerson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, M. Myiott, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent: J. Aiello, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, J. Wolinski. Design Professionals Present: Design Professionals Absent H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: C. Ruiz. Other Attendees Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-116 716 Judson Street Preliminary and Final Rebuild garage on side and rear lot lines of property containing single-family residence. requiring major variation. Ms. Susan Rundle (architect) presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 9941-V(F)), including a site plan, elevations, plat of survey, and site photograph, to rebuild a garage on the side and rear lot lines of a property containing a single-family residence and commonly referred to as 716 Judson Avenue. S Rundle stated that the applicants would like to place the garage on the lot line in an attempt to save an existing tree- the proposed garage would be 1 foot shorter to the east. and it would extend 2 feet further to the south. S, Rundle stated that the garage would be wood siding, painted to match the residence. C. Smith asked S Rundle will the new garage be located entirely on the property'? S Rundle responded: yes C. Smith asked S Rundle: how will you install the footing? S. Rundle responded a lot -line footing. M. Mylott stated that the eave aiong the west side of the proposed garage cannot overhang the alley. C. Smith stated that, it the alley is not paved, ti-.e applicant must install an Internal gutter or setback the garage enough to provide a gutter, if the alley is paved, the garage can drain to the alley M Myiott stated that he is surprised that the City would allow a new garage to sheet flow water from the roof to the alley R Dahal stated that he could check with the Engineering Department to determine whether or not a gutter was required SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMt= September 15. 190 Page 1 of S. Rundle stated that she has provided the Zoning Board of Appai4s with a letter frvim the neighboring property owner stating that they have no objections to the proposal. C Smith stated t~.at the architect should investigate whether or not the window within the wall proposed at the lot line must have a 1-hour fire rating. S. Rundle stated that if it does. the window coup be replaced by a wood panel, C. Smith stated that the architect should Investigate required fire ratings for r►e entire sb%xture. A Alterson asked S. Rundle. does the property owner propose to use the upper space as loft' S. Rtmdb responded: no; the space is simply a high ceiling, designed to mimic the existing garage. C. Smith stated tl,.at the proposed garage is 'very charming`. A. Alterson motiwed to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the me tan, Committee aQvroved the motion 16-01 to grant oretiminarr and final site titan Wd appearance review anoroval. SPAARC 99-117 1426 Grove Street Preliminary and Final Install air-conditioning condenser within rear yard of property containing single-family resddence, requiring major variation. Ms. Cheri Saley (agent for property owner) presented an Application for Major Variation (7-BA 99-40-V(F)), including a site plan, to install an air-conditioning condenser within the rear yard of a properly containing a single-family residence and commonly referred to as 1425 Grove Street. Diane Saley (property owner) was available to answer questions. C. Smith asked the applicants: is the residence currently air-conditioned? C. Saley responded: yes, with window units. _ C. Saley stated that the air-conditioning condenser would be placed on a concrete pad on the concrete sidewalk at the rear of the residence. C. Saley stated that the air-conditioning condenser could not be placed 10 feet from the easz, lot line, because of an existing door at the rear of the residence. C. Saley stated that, while the air-conditoning condenser could be placed 6% feet from the east lot line, that location (at the step to the door) would e+laninate any safe place in which her mother could move her walker if she were to fall. C. Saley stated that utilities are located along the west side of the residence. A. Alterson stated that the lot is only 25 feet wide. C. Saley stated that a 6-foot high, wood, privacy fence encloses the entire back yard. C Smith asked the applicants: have you discussed this proposal with the neighbor to the east? C Saley responded, she did not object. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-0) to orant oreliminary and final site clan and aoaearanee review aooroval. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 15. 1999 Page 2 of k SPAARC 99-120 1603 Orrington Avenue Preliminary and Final Install wireless communication facility (WinStar) on roofigp of office building. Mr. Peter Broy VNinStar) presented a Zoning Anatys+s Application (99-0801-ZA), includng floor plarm. a roof plan, elevations. site photographs, and computer -altered photographs to install a wireless communication facility on the roof of the office building located at 1603 Orrington Avenue. Mr. Jim Mayfield (WjnSt; v), Mr. Dan Hines (WiinStar), and Mr. David Osborne (EE Linden Associates) were available to answer guesbons. P. Broy stated that WinStar has executed a lease with the owners of 1603 Orrington Avenue. P. Broy stated that WinStar provides high-speed telecommunications service. P. Broy stated that IA nSwes system includes this hub site; customers would mount a receiving antenna on their roof P. Broy stared that this hub site incLdes a 16-foot high, 12-foot by 12-foot, metal frame, capable of holding up to 50. 2-foci round, point-to-point mir.rowave dish antennae. P. Broy stated that the hub site also includes four antennae rr.cav ded on potes'right above the parapet'. A Alterson asked the applicants: where is your lease area in relation to the lot lines? P. Broy responde . we do not have a site plan. J. Mayfield stated that, from scaling off the drawrtgs, the frame is approximailely 45 feet from the edge of the building. A. Alterson stated that he is trying to understand how much of tt:e frarne and antennae vrill be visible from the street. C. Smith stated that, wrth the existing street configuraf n, a person could see the frame and antennae at some distances J. Mayfieid stated that the proposed frame and antennae would be no higher than the existing rooftop antennae. C. Smith stated that a person can see the existing rooftop structures, especially at certain angles of the sun. A. Alterson stated that this building was constructed under a planned unit development (PLID). A. Aherson stated that he is not certain whether or not this proposal exceeds the scope of the PLID P Broy stated that he was not aware that this proposal would require zoning relief; however, they will perform whatever tasks are required. M, Mysott stated that he 'would hate to think' that this type of application would require an amendment to the PUD. A. Alterson stated that the height of buildings is a 'lively issue' in Evanston. Mis proposal would add 16 feet to the top of a building that is 'already much maligned". A Alterson motioned to table this item. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the alternative to an open frame is a structure with sofrd sides; however, that configuration makes the structure more massive. C. Smith stated that while she is not 'fond' of the frame. it is probably the simplest and most transparent solution. A Alterson stated that he supports the 'the simpler the better' ccm however, the Committee does not need to approve an "off -the -shelf frame. A Alterson stated that the proposal could be more sympathetic to the building. P. D'Agostino asked the applicants. can the height of the frame be reduces!? J. Mayfield responded: probably by 2 feet. C. Srruth stated that the reduction in height would make her `much happier'. M. Mylatt agreed. A. Alterson asked the applicants- how does the reduction in height affect your operation? J. Mayfield responded: it may be difficult to service a customer that is very close to the liub side. because the sending antenna may not 'see" the receiving antenna C. Smith sited that the applicant could come back to the Committee if a unique circurrnMrrce warrants a revision. SUMMARY OF FOR)RA aS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVaEW CGMMIr TEE September 15. IM Page 3 of 6 C. Smith stated that the frame appears very light J. Mayfield stated that the frame is designed to withstand winds up to 120 maes per hour: the antennae can %, aiiiOb alignment during winds up to 100 miles per hour. C. Smith asked the appfimrds: does the computer -altered photograph accurately reftec the mass of the frame and antennae? P. Broy responded: yes. A. Atierson stated that, rather than reducing the height by 2 feet he would ffim to see a structure that maximized the functionality but looked Hoare original to the building. P. Bray stated that the frame and antennae can be painted to any color, however, a custom design would require a great deal of time and be very expensive. P, Broy stated that a custom frame would not have the same guarantees as to wind resistance as the pre -fabricated frames. M. Mylott stated that he believes that the Committee is overemphasizing the appearance of this frame. M. Mybtt stated that wireless =nmunication facaities are 'a necessary evir. M. MyW stated that the City is 'fortunate' that it has tall buftngs such that it does not experience the proliferation of monopoles that other municipalities face. M Mylott stated that the common person will never notice this frame, because it is outside the normal field of view, certain Committee members might notice the frame, but that is only because they look for those types of details. Committee failed to amrove the motion (3-3) to table this item. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the maximum height of the frame does not exceed 14 feet. M. Mylott seconded the motion, Oiscussion: C. Smith stated that the proposed colors are acceptable C. Smith stated that the applicants must resolve the issue of whether or not an amendment to the planned unit development is required. Committee aoDroved the motion (5-11 to arant aretiminary and final site Dian and appearance review aooroval, provided the maximum heioht of the frame does not exceed 14 feet. A. Alterson cast a dissenting vote. The floor plans, a roof plan, elevations, site photographs, and computer -altered photographs have been Placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee file for this case (SPARC 99-120). SPAARC 99-119 1208 Monroe Street Preliminary and Final Construct side dormer within roof of single-famr7y residence, requiring major variation. Ms. Maris Kowa) (property owner) presented an Application for Major Variation (28A 9942-V(F)), including a floor plan, elevation, and isometric view. to construct a side dormer within the roof of a single-family residence located at 1208 Monroe Street. Dave Kowal (property owner) was available to answer questions. D. Kowal stated that the dormer is 21 feet long. and it is proposed over existing bearing walls. M. Mylott stated that the drawings depict the massing only, the drawings are preliminary in nature, such that the property did not have to hire an architect prior knowing whether or not the project was approved. M. Mybtt SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 15. 1999 /h Page 4 016 ��" stated that staff is considering suggesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the Si* Plan ertd Appearance Review Committee binding appearance review authority as a condition of approval. A Alterson asked the applicants: will the dormer be flush with the west wall? M. Kowal respondeC yes. C. Smith stated that, even though the addition is 2.95 feet from the lot line, the applicant coWc: ftlutde wkKkms within the dormer, because the window itself waked be back 3 feet from the lot line. C. Snn M sbbd lhat the dornwo ftW would require a 1-hour tiro rating. C. Smith stated that the applicants Mould communicate this requirement to their archited such that this information is provided on the permit drawings. C. Ruiz stated that the applicant may wish to consider a gable roof rather than a shed roof. C. SmiLh staled that the applicant could lose headroom. C. Ruiz stated that such a loss depends upon the use and .byout of the associated rooms. C. Ruiz stated that a gable roof may cost more, but it would provide mere of an "architectural element". A. Alterson and C. Smith agreed. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you discussed this proposal with your neighbors? M. Kowal responded: everyone supports it. M. Kowal stated that she is considering wood siding painted to match the existing residence. C. Ruz stated that the applicant might want to consider stain or a factory -applied paint or stain; the factory application may cost more but the savings in maintenance may be worth the extra up -front cost. C. Ruiz stated that Me color of factory applications can be customized. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. R. 'Walczak seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that she did not necessarily need to review this project at a later date. C. Smith stated that single-famity residences are not typically the purview of this Committee, and she respects the rights of property owners to determine wharf is best for their home. C. Smith stated that, on the other hand, if the Zoning Board of Appeals believes such an additional review is necessary, she would be happy to conduct it. Committee aooroved the motion (6-0) to grant oreliminary anti final site clan and apoearance review aaoroval. Approval of Summary of Findings M. Mylott staled that R. Dahal was present C Ruiz stated that he was present. C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of September 8, 1999. subject to amending the attendance list such that R. Dahal and C. Ruiz are listed as present. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (8-01 to aoorove the Summary of Findinas of Seotemt.)er 8. 1999. subie" amendino the attendance list such that R. Dahai and C. Ruiz are listed as oresent. SUMMARY of PO4UNGS SME PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CCUMrTiEE September M IM P ve5d5 Adioununent ThejTeedng adjourned at 4:00 p.m. a Marc Steven Mylott, AJCP Zaning Planner SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REMEW COMMFrrEE September15, IM Page 6 of 6 W SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 8, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, P. D'Agostno, D. Jennuygs, M. MykAL C. Smith. R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: A. Alterson. R. Dahal, K. Kelly, D. Marino. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: B. Fahlstrom_ Other Attendees Present: Commencement M. Mylott stated that he would act as Zoning Administrator in the absence of A. Alterson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 1D5 p.m. SPAARC 99-113 1418 Lake Street Preliminary and Final Construct deck for prorate education institution (Warren W. Cherry Presch000_ Ms. Maggie Hessler (project director) and Ms. Laurie Levy (preschool director) presented an Application for Building Permit #99-829, including a site plan, elevation, plat of survey, and site photograph, to construct a deck for the private education institution (Warren W. Cherry Preschool) located at 1418 Lake Street. M. Hessler stated that this deck was included with a project presented to the Committee in May 1999. M. Hessler stated that the concrete staircase and dumpster would be removed. M. Hessler stated that the area underneath the deck would be used for storage, C. Smith stated that the applicant must provide a railing on each side of the stairs accessing the deck, and the space between the balusters must be less than 4 inches J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval_ P. D'Agostino seconded the motion Committee aaoroved the motion (6-0) to grant Dreldninary and final site tW and appearance review awrovat. A copy of the site plan and site photograph has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-113) SUMMARY OF FMINGS SITE PLAN ANo APPEARANCE REIAEW CONINMEE seplesibm s, 19" Page 1 of 5 SPAARC 99-114 1421 Sherman Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Erect temporary, freestanding real estate sales sign ar1Q temporary mat Mate sales banner for mufil-family residential building. C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Applicabon (SRAB #99-09) to erect a temporary freestanding real estate sales sign and temporary real estate sales banner for a proposed mum -family residential building located at 1421 Sherman Avenue. J. Wolinski asked C. Smith: what is the maximum size of a construction sign? C Smith responded: the Sign Ordinance does not limit the size of construction signs, but this sign and banner would not be considered construction signs. J. Wolinski stated that he liked the freestanding sign, but he did not like the banner. M. MykM agreed. M. Mylott stated that the banner was probably intended to caipture attention from persons riding the train. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Rev.ew and Appeals Board approve the temporary, freestanding sign for a period not to exceed 12 months or until such time that the last dwelling unit is sold, whichever comes first, and to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the temporary banner. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee accroved the motion f7-0) to recommend that the Sian Review and Aooeals Board aoorove the temporary. frees:andino sion for a period not to exceed 12 months or until such time that the last dwellino unit is sold. whichever comes first, and to recommend that the Sian Review and Anoeals Board denv the temporary banner. A copy of the Sign Ordinance Variation Application has teen placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-114). SPAARC 99-116 1112-1114 Main Street Recommendation to Sign Board Erect temporary, freestanding meat estate sales sign for multi -family residential building. C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB #99-10) to erect a temporary freestanding real estate sales sign for a proposed multi -family residential building located at 1112-1114 Main Street. M. Mylott asked C. Smith: how large is the sign? C. Smith responded: approximately 4 feet by B feet. C. Smith stated that the sign contains approximately 35 items of information. M. Mylott stated that he did not have a problem with that level of detail for this type of sign C. Smith agreed M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the temporary, freestanding sign for a period not to exceed 12 months or until such time that the last dwelling unit is sold, whichever comes first. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee apflroved the motion f7-01 to recommend that the Siqn Review and Appeals Board awrave the temoorarv. freestandina sign for a period not to exceed 12 months or until such time that the last dwellino unit is sold. whichever comes first. A copy of the Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-115) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Sr rE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE ��G. September 8, 1999{i7�'y� Pape 2 of 5 SPAARC 97-0055 Church Street Plaza Revision to Preliminary Construct City parking garage within Church Street Plaza Mr. Tom White (Arthur Hill Company) and Ms. Beth Kay (Walker Parking Consultants) presented design development drawings, including a site plan, floor plans. and elevations, to construct a C.ty parking garage within Church Street Plaza. T White stated that the development team needs to address the following 'relatively sma: Issue. which VAR not affect the elevations: they cannot move an Ameritech duct bank located within B. Ratroad Avenue. T_ White stated that addressing this issue, as well as the mechanical requirements for the dry standpipes, could cause the number of parking spaces to decrease from 1.407 to 1,377, T. White stated that this issue might require amending trie redevelopment agreement, as rt requires providing 1,392 parking spaces. T. White stated that they would evaluate options, including putting back caissons and spanning the duct bank with grade beams; they are not sure what Ameritech will permit. T. White stated that only the first and second levels of the parking garage would be affected; the third floor cantilevers over the first and second floss. T. White stated that the residential tower would have tc address the same issue. J. AW..►o stated that the development team could provide at -grade assigned partktng spaces accessed from E Railroad Avenue. 13. Kay agreed J Wolinski asked the applicants: what s the depth of the Ameritech dud bank? T. White responded: I do not know. T. White stated that the development team estimates +l- 1 million dollars to move the duct bank. C Smith asked the applicants: what is tie vertical clearance of the third -floor canbleverr B. Kay responded 19 feet. T White stated that the glass within the elevator and stairwell cores has been widened to provide a full lobby exposure, and glass caps were added C. Smith asked the applicants how did the development team respond to the comments that the east elevation should serve as a 'culmination of Clark Street' B. Kay responded: the architect proposed banners above the vehicular entrancelexit. M. Mylott stated that the development team is missing out on a 'rare design opportunity% banners on a building are not the way a building should end a vista. T. White stated that the banners could announce City events. H. Friedman asked the applicants: do you plan to us,:. the banners as signage or as billboards? T. White responded no. D Jennings stated that he envisicaed the banners as color panels; the proportions do not work well for signage C. Smith asked the applicants do you plan to Illuminate the banners? T White responded: yes. C Smith stated that she 'had no problem with just color'. T White stated that he is 'in the process of working with' a St. Louis architect on a sign package, this architect worked on the Coors Field package and packages for other major sports facilities. T. White stated that he wants to include the parking garage within the sign package T. White stated that the first three banners along the north elevation would be removed C!je to the proposed hotel, the last two banners would be 'framed' above the vehicular entrancelexit B Kay stated that the canopies over the vehicular entrancelexit are architectural only; they are not solid_ C. Smith stated that the development team should instal' glass within the proposed frame over the vehicular entrance/exit B Kay stated that the canopy would have to be drained. C. Smith stated that. given the amount of money that would be spent on that feature anyway. I should be functional, C Smith stated that the plans do not specify the treatment over the retail space. T White stated that the development team has not decided upon glass canopies or awnings C. Smith stated that developmer.; team needs to provide pedestrian protection, to provide that protection, they should "do something d+.".erent, because the building has a different vocabulary' C Ruiz stated that the development team should take advantage of the architecture of the garage. rather than use an 'everyday awning' C Smith stated Ll%at the SUNM,ARY OF FId&DINGS �C SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMri7EE �C`�'7 September B. 19% ]� Page 3 of 5 a building -looks very tech-. H. Friedman stated that the residential tower is using awnings. C. Smith stated that these elements do not need to match. C Smith stated mat the different wxM. s and heights of the Owee core elements are 'troublesome', given that Me materials are the same. C. Smin stated that she understands the need for the location of the south stair core and that the development team can do little about the difference in height between the southern end of the parking garage and the northern end of the residential tower, however, this area needs further development C Smith stated that the south stair care could be designed completely different. H. Friedman stated that the area from, and including, the south elevator core to the south end of the building is 'real unhappy'. H. Friedman stated that CeStefano & Partners has designed a -very handsome' building, and the parking garage gives it'no respect" C. Smith stated ti,.at the design of Me southern end of the building does not have to match the residential tower, but it should be responsive. B. Kay stated that one design solution would be to use a material within the south stair core that is different from that used within the other two cores. C. Rutz stated that the elements used at other parts of the building must better become part of the buildkM;il. C. Smith stated that she liked the separate components of the fagade. M. Mylott agreed. M. Mylott stated that, besides the banners, the break :n the brick at the vehicular entrancelexit is the only change to show that this area is special. C. Ruiz stated that the separate components must *add to the architecture, rather than lust being different'. H. Friedman sta•.ed that the fagade looks like a'mistake'; it looks like the contraetor'ran OW of brick' at the ground floor. C. Ruiz agreed. B. Fahlstrom stated that the ground -floor brick 'sticks our. it may make sense to bring the brick all the way across, consistent with the north elevation. B. Fahlstrom stated that the piers separating the vehicular entrancelexists could be brick as well. B. Fahlstrom stated that the south stair core could 'peel back the brick' above the ground floor and be treated like the 'back' of the elevation. B Fahlstrom stated that the development team could consider a different roof for the south core as well. B Kay stated that she could not wrap the piers with bncK only face the piers with trick, due to the dimensions. T. White stated that they could color concrete piers. C. Smith stated that she does not favor that option. H. Friedman stated that the development team could cover the piers with stainless steel. M. Mylott agreed. B. Kay stated the piers are recessed 2 feet from the fagade. C. Smith stated that she supports stainless steel pier H Friedman stated that the column within the southern retail space could be removed,- he finds the extra one -hats of storefront 'troublesome' B. Kay stated that she could span across that distance. T. White stated that that area would be used for valet office rather than retail. M Mylott asked the applicants, how did you respond to the request that the development team consider placing public art within the grillwork? T White responded: I could tell the SL Louis architect to incorporate such a request. C Smith motioned to grant approval of the revision to tie previous preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, based upon ELS support drawings dated all7/99, subject to (1) adding canopies above the retail and valettoffice space; (2) incorporating glass within the proposed frames above the vehicular entranceslexits. (3) continuing to investigate employing public art within the grill work; (a) redesigning everything south of the south elevator bank in consideration of the building immediately south; and (5) restudying the treatment of the facade at the terminaton of Clark Street (this item is a recommendation only). M Mylott seconded the motion Committee aocroved the motion (10-0) to Brant aDDroval of the revision to the orevious oreliminary site plan and appearance review anoroval. based upon ELS su000rt drawinas dated 8/17199. subject to f 1) addine canopies above the retail and valetloffice soace: (2) incoroorabno class within the oroDosed frames above the vehicular entrances/exits: (3) continuina to investigate Pmoloino nuhlic art within the Brill work. (E1 redesignina evervthine south of the south elevator SUMMARY OF FINGINIGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CCUMfTTEE September 8. 1999 Pape 4 of 5 Bank in consideration of the buildna knrredoteN sr&C+ aria 15lLrestuaw4 the treaWwt of the facile at the termination of Clark Street Mo Rem is a ,,_.,_ . _ . �,4n onty) The east and north elevations have been placed wc.,n re Sae Plan and Appearance Reyiew Comrmft w folder for this case (SPARC 97-406S) SPAARC 99-117 Binding Appearance RwA@w Discussion OFF -AGENDA ITEM Schedule special meeting of ow Site Flan and Appearance Rev*&w Comm sae Oo discuss binding appearance review. C. Smith stated that the Committee must recommit to dscusuV the issue of bkrding appearance review. C. Smith asked the Committee members. is September 17. 1999 at 9 a-m. an acceptable date and ti" to conduct a special meeting? AA Committee members respcnJed: yes. C. Smith stated that the Committee would conduct a meeting on September 17. 1999 at 9 am. to discuss binding appearance review. M Myiott stated V!kV"would announce the location soon. Approval of Summary of Findings H Friedman stated that the word 'get'. appearing on page 3, vNthin the lust sentence of the second paragraph, should be deleted (SPARC 99-117). J Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of Findangs of September 1. 1999. subject to removing the word 'get' from the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 3 (SPARC 99-117). H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (8-01 to aocrove the Summary of Findings of Seotember 1. 1999. subiect to removing the word 'get" from the first sentence of the second oaragraoh on paoe 3 (SPARC 99-1171. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September a. 1999 Pape 5 of 5 x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 1, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello. P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, M. Nylon~ C. SrriAh, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: A. Alterson, R. Dahal, K. Kelly, D. Marino. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: B. Fahistrom. Other Attendees Present: Commencement M. Mylott stated that he would act as Zoning Administrator in the absence of A. Alterson. C. Smith (cftk) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-112 2723 McDaniel Avenue Preliminary and F-imaat Install air-conditioning condenser within Thayer Street required yarn for singla-lamely residence, req loft major variations. Mr. John Harris and Ms. Beatriz Gutierrez (property owners) presented an Application for Major Variation (233A, 99-36-V(F)), including a site plan on a plat of sunray and site photographs, to install an condenser within the Thayer Street required yard for the single-family residence, located at 2723 WDartW Avenue. M. Mylott stated that the variation 6 necessary regardless of whether the Thayer Street required yard is a front yard or a street side yard; air-corrdfioning condensers are not permitted within front or street side yards C. Smith asked the applicants: have the neighbors contacted you with any concerns about this appilkatrens? B. Gutierrez responded: the persons next door (east) and across the street (north) have no objectiotzs.. B. Gutierrez stated that the neighbors to the east would prefer the air-conditioning condenser at its proceed location, because their deck, upon which they "entertain a lot", would look down upon the air-cond.Mon,ng condenser if it was located at the legal location M Myiott stated that he has received no inquiries. pcsirive or negative, regarding this case J Wolinski asked the applicants does the house have air-conditioning now? J Harris responded no SUMMARY OF F*dMINrGS �G + SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C s i �'7 Septembw i. rM $` k C. Smith asked the applicants: what is preventing you from locating the air-condibarmg condenser wdM!n a legal location? J. Harris responded. a legal location is within the back yard, and that location is'illogidl`. J. Hams stated that all the existing utilities are located at the proposed location of the air-conditioning condenser. M. Mylott stated that the applicant might have to remove a section of concrete walk as well. if the air- conditioning condenser were located at the legal location. C. Smith asked the applicants: what species is the existing landscaping? B. Gutierrez responded. lilacs C. Smith stated that the air-conditioning condenser might be visible during winter months. C. Smith ashy P. D'Agostino: is the year-round screening of evergreens worth removing the oxisting vegetation and installing new evergreens? P. D'Agostino responded: probably not. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: is the catch basin near the proposed location of the air-cor>fiticming condenser a working catch basin? J. Hams responded yes. C. Smith stated that the proposal is "reasonable' given that no neighbors have objec:ed and the amaur d of existing screening. H. Friedman disagreed. H. Friedman stated that an approval could set a precedent,.. and the existing landscaping could be removed. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, prcwkW J the property owner or any subsequent person with an ownership interest in the subject property shall maintain in perpetuity a landscape screen around the air -conditioner condenser with an opacity equal to or greater than the opacity provided by the existing landscaping depicted within photograph N1 of tf a Application for Major Variation. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (5-2) to ctrant oreliminarif and final site Dian and aooearance review approval, provided the pronertv owner or anv s�jbseauent oerson with an ownership interest in the subject Drooertv shall maintain in oemetuity a landscape screen around 17e air - conditioner condenser with an ooacAv eoual to nr oreater than the opacity provided by Vw existino Iandsrariing depicted within ohotoaraph N1 of the Application for Maior Variation. H. Friedman and J. Wolinski cast a dissenting vote. SPAARC 99-116 Recording Committee Voting Discussion OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Discuss how dissenting votes are recorded within Summary of Findings. M. Mylott stated that a Committee member asked him to consider how dissenting votes were recorder. this person asked him to consider recording the names of dissenting Committee members after the actual mtotion within the Summary of Findings. M. Mylott asked the Committee: do Committee members have carrlrnents regarding this suggestion? J. Aiello responded: each person dissenting could ask the Committee Seanmlary to record his or her name as a dissenting member. C Smith stated that she liked that idea. H. Fneaman responded- such dissention should be evident from the discussion leading to a vote. M Mylott stated drat not all dissenters voice a reason as to why they dissent; often times, such decisions are teased on the dLcs sion of others C. Smith asked the Committee: is it agreed that a person casting a dissenting vote may have the oFttmn of asking the Committee Secretary to record his or her name as a member dissenting? As Committee rrres-rnbers responded 'yes'. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 1. IN9 Page 2 of 3 SPAARC 99-117 Binding Appearance Review Announcement OFF -AGENDA ITEM.• Repor: on Plan Commission Subcommittee work on binding appearance re0esw. J. Wolinski stated that he would like to report on the recent work of the Plan Commission Subcommittee charged witn evaluating binding appearance review (BARC). J. Wolinski stated that BARC met with the Community Development Directors of Paris Ridge and Skokie. J. Wolinski stated tl.d the'genesW of binding appearance review within Park Ridge and Skokie was similar to events within Evanston. J. Wolinski stated that Park Ridge and Skokie use a citizen -based committee to conduct binding appearance review. J. Wo6nskl stated that Park Ridge uses a consent agenda to reduce meeting time. H. Friedman stated that the City couPesi:gnrofessionals avoid needing an additional committee to conduct binding appearance review if it added additional to the existing Site Pta n and Appearance Review Committee H. Friedman stated that the time commitment for design professionals might be a problem, especially if Mey are not retired. J. Aiello stated that she is cornemed that decision regarding binding appearance review would be tp.sed upon opinion rather than objective criteria. H. Friedman stated that the Legislative Subcommittee never irdended to dictate s ile, rather it intended to establish design principals that were applicable regardless of style. C. Smith stated that the written material prepared by the Legislative Subcommittee, especially the design guidelines, might need addit;onal work to ensure they the concerns expressed by J. Aiello and WWI; are satisfied. hr, Mylott agreed. M. Mylott stated that he is not comfortable discussing this topic without prior notice to all Committee members that it would be discussed. C Smith stated that Committee members need to consider possible dates that would be suitable for a special meeting at which time this issue can be fully debated. Approval of Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of August 25. 1999. R Walczak seconded the motion. Commdtee aaoroved the motion (8-01 to aoorove the Summary of Findinos of August 25.1999. H. Friedman abstained. Adjournment The meeting, adjourned at 3 30 p.m. r rN n Marc Steven Mylott. AICP Zoning Plarner Date SUMMARY OF FVdDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUMME September 1. 1 N9 Page 3 of 3 3C SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 25, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Atterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolimki. Members Absent: Design Professionals Present: Design Professionals Absent: H_ Friedman. Other Staff Present: S. Fahistrom, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. C. Wonders. Other Attendees Present: Howard Ellegant, Design Evanston; David Galloway, Design Evanston: Barry Greenberg, Design Evanston; and Mark Larsen. Design Evanston. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:10 p:m. SPAARC 99-064 Sherman Plaza Preliminary Construct mixed -use development, including department store (Sears), padang structure, and retirement community, within block bounded by Church Street, Sherman Avenue, Davis S&eet, and Benson Avenue. Mr. John Terrell (developer) presented 20 boards. including, but not limited to, an existing and proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, renderings. and site and area photographs to construct a mixed -used development, including a department store (Sears), parking structure, and retirement community, within the block bounded by Church Street, Sherman Avenue, Davis Street. and Benson Avenue. Mr. James KJutznick and Mr. Maury Fisher, T. J. Klutznick & Company, Mr. Dan Coffey, Daniel P. Cc ftly & Associates, Ltd.; and Mr. Tom Hannula, Walker Parking Consultants were available to answer questions. J Terrell stated that the development team believed that they needed to address three primary issues- 1) the pass through between Sherman Avenue and Benson Avenue, 2) the Sherman Avenue plaza; and 3) the parking garage elevations. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS rJ�C, SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C01J[UMTEE {,,,? A��s. 1sss Page 1 of a J. Terrell stated that the development team eliminated the pass th"h between Sherman Avenue and Benson Avenue; this approach eliminates potential conttli_— between pcdestnans and vehicles in Eierison Avenue, improves service access. and reduces property accutsitic%n issues J Terrell stated that the development team seeks to make the Sherman Aimnue plaza areal pecoie sorace'. it is still a 'widened sidewalk'. but A is also an `active place fir , eopie' J Terrell stated that the plaza shelters people from the street, and it works with the recessed entrance to try northern detail building J Terrell stated that they centered the 'fair-weather" raft along the comdcr to tee parking garage elevators, Vwr rsoM provide seating on the north and south sides of the cafe. J Terrell stated that drawings of the plate present an 'in progress look at" the plaza; they will add more definittcin writilin the paving and elements to :he 'OLM level' D. Coffey stated that the building materials for the plaza planters wound include a mix of pranibe and precast concrete. D. Jennings asked the applicants: how wide is the comdcr to the parking garage elevators? J Terrell responded: approximately 25 to 26 feet; the cover is appmximatety flush with the east facade of Cie n>Iorlrn retail building. A. Alterson asked the applicants: of what matesl is the cover for the corridor made? D. Coffey responded: glass. A. Alterson asked the applicants: is the cc►rer barrel vaulted? D. Coffey responded yes. D. Coffey stated that, with a barrel vault. the cover is self -draining and self-cleaning. A. Alterson asked the applicants: is the 'fair-weather' cafi§ located within the right-of-way? J. Twell responded- yes. C Smith stated that the plaza is 'extremely stark pedestrian -,rose' C Smith stated that the area near the planters is 'pleasant% but that is not the case on the sidewalk C Smith asked the applicants: will you provide protection from the elements? D Coffey responded we are investigating motorized awnings. D. Coffey stated that the development team is evaluating 14-foot protections, but they are 'sensitive to keeping views' C Smith stated that motorized awnings do not sound 'appealing' C. Smith stated that she would like to see product information for the motorized evenings. J. Terrell stated that the development team 'always intended to provide awnings, the question is wf•.eiher the awnings are motorized or permanent". C Smith stated that she does not believe that motorized awnings will ever be retracted. A. Alterson stated that durability is a concern with motorized awnings as well J Aiello stated that awnings would restrict the natural light from the display windows C. Smith asked the applicants within the plaza, what are the circular items shown on the site plari but not the rendering (Board No. 19)? J Terrell responded: vertical sculptural elements to further enhance the pedestrian scale. C. Smith stated that those items could be additional trees. J. Terrell stated that the devebpenent team does not want too many trees such that the view of the retailers is compromised. J. Aiello stated that Evmark has been working toward providing kiosks within the downtown these vertical elements could become a part of that program C. Smith stated that the entrance to the northern retail building z not recessed 'very much'. J. Terrell stated that the development team is "flexible" on the amount of recess. the intent is to treat the entrance 'd ffereW M Mylott stated that the entrance could be constructed of a material different than the masonry 'flanks'. such as glass D. Coffey stated that the building materials for the northern retail building would include a granite base, masonry, and cast stone accent bands M Mylott asked the applicants will you use standard size rather than jumbo or utility back? D. Coffey responded. we are considering standard size brick, however, we are not fully committed to it C Smith stated that the applicants should consider a better treatment for the Sears 'corner", it is 'tr,.:)rrrc that Sears wants a corner, but then blocks it up' M Mylott agreed M Mylott stated that, because sucr design SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 25. 1999 Page 2 or 8 x opportunities are rare, one should not pass up the potential that a comer presets. J. Terrell sated VhW d is "comer is important to the development team as well_ J. Terrell stated that it she 'comer is not glass. It could be treated architecturally, including lighting. J. Aiello stated that the appticarus must be caref-W net to 'play up' the Sears entrance such that the entrance to the parking garage is lost the City is often crzxi7 Tor not providing Gear direction to its parking facilities J. Aiello stated that the Parving Committee wiH have input regarding direction to the parking garage J. Wcllnski asked the applicants: will the Sears pedestrian -level windows be display windows orw81 they albw a person to see within the store? D. Coffey responded: probably both. J. Terrell stated that they plan to discuss awnings with Sears. J. Terrell stated ;fiat they are stressing to Sears that thm lotion is a "Main Street' not a mall; Sears can capture customers from people passing by Ite store. B. Fahlstrom asked the applicants. do you plan to provide windows along tltie corridor to the elevator? J. Terrell responded., yes C. SniM stated that the corridor to the parking garage is not resolved; she sees no reason for a person to go back to that space. J. Terrell stated that people would go to that space because it is the way to the parking garage elevators. J. Aiello stated that the applicant could not rent that space to a tenant. J. Terrell agreed. J. IClutrnich stated that they can further study the corridor, perhaps the end of the corridor does not have to be a hank wail. B. Fahlstrom stated that the elevators could be moved to that location. D. Coffey disagreed. D Coffey stated that moving the elevators would reduce visibility to the hall+Aays to the parking garage. J. Terrell stated that the City requires 1,386 parking spaces within the parking garage; as a result of this refined number, the height of the parking garage has increased two levels D Jennings stated that the City needs 2.730 parking spaces between the Church Street Plaza parking garage and the Sherman Plaza parking garage J. Terrell stated that the depicted number of levels is a 'worst -case scenario": they are working on refining the layout and structure. D. Coffey stated that the development team is still working on the `notch" for Sears. J. Terrell stated that the parking garage elevations avoid a 'back alley feel' by providing articulabon at the 3- to 4-story level. C. Smith asked the applicants- is the parking garage open aim J. Terrell responded: yes, above the fourth floor. C. Smith asked the applicants: are you providing wtncows within the k7ww levels of the parking garage? J Terrell responded no. those elements are open-air aluminum, mesh panels. M. Mylott asked the applicants- will you use standard size rather than jumbo or utility brick? D. Coffey responded: we are considering standard size brick: however. we are not fully committed :0 it C. Smith stated that the awnings for the parking garage need to be deeper and more contiguous C Ruiz stated that some awnings can overwhelm a fagade; separation is acceptable in some instances C Smith stated that the pedestrian way must be protected. D Coffey stated that protecting the pedestrian way is "fundamentally important", but the protection is 'only necessary 20 percent of the time" A. Merson stated that he would like to see a more 'interesting' treatment for the grills within the parking garage those proposed make the parking garage look like a 'gigantic air-conditioning unit' J Aiello stated that a number of different grills are available A Alterson asked the applicants- could the grills be wrought irony J Terrell responded, they could be B Fahlstrom stated that the grills should be removed and the space Deft open, over time, grills get very dirty and stained from various sources B Fahistrom stated that leaving the spaces open would suggest windows and give the fagade depth and additional articulation D. Coffey stated that the development team needs to work on this element SUMMARY of rM SriE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CGI4f1Ji1MAg TTEE AuQiist 25.1999 Page 3 d 8 D. Coffey stated that the large *EVANSTON' sign on the parking garage takes advantage of the views from boat train tracks; with views that happen 'fairly fast it is sometimes necessary to change the scale' D. Coffey stated that this signage is an opportunity to readvertise ttte `heart of downtown'. J. Aiello staled alai site liked the signage. J. Wohnski and M. Mylott agreed. J. Terrell stated that the signage presents a `very unkW way to identify Evanston'. C. Smith asked the applicants: what is the proposed treatment for the top of the parking garage? D Coffey responded. a trellis. D. Coffey stated that the trellis provides a top to the parking garage. C. Smut stated that the trellis adds 'a lot of height` A. Alterson stated that the trellis may make the parking garage appear 'lighter'. J. Terrell stated that the parking garage elevations are a 'first pass'; the development team i ecogirt¢es that these elevations are 'critical' J. Terrell stated that the persons knowledgeable about senior lifestyles have better defined their needs. J. Terrell stated that, because the dwelling unit count must be 200, the height of the building has increased 2 floors. J. Terrell stated that the height was 209 feet to the top of the penthouse, now the henght Is 229 feet the top of the last habitable floor is approximately 219 to 220 feet above grade. M. Mylott asked the applicants: are the glass 'bump cuts" at the lot line? D. Coffey responds& no, those features are setback from the lot lines. A. Alterson stated that the `bump outs do not bothee him. A. Alterson asked the applicants: is one floor within the glass tower a different height than the rest of the floors? D. Coffey responded: yes, that floor is the transition floor from the assisted living units_ R also contains mechanicals. M. Mylott stated that he likes how the glass tower appears to "rest' on top of the masonry base, but the articulation of the glass tower originally presented to the Committee is much better than the current proposal. C. Ruiz disagreed. C. Ruiz stated that the building must be treated more like an 'entire binding% this part of the project is the 'least successful'. C Smith agreed C. Smith stated that the building has 'no residential qualities'. A_ Alterson stated that the vase and tower need abetter 'blending'. J. Terrell stated that they would review these elevations. J. Klutznick stated that they would provide a better transition between the base and the tower. M. Mylott motioned to table this item. C. Smith seconded the motion. Discussion: J Aiello asked the Committee what additional items would you like to see prior to granting preliminary site plan and appearance review approval? M. Mylott stated that the level of information is acceptable; however. too many critical areas are not finalized. M. Mylott stated that the applicants have stated that many areas require further study, another look, or additional refinement. M. Mylott stated that he supports this project, but he does not want to suggest to the development team that they should move toward working drawings. A. Alterson disagreed. A. Atterson stated that these drawings ate much further along than those drawings for Church Street Plaza which received preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino agreed. M. Mylott disagreed. C Smith stated that the Committee has not reviewed the Church Street or Davis Street elevations Committee failed to aoorove the motion (3-7) to table this item. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SFTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 25. 1999 Page 4 of 8 X J Aiello motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval for all buildings except the residential and retail building, subject to further refinement as discussed and an additional Committee review pror to the pre -application conference D Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-2) to arant oreliminary s-e vlan and aDoearance review approval for all bul`idinas except the residential and retail building, subiect to fu.-ther refinement as discussed and an additional Committee review orior to the ore- aoclication conference Reduced color versions of Me 20 boards. including, but root limited to, an existing and proposed site plan. Poor plans. elevations, sections. renderings, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-100), SPAARC 98-0136 430 Asbury Avenue Preliminary Reconsider representations regarding operation of dnve-Mru facility and number of detimnes for proposed retail sales establishment (Osco Drug)_ Ms Randy Gussis (attorney) presented an Application for Special Use and Major Variation (ZBA 99-37- SU&V(R)), including a site plan and plat of survey. to reconsider the representations made to the Planning & Development Committee regarding the operation of the drive-thru facility and the number of deirveries for the proposed retail sales establishment (Osco Drug) Located at 430 Asbury Avenue. Mr. William Shiner (developer) was available to answer questions R Gussis stated that a condition of the special use ordinance required 'substantial compliance with the testimony and representations of the applicant' R Gussis stated that Osco has no desire to change testimony offered to the Zoning Board of Appeals, however, an Osco representative was not present at the Planning & Development Committee meeting. R. Gussis stated that Osco does not agree with the language wrthin one condition of the special use ordinance and three representations offered to the Planning & Development Committee. M Mylott stated that the Law Department believes that such amendments are considered in the same fashion as an amendment to a special use — the applicant must return to the Zoning Board of Appeals. M. Mylott stated that this application is scheduled for a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 7 1999. M. Mylott stated that he invited the applicants to inform the Committee of these amendments to ensure that they did not affect the site or building plans R Gussis stated that the four items with which Osco toes not agree include: a condition of the ordinance requires that Osco pay S5,000 to the City if Osco fails to replace dead landscape matenal within 30 days of a date established by the City. While the previous sentence within that condition refers to 'the earliest ptanting season' as the time to replace material, that reference is not carried through to the discussion about the penalty. Osco Is concerned that the City could require the replacement of plant matenal within the middle of summer or winter, and that plant material would clearly not survive Osco seeks to clarify the condition of the Ordinance that refers to landscape maintenance such that they may replace plant material within 30 days of earliest available planting season P D'Agostino stated that that request is reasa.nable C Smith and A Alterson agreed the representat;on to the Planning & Development Committee regarding deliveries appears to limit Osco to one semi -truck delivery per day two to three times per week. Osco never intended to limit SuMLOP.RY O= I~L-vt31NGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVI&V CCMVJME a page 25, tm 5of8 X their deliveries to only sense -trucks, but that question was not put to tie devek4w. Osco wig Maya several smaller delivery trucks visiting the property possibly several trines per day. R. Dahal stated that, as lorq as numerous semi -trucks do not overlap with their delivery times. the site plan is not affected. ?A. Mylott stated that the Ordnance betf is silent on the number of deliveries. J. Aiello asked the appiican!s: do you know how many detrveni s per truck size pair day will occur at this site specifically? R. Gussis responded: I will get that mforrnatim the representation to the Planning & Development Committee regarding the sounem-most access point along Asbury Avenue indicates that Osco could install a 'pork chop' If sigrtiage did not keep vehicles from entering at this location. A 'pork chop' was discussed at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and it was dismissed. Osco wilt not accept such a device 4. the representation to the Planning & Development Committee regarding the drive-thru iaaRy may limit Osco to dispensing only prescriptions through the drive-thru wi-ndow Osco does not want to tella customer, picking up a prescription, that he or she cannot purchase non-preschpoon items. J. Aiello stated that a similar condition was imposed upon Walgreen's at the comer of Main Street and Dodge Avenue. A. Atterson stated that such a change could affect the number of vehicles using the drive-thru facility. J. Aiello stated that such a change would not be significant A. Alterson stated that the applicant s presenting the same site and build:.,)g plans as prevlcvsly reviewed and approved by the Committee. A. Alterson motioned to reaffirm the previous final site plan and appearance review approvai, based upon the requested revisions to the ordinance and to the representations made to the Planning & Development Committee. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee anDroved the motion (9-0) to reaffirm the previous final site Dian and appearance review approval, based upon the requested revisions to the ordinance and to the reoresentations made to the Planninq & Development Committee, SPAARC 99-111 1427 Grey Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct addition to, and approve work performed by previous owner at single-family residence, requiring major variations. M. Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-34.V(F)). including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and a plat of survey. to construct an addition to, and approve work performed by the previous owner at. the single-family residence, located at 1427 Grey Avenue. Mr. Edgar Romero and Mrs. Benedith Romero were available to answer questions. M. Mylott stated that the application includes zoning relief for a 2-story breezeway and second -story addition over the garage constructed without permits by the previous owner. M. Mylott stated that ttie appticant would like to construct a second -story addition to the residence and convert approximately %: of trse existing garage to a recreation room M Mylott stated that the existing and proposed additions are too close to the rear lot line M Mylott stated that the applicant proposes to provide a parking space on the driveway to replace the parking space removed from the garage; the Zoning Ordinance permits temporary parking on driveways. E Romero stated that the dnveway is very wide. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE {+ August 25,1999 i/'�'7 Page 6 of 8 o X Q Smith staffed that she questions the effectiveness of the recreation room. because it is so nairrow C. Smith asked M. Mylott: what is the required rear yard setback? tit Mylcrd responded 30 feet whereas the existing budding is approximatety 3 feet from the rear lot line. A Atterson asked e v appkcants: are you expanding the footprint of the building? E. Romero responded: no C. Smith asked the applicants- have you talked with your neighbors about the proposaP E. Romero responded: they want us to fix up the house. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (L-Q) to errant kie imirkwy and final site Dian and aatsearance review aanroval. SPAARC 99-101 2209 Howard Street Final Construct t-story addition for stock room for retail sales establishment (Target). Mr. Shawn Dziedzk (general contractor) presented an Application fox Building Permit (#509-602). including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, to construct a 1-story addition for a stock room for the retail sales establishment (Target) located at 2209 Howard Street M. Mylott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. C. Smith seconded the motion. Discussions D. Marino stated that this building was part of a redevelopment agreement: adding an addition of this size should 'have the attention of the ward alderman'. C. Ruiz stated that he met with Alderman Rainey and J Wollnski; the alderman had no ma)Dr concerns about the addition, but she did have concerns about other issues on the site. S. Dziedzk presented a letter from the project manager to J Wolinski (dated August 25. 1999), stating that Target will "repair or replace the damaged fire access gate to the City of Evanston's satisfaction as part of the stockroom expansion ...'. J. Aiello stated that she has talked with the store manager, and he will send out employees on a daily basis to collect shoppsng carts Committee aooroved the motion (8-1) to grant final site olan and appearance review aooroval The letter regarding fixing the fire access has been placed within me Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-101). SPAARC 99-099 3308-3320 Central Street Preliminary Construct f single-family attached dwelling unit between existing single-family attached dwelling units (bringing total to 8) and construct four 2-car detached garages. Mr. Robert Saichek (owner) presented an Application for Major Vanat,on (ZBA 99-35-V(F)), including a site plan, elevation, plat of survey. and site photographs, to construct I singie-family attached dwelling unit between existing single-family attached dwelling units (bringing the total to 8) and construct an 8-car detached garage at 3308-3320 Central Street. C. Smith stated that the fire -rating Issue has been resolved with the Building Division and Fire Department SUMMARY OF FINDINGS clG. SITE PLAN ANO APPEARANCE RE\AEW COMMriTEE e Au9usne.1999 Page 7 at 8 x J. Aisoo asked R. Saichel : are the units rentals? R. Saichelc desponded: yes, but my goal is to cart to `some form of ownership". R. Saichelc stated that the garages would probably have hp roofs and vinyl siccing; the garages awAd be ibeated such trial the interior wall would be located along an Wftrior lot tine. J. Aielo motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. R. Walcrak seoonded the m:obon. Committee anoroved tt►e motion "to Qrartt Dmlimk wv site cbn and appWWm review agRgo. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Aiello motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of August 18, 1999. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aQoroved the motion (9-0) to approve the Summary of Findinas of August IS. 1999. Adjoumment The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Slit~ PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 25.19" Page a of 8 7.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 18, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, M. Mylott C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, R. Dahal, D. Marino. K- Kelly. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: B. Fahlstrom. Commencement C Smdti (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3 05 p.m SPAARC 99-100 555 Howard Street Preliminary Rep►ace all fuel pumps and erect fiat -roof canopy at automobile service station (Marathon). requiring variation. Mr Roe Cox (contractor) presented a site plan wrth landscaping. elevations, a plat of survey, a phobxnetric plan, a cWrt sheet for the proposed lighting, and site and area photos to replace the fuel pumps and erect a flat - roof campy at the automobile service station (Marathon) located at 555 Howard Street. R Cox seated that the architect added landscape planters at the two southern comers of the property; to uastali the plar�r at the southwest corner of the property, the property owner would remove a parking space. C. Srnrth stated that the landscape planters need to be better defined R Cox stated that the Landscape planters would Wobably be constructed of landscape timbers, no more than 2 feet high R Cox stated that the property owner would install large pots with annuals between the new fuel pumps R Cox sued that he does not believe that the space between the two existing curb cuts can accommodate a secorry canopy tree C Smith asked P D'Agostino would you prefer to move or remove the existing canopy tree suen that two new canopy trees or a second canopy tree, could be installed? P D'Agostino responded no P C Agostino stated that the applicant must provide more specific species names on the landscape plan. he has not heard of the proposed shrub species A Alterson stated that the applicant should pronde a tandscazoe maintenance plan ,n writing R Cov stated that the lenses `or the lights under the canopy are opaque C Smith stated that the cut sheet rWstrates that the lenses are somewhat transparent, the light source is still very bright. compared to the nest of the +ught R, Cox stated that the cut sheet is somewhat misleading, because the lens is intentionally SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUrrfEE August ts. 19" Page t pf k transparent to display the type of light source. M. Mykn slated that he feels strongly about the fights, arto the lenses should be 'milky'. C. Smith asked R. Cox: what changes are you proposing to the sign? R. Cox responded: that work is riot a part of this proposal; it will be contracted to a sign company. A. Alterson stated that he does not want to see a canopy that the adds to the 'cold, commemal Crag mentality' along Howard Street R. Cox stated tha: the proposed work would definitely enhance the prnpeRt, the work includes painting the building. J. Wolinski stated that he is concerned that the number of service stations within Evanston is declining; any work to improve the property should be encouraged H Friedman stated that the service station is a 'rather classic gas station% the canopy would not be a 'poor influence'. Cr Smith stated that she recommends that the applicant not paint the porcelain metal panels, unless e+ey have already been painted. R Cox stated that the pan-els have been painted. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-1) to arant orefiminary site Dlan and appearance review approval The site plan with landscaping, cut sheet for the proposed lighting, and site and area photos have beenit within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-100). SPAARC 99-109 1311-1315 Monroe Street Preliminary Install 5 open. off-street parking spaces for multi -family residence Mr R. L Seltzer (property owner) presented a site plan and plat of survey to install 5 open, off-street parking spaces for the multi -family residence located at 1311-1315 Monroe Street R L. Seltzer stated that the building has two covered parking spaces that will remain parking spaces. R. L. Seltzer stated that the new parking spaces would 'get cars off the street' R L Seltzer stated that the toc:ation of the proposed parking spaces is currently dirt, and the alley is unimproved. M Mylott asked the Committee does this multi -family residence require a dumpster? C Smith responded. - yes M Mylott stated that the applicant should move the parking spaces to each side of the property, such that the area already not available for a parking space now (due to a projecting chimney) may be wide enough for a dumpster C Smith stated that the applicant should provide at least 5 feet of width for a dumpster J Wolinski asked D Jennings will the applicant have to pave and dram the parking area? D. Jerrnmgs rekponded I do not know D Jennings stated the applicant should contact him to Find out whether or not the parking area must be paved and drained D Jennings stated that the problem is that a drain may not be available to which the applicant could connect D Jennings stated that the applicant may be required to obtain a permit from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District M Mylott asked the Committee should we require bollards at the corner? D Jennings responded- no C Smith asked R L Seltzer will you provide Iightir=g' R L Seltzer responded I plan to install a fight and motion detector C Smith motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval• subject to providing for a dumpster. installing lighting and resolving the need for appropriate drainage. A Alterson seconded the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Augu61 I8 1999 Page 2 or 4 e at motion. Committee aporoved the motion f7-01 to grant oreliminary site Dian and aopearance rev*w �* subiect to Drovidino space for a dumDster. instaltina liana. and resoMna me need for 3=0!Dria to drair*Z10. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder kv this t (SPAARC 99-109). Approval of Summary of Findings M. Mylott stated that the approval for 626 Library Place should read 'preliminary and final site plats, .aid appearance review approval' rather than 'preliminary site plan and appearance review approvar J. Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of August 11, 1999. provided the approval fcr'826 Library Place reads 'preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval' rather than *prelim, nary site plan and appearance review approval'. P. D Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved I e motion f7-01 to aaorove the Summary of Findings of August 11. 1999, provided the approval for 62, i r Place reads'preliminary and final site olan and accearance review approval' rather than 'orellminary sdt2!r► and appearance review approvar SPAARC 99-110 Design Evanston Discussion OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Discuss relationship between Site Plan and appearance Review Committee and D+.son Evanston. Mr Dave Galloway (Design Evanston) and Mr. Federico Vidargas (Design Evanston) were present to discuss the relationship between the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee and Design Evanston. D Galloway stated that Design Evanston is a nat-for-profit design advocacy group. founded appmxirr.aleiy 20 years ago: the members are design professionals working or thing within the City. D. Galloway staled that the group meets once or twice a month. D. Galloway stated that their active roster O ludes 12 persam and they are beginning a membersnip drive H. Friedman stated that the mission of Design Evanston was and he assumes still Is, to encourage quality design. uieir philosophy was 'good design Is good business' J Wolmski stated that D Gallo -Nay asked him how Design Evanston could become involved with the design process. J Wolinskl stated that he believed that Design Evanston could help the rnission of this Comrneee — to produce quality design J Wohnskl stated that one option is to offer the design assistance of Design Evanston to persons as they first contact the City regarding a potent>•al protect. C Smith stated that she would encourage some form of participation. because the City can always use design assistance C Smith s*ated that the Co Is fortunate to have resident design professionals C Smith stated that she would need to know more about how Design Evanston would work into the press, especially at what point the City would recommend that a person or applicant consult Design Evanston C Smith stated that the Committee Is debating the issue of binding appearance review C Smith stated that she is concerned that recommendations from Design Evanston would receive the same response that they remve from the Committee — changes to the appearance of a structure Ls not required M Mylott stated that the is concerned that a person or applicant may work with Design Evanston, make many changes. and the Committee does not like the results that scenam. places the person or applicant in a very difficult pes;:ton. H Friedman stated that, If Design Evanston was consulted firca. it may 'undermine the Committee paomr. J Wolinskl stated that he was !ooking to provide 'relies' to the Committee design professionals J Wollnski SUMMARY OF FINCIrNGS SITE QLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COAAAdI'iTEE August 11.19" ]� Page 3 of 4 stated that the Committee spends an 'inordinate amount of time' on design issues, and many of those r could be worked out ahead of ome. J. WoGnski stated that Design Evanston ccculd provide a per3 n or applicant with 'good, solid ideas' that are based on design principals. M. Mylott shred that the C:orrmnMe could appoint a design sub -committee that fummoned in the capacity that J. Wolinsi i envisions. A Altaeraori stated that he questions whether the Committee has the power to establish sub-ccnmittees. H Friedman stated that 'the most important thing that Design Evanston coulc do is support binding appearance review". A Alterson stated that he is concerned that Design Evanston, by its membership, wcwld simply be a 'pool of architects" that persons or applicants believe to be endorsed by the Committee; persons or arch wz wmuid ask a Design Evanston architect to work for the person or applicant. D. Galloway stated that Design Evanston would 'in no way wish to create conflicts o1 interest". D. Galloway stated that memt:ers of Design Evanston would have limits as to 'how much free service !hey could give". H Friedman stated that the Committee has an existing process that promotes assistance from City design professionals —mayoral appointment to the Corrurnittee. H. Friedman stated that the time commitment may be prohibitive C. Smith stated that she suggests a mayoral appointment, because 11egitimizes' the rote of Design Evanston. C. Smith stated that Design Evanston could establish a pool cIf design professionals. whereby the Committee representative rotates A. Alterson stated that, as an official member of the Committee. Design Evanston may compromise their opportunities as lobbyists. K Friedman stated that individual architects or design professionals could contact the mayor and seek appointment to the Committee, regardless of their affiliation with Design Evanston C Smith stated that Design Evanston could play one of two roles 1) act as a Ictoying group to the Plan Commission and City Council for binding appearance review; or 2) commit to the Con-rnittee. M. Mykm stated that he believes the Committee would welcome their participation at the Commitee level. H. Friedman agreed A. Alterson stated that. d Design Evanston becomes a Committee member :heir support for binding appearance review could be compromised. J Wolinski agreed. H. Friedman disagreed, and stated that Design Evanston, as an entity, does not have to be a member; individual design "fessionals would be members C Smith stated that additional members on the Committee could helc "the push' for binding appearance review F. Vdargas stated that such an opportunity may help them attact members. H Friedman stated that several aldermen without design training. but who make design decisions, may be receptive to assistance from Design Evanston as well. D Galloway stated that. to begin. Design Evanston may simply monitor the Comm,=ee A. Alterson stated mat agendas and summaries of findings are public record. Adjournment Iheltneeting adioumedirat 4rio p m ully fitted Marc Steven Mylott. AICP Zoning Planner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SIC,- � SrTE PLAN AND ,APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE � T August 19 1999 Page 4 of 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 11, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Aiterson, A. Berkowsky (for K_ Kelly). P. O'Agestino. R. Dahal, D. Jennings. M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. YMoiu W. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, D. Marino. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: Commencement B. Fahlstrom, C. Ruiz. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3 00 p.m. SPAARC 99-104 1560 Sherman Avenue Concept Install dishes on penthouse of existing building for wireless telephone and internet service hub site (Tellgent at One Rotary Center). Mr. Johnathan Kurlander (regional zoning manager for Teligent) presented an illustration of the Teligent system and site photographs (on diskette) to Install dishes on the penthouse of the existing budding (One Rotary Center). located at 1560 Sherman Avenue, for a wireless telephone and intemet hub site (Teligent). J. Kurlander stated that Teligent services only business, not residential customers: their *niche* is hK speed, high -capacity service to small businesses. J. Kurlander stated that One Rotary Center would function as their 'hub site' or 'node facility'. their customers require 'unobstructed line of sight' to the 'hub site' J Kurlander stated that the -hub site' would include no more than 16, 18-inch diameter dishes mounted to, not to exceed the height of, and painted to match the penthouse. J. Kurlander stated that customers' antennas (receiving signals from the 'hub srte') could be mounted at the middle of a rooftop. making them unobtrusive M Mylott stated that the Zoning Division is treating the -hub site' as it would any application for a wireless communication facility — it is a non -municipal, essential public service, requiring Committee approval. M. Mylott stated that the customers' antennas would accessory uses A Alterson stated that the customers' antennas would be subject to review by the Committee to the extent that they are a modification to the exterior of a building, but not subject to the extraordinary powers granted to the Committee over non -municipal, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrT£ PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Au¢sst 11, 1999 Pape 1 of 7 X essential public services. C. Smith stated that applications for customer antennas could be considered on a case -by -case basis; Committee approval may not be required if the antenna is not visible from the street B. Fahlstrom asked J. Kurtander how do you service a business within the 'shadow" of taller budding, such as 1603 Arrington Avenue? J. Kurtander responded: that area would be a 'blackout area' for Teligent J. Kurlander stated that, it the company had no other choice, it could 'wire line' service; but that approach is not their business. J. Kuriander stated that Teligent would not build a second "hub site' to service 1 or 2 buildings; that is not financially feasible A. Alterson asked J. Kuriander what if someone constructs a tall building within an existing `line of sight*? J. Kurlander responded: Teligent would have tc 'rethink its business plan'. A Alterson stated that he is cmremed that this technology is producing a new type of `objector" to any new tall buildings within the downtown. C. Smith stated that this type of technology is 'such a moving target' that she is not concerned. J, Wolinski agreed. M. Mylott asked J. Kuriander If you have more than 1 customer within a receiving building, does the receiving building require more than i receiving antenna? J. Kurtander responded: no, a receiving building only requires 1 antenna. C. Smith asked J. Kuriander how far from the penthouse do the dishes project? J. Kuriander responded: approximately 22 inches. M. Mylott motioned to grant concept approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion Discussion: A Af<erson stated that the Committee requires more specific drawings for preliminary and final site plan and appearance review. C. Smith stated that the applicant should provide a 'mock-up' of a dish. C. Smith stated that, if the Committee is comfortable w M the level of information provided, it might grant approval for all 16 dishes, rather than requiring the applicant to present an application for each dish at the 'hub site% J Kuriander stated that Teligent only installs dishes as required. C. Smith stated that the applicant may request a building permit for 16 dishes; however, building permits are valid only for 1 year. C. Smith stated that the Committee decision regarding approval for several versus all of the dishes would also affec! the extent of the applicant's Application for Building Permit. J. Kurlander stated that he 'prides himself on making these sites as least obtrusive as possible", the dishes at the 'hub site' could be arranged symmetrically, If so desired. Committee anaroved the motion (8-01 to arant conceot aooroval. The site photographs (on diskette) have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-104). SPAARC 99-106 2224 Cleveland Street Concept Construct addition to photography studio. Mr. Robert Nicholas (general contractor) presented a site plan, plat of survey, building catalogs, and site and area photographs to construct an addition to the photography studio located at 2224 Cleveland Street. R. Nicholas stated that the property owner requires 20-foot ceiling height to photograph catalog items, such as vehicles and kitchen cabinet displays R Nicholas stated that the addition would be 45-feet by 60-feet (2,700 sq.fL); the addition world include a small connection to the existing buildings R Nicholas stated that SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 11. IM Page 2 of 7 he is stsll reviewing the fire separation requirements for use groups. R_ Nkhotas stated that the building is a pre -fabricated structure, including a flat steel roof and steel sides on a wood frar; je. A Alterson stated that the 11roRD district requires a planned development for the constnrction of any structure. A Alterson stated that the light industrial use classification is acceptable. A Alterson stated that the applicant should apply for a Zoning Analysis such that the Zoning Division can determine the appropriate approval process. C. Smith stated that the City should support an existing business that wises to expand. R. Nicholas stated that the business moved to the City 'a couple weeks ago' from Chicago. A Berkowsky asked R. Nicholas: who was the previcus occupant? R. Nicholas responded: Lift-o-rr,atic, C. Smith stated that a licensed architect must prepare the plans. M. Mylott asked R. Nicholas what color budding are you proposing? R. Nicholas responded: that has not yet been decided. M. Mylott stated that the applicant should strongly consider a proposal that seeks to bring the site together, even if painting existing buildings is required. C. Smith agreed. M. Mylott stated that he will be looking for a landscape proposal as well; the app5cant should work with P. D'Agostino on opportunities to improve the overall site. C. Smith motioned to grant concept approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion_ Committee anoroved the motion (7-0) to Grant concept aooroval. The site plan, plat of survey, building catalogs, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-105). SPAARC 99-103 2533-2537 Hartrey Avenue Preliminary and Final Replace rear poach for multifamily residential building. Ms. Patricia Larson (property owner) presented an Application for Building Permit (#99-711), including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and plat of survey. and site photographs to replace the rear porches for a multi- family residential building located at 2533-2537 Hartrey Avenue. P. Larson stated that the building is a rental building P. Larson stated that the proposal includes removing the bride. concrete, and wood rear porches and stairways and installing wood rear porches and stairways. P. Larson stated that. 3 years ago, a structural engineer informed her that the existing porches and stairways had only 5 years left B. Fahistrom stated that new porches and stairways must meet the current code - 7-inch risers and 11-inch treads. C. Smith asked P. Larson: are the new porches and stairways within the same area? P. Larson stated that, where the existing porches included indented concrete walkways, the new wood walkway would be flush with the outer edge of the structure; however, the overall bulk will be less, because the brick piers would be removed. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval by the Building Division. A. Alterson seconded the motion. SUMMARY C FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C011AAArT7EE 999 e August tt, of7 Page 3 ail x Discussion: C. Smith asked P. Larson: will you paint the new porches and stairways? P. Larson responded: we plan to stain the porches and staiirways B. Fahtstrom suited !that the plans show treated wood; stain will be `very nice'. A. Berkowsky asked P. Larson: once the porches and stairways are demorrshed, how long before construction is completed? P. Larson responded: 2 to 3 weeks. A. Berkowsky stated that the applicant would need to consider temporary accommodations for exiting. C. Smith stated that the applicant should work with A. Berkowsky on temporary accommodations for exiting. Committee anDroved the motion (7-0) to Grant oreliminary and final site otan and aooearance review aooroval. subiect to review and aooroval by the Buildino Division. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-103). SPAARC 99-108 626 Library Place Preliminary and Final Replace rear stairway for offices (Urban Affairs and Policy Research for Northwestem University). Mr. Tim Voglar (general contractor) presented an Application for Building Permit (#9M39), inchAng a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and a plat of survey, and site photographs to replace the rear stairway for offices (Urban Affairs and Policy Research for Northwestern University), located at 626 Library Place. C. Smith stated that the building has existing windows that open to the stairway; the stairway wt! need to be noncombustible. T. Voglar stated that they are proposing a wrought iron stairway. C. Ruiz stated that the proposed stairway is not an `attractive structure'. C. Ruiz asked C. Smith: can the applicant receive a variation to construct a fire -retardant wood stairway? C. Smith responded: no. M. Mylott asked C. Ruiz: Is this building a landmark? C. Ruiz responded: no. M. Myk)tt asked C Ruiz would this building be located within the proposed historic district? C. Ruiz responded, I do not believe so. T. Voglar stated that some windows will be replaced with new doors, and some windows will be replaced with new windows. B. Fahistrom asked T. Voglar: does the stairway provide access to the second floor? T. Voglar responded: no. % Mylott asked T Voglar what color would you paint the stairways? T. Voglar responded: not white. C. Smith stated that black would be an appropriate color for the stairways. T. Voglar stated that they would paint the stairways black. A. Alterson stated that he is "torn" on applications of this nature. A. Atterson stated that Northwestem University has decided to use this residential structure for a use other than a residence, and, in so doing, the University should "assume the burden of making improvements look good': on the other hand. the University could demolish the structure A Alterson stated that he Is aware that many similar rear stairways are 'abortions', but Northwestern University is'mishandling this building by forcing it to squeeze into clothes that It was not intended to wear' A. Alterson stated that he is not ready to vote in favor of final site plan and appearance review approval H Friedman agreed. C. Smdh stated that she is'glad for the upgrade'; the City must be 'vigilant about safety'. C Smith stated that a wrought iron rear stairway is not a 'blighbng element". SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW comma TEE August 11. 1999 Page 4 of 7 x A Berkowsky stated that, while he understands the concerns of other Committee members, ttte City shmW not delay this application based on a `global issue' of converting residences to other uses. C Ruin stated V%at &-e Committee could 'send a message" to Northwev.em University that future applications at nm0embal s"uctures must be sympathetic to the character of the building. A- Alterson stated that the Universtyy.= vacate the building ustN it loped an appropriate response to the problem. C Smith motioned to grant'�nal site plan and appearance review approval. A- Berkowsky seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion f5-21 to oran•'9nal site ratan and apoearance review aclorovalt. �tritivp0� CNp The site plan, plat of survey, and site photograp s eve been placed wittsin the Site Plan and Appearance Rernew Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-10a). SPAARC 99-105 2325 Main Street Preliminary and Final Renovate building for religions institution (Church of Christ). Mr Nathan Kipnis (architect) presented an Application for Building Permit (t 93), including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and a plat of survey, and building material samples and site and area photographs to renovate an existing building, located at 2325 Main Street, for a religious institution (Church of Christ). Ms. Betty Haymes (church trustee) and Ms. Bonnie DeLetr (church treasurer) were available to answer questions. N. Kipnis stated that the project may be phased: phase 1 would include the interior work, and phase 2 would include the exterior work. N. Kipnis stated that the interior work includes providing a ground -floor sanctuary, kitchen, reception area, and 2 accessible restrooms, the second floor would contain an office, kitchen, bathroom, and classrooms. N. Kipnis stated that the project is under the sire requirements for an elevator, however, space is available for a future installation. N. Kipnis stated the existing facade would be removed. N. FGpnis stated that the new fagade would include metal panels with a smooth, stone -product base and accent hands; both materials are graffiti resistant N. Kipnis stated that a portion of the fagade may contain EiFS, but, because of liability, that decision is not final. C. Smrlh stated that the Committee would prefer plaster A. Alterson asked the applicants does the church own the budding? B. Haymes responded: yes. A. Afterson asked the applicants: how long has the church occupied this building? B Haymes responded: approximately 2 years N Kipnis stated that the back '/.j of the ground floor of the building has been Geared, but it is not used, the church uses the front �z of the ground floor of the bu3ding, and the church uses the second Ow of the buila+ng 'only intermittently'. C. Smith asked the applicants: has the Fire Department reviewed the structure? B Haymes responded: I am not sure M, Myfott stated that an application for variation to reduce the number of required parking spaces requires approval by the City Council C. Smith stated that, given the existing site candrbons, she sees no opportunity to provide off-street parking elsewhere on site. B Haymes stated that the church uses t parking space on the street for accessible parking. M. Mylott stated that that arrangement could be formalized through this City; the applicant should contact D_ Jennings. B Haymes stated that the owner of the automobile repair facility has given the church permission to park 4 to 5 vehicles on his property, the church uses the Builder's Square parking area to accommodate additional parking demand SUMMARY OF FINP(NGS SriE PAN AND APPEARANCE fENAEw COMMITTEE August 11, 19W Page 5 of 7 A Alterson asked the applicants- what are the uses next door? N. rupnis responded: a residence SW an automobile repair facility. A Alteerson stated that he is 'distressed' to see the property come off the tax roll: on the other hand, a reigious institution may make a better residential neighbor than other uses permitted within the underlying zoning district. C. Smith stated that the property is probably already off the tax roll. A Alterson motioned to grant prefm*mry site plan and appearance review approvaL M. Myiatt seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott asked A. Alterson: what additional information *Vend you Like to see? A Alterson responded: while the plans are well developed, he would like to see the opportunity for landscaping explored. M. N"tt stated that the front curb cut should remain such that it may be used as an accessible parking space. M. Mylott stated that he would support a motion to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. C. Smith agreed. Committee aQproved the motion 7( -0) to errant orpliminary site Dian and appearance review gooroval, C. Smith motioned to grant Cmal site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion. A Aiterson stated that this application is another example of wtry the City should haws inspections of all types prior to the transfer of property. N. Kipnis stated that the church did have 'some inspections'. C. Smith stated that, for future reference, any change of occupancy should at least come through the Building Division. Committee aooroved the motion (5-2) to grant final Rite plan and appearance review approval. The site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-105). SPAARC 99-107 1320 Central Street Recommendation to Sign Board Erect temporary, freestanding, real estate sales sign for multi -family residential building (The Renaissance Condominiums)- C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB #99-0a) to erect a temporary, freestanding, real estate sales sign for a multi -fatuity residential building (The Renaissance Condommiums). M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review ana Appeals Board approve the application for variation, provided the sign is removed following the sale of the last dwelling unit or within 12 months, whichever comes first. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (7-0) to recommend that th- Sian Review and Aooeals Board aDorove the application for variation. provided the sion is removed following the sale of the last dwellma rand or within 12 months, whichever comes first. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-107). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMrArrTEE t1G� August 11, 1999 `��? Page 6 of 7 Approval of Summary of Findings P. D'Agostino motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of August 4. 19W C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion 0") to aoomve the Summary of Findings of August 4. 19r99. A Alterson and H. Friedman abstained. Adjournment The meeting adjoumed at 4:30 p.m. w§"I"d ' —IsM1 Uale SY FINDINGS SREPLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUMEE August 11. 1999 Page 7 of 7 3C SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 4, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: P. D'Agostino, R Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino. M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, K. Kelly, J. Wor'inski. Design Professionals Present: Design Professionals Absent: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: Commencement B. Fahlstrom, C. Ruiz. M. Mylott stated that he would act as Zoning Administrator in the absence of A Atterson, C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-075 905 Chicago Avenue Preliminary Construct 9-story mixed -use development (ground -floor financial institution, second -floor parking, and residential within the upper floors). Mr. Bill Warman (architectl presented an Application for Zoning Analysis (ZA 99-0649-ZA2), including a site plan with landscaping. floor plans, elevations, and plat of survey. and site and area photographs to construct a 9-story mixed -use building (ground -floor financial institution, second -floor parking, and residential within the upper floors) located at 905 Chicago Avenue. Mr. Warren Barr and Mr. Bill Smith were available to answer questions. B. Warman stated that the site plan was rotated to reflect that titan Street follows a true easVwest path, and Chicago Avenue is skewed B. Warman stated that the loading berths were amended to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. C. Smith asked the applicants are the parkway trees included within the scope of your project? S. Warman responded' yes. B. Warman stated that an additional tree was rot added between the by-pass exit and the drive-thru facility exit, because the sight lines would be too tight D. Marino stated that the Chicago Avenue planning process emphasized the "greening' of Chicago Avenue. the applicants shouid consider appropriate locations for flower boxes and pots along Chicago Avenue and .tan Street. B. Warman stated that they added ground -level landscaping along the north lot line. SULUAARY OF FW"NM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANfCE REVIEW COMUffTEE Augtnt 4, 1999 Page t or 7 X! S. Warman stated that they did not want to add a public rooflco Iterrace, but they did add tress alcng the north side of the rooftop. B. Wamsan stated that these trees would axed to be kxa*d above colUMM W he does not want them too close to the upper floors; a setback provides greater visibility and light and ventilation for the trees. B. Warman stated that the trees would be 2%4nch cafioer at the time of installation B Wairman stated that the trees could be flowering and/or ornamental. Q Srr tth stated that the applicants should work with P. D'Agostino to finalize the landscape plan. B. Warman stated that they are revising the drawings to add cimensions for the parking; some spaces are 9 feet wide, and some spaces are 8 feet B inches wide. 0. Jennings stated that the City requirement that parking spaces be 8 feet 8 inch wide is a minimum requirernent the applicant can provide wroer parking spaces. D. Jennings stated that the column locations must be bcaaed as to not interfere with the cpening and closing of vehicle doors; columns should fall at one-third intervals along the depth of a parking space C. Smith asked the applicants: is the parking garage naturaltj ventAated? B. Warman responded: yes, and it is not heated. B. Warman stated that they are proposing a buff -color brick with a darker accent brick. the accent brick will match the windows and railings. B. Warman stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires them to move the mechanicals north. B. Warman stated that they plan to reduce the height of the former south wall of the penthouse, such that it becomes a parapet. B. Warman stated that they would work on the design solution. M. "oft stated that the parapet should be as high as the two framing piers; the middle of the parapet could rise above this height to give it more attention. C. Smith agreed. B. Warman stated that he would lice the parapet to drop below the framing piers. C. Smith stated that the residential entrance should be "opened up' B. Warman stated that adding more glass was "too light". C. Smith stated that the building has'so mucus mass as rt W. B. Warman stated that they could add glass along the returns of the outer doors. B. Fahistrom stated that that sohftn was acceptable. D. Jennings stated that, as shown, the drive-thru facility exit could accommodate three cars; if the City is trying to promote a pedestrian environment, that distance should be reduced. C. Smith and D. Marino agreed. B. Warman stated that he could reduce that width to 24 feet M. Myiod stated that an additional street tree could be added within the increased amount of sidewalk. C. Smith stated that the City struggles with providing adequate tight:ng at the alleys while minimizing impact on the adjacent residential uses. C. Smith stated that the City code requires 0 foot-candles at the tit line. D. Jennings stated that the applicants should use a sharp cut-off B YJarman stated that they would provide lighting under the deck as well. D. Jennings asked the applicants: have you provided adequate stacking space? B Warman responded: yes, M. Mylott asked D Jennings: does the City permit an applicant to count parking aisle space as stacking space? D. Jennings responded: we have in the past. D. Jennings stated that one stacked car would bkxk the bypass aisle; on the other hand, vehicles can exit at the alley D. Jennings asked the applicants- how are you securing the residenbai parking/ B Warman responded with two overhead garage doors and remotes. D. Jennings stated that the second -floor exit radius might be too sharp, because a vehicle must be square to the door to exit. B Warman stated that he would review that radices SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE R"EW COMMITTEE August 4 1999 Page 2 of 7 t C: Smith stated that the stairways appear to be less than % diagonal apart B Warman stated that T* ramp functions as an exit C. Smith stated that the ramp must Include specific elements to count as An ejdL Including a walk, handrail, and striping. C. Smith stated that she would encourage the applicants to seek a variation from the Sign Rev+ew and Appeals Board regarding the depth of the awnings. M. Mytoa stated that the applicants could pursue thr rely separate of the building permit process. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Jennings stated that the applicants must consider the location of parking meters and other street fumiture as they chose the location of sheet trees. D. Marino staled that he liked the number of street trees. M. Mylott stated that the applicants should work with P. D'Agostino to determine whether the City wants the applicant to save and/or move any existing street trees. C. Smith stated that all existing improvements within the right-of-way, such as street trees, parking meters, and fire hydrants, must be accurately depicted on a site plan or plat of survey prior to the issuance of a fence permit for demolition, C. Smith stated that a comer can be a very prominent piece of a building, and this comer is a very busy comer. C Smith stated that the site plan and elevation do not 'reinforce' this concept. C Smith stated that the applicants should consider a deeper recess, because the distance between the curb and the building along the north side of the comer is too tight D. Jennings stated that amount of clearance is further reduced by the existing signals. D. Marino asked D. Jennings: can the Chicago Avenue sidewalk be widened? D. Jennings responded. it is possible to provide a bigger radius. B. Warman stated that a catch basin might have to be moved. D. Jennings stated that Spat movement would be the responsibility of the applicant. M. Mylott stated that the applicants should add a vertical division between the openings within the second floor C Smith agreed, and stated that the depicted proportions do not work with the rest of the building. D. Marino, B. Fahlstrom, and C. Ruiz disagreed B Warman stated that the different treatment works with the base. C. Smith asked the applicants- are screens located within the inside of the wnndows? B. Warman responded, the windows crank out and include intemal screens. C. Ruiz stated that the elevations include four different window types, deteriorating the design; the applicant should explore ways to tie the elevation together. C. Smith agreed. M. Mylott asked the applicants how did you respond to Committee concerns about the treatment of the 2-story elevation along Chicago Avenues B. Warman responded, we added elements of the entrance and increased the width of the pws. M. Mylott asked the applicants. what material is used within the limestone -colored areas of the elevation? B. Warman responded prairie stone SumAAARY OF FPQe4= SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COVJMTTEE August 4, 1999 Pa9a 3 of 7 k D. Jennings stated that the applicant should use a yeDow strobe light at the ear# of the bypass aisle. B. Warman stated that he would also add signage alorg the Inside, warning vehicle operators to watch for pedestrians. B. Fahlstrom stated that he would like to express his appreciation to the appbcatrts for their cooperation and willingness to incorporate Committee ideas.. Committee aooroved the motion f8-01 to Brant oreliminary site olan and aooearance review aDQMOI_ The site plan with landscaping, floor plans. elevations, and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-075). SPAARC 99-100 555 Howard Street Concept Replace aff fuel pumps and erect flat -roof canopy, requiring major variation. Mr. Ron Cox presented a site plan, Illinois State Fire Marshall permit, corporate catalog, and site and area photographs to replace the fuel pumps and erect a flat -roof canopy for the automobile service station (Dale and Jack's Marathon Service Station) located at 555 Howard Street R. Cox stated that the work does not involve replacing the fuel tanks, only the dispensers, R. Cox stated that the new dispensers are the "dog -bone type' with 'more modem services"; they expand only 3 feet beyond the placement of the existing dispensers in the east/west dimension. C Smith asked R. Cox: what are the current hours of operation? R. Cox responded: approximately 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., closed on Sundays. R. Cox stated that, with the improved gasoline service, the hours might increase from 6:00 or 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Sundays. R. Cox stated that the work includes repainting the building. M. Mylott stated that the canopy requires a variation from the Zoning Board of Appeals; flat -roofed accessory structures may not exceed 14% feet high Cr Smith asked R. Cox: will you illuminate the canopy? R. Cox responded. not on the exterior, however, the underside will have fights shining down. M Mylott stated that, given the height of this canopy, all light sources should be completely shielded; he has seen too many canopies that distract drivers because the light source is visible, even though the canopy includes side shields or recessed lights. C. Smith asked R. Cox: is the fascia of the canopy illuminated? R. Cox responded. no. C Smith asked R. Cox: will you include signage on the canopy? R. Cox responded: yes, along the east and west sides as required by Marathon, R. Cox stated that the owner plans to replace the freestanding sign as well C Smith stated that both signs require approval by the Sign Review and Appeals Board, C Smith asked R Cox. are you proposing landscaping? R. Cox responded: no; the front of the building already includes one street tree C. Smith stated that other stations have placed planters around their freestanding signs and fuel pumps R Cox stated that he would explore those options. C. Smith stated that that amount of landscaping is considered a minimum. P. D'Agostino stated that the applicant could consider additional street trees within the right of way. especially along the front of the new canopy. P D'Agosbno stated that the applicant should provide approximately 30 feet between trees; Honeylocust is a good tree at SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrrEE August A. 1999 Page 4 of 7 this location C. Swath agreed C Srje'i stated tit W the property owner is committing ntudl money to upgrading the property- quality landsaapnQ we reinforce that commitment_ P. D'Agostno stated mat the site pr.an srcua rciude the location of the drivu*sys. R. Dahal asked R Cox what is the radius of the curb arts? R C.---x responded. I am not sure. R_ t3at w stated that the arb cuts CM0 be improved such that an island is clegeed that iS!arld could contain landscaping. R. Cox stated that the Program did not include changes to flee c.m cats P D'Agostino stated that planters and street tn*ig -1 couild also be provided at the comers of the ; moertj C. Smith agreed. D. Marino asked R. Coy does the proe�j owner sett convenience items? R. Cox responded: no, and such sales are not planned M. Mylott motioned to grant concept acerc►-al. provided light sources within the canopy are not VWbIs from any location C. Smith seconded the mcavn Discussion: C Smith stated rw the applicant t should provide the Committee with a bum cut and a photometric plan C Smith stated that the tight tenet must be 0 foot candles at 00 lot line no • from anv location, The site plan. Illinois State Fire Marshall per-nrl corporate catalog, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-100). SPAARC 99-101 2209 Howard Street Preliminary and Final Construct 1-story addition to retail sales establishment (Target) for stock room. Mr. Shawn Dziedzk (general contractor) presented an Application for Building Permit (#99.802), including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and a plat of survey, and building material samples to construct a 1-story addition for a stock room for the retail sales establishment (Target) located at 2209 Howard Street. S Dziedzk stated that the building materials would match 'real close', the blocks would be the same size, have the same texture, and be similarly arranged S Dziedzk stated that the existing material is precast 'with a CMU look', the proposed material is glazes CMU block S Dziedzk stated that the different color base was achieved through field painting; the blocks wt,-Inn the base of the addition will be similarly painted S Dziedzk stated that the color bands would be eztercc., through the addition. C. Rutz asked S. Dziedzk: why are you not using the same materiaP S. Dziedzk res,=nded the only supplier of the original material has aback log' that precludes shipments for nine months to one year. D. Marino asked S. Dziedzk: will a person he able to see a difference from one block away? S Cziedzk responded: you should not be able to tell a difference. D Marino asked S. Dziedzr would the elevation contain any openings? S Dziedzk responded the south elevation would contain a hollow -metal door for emergency purposes only S Dziedzk stated that an existing tree would be relocated such that it is riot -rg"it in front' of the door D Marino stated that the City assisted with te development of this site, he does not want to grant Final site plan and appearance revie-w approval until ttse ward alderman and any neighbors have an opportunity to comment on the application. D. Marino stated that C. Ruiz is the contact person for this outreach program. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM, I TEE ALOM 4. 1999 Page 5 of 7 k B. Fahlstrom stated trial the control joints might be different with a different material. C. &MM, sad fttat fris control joints within the addition should be similarly spaced as within the existing buildng (pranast). D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. C. Smith. secon led ft motion. Committee aQ2roved the motion (6-0) to Grant ore#iminary site plan and appearance reeuiew , The site plan, floor plans, elevations, plat of survey, and budding material sample have been rmaoed w0iin fhe Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-101). SPAARC 99-102 1719-1721 Sherman Avenue Rec. for Sidiewalk Cafe Permit sidewalk caf6 for type 2 restaurant (Panda Express). Mr. Jeffrey Howard (Director of Development for Panda Express) presented an Application for Sidewalk Cafe, including a site plan and plat of survey, to permit a sidewalk cast for the type 2 restaurant (P�nda Express) located at 1719-1721 Sherman Avenue. D. Marino stated that the Director of the Community Development Department has asked hirm to inform 9* applicant that Panda Express is not to operate their sidewalk cafis until such time eta the .,., .�, ✓,s approvals are issued. D. Marino asked the applicants do you understand this mandate'7 J. Howard responded: yes. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established in the Sidewalk Cafe Regutatictl Checklist J. Howard responded that he 'understands the intent of the requirements'. J. Howard stated tt'rat requiring a type 2 restaurant to use non -disposable dishware is 'ludicrous% Panda Express went through late speaal use process such that they could use disposable dishware. D. Marino stated that fitter is a -major, issue' within the downtown. J. Howard stated that Panda Express will request the waiver to permit disposable beverage containers. M. Mytott read the notification requirements for a sidewalk cafe for a type 2 restaurant M. W1yk= gave J. Howard a handout, explaining the notiftcation requirements for a sidewalk cafe for a type 2- restaurant. D. Marino motioned to recommend the City Council approve the sidewalk cafe appbcabon. C. &mdh seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (6-01 to recommend the Citv Council aaorove the. sidewalk cafe &Wicat]on,. SPAARC 99-103 2633 Hartrey Avenue Preliminargr.aW Final Replace rear porch in -kind for multi -family residential building. Applicant did not attend. Approval of Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of Jerzy 28, 1999 and July 30. 199LZ R Walczak seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-0) to aoomve the Summary of Frndlrtas of July 28, 1999 and Julv 30. 1999. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August4,1999 Page 6 of 7 Adjournment SUUMAFxx OF FUSOINGS {rC. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COUMnTEE �`�1!'7 August s. 1999 Page 7 of 7 x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 28, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present J. Aiello, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent A. Alterson, K. Kelly, J. Wolinski. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present B. Fahistrom, S. Levine, S. Luft, L Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, and R. Schur. Commencement M. Mytott stated that he would act as Zoning Administrator in the absence of A. Alterson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3.05 p.m. SPAARC 97-006S Church Street Plaza Discussion Discuss and finalize Committee comments regarding Main Pavl7 W, Residential, Paridng Garage, and Landscaping. C. Smith stated that the Committee must prepare written comments regarding the main pavilion, the residential tower, the City parking garage, and the landscaping; the comments will be forwarded to the developers. The Committee began reviewing the July 26, 1999 Summary of Findings. The Committee informed the Secretary which items should be included within the written comments. regarding landscaping. C. Smith stated that the Committee would resume this discussion on July 30, 1999 at 9 a.m at Room 2404. SPAARC 99-091 630 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Permit type 2 restaurant (Polbelly Sandwich Works) within mixed -use building (Chandler's Building). Mr. Bryant Keil (Potbeity Sandwich Works) and Ms Wendy Ban (building owner) presented an Application for Special Use (ZBA 99-27-SU(R)), including a site plan, to permit a type 2 restaurant (Potbelly Sandwich Works) at the :nixed -use building (Chandler's Building) located at 630 Davis Street $IJK:lV1ARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 28. 1999 l Page t of 7 X B. Keil stated that tt`e Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of the special use. and the special use ordinance has teen introduced to the City Council. C. Smith asked toe applicants: are you proposing any exterior modifications? W. Ban responded: they will add awnings along t,)e inside of the courtyard; the tenant wilt be permitted signage on the awnings and/or behind the glass C Smith stated that signage would require a separate permit M. Vylott asked the applicants: will the awnings for this tenant match the awnings for additional tenants? W. Bars responded: not necessarily; if the arnnings change to a color other than burgundy, the City will be informed D. Marino asked Me applicants: will you have an outdoor cafV B. Keil responded: yes. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you determined the hours of operation? B. Keil resper:oed: not yet; our lease requires the business to be open at least 6 days a week from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. M. Mylott asked the applicants: have you included provisions for bicycle parking? W. Ban responded: we will provide a 2-b4ycle Bicycle rack at either location A or B (see site plan). W. Ban stated that. it ether bcatim were not acceptable. delivery bicycles would be stored inside. B. Keil stated that requiring bicycle storage inside would not work operationally, C. Smith stated that bicycle parking would be a nice amenity for the plaza, and the plaza :s wide enough to accommodate bicycle racks. D. Marino stated that he would rather have a "clean plaza' M. Mylott stated that the Potbelly Sandwich Works has stated that they will deliver food to downtown locations on bicycles rather than using vehicles, this approach will reduce traffic and parting problems. M. Mylott stated that this Committee should accommodate bicycle parking, at least for the delivery bicycles: if no biLWe parking is provided, bicycles will be attached to trees and parking meters. D. Jennings stated that he visited the site yesterday, the first four parking meters had bicycles attached to them. W. Ban stated that she does not want "a lot of bicycles'; the bicycle racks she is reviewing accommodate two bicycles. B. Keil stated that the racks would need signage, reserving the spaces for Potbelly Sandwich Works bicycles only. H. Friedman sated that bicycle racks may be available that are locked, such that no other person besides Potbelly Sancmch Works could use them J. Aiello stated that the Committee could recommend one of the sites shown an the site plan, and the City could have D Jennings investigate other sites for bicycle parking within the right-of-way. H. Friedman stated that bicycle parking could be provided within the median. P. D'Agostino stated that that median is heavily landscaped. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to installing a 2-bicyde tricycle rack at location B and limiting the use of said rack to only employees of Potbelly Sandwich Works. P D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion M. Mylott asked D. Manna. does you motion include a recommendation for D. Jennings to investigate other sites for bicycle parking within the right-of-way? D. Marino responded no. although he encourages such action. H Friedman asked the applicants do you have plans to control the appearance of newspaper boxes? J Aiello responded: the City already has the means to address that issue. Committee aooroved tree motion (8-1) to arant oreliminary and final site otars and aopearance review aoorova1, subiect to installing a 2-bicvcle bicvcle rack at location B and limitina the use of said rack to onto emolovees of Potbelly Sandwich V iorks The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-091) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARAUCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Juy 2a 1999 Page 2 of 7 ei SPAARC 98-0143 1805 Howard Street FhW Convert portion of e%:sVng building to type 2 restaurant (Cousrns Subs). Mr. Ron Sorce presented an Application for Building Permit (#19"791. including a site plan with land icapsrg. floor plans, and elevations, and a revised site plan with tandscaping and a revised trash enclosure ekbvation to convert a portion cf an existing building to a type Z restaurant (Cousins Subs). located at 1805 Howerd Street. R. Sorce stated that "revised site plan with Landscaping notes removing the pole sign and instalfing a 3%. inch caliper Honeylccust tree: installing enter and exit only signs, installing planters and associated landscaping along the southern fagade; and installing a second trash receptacle with rid. R. Sorce stated Ctat the revised trash enclosure elevation notes the elevation of the enclosure would be 6 feet high. M. Mybd asked R. Sorce are all enclosures 6 feet high? R. Some responded: yes. P. D'Agostino stated that the planters and associated tar4acapirtg are acceptable. P. D'Agostino stated that the landscaped area between the sidewrak and parking area quid contain two canopy trees, one at each end. C. Smith stated that 7* applicant must provide 36 inches dear between the trash receptacles and the building and the trash receptacles and the curb. D Jennings stated teat parking space number 6 should contain the accessible parking designation. rather than parking space number 7; this would place the striped aisle on the passenger side. D. Jennings stated twat the sidewalk along the building must be depressed and contain a curb cut to the striped aisle of the acr-essible parking space; the ramp to the sidewalk cannot be within the striped aisle. M. Mylott asked R. Same: was the advertising grill removed from the southern fagade? R. Sorce responded: yes. M. Mylott asked R. Sorce: were the security gates removed from the doors? R. Sorce responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that the special use ordinance requires that the Committee review and approve the signage. M Mylott stated that v* applicant must submit a landscape maintenance plan to the Superintendent of Parks and Forestry for review and approval; the landscape maintenance plan must be recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy. M Mylott stated that the Zoning Division could not sign off on the buMing permit application until the applicant records a covenant wrth the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, the covenant must include each provision of the special use ordinance M. Mylott stated that the Application for Building Permit would need to be amended as well, showing the changes to the site plan and landscaping discussed by the Committee M Mylott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to (1) the changes noted on the revised site plan with Landscaping and the revised trash enclosure elevation, (2) installing two canopy trees between the side -walk and parking area, one at each end (3) providing 36 inches clear around any trash receptacle; (4) moving the accessible parking designation from parking space number 7 to parking space number 6; and (5) depressing the sidewalk and providing a curb cut to the striped aisle of the accessible parking space D Jennings seconded the motion Committee sooroved the motion f7-0) to orant final site Dian and appearance review aaoroval subject to 11) the channPs noted on the revised site olan with landscapirtq and the revised trash enclosure eievalinn: (2) installing twn canopy trees between the sidewalk and oarkinq area. one at each end. (3) orovidinn 36 inches dear around anv trash receptacle (4) movinq the SUMMARY OF FIN0h4GS (fC� SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REMeW COMMrr IEE .(`�'� July 2& 1999 ]►. Page 3 of 7 accessible oarkina designation from Darkino scare number 7 to oarkioa sake number 8: alnd 15) dwiisii#q the sidewalk and providing a curb cut to the striped aisle of the accessible Darkina space The revised site plan with landscaping and revised trash enclosure efev=on have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 9"143). SPAARC 99-023 1430 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Fixes Convert former independent living facdify to multi -family residential bOdM (f f condominikims). Ms_ Sharon White (assistant to developer) presented an Application far Binding Permit (*99-844), kx q a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and a plat of surrey to convert a former independent living facility tD a mull€ - family residential building (11 condominiums). S_ White stated that the limestone window dividers would not be removed: they plan to remove the exis5ng windows and install windows with narrower sashes. C. Rua stated that d the existing windows are wood, he recommends that the developer replace the windows in -kind to enhance the appearance of the building. C. Smith stated that she is not sure she supports that recommendation. RL Mylott agreed. C. Smith asked S. White: does the developer plan to stain the discolored brick within the upper floors of the east facade? S. White responded: yes. C Smith asked S. White. what is the material of the spandrel? S Whim responded: limestone. M. MykM asked S. White: does the developer Intend to change that material? S. White respondedt no. M Mylott asked S. White: how has the developer rectified the situation in which one parking space straddles the lot line? S. White responded: the developer has bought the parking space. M. Mylott stated that the developer must provide proof of purchase to satisfy the condition of the zoning approval. M. Mylott asked S. White: is the building sold out? S. White responded: four out of 11 dwelling units have sold. R. Schur stated that the developer must provide condominium documents to the City S. White stated that the attorney is assembling those documents: they should be ready within approximately 2 weeks M Mylott motioned to grant final site plan review approval and preliminary and final appearance review approval, provided the discolored brick within the upper floors of the east facade are stained to match the anginal brick. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion. H Friedman stated that he recommends that the developer replace the cornice that existed on this building at one time. C. Smith stated that the recommendations regarding the wood windows and cornice are not mandatory. P D'Agostino stated that the site has "very little opportunity for landscaping' Committee aoDroved the motion (trr D) to orant final site plan review aooroval and orekninary and final appearance review aoDroval, provided the discolored brick within the imDer floors of the east facade are stained to match the oriainal brick. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 9"23). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE .+ July 28 19"ge i/"�7 Pa4 of 7 ]�, ci SPAARC 99-098 3200 Grant Street Preliminary and Final VAlen Grant Street entrance to accommodate trucks and prowde f addoonal, open, of-~ par" specs (Presbyterian Homes). Mr. Philip Barr (owner) presented Applications for Zoning Analyses (*994)609-ZA and #99-061 D-ZA), Wzkxfng a s4a plan and a plat of survey, and site photographs to widen the Grant Street entrance to, and provide s additional, open, off-street parking space for, the Presbyterian Homes, located at 3200 Grant Street. P. Barr stated that they would like to widen the entrance such that trucks can enter and exit easier M. My W asked P. Ban: what size trucks use this entrance? P. Barr responded: all sizes. C. Smith asked P. Barr: has D. Jennings reviewed these plans? P. Barr responded: no, the Zoning Division has reviewed the plans. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Division has no problems with widening the Grant Street entrance, but the additional parking space will require variations. C. Smith stated that the applicant should submit a drawing of the Grant Street widening to the Traffic Engineering Department R. Dahal stalled that he would conduct a site inspection. P. Barr stated that a resident within cottage 17 would like to have a parking space closer to the cottage; he proposes placing the parking space on the east side of two existing parking spaces, because a sewer is located on the west side. M. Mylott asked P. Ban. would you install the same landscaping treatment around the third parking space as you have provided for the two existing parking spaces? P. Barr responded: yes, and some landscaping would be relocated. M. Mylott asked P. Barr if some landscaping can not be rebcated. would you purchase new landscaping to ensure the overall treatment remains as it is today? P. Barr responded: yes. C. Smith stated that she has no preference as to whether the additional parking space is on the east or west side of the existing parking spaces. M. Mylott agreed. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval by the Traffic Engineering Department_ M. "tt seconded the motion. Committee apt "d the motion (6-0) to grant oreliminary and final site olan and aooearance review aooraval. subied to review and pporoval by the Traffic Enaineerinq Department. The site plan for the Grant Street widening and the site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan acid Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-098). SPAARC 99-099 3308-3320 Central Street Concept Construct i single-family attached dwelling unit between existing single-family attached dwelling units (bringing total to 8) and construct 8-car detached garage Mr Robert Saichek (owner) presented an Application for Zoning Analysis (099-0627-ZA). inc tud'mg a site plan and plat of survey and site photographs to construct 1 single-family attached dwelling unit between existing single-family attached dwelling units (banging the total to 8) and construct an 8-car detached garage at 3308- 3320 Central Street R. Saichek stated that the eastern building contains three dwelling units, and the western building contains four dwelling units: the space between the two buildings is 18-feet wide. R. Saichek stated he is the owner, the dwelling units are rentals a, a ' MARY OF FINOWISS SITE PLAN AND APPE: vtEW COMIAM EE July 28. IM Page 5 07 x M. Mylott stated that the applicant has problems meeting the building lot coverage and parking requtenvmft R. Saichek stated that he could better conform to the building lot coverage requirements by .Pft the garages into four 2-car garages, he could locate open parking spaces within the spaces between the 2-cor garages. C. Smith asked R. Saichek: do these interior elevations contain windows? R. Saichek responded_ one side has windows a" a hallway, and the outer side has no windows. C. Smith stated that changing from two buildings to one building Is a `big chanye" in terms of the BuMetg Code and Fire Department access. R_ Saichek stated that the north side of the property abuts an adiey. C. Smith stated that the applicant would have'sehous problem with fire safety issues'; this work could trigger a requirement that the entire building be sprinkiered. R. Saichek stated that masonry separates each existing dwelling unit. C. Smith stated that the issue relates to the number of contiguous dwelling units. C. SMMI stated that the appiicant should research BOCA 1996 under the R2 use groups. C. Smith $U tad drat dw applicant should contact A. Berkowsky at the Fire Department. C. Smith stated that she has no problems with the proposal visually. M. Mylott agreed. M. Mylott motioned to table this item. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that the applicant could pursue the necessary zoning relief while he investigates the building code issues. Committee aoaroved the motion (5-1) to table this item. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-099). SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Revision to Final Review revisions to elevations for mixed -use building (ground4loor commercial and residential widdn upper floors). Mr Chris Thomas (architect) presented a revised southern elevation to construct a mixed -use buikfng, located at 2953 Central Street, Mr, Ron Fleckman and Walter Kihm were available to answer questions. C Thomas stated that they have amended the elevation to Include the building materials. C_ Thomas stated that the cornice is an extruded cementious material, fabricated in two pieces; the total height of the cornice, including two courses of limestone -color brick is 24 inches. C. Thomas stated that the base is cast stone with a recessed single course of brick. C. Thomas stated that the storefronts have a clear anodised (silver) frame; the transom is spandrel glass. C Thomas stated that the material over the transom is EIFS. C. Thomas stated that the residential window frames are taupe. C. Thomas stated that the railings are painted green. C Smith asked the applicants: what is the size of brick? C. Thomas responded: utility. C. Smrth stated that that is 'too bad'. C Ruiz agreed C. Ruiz stated that not continuing the cast stone base within the residential entrance is a *disaster`-, the building could be 'dramatically improved' by using cast stone within the entire residential entrance. C. Thomas stated that plaster above a stone base is a 'very traditional application' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrTEE Jury 2a, 1999 Page 8 of 7 C. Smith motioned to deny the revision to the previous final appearance review approval H. Frie 2rrw seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that she Nieves that the 'prominence of the +entrance is nakaaed by an unacceptable palette of materials'. C. Smith stated that entire : _.r1;1! entrance should be cast stone. C. Smith stated that the use of utility -size brick within this very pedestrian area will be a 'disaster'. Committee aooroved the moticm r4-21 to deny the revision to the previous final appearance review ate. The revised southern elevation has been ptaced within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Comrrtitw folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0005). Approval of Summary of Findings R. Dahal motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of July 21, 19". H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (&O o a Drove the Summary of Fndinas of July 21. 1999, Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott. AICP Zoning Planner Date SUMLVkRY OF FINCO GAS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM17TEE a Jury 29. zN9 Page 7 d 7 x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 34, '1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, R. Dahak, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. Walczak. (for L Black). Members Absent: A person, D. Jennings, K. Kelly. D. Marino, 9- 4ofinski. Design Prof isslonal Present: Other Staff Present: H. Friedman. B. Fahistmm, C. Wonders. Commencement M. Mylott staled that he would act as Zoning Administrator in the absence of A.Aftilm, C. Smilh1clintr? determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 9:10 a.m. SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Discussion Discuss and finalize Committee comments regarding Main Pavilion, Residential. Parking Garage, and Landscaping. C. Smith stated that this discussion continues the discussion the Committee initiated on July 28, 1999, regarding the July 26, 1999 Church Street Plaza presentation. The Committee completed its review of the July 26, 1999 Summary of Findings. The Committee informed the Secretary which items should be included within the written comments, regarding the main pavilion, the residential tower, the City parking garage, and the landscaping. The Committee agreed to include the following comments that were not discussed. or were not fully discussed, at the July 26, 1999 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meeting: 1. Main Pavilion. Prohibit any advertising along the east elevation. The developer should reserve this elevation for public art, subject to review by the Public Art Committee, or A should be treated only architecturally (such as with patterns within the masonry). 2. City Parkina Garage. Provide a more responsive "grand terminus" or 'culmination` to the Clark Street vista within the architecture of the building Banners alone are not an acceptable design solution. Determine whether the originai design and its curved steel sign band works with the current floor plan. 3. Main Pavilion and Citv Parkina Garage. Use a size brick that is neither jumbo nor utility. SLOAMMY OF FINORM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE July 30, 19P9 Page 1 of 2' s. ftgoertiaat Tower. Provide inform fioil on the location and 'sae of hopper windows and their screens. - -A M. Mykrtt started that he wand c o nnpiie these items into a chi and forward a copy toC. Smith liar aevfew and signature. $A Mylott stated that he would N t h it ute copies a the signed chec$tW to Committea when available. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Aiello Xtioned to approve the Summery of Findings of July 26. 1999. R. Wakxak seconded then I, of rrla Committee aporoved the motion (7-01 to aoorove the Summary of Findinas of July 26. 1999. Adjoumment 11 The )neeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m. Marc Steven MylotL AICP j Zoning Planner v Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrtE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE J* X 19" P*P2Gf2 a lie RESPONSE TO JULY 26, 1999 CHURCH STREET PLAZA PRESENTATION from the SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE SITE PLAN o Work with the City Landscape Architect to Increase the amm" and better develop the configuration of the Landscaping within the plaza. o Develop a more radial paving pattem within the plaza. This pattem could relate to the treatment used at the cinema and residential entrances. o Provide something 'special' at the northeast comer of Chum Street and Maple Avenue; this location is an entrance for the development. A kiosk does not have to be strictly utilitarian; rather it Could be developed as an artistic piece. to Provide some form of fixed seating within the plaza. The seating should not be part of the planters:" StreetwAve and Landscgnina I, Provide information regarding the design and location of street furniture, including but not limited to fixed seating, trash receptacles, newspaper stands, bicycle racks. ❑ Ptace bicycle racks at highly visible locations within the streetscape. a Use street -tree lighting to help unify Church Street Plaza. Street -tree lighting should extend along Church Street. Maple Avenue, and Clark Street. o Use pots or larger planters for the street trees along Maple Avenue. ❑ Use durable paving materials within high -traffic areas to ensure that the integrity of these areas is not compromised. o Reduce the radii of the curb at both comers of Church Street and Maple Avenue. ❑ Provide a maintenance plan for the street furniture and landscaping. MAIN PAVILION ❑ Prohibit any advertising along the east elevation. The developer should reserve this elevation for pub%c art, subject to review by the Public Art Committee, or it should be treated only architecturally (such as with patterns within the masonry). ❑ Revisit the material of the base. A high -quality stone with a smoother finish is preferred. ❑ Use a size brick that is neither jumbo nor utility o Recess the dark accent bands slightly to provide an additional level of articulation. -1- o Provide info oration on the treatment of al maxgwls. espeaaly regarding the ffkWenats` abdt$ to wftIVIOVd staining from salt and other deicing agenfs and to ease the removal of graffiti. ❑ Eliminate the 'blade signs" from the sign package. v Provide exact information regarding the sae and locabon of an electronic, changeable marquee. ❑ Develop the locations where, and methods by which, movie posters are displayed at the pedestrian I rat O Develop the exterior lighting for the b uiding and provide the location of, and cut sheets for. such hyft g RESIDENTIAL. TOWER ❑ Redesign the awnings, such that they provide a greater amount of protection from the elements. o Provide information on the location and size of hopper windows and their associated scream. CITY PARKING GARAGE ❑ Provide a more responsive "grand terminus' or `culmination' to the Clark Street vista within the architecture of the building. Banners alone are not an acceptable design solution. Determine whether the original design and its curved steel sign band works with the current floor plan. 0 Use a sae brick that is neither jumbo nor utility. o Maintain the design philosophy the building is a parking garage. ci Explore providing public art within the grillwork at or near the pedestrian levels. 0 Revisit the necessity and treatment of the south stair tower, Specifically, the Committee requests that the developer study whether or not the south stair tower can be combined with the south elevator tower, such that the need for the south stair tower is eliminated. The Committee is concerned that the taller scale of the stair tower provides a clumsy architectural transition to the lower base of the residential tower and that the stair tower blocks light and views for some apartments. ❑ Make the glass cores within the elevator towers as wide as the interior lobbies MISCELLANEOUS ❑ Design the building lighting and streetscape lighting to work together, rather than having one or the other. l � Carolyn Smith. Chair Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee �z 1 , Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 26, 1999 City Council Chambers Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, R. Crum, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: L Black, R. Dahal, K. Kelly, D. Marino. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: City Consultants Present: Commencement H. Fahistrom, D. Gaynor, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. M. Stem, U.S. Equities Realty. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 2:30 p.m. SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza (Landscapinq) Preliminary Review landscape plan for Church Street Plaza. Mr. Nick Patera (landscape architect) presented a landscape plan, landscape details, and historic and current area photographs for the landscaping for Church Street Plaza. Mr. Tom White, Arthur Hill & Company; Mr. Barry Elbasani and Mr. Clarence Mamuyac, Elbasani & Logan Architects; Ms. Rebecca Callcott, Mr. Greg DeStefano, Mr. John O. Lewis. and Mr John Procaccini. DeStefano & Partners; Mr. Tom Hannula and Ms. Beth Kay, Walker Parking Consultants: and Mr. Mark Yates. Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal were available to answer questions. N. Patera stated that sidewalk treatment used by Evmark within the existing downtown would be extended west along Church Street and Claris Street N. Patera stated that the street -tree treatment would be changed from a grate to a raised curb; the planting would include a Honeylocust tree and low shrubs. N. Patera stated that he is open to comments regarding the plantings: the concept is to provide diversity. N. Patera stated that the plaza serves as a transition to the Maple Avenue streetscape; the plaza would be arranged with a radial and checkerboard pattern. N. Patera stated that he is suggesting a removable wrought iron fence within the plaza to contain seaang N. Patera stated that he has provided a location for a directory. kiosk, or other key element at the corner N. Patera stated that the Maple Avenue sidewalk treatment would be a different pattem than the plaza; he is still exploring the best material to accomplish the desired pattern. N. Patera stated that the Maple Avenue SUMMARY OF FANGS SME PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO4iMn7EE July 26. 7999 Psge Q of 9 U treatment would extend west along the south side of University Place. N. Patera stated that the Maple Aver we street trees would be Freeman Maple tress, these trees have an upnghL narrow canopy to provide elevaion. N. Patera stated that the planters become longer and more'park-like' moving north along Maple Avenn e. D. Gaynor asked the applicants: how tall are the trees at the time of installaWn7 N Patera responCed: between 16 and IS feet. the trees will align with the architectural grads of the adjacent buildings N. Patera stated that the treatments at the cinema and residential lobbies could work with the pattern of the lobbies within the buildings to bring the Interior lobbies out to the street. D. Gaynor stated that the City has invested in expensive equipment to clean the Evmark streetscape; chewing gum is exceptionally difficult to remove N. Patera stated that he has discussed maintenance issues with Evmark. N. Patera stated that one solution may be to provide a variation within the aggregate that makes stains less obvious. C. Smith asked the applicants: do the Freeman Maple trees have seasonal color or produce a flower? N. Patera responded: the tree is a hybrid Sliver Maple and Red Maple; it is fast growing and will have a fafl color. C. Smith asked the applicants: do the Freeman Maple trees drop many seeds? N. Patera responded: I will review that issue. M. Mylott asked the applicants: what type of understory, tree are you suggesting for the plaza? N_ Patera responded: that has not been decided N. Patera stated that he would like the understory trees to be a muttf-- stem tree with flowers; although, he may leave the plans labeled 'specimen tree" C Smith asked the applicants: what contains the understory trees? N. Patera responded a low curbed planter S. Levine asked the applicants: what Is the distance between understory trees? N Patera responded- approxamatety 24 feet S. Levine stated that the overall shape of the plaza is good. S. Levine stated that the landscaping within the plaza is 'a little barren'; she suggests providing more plant material. S Levine stated that the applicants should provide permanent seating planters within the plaza. C. Smith agreed. C Smith stated that the City should not overreact to problems created by skateboarders. J. Aiello stated that the City is not going to install something that will have to be replaced. C. Smith stated that benches may be a better aftemative, but sortie form of permanent seating needs to be provided. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you considered the design and placement of other street furniture, such as trashcans and newspaper stands? N. Patera responded: no N. Patera stated that they would explore other changes in elevation within the plaza. M. Mylott stated that that next layer of detail is important to the overall streetscape, not just the plaza. T. White stated that they would review those items S Levine stated that the applicants should provide a sculpture or other "powerful' archititecturat feature at the location reserved for a directory. C Smith agreed. N Patera stated that that k>cation is a ptacehoider for some form of a focal point. J. Aiello stated that the parking garage is the only location required to provide public art C. Smith asked the applicants: are you proposing lighting within the plaza? N Patera responded: we do not want to conflict with the storefront lighting. H. Friedman asked the applicants what is the radius of the plaza*7 N Patera responded approximately 55 feet from the location of the directory N Patera stated that the plaza is 'not huge" H. Friedman asked the applicants: are you proposing to treat the parking meters In the same manner as light posts? N. Patera responded: no. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 26 1999 Page 2 or 9 N. Patera staged that the plans include a concrete subbwa at accessible lacseorm C. Ruiz stated that the applicants shoutC :use a different meteriai at areas with tugh tra:tjc tessuse the detail are easily destroyed, creating a long -teem maintenance issue. N. Patera st3xd L'sat r* s4e has 4 such locaWns that he will consider, the vehicular eMances to the residential garage aW par" garage and the 2 alley cuts behind the cinema. N. Pateca stated that he wants to ensure that V—* fkuv aew does not de- emphasize the pedestrian. C. Smith asked the applicants: what is tl�e w% h of the sidewalk along the east side of 14aci a Avenue? N. Patera responded: the approximate average is 12 feet, building to curb. A. Alterson asked the applicants: are the lot lines shown on the landscape plan-, N. Pawra responded: no. but that information can be added. N. Patera stated that some landscaping would be located within the right- of-w•ay and some landscaping would be located on private property. A. Alterson asked the applicants: who is responsible for maintenance of the landscaping and street furniture? N. Patera respondel. that material located on private property is the resportsibiiity of the property owner. J. Aiello stated that the applicant will need to provide documentation regarding responsibility for maintaining the streetscape. tme City must know 'who is responsible for what'. H. Fnedman stated that the applicants rave no need for the curve at the northeast comer of. Church Street and Maple Avenue. D. Jennings stated that the curve at the northwest comer is aiso not necessary. N. Patera stated that those curves can be `tightened up'. D. Jennings asked the applicants: where are you providing bicycle racks? N. Patera responded: at the inside of the parking garage and along the alley behrr►d the cinema. M. Mylott stated that the bicycle racks need to be more visible, such as along Maple Avenue, if no one can find them, they wttl not be used. and people wilt lock bicycles to trees and other street furniture C. Smith agreed, and stated that highly vsibie bicycle racks may encourage persons who drove to use a bicycle on their next visit. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary sft plan and appearance review approval for the landscape plan only. C. Smith seconded the motion: Discussion: A. Alterson stied thaw he is concemed that the City 5 not certain who is responsible for maintenance. C. Smith withcoew the second. Motion failed for lack of a second. M. Mylott stated that he would "hate to think' that the City would not support a well designed landscape plan because they did not want to take care of it maintenance issues can be worked out at a later date. J. Aiello disagreed. D. Gaynor stated that the design should eliminate operational problems where possible. J Aiello motioned to grant concept approval of the landscape plan only. subject to review of the location of the lot lines, review of a maintenance program. and review and approval of street furniture. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aoeroved the motion (4-1) to arant concept approval of the landscape plan aniv subject to review of the location cf the lot Imes. to review ref a maintenance program, and to rev w and approval of street furniture The landscape plan and landscape derails have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065). SUMMARY OF FrNO NGa SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Jury 26,19" Pape 3 of 9 Xi SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza (Main Pavilion) Prellminmy Construct Main Pavgjon mthin Church Street Plaza. Mr. Barry Elbasani (architect) and Mr. Clarence Mamuyac (architect) presented a site plan. floor plans, elevations, sections. a rendering, and building material samples to construct the Main Pavt'lion within Church Street Plaza. Mr Tom White, Arthur Hill & Company; Mr Nick Patera, Teska Associates. Inc : Ms. Reba= Callcott, Mr. Greg DeStefano, Mr. John O. Lewis, and Mr. John Procaccini. DeStefano & Partners; Mr. Tom Hannula and Ms. Beth Kay, Walker Parking Consultants; and Mr Mark Yates, Sonnertschein, NaM & Rosenthal were available to answer questions. B Elbasani stated that Elbasani & Logan Architects developed the drawings, and De5te`ano & Partners provided the dimensions based on 'constructability'. B Elbasani stated that bid documents are 'right behind these documents. B Elbasani stated that they conducted a design review with the theater operator, and Ow theater operator has 'signed oft' on the drawings. B. Elbasani stated that the theater operator has 'a sense that they can do something elegant' given the high visibility of the theater lobby. B. Elbasani stated that the metal armatures at the ends of the building would serve to announce Church Street; Plaza. B. Elbasani stated that they have resolved the treatment of the east eleirapon: they have selected an 'art graphic program' B Elbasani stated that the graphics could be painted on, or stretched over, the CMU (concrete block) wall. armatures would light the 30-foot square graphics. B Elbasani stated mat the east wall would be constructed of split -face CMU with accent bands constructed of smooth4ace CMU the graphic area would be smooth -face CMU J. Aiello asked the applicants: who would control the graphic areas? B. Elbasani responded: the developer T. White stated that most graphic areas would contain 'place ads' for the tenants within the main pavilion, because the back of the building does not describe what is within the building, B. Elbasani stated that the theater operator and the City could have graphics C. Smith stated that the concept is 'exciting and wonderful'. but the City does not want this farrade 'to degenerate to somethirg tacky'; the City may want input regarding the graphics placed within the graphic areas C. Smith stated trat the graphics should be more graphic oriented, less 'blatant" advertising A. Alterson agreed. B. Elbasam stated that he is not sure how often the graphics could change, but they could change every 30 days, any sort of approval process must be able to keep up with the frequency of changes to the graphic areas. B. Elbasani stated that a typical agreement of this nature would list the types of graphics that are not permitted, s-ch alcohol and cigarette advertising, rather than reviewing each graphic A_ Alterson stated that the City roes not want to approve the content of signage A. Alterson stated that the graphic area should be more defined, especially along the vertical edges, creating more of a frame. C. Mamuyac stated that the contrast of the split -face and smooth CMU would give the impression that the graphic areas are recessed. J Wotinski stated that'graffb artists' would still see this elevation as a target. especially the lghter surfaces. the darker surfaces are a good deterrent. B Elbasani stated that, within the west elevation, toward the north end, the design 'expresses the piers% the horizontal bands are recessed -a couple inches'. then the frame Is recessed -a couple more inches' C Mamuyac stated that the base is a dark gray prairie stone. the same material used to maKe the base will be mixed with the concrete to make the precast concrete cornice and surrounds H F-redman stated limestone is used within this climate, because a dark -color stone wil show salt stains from rune sidewalk de- icing agents G DeStefano stated that staining would depend upon the finish C Mamuyac stated that he will review that Issue SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE PREVIEW COMMITTEE July 26. 1999 f} Page 4 of 9 X B Elbasani stated that the glass within the upper levels of the west elevation contains 2 frd patterns; the glass at the street level is clear. C. Mamuyac stated that, within the upper levels. the more -dense frit pattern is located along the top of each panel to add dimension B Elbasani stated that they gave more'fhare' to the horizontal sign band. B. Elbasani stated that the theaw operator proposed using an 'active" dsplay or LED for the horizontal sign band C Smith stated that the idea cf changeable copy has 'some meriC: however, signage is separate issue. M Mylott disagreed, and stated rat the Committee should not'dism+ss the importance of signage' within this project: signage that is not wed thought out will 'only do a disservice to the architecture' A. Alterson agreed. C Mamuyac stated that the horizontal sign band still needs to be further developed. B. Elbasani stated that an LED would add animates to the building; they must find a `balance between control and flexibilaty to have fun' B Elbasani stated that if the theater operator wants to spend the money to install an LED, the necessary support is worthwhile. C Smith stated that she liked the design as shown. A. Afterson stated that he would rather see a static sign on me street and 6 screens along the east elevation showing the movies running within the theater. T. White stated that they want to 'bring all signage in as one package' A Atterson stated that the signage should still be an integral part of the design. C Mamuyac agreed C Smith asked the applicants: what is the material of the marquee? C Mamuyac stated that the marquee is a narrow tube box wrapped with the same metal panel used within the west elevation. a dark metal panel would be raised above that surface, and the letters would be cut out from the dark metal panel. C. Mamuyac stated that light would come through the holes that are the letters and otrt the sides of the dark metal panelt they are considering neon or fluorescent lights to outline the box M Myiott stated that he liked the 'subtlety of the marquee', but the applicant should 'stop before the neon' C Mamuyac stated that the neon or fluorescent lights would only provide color. no tubes would be exposed J Wolinski stated that the marquee is 'tasteful". B Elbasani stated that other signage would include 'blade signs'. located under the awnings and perpendicular to the building; signage above the awnings. and signage along the windows. I Wolinsk€ stated that the Sign Ordinance does not permit overhanging signs C. Smith stated that the sign package will be presented to, and reviewed by, the Sign Review and Appeals Board (SRAB); this Committee will offer the SRAB a recommendation on the sign package. C. Smith stated that she is glad to hear that the architects are considering signage within the design of the building C Smith stated that the 'blade signs' may be excessive; the signs located on the windows will provide information to persons walking along this building. B Elbasani stated that the awnings are metal. covered with a Teflon -coated material, similar to that used for the new Denver airport B. Elbasani stated that the Teflon -coated material makes the awnings -glow' with the light from underneath. C Smith asked the applicants- how deep are the awnings? B. Elbasani responded: 6 feet. C. Mamuyac stated that an additional 2 feet of covered area is provided between the piers of the building and the window wall. C. Mamuyac stated that no awnings are provided at the stair towers. C. Mamuyac stated that the awnings are used along Church Street as well. C. Smith asked the applicants: how are the awnings maintained? C Mamuyac responded I was told that the Teflon -coated material is almost 'self-cleaning"; however, the awnings would be easily cleaned with a power washer. C. Smith stated that the maintenance of the awnings and canopies must be a part of the redevelopment agreement. C Mamuyac stated that the cinema frontage is protected by a horizontal projection: that projection is 'broker► at the piers C Mamuyac stated that the horizontal projection is a steel frame with roofing material. C Mamuyac stated that a 10-foot arcade protects the curved southwest comer of this building. B Fahistrom stated that the dark accent bands within the masonry should be 'slightly recessed" to provide articulation; this detail is -easily changed' SUMMARY OF FINDi W SITE ;-,AN AND A-DEARANCE RE;ViEW CGMMr= July 26. 19W Page 5 d 9 x K Friedman stated that the Committee has had many devekipers return to the Committee with revisions. because the original drawings proved to cost too much money. H. Friedman asked the applicants: what contingency plans do you have if the cost of the presented budchng is too high? T. White responded: because we are working towards construction drawings through the design drawings, the design drawings are being priced now. T. White stated that they are within 8 percent of the original budget. C. Smith asked the applicants: does that inGude all the materials presented to the Committee? T. White responded: 'the bulk of them'. A. Alterson stated that he would like to see more detail of the east elevation; the elevation appears to be'a blank wall with 6 billboards'. J. Aiello motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous pneriminary site ptan and appearance review approval for the main pavilion only, provided the applicant provide a greater level of detail for the east elevation, and subect to exploring the policies of, and controls over, the 'graphic art' within the east elevation. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the Committee sentiment is that 'typical advertising' is not desirable; the graphics should be more graphic_ A Atterson stated that he does not want to see 'billboard -like advertising'; he would prefer to see a %tIl l shot' from a movie running at the theater. Committee anoroved the motion f6-11 to orant aooroval of the revision t0 the arevious orefirninary site &n and appearance review aooroval for the main oavilion oniv. provided the aoolicant provide a oW.ter level of detail for the east elevation. and subiect to exnlorina the oolk e_ s of._and contmla over. the 'araohir_ art within the east elevation. y - The floor plans, elevations, sections, and rendering have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065). SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza (Parkin G9 araAe) Preliminary Construct parking garage within Church Street Plaza. Mr. Barry Elbasani (architect) and Mr. Clarence Mamuyac (architect) presented elevations and building material samples to construct the parking garage within Chum Street Plaza. Mr, Tom Waite, Arthur Hill & Company: Mr. Nick Patera, Teska Associates. Inc.; Ms. Rebecca Call :ott, Mr. Greg DeStefano, Mr. John O. Lewis. and Mr. John Procaccini, DeStefano & Partners: Mr. Tom Hannula and Ms. Beth Kay, Walker Parting Consultants; and Mr. Mark Yates, Sonnenschein. Nath & Rosenthal were available to answer questions. B. Elbasani stated that, while the elevations are preliminary. they are denved from a 'very specific set of floor plans' produced by Walker Parking Consultants. B. Elbasani stated that the parking garage would be constructed of face brick and poured -in -place concrete; they used the stair cares to 'break down the mass'. B. Eibasani stated that the glass within the towers is clear B. Elbasanj stated that they would use steel -tube sections or channels as 'abstractions of windows' within the openings to the parking area. B. Elbasani stated that the awnings are the same Teflon -coated material used on the main pavilion, and banners are provided at the entrance way and along the north elevation. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 26, 1999 Page 6 or 9 3( C. Smith stated that she liked the suggestion of windaws *Vin the openings to the parWV area. 0. Fahish om agreed. J. Aiello stated that the lower -level steel -tube sec&M or channels could be designed to provide pub c art. M. Stern asked the applicants: will headlights be shieldedl T. Hannula responded: yes; a 2%4bot to 346ot wall will shield headlights on the east and north sides, except at some locations along the ramps. C. Smith asked the applicants: will interior lights be shielded, such that the fight source is not visible? T. Hannula responded: yes. C. Smith stated that the asymmetric elevation is'nice. but the sccrtn end'needs a top'. C. Sry*h stated that the south end appears as if 'something was missing'. M Stern asked the applicants: did you consider designing the southern end of this building as if it was a separate building's B. Elbasani responded: yes, but white that portion of the elevation reads as its own section. it is 'a part of the whole'. C. Smith stated that the design works, provided the top is addressed. D. Jennings asked the applicants: is the glass within the elevator towers as wide as the interior lobby? T. Hannula responded the glass is approximately B feet wide, and the lobby is approximately 10 feet wide. 0. Jennings stated that the glass must be as wide as possVe. C. Mamuyac stated that glass "be added to the end piece at the norUlwest comer C. Smith asked the applicants: what type of glass is used within the tops of the elevator towers? C. Mamuyac responded: spandrel glass. M. Mylott asked the applicants: what is the difference between ne face brick plane and the poured -in -place concrete plane? C Mamuyac responded- at least 1 wythe of bnck. D. Jennings asked the applicants: will you use precast concrete anywhere on this building? T. Hannula responded- he would prefer that precast concrete be used for the horizontal panels on the facade. D. Jennings asked the applicants: are you proposing flag poles al the top of the east elevation? C. Mamuyac responded: no, those are part of the armature that holds the banners. J. Aiello asked the appricants: does the budget you presented to the City reflect the design presented to the Committee? T. White responded: 'in every way', except the glass at the top of the elevator towers and the wider glass for the interior lobbies. J. Aiello asked the applicants can you provide the City with an amended budget? T White responded: yes D Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval for the parking garage only J Aiello seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (7-0) to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review aooroval for the oarkina oaraae only. The elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065) SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza (Residential Tower) Preliminary Construct residential tower within Church Street Plaza Mr. Greg DeStefano presented a site plan. floor plans, elevations. perspectives, a model, building material samples. and an information sheet about the building materials to construct the residential tower within Church Street Plaza Mr Tom White, Arthur Hill & Company Mr Barry Elbasani and Mr Clarence Mamuyac, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SME PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVEW COMMITTEE Jury 26, 1999 Poe 7 of 9 N I Elbasani & Logan Architects; Mr. Nick Patera. Teska Associates, Inc.; Ms. Rebecca CaBoott, Mr. , ohm 0. Lewis, and Mr. John Procaccinf, DeStefano & Partners; Mr. Tom Hannula and Ms. Beth Kay. Walker Paiirrrg Consultants; and Mr. Mark Yates. Sonnenschein. Nath & Rosenthal were available to answer questiom G. DeStefano stated that the floor -to -ceiling height has been reduced, such that another story could be adi�l however, some of the smaller dwelling units were combined into larger dwelling units. G. DeStefano stoned that the tower contains 262 dwelling units. G. DeStefano stated that the tower is 26 stories high: 259 fees to the top of the comics, and 247 feet 6 inches to the top of the last residential floor. G. DeStefano stated that they moved the pool and interior amenities from the rooftop to the 50' Roor. the floor deck includes trees. G. DeStefano stated that the top floor now contains 4 dwelling units and mechanicals. G. DeStefano stated that the base and portal are black granite and limestone with cast Slone articulation. G. DeStefano stated that the retail bays include awnings similar to the main pavilion and City parking garage; these awnings extend 5 feet from the base of the building because the sidewalk is narrow along the west side of Maple Avenue. G. DeStefano stated that sign bands are provided above the awnings. G. DeStefano stoned that a metal canopy protects the residential entrance. C. Smith stated that the 'wings" of the awnings should be extended to provide additional pedestrian protectt= G. DeStefano stated that the concept of the building is the bays; extending the awnings will 'cut off 2' e building from the ground plane'. C Smith stated that the awnings do not have to be continuous. C. Smitth stated that the base of the building reads much stronger than its bays; the applicant could consider a glass awning such that the awnings are lighter. C. Smith asked the applicants: what type of storefront window are you proposing? G. DeStefano responded: a dear glass window with a dark gray mullion. G. DeStefano stated the parking garage contains 1 parking space for each dwelling unit; some at -grade parking is provided adjacent to the loading berths. G. DeStefano stated that the parking garage is light red brick and precast concrete panels; architectural grills mounted within mullions conceal all views into floe parking garage. G. DeStefano stated that the parking garage is horizontal at the street: the ramps are locaIlI d at the rear. G. DeStefano stated that the parking garage is open at the back to provide natural ventilaum A will be sprinklered. C Smith asked the applicants: what size brick would you usel G. DeStefano responded. standard size brick. G. DeStefano stated that the tower is painted concrete and vision and spandrel glass; the penthouses include terraces framed by an articulated concrete frame (loggia). G. DeStefano stated that he is working on an aluminum cover for the concrete area between the windows; if the concrete cannot be covered, it would be painted to match the glass. G. DeStefano stated that the 'verticals within the cornice and upper levels would be lit subtly'. C Smith stated that the building articulation, level of detail, and hierarchy are 'fabulous' M Mylott asked the applicants: is the signage portrayed on the drawings a 'placeholder or the intended design? G DeStefano responded that signage is a placeholder M. Mylott asked the applicants: how often do you have to repaint painted concrete? G DeStefano responded. approximately every 5 to 7 years, although some products permit a 1 0-year cycle SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMIrrEE {�C+ 3uy 26, 1999 pa" 8 of 9 i/'J'�7 C. Smith asked the applicants: what type of glass are you pnNxnk g? G. DeStefano responded, dear glass with a to wlw•E coating; the coating will provide a slight green brown tint C. Smith asked the applicants: will you control the interior window treatment? G. DeStefano responded: as much as one can. H. Friedman stated that he liked the base; it is 'vefy much Chx ago'. H. Friedman stated that he hked d4m high parapets on the ends. C. Ruiz stated that the area between the high parapets appears Incomplete. C. Smith and H. Friedman disagreed. G. DeStefano stated that the parapet between the end parapets is approximately 5 feet high, screening any vehicles on the top floor of the packing garage. C. Ruiz stated that he'likes the building a lot', and he 'wished it was more detached' C. Smith asked the applicants: is the City parking garage taller than the north end of the building? G. DeStefano responded: yes, by about 10 feet. G DeStefano stated that he has asked the architects of the parking garage to 'treat' the exposed elevation. C. Smith stated that the building is 'beautiful and well-defined'; it will 'set a new standard for towers within Evanston'. H. Friedman agreed. C. Smith stated that she 'cannot compliment the building enough`; hau&ver, the awnings do accomplish one of the Committee goals. A. Alterson stated that the signage should be designed as an integral part of the building, such that it does not appear to bean "add on'. G. DeStefano stated that signage for this building would be part of the package for Church Street Plaza. R. Schur asked the applicants: are the dwelling units rentals? G. DeStefano responded: yes. R. Schur asked the applicants: what is the range of size of the dwelling units? G. DeStefano responded: 517 sq.ft to 1.865 sq ft. I Aiello motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. H. Freidman seconded the motion. C pmittee anoroved the motion (6-0) to orant oreCtminary site clan and apcearance review '3c"Z The site plan, floor plans, elevations, perspectives, and information sheet on building materials have` placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065). h,4 1d 'Ma Adjournment The rpeeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. itted Marc Steven Mylott, AICP Zoning Planner a, tr,-0r&b- Date SUMk"Y OF FTNOINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C0UUTTEE July 25 1M Pane 9 of 9 X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 21 , 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, D. Jennings, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, L. Lyon. M. Mylott stated that he would act as zoning Administrator in the absence of A. Aiterson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-096 523-525 Howard Street Concept Rehab existing mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and 2"Q floor residential). Mr. Andrew Heindel (architect) and Ms. Melinda Heindel (architect) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs to rehab an existing mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and 2n0 floor residential) located at 523-525 Howard Street Mr. Ronald J. Losczyk (property owner) was available to answer questions. A Heindel stated that the building is 2 stories high with a 1-story annex attached to the north side. A. Heindel stated that the ground floor would contain 3 storefronts and storage; 1 storefront is occupied by Infinite Light A Heindel stated that the upper floor contains 2 dwelling units; 1 dwelbrtg unit is the residence for the owner, and the other dwelling unit is vacant. A. Heindel stated that the owner is proposing working on the building in 3 phases: 1) repair and restore the exterior, 2) reconstruct the north 1-story annex to work with the rest of the building; and 3) redevelop the Interior. A. Heindel stated that the scope of the work presented to the Committee relates to phase 1, including: 1 removing the thatched roof 2 cleaning and tuck -pointing the masonry. 3. introducing slightly projecting brick courses to the cornice Cement stucco. not Dryvit, will be installed between the courses, and brick accents will be placed within the cement stucco, aligning with the columns. suA, mARY of MOMS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COULSTME July 21.190 Page 1 or 9 X 4. introducing an additional door akx*q Howard Street and replacing the wood door along ChkVo Avemcw_ The new doors woUd match the existing doors. 5. applying a painted -wood treatment to the transom area of the fa;ade. 6. installing awnings wi0in each bay of tine storefronts, stopping at the piers. The awnings are open-ended and fabric (Sunbrella-m). 7. tuck -pointing and painting the non -matching brick located below the storefronts. 8. replacing the windows within the second floor with double -hung, insulated glass windows. 9. replacing the sign at :he comer with a double -hung, insulated glass window. A. Heindel stated that the owner is a partcrpant within the Evanston Storefront Program. C. Smith stated that the architects are proposing 'excellent changes within a limited budgeE'. C. Sn*h staved that the architects shout© be 'applauded for their efforts'. H. Friedman agreed. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. _ Qmmittee aQor=ved the motion 1") to grant po eliminary site plan and appearance review q22n24. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, plat of survey. and site photographs have been placed within the See flan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-096). SPAARC 99-095 909 Forest Avenue Preliminary and Final' Rebuild existing rear por-.h 'in kind' for multifamily residence. Mr. Peter Lewis (generW contractor) presented an Application for Building Permit (#99-667), inx lia1g a site plan, floor plan, and elmstions, and site photographs to replace the existing rear porches 'in kind' for ft multi -family residential building located at SID9 Forest Avenue. P Lewis stated that the =nfiguration of Vie building permits little deviation from the existing conditior:s. M. Mylott motioned to runt preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approvaL J. Wobiskil seconded the motion. Committee aoaroved the motion f8-0i to grant oreliminary and final site olan and aopearance review aoor,.�val. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-i:!95). SPAARC 99-091 630 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Permit type 2 restaurarr: (Potbelly Sani wech Works) within mixed -use building (Chandlers Building). Staff removed item from agenda. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEAFWCE REVIEW COWPJ'TTEE �G.+ Juty1999 Page2 Page 2 of 9 'a SPAARC 96-0005 2953 Central Street Revision to Final OFF -AGENDA 1TEAd Revise elevations for proposed mixed -use buRding. Mr. Chris Thomas (architect) presented a revised southern elevation to construct a mixed -tie bonding. located at 2953 Central Street. Mr. Ron Fleckman and Walter lChm were available to answer questicm W_ Kihm stated that the revised southern elevation presented to staff earlier during the week (sumped 'Received July 19, 1999') has been revised; that elevation may be disregarded. C. Thomas stated that the new elevation compares to the elevation approved as an attachment to the special use in the following ways: 1. The windows within the special use elevation were "squat"; the windows within the new elevation are mare vertical. 2_ The contrasting bands within the special use elevation are included within the new elmtion. 3. The cornice of the special use elevation is included within the new elevation. 4. The "flavor" of the entrance of the special use elevation has been "picked up' within the new elevabon. including extending the comice 5. The railings along the second floor from the special use elevation have been included within the new elevation. 6 The arches over the doorways from the special use elevation have been included within the new elevation, although the transoms have been shortened 7 The light fixtures within the new elevation are similar to those used within the special use elevation, except that they are centered within the piers of the new elevation. 8 The curved awning from the special use elevation has been included within the new elevation. C Smith asked the applicants: what Is the material of the base? C. Thomas responded: prairie stone. C. Thomas stated that the material around the doors would be prairie stone with brick courses. C. Smith asked the applicants: what is the material of the pilasters? C. Thomas responded: I do not know. C. Thomas stated that, from the pilasters up. the material would be EIFS, such that the profiles may be achieved: they are looking at a version of EIFS that has a limestone finish. C. Thomas stated that the balustrades would be EIFS, and the railings would be wrought iron. C Thomas stated that the returns along the balconies remain EIFS. M. Mylott asked the applicants: are you still proposing a utility -size brick? C. Thomas responded: yes. C Smith asked the applicants is a trellis used anywhere else on the building? C. Thomas responded: no. C Smith stated that she appreciates the 'attempt to get back to the special use elevation"; however, she cannot support a motion to approve the revisions without seeing the building materials labeled on a drawing. J Wolinski agreed, and stated that he wants "more definitive drawings' to eliminate any ambiguity. M_ Mylott stated that the building permit appl,cabon would need to be amended, reflecting the return to the special use elevations. SUMMARY OF Fi OINGS (�G. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COLAUTTEE <'�'7 July Pa M 3 c( 9 Page 3 0l9 C. Smith stated that in her opinion. the most noticeable deviabon between the new elevation end the Spec id use elevation is the width of the entrance. C Smith stated that clanging to EfFS within the entrance of the new elevation is a 'big mistake', especially since the materials are within the same plane, the use of aFS within the recesses of the balconies is 'better' C. Smith stated that the applicants should consider mood within the `very traditional' entrance. C. Thcrnas stated that he would like to construct that portion cf the entrance with wood. H Friedman stated that `1e has not liked the design of the budding from the begrx'*V. placing the traditional design elements at the entrance In the proposed manner is 'precocious'. C. Smith stated that the awnings must be betser defined; a traditional look and treatment is preferred, ra&aer than a cantilever. C. Smith stated that the cornice could be wirer. C. Thomas stated that the cornice is 18 inches wider C. Smith stated that the comice could be 24 inches C. Thomas stated that he could acid a course to the car+ce. M. Mybtt asked the applicants: does the prairie stone base wrap around the building? C. Thomas responded: yes. C. Thomas stated that the materials and treatment of the west elevation would be the some as those shown on the new south elevation. C. Smith stated that she would support that the applicants have 'made headway toward the elevations approved with the special use'. J. Wolinski stated that the appliicants should meet with the ward alderman to discuss the proposed revisions. J. Wolinski stated that he and A ARerson would determine whether or not the new elevations substantially comply with t"* special use elevations. C. Smith motioned to table this item. J. Wolirrski seconded the motion Discussion. M Mylott asked the applicants: will you send the Committee a copy of the new elevation for the file? C Thomas responded: yes. Committee aooroved the motion (8-01 to table this item The elevation stamped "Received July 19, 1999' has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0005). SPAARC 99-094 2204 Orrington Avenue Preliminary and Final Reconstruct porch and install accessible lift for rebgious institution (Lutheran Campus Ministry at Wthwestem University). Mr. Richard Kalb (architect) presented an App� cation for Building Permit (#99-332), including floor plans, elevations, and a plat of survey, and a site plan and site photographs to reconstruct a porch and install an accessible lift for a religious institution located at 2204 Orrington Avenue, Mr. Lloyd Kittlaus (pastor) was available to answer questions. R. Kalb stated that the existing porch is in a state of disrepair, when the Ghent reafi¢ed that 'everything lbeiow the roof' would have to be rebuilt, he decided to make the porch conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act. R. Kalb stated that 1 the height of the deck would increase -a couple inches' 2. the railings and balusters would be reinstalled All items below and including the deck would be new. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 21. 1"9 Page 4 of 9 X 3. the metal lift would be surrounded by wood elements, detailed to match the porch. 4. the rebuilt porch would be painted to match the existing porch. 5. the path to the lift would be fiat, and it would include access from the north (existing driveway) and south (existing sidewalk). C. Smith asked the applicants: how high is the existing railing? R. Kalb rests ded: approximately 24 WK*w . C. Smith asked the applicant: are you raising the height of the railing? R. Kalb responded: no: the railing would remain at its existing height to maintain the original proportions. C. Smith stated that, while she is 'sympathetic' to the design problem created, me ADA requires that the height of the railing be 42 inches. C. Smith stated that the existing railing could be raised, or a railing may be installed behind it C. Smith stated that the lift is a separate permit. and the Building Division would require product data. C. Ruiz asked the applicants: could you move the lift to the rear of the structure? R. Kaib responded: I believe that the 'spirit of accessibility' gives disabled persons the right to use the front entrance. R. Krnkm stated that they considered the other side of the porch, but the proposed location allows persons to use the existing driveway. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of the railings by the Assistant Director of Community Development for Building. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (84) to grant orelimmary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and aooroval of the railings by the Assistant Director of Communitv Development for Buildino. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-094). SPAARC 99-057 1723 Simpson Street Preliminary and Final Construct 1-story addition for type 2 restaurant within existing hood store (Ramys). Mr. Eric Eriksson (architect) presented an Application for Building Permd ( 633), in eluding a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and plat of survey, and site photographs to construct a 1-story addition for a type 2 restaurant within an existing food store (Ramy's) located at 1723 Simpson Street Mr. Rainy Khoury-Yacoub (property owner) and Mr. Leo Simms (draftsman) were available to answer questions. C. Smith asked the applicants: do you have a cut sheet for the proposed lightrng? E. rnksson responded: no. C Smith asked the applicants: how does the awning relate to the addition? E. Enksson responded- the awning 'dies into' the addition. C. Smith asked the applicants. could a person see through the glass blocky R Khoury-Yacoub responded: 'a little' R. Khoury-Yacoub stated that the proposed glass bkxk will match the existing glass block. C Smith stated that it is -unfortunate' that a person cannot see through the glass block well. some types of block to permit visibility R. Walczak agreed. R. Khoury-Yacoub stated that he can install the type of glass bkxdc that permits visibility SUMMARY OF FRVO NGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO#1WTTEE Jury21. IQ" Pa" 5of9 X C. Smith asked the applicants: how is the signage applied to the existing gtass block? R Khoury-Yaeoub responded: the words are painted on the glass block. M. Mylott asked the applicants: are the plans presented to the Committee and submitted ter building permit the same plans presented to, and approved by, the City Coumil as part of the grant of zoning refiW? R. Khoury-Yacoub responded. yes. M. Mylott asked the applicants: during the approval process, did the City Council discuss moving the addition back, such that it aligned with the existing budding? R. Khoury-Yacoub responded: no. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. provided the glass block installed within the addition is the clearest available. R, Walczak seconded the motion Discussion. M. Mylott stated that the addition should align with the rest of the budding: the City Council approved zoning relief trial would permit that configuration. COn MODe approved the motion (5-11 to avant drelfminary and final site can and aooearanee review 9gRnwal provided the Glass block installed within the addition is the clearest available. SPAARC 99-087 2219 Lincolnwood Drive Preliminary and Final Instal( 1 new, and relocate 1 existing, air -conditioner condenser for single-family residence, requiring m*r variation. Mr Dan Paschen (property owner) presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-28-V(F)), including a site plan and plat of survey, and site photographs to install 1 new, and relocate 1 existing, air -conditioner condenser for the single-family residence located at 2219 Vncolnwood Drive, M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the application for zoning relief on July 20, 1999, subject to the following condition: if the neighbor located immediately north of the subject property objects to any aspecl of the air -conditioner condensers, the applicant must ameliorate the situation to ttte neighbor's satisfaction: if the neighbor believes that no action can ameliorate his or her objections, the air -conditioner condensers must be moved to a legal location. D. Paschen stated that the air -conditioner condensers would be located near the northeast corner of the house. D. Paschen stated that, at that location, 1 air-condmoner condenser will be located behind a small fence, and he may extend the fence such that both air -conditioner condensers are screened D. Paschen stated that the original location does not have much space available to install any type of screening. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval_ P. D'Agostino seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (6-0) to arant orellmrnary and final slip plan and appearance review approval SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 21 IM Page 6 of 9 x SPAARC 99-093 311 Keeney Street Preliminary and Final Construct 1-story addtfon and 1-story attached garage, requiring major variation. W Mysatt presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-31 V(F)), inCuding a site plan, 5oor plan, and elevations. to constnicz a 1-story addition and 1-story attached garage for the single-family rewence b=ted at 311 Keeney Street, M. Myiott stated that 2-e proposed addition and garage violate the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement C. Ruiz stated that tMe property is located within a historic district. C_ Ruiz stated that Cie Preservation Commission approved :he proposal, provided the applicant install more divided lights, extend a railing over the proposed garage, and modify the fenestration along the west elevation. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval_ R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion rrrQ;! to Qrant oreliminary and final site plan aril appearance review accrovUl. SPAARC 99-092 2809 Grant Street Preliminary and Final tnstaf 1 open, off -sic parking space within ftnt yard of pnVerty used for skVe4brniy residence, requiring major variations. Ms. Susan Harmon (property owner) presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99.32-V(F)), including a site plan, plat of suroey, and site and area photographs, to install 1 open, off-street parking space within the front yard of the property used for a single-family residence and located at 2809 Grant Street Ms. Barbara Schwartz (landscape architect) was available to answer questions. S. Harmon stated that the 'small' lot contains a 'large' house with a 1-car garage; her family owns 2 Cars. S. Harmon stated tt-a L for many years, they parked the second car within the adjacent alley. recently, she was informed that fang within the alley is illegal. S Harmon stated tt-a: the City is reconstructing the alley. along the new alley, she would like to install a partcmg pad for i car S. Harmon stated that the area photographs iflustrate that the configuration is 'very common'. S. Harmcr stated that multi -stem shrubs (Ser":eber y) would surround the parking pad to provide screening. C. Smith stated that many of the area photographs are of vehicles parked within driveways leading to garages. S. Har,,--cn stated that some are not. C. Smith asked the acplicants, have you discussed this proposal with the neighbors? S. Harmon responded: all the neighbors support the application. C. Smith stated that wne Is sympathetic to the desire to have an off-street parking space for each vehicle M. Mylott agreed. C. Smith stated that she does not normally support this type of application because she is concerned about precedents. however this situation is somewhat unique as the parking pad is located adjacent to an a0 y. R. Walczak stated mat the proposed landscaping "goes the extra yard' C. Smith motioned a grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval R. Walczak seconded the motror SUUMARY OF F1NCL4= SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COM MM July 21, 1999 Pater 7 cif 9 X Discussion: M. Mylott stated that he is 'struggling" with this request, even though the neighbors have no objections to the application. M. Mylott stated that the applicant has a "beautiful home'. and he does not understand why she would want a parked car located within the front yard_ M. Mylott stated that when the applicant purchased the house, it came with unique characteristics; one of those characteristics was a 1-car garage. M. Mylott stated that, when a person views a 'typical streetscape'. a car parked within a driveway leading to a garage is acceptable; on the other hand, a car parked in front of the house appears 'out of place'. H. Friedman asked the applicants: what is the use of the 1-story 'link* between the house and the attached garage? S. Harmon responded: a breakfast nook. H. Friedman stated that the applicant has room within the rear yard for a 2-car garage, if the breakfast nook is removed. S. Harmon stated that those components are 'original with the home'. and she does not want to alter them. P. D'Agostino asked the applicants: to what depth will you excavate for the parking pad? B. Schwartz responded: B inches. P. D'Agostino stated that he is concerned that digging to that depth will kill the large Elm tree located within the parkway. P. D'Agostino stated that the feeder root system of that tree is already compromised by the alley construction. S. Hannon asked P D'Agostino: are the roots located within & inches of the surface? P D'Agostino responded: yes, the feeder roots are. M. Mylott asked P. D'Agostino: could the applicant use a more porous brick? P. D'Agostino responded: no. those bricks still require excavation Committee failed to aoarove the motion (2-41 to avant Dreliminary and final site olan and aDDearance review avo.ov 1. M. Mylott asked S. Harmon: do you intend to continue with your Application for Major Variation? S. Harmon responded: I am not sure. M. Mylott stated that decisions of the Committee are appealable to the Planning & Development Committee of the City Council. S. Harmon stated that the Committee has not denied her application. M. Mylott stated the motion to approve failed. M. Mylott stated that the Committee is not about delaying applicants on technicalities: he is confident that a motion to deny this application would pass by a count opposite of the recorded vote. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this rase (SPAARC 99-092). SPAARC 99-097 APA Luncheon Announcement Announce 'Site Planning 101: Parking tots'- July 29. 1999. 12:00 p.m to 2-00 p.rn.; at the Village of Rlverskle. Village Hall (S10 Der person). M Mylott stated that the information for the American Planning Association Luncheon, discussing "Site Planning 101 Parking Lots' is attached to Committee members' agendas M Mylott stated that the luncheon is July 29. 1999; 12-00 p.m. to 2 00 p m.: at the Village of Riverside, Village Hall M. Mylott stated that the cost is S10 per person SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW comwTTEE July 21, 1999 Page a of 9 ]� C Approval of Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Suzy of Findings of July 14.1M. P. D'Agostino seconded the mowm Committee approved the motion &Q] to Worcve the Summary of Fmd-y3M 7. 19A. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, AICP Zoning Planner ( j Date SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COUMr rEE a „21. "90(9 PsQe 9 d 9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 14, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Atterson, L. Black. P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, D_ Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, R. Dahal, K. Kelly, J. Wolinski_ H. Friedman. C_ Ruiz, R. Schur. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-089 1330 Church Street Preliminary and Final Construct attached garage for single-family residence, requiring mapr variations. Ms. Kathy Burgess (property owner) presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-30-V(F)), including a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and plat of survey. and site photographs to construct an attached garage for a the single-family residence located at 1330 Church Street. K Burgess stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Preservation Commission would review this project on July 20, 1999. K. Burgess stated that the building is a landmark and located within a historic distrim C Smith asked K Burgess. have you presented this project to the neighbors for comment? K Burgess responded: yes; the neighbors to the east have asked us to meet the required 5-foot side yard setback. K Burgess stated that she would move the garage 1 foot further west to provide a 5-foot side yard setback; to keep the proposed garage the same size. an additional 1 foot will be removed from the existing garage. A. Alterson asked K. Burgess will you have revised drawings for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting? K Burgess responded, I was hoping that the Zoning Board of Appeals members could visualize the minor change K. Burgess stated that the drawings would be revised prior to submitting an Application for Building Permit K Burgess stated that she intends to use compatible materials, and the design is 'sympathetic' K Burgess stated that the shingles would match the existing shingles M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D Jennings seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (7-0) to grant_ preliminary and final site plan and appearance review aooroval H. Friedman abstained SilIU MARY of MDR413S SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWATTEE July 14, 1989 o Page , of 7 E3 The site plan, floor plan, and elevations have been placed within the Sete Plan and "aroma Rview Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-089). SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Revision to Final Construct mixed -use building Mr. Chris Thomas (architect) presented working drawings to construct a mixed -use building. located aft 2953 Central Street. Mr. Walter Khm was available to answer questions. M. Mylott asked C. Thomas: are the drawings you are presenting to the Committee the same as chat submitted with the Application for Building Permit (#99-14)? C. Thomas responded. yes C. Smith stated that the City has issued a foundation and superstructure permit. C. Thomas stated that they had to make cost modifications, due to 'on -going pricing' C. Thomas stated that the changes include removing the cast -stone entrance, removing the cast -stone base, removing the oast - stone cornice, and removing the trellis from the rear elevation. C. Thomas stated that removing the 'odd -bay' at the entrance creates rhythm within the south elevation. C. Thomas stated the plans include a canopy and trellis at the entrance to provide it with a "special treatment". C. Thomas stated that a portion of the er trance is EIFS, setback approximately 3 inches from the brick. C. Thomas stated that. what the south elevation 'loses, it gains with better overall geometric properties' C. Thomas stated that the plans have always proposed EIFS within the recesses of the south elevation and along most of the north elevation. M. Mylott st r%ed that the Committee granted preliminary and final appearance review approval on August 12, 1998, provided the developer did not use jumbo or utility size brick; the working drawings depict the use of utility brick. C. Smith stated that, in removing the cast -stone base. the developer eliminated the special treatments surrounding tt* doors within the south elevation; such detail is not proposed within the application of the utility brick. L. Black stated that she "admired' the architect for his -spin" on the revisions; she is 'really disappointeor that the entrance is no longer "celebrated'. C. Thomas stated that using a canopy at the entrance demonstrates another way to celebrate an entrance. C. Thomas stated that the revisions are 'answers to specific Issues within a palate that the developer can afford". C. Smith stated that she has watched this building change over its design life. and the design has `continually eroded". C. Smith stated that elements of the building are not "tied together' C. Smith stated that the arch over the drive-thru no longer has references anywhere else on the building. C Smith stated that the entrance treatment is "weird'; a trellis is not used anywhere else on the building C. Smith stated that she is "extremely disappointed' with this -bonng' elevation C Thomas seated that he does not share those opinions, the rhythm of the south elevation is increaseo. A. Allerson stated that, regardless of his opinion of the changes, he does not believe that the Zoning ❑veision can approve the Application for Building Permit, because the design of the building elevations were attachments to the ordinance granting zoning relief. A. Alterson stated that. while his statements are not definite, he believes that the proposed changes do not comply with the ordinance grating zoning relied. C. SUMMARY OF Fft-J ]INGS SITE PLAN AND &PPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 14, 1999 Page 2 of 7 Thorns stated that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Comm se is not ft 'o%rs%W committee' *W City Councdl. W. Kihm stated that they did not want to change the elevations, t)wever, the% have limits for how much they can sell units. D. Jennings stated that the developer committed to the City Coum-_J tt4t they would build a specific building: in fact, the developer supplied the drawings attached to the o.dinance. W. Kihm staffed that those drawings were developed prior to "serious pricing'. C. Srr, nth stated tt l any de%iations to the design will have to be approved the City Council. M. Mylott motioned to deny the revision to the previous final site plan and appeararsoe review approval. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (") to denv the rev%sion to the previous final site plan and appearance review aooroval. SPAARC 99-084 1014 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Construct 1-story addition to retail goods establishment (Audio Consultants). Mr. Walter Hallen (architect) presented an Application for Building Permit (*99-W), including a site plan, floor plan, elevation, and plat of survey, and site photographs to construct a 1-story addition for a retail goods establishment (Audio Consultants), located at 1014 Davis Street W. Hallen stated that the 1-story rear addition would be 20 feet by 40 feet:; the addition would be built under the existing staircase. W. Hallen stated that the addition would be constructed of concrete block. W. Hallen stated that the roof of the addition would be 14 feet from grade_ W. Hallen stated that the existing building has multiple levels. H. Friedman asked W. Hallen: what is the use of the second floor? W. Hallen responded: offices. W. Hallen stated that the staircase is a required exit for the second floor W. Hallen stated that the applicant would provide 2 loading berths near the addition. L. Black stated that she does not like the ground entrance to the staircase. persons can hide within the proposed comer. L. Black stated that she would recommend stopping the addition at the base of the staircase. W. Hallen stated that the size of the addition is necessary. L. Black stated that the applicant should at a minimum provide a gate. designed to prevent someone from climbing it C. Smith asked W. Hallen: do you propose to light the area? W. Hallen responded: yes. C. Smith stated that egress lighting would be required as well. D Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant install a wrought iron gate at the exterior entrance to the staircase; the gate shall (1) be as tall as the opening or 8 feet high, whichever is less, (2) be constructed to prevent persons from climbing d, and (3) include a mechanism to prevent opening from the outside. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (8-01 to grant Dreliminary and final site olan and aopearance review aoprovai. orovided the applicant install a wrouaht iron sate at the exterior entrance to the staircase: the gate shall (1) be as tall as the ooenino or 8 feet hlah. whichever is less, (2) bg constructed to oreve_ nt nerSn_ ns fmm Climhinq It. and f31 include a mechanism to prevent ocenina from the outside. The site plan. floor plan, elevation, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-084). SUMMARY OF FININNGS CSC• SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMfrrEE Page 3 of 7 SPAARC 99-086 714 Main Street Preliminary and Final Install roof -top air-conditioning condenser for retad goods establishment (Goods of Evanston). Mr. Jim Stricker-Gay (property owner) presented an Application for Building Permit (#99-403), including a site plan and plat of survey, and before -and -after site photographs to install a roof -top air-conditioning condenser for the retail goods establishment (Goods of Evanston), kica'.ed at 714 Main Street. J. Stricker-Gay stated that the air-conditioning condenser would be placed on the roof of the 1-story portion of the building at the rear of the building. C. Smith asked J. Stricker-Gay what is the size of the air-condtoning condenser? J. Stricker-Gay responded: I do not know M. Myloq asked J. Stricker-Gayer how far from the lot line would you locate the air-conditioning condenser? J. Striciver-Gay responded: 12 feet. C. SmjM stated that she is concerned about noise tram the air-conditioning condenser. C. Smith asked J. Stricker-Gay. will the air-conditioning condenser impact any area residences? J. Stricker-Gay resporWed: Goods of Evanston owns the residential units located to the south. M. Mylott stated that ownership of the residental units with the highest probability for negative impacts from the air-conditioning condenser is a good incentive to install a quite air-conditioning condenser J Stricker-Gay stated that the air-conditiooning condenser would be a modem. high -efficiency unit J. Strlcker-Gay stated that the air-conditioning condenser prole ling from the wall of the 1-story portion of the building at the rear of the building would be removed. D. Jennmgs motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the mo_ tion f7-01 tn_ arant oreliminary and final site ofan and appearance review aooroval. The site plan, plat of survey, and before -and -after site photographs have been placed within the Site Pfau and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-085) SPAARC 99-090 3009 Central Street Preliminary and Final Remodel exterior stairwell and provide accessible ramp and 1 accessible parking space (Kendall Coffege Creative K► rs Corner). Mr. Steve Economou (architect) presented an Application for Building Permit (#99-170), including a site plan, floor plan, elevation, and plat of survey, and site photographs to remodel the exterior stairwell and provide an accessible ramp and 1 accessible parking space for the child day care center (Kendall College Creative Kid's Comer), located at 3009 Central Street. S ECarcrnou stated that the new exterior stairwell would mat-1 the existing exterior stairwell, except it may be approximately 1 foot higher C. Smith stated that the accessible ramp must be shown within the elevation, and the applicant must provide a railing detail S Economou stated that the ramp would be constructed of treated wood. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE f�+ July 14 1 VjP9 Page 4 or a D. Jennings asked S. Economou: does Kendait College Creabue )Ws Carnes cocci the entire pwking am?. S. Economou responded: yes. M. Mylott asked S. Economctr is the aacessibie parking space nevo S. Economou responded: 2 existing parking spaces would be combined. M. Myk= asked S. Economou Is the parking area striped now? S. Economou responded: yes, but: the stripes are fading. M. Mylott asked S. Economou: are you re -striping the parking area? S. Economou responded: no. M. Mylott asked S. Economou: are you proposing any other changes to the parkirg area? S. Eccrornou responded: no. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion 18-01 to grant orelimirtanr and final site titan and aooearance review aDoroval. SPAARC 99-057 1723 Simpson Street Final Construct t -story addition for type 2 restaurant within existing 'food store {Ramys}. Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 99-087 2219 Lincolnwood Drive Preliminary and Final Install f new, and relocate 1 existing, air -condoner condenser for single -fatuity residence, requiring major variation. M. Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-28-V(F)). including a site plan, and site photographs to install 1 new, and relocate 1 existing, air -conditioner condenser for the single-family residence located at 2219 Lincolnwood Drive. M. Mylott stated that the applicant seeks permission to install ne air -conditioner condensers approximately 2 feet from the north lot line, between his and the neighbor's house, whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot setback. M. Mylott stated that the neighbor most affected by the proposal has provided a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals, indicating that ne supports the aaplication for zoning relief. L. Black stated that she is concerned about the Impacts on Aawre neighbors_ A Atterson stated that the distance between the 2 houses is very small C. Smith asked M Mylott: what prevents the applicant from placing the air -conditioner condensers behind the house? M. Mylott responded: I do not know C. Smith asked M. Mylott: can 1 air-conditoner condenser axomplish the work of the 2 air -conditioner condensers? M. Mylott responded: 1 do not know. M. Mylott stated that he suggests the Comrnr+xee table this itern, such the applicant can present answers to the questions of the Committee. A. Alterson motioned to table this item. D Marino seconded the motion. Committee aonroved the motion (8- 0) to table this item The site photographs have been placed witritn the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-087). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS STE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 14.1999 Page 5 of 7 X SPAARC 99-088 2436 Hastings Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct 3r-story addition to the existing lirstory single-family residence, requiring major vania4tiors. M. Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-29-V(F)), including a site plan. floor plan, elevations, and plat of survey, to construct a SS -story addition to the existing I W-s Dry single-fantiy resK*noe. located at 2436 Hastings Avenue, M. Mylott stated that the applicant seeks permission to fill a '`niche' at the rear of the strucbtre. U. UA* stated that the addition extends an existing nonconforming characteristic in the vertical sense onl., ft existirp building is located too close to the south lot line. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. L Btadc seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to Grant oretiminary and final site o1w ar4 pnoearance review approval. SPAARC 99-086 2314 Cowper Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct second -story addition to the existing 1-story single-ifamily residence. requiring major variations. M. Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation (Zip 99-26-V(F)), indvding a site plan, floor ptan, elevations, and plat of survey, to construct a second -story addition to the existing 1-story single-family residence, located at 2314 Cowper Avenue. M. Myiott stated that the applicants seek permission to eonsm ct a second floor above the existing first floor. M. Mylott stated that the addition extends existing nonconfor-sing characteristics in the vertical sense only; the existing building is located too close to the north (side), south (side), and east (front) lot lines M. Mylott stated that the neighbors located to the north and south of the subject property have forwarded letters to the Zoning Board of Appeals, supporting the application for zoning relief. L. Black motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval D Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0122 Binding Appearance Review Announcement Announce special Committee meeting on July 22, 1999. 9 a m., Room 2403. to discuss amended SPAR Ordinance, amended SPAR Design Guidelines, and new -Rules and Procedures (Binding Appearance Review) M. Mylott stated that the Committee would conduct a special neeting on July 22. 1999. 9 a m . Room 2403, to discuss amended SPAR Ordinance, amended SPAR Design Guidelines, and new Rules and Procedures (Binding Appearance Review) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 14. 1999 Page 6 of 7 SPAARC 97-065 Church Street Plaza Announcement Announce special Committee meeting on July 26, 1999. 2 p m., Aldermanic Lbrary, to discuss Churcft Streeit Plaza. M. Mybtt stated that the Committee would conduct a special meeting on July 26, 1999, 2 p.m_, Alders m Library, to discuss Church Street Plam Approval of Summary of Findings D. Jennings motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June 30 (Part 1 of 2), 1999 and July 7. 1M. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee a4oroved the motion (8-01 12 aptKWg the SumnMsry of Findings of June 30 (Part 1 of 21. 1999 and Julv 7. 1 M. L Black abstained. Adjoumment The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. iI �rn Marc Steven Mylott, AIC i Zoning Planner J Date SUMMARY OF FVAGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CONDAMEE J* 14. 19% Page 7 cr 7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 7, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Abelson, R. Crum, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. My At C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent: K. Kelly, J_ Wolinski. Design Professional Present H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: L. Lyon, S. Lufkin, R. Schur, M. Robinson, M. Rubin, C. Ruiz. Commencement C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p m. SPAARC 99-076 2106 Central Street Preliminary and Final install refrigeration cooler for specialty food store (Foodstuffs). Mr Jay Liberman (Vice President) presented an Applicaflon for Building Permit (999-541), including a site plan, floor plan and plat of survey. and sne photographs to install a refrigeration cooler for the specialty food store (Foodstuffs). located at 2106 Central Street J Liberman stated that the refngerabor Soler would be attached to the rear of the existing building; the space between the rear of the building and TMe rear lot line is approximately 13 feet wide and blacktopped. J Liberman stated that the refrigeration cooler is 10 feet by 8 feet. J Liberman stated that the refrigeration cooler would be a walk-4n cooler. the entry to which would be from the inside of the existing budding J. Liberman stated that they propose to remove an existing vending machine, the trash receptacles would remain. and the number of pick-ups wCuid increase C Smith asked J uberman. has tree Heaith Department reviewed these plans? J Liberman responded. yes. the refrigeration coolers made for outer use J Liberman stated that the refrigeration cooler is designed to maintain a constant 41 degrees Farrenheit C Smith asked J Liberman wnere s *-e compressor iccated and is it noisy? J Liberman responded on the roof of the refrigeration cooler, and the refrigeration cooler Is approximately 8 feet high. the compressor is -pretty quiet- C Smith asked J Liberman could the compressor be located on the roof and run remotelp J Liberman responded yes A Aiterson stated that 'it is ironic- that the Zoning Ordinance requires air- conditioning condensers to be IGcate�: 10 feet from a lot Ire. but it is silent on refrigeration cooler SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 7. 1999 Page 1 of a x compressors. C. Smith stated that she would liile to see the refrigeration cooler compressor as Ear back fharn the rear lot line as possible without creating the need to increase the size of the compressor A. Alterson stated that rye is not convinced that the Zoning Ordnance permits this refrigeration cooler at Oft location; it may be sulrtect to the 14-foot rear yard sedmick requirement of the B2 Business 0strict, A Alterson asked J. Liberman: of what material is the refrigeration comer constructed' J Liberman responded: white metS A. Altersan stated that he would fike to see a pictureof alike before he voted in favor of the application. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. provided the compressor is moved = the rooftop and placed as far from the rear lot line as possible without creating a need to increase the size of c-* compressor J. Aiello seconded &* motion. Committee aaoroved tr* motion W11 to grant Dreliminary and final site clan and ap9garanre review an rovalprovided the compressor is moved to the rooftop and placed as far from &* rear lot line as ocissible without cresat riq_a nag¢ to vlcarease the* of the comvressor The site plan, floor plan. plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-076). SPAARC 99-077 2834 Central Street Preliminary and Final . Erect 40-foot high utrhrl pore with 34cv high antenna (Commonwealth Edison) Mr. Joe Cantwell presented an Application for Building Permit (itt9M08), including a site plan and elevation; a letter to J. Wolinskl, requesting the same consideration for 9 total sites; a City map dep>=rig the location of each site; a site plan for each site, site photographs for 7 sites, excluding 2834 Central Stneet and 715 Chicago Avenue. and photographs of a typical installation to erect a 40-foot high utility pole wtC; a 3-foot high antenna for a non -municipal essential public service (Commonwealth Edison). located at 2834 Central Street J. Cantwell stated tha' each installation contains sensing devices that detect when the power is out; the antenna send a signal notifying Commonwealth Edison of the outage M. Mylott asked J Car-twell is this proposal part of the new franchise agreement'? J Cantwell responded: I do not know C Smith asked J Cantwell, are the poles proposed on public or private propertyJ Cantwell responded, private J Cantwell stated that each site is enclosed by an existing fence, each pole would be boated within the enclosure P D'Agostino asked J Cantwell, does each site contain an existing Commorwealth Edison substation') J Cantse!1 responded yes A Alterson asked J Cantwell are the proposed poles new or replacements'? J Cantwell responded- new C Srn,tn asked J Cant+vell what s the approximate diameter of each aole7 J Cantwen responded approximately 110 sires A Alterson stated the some sites are very close to residential uses J Cantwell agreed A. Atterson stated that each new pole wnfl appear as 'a pole among poles" SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEAP+'aCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �K.� July 7 1999 Page 2 or 8 x J. Aiello motioned to grant protiminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for aN 9 so& A. Afterson seconded the motion. Discussion C Smith stated that the applicant would need to sutxnit an Appikation for Suk q Permit for each site. Committee aped the motion (MI to qM IXt ehmmary and final site ow and @2pearanae review gaMagf for all 9 sites. The site plan: elevation; letter requesting consideration of 9 tctai sites; City map depicting the bcation of arch site. site plan for each site; site photographs for each site, exduding 2834 Central StrW and 715 Ct*NW Avenue; and photographs of a typical installation have been placed within the Site Plan and Apt Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-077 and 99-078). SPAARC 99-078 715 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Erect 40-foot high utility pole with 3400t high antenna (Commonwealth Edmon). Mr. Joe Cantwell presented an Application for Building Permit (099-607). including a site plan and elevation, to erect a 40-foot high utility pole wrath a 3-foot high antenna for a non -municipal essential public service (Commonwealth Edison), located at 715 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and final site clan and appearance review antxovail oranted w+mul aaoroval for SPAARC 99-977. The site plan and elevation have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-077 and 99-078), SPAARC 99-081 815 Dempster Street Preliminary and Final Install rooftop condenser for heating and air conditioning to i-story commercial building Mr Jim Cox (contractor) presented an Application for Building Permit (099 403). including a site plan, plat of survey, and cut sheet, and site photographs to install a rooftop condenser for heating and air conditioning for the 1-story commercial building located at 815 Dempster Street. Mr Martin Babbit (property owner) was available to answer questions J Cox stated that the existing condensers have been removed from the buuiding J Cox stated that the new condenser would be located toward the rear of the rooftop, perpendreular to Dempster Street. M Mylott asked the applicants will t condenser handle heating and air condiboningl J Cox responded -yes C Smith asked J Cox will the structure support the condenser? J Cox responded yes, the rooftop contains an existing beam at this location C Smith stated that the beam may not support the condenser if it is tarred perpendicular to Dempster Street. J Cox stated that the condenser will be set across the existing beam A Alterson stated that the condenser was turned 90 degrees as the request of the Zoning Dmsion, howeer he would be willing to work with the Building Division toward a solution that satisfies all parties. C. Smith stated that the applicant must provide the Building Division wrath information regarding the weight of The condenser, this information should be sent to the attention of Tnsta Kerr SUM6tARY OF FiNI]INGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMIT Jury 7. rM Page 3 of43 X C. Smith asked the applicants, how high is the condenser? J. Cox responded- 35 Wxtes. C Smith asked the applicants: what is the use of the building? M. Babbit stated that the storefront is row empty; it will be a photocopy business. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. P. C'Agesbw seoonded the motion. Committee awoved the motion (941 to arant wellmiinwiii and final sits appearance review aooroval. The site plan, plat of survey, cut sheet and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan mild Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-081). SPAARC 99-080 Elizabeth B. Harbert Park Preliminary and Final Construct and uistall improvements wdhln Elizabeth S. Harbert Park S Levine presented an Application for Building Permit (*99-$30), including a site plan, to construct and WnW improvements within the Elizabeth B. Harbert Park. S Levine stated that the plans Include constructing a deck, overlooking the canal. installing security lighting along a pathway. and installing benches. C Smith stated that S Levine should review the proposed location of the improvements. against any floodptairt restrictions. R Walczak asked S Levine: what type of lighting are you proposing? S Levine responded'. the residents selected the style M. Mylott asked S. Levine: can you provide the Committee with a lighting cut sheet? S. Levine responded yes. M Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (9-01 to orant nreliminary and final site olan an4 appearance review aonroval SPAARC 99-081 1014-1020 Main Street Preliminary and Final Rebuild existing rear porches for multi -family residence Mr Lou Budzmrck presented an Application for Building Permit (#99470) and site photographs to rebuild the existing rear porches for the multi -family residence located at 1014-1020 Main Street C Smith stated that this work was completed without a building permit C Smith asked L Budzmick- are the new porches the same size as the old porches) L Budzmick resounded no the size of the platform increased to accommodate larger risers A Atterson stated that he believes that all Committee considerations have been met A Aiterson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval J Aiello seconded the motion SUMMARY OF FINEW14GS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Jury? 1999 Page 4 of 8 V Daca,ssm. C. Smith stated that aftlic ,;aI drawings are required before the Building Division can approve the Application for Building Perm Comg2 tse aeavved the motion (9-0) to grant prelimlr+ary and Mal sfe Dian and anWrance review ag2MW, Approval of Summary of Findings P D'Agost m motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June 21 and June 23. 1999. H. Friedrnw seconded the motion. Discussion C Smith stated that the'1-story commercial building' cited on page 2 of ft J" 21, 1999 Summary of Findings is a 2-story commercial building P D'Agostino amend the motion as such- approve the Summary of Findings of Jule 21, 1999, provided the phrase *I -story commercial building' cited on page 2 is changed to '2-story commensal b4•Iding', and approve the Summary of Findings of June 23. 1999 H. Friedman amended the second to be consistent with Vv amended motion. Commrnee approved the motion (9-0) to approve the Summary of Findinos of June 21. 1999. provided tlta ohrase'1-stay commercial buildino' cited on oaae 2 is charmed to'2-story commercial buidino' and aocrove the Summary of FEndinas of June 23 1999 SPAARC 99-064 Sherman Plaza Concept Construct mixed -use development, including department store (Sears). parking structure, and retirement community, within block bounded by Church Street. Sherman Avenue, Davis Street, and Benson Avenue. Mr James Klutznick (developer) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, color renderings. an analysis of the development according to square footage. and site photographs to construct a mixed -used development, Including a department store (Sears), parking structure, and retirement community. within the block bounded by Church Street, Sherman Avenue. Davis Street. and Benson Avenue. Mr Maury Fisher, T. J Klutznick & Company. Mr John R Terrell, Horizon Group Properties, Inc., and Mr. Dan Coffey (architect) and Mr Daniel Dolan, AIA Daniel P Coffey & Associates, Ltd were available to answer questions. J Klutznick stated that the 'genesis' for this project is Sears the company 'felt the need to get Into the ncM shore market' J Klutznick stated that the City's downtown lacks a major retail store J Klutznick stated that Sears would occupy 120,000 sq ft aver 3 stories J Klutznick stated that the cornet plaza provides Sears with a corner without being on a corner D. Coffey stated that the development teams proposed placing Sears within the middle of the block because Sears 'does not like a lot of windows' J Klutznick stateC that the ou�lding at the corner of Cr rsh Street and Sherman Avenue can be divided fcx 3 Users J Klutzntck stated that the parking structure is located along Benson Avenue. In conjunction with dw transportation center however the parking structure 'reaches out` to Sherman Avenue SUMMARY OF FINDWAGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COS July 7. t5W Page 5 d!a J. Aiello asked the applicants: how is lighting provided to the 'pedestrian passage'? J Klutznick responded: skylights. J 9h&nlck stated that only a portion of the 'pedestrian passage' is covered with building the remainder would be covered wdh a translucent canopy. J lQut mirk stated that the waillcmays from the parks structure to the elevator would to glass, providing additional light C. Smith stated that the enclosure is 'great: however. the tall buildings located immedictely to the south will preclude 'a lot of tight. J. Kkftridc stated that the 'pedestrian passage" would have 'a lot of high -quality lights' J. Kiumnick stated that re 'pedestrian passage' is highly visible; the plan does not include `niches' in which persons could hide. R. Walczak asked the applicants **ill you provide security cameras? J. Klutznick responded: I am open tb considering them R Walczak stated that he would forward literature to the applicants regarding crime prevention through environmental design. C. Smith stated that the west end of the'pedesthan passage' droies not appear 'pedestrian receptive' C Smith stated that the 'pedestrian passage would benefit from haviirg 'something' at the west end, such as a shoe repair establishment such a use must 'get people to go through" at times other than the times the 'pedestrian passage' would be occupied by commuters J Klutznick stated that First Bank & Trust of Evanston could serve as that use. J. Klutznick stated that the development teaam may have the opportunity to move retail, depending upon the final location of the elevators and loading fariliity. C Smith stated that a view of the loading dock from the "pedestrian passage' would not be 'tragic'; the spade does not have to be "antiseptic' C Smith stated that the plaza has no sense of place, rather, it is a wide sidewalk. J Aiello stated that the plaza has not yet been developed C Smith stated that the plaza can be 'carved out of the surrounding buildings. J Klutznick stated that the plaza is not intended to be a 'place of lingering'. rather. it will be a wide sidewalk with a sense of place J Klutznick stated mat persons should 'pause and pass through". J. Terrell stated that the plaza is a very important selling point to retailers. D. Dolan stated that the development team could provide sketches of views from within the plaza D Coffey stated that he expels the plaza to be 'the best people place" within downtown Evanston C Smah stated that the plaza does not have to be the largest place rather it should be well planned J Terrell stated that the development team has not yet considered streetscape elements, such as landscaping A Alterson stated that, while landscaping is important, it can change, the applicants should use the "geometry of the buildings" to define the place H. Friedman agreed, and stated that the City has improved many of its s)dewalks without creating a sense of place H. Friedman stated that the applicants should not rely on sidewalk patterns and landscaping, rather, they should use the buildings to create the plaza D Coffey stated that the development team plans to address the plaza at 3 'levels' providing building enclosure from all sides providing entrances and circulation through the space; and providing a 'people scale" or elements from the 'eye -level down' C Smith stated that she has a problem with the complete demolition of the site, the Citicorp building is handsome' C Smith stated that retailers will occupy existing buildings J Klutznick stated that a department store will not occupy an existing budding J Terrell stated that the development team could not place a 40,000 sq ft footprint around the Citicorp building. to save the Citicorp building. the development team would have to move Sears :c a corner and tr.at solution is undesirable as well C Smith stated that the development team could apply other solutions such as saving the facades H Friedman stated that the Citicorp building was onginalty designed as a retail building D Coffey stated that the Citicorp building may be a 'nice" building, but it is not a 'great- building A Alterson staled teat, throughout history, some 'great' buildings had to be raised to construct 'great' burfd-rgs A Alterson stated that the Committee should be concerned about whether or not the replacement burtding is of 'great value' losing the Citicorp building will only be "tragic' if the reglacernert budding is neither well designed rc• has a sense of place C Smith agreed and stated tdzat the Citicorp tt wing is worth fight ng for" while -t ^-ar not be a great" t;uildirg if it is demol;sned, limestone 'acades of t+ 3s=onstruction type ,.;il not return J stated that if the development team could rare reused the nu ding they would "ave reused the r,.,iding M Mylott stated that the Citicorp building is very similar to the proposed Sears budding especially considering the limited amount of fenestration C. Srrrth asked the applicants of what material will the new Sears be constructed? J Ktutznick responded a pre -cast SUMMARY OF F,�:O+NGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REViE t: COMMIrrEE July 7 1 Page 6 0(8 9 concrete finished to make it resemble r _4 C. Smith asked the applicants: can you use real braft W...A J. Klutznicc responded: no. M. Mylott asked the applicants- is movement through the loading faciility 2-way traffic? J. Klutwick resporded: no; vehicles enter the facility from Benson Avenue and exit at Davis Street_ J. Kkdznick stated t2 W llhiiv development team designed the mrifiguration based on traffic information from Kenig, Lindgren. 0141aw Aboona, tnc. (KLOA). C. Smith asked O. Jennings* could the development team configure Davis Street such that only 2 curb ice' are required, rather than 3? D Jennings responded. no. D. Jennings stated that he may recommend a mid -block signal at Benson Avenue, especially with the amount of pedestrian traffic at that location. the signal could be pedestrian -oriented only. but it may need to be vehicular as well. D. Jennings stated that the kacation of the elevators influences a decision regarding whather or not an additional signal at Benson Avenue is necessary. A. Alterson asked the applicants: is First Bank & Trust of Evanston still considering installing a dries-thru facility? J Klutznick responded they are analyzing what they can do on their property; the development b9arn informed the bank that the subject property already included too much traffic to 'work in" a drive-thru facility. D. Jennings stated that the Parking Committee wit evaluate a traffic improvement plan at the end of Joey; the plan will include this development and Church Street Plaza H. Friedman stated that a 10-story parking structure on Benson Avenue is undesirable. the parking structure should be sized to only handle the parking demands of Sherman Plaza. H Friedman stated that the City should find a third site to provide the remaining parking spaces. C Smith and A. Alterson disagreed. J Aiello stated that the Parking Committee has determined that this location will contain a 1,300-space parking structure. D Jennings stated that spreading the supply of parking spaces across 2 sites helps with "connectivity' for Church Street Plaza. C Smith stated that she 'wished' the parking structure could be lower, but concerns about the size of the parking structure will have to be addressed with facade treatments and other design solutions. C. Smith asked the applicants: will the parking structure be setback from Benson Avenue? J Terrell responded: no. C Smith stated that she agrees that Benson Avenue is the correct location for the parking structure, but it should include a setback, Benson Avenue is 'such a small street for this tall of a structure". C. Smith stated that she is concerned that the parking structure welt create a 'wall" J Terrell stated that the parking structure will not create a "canyon effect" because the west side of Benson Avenue vAll never have a 10-story budding. J Terrell stated that. if the development team "does its lob', a pedestrian welt only -feel" the retail user, the associated awnings. and the cornice Ines J Terrell stated that the natura+ 1,ghting along the east side of Benson Avenue will be 'tremendous' the space will be -very light and very attractive' D Coffey stated that the development team considered approximately 20 different configurations for the parking structure, the proposed configuration is the most efficient C Smith asked the applicants can the parking structure extend over Sears' J Klutznick responded no A Alterson stated that the residential tzAer noes not relate to its base H Friedman agreed M Myiott stated that he liked the 'stark contrast' ber veep the tower and the base with a much 'lighter tower the "solid" base and the resulting pedestrian scare are eirpnasize-d J Aiello motioned to grant concept approval D Jennings seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (8-1) to grant concept aooroval H Friedman abstained SUMMARY OF RNO NM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMlirl IL ,fury T 4999 Pace 7 a! a The mee&V adjoumed at 5:15 p.m. Marc Sbeven Mylott, Zoning Planner SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMAAITTEE July 7, of Page a Paga $ 018 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (Part 1 of 2) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 30,,1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Wott, C. Smith, R. Wakraik ((or L. Brack), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello. R. Dahal, K. Kelly, D. Marino. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, R. Sdwr, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. C. Wonders. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-0082 William H. Twi999 Park Preliminary and Final Construct and install improvements within William H. Twiygs Park, S. Levine presented an Application for Building Permit (*99-567), including a site plan, to consbW and install improvements within the William H. Twiggs Park, S. Levine stated that the plans include constructing a deck, overlooking the canal; installing security lighting ' along a pathway, and installing benches. S. Levine stated that the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District is aware of the project, and they have "no problems with it'. A Alterson asked S. Levine will the community garden remain? S Levine responded: yes J. Wolinski stated that S Levine should check to make sure that the deck is not constructed within the City. defined floodplain; if it is the City floodplain ordinance will apply A. Alterson stated that S Levine should check with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to make sure that the deck is not constn cted within the 100-year floodplain, if the deck is a dock or a fishing platform -- something that must be located within a floodplain - the approval process will be easier A Alterson asked S. Levine. will the deck be accessible? S Levine responded: yes. A Alterson asked S Levine of what material are the benches constructed? S Levine responded recycled plastic A Alterson asked S Levine are the benches treated to aid the removal of grafhti'? S Levine SUMMARY OF FIl1MGS �C. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C 40A111 TEE Jute 30. 1999 Page 1 of 2 k responded: I believe they are. C. Smth asked S. Levine- de you hale a c2A si set of the benct*s7 S. Latrine responded: no; the bei od'Ies match exisug bencties wlsrf m V0 puk L Lym siltd tlhat S Levine nlig" awd to corroder a darker -colored bench to discourage 't KjgM' S Levine smwo that she bebeves TW tie benches are a darker color. A Akerson stated trat ben id with f* appearar ce List they have akeadv Lean 'tagged' would discourage actual 'tagging' D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance -evw* approval J. Wairtairi seconded the motion. Cornmiltee approved the motion (7-0) la grant prehortan and Anal site OW aocearance review ano{aval. S. Levine abstained. SPAARC 99-044 1015 Chicago Avenue FMW Renovate facade of, and install site improvements for, exis&V automobile sa*s establishment (AuaaBam). M. MykM presented an Application for Building Permit (OW514) to renovate " facade of, and instal site improvements for, an existing automobile sales establishment (AutDBam), br ed at 1015 Chicago Avarua. M. Mytc t stated that the site improvements include surfacing and striping the parking area, instating landscaping, and installing new lighting. M. Myiott stated that the plans are t3-e! same as those plans Given preliminary site plan and appearance review approval by the Committee. exce the size of the accessible parking space has increased to meet City code. D. Jennings stated that, if the applicant were Installing a new catch basin, he or she would need a pemrd from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. S. Leviry stated that the landscaping is acceptable J. Wolinski motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval A Alterson seconded the motion Committee aoaroved the motion (§-0} to grant final sitil; and app arance review A22Mro at. SPAARC 98-0122 Binding Appearance Review Discussion Discuss recommendation of Legislative Sub -committee for amended SPAR Ordinance, amended SPAR Design Gu►delrnes, and new Rules and Procedures (Binding Appearance Reviiew) See Ju^e 30 1999 Summary of Findings (Part 2 of 2) Adjournment ng adjourned at 4 40 p m Marc Steven Mylott. Zorfing qlanner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE ( ✓ June 30. 1999 `1'h' 7 Page 2 of 2 �► it SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (Part 2 of 2) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 30, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J_ Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, R. Dahal, K. Kelly, D. Marino. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz., R. Schur, C. Wonders. SPAARC 9"122 Binding Appearance Review Discussion Discuss Legislative Sub -committee recommendation regarding amended SPAR Ordinance, amended SPAR Design Guidelines, and new Rules and Procedures. C. Smith stated that the purpose of this meeting is to revisit the discussion about binding appearance review C Smith stated that she would like to thank M. Mylott and M. Baaske for the detailed Summary of Findings, the document was very helpful, C. Smith stated that, during the last discussion (December 11, 1998), the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (Committee) determined that knowing how other communities addressed appearance review was important: M. Myfott has since surveyed area communities about their practice, or lack thereof. regarding appearance review. M. Mylott stated that the survey questions and responses were sent to Committee members on May 19, 1999: additional copies are available if needed. J. Wolinski stated that, since the last discussion, the Plan Commission has established a sub -committee (BARC) to consider binding appearance review J. Wolinski asked the Committee: will the Committee discussion proceed on a parallel track to the BARC discussion'? M Mylott responded I understood that each group would undertake Its discussion and formulate -..s own recommendation; both groups come to the table with different perspectives. M. Mylott stated that he and C. Wonders have been sharing information to ensure efforts relating to background material are not duplicated. C. Smith stated that the Committee is clear on why it believes this issue needs to be addressed. C. Smith asked C. Wonders: can you elaborate on the role of the Plan Commission with regards to this topic? C. Wonders responded: I believe that the Plan Commission is still defining its role. C. Wonders stated that the thought process was that binding appearance review would require an amendment to the City code, and the Plan Commission is a good place to conduct public hearings. C Wonders sated that the Plan Commission consists of a broad range of professionals, including attorneys. architects. and developers, who can approach the topic from a number of different directions C. Wonders states mat the members have the expertise to evaluate the aesthetic benefits to the community as well as the legal and financial constraints, if any. C. Wonders stated that BARC has requested staff to forward a legal opinion on binding appearance review, the request was submitted, but staff has not yet received an answer. C. Wonders stated that he believed that SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMfTTEE June 30. 12" Page ? of e x each group should not have a separate set of tasks. C Wonders stated that BARC members have staled mat, if the City determines that binding appearance review is desirable, better standards would be required, and they do not feel comfortable developing .hose standards. A Alterson stated that the role of the Committee shcu:d be to discuss the process, because this Committee is "in the trenches', this Committee sees **sat actually happens, haw this process helps or hinders the building permit process. etc A. Alterson sued that, on the other hand, the purpose of the Plan Commission is to provide policy direction to the City Councif. specifically as to whether or not binding appearance review is desirable. C Ruiz stated that ti-e rotes of 13ne 2 groups should rot be so defined. C. Ruiz stated that he was concerned that this Committee would have no 'say' in the process, especially if the Plan Commission decides not to pursue binding appearance review C Wonders stated that the Plan Commission could offer Its recommendations based upon the legal issues. financial impacts, and the impacts to community health and welfare; if that recorr-nendation is positive, City Council could ask the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (SPARC; to determine how to Implement binding appearance review. C. Wonders stated that. in that regard, both groups would be working at the same time, the Plan Commission would offer the City Councii a recommendation based upon "these strengths' and "these drawbacks', and the SPARC would offer the City Council a recommendation to implement binding appearance review in a particular manner C 1061orders stated that he conceives that the Plan Commission recommendation would not be limited to a "yes' or a 'no" M. Mylott stated that he does not have a problem consicenng the approach outlined by A. Alterson and C. Wonders; however, this Committee recognized what it cerceived to be a serious issue, and this Committee is taking steps to work towards a solut.�on M. Mylott stated that the Sub -Committee to the SPARC certainty considered the 'big picture'. including tfie legal, financial, and social implications, prior to offering its recommendation to the Committee, its recor: mendation was 'grounded in those realities". M. Mylott stated that he is concerned that the Plan Commission will not support binding appearance review; this Committee should have the ability to request that ire City Council expand its scope. M. Mylott stated that he does not believe that this Committee should have to wait until it finds out whether or not the Plan Commission agrees or disagrees. J Wolinski disagrees J Wolinski stated that the Plan Commission is taking a much broader view of this issue, whereas this Committee is looking at the issue from strictly binding appearance review as far as our experiences J Wolinski stated that the Plan Commission is scheduling to meet with various groups, such as Design Evanston and area developers, and this Committee should be one of those groups J Wolinski stated that, once this group reaches a consensus, we should offer our recommendation to the Plan Comm ssion. J. Wolinski stated that he hoped that the Committee recommendation would receive a 'little bit more" consideration than the other groups, but it should be part of the information that the Plan Commission considers. J. Wolinski stated that he does not like the idea of 2 groups, especially if one of those groups is staff, working on the same issue and presenting City Council with possibly different opinions H Friedman stated that, having served on City Commiss ions in the past, he knows how they work; they do not move very fast. H Friedman stated that the Committee has been discussing this issue for over 1% years: while the Plan Commission'trods along`, the City gets "more and more architecturally unsatisfactory buildings'. H Friedman stated that he is questioned 'more and more' often as to how the City allowed certain buildings to be built H Friedman skated that a representative of Design Evanston has been "badgering" him as a member of this Committee to 'get going' on appearance review. H. Friedman stated that the City is "losing any kind of control over the ever-increasing number of developers who are putting up cheap, ugly buildings in Evanston` H Fnedrrman stated that these developers are not concerned about the architectural environment of tie C H Friedman stated that it is admirable for the Plan Commission to move on this issue. but he knows hciv s'.owly things move in commissions; time is of the essence. C Smith asked H Friedman- do you t>elieve we should proceed on a separate track? H. Fnedman responded- absolutely A Alterson stated that',)e is 'very sympathetic' towards having binding appearance review, however. he does not think the City -hryfl have binding appearance review any earlier SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COML41TTEE June 30 1999 Page 2 of 8 It whether this Committee and BARC follow one track or separates track. A_ Aiterson stated that the orfl way the City will have binding appearance review is d an alderman advocates it. A. Attecson stated fte the Plan Commission recommendation will 'sit on the table' unless the City Council ex;resses a willingness to `move on the issue' the City Council will move neither faster nor slower Depending on Its Committee. A. Atterson stated that he agrees with J Wolinski; the Plan Commission IS the body c mian to advise the City Council, not this Committee. H. F6edman stated that his alderman, Melissa Wyrwe. stated that she hoped this Committee would proceed with binding appearance review, Aiderman ftnme is sensitive to architectural Issues D. Jennings stated that the question is from where is it hest. or more appropriate, to here the recommendation come. D. Jennings stated that, if this Committee is not charged with mis task, the recommendation should come from the group that Is M Mylott stated that rf this Committee sees a problem with other ordinances it is charged with enfcrung, such as the Sioewalk CafL& Ordinance, it wiq offer, and has in the past offered. a solution. C. Smith stated that, based upon the disc -ssion and ererlts occurring since the Committee last discussed this topic, she believes that the recommendation should come from the Plan Commission_ C. Smith stated that, if this Committee wants binding appearance review, it would need support from the "outside community'. C. Smith stated that the P'an Commissi m,. as a non -staff group, has that sort of influence. C. Smith stated that this issue is not similar to mod y rq the Sidewalk CafA Ordinance or some other 'rather benign issue' with a very small con; agency grow, this issue is a Citywide policy issue, and its impacts are potentially large as well as posimre. C. Smith stated that she is certain that BARC would appreciate this Committee's input and recommendations. C. Smith stated that Committee members have had 'years and years of understanding this process in a manner more detailed than most' not only from members professional backgrounds, bc,t by overseeing 'countless" agendas and witnessing outcomes. C. Smith stated that this Committee should reach its own consensus, and look for a more constructive way to help BARC with their effort M. Mylott stated that he believes that this Committee should makes its own recommendation and (onward that recommendation to City Council, that belief notwithstanding, he is concerned about the implit bms of sending a recommendation to City Council with aidernanic knowledge that the Plan Commission is working on the issue also. M. Mytott stated that aldermen would not take act)on on a recommendation from this Committee until they had heard from the Plan Commission, regardless of who is the appropriiM group to be conducting this work, a separate tract for this Committee will 'stall at Counal', waiting for Me Plan Commission to finish its efforts. M. Mylott stated that, on the 'logistics point' alone. he supports this Committee making a decision and forwarding that recommendation to the Plan Commission. H. Friedman stated that the Legislative Sub -Committee to this Committee prepared, not only an amended ordinance, but rules and procedures and design guidelines; this Committee needs to review these documents one more time and forward them to the Plan Commission as a package. H Friedman staled that that package should also include a recommendation from this Committer and reasons why this issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible D. Jennings stated that persons have stated that the problem is the 'architectural disasters out there' i] Jennings asked the Committee please provide me with examples of 'architectural disasters' that could have been averted with binding appearance review. H. Friedman responded, the development at Emerson Street and Maple Avenue D. Jennings stated that he does not know if he agrees that that development Is "a disaster' C Smith stated that that development could be improved. C. Smith stated that the development at Foster Street and Maple Avenue is another example D. Jennings stated that the developer was bound by the Zoning Ordinance to build to the property line, part of that -orsaster' is sag C. Smith stated that the City has been fortunate not to have too many 'disasters C. Smith stated trial she could think of numerous examples where this Committee forestalled 'disaster', but those designs were still 'lacking' C Smith stated that she is 'not happy' with Evanston Center; the Cry could have done SUMMARY 0C FINDINGS (ORAFn SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW GOAAC TEE June 30, Page 3 cE b X more to improve it. C. Smith stated that it was 'unfortunate' that Petsmart chose to match the cond Worm within its shopping center. C. Smith stated that Committee members should recall the table renawatian proposed by the GAP. C. Smith stated that, when she and C. Ruiz met with GAP anchu;ects, they asked for City design guidelines. C. Smith stated that the GAP, who works across the country. was willing to comply with such design guidelines. but the City had none to offer. M. Myiott stated that the GAP architects we willing to make revisions that were "more sympathetic', but they could not approach ttv people controlling the money, saying that the changes were necessary to comply with local code. J. Wolinski stated that the current City Council has 'let it be known' that any staff decisions should be appealable to the Planning and Development Committee and City Council; therefore, if a developer * not 'happy' with a binding appearance review decision, they could 'complain' to the City Ccrsncil. C. Smith stated that this Committee needs a tool 'with some teeth in it to improve the gti:ality of design architecturally'. C. Smith stated that she is referring to building materials as well as aspects of design IM tangible than materials, such as proportion. H. Friedman stated that these aspects are not subjective~ design review Is often criticized as being subjective, but design standards in terms of proportion, etc. are 'just a question of design'. D. Jennings asked the Committee: are not terms and phrases such as 'harmonious', 'compatible', and 'reducing adverse impact caused by incompatible ar&, Iectural styles' subjective? H. Friedman responded: no, I do not think so; the proposed documents never talk about styles H. Friedman stated that, when the term "incompatible' is used, it relates to state or material& K Friedman stated that the Legislative Sub -Committee to this Committee drafted the proposed design guidelines with the intent to be as objective as design guidelines could be. H Friedman stated that the document emphasizes scale, proportion, fenestration, and other elements that quantity a 'good design'; regardless of style: evaluating those elements provides a person with a method of quan 1 ing a design without Imposing a subjective judgment. C. Smith stated that certain aspects of design `will come in to play' that may be subjective, but design training provides professionals with standards for proportion. scale, and fenestration. C. Smith stated that design training is not something achieved through completing one course: it requires much time. C. Smith stated that, for someone with the 'eye', such standards are understood intuitively. D Jennings asked C. Smith: are you saying that the registered architects that designed the Ivy Court Townhouses (Emerson Street and Maple Avenue) violated the design standards, and, as a result, the building is a "disaster? C. Smith responded: personally, I do not feel it is a 'bad disaster'. H. Friedman stated that he 'sticks with' his assessment. H Friedman stated that that design represents 'perhaps inadequate use of their talents or perhaps inadequate talents'. H. Friedman stated that t•.e knows the architect very well, and he has disagreed with his designs 'most of the time'. H. Friedman stated that D. Jennings and he are 'often on the same side of these issues', and, when he, C. Smith, M. Mylott, and/or C. Ruiz express concern about an issue considered to be an appearance Issue, most Committee members support the concern. H Friedman stated that 'there must be something' that people who have design training offer Committee members that enables them to support positions about appearance issues, but'it" is hard to define. D Jennings stated that that is his point, 'It' is hard to define. D. Jennings stated that the difficulty regarding definitions is subjectivity: he 'objects' to calling a term Lke 'harmorUous' not subjective. D. Jennings stated that he 'challenges' Committee members to argue that the new building at Grove Street and Elmwood Avenue is 'harmonious' with the neighborhood, each Cornmdit member. except him, voted in favor of the project. D Jennings stated that no other buildng within that block has angled walls. H Friedman stated that he was not at that meeting where that issue was discussed. D Jennings stated that C Smith 'loved It' C Smith stated that she still has at opinion. D_ Jennings asked C Smith, but is the development "harmonious'? C. Smith responded I cc not think so. however, the rest of the block is a 'disaster' H Friedman stated that. under the proposes guidelines,, the building would be approved. because It is considered 'well designed' H Friedman stated that that building represents an expression of 1990s architecture, compared to many buildings wlt`in the City d at express 1880s or 1920s D Jennings asked H. Friedman, but is the building 'harmonious' with the rest of SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 30 1999 Page 4 of 8 the bkuct? H. Friedman responded: no. M. Mylott stated that he believes that he could make a cam tidw the building is 'harmonious' with the rest of the block. A. Alterson stated that he agrees with H. Friedman: the fast necessity of this Committee is to stop discussing this issue and pass a recommendation to the Plan Commission. A Atterson stated that he believes that the issue of how the Committee arranges procedures is a wear, very, very critical issue', and it should not be "minimized'. A Alterson stated that he befeve that the Committee will have the most 'problems' when it addresses procedures. A Alterson stated that the type of binding appearance review that he would like to see would allow bade the Ivy Court Townhouses development and the building at Grove Street and Elmwood Avenue. A Alterson stated that he is looking for a binding appearance review process that allows the Committee to 'confront a developer wrath a corporate box'. C. Smith asked A. Alterson, Petsmart? A Alterson responded: Petsmart is my objection. A. Atterson stated that a person could like or not like Ivy Court Townhouses, but that development would probably pass binding appearance review. A Atterson stalled that he does not think that the City has had any real disasters, but he does not think that the City is 'maximizing what it can get out of the developer". M. Mylott stated that, since the last meebng on this topic, he has talked with many people and read emX1 more about appearance review. M. Mylott stated that prior to this additional information, he supported the Legislative Sub -Committee recommendation that the design guidelines should be as generic as possible while 'upholding' the standards of design M. Mylott stated that he agrees with D. Jennings that the Sub- committee needs to re -review the standards and definitions within the design guidelines: this document needs to be -more substantiated' and should include graphics. M. Mylott stated that he does not want to use photographs, because to do so would imply favoring a particular style, but illustrations would help overcame concerns about subjectMty. M. Mylott stated that this additional work should in no way prevent the Committee from deciding whether or not it wishes to pursue binding appearance review. A Alterson stated that the City is 'at a disadvantage' because it does not have adopted appearance guidelines, whether those guidelines are mandatory or advisory. H Friedman stated that the proposed design guidelines define *harmony and harmonious' as "a qualty which produces an aesthetically pleasing whole, as in an arrangement of various architectural and landscape styles, elements, and colors'. D. Jennings asked H. Friedman, would you say that the building at the comer of Grove Street and Elmwood Avenue is harmonious with its environment? H Friedman responded: no: 1 point out that definition to illustrate that the document defines what is meant by harmonious. D. Jennings stated that he does not have a problem with that concept; however, he has trouble applying an objective standard to accomplish it. because it is subjective. J Wolinski asked H. Friedman. Can you provide additional examples of 'disasters' over the last few years? H. Friedman responded 'we' had a "pretty good building', and 'we' permitted some restaurant to change the appearance of the ground floor in a manner that was 'totally unacceptable H. Friedman stated that, in that instance. the Committee could do nothing to prevent it. C. Smith stated that, while she voted against it. the Committee voted in favor of that proposal. H. Friedman stated that he was not present for that agenda item either H. Friedman stated that the Edmonton is a 'bad brulding' H. Fnedman stated that Whole Foocs is not only an -architectural disaster. but it is a'traffic disaster' and a 'pedestrian disaster' H Friedman stated that another example is the pavilion for Church Street Plaza: that 'monstrous' building will be an 'architectural disaster M Mylott stated that the Committee could also discuss 'near disasters' M. Mylott stated that the townhouses at Crain Street and Dodge Avenue would have been 'atrocious' had they been built as onginally presented: however, the developer simply did not know that the Committee did not have binding SUMMARY OF FtNDtNGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMAUrME Jurie 30.1999 Pape 5 of a k appearance review. M. Mylott stated that that project should be considered one of the Committee'slxW successes' C. Ruiz stated that, white working with the Preservation Commission for 8 years, out of which the Preservation Commission has had binding review for 5 years, he has noticed that applicants will immediately address the preservation standards once they know what they are. C. Ruiz stated that success at the Preservation Commission comes in making applicants aware of certain items that the Preservation Commission will require for approval C. Ruiz stated that this Committee would benefit fnXn providing such standards to applicants up front, rather than forcing compliance after the fact_ C. Ruiz stated that educating applicants and the general public about what tt a Committee is trying to accomplish would take time, however, once an applicant knows what the City expects. ttiey will pay more attention to those issues. C. Ruiz stated that such a practice will help prevent corporate designs, because these applicants will know that those buildings are unacceptable, more importantly, they will know what type of building is acceptable. C. Ruiz stated that a good example is Osco Pharmacy at Oakton Street and Dodge Avenue; the developer was able to provide a building that met the Committee concerns only after he knew what the concerns were. C. Ruiz stated that such a procedure provides an advantage to applicants. A. Alterson agreed. and stated that the importance of 'just having standards on the table" cannot be 'minimized'. A. Alterson stated that he is concealed that binding appearance review may lead to a weaker architectural product, because, if the Committee has binding appearance review. 'a much larger scope of things becomes acceptable". A. Alterson stated that demanding higher qualrty is 'far easier" when the power to demand does not really exist. D. Jennings stated that he is concerned that the power to deny an appbcation is the power to 'say no to the Zoning Ordinance'. D. Jennings stated that he is concerned that an applicant may propose a buiild'ing that the Committee believes is too tali for the rest of the block, and the Committee would deny the application, even though the Zoning Ordinance permits the applicant to build the building to the requested height. M. Mytott stated that binding appearance review in no way supercedes the Zoning Ordinance; the proposed ordinance explicitly states that relationship. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Ordinance establishes the permitted bulk, and that limitation is automatically imposed upon the Committee. C. Smith stated that the Committee would have to work within the context permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. C. Ruiz asked the Committee: what if the building does not meet the design guidelines? M. Mylott responded: the Committee may improve the design of the building, nut it can not reduce permitted density. J Wolinski stated that he is more concerned about the recent 'design by committee' approach given to projects that require zoning relief J. Wolinski stated that as soon as an applicant requires zoning relief, every aspect of a project is open for discussion, regardless of the relationship of the particular aspect to the request for zoning relief, the persons involved with the 'design by committee" have 'a [at less design experience' than this Committee. J Wolinski stated that the building on Central Street (2953) by Cyrus was a 'beautiful building" at the beginning of the process. M. Mylott asked J. Wolinski: do you believe that binding appearance review would 'help or hinder" this trend? J. Wolinski responded: I do not know, but this "design by committee" concerns me. C. Smith stated that binding appearance review would help, because if a project is not approved here, then the developer has to return to the neighbors and say that the design did not pass appearance review. J. Wolinski stated that that 'boxes in the developer'. C. Smith stated that the developer should come to this Committee first, and then after receiving an approval, present the proposal to the neighbors A. Alterson stated that no Committee member should `minimize the importance of the political aspect of getting a building permit In this or virtually any other town'. A Alterson stated that how a building looks, if such a decision Is discretionary with the municipality, can very well be the product of how the local politician relates to his or her constituents and what sacrifices must be made: that reality is true with or without binding appearance review. A. Alterson stated that, if the City had binding appearance review, then the body empowered with that authority would provide the corporate SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C.04MITTEE June 30. 1999 Page 6 of 8 authorities with a `fall back position that they have more protection'. A Alterson stated that such a body would also provide the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZOA) with 'more protectliW. because the ZBA can deft design decisions to a body already experts in that regard. C. Smith stated that the Committee has faced several instances in which it questioned what was allowed by the Zoning Ordinance: the Committee will face those issues regardless of binding appearance review. M. Mylott stated that Committee members should remember that the zoning is not airways used to protect existing charactersbcs. M Mylott stated that, many times, zoning is used as an economic development tool, allowing structures much larger than existing structures: such decisions reflect a potiicy decision by the corporate authority to encourage redevelopment of a particular area. C. Smith agreed. H. Friedman stated that the Zoning Ordinance is not 'a sacred cow'. H. Friedman stated that many persons object to a requirement that a building be built to me sidewalk this requirement might hamper persons trying to make a pedestrian -friendly environment A Akerson stated that that is precisely the item about which he is concerned. A Akerson stated that most of the Zoning Ordinance establishes maximum limits for a building, and an applicant can always do tess than those limits. A Alterson stated that a body with binding appearance review could suggest that an apphe ant reduce a particular aspect of a development belaw the maximum limit established by the Zoning Ordinance without concern that the suggestion would contradict the Zoning Ordinance; however, the build -to -lot -fine requirement does not permit such suggestions. A. Alterson stated that this Committee faces a contradiction when the Zoning Ordinance requires a building be built to the lot line, but for design reasons, such a configuration is considered 'hideous'. C. Ruiz asked A. Alterson: if the Citt adopts binding appearance review, would Certain provisions -within the Zoning Ordinance and other codes need to be revised? A Akerson responded: the build -to -lot -fine requirement 'leads to congict'. C. Smith stated that she deals with similar problems with the Building Code, for example, windows are not generalty permitted within a wall that is less than 3 feet from a lot line. C. Smith stated that 'we' have to deal with those issues either with a variation or other course of action to try to get best result C. Smith stated that she would like to vote on the direction that the Committee wilt take — either a recommendation to the Plan Commission or a course independent of the Plan Commission. C. Smith stated that that decision might cause the Committee to proceed differently. J. Wolinski motioned that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee shall act in an advisory capacity to the subcommittee of the Plan Commission charged with evaluating binding appearance review: the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee shall meet with said subcommittee of the Plan Commission after the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee has formulated its recommendation; and the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee recommendation shall become a part of the Plan Commission report to the City Council. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion M. Mylott asked J. Wolinski does your motion Include the intent that this Committee will formulate its own opinion? J. Wolinski responded: yes. H. Friedman asked J. Wolinski- and that opinion would be a formal recommendation to the Plan Commission? J Wolinski responded: yes A_ Alterson asked J. Wolinski: and that recommendation would include this Committee's recommendation on whether or not the City should have binding appearance review? J Wolinski responded yes but we are not voting on that issue now C Ruiz stated that It might be helpful for those persons who oppose the concept of binding appearance review to provide a list explaining their positions, rather than just stating opposition H Friedman stated that the Committee would benefit from a description from C Ruiz, regarding to what extent subjectrvity'enters into judgements' by the Preservation Commission SUMMARY OF FINDINGS JORAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUMME June 30. 1W4 Poe 7 d 8 0 Committee approved the motion (U) that the Site Plan and ADnearance Review Committee iirl an advisory capacity to the subcommittee of the Plan Crwnmisgir,�n e�raed with eve4jetine bindinq appearance review: the Site Plan and ADDearance Review Committee shall meet with said subcommddee of the Plan Commission after the Site Plan and ADDearK" Revieew (,',ommittee.► has formulated Rq recommendation; gnd the Site Plan and ADoearance Review Committee recommendation shall beCW- * a part of the Plan Comr Itgsion report to the Citv CoqM. C. Smith stated that, at this point, the Committee may pcaceed with a discussion regarding bending appearance review; however, she suggests that the Carnmittee adjoum to provide Committee with an opportunity to re -review the proposed ordinance. rules and procedures, and design guidelines. A. Alterson stated that he recommends that whoever is staffing the subcommittee of the Plan C._ ..n look at the number of permits processed by those communities with binding appearance review versus'�+e number of permits processed by those communities winout binding appearance review to determine whether or not binding appearance review is an impediment to the development process. C. Smith star that that recommendation is 'good'. M. Mylott stated that the upcoming regularly scheduled meetings are full; he suggests that the Committ e consider conducting a special meeting, A. Alterson agreed. C. Smith stated that the Committee woof¢' conduct a special meeting to continue this djW&ssion on Julv 22. 1999 at 9 a.m. M. Mylott stated that he would announce the location of this special meeting at a future time C. Smith stated that any Committee member that does not have the documents produced by the Legislative Sub -Committee to this Committee should contact M. Mylott with enough time for delivery and review. M. Myiott stated that each Committee member should have 5 items: amended ordinance, new rules and procedures, amended design guidelines, survey, and Summary of Findings from December 11. 1998. AdJournment The meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M. e ectfuI ly submitte � - y v � �'-�1°�'lIC'kwilMi.l. +irl:�i. c!�!�,�• "4/�i:icY�\ r Marc Steven Myfott, Al Zoning Planner Dade SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 30. 1999 Page a of a 4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 23, 1 999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky (for K. Kelly), R Crum, P. ❑'Agostino, R. Dahal, B. Fahlstrom (for C. Smith), D. Marino, M. Mytott, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: D"Ign Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L Black, D. Jeftnings. H. Friedman. S. Levine, L Lyon, M. Robinson, R. Schur. M. Mylott motioned to appoint A. Alterson acting chair. B. t=ahlstrom seconded the motion- Committee aooroved the motion I8-01 to aoDoint A. Atterson actino chair. A. Alterson (acting chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3.05 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings A. Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June 16. 1999. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion (8-0) to aoorove the Summary of Findinas of June 16 1999. SPAARC 98-0061 Chicago -Dempster Shopping District Preliminary and Final Install landscaped planters within Chicago -Dempster Shopping District. Mr. David Lipschutz (Director of the Chicago Dempster Merchants Association) presented an area map. a site plan, plant list, photograph of a typical planter. and organizational brochure to install landscaped planters within the Chicago -Dempster Shopping District, D. Lipschutz stated that the planters are cast stone, they are considering applying a Verde stain. D. Lipschutz stated that the diameter of each planter is 31 inches D. Lipschutz stated that the location of each planter is based on a site visit that included himself L Lyon D Jennings, and J. 1'onkinson: the location of each planter will maintain 6 feet clearance, and each planter will be 2 feet from a curb. D Lipschutz stated that the landscaping includes annuals, the Chalet Nursery & Garden Shop wilt deliver and install the landscaping. D Lipschutz stated that the Chicago -Dempster Merchants Association will be responsible for replanting St)MMARY OF FMOINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEWCOMUTTEE .June 23. 1999 Page 1 of a km L. Lyon stated that this project has been approved, and is being funded, by the Neighborhood Business District Improvement Program. M. Mytcc asked D. Lipschutz: who is responsible for maintenance of the planters and landscaping? D. Lipschutz responded: different businesses within the Chicago -Dempster Shopping District will adopt and be responsible for the planters. D. Lipschutz stated that the Chicago -Dempster Merchants Associatton has 43 members for 16 planters. A. Atterson asked D. Lipschutz: who assumes responsibility of a Wianter if a sponsoring business leaves? D. Lipschutz responded: the Chicago -Dempster Merchants Association. D. Lipschutz: stated that the Chicago -Dempster Merchants Association will act as a liaison between the City and individual sponsors of planters; problems vMh piasters or landscaping should be directed to the Chicago - Dempster Merchants Association. J. Wolinski asked D, Llpschutz: will the plartters L-e protected against graffiti? D. Lipschutz responded: we have some protective coating remaining from a viaduct mural; that coating could be applied to the planters. J. Wolirtski stated that the City would support the Chicago -Dempster Merchants Association v0ith graffiti removal. D. Lipschutz stated that the planters are heavy enough that they will not be removed. A. Berkowsky asked D. Lipschutz- are the planters located near any fire hydrants? D. Lipschutz responded: no; each planter is at least 15 to 20 feet from a Fire hydrant. D. Lipschutz stated that the signage component of the improvement was "dropped' because oflogistical and aesthetic issues'. L. Lyon asked D. Lipschutz: will the Chicago -Dempster Merchants Association have insurance tha3 protects the City in the event of an accident involving a planter? D. Lipschutz responded: yes. L. Lyon stated that she discussed this project with D. Jennings; he did not believe that this project would require a parkway or any other permit, but he raised the Issue of providing insurance. D. Marino asked L. Lyon: is a Committee approval sufficient for this project to proceed? L. Lyon responded: yes. provided the applicant provides evidence of insurance. D. Lipschutz stated that they are hoping to address the proliferation of mobile newspaper stands int the near future; these newspaper stands tend to cluster at common locations, creating problems J. Wolinski stated that the Ctucago-Dempster Merchants Association may face 'free speech' issues by attempting to omit their location or number. L. Lyon stated that she thought the City had an ordinance that regulated newspaper stands A Alterson stated that much case law on this topic Is available. H. Friedman stated that same mobile newspaper stands block mailboxes D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agosbno seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion ("I to orant prelimmary and final site otan and aonearance review aaoroval The site plan, plant list, photograph of a typical planter. and organizational brochure has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0061 ). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 23. 1SSS Page 2 of a SPAARC 99-075 909 Chicago Avenue Construct 9-story mixed -use De.st�prr►ent (groumPfioor roancial lnstr7utlon, second=Abor parlinp, end upper-Qoors residential). Mr. Bill Warman (architect) preserted a site plan, floor plans. and building elevations for a 9-story moredue development. including a groaz4-Boor financial uismution (Evanston GreatBank) and ground -floor fet, second -floor parking. and res+den.-al w'dhin the upper floors, bcged at 905 Chicago Avenue. Mr. J. V. ZAlhtlnq (Evanston GreatBank). Mr Wares Barr (Legacy DevekpT ent Group), and Mr. Bile Smith were avadd-* b answer questions. B Warman stated that the prorect sr,Gudes: 1 an identifying element for Evanston GreatBank at the comer of Main Street and Chicago AvMnue, formed with renaissance stone. The frank wW occupy approximately 5.400 sq.fL 2. 2,300 sq ft. of additional retail space, located along Main Street. 3, awnings along the street -front windows. 4. 63 dwelling units (9 units per floor, 7 floors), sold as condominiums. The dwelling units "range in size from 850 sq.fL to 1.450 sq.ft. Each dwelling unit will include a 5-foot by 12-foot baloorry_ 5 19 open parking spaces 4 covered parking spaces, and 1 covered loading berth, located at the ground floor, accessed via the alley. The ground-fbor parking spaces provide the required parking spaces for the financial ostaution and retail space 6. a second -floor parking area for the residences. consisting of 63 to 64 covered parking spaces. 7 reddish -tone brick. 8 a drive-thru facility, consisting of 3 drive-thru toilers. 1 ATM, and 1 bypass Sane. The entrance for the drive-thru facility is at the alley, and the exit is at Chicago Avenue. 9 no visible mechanicals Mechanicals will either be enclosed or internal. B. Smith stated that they have not submitted an Application for Zoning Analysis. H. Friedman stated that Main Street runs true eastlwest. and Chicago Avenue is *skewed' north/south. B. Warman stated that he will check the course with the surveyor H. Friedman asked the applicants. how tall is the building? B. Warman responded. the building Is 95 feet high. B. Warman stated that. according to the Zoning Ordinance, the building is 85 feet high, because 10 feet of height is exempt as it provides required parking. B. Warman stated that the building wits meet the life and safety requirements for a high-rise building, it will be fully sprinkled. M. Mylott stated that the applicants should strongly consider providing a terrace above the roof of the second - floor parking area. M. Mylott stated that he does not disagree with the proposed population density at this location; however, while a 5-foot try 12-foot bak:ony is a nice amenity, this many persons should have a larger, common recreation area. A Aiterson agreed. M. Mylott stated that a rooftop terrace including landscaping would also provide a better view for the dwelling units with views looking across the rooftop. B. Warman SUMMARY OF F 4000GS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COVAArTTEE Juuke 23. 1999 Page 3 of 3 It stated that they will consider that suggestion; trees within planters would also create a softer appeatame -- along Chicago Avenue. B, Warman stated that they will have to evaksate access to suroh a terrace as aralAas security for the persons with dwelling units at that level. M. Mylott stated that those issues can be handled easily. H. Friedman stated that the applicants could consider eliminating the roof and providing a larxiscaW. second -floor parking area. M. Mylott disagreed. B. Warman stated that an amenity of the development is covered residential parking. A Berkowsky asked the applicants: will the parking garage include natural ventilation? B. Wanner: responded: yes. J. Wolinski asked the applicants wiO the parking garage contain extra parking for the neighbors? J. V. Zahring responded: extra parking spaces are not planned; however, when the bank is not using its parking spaces. the parking spaces will be 'open'. J. V. Zahring stated that he provides after -hour parking to w restaurants' valet services; he plans to continue that practice. A Alterson asked flee applicants: will the parking be posted or otherwise signed as'open'? J. V. Zahring responded: I am riot sure how the parking will be advertised. A. Alterson asked the applicants: would you be willing to produce a written document stating your intentions toward after -hour parking? J. V. Zahring responded: I will try J. Wolinski stated that the applicants should be aware that the Neighborhood Committee of the Plan Commission may propose that the Plan Commission amend the Zoning Ordinance to increase the residestW parking requirements. B. Smith stated that they would like to he reviewed against the existing Zoning Ordinance. A Alterson stated that a developer would generally be vested if he or she had sutxnd d an Application for Building Permit. however, the applicant may be able to secure a vested interest if he or she sends notification to the neighbors of, and/or otherwise publishes. a decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding an Application for Zoning Analysis. J. Wolinski agreed. A. Alterson asked the applicants do the balconies extend over the lot line? B. Warman responded: no. A Alterson stated that the balconies appear as if they were "stuck on the sioe of the building'; perhaps the applicants could consider incorporating some design features Into the balconies. W Burr stated that they wil consider that suggestion; however, cost will be a consideration. B Warman stated that he did not want to make the balconies appear too heavy. A Alterson stated that he is not recommending the balconies be inset because that approach has its own 'problems'. A. Alterson stated that the applicants may consider a more decorative hanging device M Mylott staled that the applicants could review the raiFng design. A. Alterson asked the applicants can you provide a list of the number of dwelling units, according to size? B. Warman responded: yes. J Wolinski asked the applicants have you considered a price range for the d•Aeiling units/ B Smith responded: the 1-bedroom units will be approximately S136.000. and the 3-toedroom unrts will be approximately S350,000. 8. Fahlstrom stated that any corner entry is a "nice" design feature, however, the proposed treatment is a'big, blank facade' 8 Fahlstrom stated that the applicants may want to make a stronger staten-ient at the comer entry, and they may wish to consider more glass B Warman stated that the corner entry win be "nicety detailed'. and he does not want to create a place in which persons may hide H Friedman stated that the applicants should consider using the art deco design scheme of the residential entrance at the comer entry A. Alterson agreed A. Alterson asked the applicants of what material are the art deco elements? B Warman responded: a different color brick or renaissance stone. H Friedman asked the applicants are you proposing flat or textured renaissance stone? B Warman responded, that detail has not yet been decided- H. Friedman stated that he recommends flat renaissance stone A Alterson asked the applicants: wharf is the feasibility of using real stone) J V Zahnng responded: it would be a problem economically SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEf. ^-OMMrrrEE June 23, 1999 Page 4 of 8 +y B. Fahlstrom stated that the applicants may consider providing a different'feel' to the base portion of the building. B. Warman stated that a darker color at the base of the building would help with scale. A. Alterson stated that the fagade along Chicago Avenue is "somewhat blank'. H. Friedman agrees. B. Warman stated that rooftop landscaping will help soften that fagade, and he may consider vines hanging over the side. B Warman stated that he will consider extending some of the design e*r nents within the burg to the portion of the fagade attributed to the second -floor parking area. B. FahWrom stated that the building has a 'nice` art deco parapet; however, the ve caI element should be applied to the end as well. B. Warman stated that the parapet treatment may be an appropriate treatment fbr the rooftop of the parking area. L, Lyon asked the applicants: are the windows flush with the fagade? B. Warman responded: yes: for that reason, the fagade is broken into larger pieces. J. V. Zahring stated that the development team will consider all the Committee suggestions, but the decisions will 'come down to economics'. A. Atterson stated that he believes Evanston GreatBank has an interest in improving the values of adjacent properties. A. Alterson stated that he believes that the rooftop mechanicals should be treated as a design element, rather than hiding them; he believes that they may designed attractively. B. Warman stated that the Mains Street portion of this feature, including wrapped comers, will be masonry; however, the remaining 3 sides will be Dryvit. B. Fahistrom asked the architect: will you be placing mechanlcals on T* 1-story rooftops of the nonresidential? B. Warman responded: no. J, V Zahring stated that he is 'very sensitive' to leasing the retail space to a coffee shop. A. Berkowsky asked the applicants: does the building have a basement? B. Smith responded: no. M. Mylott motioned to grant concept approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee avoroved the motion (9-0) to arant conceal aooroval. A copy of site plan, floor plans, and building elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-075). SPAARC 98-0038 600 Main Street Preliminary and Final Convert potion of building to cultural facility (Custer Street Fair within Matra Stabon). Mr John Szostek (Executive Director of the Custer Street Fair) presented an Appincation for Zoning Analysis (#99-423), Including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations; color renderings; and s4e photographs to convert a portion of the existing building (Metra Station) located at 600 Main Street, to a cuwal facility (Custer Street Fair) Mr. Sam Sample (architect) was available to answer questions. J Szostek stated that the Custer Street Fair has leased the building, they propose to convert the majonty of the building Into a cultural facility and accessory offices. J. Szostek stated that tine work includes. 1 providing a new accessible elevator, making Ya the Metra Station compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act SUMMARY OF FWDrNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CD1JUrrME !lase 23. 1999 Page 5 of s V 2. replacing existing chain link fence with railing, 3. replaang the existing asphalt shingles with green asphalt sningles. 4. providing railings, trim, and other features of approximateol the same green as the proposed asphalt shingles. 5. installing wood ceilings underneath the eaves, similar to Mcxse used for the Central Street renoivatiom 6. restoring the terrazzo floor. 7. improvLng the Metra waiting room. 8. reconditioning and painting the stucco. 9, providing security grills, like those used for the Central Street renovation, over inoperable windows. A security film may also be included. 10. replacw g the railroad lies with concrete, interlocking, landscape blocks. The new wall will include tree wells and ground cover. M. Mylott asked the applicants. does the building have parkingl J. Szostek responded: yes; 20 parking spaces are provided along Custer Lane, L. Lyon stated that Metra issues parking pt-- mds for these 20 parking spaces. L. Lyon asked the applicants: do you have jurisdiction --ver these 20 parking spaces? J. Szostek responded, I have discussed this Issue with Metra; we have proposed managing the parking spaces, such that the Custer Street Fair can improve the area and provide necessary services. such as snow removal. J. Szostek stated that Metra has stated that they are willing to "talk about it". L. Lyon asked the applicants: are you proposing to operate the parking area as is, or convert it to parking only for the Custer Street Fair? J. Szostek responded: we would maintain the commuter -parking program. J. Szostek stated that most commuters have removed their cars by 5:00 or 5:15 p.m. J Szostek stated that most Custer Street Fair programs occur at night; the Custer Street Fair would use the empty parking spaces at night and during the weekends_ J. Szostek stated that the existing conditions deter people from using Die parking spaces at night: Custer Street Fair wants to provide 'a feeling of security" for the users, including staff. M. Mylott asked the applicants do you propose to use the platformn for any activities? J Szostek responded: no; the platform only provides an emergency exit. H. Friedman askew the applicants will the new elevator require cranging the roofline? S Sample responded: not according to the elevator contractor S. Sample stated that hiletra and the Urnon Pacific have'hefped' with the elevator S Sample stated that they considered installing the air-conditioning unit within the roof, however, to maintain the integrity of the roof, they may sacrifice efficiency of the system and locate the air-conditioning unit on the ground B. Fahistrom asked the applicants do you have an accessible ---vte') S Sample responded yes: we wil use the alleyway and gradual slopes to the doors. B Fahistrom stated that the Building Code may require 2 exits from the multipurpose room: the applicants should reverse the swing of the northern door to this room. SUMMARY Or FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REviEw , :OMMITTEE �- June 23, ]995 Page 5 or 8 �`" It A. Berkowsky asked the applicants: will the Custer Street Fair be using the street? J. Szostek responded . we do now. A. Berkowsky asked the applicants, are you proposing outdoor electrical outlets? J. Szostek responded: we may consider installing ground fault outlets. M. Mylott asked P. D'Agostino given the problems of accumulating litter within the Green Bay Road tree wells, do you have any concerns with the proposed tree weffs? P. D'Agostino responded. no; the amount 0( traffic wi11 not create the problems of Green Bay Road P. D'Agostino stated that tree wells are acceptablie from a horticultural aspect, provided the correct tree is used. B Fahlstrom asked the applicants: is the building a landmark building? J. Szostek responded: no; howevr. the building, constructed in 1906, was the first train station in Evanston. L. Lyon stated that, pending the resolution of qualification issues, the Evanston Storefront Program may pay a portion of the cost of this project, and C Ruiz provides design assistance to that program. B Fahistrom stated that the proposal is `very sensitive", and he believes that C. Ruiz would be 'happy with the attention to detail" L. Lyon 1tt-ed that the project may be eligible for funds under the Transportation Equity Act for ft 2111 Century (TEA-21), because the building was the first train station in Evanston and the design Is preser4ai6ar - oriented. L Lyon stated that a public agency must be involved with an application for TEA-21 funds, because the program s+ a matching -funds program. H Friedman asked the applicants: is the Custer Street Fair a not - for -profit corporation? J. Szostek responded yes H Friedman stated that additional funding may be available through the Historic Preservation Agency L Lyon stated that the Historic Preservation Agency is administering TEA-21. M. Mylott asked the applicants: are you proposing exterior lighting') J Szostek responded: we plan to install Tallmadge lights along Custer Lane and recessed or surface -mounted lights under the eaves. S. Sample stated that they plan to install surveillance cameras M. Mylott stated that the original proposal included replacing existing doors with steel doors to match those used along the Metra waiting room. M. Mylott asked the applicants are you proposing steel doors or doors that are more 'sympathetic to this renovation'? S Sample responded: the original proposal had a much more limited scope. since the scope has expanded, this proposal includes traditional doors. A. Berkowsky asked the applicants. Is 600 Main Street the correct address? J. Szostek responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that a Zoning Officer found documentation within Central Records, referring to this building as 600 Main Street. A. Berkowsky stated that he is concerned that the Fire Department may not know where to find this building if it is referred to as 600 Main Street. J Szostek stated that Custer Street Fair may need directional spgnage at Main Street and Washington Street A Atterson asked the applicants: is Custer Lane a City street? S Sample responded: that land is owned by the Union Pacific. M Mylott stated that the applicant should use 'burglar bars' rather than the security grills, because the bars 'seem much more In keeping with the period' H Friedman agreed M Mylott stated that the "burglar bars' are "less fortress -like they do not reinforce the notion that the area is as unsafe as the security grills suggest A Alterson agreed. M. Mylott stated that the division of the 'burglar bars' works with the division of the existing windows S. Sample stated that the security grills are safer. because they prevent someone from 'getting a hand to the window' M Mylott stated that secunty film reduces the chance that a window wstt break, and the "burglar bars' will certainly keep someone from getting through the window H Friedman stated that the selected shade of green is an appropriate color for this work; however, the applicants should consider a brown or gray roof to make the railings, trim, and other features stand out H. Friedman stated that the roof is an 'awfully large area'. and it may -overwhelm' the other details. SUMMARY OF FL%DWGS S17E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COtLLMMII=E June 23.1M Page 7 Of 8 a M. Oiiq it motioned to grant preliminary site plait and appearance review approwat. A. Barkowsky ss=wed the motion. Committee pooroveri the motion (M) to grant wre]O inary site o4n and aMarancc ea+ r awroval. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and color renderings have been ptaced within the Site Fum and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 9114M). Adloumment The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June of 9 a Page 8 of a i SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 21, 1999 City Council Chambers Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: City Consultants Present: Commencement J. Aiello, A. Alterson, R. Crum, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Marino, M. Mylott, J. Wolinsid. L. Black, R. Dahal, K. Kelly, C. Smith. H. Friedman. D. Gaynor, L. Lyon, M. Rubin, M. Robinson, R. Schur, J. Speyer, J. Terry, C. Wonders. M. Stern, U.S. Equities Realty. M. Mylott motioned to appoint A Alterson acting chair. J Aietta seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion {8-0 to MDoint A. Alterson ac:tina chair. A. Alterson (acting chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 135 p.m. SPAARC 99-064 Sherman Plaza Confmnce Construct mixed -used development, including department store (Sears), parking structure, and retirement community, within block bounded by Church Street. Sherman Avenue, Davis Street and Benson Avenue. Mr. James Klutznlck (developer) and Mr. Dan Coffey (arctsrieci) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, color renderings, a press release, a 'Sherman Plaza Fact Sheet", an analysis of the development according to square footage, a "Background on Developers". and site photographs to construct a moved -used development. Including a department store (Sears), parking structure, and retirement community. within the block bounded by Church Street, Sherman Avenue. Davis Street, and Benson Avenue. Mr. Maury Fisher, T. J. Klutznlck 8 Company; Mr. John R. Terrell. Horizon Group Properties, Inc.; and Mr Daniel Dolan, AIA and Mr. Jeff Fazzon. Daniel P. Coffey 8 Associates. Ltd. were available to answer questions. J Klutznick stated that other area Sears locations include Hawthorn Center within Vernon Hills, Gott Wwithin Niles and along Lawrence Avenue within Chicago. J. Klutzntck stated that the development team Is currently negotiating with all property owners J Kk=ick stated that the development team Is attempting to relocate Osco off site. SUMMARY or Fuv INGS + SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CCWA9rITE 'C`. Itape zt . 12" a Page I or 5 x J. Klutznick stated that the development inchtdes: 1. a 3-story, approximately 120,000-sq ft. Sears located within the mid -block of Sherman Avenue. 2. a 3-story, approximately 63,000-sq.ft specialty retail store located at the comer of Church Stnlmt and Sherman Avenue. This space could be divided among several retailers. A plaza is provided in frvM of this building, along Sherman Avenue. The plaza includes a'fair-weather cafe'. 3. a 3-story, approximately 30,000-sq.ft. "mini -major Located at the comer of Davis Street and Sherman Avenue. 4. a 10-story parking structure located at the comer of Davis Street and Benson Avenue. The parking structure contains approximately 1,300 parking spaces. The parking structure includes a ground -floor* approximately 13,000-sq.ft, specialty retail space located at the comer of Davis Street and Season Avenue. The ultimate size of this space will be dictated by the parking structure. 5. an 18-story retirement community located at the comer of Davis Street and Benson Avenue. While the lobby entrance is along Davis Street, floors 4 through 18 cantilever over the 'mini -major". The retirement community contains 200 dwelling units. 25 percent of which are assisted living. 6. no restaurants. J. Klutznick stated the D Coffey is the 'project architect% the retirement community will have its own archged D. Coffey stated that the proposal "rearranges the site for the betterment of urban design'. D. Coffey stated that the bank at the comer of Church Street and Benson Avenue, as well as (theyttory commercial building immediately to its east, remain. D. Coffey stated that the development also includes: 1, a tower that functions as the "circulation point". The tower contains the elevators for the parking structure. operating on a traction elevation system. The desired operating system requires some of the height of the tower, while additional height was added to give the tower "punch'. The development team saw a "benefit to creating a landmark feature'_ 2. 85 dedicated parking spaces within the basement of the retirement community. 3. vehicular parking -structure entrances at Davis Street and Benson Avenue. Elevator banks are provided near Sherman Avenue and along Benson Avenue. The Benson Avenue elevator bank is located across from the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Davis Street Station. 4. a common loading faculty at the center of the development, accessed at Davis Street. The specialty retail located at the corner of Church Street and Sherman Avenue has its own loading facility, accessed at Benson Avenue. 5 a -pedestrian passage' located along the north side of Sears. to get from Benson Avenue to Sherman Avenue SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 21. 1999 Page 2 of 5 IM D. Coffey stated that 'he street haghts 'Work with the ex -sting buildings of downtown'. D. Coffey stated that the treatment of the Davis Street and Benson Avenue street levels "work with` the height of the 'mra4naW. D. Coffey stated that the parking structure will be open, and it will include `some arbaJason to proriide skate". M. Stem asked the applicants: w+il you require an easement across the bank and adjaoerd property to access the loading facility for the specialty retail located at the comer of Church Street and Sherman Avenue? J. MuMnick responded: yes, and we will attempt not to reduce the number of bank parking spaces. D. Jennings asked the applicants: is the edge of the parking structure located along the north edge of the existing alley? D. Coffey responded: yes. M. Stem asked the applicants: approximately how many parking spaces are lost within the "notch' for Seers? D. Coffey responded: approximately 15 to 20 parking spaces per floor, across 7 floors. J. KJut mock stated that this configuration makes the transfer of property easier. M. Stern stated that the City might consider another configuration if a revised configuration saves money. J. Klutznick stated that the development team will work with the City J. KJutznick stated that they would We to demolish the Sherman Avenue Garage by April 2000. sucn that tree new parking structure would be complete by mid -July 2001. J. Klutznick stated that Sears would like to open on October 1, 2001. J. Klutznick stated that the development will create approximately 500 permanent and 150 cortstnicUon jobs and provide the City with an annual net return of approximately $2,500,000 from property and sales tax. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: will the entire frontage of Sherman Avenue consist of storefronts? J. Klutznlck responded, yes. J. Klcrtznick stated that the development recognizes that Church Street and Sherman Avenue are the 'cross-roads of retail". D. Coffey stated that, regarding the remainder of the development, the approach was to place retail activity at the comers and place service facilities at mid -block within the street frontages. M. Rubin asked the applicants: are you designing provision for light within the 'pedestrian passage', because that area of the site is very dark new? D. Coffey responded: only approximately 113 of the passage is covered, and it will be well lit. D. Jennings asked the applicants where is the tower in relation to the parking structure? D. Coffey responded: the tower is not at the northeast comer of the parking structure; it has been 'pulled' close to Sherman Avenue, J Klutznick stated that the distance is "not that far for standard downtown wa*ung"; 90 percent of the users of the parking structure will be "regular users", J. Terrell stated that the tower could have been located at the northeast corner of the parking structure, but it would not have 'drawn people out to the street'. A. Alterson stated that the question is one of design philosophy -- would ttie City prefer persons walking along the street to their destinations; or would the City prefer a direct connection from the parking structure to the various retailers, making shopping as easy as possible, much like the 'ease' of mall. J. Klutznick stated that the proposed configuration accomplishes both "philosophies'. M. Fisher stated that the "mini-majorr will not have direct access to the parking structure. M. Stern stated that the northem retailer could have direct access to the parking structure D Coffey stated that tower and associated comdors also alleviate the problem that the floors of the parking structure may not line up with the floors of the various retailers H Friedman asked D Coffey would you prefer to design a 5-story parking structure rather than a 10-story parking structure? D Coffey responded I am "comfortable this way"; the 3-story cornice line wilt 'hold the edge" J Klutznick stated that the parking structure is sized as a part of the downtown parking program_ J. Klutznick stated that the parking structure is designed such that the "monthly parkers" will be located on the SUMMARY OF P UDINW SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C0UUn7EE Jure 21, 1999 Page 3 of 5 x top floors. J. Terrell stated that ft parking structure is part of a 'major transportation oon-idor'; this focati m is the •best kx:at on' for this parking structure. J. Terrell stated that the parking structure is 'set back quite away' from Sherman Avenue. D. Coffey stated that staft5cs show that people will use a parking structure of this height. D. Jennings ataded that a second consideration regarding whether or not people will use the structure is the number of toms. D. Jennings stated the proposed structure is a more -efficient 'butterfly` configuration, such that a user travel* 5 'circuits' to rise 10 floors; under the existing configuration of the Sherman Avenue Garage, a user travels 5 'circuits' to rise 5 floors T. Klutznick stated that Sears has requested entrances to the elevators at the fd and TO floors. D. Jennings asked the applicants: can you provide an additional bank of elevators along the south side of the parking structure? J. Klutznick responded: a 3m bank of elevators may be 'overkilt'. D. Coffey stated that the Benson Avenue bank of elevators could be moved south, but the City will want to keep the retail frontage `as clean as possible'. D. Jennings stated that the parking structure does not "favor' Davis Street. J. Aiello stated that the City will review this issue. M. Stem asked the applicants, have you considered the revenue arrangement of the parking structure? J. Klutznick responded: we will differ to the City for matters relating to the planning of the parking structure. M. Mylott stated that he appreciates the 'urban design philosophy" that the streets and associated buildings appear to have developed over time and 'at the hands of different architects'. M. Mylott stated that he hopes that the building materials will match this 'attention to detail'. M. Mylott asked the applicants: what is the proposed material for Sears? J. Kfutmick responded: not DryvtL D. Coffey stated that Sears recognizes that this location is unique: it is not a typical suburban location. D. Coffey stated that time Sears will be constructed with masonry with stone accents. J. Klutznick stated that convincing Sears to commit to high -quality building materials is made easier by only having approximately 1 % facades visible, whereas a suburban location may have 3 or 4 facades showing; the costs become approximately equal. H. Friedman stated that the primary view for the residents located along the north and west sides of time retirement community will be of the parking structure. J Klutznick stated that very few dwelling units will have such views, and he is 'very confident' that they will be leased. J. Aiello stated that the applicants should work with J. Terry on matters involving the retirement community. J. Klutznick stated that the approach to delivering the various parcels of land has not yet been determined. L. Lyon asked the applicants: what type of retailer do you consider a 'mini -major? J. Kiutznick responded: generally national retailers. L Lyon asked the applicants are any of the proposed retail spaces configured for -independent retailers'? D. Coffey responded: the space located at the comer of Davis Street and Benson Avenue could be configured as such J. Aiello stated that the majority of retail space will provide a size of space currently unavailable within downtown. J. Klutznick stated that a downtown needs a variety of users; the current downtown 'draw' is restaurants, and this development will add retail. L. Lyon asked the applicants- what is included within an urban Sears? J. Klutznick responded: the store will be a full -line store. without tires, batteries, and like vehicular accessories. L. Lyon asked the applicants; how does a user transport a large purchase from the store to his or her car at this location? J. Kfutznick responded: Sears will have a parcel pick up and small parking area at the second floor of the parking structure. L. Lyon asked the applicants- is the parcel pick up location accessible without existing the parking structure? D. Coffey responded: yes L. Lyon asked the applicants: is Sears attracted to this location SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM 1 TEE June 21 1999 Page 4 of 5 because of its location from a regional perspedwe, or is Sears attracted No the density of domOmn Evanston? J. Klutznick responded: both. The site plan, floor plans, color renderings, press release, 'Sherman Plaza Fad Sheet'. analysis of Me development according to square footage, and `Background on Developers' has been plaaed within the Side Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for Oft case (99-064). Adjournment The g9eeting adjourned at 4,40 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Date SUMMARY OF F1NDrNGS SITE PLAN AM APPEARANCE REview COMMITTEE June 21, 1999 Page 5 or S x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 16, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement A. Aiterson, R. Dahal, B. Fahlstrom (for C. Smith), D. Jennings. S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylottx. J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly, D. Marino, J. Wolinsid. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, C. Wonders. M. Mylott motioned to appoint A. Alterson acting chair. B. Fahlstrom seconded file motion. Cornmifte anprpved-the motion &01 to appoint A, AI erson acting chair. A Alterson (acting chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings D. Jennings motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June 7 and June 9, 1999. R. Dahal seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-01 to approve the Summary of Fndfnas gf June 7 and June 9...1999. SPAARC 9"72 620-630 Lincoln Street Preliminary and Final Install accessible ramp and f accessible parking space at rear of building (Northwestern University Career Services Facility). Mr. Ryan Nestor (architect) presented an Application for Building Permit (#99-346), including a site plan. Boor plans, elevations. and plat of survey; and site photographs to install an accessible ramp and 1 accessible parking space at the rear of the existing fraternity house, located at 620-+630 Lincoln Street. R. Nestor stated that the building is actually 2 connected buildings; 620 Lincoln Street will remain a fraternity house, and 630 Lincoln Street will be converted to Northwestern University Career Services Facility. R. Nestor stated that the exterior modifications include a new accessible ramp, connecting an existing opening with a new door to the existing concrete sidewalk. R. Nestor stated that the accessible ramp works around the existing retaining wall. R. Nestor stated that the accessible ramp will be constructed of concrete, and the handrails will be square steel painted dark brown. R. Nestor stated that some existing scrub bushes vrM be removed; however, the plans include constructing a planter at the 90- degree turn of the accessible ramp and SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C MMItir11:E June 16, 1999 Pape i d 6 E installing more shrubs than exist now. R. Nestor stated that the proposed work cannot be seen from a pt:bilic street, and it can only be seen from a public alley at specittc vantage points. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor are the plans presented to the Committee identical to the plans submitted with ycwr Application for Building Permit? R Nestor responded: yes. B. Fahistrom asked R. Nestor. have you reviewed the use group separation? R. Nestor responded: yew: in addition to the exterior changes presented to the Committee, the plans incll+de interior remodeling. A. Alterson asked R. Nestor. are you removing existing and/or installing new bicycle parking? R. Nor responded no. B. Fahlstrom stated that the applicant may need detectable warning strips at the location where the able ramp meets the accessible parking space. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor are you proposing exterior lighting? R. Nestor responded: no. B. Fahlstrom sad that, because the accessible ramp is a means of egress, the path may need to be lit from the door to the pcOd of discharge to the public way. R. Nestor stated that the existing parking area lighting provides some amoutnt of lighting, and he will review whether or not additional lighting is required. A. Alterson asked R. Nestor: are you proposing signage? R. Nestor responded: no, except the State -required signage for the accessible parking space. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of exterior lighting by the Building Division. B. Fahlstrorn seconded the motion. CQEDMAtiee 22proved the motion (6-0) to grant oreliminary and finalsite plan and aRpearaWe review aooroval. sutoisutoie�t to review and aooroval of exterior hahtina by the Build inu Division. A copy of the site plan and elevations and the site photographs have been planed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-072). SPAARC 99-067 801 Davis Street Preliminary and Flnkl Install above -ground diesel storage tank within basement of financial institution (Citicorp Savings). Mr. Thomas Gass (mechanical contractor) presented an Application for Building Permit (#99430), including a site plan. floor ptan. and elevation: and a plat of survey to install an above -ground diesel storage tank witt>mi the basement of the financial institution (Citicorp Savings) located at 801 Davis Street. T. Gass stated that this tank will replace 2 underground tanks within the basement 1 tank has Keen abandoned. and the other tank wit! be removed following the installation of the proposed above -ground tarok T. Gass stated that the exterior moci fications are to the alley -side of the building, including extending a 2-4nrh passive vent pipe, a 4-inch emergency vent pipe, and a 1-inch diesel line approximately 20 to 30 feet; tr* pipes are mounted side -by -side to the building with unistruts T Gass stated that a remote spill containmerA manhole would be placed on the ground, near the alley -side wall of the building. A. Alterson stated that the applicant may require a ficense agreement with the City, because the pipes exMind over the lot line, and the manhole is certainly within the alley. SUMMARY OF FIN04NGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 16, 1999 Page 2 of 6 DO B. Fahlstrom asked T. Gass: how are the existing pipes treated? T. Gass responded: they are painted dark brown. M. Mylott asked T. Gass- wil you paint the new pipes to match the color of the existing piped T. Gass responded: yes; that action is part of the contract B. Fahistrom asked T. Gass: doers tfgs facade of the building contain any windows? T. Gass responded: no. B. Fahtstrom stated that the apolcam should mstau bollards, such that the pipes and manhole are pro=W from vehides hitting them. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject Ya (1) review and approval by the Engineering Division to determine whether or not a licence agreement is requred; and (2) review and approval by the Engineering Division to determine whether or not installing bolia:ns to protect the pipes and manhole would substantially impact alley traffic, because such fixtures are stran* recommended otherwise. R. Dahal seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Akerson asked T. Gass: can the system be configured in another way, s=Z that the provisions of the motion are not required. T. Gass responded: only the fuel ** could be mcved, and it would require a much greater level of involvement due ao the age of the building. Committee_agoroved the motion 18-4I to grant nrefrninary and final site Man andapoearance reviiewaocnpi►A su je to f 11 review and approval by the Engineering Division IQ otermina whether or not -a I aareement is required: and f 2l review and 4p1LrQvaI by the Engineering Division to determine whether or rogs installing bollards to protect the pipes and Manhole would substantially impact alley traffic. because such fixtures are strongly recommended otherwise. A copy of site plan, floor plan, and elevation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-067). SPAARC 99-070 1328 Greenleaf Street Preliminary and Final Modify exterior of mixed -use building for new. ground -floor retail sales establishment (antique furr it" gallery). Mr. Thomas Weber (property owner) presented an Application for Building Permit (#99-396); a site plan: elevations: a plat of surrey, illustrating proposed condominium division of the property; and site photographs to modify the exterior of the mixed -use building, for a new, ground -floor retail sales establishment (antique furniture gallery), located at 1328 Greenleaf Street T. Weber stated that new wood will replace old wood. and new, insulated glass will replace old glass. T. Weber stated that the aluminum along the top of the storefront will be replaced with glass; wood window frames will be replaced with brown, anodized aluminum frames. A. Alterson asked T. Weber- how many storefronts are included within this project? T. Weber responded. 3: each storefront would be treated sirrularfy. A. Alterson asked T. Weber. is the p"ect part of the Evanston Storefront Program? T. Weber responded: yes. L. Lyon stated that this protect has conditional approval from the Evanston Storefront Program, pending review and approval by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee; the design is similar to that SUMMARY OF FINOMYGs SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMhfr77El= June 11L :M Page 3 of a Xi originally discussed. C. Ruiz stated that the project attempts to remove what does not belong and a pine much more of the original building. M. Mylott asked T. Weber, are you proposing exterior lighting? T. Weber responded: yes: recessed 7ughting will be installed directly over the doors. H. Friedman motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. S. Lev" seconded the motion. CornMittee approved the motion (7-0) to grant oreliminaa ang final site ofen and appearance review approval. A copy of the site plan; elevations; plat of survey. ifrilstrating proposed condominium division of the property; and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-070). SPAARC 99-071 617 Library Place Preliminary and Final Construct ground -floor addition for office use (NorM western University Institute fcr Policy Research). Ms, Ellen Galland (architect) presented an Application for Building Permit (*99-348), mcluding a site pW. floor plans, and elevations; and site photographs to construct a ground -floor addition for the office use (Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research) located at 617 Library Place E. Galland stated that the ground -floor addition fills a vacant space underneath an existing 2nd and 3rd floor portion of the structure: the addition does not increase the footprint of the structure E. Galland stated that the addition will provide 2 more offices. E. Galland stated that the brackets will be removed and reproduced; the new siding will match the existing siding. E. Galland stated that the project has received Preservation Commission approval. E. Galland stated that the site contains 4 parking spaces; the 2 additional parking spaces shown on the site plan are not included within this Application for Building Permit. M. Mylott asked A. Alterson: does the increase in the floor area necessitate additional parking? A. Alterson responded: I do not believe so. A. Alterson stated that, when this project was discussed with him 'months ago", the scope of work included removing the numerous window air-conditioning units and providing central air ccc7ditionmg to the building. A. Alterson stated that the existing building "looks Icke it has a bad case of acne'. A. Alterson asked E. Galland: why was central air conditioning not provided? E. Galland responded: she proposed the concept of central air conditioning to the University, and the University informed her that that concept is `not econornically sensible', because the structure is poorly insulated and the offices are not used on a continual basis. A. Alterson asked C. Ruiz: were the numerous window air-conditioning units discussed at the Preservation Commission? C. Ruiz responded: I do not recall. C. Ruiz stated that, if the window ass -conditioning units were discussed at the Preservation Commission, it was a minor issue; the Preservation Commission does not mandate work beyond the proposed scope, they only react to an application. D Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. S. Levine seconded the motion. SUMMARY Of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMME j. June 16, 1999 Page 4 of 6 X , Discussion: A Afterson stated that, while he recognizes that the issue of air w rs is beyond the scope of thin specific project, he is 'distressed' that the Univejxity doss not maintain this building in the manner in which it deserves, especially since the budding is located within a zoning district designated to provide a transition between university and residential uses; this building does not appear residendaiL A copy of the site plan and elevations has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-071). SPAARC 99-073 1421 Sherman Avenue Concept Construct &Story mixed -use building (ground-ff y office and 23 dwelling unit wrtrlin upper floors). Mr. Thomas Roszak (developer) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations. Isometrics, a p4 d of survey, and site and area photographs to construct a 6-story mixed -use building at 1421 Sherman Avenue. T. Roszak stated that the property is under contrail T. Roszak stated that the existing building (Koehler Luggage) would be demolished. T. Roszak stated that the proposed building would: include 23 residential condominiums and 1 office or retail condominium The entrances for each use are separate. be 4 stories at the street, step back from Sherman Avenue 40 feet, and rise to 6 stories at the rear. The area created by the 40-foot setback would be a landscaped root -top terrace; the south % of the rooftop terrace would be public, while the north 'A of the roof -top terrace would be private. A guard rail would separate the 2 areas. The 4- and 6-story design Is a 'derivative of the zoning'. 3. be constructed with utility -size, red brick and cast limestone details, including sills for all windows and around the bakxxnes. Cast limestone is similar to renaissance stone. The balconies would be metal. 4. include landscaping at the street 5. Include 16 underground parking spaces. including an accessible parking space. and 9 first -floor parking spaces. The ramp is at the alley. include a loading berth at the southeast comer of the site. L. Lyon asked T. Roszak will Koehler Luggage move? T. Roszak responded: yes. L. Lyon asked T. Roszak will Koehler Luggage stay in Evanston? T. Roszak responded: yes; that is what I was told. M. Mybtt asked T. Roszak what is the separation between this building and the new construction immediately south of the subject property? T. Roszak responded: approximately 7 feet toward the front of the property and as much as 35 feet toward the rear of the property; the north side of the subject property abuts the parking area for the neighboring church T. Roszak stated that courtyards provide additional light and ventilation. M. Mybtt stated that the parking requirement for the project will change, depending upon whether the first-fkror use is office or retail: the applicant may wish to design the building to accommodate the most demanding parking requirement. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SLTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COAaArrrEE Jum t6. Im Pale 5 of 0 x D. Jennings stated that parking spaces 171~1rak,gh 20 will! be 'tight•, urdess w I a room is provided; vote Mese parking spaces meet the width requiren'+er1; ft adjacer t walls wifk make opening vehicle doss 6dSCUIt. H. Friedman asked T. Roszak,. are you pi—iocaing the sarre brick and srraw detailing as the buikdrnq tieing constructed at 1415 Sherman Avenue? T R*uak responded- yes WI Mylott asked T. Rciszak are you proposing brick on each side of the buriCrVl; T Roszak responded yes H. Friedman motioned to grant concept aclprcval. M Nylon seconded list +notion. Discussion: A- Afterson askec T Roszak w fl Cus budding kooks like the building being coned at 1415 Sherman Avenue? T Roszak responded It will be differem T. R.ozzak stated that the ar">dedure of Me proposed bu:king emphasizes the Calcor:ies and courtyards with r* invstone details; also, it is leaner wrath a grog er degree of 'play' in the planes T Roszak stated that the architecture of the twiiding being constructed at 1415 Sherman Avenue emptunaes the 'honzontaC, with more horizontal band>r>g T Roszak stated that the materials of the 2 buDdings will be similar, such that C^ey will work together nicety, but the 2 buildings will be "put together' differently- A Alterson stated that the proposal 'leaves me very floc'. H. Friedman stated Mat more detail *-& be necessary for future reviews. C. Rua stated that the drawings cannot express the treatment of the brick. and that detad frill be interesting to see. B. Fahistrom stated that the appbcant and/or his architect should study the maximum permitted openings along the courtyards; only a certain amount of a weal may be open, based upon the distance from the lot tine H. Friedman asked T. Roszak. are you proposing floor-to-ceifing vnndows? T. Roszak responded: those openings are sliding doors: each opening wd be protected by a 3-foot 6-inch railing mounted to the exterior of the building. T. Roszak stated that the windows will be pre -finished aluminum, but the color is undetermined - The site plan, floor plans, elevations, rsomebxs, plat of survey, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Commrttee folder for this case (99-073). Adjoumment The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Marc Steven Mylott. Zoning Planner SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMKMnE June Is, 19" Pads a of 8 00- Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 7, 1999 Aldermanic Library Members Present Members Absent: Design Professional! Present: Other Staff Present. Commencement J. Aiello, A. Alterson, R_ Crum, P. D'Agostino. D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Myiott. C. Smith, J. Wolinski. L. Black, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, T. Kerr, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, M. Sison, C. Wonders. C. Sn th (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:10 p.m. SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Preliminary Construct Main Pavdion for Church Street Plaza, including retail, restaurants, and cinemas. Mr. Barry Elbasanl (Eibasani & Logan Architects) and Mr. Clarence Mamuyac (Eibasani & Logan Arc ideas) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, color renderings, and building material samples to construct the Main Pavilion for Church Street Plaza, including retail, restaurants, and anerzas, along Church Street, Maple Avenue, and Clark Street. Mr, Marty Stem of U.S. Equities Realty; Mr. Arthur Hill, Mr. Tom White, Mr. Greg Hakanen, and Mr. Ron Berfiant of Arthur Hill Company; Mr. Greg De Stefano, Mr. John Lewis, and Ms. Becky Callcott of De Stefano & Partners; and Mr. Paul Laird of Bovis Construction Corporation were available to answer questions. A. Hill stated that Eibasani & Logan Architects retains responsibility for the overall exterior aesthetic, while construction matters will be handled by De Stefano & Partners. B. Eibasani stated that the tenants have caused some minor changes to the floor plans and elevations; however. approximately 90 percent of the previous version has 'held fast' 8 Eibasani stated that changes to Me elevations include adding more glass, further 'lightening the sense of the second floor. B Eibasani stated that the massing concept is still the same — the design 'feels like a series of buildings as opposed to one block' B. Eibasani stated that changes in building materials help Canvey the sense of 'a series of buildings'. S. Elbasani stated that the treatment for the east elevation has not yet been determined, i can range from "very utilitarian' to 'Hollywood' B. Eibasani stated that the ground floor includes retail, restaurants, and tre cinema lobby; the ground -floor cinema lobby has been minimized to maximize the ground -floor retail and restaurant space. A Hill stated that {�' SUMMARY DE FTNDtNWAr SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REViEW COtAME .ius�e T, 19+99 Pie 1 Of 4 they have a contract with Century Theaters to o=Vy the cinema spaoe, and they have an agreement in principle with Wolfgang Puck Grand Cafe. B. Elbasand stated that the second floor contains the mixing lobby for the cinemas and the second floor for one of the retag spaces. C. Mamuyac stated that the building materials inckx:* orange -tone brick at the pedestrian level, inch4mg lighter- and darker -colored brick accents; white and clear -anodized metal panels, and clear. Solex green, and/or fritted glass at the second floor, precast concrete or GFRC (Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete) copings and trim; CMU in a color complimentary to the brick: and a combination of metal and fabric awnings. M. Mylott asked the applicants: what building material is used for the portions of the west elevation protecting above the coping? C. Mamuyac responded: CMU, but that portion of the elevation is approximately 90 feet back from the Maple Avenue lot line: it will not be visits from the street- J. Woiinski asked the applicants: how tall is the building? C. Mamuyac responded: the building is 72 feet high; the marquee is 85 feet high. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you developed wall sermons? C. Mamuyac responded: yes, wal sections were necessary to develop the drawings presented: however, they are not in a presentable fomzaL C. Smith stated that she feels that she cannot comment effectrvey, because she cannot determine what locations have relief. C. Smith stated that the level of information is schemabc at best, and a design development phase has to happen. C. Smith stated that she does not believe that a necessary level of detail has been explored; a design development phase will address what happens at the base, how the brick transitions to the metal panels and glass, how the awnings are handled, how the east elevation is treated, and how the exiting and security concems along the east elevation are addressed. B. Fahlstrom agreed, and stated that the elevations lack the detail that would show "richness and texture' B. Elbasani stated that that exploration is the next step. C. Mamuyac agreed. C. Smith stated that she liked the increased amount of glass on the east elevation; that change gives the elevation more -life'. C. Smith asked the applicants: are you using stone at the base? C. Mamuyac responded: they are considering precast concrete or CMU at the base. B. Elbasani stated that stone Is %at best a trim element'; the primary materials are brick, metal, and glass_ C. Smith asked the applicants: are you using glass on the east elevation? C. Mamuyac responded: no, the east elevation will be CMU: although glass block is a possibility. C. Smith stated that the cornice along the brick portions of the building is "a little underdeveloped', and the coping along the metal panel and glass portions of the budding is 'weak`. C. Smith asked the applicants: how does the building relate to the sidewalk? T. White stated that the most - recent building plans and street geometries were forwarded to the landscape architect; as soon as the streetscape and landscape plans are available. he will forward them to the City. J. Wohnski asked the applicants: is the vertical marquee a corporate design or is it tailored for this site? C. Mamuyac responded: it will be tailored to fit this site, but Century Theater probably has a specific typeface they would like to use. M. Stern asked the applicants_ is the depicted vertical marquee Century Theater's requested sign? C Mamuyac responded no, that depiction is only 'holding the space on the drawing'. M. Mylott asked the applicants- is the horizontal marquee visible by southbound traffic along Maple Avenue? B. Elbasani responded: no, it was oriented to the busiest intersection. B. Elbasani stated that, with cinemas of this number, no one reads the marquee to determine what movie to see; rather, they read the marquee to SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 7, 1999 Page 2 or 4 it confirm an earner decision or evakrate show times. B. Eltsasani stated that the horizontal marquee provides a sense of scale and animation. M. Stem asked the applicants: have you considered starting the bce&n of the vertical marquee above the lobby space, such that the lobby does not appear interrupted? B. Ebaaani responded: the vertical marquee provides a vertical break to an otherwise `big mass'. A. Alterson asked the applicants: has the docking been finale red? T. Wtvte responded. the developer and the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) have an agreef wnt in principle. T. White stated that the first 5 feet of CTA property will be striped and have bollards, delineating an exit area for the cinemas; the next 12 feet of CTA property will be used for delivery purposes. T. White stated that deliveries will have to be 'hand trucked' from the delivery vehicles to the individual stores. T. White stated that they are still working out the reff ainirstg loading provisions. H. Friedman asked the applicants. how many seats are proposed? C. M,amuyac responded: 3.400. C_ Srrdh stated that Century Theater proposes using various exits. S. Elbasani stated that, while people will tend to exit at where they entered, show times are staggered every 20 to 30 minutes. H. Friedman stated that. while people are leaving, others are entering for the subsequent shows. C. Ruiz stated that the applicants shouid consider that people may attempt to avoid paying admission by entering via one of the numerous exits besides the lobby. C. Smith stated that the applicants should plan for signage during the design stage such that it closes not appear to be an add -on. C. Smith asked the applicants: will mechanicals be visible from the street? T. White responded. no, with the high parapet wall, the only place from which persons would see the mechanicals is the proposed residential building across Maple Avenue. R. Bediant stated that they have discussed moving the cooling towers away from the streets. H. Friedman asked the Committee: at what stage of review is this application? M. Mylott responded: the, Committee has taken no action on any aspect of the Church Street Plaza development, except it conducted a Preapplication Conference and it granted preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the plat of subdivision. D. Marino motioned to grant final site plan review approval. subject to review and approval of the landscape plan by the Division of Parks and Forestry. J. Woiinski seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that the items that the Committee reviews for 'site plan approvar are much finer than the items depicted on the site plans approved with the Planned Development and the Redevelopment Agreement. M. Mylott staled that the Committee may wish to consider granting preliminary site plan review approval, as landscaping is not a required item for review until fu:al site plan review. D. Marino amended his motion as such: grant preliminary site plan review approval. J. Wolinski amended the second such that it was consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motion f9-01 to_nrant orehminary site Dlan review approval. M Mylott staled that he was -somewhat disappointed' that the design philosophy did not pursue distinct buildings. massings, and/or entrances for the "main -stream" cinema versus the art -house cinema; however. SLOAMARY OF FOOMMGs SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COLUATrEE June T. Is" Page 3 d 4 !J with the phlosophy selected, he was happy w+lM flow the design was proceeding. M. Myfott staged DIVA he is looking forward to seeing the next keel ofdeta 1. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the ruff n. Discussion: D. Marino stated that he bola forward to seeing the proposal for the east elevaWM he is hopeful the design wit! pursue an `artful' appioarh. H. Friedman asked the apQfcants: will De Stefano & Partners have any input regard%n9 the design? Greg De Stefano responded: our commitment Is to maintain the design as conceived by Eibasani 6 Logan Architects. C. Smith stated that she wants to emphasize that the applicants should not use fabric awnings; that is not a long-term solution, because fabric wM not *hold up' in this ern:.,. ,...,...IL C. Smith stated that the awnings or canopies need to be glass or metaL M. Mylott stated that he world like to see more attention to the marquee, especia�y the horizontal marquee: it appears to have been an `afterthought% whereas it should be an Integral part of the design. B. Elbasani stated that, as it is shown, it is a `placehotdee. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. ;ve \ w'— — 'W Marc Steven Mylott. Zonin '. ♦ --� trb tf y { yiv^.� _ '°][.�}}M4 Z'� > t�,.9'; �.i�'.�.r �rt��^�Qj��aii5. ... ..,N �.. �'G.4i t.+.�. ��'..a{twvl .'r.�y ..fAAK - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMAS MEE June 7. 1999 Page 4 of 4 Date x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 9, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, P. D'Agostino. D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. Walczak. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly, J. Wolinski. H_ Friedman. S. Levine, C. Ruiz. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 99-066 2024 McCormick Boulevard Concept Construct addition to Ecology Center, Ms. Linda Lutz (Ecology Center) presented a site plan, floor plan, plat of survey, renderings, and site photographs to construct an addition to the Ecology Center, opted at 2024 McCormick Boulevard. L. Lutz stated that the building contains 1 office and 1 classroom. L. Lutz stated that the proposed construction would add an exhibit space (570 sq.ft.) and a second classroom (1,200 sq.ft.). L. Lutz stated that the exhibit space would have doors to, and windows overlooking, the courtyard; however, this area will not serve as the main entrance. H. Friedman stated that the exhibit space appears to be an new entrance; the landscaping must be designed to ensure that people do not consider it the entrance. L. Lutz stated that they considered this area for the entrance, but the distance between this area and McCormick Boulevard was too small, especially considering that children are the primary user of the building. C. Smith stated that the exhibit space may have too many doors. reducing display area. C. Smith asked L. Lutz: what are the proposed building materials? L Lutz responded. we have not considered building materials yet. C Smith stated that the drawings indicate that the proposed building materials may match the existing building materials; it is important that the addition 'pick up' the masonry used on the existing budding. C. Smith stated that the design works well w%h the existing architecture. SUMMARY OF FINCIM5 SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COVMITi1 E Jame 9. 19" Page 1 of 9 x L. Lutz stated that the land is leased to the City from the Metropoirltan Water Reclamation District (1,41V11RD) through 2030: the pions vr1N be submilili d to the MWRD for their review and appiroM as well. although greater detail may be required. L. Lutz stated that the City will be installing a stoplight at the comer of McCormick Boulevard and Bridge Street A. Alterson asked L Lug is the building and/or addition within the floodplain? L Lutz responded: f do not believe so: the building is on tw of the bank P. D'Agostino stated that he will check the location a! the building and proposed conistrucWn relative to the floodplain. D. Marino asked L. Lutz: will the addition encroach upon the bike path? L. Lutz responded: the main take path will not be affected. C. Smith stated that the applicant should check to ensure the vestibule has enough room to hang coats. R. Dahal asked L. Lutz: will this addition create a need for more parking? L Lutz responded: we have 48 parking spaces across the street D. Marino stated that, with the new stoplight, people will have more confidence to use the parking lot C. Ruiz asked L. Lutz: do the plans for the new stoplight include a pedestrian crossing sign? L. Lenz responded: no, but a pedestrian crossing signs is a good idea. D. Marino agreed. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to grgnt concept auptoval. SPAARC 99-025 114-116 Ridge Avenue Final Provide 5 addibonal open, off-street parking spaces for mullx-family resldentYaf building (Auld Ridge Condominiums), Mr. Mike Cahill (Auld Ridge Condonriniurns) presented working drawings, including a site plan, to provide 5 additional open, oil -street parking spaces for the multifamily residential building (Auld Ridge Condominiums) located at 114-116 Ridge Avenue M. Cahill stated that D .Jennings forwarded a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals saying that the benefit of the 5 additional off-street parking spaces outweighed the inconvenience of the narrow aisle and module: the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variations. M. Cahill stated that the scrub tree has been removed M. Mylott motioned to grant final s:te plan and appearance review approval. A. Attenson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-0) to orant final Site plan and apRUrance+ review aDDrovat. SPAARC 99-067 801 Davis Street Install above -ground diesel storage tanks (Cibcorp Savings). Applicant did not attend. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN ANO APPEARANCE REVIE79 COMMrrrEE June 9, 1999 Page 2 of 9 Preliminary and Final X SPAARC 99-066 Discussion Discuss Committee approach to processing wireless cor mmunrcatiorr Mmitty applications. A. Alterson stated that the Committee must have a 'corrective approach' to processing applications for wireless communication facilities (WCFs); the City exempts these uses from the Zoning Ordinance as non- rrwnicipal essential public services, but grants the Coaunittee "extra -ordinary' powers to review these applications. A. Alterson stated that the Federal government does not allow municipalities to prohibit these uses, but he believes that municipalities have more power than tie applicants let municipalities believe they have. A Alterson stated that he has a 'liberal at#itude' toward these uses; he cannot say that they are "bad' or'ugfy'. A. Alterson stated that he believes that a `beautiful" WCF could be built. C. Smith agreed. A. Alterson stated that he believes that the industry may be gone within 10 to 20 years, given Improvements in technology. M- Mylott stated that he would like to see a set of standards that can be communicated to applicants prior to Committee review, such that applicants are not surprised by Committee requests, regardless of what those requests may be. M. Mylott stated that, through this corr"nunicatkwi. the Committee and the applicant can have a "meaningful dialogue'. C. Ruiz agreed. C. Smith stated that Ux*e standards are already found within the Zoning Ordinance; the Committee is charged with reviewing landscaping, screening, and setbacks for the uses and their equipment. C. Smith stated that she does not know how she feels about requiring area or neighborhood improvements when those improvements may be beyond what the Zoning Ordinance enables the Committee to require. C. Smith stated that she would like to see WCFs beccrne a use to which the City Council granted final approval. M. Mylott stated that he was concerned that, due to general citizen opposition to WCFs, the effect of making WCFs a special use would be an outright prohibrtion of WCFs. C. Ruiz stated that the Committee could provide the City Council with input as to where WCFs should be permitted. M. Mylott stated that the City needs an WCF plan, because the Corrrruttee is operating without any direction from the City Council as to how to treat these uses; for example, questions that a WCF plan would answer include: Should monopoles be spread throughout Evanston or should they be clustered at relatively fewer sites? H. Friedman agreed, and stated that other cities designate saes for WCFs that they believe are appropriate for WCFs, given their desired approach to regulating WCFs: WCFs are permitted uses at designated sites, and WCFs are special or prohibited uses at less -than -desirable sites. A. Alterson stated that an alternative approach is for the Comrsuttee to deny all applications for WCFs, but include commentary regarding what steps the applicant could take to make the application acceptable; in that manner, the City Council would have the final decision on the application, because the appeal of the Committee decision would be heard by the Planning & Development Come of the City Council. C. Smith stated that that approach "makes some sense'. M. Mylott stated that that approach is "clever'. A Alterson stated that time is -on the side of the Committee' A Alterson stated that, whether the Committee is nght or wrong, applicants do not want to go to court; the only instance in which an applicant for a WCF will pursue litigation is where the Committee denies the application SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiFE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMNlnTTEE June 9, t999 Page 3 of 9 F ] 'SPAARC 99-069 1603 Orrington Avenue Preliminary and Final Resurface existing driveway and replace drive -up teller status with drA P-up ATVs for financial instil tni (First Chicago Bank). Mr. Rey Manalang (architect) presented working drawings. including a site plan, to resurface the existing driveway and replace the drive -up teller stations with drive -up ATMs for the financial institution (First Chicago Bank) located at 1603 Orrington Avenue. R. Manalang stated that the existing facility has 1 ATM and 5 drive -up teller stations. R. Manalang stated that the proposal is to remove the 5 drive -up teller stations and install 3 additional ATMs; the end result would be 4 ATMs and 2 by-pass lanes. R. Manalang stated that the proposal also reconfigures the way in which vehicles approach the ATMs: the driveway is split into 2 Lanes. decreasing conflict between vehicles approaching the ATMs and increasing the number of vehicles which can stack on -site. R. Manalang stated that the existing configuration only permits stacking space for 7 vehicles. R. Manalang stated that the Proposal does not affect the structure itself or any on-sRe lighting. D. Jennings stated that the reconfigured approach will not decrease conflict between vehicles approaching the ATMs, and he has never seen vehicles backed up on Davis Street as a result of this facility. C. Sn t#t asked D. Jennings: have you reviewed this application? D. Jennings responded: no. D. Jennings asked R. Manalang: what is the turning radius at the center island: R. Manalang responded: 30 feet. D. Jennings stated that that radius is acceptable. C. Smith asked R. &lanatang: with what are you dividing the driveway? R_ Manalang responded: a painted stripe. M. Mylott asked R. Manalang: what is the distance between the end of the driveway and the ATMs? R. Manalang responded- approximately 45 feet or the length of 2 cars. C. Smith asked R. Manalang: is First Chicago Bank proposing changing signage? R. Manalang responded: only in identifying that the facility includes ATMs. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he is not familiar enough with the site to determine whether or not the Committee is foreclosing the opportunity for landscaping. C. Smith disagreed. D. Marino stated that the applicant should 'make an effort' to provide landscaping. R. Manalang stated that the proposal only includes work to the center island; that island will be concrete to provide optimum visibility of the ATMs for vehicles within the queue. P D'Agostino stated that the applicant could plant a Shademaster Honey Locust (canopy tree) and ground cover within the center island. R. Manalang stated that he would plant those items within the center island. M. Mylott amended the motion as Such: grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to the installation of a Shademaster Honey Locust (canopy tree) and ground cover within the center Island H Friedman amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion A. Alterson stated that the applicant will not require a special use for this proposal. Committee the motion f 7-01 to arant oreliminary and final site clan and apcearance review approval. AuWeo o the installation of a Shademaster Honey !_Qgq (canoov tree) and around cover within the center island. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 9, 1999 Page 4 of 9 X SPAARC 99-M 1910 Dempster Street Recommendation to Sign Board Consider proposal to establish Unified Business Cenrer Sign Plan (Evanston Plaza). C. Smith presented an Application for Unified Business Center Sign Plan for the shopping center (Evanson Plaza) located at 1910 Dempster Street_ C. Smith stated that the applicant is proposing 3 colors for the signs: red, yellow. and unite. C. Smith stalled that the signs proposed for the towers and on the Dr)r.4 portion of the facade are too high. C. Ruiz stated that the Committee may want to consider it►atthe existing signs should conrCty with the Unified Business Center Sign Plan. C. Smith stated that all signs should be located on the bndt portion of the facade, and the colors shOWd be limited to red and white. A. Alterson stated that the height is important for visibility, especially for the stores located further from the streets. C. Smith stated that the visibility is improved by placing the signs agaiku t the brick portion of the facade; the signs do not read as weft when boated against the Dryvit perbon of the facade. M. Mylott agreed. C. Smith stated that an application by Blockbuster has aVeady been approved. C. Smith stated that she believes that Dominick's will apply for relief from the provisions of the proposed Unified Business Center Sign Plan. C. Smith stated that the proposal includes 2 new monument signs. D. Marino stated that the monument signs are attractive. M. Mylott agrees. A. Alterson stated that the new monument signs are higher than the ex6,fng signs, and the top piece of the monument signs "do not do much' for him. C. Smith stated mat the decorative stone elements along the sides of the monument signs are not necessary. D. Marino motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the monument signs, provided the monument signs consist only of brick, the limestone cap, and the batten root (all other limestone elements to be removed). M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee 5IDDroved t". motion f 7-2jsQ L=mmend thq,[(me Sian Review and ADpeats_Board approve the monument signs, orowdeo the monumenj signs rnnc65gnty of brick. thelimestone can. and the batten rpof_(all other limestone elements to be removed}. C. Smith motioned to recommend that the Siqn Review and Appeals Board approve the Unified Business Center Sign plan. provided (1) wall signs are limited to white only; and (2) wall signs shaZ only be mounted to the brick portion of the facade, except higher signs may be permitted on the towers, pnaded the signs are centered. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion. M. Mylott asked C Smith: does your recommendation include retrofitting existing signs? C. Smith responded: yes. the management company has an opportunity to make a statement with this shopping center. A. Alterson agreed C Smith amended the motion as such: recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Unified Business Center Sign Plan provided (1) Walt signs are limited to white only, (2) wall signs shall only be mcunted to the brick portion of the facade, except higher signs may be permitted on the towers, provided the signs are centered; (3) signs for Frank's Nursery and Crafts shall be white and SUAAAARY OF FWCO4GS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RE -VIEW COMUMME June 4. 12% Papa 5 or 9 'rj lowered and/or moved to the tower, and (4) signs for Sloe Abusr^er shall be Wr*ft. P. D'Agostino amended the second to be consistent with the amended motcr. Committee_approved the motion (9-01_to recommend that Unified Business Center Sion Plan._12mvkW (11 wall signs are limited to wh(te_onbG (2) wall starts s."s�lr�anly be mounted to the brick Hof the facade. ex=t higher signs may be permitted on the towers, a mMftd the -ions are centered: W sians for Frank's Nursery and Crafts shall be white and lowe-pd andlor r+*Qd to the tower and f41 signs for Qjg!;kItWster &hall be white. A copy of the Application for Unified Business Sign Plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appa3ranee Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-0W). SPAARC 9"074 1724 Sherman Avenue Recommendation fotr Sidewalk Cafe Sidewalk cafe for Type 2 Restaurant (Starbucks). Ms. Sarah DeHetre (store manager) presented an Application for Sidewalk Cafe for the type 2 res'.a xwt (Starbucks) located at 1724 Sherman Avenue, S. DeHetre stated that Starbucks will set up and operate the sidewalk cafe in the same manner as Last year. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established in the Sidewalk Cafe Regulation CheckW S. DeHetre responded that Starbucks will comply with all requirements. S. DeHetre stated that Starbucks will request the waiver to permit disposable beverage containers. A. Alterson read the notification requirements for a sidewalk cafe for a type 2 restaurant A Alterson gave S. DeHetre a handout, explaining the notification requirements for a sidewalk cafe for a type 2 restaurant D. Marino motioned to recommend the City Council approve the sidewalk cafe application. A Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicant should bring samples of dishware and Utensils to be used at the sidewalk cafe to the Planning & Development Committee meting. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to recommend the Citv Council aoorove the sidewalk cafe application. A copy of the Application for Sidewalk Cafe and a copy of the Sidewalk Cafe Regulation Checklist have b"n placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (9"074). SPAARC 99-062 222 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Erect 110-loot high monopole and equipment structure for wireless communication facility (Nextel Communications). Mr. Steve Ward (consultant) presented revised working drawings, including an area map, site Wan with landscaping, elevation, plat of survey; site and area photographs; and photographs of similar wireless communication facilities to construct a 110-foot high monopole and equipment structure for a wsr� communication facility (Nextel) at 222 Chicago Avenue. SUMMARY OF FiNDING5 SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 9 1999 Pape 6 of 9 I A. Atterson sated mt he views rzvm 2 towers at this site as problematic, because a second lower wi him more than 2 times the amount of S Ward stated that he has worked writ, 5. Levine to prepare a landscape plan that works within the 'eonkied spatial constraints' of the sae. S, : evire stated that the applicant should use'Uttie Princess' Spires. acid the number of plants should be anc—eased such that the spacing is every 2% feet to 3 feet on center. S- Ward stated he would make that charge. S. Ward stated that the fence $Lr-_'Xanding their lease area will be moved 5 fee, north of the Gaynor Monument building, such that persons may a —es the meters at the rear of the building. S. Ward stated that the fence aicreg Chicago Avenue is a B- to 7-foot chain link fence; they propose an &toot chain [ink fence with garbed wire = tap, sumx rldM their tease area. C. Smith stated that she would like to see the chain link fence along Ch4caga Avenue replaced by a wrought iron fence; the wrought iron fence oauid extend to the 'ctuvVe in duectler,' cl tie sidewalk shown on the plat of survey. S. Ward stated that that action will require the permission of the proper,,y owner. C. Smith stated that the fence surrounding the lease area should be wrought iron as well; the change in fence material would eliminate the need for barged wire, because persons cannot climb a ,wrou-A iron fence as well as a chain link fence. 0. Marino disagreed, and stated that a wrought iron fence surrounding the lease area was excessive. M. Mylott agreed. M. Mylott asked S Ward would Nextel accept a 5-foot wrought iron fence along Chicago Avenue and a 7-foot chain link fence with no barbed wire swrrour�ding the lease area? S Ward responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that the site photographs do not depac: the =%ange in direction of the sidewalk as shown on the plat of survey; the Committee must determine how ar the *Tought iron fence should extend along Chicaco Avenue. A. Afterson asked S Ward would Nextel agree to extend the wrought iron fence along Chicago Avenue to the northeast comer of Mr. Gaynor's property or to a major change in the direction of the sidewalk, whichever comes fast? S. Ward responded, yes, pendir.V perr-nission from Mr. Gaynor. S. Ward stated that Nextel will rra nra,n the property. inGuding installing new gravel and continual de -weeding. C. Smith asked S. Ward., does chat r;aintenance include the Ameritech lease area? S. Ward responded: Nextel cannot get inside the Amerdech •ease area. but I do not see why Ameritech would object to new gravel and removing weeds within their area M. Mylott stated that he hopes drat the frees located within the property remain, even thought they may not be the most 'desirable' species `green is green'. S. Ward stated that Nextel has no preference toward retaining or removing the trees norwe,.e►. they may require some trimming. A. Alterson stated that he is -very happy' with the proposed site improvements by Nextel; however, he would like to see a written commltmer; to this effect from Nextel, especially regarding the site maintenance. S. Ward stated that the onginal pmposaL included 6-foot long panels; the panels can be reduced to 4 feet king. S. Ward stated that the photograph cf a similar monopole presented to the Committee last week depicted 'hairs"; those 'hairs' are unused anpe rr-ounts. S Ward stated that the platform proposed by Nextel will only have 1 unused pipe mount per side, located m the middle of each side, reserved for future use. A. Allerson asked S. Ward will t e wictn of the monopole be the same as Ameritech's monopole? S. Ward responded the width will deperc upon the number of carriers the monopole is designed to carry. H. Friedman asked S. Ward hov big is the equipment structure? S. Ward responded 10 feet wide by 20 feet long, and 8 feet high C Smitr% stated that the equipment structure should be constructed of a brick that SUMMARY OF FL4D* ,8 SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE: REVIEW COAlihltnTl E June % 1999 Pais 7 of 9 X matches the Gaynor Mor+urnerit building. A. Aiterson stated that Nextel could place a limestone plaque on the building, 'taking credit" 'lor this site improvement and maintenance. D. Marino motioned to grant areCminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, providedr (1) the applicant install the lands=ing as modified during Committee review; and (2) the applicant Install a 6doot high wrought iron fence alarm Chicago Avenue to the northeast comer of Mr. Gaymfs property or to a nsajor change in the direction of the sidewalk, whichever comes first, and a 7-foot chain link fence around throe lease area. Motion fails¢ for lack of a second. M. Mylott motioned to grarr preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant (1) install the landscaping as modified during Committee review; (2) instal[ a 6-foot high wrought iron fence along Chicago Avenue to the northeast comer of Mr. Gaynor's property or to a major change in the direction of the sidewalk, wtlichever comes first, and a 7-foot chain fink fence around the lease area; (3) construct the equipment shed out of brick, matching the Gaynor Monumer.2 building; (4) provide a maintenance plan, including the landscaping and the gravel within the subject property. 0. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: S. Ward stated that he will Investigate the east lot rime issue and provide the Ccrnmittee secretary with a revised site plan, revised landscape plan, and the requested documentation regarding maintenance. M. Myfott stated that he would support a small plaque within the wrought iron fence, gMng'credit' to Nextel for the site improvements and maintenance. SommMee aoonn+ed the mc+�on jr2-_ to grant oreliminary and final site plan and a=arance review �Darowdl_ provided the applicant (1) install the landscaping as modified during Committee rev*r. (2) install a 6-foat high wrCuoht iron fence along Q.nicaao Avenue to the northeast comer of Mr GavnceS orop€rty or to a ma& chance in the direction of the si Ik. whichever comes first. and a 7-foot chain frnk fence around the tease area: (31 construct the eauirmynt shy gut of brick. matching the Gavnor Monument building: (4) provide a Enain(gnance plan. includina the landscaoirta and the aravel within the subject Dro22rly. R. Dahal abstained. D. Jennings motioned to reuse the previous preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval to include an additional provision that the monopole be designed to accommodate 3 carriers. M. Mybti seconded the motion. Discussion: C Smith asked S. Ward. will you remove the monopole if you no longer use it? S. Ward responded: yes, that provision will be included within the lease with Mr. Gaynor. Committee aooroved the rrro�in o revise the 2revious Dreliminary and final site elan and gnpgarance review approval to include an additional orovision that the monopole be resigned to a-,r_ommodate 3 CaEq=. R. Dahal abstained. The plat of survey and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-062). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE .tune 9. 19% �► Page a of 9 SPAARC 99-064 Sherman Avenue Announcement Announce special SNe Plan and Appearance Review Corr Id we meeting to review Sherman Averua Gam p Redevelopment: June 21st at 3:30 p.m. C. Smith stated that the Site Plan and Appearance Review C 6.,; will conduct a special meeting to review Sherman Avenue Garage Redevelopment on June 21st at 3:30 p.m. M. Mylott stated that he will reserve Room 2404. Approval of Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June Z 1999. H. Friedrr an seconded to motion. Committee approved the motion (7-01 to approve the S ummuX of Findings of rum 2. 1999. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. �pectful Marc Steve SUMMARY OF F9=NGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COM UrrrEE June 9, im Pspe9of9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 2, '1999 Room 24G4 Members Present: A. Alterson, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, P. D'Agostino, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Walinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 2:45 p.rn. SPAARC 98-0034 1910 Dempster Street Revision to Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Remodel existing building for new grocery stare (Domirrim s) and retail tenant within Evanston Plaza. Mr. Dennis Harder (development manager, Joseph Freed & Associates, inc.) and Mr. Thomas L Miller (Joseph Freed 8 Associates, Inc.) presented a site plan (including fandscapOV), northern elevation, and building material samples to remodel the existing building for a new grocery store (Dominick's) and retail tenant within Evanston Plaza, 1910 Dempster Street. D. Harder stated that they have moved the Dominick's west and added a retail space at the east end of the shopping center. T. Miller stated that this configuration creates fewer structural problems. A. Alterson asked the app&canm does this project involve demolition? T. Miller responded: no, this project is strictly remodeling and refacing the existing building. C. Smith read the March 31, 1996 i:mmary of Findings regarding this case. C Smith asked the applicants: how have you responded to Committee concerns? T. Miller responded that 1 the northern elevation has been revised to better reflect the existing Shopping center. Z the new storefronts are approximately flush, such that pedestrian movement is not impeded they have added 'piers" to each end of the Dominick's portion of the northern elevation H. Friedman stated that the applicants should add a 'pier" at the midpoint of the Office Depot portion of the northern elevation, specifically at the point at which the height of the parapet changes. to provide a 1C— SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 2. 1999 Pale 1 of 10 E� getter balance. C. Smith agreed, and stated ttlat the 'pier' should be the same height at the higher we of the parapet 4 they have added clear glass from approximately 7 to 9 feet high at the entrance 5, they have submitted an application for Unified Business Center Plan. C. Smith stated that this item wdl be on the Committee agenda next week: the Sign Review and Appeals Board will considW this item on June 10, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. 6. they have added radii at the driveways. T. Miller stated that the base of the Dominick's is cut -face block; however, they could use brick. C Smith stated that the applicant should use brick. T Miller stated that he is concerned that it will be difficult to match the existing brick. C. Smith stated that the brick is not an unusual color, and the applicant should na# have any drff culbes matching, or closely matching, the brick. C. Smith stated that she does not have a problem with the applicant using cut -face block or renaissance stone at the base of the columns for the large "entry elements'. H. Friedman agreed. T. Miller stated that they are considering skylights within the roof of the large 'entry elements'; these items would provide more natural light at the entrance and exd. M- Mylott asked the applicants: would the skylights be visible from the street or parking area? T. Miller responded: no, they would be located behind the roof. T. Miller stated that the roofs of the large "entry elements' will have 'the illusion that they wrap around'. D. Harder stated that the existing blue color within the shopping center will be changed to sea -foam green. T Miller stated that they will patch all holes within and resurface the EIFS. C. Smith asked the applicants: do you have roof -top equipment? T. Miller responded: yes, but it will not be visible A. Alterson asked the applicants: do you have provisions for bicycle parking? T Miller stated that provisions for bicycle parking could be added under the large 'entry elements' D. Harder stated that they cauid also install bicycle parking along the south side of the first row of parking spaces. C. Smith stated that the applicants should try to provide opportunities for persons to park bicycles. A Alterson stated that he befieves Dominikk's will have customers wishing to travel via bicycle C. Smith asked the applicants. how do you store shopping carts? T Miller responded: cart corrals. T Miller stated that shopping carts will be moved from the cart corrals into the store: shopping carts would not be stored undemeath the arcade. D. Harder stated that the only time in which shopping carts may be stored underneath the arcade is while the store is closed; once the store opens, they will be moved. C. Smith asked the applicants. have you changed the landscape plan? D. Harder responded: no T Miller stated that he has informed the management company that any changes to the landscape plan will need to be reviewed by the Committee. C. Smith stated that changes to the landscape plan should be routed through the Division of Parks and Forestry for their opinion prior to Committee review D Manna asked the applicants are you seeking Committee approval of the entire easttwest portion of the shopping center, including Office Depot? T Miller responded yes C. Smith mowned to approve the revision to the previous final site plan and appearance review appoval, provided the applicant (1) extends brick from the top to the bottom of the principle facade of the ncrhem elevation. rather than using a different building material for a base: (2) adds a -pier' at the height change of SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 2. 1999 Page 2 of 10 V the parapet within the Office Depot portion of the northern elevation; and (3) provbes bicyde parkrg At Alterson seconded the motion. Committee iMp_royed the. I, eq rt VAI to aporove &,e rerrrsion to MR cre►►i%& final siteDlan and_gppearance review ay2Mmf. provided ng applicant (11 extends brirft from► ttte � bottom of the nrinciote facade of the northern elevation. rather than usino a different b ui� raters, tZ a base, (2) adds a 'bier" at the height change of the oar pr_�t within the Office Df►oot pW oM of tl+e r,rr4rern elevation aaO (3) provides bicycle parking. The site plan (including landscaping) and northern elevation have been placed within the Site Pavan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-QCt34). SPAARC 98-0130 425 Dempster Street Revision to Final Reconsider location of air -conditioner condensing units (Ctziaravalle Montessori 5chod). Mr. Errol Jay Kirsch (architect) presented a site plan (inducting landscaping), floor plan, and elevations to allow the Committee to reconsider the placement of air-cond tiorvuzg units for Chiaravalle Montesson SchoaL 425 Dempster Street. E. J. Kirsch stated that he would like to move 2 air-conditionmg units from the last -proposed kxation (next to the original i air-conditioning unit, just north of the original building) to the location of the ocher 3 air-conditioning units, just west of the annex. M. Mylott motioned to approve the revision to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to rewew and approval by the Department of Parks. Recreation, and Forestry of the landscape plan. D. Marino seconded the motion Qommittee approved the motion (6-01 to approve the revision to the previous final-siteses Alan and aooearafice revi IW a2QrQY,a1. subject to review and approval by the Department of Parks. Recreation. and Forestry of the landscape plan. The site plan (including landscaping), floor plan, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-01-V). SPAARC 98-0139 430 Asbury Avenue Final Demolish vacant building (former Asbury Market) and erect retail goods establishment (Osco Drug). Mr. Peter Theodore (architect) and Mr. Lee Winter (developer) presented working drawings, Including a site plan. floor plans, and building elevations, and a landscape plan to demolish the existing building (former Asbury Market) and erect a retail goods establishment (Oscz Drug) at 430 Asbury Avenue C. Smith stated that the applicant has submitted an Application for Building Permit P. Theodore stated that the Committee will be happy to know that the plans substantially comply with those plans originally reviewed by the Committee P Theodore stated that bu,hiang matenais will include standard -size, Chicago comrnGn- style brick, pre -aged copper or gun-metal grey pre -finished metal; plaster parapet; and limestone trim and cap. P Theodore stated that the parapet was to be renaissance stone. P Theodore stated that his preference is to Install a plaster parapet, however. budget may require the parapet and associated 'fingers' within the piers to be EiFS Instead C. Smith asked the applicants have you submitted a photometric plan? L. Winter responded. yes. L WmWr stated that the lighting includes 2 pole lights within the parkcng area and 1 pole light at the entrance along SUMMARY OF FINDU#GS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMAUrrEE June 2 IM Page 3 of 10 X Asbury Avenue; this entrance tight will exceed the C,ty's requirement that a light not exceed Q toot-catXles at the lot line, but Alderman Rainey. J. Wolinski. and D. Jennings have 'okayed it'. D. Marino motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review appra.W. A Atterson seconded the a, icti rt. Discussion: Mr. Douglas Lasch asked the Committee: may I offer comments? C Smmth responded. yes. D. Lasch stated that the site plan does not provide enough room for shrubbery along the east side of the parking area. P. Theodore stated ttlat their landscape architect is confident that the east side of the parking area has "ample space` for the proposed plant material. C. Smith stated that the parking area CM be shifted west, such that the resulting landscaped areas along the east and west lot lines were better balanced in terms of size. L. Winter stated Mat such an adjustment was 'not a problem` C. Smith stated that the applicant should work with the Division of Parks and Forestry on this isslr� D. Lasch stated that the site plan does not accommodate pedestrians within the sft; for example, the site plan does not provide a distinct pedestrian path from the Asbury Avenue sidewalk to the front door (immediately south of the northern Asbury Avenue egress, crossing the north end of the driveway 1br the drive-thru window). L. Winter stated that they do not want to invite pedestrians at that location; their intent is to keep pedestrians and automobiles separate. C Smith stated that pedestrians rarefy cross at designated areas they will take the shortest and easiest path across lire parking area D. Lasch stated that the building looks 'great" out the site plan 'needs work' D. Marino amended the mobon as such: grant f-nal site plan and appearance review approval. subject to (1) review and approval of the location of the parking area. specifically the resulting widths of the landscaped areas along the east and west lot lines, by the Division of Parks and Forestry, and (2) review and approval of the plans for landscaping within the right-of-way, specie ^mlty any plans to remove existing street trees. by the Division of Parks and Fores, y A Atterson amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Qmmigee @DproVed the motion f7-01 to arant final site Dian and ap 1�arance review aooroval subiert to (1] review and aooroval of the loc4ton of the carKina area, specifically the-esultino widths of the landso2gg area alono the east and west lot Imes. by the Division of Parks and Forestry and (2) review and aooroval of the olans fo[ landscaoina within the noht-of-way. s2=ff&a1ty anv plans to -emove existing street trees.ry the Divlslo of Parks and Forestry The floor plan and elevations have teen placed within tre Site Plan and A pearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0139) SPAARC 99-030 1964 Dempster Street Preliminary and Final Install drop box for new video store (Blockbuster Video) Mr. George Sladek (architect) presented working drawings to install a drop box for a new video store (Blockbuster Video) at 1964 Dempster Street Mr Anthony Thompson 'Blockbuster Entertainment Group) and Mr. Alex Halamis (architect) were available to answer questions SUMMARY of FINDINGS ` SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 2, 1999 �`/`�' Page 4 of 10 x G. Sladek stated that they would like to replace one Urge panel of glass with a smaller panel of glass and an insulated warehousing panel': the smaller panel of glass would be located within the top one-half of the existing space. and the 'warehousing panel' would be located within the bottom one-half of the existing aRace. G. Sladek stated that the "warehousing panel' will match the color cf the existing storefront — bronze. G. Sladek stated that the 'warehousing panel' would ir6ude a video slot through which customers could return videos. M. Mylott asked the applicants: is this work the only exterior change? A. Thompson responded: yes. C. Smith stated that the Building Division has approved the signage. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and Final site plan and appearance review appiroval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Qgmmittee approved the moion (7-0) to grant gretiminary and -final site Barr and appearance review approval. SPAARC 99-062 222 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Erect 110-foot high monopole and equipment structure for wireless aommunicatan facility {Nextel Communications). Mr. Steve Ward (consultant) and Mr. Michael Stem (Nextel) presented working drawings, including an area map, site plan. elevation, plat of survey, and photograph of a sinuW wireless communication facility, to construct a 110-foot high monopole and equipment structure for a wireless communication facility (Nextel) at 222 Chicago Avenue S. Ward stated that this site is located along the west side of Chicago Avenue, next to Gaynor Monuments and the railroad; the site is improved with a 90-foot high monopole, operated by Ameritech, constructed in 1983. S. Ward stated that Nextel contacted Ameritech to discuss co -location; Ameritech stated that the pole was not constructed for co -location. S. Ward stated that Nextel would construct their pole to handle up to 3 different carriers, if required. S. Ward stated that the site is approximately i 1 feet by 20 feet. S. Ward stated that the site would be improved with a 110-foot high monopole: an approximately 8-foot high equipment structure. covered by a brown aggregate: and a parking space for a service vehicle. S. Ward stated that the parking space could be the location of the equipment structure for a future user. S Ward stated that they propose to surround the site with an 8-foot high. chain link fence M. Mylott stated that the site plan shows a 20-foot access easement in front of the gate to the wireless communication facility (WCF). M. Mylott asked the applicants, have you reviewed the restrictions of the access easement? S. Ward responded: I do not think that easement will be a problem. Nextel may need a cross easement agreement. C Smith asked the applicants: how high are the oveMead railroad tracks? S Ward responded. I am guessing that they are approximately 40 feet high C Smith stated that while it is unfortunate that ire WCFs cannot ca-locate, this location seems like a reasonable location for a second monopole. A. Alterson disagreed, and stated that, because this location serves as an entryway to the City, adding a second rrionopole is not an improvement. A Alterson stated that he wants to see what Nextel proposes to improve the area. A. Alterson stated that a monopole does not have to be 'ugly"; perhaps Nextel can devise a creative solution to the visual impacts the monopole will have on ?C_ SUMMARY OF FWpNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REViE:Y CO0.R11 MEE June 2. I M Page 5of10 k � the corridor, such as a sculpture. C. Smith disagreed, and stated that she prefers that the structure be slender and nondescript D. Marino agreed. H. Friedman stated that, because this location is an entryway to the City, 'substantial` landscaping would be welcome. H. Friedman stated that it is unfortunate the 2 WCFs cannot co -locate cn 1 monopole. S_ Ward stated that they may be able to move back the fence to provide landscaping. C. Ruiz asked the applicants: have you had any discussions with Amentech about moving their antennas to your monopole? S. Ward responded: we would approach Ameritech and ask them if they are interested. M. Mylott stated that he does not believe the City can mandate such an action. A. Alterson disagreed. D. Marino stated that the ComrMee needs to decide if they want this site to be the one site for WCFs for this portion of the City. or ii the WCFs should be dispersed throughout the kruTiediate area. C. Smith stated that she finds the platform objectionable; the "hair -like' projections need to be 'cleaned up'. S. Ward stated that he will review options with Nextel. M. Stem stated that a different configuration may reduce the size of the monopole, requiring a second site within the City_ C. Srrft stated that she cannot believe that the antenna configuration has to appear that'messy'. A. Alterson agreed. M. Stem stated that this configuration permits the fewest sites. A. Alterson motioned to table this item. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicant should worts with the Division of Parks and Forestry, regarding the landscape plan. D. Marino asked the applicants: who owns the site? S. Ward responded: Mr. Gaynor. H. Friedman stated that the WCF could move 14 block south and use the tall buildings within Chicago. M. Stem stated that moving the WCF would probably require a second site in Evanston. H. Friedman stated that he finds that statement very unlikely. D. Jennings agreed. Cammittee_aooroved the_mation fMI to table this O&M. The area map, site plan, and elevation have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-062). SPAARC 99-016 2930 Central Street Final Construct second -story addition to vacant 7-story building (formerty Micherini's Restaurant, proposed Clyboum Financial). Mr Nathan Kipnis (architect) presented working drawings, including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations; a plat of survey; and site and area photographs to construct a second -story addition to the vacant 1-story building (formerly Michelins s Restaurant, proposed Clybourn Financial) located at 2930 Central Street. N. Kipnis stated that the addition will be constructed of taupe -colored brick and limestone. N. Kipnis stated that the windows are operable with applied simulated muttons; trim will be dark bronze. N. Kipnis stated that the shingles will be taupe or brown asphalt. N Kipnis stated that the area surrounding the sign lettering Is recessed brick; the sign letters are non -illuminated, copper or patina copper, although the latter has not been SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 2, 1999 Page 5 of 10 X reviewed by the client N. lGpnis stated that the tiles at the edges of the recessed brick will be copper or Limestone. M. Mylott asked N. 10pnis: have you worked out the floor area calcu3abca s such that the previous panting problems have been resolved? N. Kipnis responded: yes. D. Marino asked N.10pnis: what type of use is Ctyboum Financial'? N. Krpnis responded: Ctyboum Financial is a loan institution, currently located in W Imetle: they have approximately 12 employees. M. Mylotr asked N. lGpnis: is Clybaum Financial moving here from Whlmette? N. 10pnis responded: yes. D. Marino motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the rrar boo Discussion: H. Friedman stated that the applicant should consider using a solid wood door *M glass at the street entrance to enhance the character of the building. C. Smith stated that the transom should be wood as welf. M. Mylott stated that he does not thfr* Ou d the Committee should mandate that change. D. Marino amended the motion as such: grant final site plan and appearance review approval, including a suggestion that the applicant consider using a solid woad door with glass and a wood transom at the street entrance. M. Mylott amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee apRrroved the motion (M) to orant final site plan and appearance review approvai, including a sUggmtion-that the applicant consider usino a solid wood door with class and a wood transom at the street entrance. The site plan. elevations, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-016). SPAARC 99-010 1300 Oak Avenue Final Construct accessible ramp and reconfigure exits for retirement home (Oakwood Terrace). Mr. Mike Bailey (architect) and Pat McDiarmid (property owner) presented a revised elevation to construct an accessible ramp and reconfigure exits for a sheltered care facility (Oakwood Terrace) located at 1300 Oak Avenue. M. Bailey stated that each railing -and -baluster segment is 8 feet long. M. Bailey stated that the railings and balusters match the other proposed railings and balusters; the balusters are placed 4-inch on -center. M. Bailey stated that the stone wraps around the pilasters, and each pilaster has a stone cap. C. Smith stated that this version is 'much better'; it is lighter and more open. D. Jennings agreed, and stated that he visited the site; an 8-foot stone wall would have been 'overpowering" P McDiarmid stated that, regarding landscaping, 5 Levine suggested small evergreens. C. Smith stated that, with the revision, the plant material may not have to be as high as originalA/ considered; however, the applicant should still select plant material that provides some vertical undulation D Jennings stated that the applicant can apply for a permit to use part of the City right-of-way for landscaping specifically that segment between the lot line and the sidewalk. P D'Agostino stated that an application for a permit to use City right-of-way must include a landscape plan, showing plant species and location. summARY OF FINDING$ SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COrI NMEE luny 2- IM9 Page 7 of 10 it C. Smith stated that the applicant will need a drain across the landings of the accessible ramp M. Mylott asked the applicants: does the color of the louver match the color of the ralhngs7 M, S&Rey responded: yes. M. Mylott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, based upon the revised alevamnn, subject to review and approval of the landscape plan by the Dr%ision of Parts and Forestry, and it ling a recommendation that the applicant pursue a permit to use the area between the lot line and the skNro aik for landscaping. P. O'Agostino seconded the rnobon Committee approved the motion (8-()to grant_ final s€te plan and ap>earance review approval. based uper the revisee elevation_ subiect I;( r� evvx+w and aQQM%W of the lap scaDC plan by the Division of Parks and Ferecirv_ and irclu ing.a a=M=ndatign that the apnirant pursue a permit to use the area between the lot lir.A and the s,dewalk for land scaoin 1 The revised elevation has been placed within the Sate Plan and Appearance Review Committee foyer for this case (99-010). SPAARC 99-063 2110 Sheridan Road Preliminary Erect 45-foot high bell tower (Shell Catholic Center) Mr. Mike Hannan (architect) and Reverend Kermit Suyn (property owner) presented a site plan, eilevations, and site photographs to erect a 45-foot high bef tower for a religious institution (Shell Catholic Center) located at 2110 Sheridan Road. M. Hannan stated that the site is improved with an existing foundation that will support the proposal. the bell tower consists of 4, 8-inch by 8-inch posts that taper to 6-inch by 6-inch posts. M. Hannan stated that the highest structure on site is 45 feet high; the bell tower matches that height. A Alterson stated that bell tower is too high for an accessory use: the bell tower can be no higher than 17% feet. A. Alterson stated that he can think of no way to approve this application by right; the applicant will require a major variation. H. Friedman stated that he does not want the application approved by right: he is concerned about the potential precedents a by -right approval may create. H. Friedman stated that the design is 'nice'. C. Smw�tfi agreed. M Mylott asked the applicants are you proposing any lighting? M Hannan responded. possibly up-Iighbng. 0. Jennings molioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, including a recommendation that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the zoning relief necessary to construct the proposed bell tower, noting the superior quality of design and tt-.e openness cf the structure. H. Friedman seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (Z-0) to grant oretiminarr and final site plan and appearanV. review apDrQval includina a recommendation that the Zonino Board of Appeals grant the zQnina relief necessary to ponstruct the or000sed bell tower notino the supencr ouality of lesion and the openness of the structure The revised elevation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-010) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �`/[?' June 2.1999 Page aof1O it SPAARC 99-0" 1015 Chicago Avenue Pr+eLiminarx Renovate facade of, and install outdoor lights for, existing auto-nobtle sales establishment (AufaSwn). Mr. Richard Fisher (property owner) and Mr. Marie Fisher ffig" contractor) presented a revised site plan, including landscaping, to renovate the facade of, and install outdoor lights for, an existing automctAle sates establishment (AutoBam) located at 1015 Chrago Avenue. R. Fisher stated that he is happy not to cover the metal -sided shed with Dryvit he will paint 4 ins.-ead and install larger windows. R. Fisher stated that he is concerned about the parking area lighting level: he was informed that the lighting level cannot exceed 4 foot candles -- the equrralent of a flashlight. D. Jennings stated that street 5ghting Is set at 4 foot candles. M. Fisher stated that a typical dealership has the lighting level set at approximately 100 to 120 foot candles. R. Fisher stated that the lighting L-eel within the Committee meetinig rborn Is approximately 50 foot candles. D. Jennings asked the applicants: are you proposing a lighting level similar to that set at the southwest comer of Greenleaf Street and Chicago Avenue? R. Fisher responded: much less brighter than that site. D. Jennings stated that tie photometric pian depicts an average lighting level of 24 foot candles. D. Jennings stated that he Is not opposed to the lighting level set at the southwest comer of Greenleaf Street and Chicago Avenue; however, he will need trr-e outside of the Committee meeting to review the photometric plan. P. D'Agostino stated that the landscape plan s: acceptable. H. Friedman motioned to grant preliminary appearance review approval, provided the applicant install larger windows within the west elevation of the metal -sided shed. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicant should amend the Application for Building Permit to include the parking lot striping, landscaping. and revised fighting; the applicant will need to submit a second Application for Building Permit for the new windows within the west elevation of the metal -sided shed, or add the necessary information to the permit file already are file with the Building Division. Committee Mmved the motion f7 ) to amrt orelirninarY WWarance review aporeval provided the apglicant install larger windows within the west elevation of the metai-sided_shed. The revised site plan, including landscaping has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-044). SPAARC 98-0122 Discussion OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Discuss June 4, 1999 special Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meeting, regarding binding appearance review. M. Mylott stated that he will be unable to have me Summary of Findings from the December 1998 special Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meermg completed by this Friday C Smith stated that she would like to have that document prior to proceeding with further discussion D Jennings and P D'Agostino agreed. C. Smith stated that the Committee should reserve the regularly -scheduled meeting of June 30, 1999 to continue the discussion of binding appearance review SUL APIARY OF FMIDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COfMUTTEE jams 2. 1999 Rape 9 of 10 9 Abbibvafof Summary of Findings P. D'Agostino motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of May 26. f 999. D. Jennings .,,-I the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-o) to MUM the Summary of Findings ot 2& t9�• Adiourriment The meeting adjoumed at 4.55 p.m. SUMMARY OF APPEARANCE AN FINDINGS AAil� SITE PLAN APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE .lung 2. 19" Pape 10 of 10 E1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 26, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings, P. D'Agostino, D. Marino. M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly, J. Tonkinson. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: Commencement M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3-05 p m SPAARC 99-059 2620 Thayer Street Preliminary and Final Construct addition to single-family residence, requiring major variation. Ms Susan Rundle (architect) presented an Application for Major Variation, including a site ;,an and site photographs, to construct an addition to a single-family residence located at 2620 Thayer Street S Rundle stated that the earlier confusion about the proposed construction stemmed from the existing conditions of the site. the existing t-story addition at rear of the residence has a notch at &,e southeast corner S Rundle stated that, within the notch, the proposed construction will be 2 stories: however, the remainder of the construction Is a second -story addition over the existing 1-story addition at tfte rear of the residence S Rundle stated that, to address the Building Code issue regarding windows within new walls less than 3 feet from a lot line. the east wall of addition will be moved west approximately 6 inches such thata, is at least 3 feet from the east lot line A Alterson asked S. Rundle: what Is the downside of this configuratlon'2 S. Rundle responded the size of the rooms Is still acceptable, however. the roofiine is awkward C Smith stated that the eaves of the roof could still align A Alterson agreed M Mylott asked the Committee. does a board exist whose power it Is to grant variations to the Budding Code? C Smith responded. yes. the Propen4y Services Board C Smith stated that she can recall the Board only approving one such case with conditions, generally, the Board does not favor such cases. J Wolinskl asked S Rundle whal is the need for the addition? S. Rundle responded. to accommodate an increasing family size and to increase the size of an -unusable- kitchen SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVSEVI C016U iTrEE May Z& 1999 Page n of 4 x D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review apprrswal. D. Marino seconded the motiinm _ommittee_anoroved the motion (8-01 to_arant nretrn+naty and finafi sitq_2tart and apggarance review acoroval The sate plan and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Re<r.ew Committee folder for this case (9--059) SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Announcement Announce location of june 7, 1999 special Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meeang for Church Street Plaza Aldermanx Library at 3 p m C. South stated that the location for the June 7, 1999 special Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meeting for Church Street Plaza will be the Aldermanic. Library at 3 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of bindings of May 19, 1999 P. D'Agostino seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (a&) to aot}rove the Summary of Fmdinas_of lV ay 19 199R, SPAARC 99-061 Dobson-Brummel Park Preliminary and Final Construct gazebo and other improvements at park (Dobson-Brummel Park) S. Levine presented working drawings, including 3 site plan and catalog cut sheet. to construct a gazebo and other improvements at the Dobson-Brummel Park. S. Levine stated that the proposal includes replacing old playground equipment with near playground equipment along the west side of the park. constructing a gazebo at the center of the park, and providing an open lawn along the east side of the park. S Levine stated that the 12-foot by 12-foot gazebo -all have black metal posts; a patina -green metal batten roof: and tongue -and -grove decking underneath the roof S Levine stated that the gazebo will include 1 picnic table S Levine stated that me park is only 55 feet wide P D'Agostino stated that the park does not front on a street the property to the west contains a parking lot and the other 3 sides abut alleys C Smith asked S Levine do the plans include lighting? S. Levine responded no the site already has 4 to 5 lights at the alleys C Smith asked S Levine do the plans include a drinking fountain? S Levine responded, no D Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval D Jennings seconded the motion Committee aeoroved the motion (7-01 to arant Drel:minare and final site clan and pocearance review approval P D'Agostino abstained The site plan and catalog cut sheet have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Rewe-v Committee folder for this case (99-0511 SUhdUARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE v May 25 1999 Page 2 of 4 SPAARC 99-010 1300 Oak Avenue Construct accessible ramp and reconfigure exits for retirement home (Oakwood Terrace) Applicant did not attend Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3 30 p.m. Commencement Final C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and reconvened the meeting at 3.50 p.m. Members and od!w staff present included- A Atterson, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agosbno), D. Marino, M. MyM C. Smith, C Ruiz. SPAARC 99-010 1300 Oak Avenue Construct accessible ramp and reconfigure exits for sheltered care facility (Oakwood Terrace). Final Mr Mike Bailey (architect) and Pat McDiarmid (property owner) presented working drawings. including a site plan, floor plans, and elevation, and site photographs to construct an accessible ramp and reconfigure exits for a sheltered care facility (Oakwood Terrace) located at 1300 Oak Avenue. C Ruiz stated that this property is located just outside a historic distnct M Bailey stated that the accessible ramp proposed along Dempster Street replaces a ramp located along the north side that is not ADA compliant; the non -compliant ramp will be replaced by stairs. M. Bailey stated that the stairs along the west side will be extended. C Smith asked the applicants- will the new stairs have vertical balusters? M. Bailey responded' yes C Smith asked the applicants Anti the railings and balusters be painted metal? M Bailey responded yes M Bailey stated that the exterior building material of the accessible ramp will be Field stone with a stone cap, matching an existing building material M Bailey stated trial the railrrg at the east end of the ramp extends beyond the Field stone porticri of the ramp M Bailey stated that the ramp is 1 foot off the Dempster Street lot line D Jennings stated that that setback leaves approximately 2 to 3 feet before the side -Valk C Smith stated that some landscaping is necessary between the ramp and the sidewalk to reduce the impact of the ramp on the pedestrian M Mylott agreed. and stated that the species and height of material should vary to provide visual breaks along the length of the ramp D Jennings stated that the applicant would need a permit to plant within the right-of-way. the Engineering Department and the Division of Parks and Forestry would reed to sign off on such a permit C Smith stated that she would support such a permit A Atterson agreed S Levine asked the applicants how high is the ramp from the sidewaik? M Bailey responded 8 feet at the highest point A Atterson stated that he is concerned. because this is a -quite a structure" located 1 foot from SUMMARY OF FtNDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CCMIAIrTTHE May 26 19N Poe 3 of t the lot brie. M. Sauey stated that this location is the only one on Vm prop~" at which an acoessIble ramp could be located. C. Smith stated that she Is 'sonnewhat Mothered' by iL beat she sees no other "truly bets solution- C. Smith stated that the pn*csal is reasonat w especWy gAien the proposed building miaterMAs- M. Mylott asked the applicants: could you reduce the heght of the 6eid s--jre and use a railing? M. Barley responded: the wall is used to We the railing on both s.Ces. C Smith sty that she would rather see Vw wad, because the required flinch spacing of twusters w r ,jn a radrng reads as a wall. D. Jennings disagreed C. Ruiz stated that the applicants could place railing in tetween pilasters c4 field stone: such a configuration would create `visual interest* at the street M Barley stated that he has e=bred many altematives, and die current proposal seems most plea" to hirr. and the ckent C. Smith stated that perhaps the Committee would concur if they could see "quick sketches' of the otter designs that Cie architect explored. D. Jennings motioned to table this rtem. D. Manno seconded the motion. Corrxnittee approved the motion (6-0)tp tab!Q this item Adjolumment The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Date SITE ARYPLAN AN APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARAlMCIi REVIEW COMA+tit'TEE May 26, 9 999 . Page 4 of 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 19, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings. P. D'Agostino, D. Marino. M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly. J. Tonkinson. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: Commencement C. Bush, L. Lyon, C. Ruiz. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3 05 p.m. SPAARC 99-055 1936 Sheridan Road Preliminary and Final Construct accessible ramp for office uses within former single-family residence (!Northwestern University). Mr Demetri Cdezis (architect) presented working drawings, including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations; a plat of survey; and site and area photographs to construct an accessible ramp for the office use located within the former single-family residence at 1936 Sheridan Road. Mr. Lee 3ohler (Northwestem University) was available to answer questions. D Cnezls stated that the project Includes. 1 constructing an accessible ramp from grade to the existing porch The building matenals include wood and concrete at a 1:12 slope. The total nse will be 33 inches. Fifty percent of the slope rises from grade to the first landing the remaining slope rises to the existing porch. 2 preserving the existing front porch The surface of the porch may be raised slightly to ensure the accessible route meets Code 3 painting the wood railings of the accessible ramp to match the railLngs of the existing pcitch a providing a 5-foot wide, concrete sidewalk to connect the accessible ramp to the existing sidewalk located south of the principal budding 5 constructing the accessible ramp 3 feet south of the principal building The setback allows the applicant to preserve existing shrubs located along the south side of the principal building. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUITrEE May 19. IM Page I of 9 r 8. preserving the row of shrubs parallel to Sheridan Road to screen the accessible ramp The sticubs will be trimmed as needed. M Mylott stated that the Zcning Division is reviewing an Avplication for Bu%iding Permit. M. Mylott asked V* applicants: are the drawings presented to the Committee the same drawings as those submitted for penma? D Cnezis responded- yes M Mylott asked the applicants who are the existing users of the stru ture7 L. Johler responded` the Transportation Center L Johler stated that the Transportation Center is -roving 2 buildings north. the new users will be the Multi -Cultural Center and the Academic Advising Group A Alterson asked the applicants what is the land use immediately south of this building? L. Johler responded a parking area. C Smith stated that the proposal seems reasonable C Smith stated that one alternative to this proposal is to install a lift; however, should mechanical problems arse. the building is unaccessible. H. Friedman asked the applicants: is the second floor accessible? D Cnezz responded no H. Friedman stated that the applicants should replace the railings for the stairs such that they are consistent with the rest of the porch C Smith stated that that recommendation seems reasonable, especially from a Cede -compliance aspect, the railing must extend to the Dottom of the stains, and balusters must be vertical rather than horizontal. C Smith stated that this work should be included within the Application for BuiWiN Permit. L. Johler stated that they wilt replace the railings for the stairs suc!~ that they are consistent with the rest of the porch. J Wolinski asked the appt+cants how old is the fire escape? L Johler responded: I do not know L. Johler stated that he believes that Northwestern university has plans to replace vie fire escape p Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site pcan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant replace the railings for the stairs such that they match the railings of the existing porch. Discussion: C Smith asked the applicants- are you proposing fighting? D. Criezis responded: yes C Smith stated that cats" cut sheets for the proposed fighting should be sent to her for review and approval C Smith asked the applicants A,4 you provide coc,es of the site photographs to the Committee Secretary'? 0 Criez s responded yes Committee anoroved the motion (8-0) to Grant areliminary and inaf site plan and appearance review aDQrl?val- provided the applicant replace the railings for the stairs such that thev matt!, ttie railings of the existinq 2grrh The working drawings and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-055) SPAARC 99-056 920 Pitner Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct enclosed area for fight manufacturing use (De: ontry Workshop '^c ) Mr Josef Birgmann (properrt owner) presented working drawings, including a site plan. floor plan, elevation and section, a plat of survey and site photographs to construct an enclosed area for a light manufacturing use (Devonlry Workshop. Inc ) located at 920 Pitner Avenue SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 19 1999 Page 2 or 9 39 J. Birgmann stated that the location of the proposed enclosed area contains much fitter, pecpm dump garzage and other items here. J. Birgmann stated that the tocaWn of the proposed enclosed area sometimes fftaods. J. Birgmann stated that the proposed enclosed area is 11 feet deep J Birgmann stated twat the wallts are constructed of overlapping cedar wood to allow ,ventilation but provide security C Smin stated than the applicant needs to provide more detail about :the walls of the encicsed area, a phe ograph from a manufacturer's catalog or a cata5ag cut sheet is preferred. J. Wolinski asked J Birgmann: is;rafltiti a pncrlem in your area? J Birgmann responded, not lately. J Wolinski stated that these walls will be prime targees for graffiti. J Birgmann stated that he would like to leave the wood natural, such that it weathers J. Birgmann stated that the proposed enclosed area will contain a smaller enclosed room, ccntaining a• dust - collection system, the system will be moved from within the existing building to its new location C. Srnith stated that the resulting space between the outer enclosed area and the inner enclosed area (for the dust - collection system) is too small to permit someone to pass; the applicant must provide at beast 32 ind`tes, preferably 36 inches, of clear space such that a person can get to the meters. J. Birgmann stated thant'he wants the north end of the outer enclosed area to step at the north end of the inner enclosed area, suctr that the meters and the north end of the existing building would be open. C. Smith stated that the plans muss be revised to depict this change. W Mylott stated that the elevation appears to show an open area between the top of the wall and the earve of the overhang; however, no such open area appears within the section C. Smith stated that this proposal provides a 'neat tidy" back to the building. J. Wolinskr stated that this proposal will help prevent illegal dumping A. Alterson stated the property across the alley is zoned residential, J. Birgmann stated that the first residence is approximately 150 feet away. A Afterson stated that he is concerned about noise. D. Jenn�ngs stated that the dust -collection system will be located within its Crvn room; the configuration is no different than it is row, C. Smith stated that the existing dust -collection system is insulated by masonry walls: the watts of the i Trier enclosed area would be galvanized metal, wall studs, and exterior grade plywood. J. Birgmiann stated Mat he no longer wants metal walls for the inner enclosed area J Birgmann stated that he wants a clear plastic roof to provide natural light A. Alterson stated that both enclosed areas are located within the required rear yard: the applicant should contact F Aguado to discuss the Zoning Analysis, because the applicant may need a variation D Marino motioned to grant prelimmary site plan and appearance review approval A. Alterson seconded the motion Discussion C Smith stated that the applicant must revise the plans such that they reflect what he wishes to construct: the applicant must finalize (1) where the north side of the outer enclosed area ends; (2) how the walls of the outer enclosed area are designed; (3) whether or not the walls of the outer enclosed area are open at the top, and (4) what is the building matenat for the roof and the walls of the inner enclosed area M Mylott stated that the applicant may wish to bring the architect to the next Committee review Committee aooroved the motion rg-aLjQQrant preliminary site elan and aggearange review aooroval The working drawings have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-056) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CAMMn-rU May Is. IM Page 3 d4 SPAARC 99-057 1723 Simpson Street Preliminary Construct t-story addition for type 2 restaurant within ea+stOg food store (gamy s ) Mr. Roosevelt Alexander (ncn-attorney coorcx%ator), Mr. Rarny Khoury-Yacoub (pr;: wrty owner), and Mr. Leo Simms (draftsman) presented a site plan, flocr plan, and plat of survey to constrict a t-story addition for a type 2 restaurant within an existing food store establishrent (gamy s) at 1723 Sompson Street. R. Alexander stated that the proposal includes a 1-story expansion to the east sae of the existing buiidmi the new floor area will allow the applicant to expand the food store establishment as well as the carry -out portion of the business. R. Alexander stated that, currently. customers can purc-`sase sandwiches: but this portion of the business is not the main portion cS the business. R. Alexander stated that the applicant wishes to expand the menu to include grill items, suC1 as hamburgers and french fries, tsowever, the main portion of the business will continue to be the food store establishment R Alexander stated that the applicant is aware that he requires a special use for a type 2 restaurant and a variation to the number of parking spaces A. Alterson asked the applicants how do you envision the type 2 restaurant operating? R. Khoury-Yacoub responded as carry -out -- a customer places an order, receives his/her food, ana leaves with his/her food. A Alterson stated that litter will be an issue, based upon the proposed operation. L. Simms stated that the front of the addition will match the existing front of the budding, the side and back of the building will be constructed out of B-inct concrete block R Khoury-Yacouz stated that the openings will be glass block, matching the treatment of tre existing openings A. Alterson slated that he would hate to see the highly visible east side of this addition to constructed out of concrete block R. Khoury-Yacoub stated that they could use a different material on the side of the addition L Simms stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the addition extend soum to the south lot fine. A. Alterson stated that he does not like how tie addition extends to the lot line even though the Zoning Ordinance `misguidmgly- requires this configuration. R Khoury-Yacoub stated that he does not like the configuration either he is concerned people will biter within the comer C Smith Stared that this configuration is unfortunate from a safety perspective 17 Manno stated that he believes that the Committee supports aligning the south side of the addition with the south side of the existing building J Wolinski stated that the applicant should seek a variation to the build -to -lot -line requirement the applicant requires a public hearing before, and recommendation from, the Zoning Board of Appeals regardless. A Alterson asked the applicants for what purpcse does the location of the proposed addition currently serve? R Khoury-Yacouo responded nctning. R. KhcLr y•Yaccub stated that the previous cwner cut down the trees that once stood at the location of the proposec addition A Alterson asked the apGt,cants has the location of the proposed addition ever been used for parxingl R Khoury-Yacoub responded not to my knowledge A Alterson stated the he would like to see site and area photographs and the proposed elevations L Simms stated that addition is angled due to the easement ocated along the east side of the property L Simms asked the Committee can the addition to located yr:tnin the easement? V 10yrott responded the applicant must fino out wno has interest in the easement. the extent of that interest andlor the restrictions placed upon the property owner as a result of that interest and if necessary seek relief from that party 0 Marino motionee to grant concept approval J Wolinski seconaed the motion SUMMARY A Ft�tt7t SITE PLAN AfvO APPEARANCE PEViE'."1 cChWITTEF May 19 t999 Page 4 of 9 it Discussion D Jennings stated that the applicant was going to provide him wars a ske= Plan of the proposed on -street parking: the ngM-of-way =-trains a 'good-sized- tree Vu% may limit the amount of parking available R Khcury-Yacoub stated that ne stA plans to forward that plan: how -ever he wanted to wait until after re*reivirlg Committee comments. R. Alexarber stated that Ile does not see parking as a problem: parking is not a problem now, and the proposed use w H not than the parking demand A. Alterson state-V that he would hate to see anything make this area more auto -oriented. Committee ao rn oved the motion 18-01 to grant concept accMyei The site plan floor plan and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-057) SPAARC 99-043 1418 Lake Street Preliminary and Final Reconfigure parking area and install new playground for preschool (Warren W Cherry Preschool). Mr. AI Belmonte (Board President) presented a site plan, plat of survey, and site photographs to reconfigure the parking area and install a new playground for the existing preschool (Warren W. Cherry Preschool} !opted at 1418 Lake Street Ms Laurie Levy (Executive Director) ar d Ms Maggie Hessler (Administrative Director) were available to answer questions A. Belmonte stated that ney propose removing an attached garage from the southwest comer of the subject property and reconfiguring the parking area. A. Belmonte stated that the parking area will contain 19 parking spaces, increasing the total of on -site parking spaces by 2 A Selmonte stated that the parking spaces are at 45-degree angles, the single -loaded module is 36.25 feet. and the trouble -loaded module is 45 50 feet A. Belmonte stated that tre reconfigured parking area uses the existing driveway at Ashland Avenue, A. Belmonte stated that they propose removing 4 parking spaces from the southeast comer of the subject property and installing a playground A. Belmonte stated that Ise parting area and playground equipment will be 15 feet north of the south lot line, providing the required rear yard setback A Belmonte stated that these plans maintain the existing 2'/Moot planting strip D Jennings asked the acoiicants will you continue to operate a areo-off service at the street? A. Belmonte responded yes C Smith stated that the accessible parking space cannot use the 'triangle" left over from angled parking as the loading area of the ac:.essible parking space. D. Jennings sated that that area may wont if the length of the parking spaces are extended; the loading area must inCILJe hatch marks. C Smith stated that dema'.,tion work must be included within tie Appiicatjon for Building Permit A Belmonte stated that the attached garage is a separate structure, contrary to the depiction on the plat of survey D Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan art appearance review approval P D Agostino seconded the motion Committee approved the motion 18 grant orelimsnary and final site Qlan an Upea►ance review aocrcvai The site plan plat of sur. ey and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-043) SUMMARY OF FINOWCS 5.-E PLAN AND APPEARANCE RE%nEW COM1 frME May 19. 1999 Page 5of9 )si SPAARC 98-0130 426 Dempster Street Revision to Final Reconsider location of air -conditioner condensing units (Ch►aravalle Montessori Sctmw). Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 99-059 2620 Thayer Street Preliminary and Final Construct 2-story addition to single-family residence, requiring malar vanation. M. Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation to construct a 2-story addlbon to a single-family residence located at 2620 Thayer Street. C. Smith stated that the windows within the east elevation of the add=n may not be perm ted, because ti'le addition is located less than 3 feet from the lot fine; such walls must have a 1-hour fire rating. C. Smith stated that addition could be setback such that A is 3 feet from the lot line. AL Atterbon stated that knowing whether or not the elevation will contain windows affects his vote. C. Smith disagreed. M. Mylott stated that he is uncertain whether or not the second floor of the addition cantilevers over the first floor of the addition: while the elevations do not depict a cantilever, the new construction on the second door is much larger than the new construction on the first floor D Jennings motioned to table this item. A. Alterson seconded the rroWn. Discussion. M. Mylott stated that he will contact the archaect, explain the Committee concerns. and Invite her to present the application to tr,.e Committee. Committee approved the motion (6-0}_&table this iteM. SPAARC 99-060 3042 Normandy Place Preliminary and Final Construct t -story addition to single-family residence, requiring major varratron. M Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation to construct a t-story addition to a single-family residence located at 3042 Normandy Place D Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. C Smith seconded the motion Committee ;approve the motion (6-0) to -grant prelimin ry and final site plan and appearance L@view approval SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO>LtUMrEE May 19 f999 a Page 5 of 9 SPAARC 99-058 2922-2924 Central Street Preliminary and FFi ad Convert existing space to retail sales establishment and We 2 restaurant (Casteel Coffee), requiring exlDrror modifications Mr. Mark Carlson (contractor) presented working drawings. Including floor plans and elevations. a =kor elevation: and site photographs to convert existing retail space to a retail sales establishment and type 2 restaurant (Casteel Coffee) at 2922-2924 Central Street A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Division will be approving this project as a retail sales establishment;. ithe sale of coffee for immediate consumption will be limited to an amount such that this aspect of the operatitan is truly accessory to the sate of coffee beans and related merchandise A. Alterson stated that the applicant is considering applying for a special use to increase the extent of the sale of coffee for immediafte consumption C. Bush stated that the Health Department will require documentation that no noxious odors will result from this operation: in the event of a violation of the Noxious Smell Code, the health Department will require tMe operator to fix the problem or cease operation. C. Bush stated that the definition of 'noxious' is subjecliw: if someone complains, the smells considered noxious. A Alterson stated that. according to the owner, this bean dryer wkU have a more -efficient after-bumer. M- Carlson stated that an after -burner bums off odars within the exhaust pipe. C. Ruiz stated that he suggests retaining the existing brick at the top of the eastem-most facade: the yellow material may be used within the squares surrounding the 'emblems- H Friedman and C. Smith agreed. C. Smith stated that the limestone cap should only be cleaned. not altered, covered. or removed. M. Carlsonn stated that he understands the Committee direction, but asked that they recognize that he is only the contractor C. Smith stated that the 'emblems" are not considered signage. provided they are not logos; ti-1e text within the window is considered signage. C Smith stated that signage is not part of this review. C. Smith stated that. if the bench and planters are within the right-of-way, the applicant must receive City permission M Carlson stated that the construction will be phased due to existing tenants C Smith stated that the pem l drawings must be very specific about what space is occupied space during construction A Alterson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided (15 the existing brick at the top of the eastern -most facade is not covered; and (2) the limestone cap is onty cleaned, not altered covered. or removed H Fnedman seconded the motion Committee aporoved thi motion i6-4) to grart preliminary and final site oian and appearance review aaoroval provided (1)_the existing brick at the too of the eastern -most faca i n t covered and (2) the limestone cap is only cleaned n(X altered covered or removed The color elevation and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-6581 SUMMARY OF FINQrNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COtitEWTTEE ► May is IM Page , of S �q SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Confeneaee Announce special Site Plan and Aoaearance Review Committee meeting for Church ,Street Plaza (Research Park Urban Entertainment Compiew) .'une 7, 1999 at 3 p m C. Smith stated that the Site Plan and A=aranc:P Review Committee wi_t�nduct aerial meeVng to reviiew the latest Church Street Plaza oroaosal on June 7 1999 at 312 m. C. Smith stated that the location of the meeting will be announced. H Friedman asked the Committee w!?1 Barry Elbasani be present at this special meeting? A Aner=n responded: yes SPAARC 9"122 Binding Appearance Review Study Communication Distribute resuits of appearance review sunray and questionnaire, as requested at spe,aai Committee meetuag regarding binding appearance review on December 11, 1998, M. MylottdistributPd the results of appearance review survey -and ouestionnaire, as reaueggg at ft sgMal Committeemeeting regardino bind inq,agoearance rev%i w on December 11. 19M H Friedman stated that he wanted to thank M. Mylott for his 'outstanding' work. C. Srr6-th agreed. C Ruiz stated that 14 out of 19 communities operate with binding appearance review, the Preservation Commission operates with binding authority. C. Ruiz stated that, with the level of professionalism of the S4W Plan and Appearance Review Committee ('SPARC'), it should be charged with administering binding appearance review. A. Aterson stated that the Plan Commission has formed a sub -committee to study the question of binding appearance review A, Alterson stated that the Binding Appearance Review Committee of the PWn Commission ('BARC') should have the same level of information that the legislative Sub -committee of ilia SPARC used in reaching its recommendation. H. Friedman agreed. A. Alterson stated that he believes triad the BARC should be determining whether or not binding appearance review is worthwhile, the SPARC should be determining what is the best way to implement binding appearance review A Alterson stated that he would like the SPARC to produce a recommendation and forward that recommendation to the BARC; in this manner, the SPARC work -to -date is not Lost, and the BARC does not attempt to recreate that work. C Smith stated that she and M Myloto are attending the BARC meetings, and M Mylott rias shared much d his research and the survey results with the BARC C Smith stated that the 2 groups are looking at the question of binding appearance review from different perspectives, and the 'parallel tracks' should continue p Jennings stated that a SPARC recommendation on binding appearance review should not proceed to the City Manager or the City Council until sucti time that the BARC andlor the Plan Commission completed t1w work H Friedman agreed C Smith stated that the SPARC wont needs to proceed C Smith stated that the Site Plan @no A oearance Review Committee will conduct a sneciai rnegtino to continue its discussion of bind ino-Apeearance review or. June 4 1999 at 1 o m the meeting will be held at Room 2404 The results of the appearance review survey and the questionnaire have been placed within the Site Plan anG Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0122) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I' SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COl t oiTTEE May 79 1999 Page 0 of 9 J f Approval of Summary of Findings A Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of May 12. 1999. D. Jennmgs secorcmd the motion. Committee aRonN-ed the motion (6-01 to anorove the Summary of Finding QS ! Mg 2 t M Adjoumment The meeting adjoumed at 5:00 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Date SUMMARY OF FIND GS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RWEW COUWrTTEE May ra. 19" Page 9 co 9 14 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 12, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings, P. D'Agostino, D. Marino. M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Profesaional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly, J. Tonldnson. H. Friedman. R. Schur. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p rn SPAARC 99-045 2669 Orrington Avenue Preliminary and Final. Construct additions to single-family residence, requiring major variations. Mr. John Crittenden (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, isometrics. plat of survey, and site and area photographs to construct additions to the single-family residence located at 2669 Orrington Avenue. J Crittenden stated that the proposal includes constructing a 2-story addition at the front of the residence. Including a second. tandem parking space; a second -story addition at the rear of the residence. and a new 'A story to the top of the residence. J. Crittenden stated that the subject property is well under the minimum lot area requirement for the underlying zoning district; the structure has nonconforming side yards, and the property received a minor variation to the building lot coverage and rear yard setback requirements to construct the existing 1-storf rear addition J Wolinski asked J. Crittenden. why is the property owner proposing these additions? J Cnttenden responded: the mother of one of the property owners will be living at the residence. A Alterson asked J Crittenden: how many bedrooms does the existing residence contain, and how many bedrooms will the residence contain If the proposal is constructed? J Crittenden responded the res�dence contains 4 'oddly - shaped" bedrooms now. the proposed construction includes reconfiguring the existing bedrooms and adding 2 more bedrooms A Alterson asked J Crittenden Is the roof of the '/2 story pitched? J Cnttenden responded. the sides are pitched. but the top is fiat. C Smith asked J. Crittendenwould the residence be ta!ler than the residence to the south? J. Crittenden responded: I am not sure; however, the residence would conform to the height requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. C. Smith stated that she appreciates the desire to provide SUMMARY OF FOiDLNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CGUMrTTEE May 12, t999 Pier 1 of 9 X accommodations for an additional family member, however, the height of the additions is unfortunatte. C. Smith stated beat ele residence already appears quite 'gracious', and the additional height vnfi imposer upon the street. A.:rersorl asked J Crittenden: with the proposed additions, will the second story have the earn 'footpnnr as tt* first story? J Crittenden responded- yes. J. Crittenden stated that this residence iff, 1 out of 3 in the irnrvediam area that a not 2% stones high. A. Alterson stated that he is troubled by the impact to the 1'/vstory residence to the north, however, the subject property is neither a landmark property nor lcicated within a histom duct. D Jennings asked J Crittenden does the existing building have a skylight? J. Crittenden responded: no. C Smith asked J C-Ittenden: what is the building material for the %a story? J. Crittenden responded: Dryvit. H Friedman stated That the difference between Dryvit and stucco or Dryvit and cement plaster would'rat be great. Jr Cnttender stated that he believed that the property owners would be willing construct the'! story out of stucco C Smith stated that the residences located on the properties Immediately adjacent to the subject prop", are constructed out of stucco. A Afterson stated that the applicant may benefit by prowiding a higher-quahly t;u:lding material. especially as the Zoning Board of Appeals evacuates the impact to neighboring proper'tes and property values. M Mylott asked J Crittenden have you or the property owner discussed the project with the neighbors? J. Crittenden responded the property owner informed me that 1 neighbor wished to testify to the Zoning Board of Appeals on beha7l of the property owners, and it seems that there is "overall posit�ve support' J Wolinski me:tcred to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, including a strong suggestion Fiat the applicant not use Dryvit as the building material for the %-story addition. P. D'Agostino seconeed the motion Committee approved the minion f6-1 ] to orant orelirninary and final p andand apoeararoe review approval including a strong suggestion that the aoplicant not use prvvit as thq tulking material fcr the'/2-story addition. The site plan floor plans, elevations, isometrics. plat of survey, and site and area photographs have teen placed within the Szte Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-045) SPAARC 99-052 2222 Grey Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct second-s;ory addition to, and balcony for, existing single-family dwelling, requiring major variations. Ms. Sheila Golub (property owner), Mr. Jeffrey Strange (attorney), and Mr. Moshe Blouvid (ar=dect) presented a site plan, floor plans elevations, and site photographs to construct a second -Story addit on to. and balcony for 1.77a single-family dwelling located at 2222 Grey Avenue. M Mylott stated mat the proposal requires a vanabon to the front and rear yard setback requirements =)f the R1 Single-family Residential District, a variation to the maximum permitted projection for a balccr�A, and release from a cord:*uon of zoning relief granted August 10. 1923, regarding means of ingress and egres:s.from the west wall of V-e structure J. Strange stated that the residence currently has a door on the west side. A- Alterson stated the ne does not believe that the roof -top "balcony' is truly a balcony rather it is a 'decK% the Zoning Division w• review this item M Mylott stated that the variation regarding rr.aximum prolecno- of a balcony would not be required if the roof -top -balcony- is actually a "deck" C Smith asked tie applicants- of what material is the residence constructed? J Strange responded: stucco_ C Smith asked the applicants are you proposing wood siding for the second story' M Blouvid respcmded- SUMMARY OF F14=11'ejS ' SITE PLAN ANp APcEARANCE REVIE%'j COMMITTEE May 12 1999 �► Page 2 of 9 P,� yes. H. Friedman stated that. when used in combination with other building materials, stucco is usuagy reserved for upper stories. because it is visually righter. C. Smiths stated that stucco would be a better second - story building material in th* instance: the addition would look less like an addition, and more like it was part of the original construction. S. Golub stated that they would use stucco for the second story. M. BkxAW stated that stucco will be cheaper than wood siding. M. Mylott stated that Mr. and Mrs. Lawlor of 2403 Noyes Street visited the Zoning Division to review this apprication; the LzMor's were concerned that the applicant would remove an existing tree located along the common lot hne and that the windows within the addition would per -sit the applicant to see into their backyard, reducing their privacy. S. Golub stated that she has talked to the Lawlor's about this application; she wilt use frosted glass or glass block for the south and west windows of the addition to reduce visibETity. C. Smith staled that frosted glass would provide more residential character than glass block. M. Mylott asked the applicants: do you plan to remove the existing tree located along the lot line; S. Golub responded: no; however, it may require trimming S. Golub stated that the common lot line already has vegetation planted along it; she wiH consider whether or not additional vegetation is necessary when tt•,e addition is completed. M. Mylott stated that the LaWjor's were concerned that the proposal might be a 'tea- down', rather than an addition. M. Mylott asked the applicants: is the proposal truly an addition, or are you Friposing to tear down the entire structure and "start from scratch'? S. Golub responded: the proposal is an addition. M. Mylott stated that the Lawlor's pointed out that the application states that the deck has been eliminated. S. Golub stated that they would like to keep the deck, rt was eliminated to reduce the number of var'ations needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals. C Smith stated that the deck will be a nice amenity for r,e applicant Jr Wolinski asked the applicants how big is the existing residence's J. Strange responded: 900 sq.R: the addition will add 400 sq ft. A Alterson stated that the Zoning Anal, sis indicates that the lot is 2,250 sq.ft H. Friedman asked the applicants: does the neighborhood contain other 2-story residences? M. Blouvid responded: all the other residences within the immediate area are at least 2 stories tall. A. Alterson asked the applicants is the residence constructed uper a slab? M. Blouvid responded: yes, the residence does not have a basement C. Smith stated that the addition is a very reasonable proposal A. Alterson agreed D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant use stucco on the second -story addition, not wood siding P. D'Agosbno seconded the motion. Csammittee at roved the motion (7-01 to orant oreliminary and final Ste t?lan and aQt�earance review approval. provided the aoolicant use stucco on the second-story addition nct wood siding SPAARC 99-053 806 Ridge Avenue Preliminary and Final Install door and steps of rear of existing religious institution (St. Nicholas Church). Mr. John Voosen (architect) presented working drawings including a site plan, floor plan, and elevations; a plat of survey, and site photographs to install doors and steps at the rear of the religious institution (St Nicholas Church) located at 806 Ridge Avenue J Voosen stated that the proposal is to install I pair of doors within. and a set of steps to, the west side of the building. J. Voosen stated that 90 percent of building users corre to the building from the southwest J. Voosen stated that the entrance at Ridge Avenue is ceremonial; it will. not be changed_ J Voosen stated that SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COltitlVUrME May 12. 19" Page 3 of 9 x the interior wiff be remodeled as a result of changes in 'liturgical practices" J Voosen staled that the plans have been revised as such: the original plans included removing a side door, now, that door w111 remain, but It will be permw*ntly closed. 2. the original plans included removing Me ^walk that transfers heat from the church to the social W now, that 'wall' will remain. J. Voosen stated that the Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved the project, except the building materials J. Voosen stated that the first surround is brick with a stone keystone; bricks for the surround will be Salvaged from the new opening. J Voosen stated that the doors will be oak with glass panels. J. Wolinslid asked J. Voosen- are you proposing any structural changes? J. Voosen responded: no. C. Smith stated that the Building Code does not permit horizontal raifings, only vertical railings. J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the mcrion. Committee aooroved the motion f7-O] to grant areliminary and final site Ia;2 n and gMarance rpvievv approval. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-053) SPAARC 99-049 300 Dodge Avenue (James Park) Preliminary and Final Erect bus shelter. install miscellaneous landscaping and fencing (James Park) S. Levine presented working drawings, including a site plan. elevations, and landscape plan, to construct a bus shelter and install miscellaneous landscaping and fencing at James Park. 300 Dodge Avenue. S. Levine stated tnat this proposal is the first contract with the architect, the field house renovation is the second contract. S. Levine stated that this proposal Includes planting landscaping on the hill; installing drinking fountains, spigots, and fencing for the community gardens replacing backstops and fencing around the ball fields; insta:ling bleacher pads for the ball fields, and constructing a bus shelter at the southeast comer of the park, along Dodge Avenue. S. Levine stated that the bus shelter is pre -fabricated; it will be constructed of stained wood, and It will have a metal, batten roof S Levine stated that the bus shelter does not include a wind screen S Levine stated that they wilt move the bus shelter north from its depicted location to ensure a large tree is protected. S. Levine stated that the proposal Includes a temporary fence that will be removed once construction +s complete C Smith asked S Levine will the bus shelter Include lighting? S Levine responded. no M Mylott asked S Levine does the City have street lighting near the location of the bus shelter? S Levine responded: yes. C Smith asked S Levine. what is the height of the landscaping along the north, west. and south sides of the bus shelter? S Le-.,Ene responded 31/: feet. maximum P D'Agostino stated that the City mil be moving the entrance sign from the west side of Dodge Avenue to the southwest comer of the Mulford Street and Dodge Avenue Intersection; the entrance design wilt include 4 large Beech trees evergreens. and flowering shrubs SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 12 1999 Page 4 of 9 M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A. A{uSon seconded the motion. Committee approved the mcifign ff-01 n grant Rretimoa�, and final site RW ad appearance review approyal. P. D'Agostino atwained. Approval of Summary of Findings P. D'Agostino motioned to approve the SummaN of Findings of May 5, 1999. ❑ Jennmgs seconded me motion. Committee approved the Motion f6-01 to approve Mg Summary of Findines of hilly 5_ t999. SPAARC 99-060 1611 Chicago Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Consider comprehensive sign plan proposal {The North Shore Hoteg C. Smith presented a Comprehensive Sign Plan Proposal and site photographs for the awnings at The North Shore Hotel, 1611 Chicago Avenue. C. Smith stated that Building Division approved 2 permits for awnings before they realized that this building needed a Comprehensive Sign Plan. C. Smith stated that the appdcant proposes that all awnings be similar to the style of the existing awnings at NonParerl (519 Davis Street), the awnings could be burgundy, green, grey, ivory, or white C. Smith stated that she has informed the applicant that samples will be required. C. Smith stated that the existing green awnings wtfl be replaced as necessary: these awnings are *structurally inferior . M. Mylott asked C. Smith: does the Comprehensive Sign Plan Proposal dictate typeface? C. Smith responded: no. the store owner may choose a typeface consistent with its Image. C. Smith stated that the typeface will be white or ivory letters, and it will be located on tt,e fare of the awnings H. Friedman asked C. Smith: can a store owner place a logo on the awning? C. Smith responded: no. H. Friedman stated that he believes that, with the proposed design. the different colors could be "Intriguing". D. Jennings motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan Proposal. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated that the Sign Review and Appeals Board should urge the applicant to replace ail the awnings at the same time. D. Jennings amended the motion as such recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan Proposal, including a suggestion that the applicant consrder replacing all the awnings at the same time. A. Alterson amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committeg aooroved the motion f6-01 to recommend that the Stan Review and Anneals Board approve the Comprehensive Sian Plan Proposal, including a suggestion that the Ualicant consider replacing all the awnings at the same tinrig The Comprehensive Sign Plan Proposal and site photographs nave been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-050). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE FLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMriTEE May 12. 1999 Page 5 of 9 SPAARC 99-054 627 Grove Street Preliminary and Final Replace existing roof --lop air-conditioning unit (mixed -use binding). Mr. AI Belmonte (property owner) presented a roof -top plan and specifications sheet to replace an eaasang roof -top air-conditioning unit at the mixed -use building, located at 627 Grove Street. A Belmonte stated that, while he is not sure if the new air-conditioning unit Is the same size as the exisbrig air-conditioning unit, it will sit on the existing curbing. C. Smith asked A Belmonte: is the new air-conditioning unit the same weight as the existing air-cordiboning unit? A Belmonte responded: it could be less. A Belmonte stated that the new air-conditioning unit is a 4-ton unit. A. Belmonte stated that the new air- conditioning unit should be quieter than the ex:ting air-conditioning unit, because the existing air-conditioning unit is over 20 years old. A. Belmonte staled that the rooftop has a parapet, such that the new air- conditioning unit will 'virtually not be seen'. D. Jennings stated that the applicant should wntact him regarding scheduling a crane; the City will need 2 days to 'hood' parking meters. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and trial site plan and appearance review approval, P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aporove4 the motion (U) to grant oreliminaly and final site Dian and 0920rance review approval. The roof -top plan and specifications sheet have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SM54) SPAARC 96-0026 1616 Emerson Street Final Construct 5-story, 76-unit independent living facrlity (Jacob Blake Manor). Mr, Larry Parkman (architect) presented wo*xvg drawings, including a site plan, elevations, and landscape plan, to construct an independent living facility at 1615 Emerson Street. L. Parkman stated that the elevations have nct changed: the building will be 5 stories high and contain 76 units L Parkman stated that the building materials include red utility brick-, buff -color. smooth -face renaissance stone at the base and lintels; colonial white windows, gutters, and downspouts: and grey, standard shingles. C Smith asked L. Parkman: are you proposing clear -glass windows? L. Parkman responded yes C. Smith stated that a darker window frame may work better with the color of brick proposed. - the applicant should consider a light bronze or csiampagne-color window frame. L_ Parkman stated that they have considered many different colors, and thRs scheme has been very successful in past applications. C. Smith asked L Parkman: how do you propose 0 treat the louvers? L. Parkman responded. the through -wall air-conditioning units will be covered by a louver that does not project from the wall: it and the root vents will be painted to match the brick R Schur asked L. Parkman: does your client have control of the site? L. Parkman responded: yes. R. Schur asked L Parkman is the financing for this prcl:rt in place'? L Parkman responded yes. pending approval of the building permit D Jennings stated that the access aisle of the ac-essible parking space cannot be sloped, the sidewalk must be sloped to the access aisle SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 12 1999 Page 5 of 9 ee X D. Jennings asked L Parkman: are you proposing parking lot righting? L Parlunan ...,,...... d down tights will be placed on the building. C. Smith stated that the appficari nxrst provide a rl FW L Parkman stated that he will forward the photometric plan to J. Tonkir s C. Smith asked L. Parkman: what plant material are you prcposing within the ptw%tirg beds? L Paricaan responded: a ground cover. P. D'Agostino stated that the plans indicate the ground cor-er wets be BostOn ivy. the planting beds will be 'stark' for a couple of years. C. Smith stated that the appbzant slim consider same 'clumps of landscape material' between the windows and annuals in smart quarrt6es P D-Agostino stated that the west side of the site 'needs more attention' P D'Agcsuno stated that he will review the Street Tree Master Plan for the appropriate street t" species along Dewey Avenue L Park-nan asked Vie Commit: is the owner responsible for planting street trees? C Smith responded: yes. D. Jennings stated that the drive -way will function as a right -in and right -out driveway, because Dewey Avenue Is one-way north. M. Mylott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, sut: ect to review and approval of the landscape plan by the Superintendent of Parks and Forestry and review and approval of the photometric plan by the City Engineer. D. Jennings seconded the motion. CCommmittee approved the motion (6-01 to smart fiUl site plan and appearance review agpMal_ subiect to review and approval of thP. landscape olan_bv the ,superintendent of Parks and Forestry and review and aoprovaf of the oh=metric Van try the CM1 -naineer. The site plan, elevations, and landscape plan have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (96-0025) SPAARC 99-044 1017 Chicago Avenue Preliminary Renovate facade of, and install outdoor lights for, existing automobile sales establishment (AutoBam). Mr. Mark Fisher (lighting contractor) presented a site plan, elerratlons, landscape plan. and cut sheets to renovate the facade of, and install outdoor lights for, an existing automobile sales establishment (AutoBam) located at 1017 Chicago Avenue. M. Fisher stated that the plans have been modified based upon Committee comments. a planter has been added along Chicago Avenue and windows have been added to the metal -sided shed. C. Smith stated that the planter should be at least 4 feet wide P D'Agostino agreed M. Fisher stated that the original lighting plan was based upon 25-foot high poles with 2, 1000-watt lights mounted on top and 2, 400-watt lights mounted at the middle. the new plan uses 5. 15-foot high poles with 3. 400-watt lights mounted on top. M. Fisher stated that 3 adddional fixtures will be mounted on the front of building, shining down and out: 2 additional fixtures will be mounted on the back of the building, shining down. C. Smith asked M Fisher are the pofe rights adjustable) M. Fisher responded: yes. but the owner will never move them from their originally set position M Fisher stated that this lighting proposal is consistent with the existing lighting across the street M. Fisher stated that the building is 18 feet high, screening any lighting from spilling to the alley and beyond D Jennings stated that he is more concerned about the street than the alley; he wants to ensure that the light source and glare are not visible from the street M Fisher stated that, if necessary, the lights could be equipped with side baffles D Jennings stated that he does not believe that J Tonkinson will approve the proposed lighting level E REVIEW SUMMARY c LNlJr.TEE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REV]t=1Y COi�WITL�E May 12_ 19" Page 7 .0 9 H. Friedman asked M. Fisher of what material Is the front of the building constnlcted? M. Fisher responded: stucco. M. Fisher stated that the height of the stucco portion of the building wiu be raised to Me height of the metal -sided shed; the additional height will be constructed of Dryvit M. Fisher stated that the north and west sides of the metal -sided shed will be covered with Dryvit as well. C. Smith stated that the additional height should be constructed of stucco; it is more durable. M. Fisher stated that stucco is more expensive M. Fisher stated that the owner stated that he w.0 repay the damaged Dryvit at 1034 Chicago Avenue during this work. C. Smith stated that Dryvit is a poor material, especially in this instance, because it is damaged so easily- M. Fisher stated that a parking bumper will be placed along the west side of the metal -sided shed to protect the new Dryvit. C. Smith asked M. Fisher will the Dryvit include control joints? M_ Fisher responded: yes_ M. Mylott stated that he believes that the metal -sided shed should not be covered with Dryvit; it m what it is, C. Smith agreed, and stated that the Dryvit certainly does not 'read' as a quality building. C. Smith stated that, if the metal -sided shed remains as is, the height of stucco portion of the building should no: be increased. M. Fisher stated that the owner wishes to have everything match. C. Smith stated the metal -sided shed could be painted to match the color of the stucco. C. Smith stated that windows within the metal -sided shed are still important. A. Atterson asked M. Fisher will vehicles be serviced at this site? M. Fisher responded: yes, in the sarne fashion as the previous user. A. Alterson asked M. Fisher does the building open to the alley? M. Fisher responded: no, while the rear of the building does contain 6-foot double doors, the property has a fence along the rear lot line. C, Smith stated that signage is not included within this review D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan review approval, subject to review and approval of the photometric plan by the City Engineer. P D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aflorpio the motion (6-01 to grant preliminary site plan review aooroval. subjgct to review anO-g2oroval of the i; Wornetric olao by the City Engineer. C. Smith motioned to deny preliminary appearance review approval of the Dryvit-based proposal, and recommend that the medal -sided shed remain as is plus windows. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated that any air-condiboning units should be screened by a screening device, Commit ee aooroved the motion f5-1) to deny oreliminary appearance review aoorQval of the Drwit-bcdW gWnasal. and recommend that the medat-sided shed remain as is plus windows The site plan, elevations, landscape plan, and cut sheets have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-044) SPAARC 99-051 2201 Oakton Street Recommendation to Sign Board Install 2 illuminated wall signs and reface free-standing sign (The Home Depof)_ C Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application to install 2 illuminated wall signs and reface the existing free-standing sign at The Home Depot, 2201 Oakton Street. C Smith stated that the proposed signs do not conform to the Sign Ordinance in that it (1 ) the 2 illuminated wall signs exceed the maximum permitted height of any sign, and (2) the free-standing sign includes dark SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 12. 1999 Page 8 of 9 letters on a white background. C. Smith stated that the 2 illuminated wail signs are 29 feet high to thew yap whereas 15 feet 6 inches is permitted. C. Smith stated that the size of the free-standing sign is not changing M. Mylott stated that he does not see a need for the wall sigrss C. Smith agreed. A Altemon staged *at some wall signage is important to direct customers to the open entrance. D. Jermings stated :hat the s=, could turn off the lights at the closed entrance. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the 2 wall signs and recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the refaced, free-standing sign, provided dhe background is entirely orange. P. D'Agestino seconded the motion. QQmmittee a2gryed the motion l5-ij to recommend that the Sian Review and Appeals Board gene the 2 wall signs and recommend that the -inn Review and Appeals Board approve the refaced. free-standingign. provided the backgrc nd is entirely orange. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-051). Adjoumment The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Planner Dade SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVTEW COWAfrrEE May tZ 19M Page 9 of 9 Ic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 511999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson. D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Marino. M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson. Members Absent: L. Black, K. Kelly, J. Wolinski. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. Commencement C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meebng at 105 p.m SPAARC 98-0130 425 Dempster Street Revision to Final Instafl additional air-conditioning units on ground (Chiaravalle Montessori Sch000. Mr. Errol Jay Kirsch (architect) presented working drawings (inctuding a site plan and elevation) to instatl additional air-conditioning units on the ground for Chiaravalle Montessori School, 425 Dempster Street. E. J. Kirsch stated that the original proposal was for 1 air-conditioning unit at the rear of the building; the revised proposal adds 5 more air-conditioning units. E. J Kirsch stated that 3 air-conditioning units are proposed slightly below grde, lust west of the annex, 2 air-conditioning unit are proposed at grade. just west of the onginal building E J Kirsch stated that the 2 air-conditioning units west of tine original building maintain the existing fall zones for tie nearby play -ground equipment; the ersttng 38- to 40-inch high. chain link fence would be extended to enclose the air-conditioning units. S. Levine stated that P. D'Agostino does not believe that the proposed location for the 2 air-conditioning units is large enough, given the restrictive fall zones of the adjacent play -ground equipment. S. Levine stated that no area would be available for landscaping E J Kirsch stated that slats could ne installed within the fence to screen the air-conditioning units. E. J. Kirsch stated that the additional cost to move the 2 air-conditior,ng units to the rear of the building such that they would be located with the original 1 air-conditioning unit is S4 000 H. Fnedman asked E. J Kirsch: why the sudden need for all the air-conditioning units? E. J Kirsch responded because the original plan included a chiller unit at the location of the 3 proposed air-conditoning units. just west of the annex. E. J. Kirsch stated that the chiller costs 40 percent more up front than multiple air-conditioning units H Friedman stated that an operating system consisting of numerous air-conditioning units rather than 1 chiller is SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 5. 1999 Page 1 of 5 C� operationally inferior. E J. Kirsch stated that a duller is a beMer long-term solution. J Aietla stance that. if the school has decided to switch to a system consisting of multiple air-conditioning units, than these units should not be scattered around the building. H. Friedman agreed C Smith stated that the air-corxU3 oning units should be grouped together, or as close together as possible, especially given the amount of money the City is investing in landscaping and other parks improvements and the amount of money the schoct is Investing in the building. J. Tonkinson stated that the air-conditioning units should not be located along Hinman Avenue for the same reason that the Zoning Ordinance does not permit air-conditioning units within "front yard. J. Aiello agreed. H. Friedman stated that another consideration is the noise level of multiple air-conditioning units C. Smith asked E. J. Kirsch: how high are the proposed air-ccndlUoning units? E J. Kirsch responded 4 feet 4 inches M. Mylott asked E J. Kirsch: are the 5 air-conditioning units tree only exterior dem proposed wTthm the building permit application currently being reviewed by the Zoning Drrision7 E. J Kirsch responded? yes. M. Myfott stated that the Committee never conducted a review of a landscape plan, because the Committee reserved its review of landscaping until the 'phase 2' submittal. E J Kirsch stated that the portion of *phase 2" that included landscaping (the outdoor classroom play area) has been eliminated C Smith stated that the applicant must indicate the species, size, and amount of me plant matenal proposed to screen the air- conditioning units S Levine stated that the applicant needs to provide an accessible route from the rear of the building E. J. Kirsch stated that he is reviewing accessibility with P. D'Agcstno. C Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission must reviews and approve the revision J. Aiello motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to (1) moving the 2 air-conditioning units proposed for the west side of the original building to the comer formed by the north side of the original building and the west side of the annex. and (2) review and approval by the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry of the landscape plan_ J. Tonkinson seconded the motion Committee approved_t_he motion 17-1) :3 aranLUorovat of the revision to the rq�s final site Dl�jn.-and apoearance review approval_ subiect to (' 1 moving the 2 air-condltionina units Dronmd for the west side of the ongni g building to the corner tormed :v the north side of the onoinal buildinqand U3q West side of the annex and (2) review and aDoroval by the Department of Parks. Recreation and Forestry pf the landscapes. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0130) SPAARC 98-0087 1880 Oak Avenue Revision to Final Discuss screening air-conditioning units on roof -top of proposed 3-story office building within the Research Park (Scrrbcor Real Estate Services) Mr. Walt Eckenhoff (architect) and Mr Stephen Kardel (Scnocor) presented elevations, a roof -top plan and elevation with sight lines, and a photograph of the air-conditioning unit for a 3-story office building for Scnbcor Real Estate Services on Parcel t within the Research Park. 1880 Oak Street_ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 5 ' 999 a Page 2 ;! 5 X S. Kardel stated that the roof top will contain 3 air-conditioning units, oriented such that the shorter dimension of each unit faces north and south. W Eckenhoff stated that the units will be painted the same as the screen. either Yorktown or Light Bronze. W. Eckenhoff stated that a person must be greater than 300 feet away from the north and south sides of the proposed building to see the air-rondiboning units M f+Aylott asked the appficants: how high are the proposed air-conditioning units and screens? W. Edcenhoff responded: the air-conditioning units are 7 feet tall, siting on a 6-inch slab, the screens are 8 feet high. H. Friedman asked the applicants: why are you reserved about screening the north and south sides of the air- conditioning units? W Eckenhoif responded: to add 120 feet of screening adds between $60,000 to 570,000 to the project. W Eckenhoff stated that. as an architect. he is happy with the screens as originally proposed: the build[ing will look 'fine'. H. Friedman stated that the problem may be the screens; they certainly do not help the design of the building, A Alterson stated that he believes that the building may look better if the air-conditioning units were not screened from any direction. H. Friedman and M. Mylott agreed. M. Mylott stated that, as originally proposed, the screens took incomplete, especially because they extend above the roofs; if he had to vote for an option between screening the air-conditioning units as originally proposed or removing all screens, he would support removing all screens. J Tonkinson agreed, and stated that the air-conditioning units should be painted to match the building. C. Smith stated that she agrees that the screens may be the problem, and she appreciates the opinions of the Comnttee members favoring removing all the screens; however, she is not in favor of removing all the screens J Aiello stated that she favors removing all the screens. C Srmwth asked the applicants will the air-conditioning units be painted or pre -finished by the manufacturer? W Eckenhoff responded, the air-conditioning units will be pre -finished by the manufacturer H Friedman motioned to permit the applicant to eliminate all the air-conditioning unit screens, including granting the architect the flexibility to choose the color of the air-conditioning units J. Aiello seconded the motion Commi ee anoroved the motion f8-11 to Hermit the applicant to eliminate all the air-conditioning unit screens. including granting the architect the flexibility to choose the color of the air-conditioning units. The elevations, roof -top plan and elevation with sight lines, and photograph of the air-conditioning unit have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0087) SPAARC 99-048 2201 Oakton Street Preliminary Construct 2 speculative buildings for small outlot. proposal is different from that revievmd under SPAARC 96- 0088 Mr Scott Gendell (Terraco. Inc ) and Mr Wayne Marth (Arcline Associates, Ltd ) presented a site plan, elevations, landscape plan and birds -eye perspective to construct 2 speculative buildings on the small outlot at 2-201 Oakton Street Mr Tom Hatzold (Arcline Associates, LW ) was available to answer questions. S Gendell stated that the buildings will be built on a speculative basis. Home Depot and James Park are 'economic engines' for this project S Gendell stated that Building A (western -most building) would likely contain a retail use that appealed to the Home Depot patron S Gendeli stated that Building B could contain a bank or restaurant, BuiWvng 8 would likely include a drive-thru window S Gendell stated that the number of parking spaces meet or exceed the amount required by the Zoning Ordinance, S Gendell stated that he has had discussions with the ward alderman about this project SUMMARY of FIND NGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUITTEE May 5, IM Page 3 of 5 .x J. Aiello stated that the applicants should request a plan of the James Park improvements and statistics on the number of users, this information will help marketing the site. C. Smith stated that the applicants may also want to request information on the events scheduled for .fames Park- J. Aiello asked the applicants: are you uniting the occupancy of Building A to retail? S. Gendell responded: not necessarily however, any other use would have to meet the parking requirements. S. Gendell stated that they would build Building 8 without the drive-thru window: they would apply for f!x special use for the drive-thru window, if it was required by the future tenant_ S. Gendell stated that he understands the risk that the special use might not be granted. A. Alterson stated that a Type 2 Restaurant with a drive-thru window would require 2 special uses -- 1 for the Type 2 Restaurant and 1 for the drive-thru window. C. Ruiz asked S Gendell: would you remove the aisle associated with the drive-thru window if the drive-thru window is not required by a :want or the specral use is not granted? S. Gendell responded. no. S. Gendell stated that he is aware that tne City may have required a 13-foot dedication along Oakton Street for various turn lanes. S. Gendell stated that the drawings reflect a 13-foot reduction in the site depot. A. Atterson stated that he is 'reasonably ce<Tain- that the 13 feet west of the east lot line of the subject property was never dedicated, it remains part of C* subject property J. Tonkinson stated that he will review this issue. M. Mylott stated that. if the site is intended to draw people from James Park, the site should be more pedestrian friendly, especially at the southeast comer. M Mylott stated that the site plan should allow a person to get safety from the southeast comer of the propery to Building B. conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles should be minimized W Marth stated that he will look at ways to accomplish that objective; having a deeper site would help accomplish th:s objective. W Marth stated that the extra depth would also permit additional foundation plantings. D Jennings stated the eastern -most drive has a stop light at Oakton Street, but it is not equipped for pedestrian cressings, the City may want to consider some adjustments. A_ Alterson asked the applicants: do you own the property? S. Gendell responded. yes. J. Aiello asked the applicants. will Building A and Building B reside on their own lots? S. Gendell responded: possibly; however. subdividing the property is not mandatory from an operational standpoint. J. Aiello asked S Gendell: do you have cross easement agreements? S Gendell responded yes M Mylott asked the applicants what haopens between the canopy trees. south of the parking area and north of Oaklon Street? W Marth responded we are copsidenng a 30-inch high, undulating berm. S. Gendel stated that, with a 30-inch berm. shrubs ,would not be necessary to screen the parking area. S Gendell stated that the berm may include a mix of carcay and evergreen trees, wild flowers, and grasses C Smith stated that she would like the applicants to exr-lore moving the transformers away from Oakton Street W Marth stated that he will reweN that issue W Marth stated that the buildings are similarly designed such that the outlots will not appear'dysfunctionar as a result of 2 corporate buildings C Ru2 asked the archlect: have you considered allowing the 2 buildings to reflect their use. rather than designing them similarly'? S Gendell responded: the buildings must be flexible to adjust to different uses and I do not want the design of tre building dictated by a potential tenant. C Srni is stated that she likes the unified approac.7 to the design of ,he 2 buildings N1 Mylott agreed S Gendell stated that the buildings are :esigned as '4-sided buildings' however, all buildings require a true front door and a service entrance S Gendell stated that these buildings have a "clean look' that will not be soon out -dated W Marth stated that the building matenals have Irfe-cycle advantages and are easier to maintain. W Marth stated that the building materials include brick and glazed tiles, the'service entrance' side includes split -face concrete block W Marth stated that no EIFS will be used on the buildings C Smith asked SUMMARY PLAN OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REViE01 CCM.+JirTEE May 5 1999 Page 4 of 5 the applicants: what size brick will you be using? W. Marth responded: the brick may be utt#ilr size, hut it will not be jumbo size. C. Smith asked the applicants: will the roof -top mechanicals be completely screened? W. Ma :h resgwnded: yes. by a parapet. H. Friedman asked the applicants: of what material is the parapet constructed? Vw. Marth responded: the parapet is masonry with a cap piece. C. Smith stated that the light source of exterior fighting may not be visible. H. Friedman asked the applicants: what assurances are you willing to make that the integrity cat the t wildings will be maintained following receipt of bids? S. Gendell responded: I have worked with W. Marth on '1D to 12 different projects; W. Marth knows how to design at a reasonable cost. S. Gendell stated t)at, absent a change to the market, value engineering will not compromise the integrity of the 2 buildings. C. Smith stated that the applicants will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit the applicants may contact J. Tonkinson for questions regarding said permit. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary sne plan and appearance review approval. D. Marina seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (7-00) to grant re�,aq(_site plan and_apnearaRamw- The site plan, landscape plan, and buds -eye perspective have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-048). Approval of Summary of Findings A. Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of April 28, 1999, provided J. Minear is added to list of 'Other Staff Present" and the spelling of 'Dryvit' is corrected (SPAARC 99-044, page 3) D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he would like to compliment J. Minear on the quaiiuy of the Summary of Findings. Qommittee aoaroved thq r i rti(7-0) to amrovp tha Summary of Findingj$ of April 2D. 1999_ provided J. Minear is added to the list of 'Qther Staff Present' and the smelling of "Drvvit' is corrected (,P66RC 99-Q#A. page 31. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Llpectfully su Nlay 11.1999. . Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Plainer Date �i�' SULWARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CCMMrTr'EE �y 5. 1999 Page 5 of 5 3C SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AIND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMINITTI-EE Apr1128, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, C. Smith (Chair) J. Tonkinson. J. Wolinski Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, R. Crum, D. Jennings, K. Kelly. D. Marino, M. Mylott R. Walczak Design Professional Present: H. Friedman Other Staff Present: L. Lyon Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0087 1880 Oak Avenue Preliminaryfflln2ll Walt Eckenhoff (EckenhofflSanders) and S. Kardel (Scribcor) represented this project. Mr. EchenhotTbcgaa by saying there was a lack of communication regarding the screening for the rooftop air-conditioning unks which are located at the north end of the units. There was a note on their building permit which stated that there must be screens on all 4 sides of the roof top units, not only the west and east sides. Screening all sides would unpc& cleaning of the coils on the north end and snow could accumulate around the units. adding additional weight - Mr. Kardel indicated that the units were not visible from the street. It is not until 320 feet away that a pedestrian could vic%v the mechanical equipment above the crown of the vault. The Committee viewed photos and Mr. Kardel stated there were 65 paces before there is a visible view from the computer store across the street on Emerson Street. and 100 paces for the view on the west sidewalk of Ridge Avenue: 100 paces before the view on University Place. C. Smith indicated other reasons for the screening were for the neighbors in other building in the vicinity of the buildings; i.e. the porch of the church and homes in the area. She also stated that in previous experience the lack of insistence of screening has been a problem in the past and this must be avoided in the future. J. Wolinski seconded this statement. A. Alterson stated that screening would make the appearance look better and the Ciry was attempting to maintain uniformity in the appearance. C. Smith stated the appearance proposal should be looked at before a decision could be made. Mr. Eckenhoff discussed the possibility of an inverted liner and C. Smith replied that appearance seemed cheap and incomplete. The Committee and the applicants have been cooperative with one another but C. Smith said sheeould not vote approval at this point. Mr. Eckenhoff inquired if painting the units another color to comply w th the - screening would be permitted. C. Smith replied that Hotiywood Video tried that approach to no wvat!_ H. Friedman stated that the Video store was more visible. C. Smith stated that the Committee must enforce this request. A. Alterson stated that if the Committee could see photos of the equipment, perhaps the Committee %would vote to keep it as it, is if the appearance was suitable Mr. Kardel replied that they would bring back photos. he also attempted to assure the Committee that there could be other possibilities to work this out and that no ore could see the units from the second floor C. Smith noted that the original plans showed the steeper slope on the roof was now reduced from the earlier plans Mr. Eckenhoff indicated that such a roof was not easily screened The representative for the applicant stated that another alternative would be coils on top of unit. but the footprint of these units was too large for this particular roof The building permit was issued subject to the enclosure of the units. The representatives for the applicant reiterated that the previous plans showed closure on two sides and they understood this to be acceptable. J. Wolinski inquired of the Committee and applicant if it might be permisslbe to build the building as is, and the Committee revie%% the outcome. and add additional screens, if necessan The applicant replied by stating that the extra material to support the possibility would hava to be put in place now and the cost would be S32.000. The cost of the extra steel to support the change would cost 565.000 to S75.000 In essence. the HVAC would have to be redesigned causing a huge financial impact and w ipe out the entire contingency for the project G7 The applicant stated that there was a gross :misunderstanding. A. Alterson asked the applicant to return before the Committee at the next meeting with a represrsuation thru photos of site plans showing µ hat the screening, and mechanical equipment would look like. The Ca md= moved and seconded that the applicant return to the Comminee on 5-5-99 H. Friedman abstained. It was determined that the applicant would return to Site Plan Review on May 5, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-043 1418 Lake Street Pretimingi-YAFinal L. Les-y, M. Hessler and A] Belmonte represented Warren Chem Preschool for relocation of playground and repaving parking lot. There is no real structural change to this proposal. The representatives showed playground setup view and plat for the property. Mr. Belmonte stated the reason for the project was to repave the parking lot, 30 }ears old, full of ruts. The applicant decided to redo the whole site and make the west lot for staff and visitors and relocate the tat IoL The proposal is to tear down the garage, make more parking spaces and repave the area. The plan is to complete this by fall, if finances permit. A. Belmonte stated there is a wall separating the garage from the building so there will be no structural problem. The garage was mainly for storage of materials. C. Smith indicated that to repave the lot, a striping layout is required, it must comply with the Illinois Accessibility Code. lighting issues must be addressed. J. Tonkinson stated that Water Reclamation District Permit must be obtained when adding to a parking lot. He discussed with Mr. Belmonte that there are two inlets on the lot. Replying to a question, it was stated that the building had been previous[) used for offices. There is a residential unit an the second floor occupied by a tenant since 1991. Mr Alterson indicated that he did a hurried zoning analysis and he needs more information to complete it in full. He gave a copy of the current zoning analysis to the applicant. Playground equipment must be kept 15 feet off south lot line. The applicant needs to keep the new parking spaces and the playground within the 15 foot lot line setback. j"w�s moved and second;d to table tlS_proiect. thgt the applyant return to Site Plan Revicw with panting plan_ report of number of staff and children. a license and review of the 1992 records The applicant shggld work with zonine to complele the analysis: the applicant should obtain and present the drawrnes from a civil engineer and w w' Son presenting aparking plan. �Lffh � SPAA Sherman Avenue Recommendatinn fnr Sidewplk Cafe Casey Kostov, manage for Einstein Bagels appeared for the sidewalk cafe permit for Einstein Bagels. C. Smith reviewed the site plan checklist with the applicant. C. Kostov showed samples of the dishware. C. Smith indicated that the reusable utensils were mandatory C Kostov requested a waiver for the beverage containers to be used. %Ir Kostov indicated that the operation of the sidewalk cafe would be the same as the last two years He presented photos of the area. It was indicated that there would be no cumulative effect on surrounding properties The Committee assured tilr Kostov that he would receive a copy of the current ordinance regarding side•.4alk cafes and a copy of the check list rc�,iewed in the meeting. The Committee moved and seconded arinroval of the -6d walk L-tfi4. It was indicated that the request would more than likely be presented to Council on 5-10-99 5PAARC 99-044 1015 Chicago Avenue Concept tiessrs.Richard and dark Fisher represented Autobarn to renovate facade and outdoor line of Autobarn. The purpose of the proposal was to mo%c Jeep and Chnsler to its own work area. Inside of the building is in good shape only needing redecorating. The proposal would allc%iate the long line of cars on Chicago Avenue in the morning. The intent is to make this address look the same as 1034 location thru upgrading .. ith Dry %of and eliminating all the tin siding. Photos «ere bused showing the intent. H. Friedman complemented them on the %kork the% did on the Greenleaf property at 1034 Chicago :Avenue M. Fisher indicated that the rear building was taller than the front building and the ac unit could be seen. The proposal is that the roof lines would be the same on both building by raising the parapet of the front building and reducing the view of the rooftop a/c unit The sign height would trot change, only the face of the sign. C. Smith reminded the applicant that this must he brought to the Sign Reriew and Appeals Board. She also indicated that dryvot was not acceptable because below S feet causes more damage: The applicant stated they would use barriers to prevent damage. The applicant would Ut to make the wimdows mom uniform and larger with a proper aluminum frame 6 to 7 feet wide and 5 feet high, but wanted to get ahe preferanee of the Committee prior to following thru with this plan. The air pipes on the floor of the building pm vent the windows from being set lower. The plan is to make the windows wider and taller. H. Friedman su&rested strip windows and M. r Fisher stated this could not be done structurally. M. Fisher suggested bilateral windows and C. Smith indicated the Cornninee preferred to see more storefront. J. Wolinski requested that they keep with dw flavor of uniformity on Chicago Avenue. M. Fisher stated that they plan to redo 1012 to make all thefts locations uniform. C. Smith reminded them of the necessity of a better landscape buffer. ht. Fisher inicated thja Chicago Avenue has many dwarfed bushes and this was their plan to follow suit. The Committee plans to rese.-ve comments until they see further proposals of this project. The lighting issue was addressed. M. Fisher stated there are tw o large wall mounted lights in back. They will be changed to wall mounted wall washers with 8 foot candles to the ground and 2 foot candles on the fence line and be mounted 12' above ground level. The Committee requested to see the lighting plan and submit all the plans including the fixture cuts The applicant indicated that there are 25 foot high street lights in front. M: - Fisher showed the proposal with the pictures. Mr. Fisher indicated the the plan must be recalculated if the Irghting is to be revised. J. Tonkinson steed he will review the photometric study. H. Friedman indicated that the prcperry is on the edge of the Historic District and the neighbors may have some objections. C. Smith stated the applicant should call for an appointment to rertm to the Committee when they are ready for preliminary review. tee moved and seconded IQ approve concel2t approval as stated at h to able. A. Alterson added that s e Dr�vot ;a be a good thing. SPAARC 99-046 1031 Central Street Prelim ionrv/Final M. Ravanesi, S. Tuttle and Tony Siebert were representing Jans Golf Course. The applicant submitted the same plan which they presented to Fire Chief Whalen showing all safety features of their proposal. In reply to questions, the applicant stated that the height of the tanks is 48" on skids or 54" off the ground. As shown in exhibit B of the plan, the tank is 66" round, 6 feet long and holds 500 gallons. separated in two sections to hold gas and diesel fuel. The proposal is for 2 of them so they will be 12 feet long. The tanks are completely surrounded by fencing. According to State requirement they are setback 30 feet and w ill be protected by ballards. This will alleviate street view. In order to get to the tanks. entrance must be mado thru the gate. The applicant indicated that t1ic State Fire Marshall issued a permit for the project. ,Jbg Committee moved and seconded approval of the nroi,ect SPAARC' 99-047 2520 Gross Point Road Fretiminarv/F11W The representative from Alden Estates was present to discuss the canopy and ambulance entrance for Alden Estates, C. Smith indicated that conceptual approval was gi%en 4-10-96 Since this time, the signage was approved but the sidewalk was not put in as %et. This proposal will be to the rear of the building. The applicant indicated the canopy %k ill match that existing on the front of the building for uniformity. The project wi11 not be risible from the public walkway the Committee moved 4nd secmded gmoval with the caveat 6. J Tonkinson that the sidewalk be fines¢ by the enO of the sear_ for which a pgrmit will bg nessssarv. Summars or Findinrs of Anril 21. 1999 The Committee unanimous) approved the Summary of Findings of April 21. 1999 as written Respectfully submittted Jo AtSn Nlincar. Acting Secretan JOANN SPAARC.M119 1 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 21, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Altersort, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Myiott, C. Smith. J. Wohmski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly, J. Tonkinson. H. Friedman. S. Levine, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3.10 p.m. SPAARC 99-041 2102 Mulford Street (James Park) Preliminary Renovate field house at James Park. Mr Thomas Lalonde (architect) and Mr Dick Hayden (architect) presented working drawings, a site plan, and site photographs to renovate the field house at James Park T Lalonde stated that the program Is to add a kitchen, dining area, and storage area, and upgrade the concession area. C Smith asked P D'Agostino. will the building be used for a wide variety of activities? P. D'Agostino responded- yes: the building will also be,used for a dropping program for summer kids. T Lalonde stated that they anginal considered demolishing the existing f►ela house, but, because the building is constructed upon 60-foot caissons, demolition and reconstruction would be cost prohibitive. T. Lalonde stated that the design maintains the Integnty of the existing structure while bringing it into the '90s. T Lalonde stated that the existing walls will remain, and additions are proposed for me east and west sides. T. Lalonde stated that the existing roof will be removed and replaced with a different design, the building will not have any flat roofs. T. Lalonde stated that the entrances to the building will have an axial relationship to the sled hill and a future ball field pavilion. T Lalonde stated that the existing overhead doof will be converted to a concession window. T. Lalonde stated that the building will include a fare place. such !.gat the building may be used as a warming house during the winter T Lalonde stated they are working on tryrng to find a good match to the ex!sting brick, the existing brick will be tuck -pointed and repaired as needed T Lalonde stated that the dormers within the roof will be cedar siding. the chimney will be wood T Lalonde stated that the proposed rool:ng is a dimensional heavy shingle to provide relief to the roof, the shingle has a 30-year warranty, and the company is consldenng extending the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE IY April 21. 1999 Page i of 10 x warranty to 40 years. T. Lalonde stated that the interior will have exposed heavy timbers to provide a tame, open volume, C. Smith asked the applicants: are the entrances accessible? T Monde responded. yes; the egos" concrete will be removed and a concrete plaza and playground will be Installed. T. Lalonde stated that the bathrooms meet the accessibility code when entered from the inside, however, the bathrooms do not meet the accessibility code when entered from the outside due to tight turr..mg radii. T. Lalonde stated that the bathrooms within the future ball field pavilion will be accessible in every way. C. Smith asked the appGpnts- will the bathrooms be available when the Field house is not open? T Lalonde responded: no. A Alterson stated that the program is "wonderful", but the design looks like an attempt to create a house; the "original, 1960s. funky -shaped' roof is superior. T Lalonde staled that reflecting residential character is very appropriate. A. Alterson stated that this building 15 far from residential uses. T. Lalonde stated that this building also reflects the character of the future ball field pavilion that will include a sky box. M. Mylott stated that he liked the proposed renovation. C Smith stated that some covered areas at the entrances may help the axial relationships; a covered area at the concession area should also be considered. D. Marino asked the applicants: has the Division of Parks and Forestry approved this design? T Lalonde responded: yea; this design reflects many meetings with that group. C. Smith stated that any lights on the building should be recessed to rake them more vandal -proof, C. Smith stated that a preferred design solution would route the kitchen exhaust through the chimney. T. Lalonde stated that he will consider that suggestion C Smith stated that the applicants should review the height of the coracesslon counter against accessibility requirements. T Lalonde stated that the counter is 34 inches high T Lalonde stated that work throughout the park will Include improvemer:s to the tennis courts, ball fields, and bus shelter. P. D'Agostino stated that the sled hill ran will shortened, cad stairs will be replaced; new stairs will be constructed: and a nature trail will be added. P. D'Agostino stated that access to the tap of the hill will be restricted via a fence. C. Smith stated that the applicants should irrrestigate accessibility requirements; the accessibility code includes a maintenance provision that may appf j to this work. C Smith asked the applicants: are you proposing any chAnges to the exterior lighting within the park? T. Lalonde responded that may work may come at a future date, but it is not within the scope of this work. D Jennings moMned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance renew approval. D Marino seconded the motion. Discussion M Mylott asked the applicants can you provide a set of photographs for the Committee file? T Lalonde responded. yes Committee approved the motion fS-2l to grant arellminary sit(Lnian and an ew aDDroval. P. D'Agostino abstained The working drawings and site plan have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-041) SITE ARYPLAN AN FINDINGS SITE R111N AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Aanr 21 1999 Page 2 of 10 SPAARC 98-0086 1007 Church Street Revision to Preliminary and FWW Replace side door for office (Evanston !Northwestern Healthcare) v�rjn Strand Morahan. Mr. Richard Osterman (project manager) presented floor plans. site photographs. and mismilanai us documentation to replace the existing side door to an office (Evanston Northwestern Healthcare), focalW within Shand Morahan (1007 Church Street). Dr. Sam Sugar, Ms, Joyce Eidel, and Mr. Paul Schwab.ware available to answer questions. C. Smith stated the Committee approved a door in this location, subyect to conditions, on August 19, taw. R. Osterman stated that they are proposing replacing the existing swinging door with a sliding door.. Ft. Osterman stated that a strong wind condition has caused 2 swinging doors to fail. R. Osterman stated Ivy Investigated a stronger door; however, they were told that no warranty is available, and the seller is cant responsible if someone is injured by this door due to wind. J. Wolinski asked the appi cants are yvu experiencing a wind -tunnel effect because this door is located where one was never intended? P. Schwab responded: no, the main doors have problems on windy days as well S. Sugar stated that. on windy days. access to the office is limited to the main revolving doors; an accessible entrance must be provided, and obits entrance is not secure. S. Sugar stated that an in -swinging door would reduce the size of an already smg waiting room. R. Osterman stated they have investigated other options, contacted the office of the original architect (spoke with Mr Sandy Gorsho), and had C Smith Inspect the site and offer a recommendation. R. Osterman staW that S. Gorsho did not believe that the sliding door would have a signrficant impact on the building. R Osterman stated that the door would fit within the existing space. recessed approximately 5 inches. Ill. Mylott asked the applicants: will the door have the same finish as the existing door? P. Schwab responded: yes. P Schwab stated that the header would be screened by blinds. S. Sugar stated that converting to a sliding door allows them to remove some exterior hardware. C. Srruth asked the applicants. can the door work on the curve? P. Schwab responded: yes. C Smith stated that her preference would be to have no door: however, if a door must be provided, she would prefer an in -swinging door. C. Smith stated that a sliding door further degrades the building. C. Smith stated that she believes that the same waiting -room configuration proposed for the sliding door could be used for the in -swinging door, P Schwab stated that using the sliding -door waiting -room configuration for the in - swinging door would require moving the pay telephone and fire alarm M Mylott motioned to approve the revision to the previous preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, maintaining the conditions of the previous approval (Aa:gust 19, 1998) D Manno seconded me motion Committee approved the motion (5-2 i to a2orove the revls,cri to the previous orelimmary and final site plan and appearance review agprovai. maintaminglhe condiggns of the previous aQoroval (AuausLJ_9, 19981. H, Friedman abstained. The floor plans, site photographs, and miscellaneous documentation have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0086) SUMMARY OF FINDENGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUMME Aprd 21 1999 Page 3 of la k SPAARC 99-034 2545 Prairie Avenue Retain restaurant (Miehefini's) Preliminary and iriaif Mr. Andrew Werth (attorney) presented an Application for Special Use, including site photographs, a plat of survey, and floor plan, to retain a Type 2 Restaurant (Michelini's), located at 2545 Praine Avenue. Mr. Igor Grois (property owner) and Ms Sofia Grois (property owner) were available to ans%-er questions. A Alterson stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals continued this matter or April 6, 1999 at the request of an objector, the case will reconvene on May 4, 1999. A. Werth stated that the current owners purchased Michelini's in 1990 A Werth stated that Michelini's was forced to move from its original Central Street location due to an adjacent 'construction fiasco'. A Werth stated that the Grois' owned the space at 2545 Prairie Avenue white Michelini's was open at Central Street, taut it was used by a different restaurant; when that restaurant left, Michelini's moved into the Prairie Avenue space, rather than seek another tenant A Werth stated that the Michelins s at 2545 Prairie Avenue has take out and delivery services; however, the Central Street location did much more business in this capacity A Werth stated that the owners wish to further develop the sit-down component of the restaurant. but need to maintain take out and delivery Services until that transition can occur D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and Final site plan and appearance review approval, A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion• A. Alterson stated that the issue raised by the objector relates to the parking practices of the customers and delivery persons. the objector alleges that persons temporarily park vehicles in front of the garage door to his apartment building (across the street from Michelins s), prohibiting anyone from entering or exiting A. Alterson stated that the area is signed'tow zone'. A. Alterson stated that Prairie Avenue is one-way southbound C Smith stated that she shares the concern of the objector, but she is not convinced that Issue would be enough to vote to deny this application D Marino stated that he lives in the area, and the area has traditionally been a difficult place in which to park, however, this issue is for the police. A Werth stated that the Grois' have placed a sign in the door informing person not to park within the tow zone J V&inski sthted that this issue for the Zoning Board of Appears to decide D Jennings stated that. within the last month he has recerved more complaints about this issue than any other Issue during the last month D Jennings staled that, when vehicles are parked within the tow zone, certain trucks are prohibited from exiting the alley; traffic has been bk)cked because a truck could rot make the turn from the alley D. Jennings stated that he has placed cones within the area, and they disappeared D. Jennings stated that he has Instructed Parking Enforcement Officers to tow offenders D. Jennings stated that residents want the curb extended. hoping that that will solve the problem C Smith asked D Jennings: can you attribute the parking problems to the take out and delivery services of the restaurant? D Jennings responded when I visited the site. I witnessed a person park a vehicle in the restricted area and enter the restaurant A Werth stated that his clients would welcome any solution to the problem A Alterson stateo :rat the a!le., ^orth of the subject crccerry is a public a'-ey and it Is s=gned 'no parking' Committee aooroved the motion ! 5.31 to grant prellminary and final site clan and appearance review apgr r I. SUUMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIC. COS, PMTTEE AprA 21. 1999 42 Page 4 of 10 X SPAARC 99-042 2645 Prairie Avenue Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe OFF -AGENDA tTEtirf: Establish sidewalk cafe for restaurant within 200 feet of msidertrW use (MA:hellir s). Mr. Igor Grois (property owner) and Ms. Sofia Grois (property owner) presented a Perrmt Application for Sidewalk Cafe and nondisposable dishware to establish a sidewalk cafe for a restaurant within 200 flea of a residential use (Michelini's), located at 2545 Prairie Avenue. Mr. Andrew Werth (attorney) was availatft to answer questions. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established in the Sidewalk Cafe Regulation Checklist S. Grois responded that Michelini's would comply with all requirements_ S. Grois stated that Milchelini's vijilf not request the waiver to permit disposable beverage containers; they will use plastic cups. A Werth stated that Michelini's has submitted a litter plan with their Application fear Special Use; that plan nails for removing all litter from an area approximately 150 to 200 feet around the restaurant 4 tunes per day. A. Werth stated that the previous owner had a sidewalk cafe that was larger than the one proposed for Michelini's. A Alterson staffed that he mailed a flyer to the attorney such that Michelini's may comply with the notification requirements. A. Werth stated that he received that flyer. M. Mylott motioned to recommend the Ciry Council approve the sidewalk cafe application. D. Jermings seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (8-01 to recommend the City Council approve the sidewalk cafe ap lica ion. The site plan, menu, and a photocopy of the Sidewalk Cafe Regulation Checklist have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-042). SPAARC 97-0059 2650 Ridge Avenue Final Construct new parking structure and new lobby addition of Evanston Hospital, Mr. Walt Eckenhoff (Eckenhoff Saunders Architects) presented east and south facade elevations, a landscape plan, and building material samples to construct a parking structure and lobby addition for Evanston Hospital, located at 2650 Ridge Avenue. Mr. Tim Vander Moien, Mr. Dave Urschel (Eckenhoff Saunders Architects), and Mr. Larry Glasscock (Teska Associates) were available to answer questions. W. Eckenhoff stated that, dunng value engineering. they made 2 principal changes: the 4-inch extruded aluminum rail along the top level of the parking structure has been removed and the height of the precast stone will be increased to approximately the former height of the rail, and 2. the brick inside the interior arches of the parking structure has been replaced with pretest concrete W. Eckenhoff stated that the interior arches are approximately 10 to 12 feet back from the principal facade. SUAO ARY OF FtHMINIGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMAiKME Apra21.1999 Panes of 10 k W. Eckenhoff stated that the other building materials include grey -tinted glass. palem. 21 ss on the skybghts and entry canopy; neutral -color precast stone; brick: and a copper roof. W Eckenhod stag that they have not selected the color of the frame of the windows: however, it will be metallic. W Edirnhoff stated that the copper roof will not be pre -oxidized. D. Marino stated that he would like to preserve the brick interior arches, especially along the Central Street elevation. C. Smith stated that she likes that the design uses more p, st concrete but the pedestrian nature of Central Street is more conducive to brick. M. Mylott stated that, because a is recessed, that porbon will most often be within shadows. C. Smith stated that the Central Street yard will rave landscaping as well. L. Glasscock stated that the landscaping plan is the same as that presented during preiir inary review, except some material has been shifted to accorrunodate a request by the Division of Parks 6 Fcrestry to save an Elm tree and a Gingko tree along Ridge Avenue, 30-inch high tree wells with a 12-fact radius will be constructed around each tree. P. D'Agostino stated that that approach is acceptable. C. Smith asked L Glasscock wilt you use any lighting on these trees? L Glasscock responded no; some tree lighting may be used within the court yard. but it will not be seen from Ridge Avenue due to the berm L. Glasscock stated they will use stainless steel railings on the stairs. M. Mylott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee an raved the motion (6-1) to grant final site plan and appearance rgmimm 2cQroval. H. Friedman abstained SPAARC 98-0062 2122 Sheridan Road Preliminary and Final Construct 2-story addition connecting 2 existing buildings at Seabury-Western Thealcq cal Seminary. Mr. Howard Decker (architect) presented working drawings and building material samples for an addition to Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, located a12122 Sheridan Road. Mr David Glore (Seabury-Westem Theological Seminary), Mr Douglas Schlegel (Pepper Construction), and Mr. Rayr.=d Galatea were available to answer questions H Decker stated that the purpose of the addition is to create 'an entry link" between 2 existing buildings -- Wheeler Hall and Junkin Hall. H. Decker stated that the addition provides a 'front door' and reception area for Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. H. Decker stated that the addition is 4,600 so ft total H Decker staled that this addition was identified as a high-prionty project within the Seabury-Western Theological Seminary Campus Plan, because It provides full accessibility to both buildings H Decker stated that the area north of the addition Include a ramped sidewalk H Decker stated that the area sou: i cf R.e addition includes a ramp, the ramp was intentionally kept off the building to preserve the integrity of the to ilding and to permit easy future modifications H Decker stated that the addition includes elevator access to the second floor. H Decker stated that the addition replaces a driveway and parking spaces H Decker stated that the addition will be clad in limestone. the roof will be slate, the windows will be metal, and the gutters and downspouts will be copper H Decker stated that. during value engrr,eenng. they made 2 changes to the fenestration: those changes were approved by the Preservation Comm"ssion on April 20. 1999 C Ruiz stated that the openings have changed. and the windows were gorg to t:e wood M. Mylott stated that this project was delayed for several months while budgetary Items %ere evaluated M. Mylott asked D Schlegel are the changes to the fenestration the only items that were changed during this time? D Schlegel responded yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Apn121 109 Page 6 of 10 X M. Mylott asked the applicants: are you altering the windows on .the 2 existing buildings? H. responded: no; no work is proposed for the existing buildings. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. IWtrino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion to grant nreiiminary and final siig pWnnd appearance review approval. The working drawings have been placed within the Site flan and Appearance Review Committee foldia+r for this case (98-0062). SPAARC 99-032 1800 Ridge Avenue Preliminary Construct entrance. including elevator, within south elevation of cultural fac lity (Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston). Mr. Erik Eriksson (architect) presented a floor plan, perspectives, and site photographs to construct an entrance, including an elevator, within the south elevation of the cuttuml facdrty (Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston) located at 1800 Ridge Avenue. Mr. William Hanawalt (Vineyard Christian Fetlawship of Evanston, property owner) was available to answer questions E. Eriksson stated that the property owner took the Committee's suggestion to provide symmetry. C. Smith stated that she does not prefer the scheme with gabled features, gables are not used anywhere else on the building. H Friedman and M. Mylott agreed. C. Smith stated that she prefers scheme "3C", and she recommends using a skylight within the canopy. E. Eriksson stated that he ►WWII have problems draining the canopy, a skylight increases those problems, C. Smith disagreed. W. Hanawalt stated that a skylight could not be the only lighting option, because many of their activities occur at night, requiring security lighting. C. Swath agreed. and stated that the canopy can easily be designed to include a skylight(s) and lighting. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval for scheme `3C H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion M. Mylott stated that he would like to commend the VaWyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston for pursuing a more appropriate design solution. Sgmmittee approved the motion i_ 7-01 tg grant oreliminary site otan and appearance review approval for Scheme "3C' D Marino abstained. The floor plan. perspectives, and photocopies of the site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-032) _�r�'' SUMMARY OF FIGS NDIN SME PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CONtMJITEE Apra 21.1999 Page I of 10 X i SPAARC 98-0145 630 Davis Street Redevelop 5-story building (Chandler's Building). Ms. Wendy Ban (Heitman Retail Properties) and Mr. Nick Bilandic (Holabird & Root) presented a site plem first floor plan, elevations, building material samples, lighting catalog sheets, street furniture catalog sheets, and site photographs to redevelop the 5-story Chandler's Building, located at 630 Davis Street. W. Ban stated that they will restore the steel windows within the 2 "historic' facades and install atuminum- frarned windows within the 2 "new' facades; the Preservation Commission has approved this approach. W. Ban stated that they will clean the copper and glass above the storefronts; they will replace the metal - framed doors. transoms, and side lights with stained wood doors, transoms, and side lights, accordingly. W Ban stated that the plaza will incorporate 3 colors of concrete pavers -- buff (within the main plaza or travetways), brown (for border), and terra cotta (within intenor plaza). W. Ban stated that the recessed circular planter will contain 3 Gingko trees, Juniper bushes, and annuals; the 2 recessed rectangular planters wish contain annuals. N. Bilandic stated that the street furniture (benches and trash receptacles) will match the City street furniture. W Ban stated that the plaza lights will match the Tallmadge lights used by the City. M. htylott stated that he is somewhat disappointed that a seating wall was not used to delineate the common area of the plaza from the'intimate' area of the plaza. W. Ban stated that the proposed design responds to the limited size of the plaza as well as existing street furniture within the right-of-way. C Smith stated that she believes that having the plaza open is desirable, and the proposed solution is good W Elan stated that they will encourage their tenants to use a burgandy fabric awning; this color could change, depending upon the adamancy of a particular tenant. W. Ban stated that signage wilt be restricted to the valence of the awning or behind the glass; no wall -mounted signs will be permitted. H. Friedman asked W. Ban- will your company resist corporate pressure to install corporate signage? W Ban responded: yes, signage must meet the criteria established by Heitman Retail Properties, C. Smith stated that any change to the signage must be reviewed by the Preservation Commission, W. Ban stated that the sconces on the "historic' facades will match the Tallmadge lights; the sconces on the "new' facades will have a vertical modern design. , D Jennings stated that the applicants' permission for a temporary walkway has expired; this permission should be renewed as soon as possible W Ban stated that she will address that request immediately. J Wohnski motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. D Marina seconded the motion. Comer,:nee approved the motion to arant final site plan and appearance review aonroval The site plan, first floor plan. and elevations have been placed within the Site Alan and Appearance Review Comm -nee folder for this case (98-0145) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CdMMrrTEE Apnl21 -999 a► Page a cj 10 Z! SPAARC 99-M 2200 Main Street Construct second -story addition to, and reconfigure parking area for, child day care center (Baby Tcddbr Nursery). Ms. Marion Tireidie (architect) presented working drawings to construct a second -story addition to, wW reconfigure the parting area for, the child day care center (Baby Toddler Nursery), located at 2200 Win Street. Ms. Mary Jane Chainski (Director of Baby Toddler Nursery) was available to answer questiocm. C. Smith asked the applicants: what changes have you made since the Committee's preliminary revievil? U. Tireidie responded: a fire exit was added at the second floor in response to plan review comments by fie Building Division. M Mylott asked the applicants: are the stairs at least i foot away from each lot line? U. Tireidie responded: yes. C. Smith asked D. Jennings: do you approve of the reconfigured parking area? D. Jennings responded yes. C. Smith asked the applicants: is any space available for landscaping? M. Tireidie responded: no. M. Tire:idiie stated that a tree along the south side of the property will need pruning due to construction; however, rso landscaping will be removed as a result of this project M. Mylott stated that a person authorized to act on behalf of Baby Toddler Nursery must sign the easement agreement (Resolution 14-R-99) M J. Chainski stated that she will sign the easement agreement. D Marino motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. M Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aoprovi,d the motion (8-0l try orant final site Qlan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 99-040 2014 Cleveland Street Preliminary and Final Construct second -story addition and Toff above existing 1-car garage attached to single-family resiidence, requiring major variation. M Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation to construct a second -story addition and loft above an existing i-car garage attached to a single-family residence, located at 2014 Cleveland Street. M Mylott stated that the property owner most affected by the proposed construction (2010 Cleveland Street) has signed a letter stating that she has no objection to the proposal. C Smith stated that she has no problems with the carblever or the infill up to the established roof line. C Smith stated that she finds the loft space 'somewhat problematic' in that It extends above the established roof line, however, she would not vote to deny the application, given that the neighbor has no objections to the proposal H Friedman stated that it appears as if the property owner is seeking to gain space for a studio A Alterson stated that he doubts the owner understands what the proposal will look like when completed. C Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. Including a recommendation that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider that the loft space extends above the estabtmhed roof line P D'Agostino seconded the motion Committee aoaroved the motion i 5-1) to grant orelimmary and[ final stie plan and aopearance review apzoroval including a recommendation that the Zoning Board of Aoveais consider that the loft space extends above the e%abli5hed roof line SUILWARY OF FIND04GS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COJidUrr EE April 21. 1999 Page 9 or 10 SPAARC 99-039 1223 Grant Street Construct dormer for single-family residence, requiring major varladon. Preliminary and Finaf M. Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation to construct a dormer for a single-family residence, located at 1223 Grant Street. C. Smith asked M. Myiott: have any neighbors commented on the application? M. Myiott responded: no. A. Atterson motioned to grant prefiminmy and final site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agostiim seconded the motion. Committee aogroyld ;3C ffm= 16-01 tq grant preliminary and final site plan and prance review apgEQvpj. Approval of Summary of Findings D. Jennings motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of Apri114, 1999. C. Smith seconded the motkxL CoCoaiwttee approved the motion 16-01 to approve the Sumrnary of Findings of April 14. 1999. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. .rr, tix•,�t r�.t+'r.i,e�. a�sr,r+.s. 41sst.'1ihai'r.tii ;li?�x: A ro Is 1.1ry SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMriTEE Apnl 21.1999 eo Page 10 of 10 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 14, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Jennings, G. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement K. Kelly, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, M. Robinson, R. Schur, C. Wonders. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3.05 p m. SPAARC 99-006 2102 Mulford Street (James Park) Final Construct cable equipment building (MediaOne) adjacent to roadway into James Park Mr Tom Arvidson (MediaOne) and Mr. Max Rubin (City of Evanston) presented working drawings, including a site plan, elevations, and 3 proposals for landscaping, to construct a cable equipment building for MediaOne adjacent to James Park, 2102 Mulford Street Ms Sharon Douglas was available to answer questions. C Smith read the Summary of Findings January 13 1999. regarding this case T Arvidson stated that he had a conversation with S. Levtne, regarding landscaping, he would like her opinion of the 3 proposals for landscaping T Ar. Boson stated that the proposals consist of different mixes of plant materials however no species exceeds C io 5 feet high T Arvidson stated that the build rig is 9 feet high, the plant material will look good, but it will rot complet&y shield the building S Levine stated that she would avoid using Arborvitae, the materials sele Vted should be arranged Into groups of 2's and 3's, rather than altemaling individual plants S Levine state-i that the landscaping should -fill out' from the fence, rather than follow the fence in a linear format L_ Blac , stated that from a security standpoint. the landscaping should not block the area between 3 feet and 7 feet high. keeping this area open increases natural surveillance T Arvidson stated that the building will hale tights on motion sensors mounted at the comers, the building will have an entry alarm that rings at MediaOne M Rubin stated that he believes that an &'oat high fence Is appropriate for this use and area. A. Alterson stated that an 13-foot high fence is permitte^ by the Zoning Ordinance SUMMARY OF FrNCWOG5 SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMIniTE>E April U 109 Page 1 ate X D Jennings motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. subject tc review and appmval of the landscape plan by the City landscape Architect. M. Mylott seconded the motion. C.omM ttea accrcwed the motion t8-01 to orant final site Dan and vemaranCe review approval subject to review and at QMNA g rthe landscape plan by the City Landscape Architect. The working drawings including a site plan, elevations, and 3 proposals for landscaping have been ptar: ed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-006) SPAARC 98-0071 1744 Darrow Avenue Revision to Preliminary Raze single-family residence and erect addition to religious institution (Bethel AME Church). Mr Daniel Sih (architect) and Ms Susan D. SO (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and site photographs for an addition to the Bethel AME Church located at 1744 Darrow Awwue. Mr. George Austin was available to answer questions. M Mylott read the Zoning Analysis Summary Sheet; the project requires an expansion to an existing special use and major variations to the standards regulating lot coverage, rear yard setback, and the locawn rrf parking spaces M Mylott stated the Zoning Board of Appeals will consider these issues; on May 4, 1M S SO stated that they have removed the attic from the addition, lowering the height. M Mylott stated that the parking area has been reconfigured C Smith asked the applicants: are you using an existing curbcut7 S Sih responded yes J Aiello motioned to approve the revision to the previous preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. D Jennings seconded the motion Discussion C Smith stated that the applicants will need to provide a landsizaping plan and a lighting plan for final review; building materials would not be necessary, if the applicants intend to match existing building materials. Committee approved the motion 113-01 to aoorove the revision to the previous Dretimr:ary site olan art W arance review approval The site plan floor plans elevations and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0071) SPAARC 99-036 3200 Grant Street Preliminary and Final Construct addition to and remodel townhouse units (Presbyterian Nome Tnnily Court) Mr Philip Barr (project manager) presented working drawings including a site plan. floor plan. and elevation. and site photographs to construct an addition to and remodel townhouse units at Presbyterian Home. Trinity Court. 3200 Grant Street P Barr stated that the proposal includes constructing a 12-foot by 15-foot rear additicin to each center townhouse, these units have 'always been somewhat small- P Barr stated that. of the 17 units to be SUMMARY FINDINGS SITE PLAN AN AND APPFAPPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 14. 1999 h Page 2 al 8 V 1( completed, they have completed 4: the current proposal will be the 5th unit mmletted P Barr stated jhM Presbyterian Home received zoning relief approval in November 1996 L. Black asked P Barr why not make the addition as wide as the ur:17 P Barr respemtied the units only need a bedroom, because the existing Interior space will be reconfiOLred as well ais.^ Me --ernalning width will be used as an outdoor patio C. Smith asked P. Barr: will the building materials used on the adalton match the exisrning budding mabNws? P. Barr responded yes J. Aiello asked P_ Barr, what is the time frame for completing the rernaimng units'? P .Barr responded., as the units become available. C. Smith stated that this item was originally placed on the agenda as a review ci' unit number 408. the Committee may want to extend any action it takes to the remainaV additions. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, including said approval for the remaining townhouse additions, provided each substantially compiles with the information communicated to the Committee. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aoormued the motion (9-01 to grant preliminary and final Zile clan and anoearancp review apl2rova(_ induding_jaid aorrroval for townhouse additions, proyided each gubslantialty comolies with the information ,communicated to the Committee The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99.036) SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Revision to Preliminary and Final Revise plat of subdivision for Church Street Plaza (Research Park Urban Entertainmrent Complex). J Aiello and C Wonders presented the revised plat of subdivision for Church Street Plaza, J. Aiello stated that the changes relate to the legal descriptions and lot numbering A. Alterson motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the plat of subdivision only M Mylott seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (9-01 to grant aQoroval of the revision to the previous preliminary and final site olan and appearance review approval for the Dial of subdivision only The plat of subdivision has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (97-0065) SPAARC 91-0074 2201 Howard Street Conference OFF -AGENDA 17EM Note complaint regarding parking area improvements within Ev ariston Center. D Jennings stated that he had a telephone conversation with a person that was unhappy with the Improvements to the parking area for Evanston Center D Jennings stated that the person walked down the wrong aisle while looking for his vehicle, he could not `cut across' to the appropriate ais; a because snow was SIUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM17TEE April 14. 1M Page 3 of 8 k stacked on top of the new northlsouth islands. C. Smith asked D. Jennings was the snow stacked in the appropriate location? D. Jennings responded: yes. D. Jennings stated that he beheves, and he Informed Cate person, that the parking area improvements have increased safety at the shopping renter C Smith agreed SPAARC 97-0059 2650 Ridge Avenue Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Install ambulance -only parking spaces wi#rin rrghW ivay {Evanston Hospdar) D Jennings stated that he met Mr Tim Vander Molen at Evanston Hospital to discuss problems with the existing emergency -room parking area; the parking area cannot accommodate the demand of private vehicles and public and private ambulances 0. Jennings stated that T Vander Molen suggested that. because Evanston Hospital is constructing a sidewalk a icing the west side of Girard Avenue. the existing sidewalk along the east side be removed from the comer of Central Street and Girard Avenue beyond the existing emergency room; that portion of the existing sidewalk along the existing parking structure is scheduled to be removed to accommodate construction of the new parking structure. D Jennings stated that T Vander Molen suggested installing 90-degree parking spaces along the east side of Girard Avenue, near the emergency room. D Jennings stated that the parking spaces would be partially within the right-of-way and partially within the subject property. D. Jennings stated that Evanston Hospital will operate a free valet service from the emergency -room drop off to these parking spaces, they would construct wooden stairs to increase the efficiency of the valets A. Alterson asked D Jennings will the parking spaces be restricted to use by the Hospital only? D Jennings responded yes J Aiello asked D Jennings will the grade differential cause any problems? D Jennings responded: no. L Black asked 0 Jennings how long will these parking spaces remain in place? D Jennings responded. - during construction only. C Smith asked D Jennings will the parking spaces impact any pre hydrants? D Jennings responded: the Hospital wul have to stay away from any existing fire hydrants D Jennings stated that no trees will be removed in conjunction with tnis proposal. C Smith asked D Jennings will the Hospital submit plans for this proposal) D. Jennings responded: yes. J Aiello stated that this proposal should be taken to City Council J Aiello rrcitoned to grant pre•':minary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval by D Jennings and J Tonkinson D Manna seconded the motion Committee agproved the motion 19-41 to orant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review aDoroval. subiect to review alld Mprcval by D Jenninas and J Tonkinson SPAARC 99-038 Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM Pnoiocopy of February 1999 nrno New. Site Planning for Large Retail Establishments A Atterson distributed photocopies of the February 1999 Zonino Newra Site Planning for Large Retail Establishments- to Committee members SUMMARY OF i A_N iND SITE PLAN A2.D APPEARANCE REviE4"1 COMMIT -TEE April 14 1999 Page 4 of 8 IK SPAARC 97-0076 1201 Chicago Avenue Final Construct new canopy (Shell Or/ Company) Mr. Kevin Lewis (architect) presented a site plan, landscape plan, elevation, and plat of survey to construct a canopy for a gas station (Shell Oil Company), located at 1201 Chicago Avenue C. Smith read the Sumrnary of Findings from September 17 1997. regarding this case. K. Lewis stated that the proposal is the same as that Presented for preliminary review, except they have included landscaping A. Alterson stated that the height of the canopy exceeds the permitted height for flat -roof accessory stn=res. K. Lewis stated that they are aware that they will require a variation; however, lower canopies are hit M. Mylott asked the applicant: is this property improved witr a canopy now? K Lewis responded: no M. Mylott asked the applicant: does the property owner have any plans to remccw the principal building? K. Lewis responded: no. S. Levine stated that the applicant should make a clearer distraction between the location of the annuals and the junipers within the depicted planting beds; junipers tend to be toxic. C. Smith stated that the signage on the canopy may need a variation: that approval is separate from this Committee and the Zoning Board of Appeals M My:ott stated that the signage on the canopy may be unnecessary C Smith agreed A Alterson asked C Smith do you think the signage on the canopy is excessive? C Smith responded somewhat K Lewis stated that the yellow band on the canopy will tie tack fit D. Jennings motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of the landscape plan by the City Landscape Architect and review and approval of the photometric plan by the City Engineer L Black seconded the motion Discussion A Alterson stated that it is unfortunate that corporations do not try to work with the unique characteristics of sites this ;:roan site is becoming increasingly suburban. _Committee aooroved the motion (8-0) to grant final site olen and appgarance review aooroval. subl=t to review and aooroval of the landscape plan by the City Landscape Architect and review and aooroval of thq photometric plan oy the Qipl En la neer. SPAARC 99-035 747 Ridge Avenue Preliminary and Final Provide 5 additional, open off-street parking spaces for nit&-tarnUy residence (The Ridgewood of Evanston). Mr Jaimie Meyers (IGL Real Estate) and Ms Michelle Testcni (IGL Real Estate) presented a site plan and site photographs to install 5 additional open. off-street parting spaces for a mutts -family residence (The Ridgewood of Evanston) located at 747 Ridge Avenue SUMMARY OF FINDINGS S+TE PLAN AND APPi✓ PWNCE REVIEW CO/MtMI[ME Apn11t, 1999 Page 5 of 8 J. Meyers stated that they are increasing the sue of the pacing area such that each dwelling snit Pins 1 parking space. the new parking spaces are greater than 30 et from the rear lot line M. Mylott asked the appocants' is the area paved now) V Testoni responded no L. Black askec the applicants; how is the are used now? M. Testoni responded: "-ne area is a combination of dirt arcs grass: M. Testoni stated that would Ice to clean up the remaining area and Install a picnic table and benches M. tlsyiott asked the applicants- will the tree located along the lot line be removed? J Meyers responded: yes to Uylott asked the applicants: what type of tree is the tree-to-be-remeved? J. Meyers responded: I do nct know. J. Meyers stated that they would like to save the tree if space reenains along the north side of the ne-w pari:ing spaces. M. M&tt stated slat the degree of construction betng proposed within the drip zone would probably kill the tree C. Smith stated that sacr:licing the green area is unfortunate, however, leaving a dwelling unit withccA a parking space would be worse. M. Mylott stated that he is more concerned with the removal of an appanw*y very large tree D Jennings stated that the City has no means to keep the applicant from removira that tree today. C. Smith stated that the plans show a 3-foot retaining wall along the west side of the parking spaces. C. Smith asked the applicants: what support is provided along the north !ot line? J. Meyers responded: an existing tondo wall. L. Black asked the applicants are you resurfacing the entire lilt? J. Meyers responded: yes. C. Smith asked the applicants. how is the area drained? J Meyers responded the parking area has Z e>dstng catch basins C Smith stated that the applicants will require an Metropolitan Water Reclamab wl Dcsaid permit. M. Mylott motioned to table this item to allow the applicant to im.estigate the species and health of tte tree -to, - be -removed A Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion. C Smith asked the applicant. would you consider planting a new canopy tree to replace the tree -to -be -removed? M. Testoni responded: yes h1 Mylott withdrew the motion A Alterson withdrew the second M Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan arks appearance review approval, pro,.-ided the applicant installs 1 canopy tree on the subject property the Ideation of which will be determined Gi the City Landscape Architect, if the tree located along the north lot line (cepicted within the site photographs) must be removed D Jennings seconded the motion QMmittee aoflrored the motion f&01 to grant orellrr,7r ry and final site "Ian and appearance review agpraval._♦arovided the aaplicant installs 1 canopv tree on ttae subject property the Ipcation of wroth will be delermingd by the CO t and$rape Archit ct if the tree located alonq the north lot line (depicted within the site ohotoaraphsl must be removed SPAARC 94-0058 1727-1729 Dodge Avenue Preliminary Demolish Nvo-family dwelwrig unit and construct 4-un►t allachea single-family residential building Mr Randolph Parks presented working drawings a plat of surrey, a color rendering. and site phomigrapns to demolish a rwo-family dwelling unit and construct a 4-unit. attached single-family residential bulding at 1727-1729 Dodge Avenue SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN ANO APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 14 19" Page 6 o1 a Q R. Parks stated that the units will be brick and vinyl siding. A. Atterson asked K Parks what is the rrral9130 shovers at the top of the units? R. Parks responded stucco. however. that n-atr oe orne vinyl siding A. Akerson asked R. Parks- do you contrcf the property's R Parks respondeC I fiave owned ire prcWTI thr over 6 years C Smith asked R Parks w--I these units be for sale or rental' R Parks responded ftor sale R. Schur asked R. Parks what price are you envisioning for each dwemrg R Parks respcnded: between S135.000 and $139,000 C. Smith stated that landscaping plans must be provided R Parks stated tr+3t he '011 provide some shrubs in front of the units. much like those dep+cmd within the cobr rendering. hawerer, tie primary landscaping wA be left to the individual owners C Smith stated that the Committee would like to see the amount, size, and species of the applicant's landscaping prevision ,n plan L. Black asked R. Parks- are you providing lights over the front porches 7 R Parks responded yes C. Smith asked R. Parks; of what material is the front steps and landmg7 R Parks responded concrette. C Smith stated that the front landing is'a little high' R Parks stated that the rendering is not accurate, hcaever, the first floor must be raised to avoid the water table R Parks stated that the first floc( is approximately 3 feet above grade H. Friedman stated that the working drawings show that the first floor is 4 feet above grade. M. Mylott asked do the units have basements7 R Parks responded. yes C Smith stated that she would not want to see massive amounts of steps to avoid water table problems H Friedman stated that the applicant may consider wood railings to soften the appearance of the front porch the finish of those railings should tie low -maintenance A. Alterson stated that he would like to see a design that more reflected the single-family and two-family residential characteristics of the neighborhood C Smith stated that she believes this proposal accomplishes that ob}ective it is much better than other pions reviewed by the Committee In the past A. Alterson asked R Parks are you preparing some form of legal document that would bind the 4 individual owners on such issues as maintenance and upkeep of what amounts to t building) R Parks responded, my attorney is working on that document L. Black motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval D Jennings seconded the motion Discussion C Smith stated that the applicant may apply for bu!id,ng permit. however. new drawings will be required because the architect's stamp has expired C. Smith stated that. for final review. the Committee will need the landscaping plan, building material samples and information on outdoor lighting Committee a12 roved the motion r8-01 to grant orenmrnary site plan and aoggarance review apiproxill The working drawings. plat of survey and color rendering have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case f94-0058) SUMMARY OF FINMGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO1dRdMEE Apra 14,1999 Page 7 of a x SPAARC 98-0121 2421 Dempster Street Final Construct t-storyaddition to, and reconi%ure off-street pafking area for, auto repair #acdity (Eranstw Te arm Auto Service) Mr Ali Sajadi (architect) presented a sate plan with parking layout for a 1-story addition to the a= repair facility (Evanston Tire and Auto Service), located at 2421 Dempster Street. A Sajadl stated that the site plan reflects what was approved by the City CouncW, the elevations he" not changed from those presented for preliminary site plan and appearance review. A. Sajadi stated that me ranv was added as a result of plan review comments received from the Building Divis on. C Smith asked A. Sajadi will the building materials of the proposed addition match the existing builcang materials? A. Sajadi responded: yes M Mylott asked A. Sajadi: will the matenal of the new overhead doors match the material of the existing overhead doors? A. Sajadi responded. yes. C. Smith stated that the sign on the addition is not approved through this process, a variation to Use Sign Ordinance will be required S. Levine stated that she doubts much w•Jl live within the planter; she recommends a species requiring very low light. A. Alterson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. M Mviott seconded the motion. .Committee approved the mot+4n (8-0) to grant final site plan and aooearance review approval. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (9M121) Approval of Summary of Findings A Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of March 31. 1999 S. Levme seconded r* motion. Committee aoaroved the motion (8-0) to approve the Summary of Findings of Marc:, 31 1999 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5 10 p m submitted April 19, 1999 Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning flalner Date SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 14 1999 Page 8 of 8 N SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 31, 1999 Room 2403 Members Present: S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present Commencement A. Alterson, J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. S. Lufkin, L. Lyon, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. M. Mylott stated that he will be sibrig as the Zoning Administrator in the absence of A. Alterson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 10:40 a.m. SPAARC 98-0034 1910 Dempster Street Revision to Preliminary Remodel existing building for new grocery store (Dominick's) and retail tenant within Evanston Plaza. Mr. Dennis Harder (development manager, Joseph Freed & Associates, Inc.) and Mr. Thomas L. Miller (Joseph Freed & Associates. Inc.) presented a site plan (including landscaping) and northern elevation to remodel the existing building for a new grocery store (Dominick's) and retail tenant within Evanston Plaza, 1910 Dempster Street D. Harder stated that Dominick s will reuse the east west, and south walls of the existing building and reconstruct the north facade. D Harder stated that the south side of the building will generally function as it does now, except the location of some doors may change. Dominick's will use the existing dock. D. Harder stated that the footprint of Dominick s will be approximately 63.800 sq.ft. reduced tram approximately 65,000 sq.ft,; however, the final floor area depends upon the final location of the north facade. D. Harder stated that the plans include a new retail space between Dominick's and Office Depot wrth approximately 12,000 to 13,000 sq.ft. that space is not yet leased. D Harder stated that the floor area for Office Depot is sell reduced from approximately 40,000 sq.ft. to approximately 27.000 sq.ft D Harder stated that the parking and landscaping plans are the same as previously reviewed by the Committee. D. Harder stated that the parking area will be completely resurfaced. the south end wW be subject to excavation and new fill to address environmental issues D. Harder stated that, by using the existing building, much less construction will occur near the existing landscaping between Dodge Avenue and the building, giving it an increased chance to survive. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RMEW COMMITTEE March 31. 1999 Page I of 6 P1 T_ Miller stated that the architecture attempts to erradate the east facade of the north/south portion of the shopping center. D. Harder stated that they wan; the northlsouth and east/west portions of the shopping center to be coordinated and cenVatible. T. Miller stated that the parapet of the new retail tenant is setback from the parapet of Dominick's D Harder stated Vzt the entire morn facade of the east/west portion of the shopping center will include the a--cade found along :he east facade of the north/south portion of the shopping center. M. Mylott asked the apc4cants do the arcades align? T. Muller responded: yes. C. Smith asked the applicants: when was the ongml shopping cerrer completed? D. Harder responded: 1986. C. Smith stated that. while she supports t~.e use of the exisung su-ucture, she was hoping to see something that was 'forward thinking' C. Smith s=ed that this proposal makes one think that Dominick's had existed since the shopping center was first opened; the proposal should reflect 1999 and beyond, not 1986 C. Smith stated that the proposal should demonstrate that Dan-unicKs is investing extensive resources into the shopping center and gry ng it a "new bream~ of life'. C. Smith stated that, while the proposal now provides a good sense cd entry, the entrance features are new elements to the shopping center, the design is not found anywhere etse within the shopping center. C. Ruiz agreed, and stated that the applicants should conszcer replicating the design of the existing end features fbr the entrance features. including increasing the heig~t of the bock anc using the same angle for the roof. H. Friedman stated that he never thaight the shopping center was 'bad and this proposal is an 'infinitely better solution than that originally proposed H. Friedman sited that the applicant can make mirror adjustments to this proposal, but he does not thtrk that this proposat teas anything wrcrig with rt. H Friedman stated that the presence of Dominick's alone vnll help the shopping center. C. Sr-nrth stated that the projections of the entrance features may not be'wetcoming' to pedes*-nans C. Smith stated that the widths of the pedestrian ways must be closely reviewed such that pedestrians may move throughout the shopping center D Marino stated this proposal was presented to the Economic Developrnent Committee (EDC), and they were "very enthusiastic". D. Jennings asked D. Marino did the EDC discuss appearance issues? D. Marino responded: no, they posed some questions regarding lighting, tenancy and scheduling D Harder stated that the presence of Dominick's will help "jump-start" tenancy, and it will serve as the start of cleanup efforts on the north/south portion of the shopping center C. Smith stated that the sign appears large; the applicants will need to Drovrde a comprehensive sign plan for a unified business center J. Woknski asked the apobcants: will the logo of Dominick's change? D. Harder responded: no J. Tonkmson stated that the applicant will still need an Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit. because the proposal is a change of use. D Jennings stated that the existing flares at the onveways do not work well. because vehicle tires hit the curbs with all the work within the shopping center the applicant shoWd consider using radii. D. Jennings stated that the applicant may require City Council approval for larger -man -permitted dnveway widths. D Marino motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval J Wolinski seconded the motion Discussion* H Fnedman stated that the transition between the roof line for Dominrck's and the new retail space is unfortunate the applicant shmld consider placing an end feature on the west end of Dominic►c s SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SfiE PLAT! AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE � (� Mattis 31, 1999 Page 2 of 6 C. Smith asked the applicants: who is the arch tect for this pn*osa(? D_ Harder responded: Dominick's. H. Friedman asked the applicants Is Fred emernheirn involved with the protect? D Harder responded. no C. Smith stated that she would like to see rrore glass, especially at the caenW of Dominick's at the pedestrian level, more glass provides more rite to the paridng area and improves security J Wolinski stated that he is concemed that more glass means more opportunry to cover that glass w+lth signage. C. Smith stated Tiat she would rather start with glass and correct problems vmh excessive signage. D. Harder stated that he will consider the comments regarding: revising the entrance features to better reflect the design of the existing end features within the shopping center, 2. reviewing the projection of the entrance features into the pedestrian way; 3. providing an "end' to the west side of Dominick's: 4 providing more glass at the center of the Dominick's at the pedestrian level; providing a comprehensive sign plan for a unified business center, and 6. using radii at the driveways M. Mylott stated that he appreciated the applicants' willingness to consider the Committee comments: however, he would like to see the applicants' response. and, if a concern cannot be addressed, he would like to know why C. Smith stated that she would like to split the motions. J. Wolrnski asked the applicants: are you still considering opening around Thanksgiving of this yearn D. Harder responded yes; and stated that by reusing the existing building, the time frame is accelerated D Manna stated that Dominick's will be asking the City to consider a sates tax rebate requiring a redevelopment agreement, the Committee should be assured that City will have additional review over this project C. Smith asked D. Marino: are design drawings included within redevelopment agreements? D. Marino responded: not generally D Harder stated that he would nct want to include such documents within this redevelopment agreement. M. Mylott stated that he will vote against this motion, not because he does not support the project, rather he believes that asking the applicant to show how they addressed Committee concerns will not cause delays D Harder stated that they will come track to the Committee as soon as possible possibly within April Committee apgrovsd the motion (5-31 to grant acDroval of the revision to the orevious final site I n an at}earance review approval The site plan and north elevation nave been placers within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0034) SUMMARY OF FN)WG$ SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C0LtMr1 TEE Hoax+ 3t 1999 Page 3 of s Jr SPAARC 99-031 1708 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Renovate exterior of retails sales establishment (GAP) Mr. Bruce Karstedt (project manager) presented working drawings to remodel the retail sales es=j stunent (GAP) k>cated at 170E Sherman Avenue. C. Smith stated that the applicant arranged for her and C. Ruiz to took at the conditions behind the ex st N facade. C. Smith stated that very tittle remained: they found some of the onginal terra Gotta_ but it Is very delicate C. Smith stated that the applicants seeking final approval, given that the facade has r=mg to save. C Smith stated that she spoke with GAP and Federal Realty (property owner) to try to worts together on a project that included the entire facade. C. Smith stated that a final approval would not foreclose the opportunity to expand the scope of the project however, expanding the scope of the project depends upon a financial commitment from the property owner. C Ruiz asked B. Karstedt: is the current proposal the same as that originally submitted to the Corunit W B. Karstedt responded: yes. Q. Manno asked C. Ruiz: Is the building a landmark? C. Ruiz responded: no. C. Smith stated that she has some concerns w th jesmon,te, because it is a precast material. however. it does exhibit some characteristics of terra Gotta. t3. Jennings asked C Smith is the area above the ground floor to remain the same? C Smith responded: yes. J Wolinskl asked B Karstedt: for what Is the upper floor used? B. Karstedt responded it Is empty, and it has no floor, only ceiling joists B. Karstedt stated that the upper level was not intended to be a load -bearing floor. C. Ruiz stated that the applicant should consider a more horizontal element with a cornice as a transition between the ground floor and the upper portion of the building; the applicant should use a material that Is more "sensitive' than jesmonite, such as limestone C. Smith stated that a granite base is not compatible; the applicant should consider limestone. J. Wolinski stated that, while he appreciates the comments regarding the facade the damage has been done to this building C Ruiz stated that he is not recommending a restoration, however, the transition between the floors can be handled better. B. Karstedt stated that the cost difference could be approximately $20 extra per sq.ft across approximately 200 sq.ft. C Smith stated that the cost could be reduced by using limestone t',es, the cornice would be the only custom feature B. Karstedt stated that the changes will affect how the facade is constructed. H Friedman stated that the feature could be formed out of cold -formed break metal. C Smith stated that she believes this opportunity Is a significant one for the City this building ,s a major comps rent of the Sherman Avenue streetscape. C Smith stated that the Committee guidance could be summarized as such. 1 the design of the transition between the first floor and the upper portion of the building should be more sensitive. 2 the applicant should employ Irmestare tiles 3 the budding material of the cornice is be determined and 4 the color of the granite base should match the terra cotta within the upper portion of the building, or the base should be limestone SUMMARY of FINDINGS APPE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 31 1999 Page 4 of 6 N C. Ruiz stated that the most important aspect is the cornice- C. Smith stated that the first choice of Wilding material for the cornice is limestone; the second choice of building material for the cornice is metal+ D. Marino asked B. Karstedt will this stone cant' the same product line as before? B. Karstedt respanded. yes. D. Marino motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, based upon the advisory guidelines. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Discussion.- C. Smith stated that she applauds the investigatory efforts of B. Karstedt C. Rua agreed. SPAARC 99-030 1964 Dempster Street Modify exterior for video store (Blockbuster Vr leo). Applicant canceled appearance SPAARC 99-033 1508 Elmwood Avenue Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM., Convert building to multi -family dwelling (8 condominiums). Preliminary Mr. Aaron Wilson (architect) presented a site plan, floor plan, model, and site photographs to convert the existing building located at 1508 Elmwood Avenue to a multi -family dwelling with 8 condominiums. A. Wilson stated that the property is under contract; Advanced Reprographics has moved to Norihbraok A. Wilson stated that the architecture will have a similar *language* as the new building at the comer or Grove Street and Elmwood Avenue (9W Grove Street). A Wilson stated that the proposal works within and above the shell of the existing i-story building, a portion of the north wall will be removed to provide a parting area, and the entrance will be moved from the south side to the north side of the east facade. A. Wilson stated that the second -story materials include stucco with standing -seam roofs. A Wilson stated that the air conditioning equipment will be located behind the parapet. C Smith stated that, to bring the 2 buildings together, the applicant may consider using the metal panels found along the Elmwood Avenue facade of the 900 Grove Street building rather than stucco. A. Wilson stated that those panels are very expensive. he will evaluate other materials to make a better connection between the 2 buildings A. Wlson stated that, according to the Zoning Division, new construction must be setback from the rear lot line by 10 feet. A Wilson stated that conforming to this requirement may force them to build slightly higher, now. the proposed second floor is Q feet higher than the rear parapet A Wilson stated that they may use the area within the required setback for a deck A. Wilson stated that they would like to purchase the alley immediately north of the subject property they would like to create a secure entrance A. Wilson stated that they would pave. maintain, and light the area SUMMARY OF FINDNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COTEE March 3 1. 19" Page 5 of 6 *1 C. Smith stated that the applicant will have to work with J. Tonkinson on that request. J. Toniai tom stated that, regardless of ownership, the applipntwil have to pave the alley it he proposes to use it: A. Wilson stated that they would like to grandfather the existing openings abng the lot lines, such thgdthey may be used as windows. C. Smith stated that the south side of the building may pose a problem; the applicant may contact her, such that they can further study this request. D. Jennings asked A Wilson: what supports unit 8? A Wilson responded: a steel I-beam. D. Jenrulgsar*ed A. Vinson: is the parking area underneath Gear of any supports? A. Wilson responded: yes. D. Jersmings stated that he does not want any coluam within the parking area. J. Wolinski asked A. Wilson: for what amount do you anticipate selling these units? A. Wilson respran0ed: approximately $225 per sqA C. Smith stated that she would like to applaud the efforts of the architect; this type of proposal retain 'the hest character of Evanston' while allowing a buAding to provide modern necessities. M. Mykoit motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (5-2) to orant oreliminary site plan &W appearance mview acc=yal The site plan, floor plan, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearan a Review Committee folder for this case (99-033). Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of March 2+4, 1999, J. Wolinski seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (7-0) to approve the Summary of Findings gf March 24 1- Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. 0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 31. 1999 Page 6 of 6 Y SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 24, 1999 Room 2402 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino. M. MylotL C_ Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, C. Ruiz. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 110 p.m. SPAARC 99-025 114-116 Ridge Avenue Preliminary. Provide 5 additional open, off-street parking spaces for multi -family residential budding (Auld Ridge Condominiums). Mr. Michael Cahill presented a site plan, plat of survey, and site and area photographs to provide 5 additional, open, off-street parking spaces for the multi -family dwelling (Auld Ridge Condominiums) located at 114-116 Ridge Avenue. Mr. Bruce Thomas Kaiser (President, Board of Managers) and Mr. Ken Kaiser were available to answer questions. M. Cahill stated that the building contains 8 condominiums units and 1 rental unit, the property is improved with 7 covered (garage) parking spaces and 2 open parking spaces. M. Candl stated that the proposal would provide 5 additional parking spaces; these vehicles currently park on Hobson Street M. Cahn sued that the proposal requires removing an existing coal bin and a curb. C. Smith asked M. Cahill: are the parking spaces sold to users? M. Cahill responded: no, they are controlled by the Board of Managers. M. Cahill stated that the Board of Managers would monitor what size vehicles used the new parking spaces, such that the smallest vehicle was always at the parking space with the narrowest aisle width. C Smith asked M Cahill have you discussed this proposal with D Jennings'? M Cahill responded no. A. Alterson asked M. Cahill: have you received a copy of the Zoning Analysis? M. Cahill responded: yes. A. Alterson asked M. Cahill. are you aware that this proposal will require a grant of variation from the Zoning Board of Appeals? M. Cahill responded. yes. M. Cahill stated that they will erJier have parking spaces that are too short of an aisle that is too short. C Smith asked M. Cahill: if the pa. -sang spaces meet the Zoning SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RE"ViEW C0MIATTEE a Adidrh 24. 1999 Page t of 7 it Ordinance requirements, what would the resulting aisle width be at fts narrowest point? M Cahill responded: approximately 21 feet P. D'Agostino stated that the proposal includes removing a tree. P. D'Agosbno asked M. Cahill: what type of tree are you removing? M Cahill responded: a Tree of Heaven. M. Cahill stated that the tree is very close to the foundation of me building', the Board of Managers asked the City Arbonst (S Franz) to look at the tree, and he advised removing it P. D'Agostino agreed. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, subs to review and approval by D Jennings and grant of variation by the Zoning Board of Appeals J. Wolinskr seconded the met)on. Committee approved the motion l7-0l to_grant preliminary Site olan and a;garance raview 59brect to review and sooroval by D Jenninq_�_and grant of variation by the nina Board of a0pea15. The site plan and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-025) SPAARC 99-024 1030 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Renovate facade of recording studio (Studio Media Recording Company). Mr Ken Hazlett (architect) presented working drawings and site photographs to renovate the facade of a recording studio (Studio Media Recording Company) located at 1030 Davis Street. K. Hazlett stated that the building owner is participating in the Evanston Storefront Program. K. Hazlett stated that a structural engineer has determined that the building is in good condition. K. Hazlett stated that the site is environmentally clean. K. Hazlett stated that the intent of the proposal is to return the building to its 1920s character, including removing the paint from the limestone and cleaning the brick. K. Hazlett stated that the entry will be reconstructed, including removing the plywood and file floor. C. Smith asked K Hazlett: what is the proposed recess for the remodeled entrance? K Hazlett responded: 3 to 3'/2 feet. A. Atterson asked K Hazlettis the building an Evanston Landmark? K. Hazlett responded. ro C Smith asked K. Hazlett are you proposing clear -glass windows? K. Hazlett responded. yes. K. Hazlett stated that a mechanical plenum is located along the top of the windows; they are consider-ig hanging a fixture from the ceiling such that the plenum would be screened C Smith stated that frosted glass along the top of the windows would screen the plenum. C. Ruiz stated that he asked the applicant to use Gear -glass windows, because the interior may be remodeled in the future such that a better solution for rrechanicals is provided. H Friedman stated that the applicant could install a short 45-degree `wall' to screen the plenum, starting near the top of the windows and angling away from the windows. this approach permits using clear - glass windows C Smith stated that the applicant could consider creating pocket. if the space permits K Hazlett stated that he will investigate the opportunities to use such a short 'wall' C Smith asked K Hazlett are you proposing exterior lighting? K Hazlett responded. yes. 192�s character lighting will be installed on both sides of the doorway; this lighting is architectural only K. Hazled stated that a recessed light will be provided over the door K. Hazlett stated that 4 to 5 lights will be provided along the Oak Street facade (west) for security, the existing street trees block much of the existing street lights. K Hazlett stated that the security lights wilt be in character with the building, they will not be installed within the SUMMARY OFINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE NCE REVIEW C006u4riTTEE March 24, 1999 Page 2 of 7 *A narth portion of west facade -- the architectural portion that wraps around the comer from the hunt .i. TcrA :son stated that the applicant should use a horizontal lens with exterior lighting, H. Friedman asked K Hazlett: are you proposing signage? K. Hazlett responded: signage will be limited to a srmll location at the northwest comer of the building and the address on the glass near the door. C. Smith asked K Hazlett what type of windows are you proposing along Oak Sweet? K Hazlett responded. Wurrmu m. double -hung wvhdows with Gear glass. C. Smith asked K. Hazlett? will blinds be provided on the inuirior? K. Hazlett responded: yes. C Smith stated that the applicant may have some opportunities for Landscaping along Oak Street. J. Tce*inson disagree4_ K Hazlett stated that the ground gets very little light in that area. C Smith stated that she believes that this project is a "great use of City money'; the architect has provided a 'very nice, simple solution'. J. Tonlanson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to revnew and approval of the plenum and exterior lights by C. Smith, H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion t6-01 to grant preliminary and final site olan and Jt tgmi to review and approval of the plenum and exterior liahis by C. $n2gft. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-024). SPAARC 99-030 1964 Dempster Street Mcdrfy exterior for video store (Blockbuster Video). Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 99-010 1300 Oak Avenue Preliminary and Final Preliminary and Final Install life safety equipment and accessible ramp for sheltered care facility (Oakwood Terrace). Mr Mike Arenson (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, and plat of survey to install life safety equipment and an accessible ramp for a sheltered care facility (Oakwood Terrace) located at 1300 Oak Avenue Ms. Pat McDiarmid (property owner) and Mr. Mike Bailey was available to answer questions. C Smith reviewed the Summary of Findings from January 27, 1999, regarding this case. M. tkienson stated that the original building plans show 11 parking spaces in the basement: he has never seen that area used for parkmg M. Arenson stated that he does not want to pretend that this is a functional parking area: the only way that 11 vehicles could be parked in this area is by valet. M. Arenson stated that the new life safety rooms would eliminate some of this parking area. A. Alterson stated that, if this building was approved with 11 panting spaces, eliminating some of the parking area eliminates required parking spaces. - the applicant will need a grant of variation from the City Council. A. Alterson stated that he is unclear as to how the parking got in the basement, how the parking was approved, and why the applicant is saying this parking is not usable. the building is not that old. A. Atterson stated that sheltered care homes generate a denr%and for parking spaces; the applicant should review Central Records to determine how this parking ?C— SUMMARY OF FINDINGSeo SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 24. 1999 Page 3 of 7 �1 aprrfiguranon was attiorvved as well as how the parkrmay have been "Ry ehmrnated M meson stated Mat the current par" demand is satisfied on-sU eet the proposal will not exacerbate ex,—,4M aondibons. Cecause rt neuter G-ages the use nor increases o=pancy C Smith stated irrat -e proposal places room In framt cf the ventilation for the remainder of V* parking area J Toniunson stated :"Yet the driveways and curb cart must be removed if the parking area is or will no longer used for parking. M Arrr►son stated that he does not ma,*d removing the curb cut however. the owner needs to keep the ramp tecause it Is the only way to get Lawn mowers and snow removal equmment from the basement to the street level J Tonkinson asked v* applicants: did the origltai plans propose to use the parking ramp for elating? M. Arenson responded yes, but the current plans use stairs to provide the required exiting. M. Bailey stated that Me north ramp wW be replaced by stairs. M. Bailey stated that the west stairs will be replaced by new stairs, and a 3%-fool guard rail will be installed around tfie stag well. M. Bailey stated that the south stairs will be removed and an accessible ramp installed; the ramp will be constructed of field stone to match the existing wait M. Bwley stated that the handrails for the ramp are Inside the wall; the only visible handirad is at the east end of the ramp. M_ Bailey stated that the handrails wdi be galvanized steel, painted white. U. Mylott asked the applicants? how does the wall for the accessible ramp relate to the existing condrbons? M. Bailey responded the height Is approximately the same as the configuration with the existing terrace, but the waft comes 5 feet closer to the lot line C. Smith stated that the wall is a nice solution. H Friedman and J. Tonkinson agreed. C Smith stated that regular and emergency extenor lighting must be provided at the stairs P-R Bailey slated that recessed lighting is provided within the wall of the ramp P D'Agostino asked the applicants: are you removing any landscaping to install the ramp? M. Bailey responded only grass and some small bushes J Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval P. D'Agostino seconded the motion Committee annroved the motion f5-11 to grant orehminarv_ site plan and apr,warance rev!cw aoorova! SPAARC 99-031 1708 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Renovate extenor of retails sales establishment (GAP) Mr Bruce Karstedt (project manager) presented working drawings, site photographs, and building material samples to remodel the retail sales establishment (GAP) located at 1708 Sherman Avenue 8 Karstedi stated that the applicant is combining 2 existing retail spaces, 1 store will remain between the GAP and the alley (north) B Karstedt stated that they will keep the narrow limestone band at the top, above this band. the applicant will reptace the stucco with jesmonite B Karstedt stated they will use clear -glass windows from the black granite base to the narrow limestone band C. Smith stated that she would prefer limestone rather than jesmonite, the applicant Is Introducing too many materials H Friedman stated that he imagines that the original storefront is still behind the existing facade. C Ruiz stated that he is not sure it the original storefront remains. H. Friedman stated that, by trying to install SUMLIARYLAN AN APPEARANCE INDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Mamn 24. I M Page 4 of 7 4 corporate identity, companies are damaging corruru,nibes' 'archdectural environment', further, so" communities have said that this action is unacceptable. H. Friedman stated that he believes GAP is a 'progressive company' that would participate in an effort to maintain community character C Ruiz stade"d 010 he had 2 conversations with GAP architects and discussed participating In the Evanston Storefront Program; after the initial conversations, he did not hear from them. J. Tonkinson stated that he will have to review the ramp configuration at the rear of the building. B. Karsoadt stated that the architect is working on different options_ A. Alterson motioned to deny preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonlonson seconded the motion Discussion. C. Ruiz stated that he would like to offer the applicant guidance in the event dreg exploration reveals that the original storefront does not exist. C. Ruiz stated that he hopes that the applicant will return with a design that is more compatible with true existing building, A. Altersan, J. Tonkinson, and C. Smith agreed. Committee aooroyed the motion ("I to deny o elimirlary and final site dan and appga ara{� review aooro�a The elevation and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review CortvtMiee folder for this case (99-031). SPAARC 99-032 1800 Ridge Avenue Concept Install elevator within south elevation of cultural facility (Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston). Mr, Erik Enksson (architect) presented a site plan (including a floor plan and landscaping), perspectives, and site photographs to install an elevator within the south elevation of the cultural facility Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston) located at 1800 Ridge Avenue. Mr. Wiliam Harurwatt (Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston, property owner) was available to answer questions. E Enksson stated that the building lacks an elevator and a canopy; the brick will match the existing brick, and the canopy will be solid metal. H. Friedman stated that the buildings were onginally linked via a bridge; this entrance was for emergency purposes E Eriksson stated that the original effort was to locate the elevator on the interior; however, the intemal circulation does not permit a solution of that nature E Enksson stated that the vestibule is small, and different doors to different areas must be locked, depenoing upon the function W Hanawalt stated that he asked the architect to preserve as much lobby space as possible; currently, it is used for buffet tables and displays, but it could be used by several hundred people. E. Eriksson stated that the building has a freight elevator, but it is not near the center of the building. C Smith stated that she does not care for the exterior location, but she does like the canopy. perhaps the architect could move the canopy away from the facade somewhat, providing a reveal H. Friedman agreed. E Eriksson stated that a reveal would not be his first preference H Friedman stated that the elevator could be moved to the other side of tr,e lobby E. Enksson stated that as much space as possible on that side of the building must be preserved for a future use. SUMMARY OF FINDtN = SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrrEE eo March 24, IM Page 5of7 C. Smith staled that she appreciates the applicant's desire to maim as much space as passible, however, the elevator looks face an "unplanned bump' on the building, and ix breaks a very strong rhythm. H. Friedman asked the applicant: are you proposing changes on the second floor? E Eriksson responded: only the elevator H. Friedman stated that the architect could design a simiiar'shatt' on the other side of the lobby doors, such that the entrance becomes a true entrance; the applicant could even move the doors out to gain addit#mal lobby space. M. Mylott stated that that solution was an excellent compromise J Tonkinson agreed, E Eriksson stated that that solution could be costly for nonfunctional space. H. Friedman stated that the semnd 'shaft' could be designed functionally, such as additional storage space. E. Eriksson stated that the landscape plan will continue to improve, the applicant Wlt replace some maternal that has died. C Smith stated that the landscape plan looks 'nice'. P D'Agostino sta'.--d that he will need to see the species. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant concept approval of the 'true entrance' concept (as proposed by H. Friedman). M. MykM seconded the motion. Comrnihee approved the nwAion (6-0) t2 want concept 8212t waf of the 'true entrance' concept (as pro2!22ed by H Friedman),. The site plan (including a floor plan and landscaping) and perspectives have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-032). SPAARC 99-017 1810 Church Street Preliminary and Final Construct front and rear additions to two-farru(y dwelling unit. Mr Roger Paris (contractor) presented revised elevations to consMict front and rear additions to the two- family dwelling unit located at 1810 Church Street. Ms. Martha Morris (property owner) was available to answer questions C Smith stated that she had met with the architect: the gable has been setback sornewhat, because it was very heavy at the lot line. C. Smith stated that the double -hung windows have been raised M Mylott asked the applicants: are you removing the existing brick portion) R Pans responded: no. It will be covered with siding, as if it was never existed. J. Tonkinson asked the applicants are the floors on the same level? R. Paris responded: yes C Smith stated that the existing brick portion is 7 Inches over the bt line: that exptains why the original proposal showed a recessed second -floor addition M. Mylott asked the applicants: how long has the existing beck portion been in place? R. Paris responded. approximately 15 to 20 years. M F."tt stated that, from a planning perspective, he would rather have the second -floor addjon flush. J Tonkinson agreed. J. Tonkinson stated that the applicant will require a license or easement aTeement the applicant should prepare a wntten request to him, including a plat of survey showing the extent of the existing encroachment and an indication of the additional width required for the new siding H Friedman stated that the applicant may want to add 2 windows to the first floor of the north elevation, such that the facade is balanced, or, the applicant could reposition the 2 windows shown within the first floor of the north elevation, such that the facade is balanced SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Mikw.h 24, 1999 Page 6 of 7 C. Ruiz stated that the applicant could add a ho roof to the porch on the east elevation to add additional residential character. M. Morris stated that the porch Is only 4 to 5 inches from the adjacent building. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provk2ed the applicant receives a license or easement agreerent from the City Council and the 2 windows shown within the first floor of the north elevation are split evenry within the facade. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion M. Mylott stated that I-e would like to thank the applicants for their patience he believes that Moth the applicants and the City will gain from the proposed changes. Committee approved t e motion (6701 to grant preliminary and final site plan anQ appearance review apgMMI- r{oyided the 5pplicant receives a license or easement agreement from the ON Council and the 2 windows shown wi tf i the first floor of the north elevaticrr are split eveniv within the facade. The revised elevations have been placed within ne Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-017). Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of March 17. 1999; H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-0) to approve the Summary of Findings of Match 17. 1999. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Date �r '' SUMMARY of FINDINGS ♦/��}' SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO UNrnEE 42�March 24, 1999 Page 7 ai 7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 17, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present Commencement J. Glus, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. C Smith (chair) determinea a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3,05 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings J Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of March 10, 199% J. Wolinski seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion 110-01 to anorove the Summary of Findings of March 10. 1999. L. Black abstained SPAARC 99-026 Conference Discuss attending the Amencan Planning Association's -Implementing the Downtown Plan' In Arlington Heights as substitute for March 31 1999 Committee meeting. C Smith stated that the Cernmittee as a group should see successful works of other communities J Aiello stated that the Cor =ttee should move the meeting of March 31. 1999 to 10:30 a m. such that those members who wish to attend the seminar may attend. M. Mylott stated that he will adjust the schedule accordingly SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Construct mated -use building Applicant did not attend 0 Revision to Final SUIiAMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO&WtITTE€ March 17 1999 Page 1 of 4 4V SPAARC 99-017 1818 Church Street Preliminary and Final Construct front and rear additions to fts-a-family dwelling unrt Mr Roger Pans icontractori presentee working drawings and site photograons to ccrs::,v, front ar. rrar additions to true rNo-famdy Couelling unit ccated at 1810 Church Street Ms Martha Mcr-,s ;.rcperti (7a^tr) was availaGie to answer questions R Paris stated that. contrary to earner representations, the structure does �r _lude a wcN exterior in some iocabons: however the applicant rntenCs -a cover the entire structure. except t lat portion All cr+ is bnck 1ntr1 vinyl Siding A Alterson stated that he has nothing against vinyl siding R Pans stag that the applicant intends to remove the front door and window iodated witmn the brick porbon of the structure a side door within the tact portion of the structure will be rec,aced with a window L Back stated that removing the front door and window eliminates natural surveillance and creates 'a fortress effect, the applicant should at least consider a smaller window C Smith stated that V)e proposa' does not help the character of the property and negativety impacts the security of the neighadrhood R Pans asked the Committee now do you feel about glass block? L Black responded that material is not'residential friendly' J Aiello askel the applicants where will tre entrances to the dwelling units be iocatedo R Paris responded on the sides R Pans stated that the ground -floor dwelling unit will have 1 door on each side R Pans stated that the west -side stairs will be replaced L Black stated that the east -side stairs need r--placed as we!!. A Alterson stated that he believes the ert,re structure is quite valuable, this project must be handled with 'a touch of pra(=-Caliry' A Alterson stated that he believes that a structure of this nature is worthy of the same consideratior's extended to the Chandler Budding A Alterson stated that he would never advocate that a home owner oe forced to remove a pert.on of their residence J Aiello stated that a sirrutar project was completed or-. Main Street A Alterson asked the Committee when was the structure at IS! D Church Street constructed C Rutz responded probaciy during the late 1800s A Alterson stated that he believes that the cross gables are original H Friedman agreed R Paris statea that the applicant wishes to convert the entire structure to residential use C Smith stated that the proposal does not look residential C Smith stated that the proposed narrow shingle roof separating the first and second floors of the street elevaticn does not provide residential character this e!evauon needs more articulation. L. Black stated that she would hke to see the brick portion of the structure removed C Jennings asked the ap,,.,cants have you considered removing the brick portion of the structure*) R Pans responded that solution may create -financial restraints" D Manno stated that he canncl accept a solid brick facade located along a major business district J Tonkinson stated that the applicant ccutd replace the bnck portion of the structure with a front porch C Sr-:',, stated that the applicant could still provide a second -floor addition over such a porch a gabled roof to the second -floor addition would be a signifcant improvement C Smith stated tnat the structural cost of the proposed second -floor addition may make replacing the brick portion of the structure feasible the brick portion of the structure may not have been designed to accommodate a second -story addition A Alterson agreed M Morns stated that the first -floor space is necessary. as her parents may v. a with her M Morris stated ;nat she could raise the height of the existing windows C Smith stated that the applicant could consider air infillect porch look D Jennings stated that the applicant could remove the br-CK portion of the structure ar-a extend the entire residence to the street lot line in tr,s manner. any new first Poor windows wcuid be higle• ' an the existing ,windows because the First floor Level within the original residence is higher thar the floor _:et of the back portion Ni Mylott stated that this solution would create a more usable interior scace because the floors would oe revel C Srr,tn agreed SUMMARY OF F+%DtNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM,—, E _ March r' 1999 a Page 2 of a x C Smith stated that she would like to see a revision based on the direction provided by the Committee. Ft Pans stated that that request may be cost prohibitive. D Marino stated that the Committee is most concerned about the front elevation. it is not unreasonac4e for the Cammmtee to request that the applicant provide a tent elevation to ensure it responds to the concems of the Committee Cr Smitr stated that a key issue is massing and how that massing relates to the street. H. Friedman stated that the structure would benefit if the gale of the existing roof was simply extended forward. C Smith stated that she does not mind vinyl sid'ng. provided windows of residential proportions are included M Morris stated that the property is assessed at a the commercial rate -- 38 percent -- even though the commercial portion is vacant and she proposes to convert the entire structure to residential use. D. Maim stated that he may be able to provide M Moms with assistance an this issue. D Marino motioned to table this item J. Tonkinson seconded the motion Committee apnmved the mrsth29 (8-0) to table this item SPAARC 98-0006 1928 Darrow Avenue Final Construct rear addition to St. Andrews Episcopal Church Mr Fred Polito (architect) presented working drawings to construct a rear addition to St. Andrews Episcopal Church, located at 1928 Darrow Avenue F Polito stated the proposal includes a 1-story additiar• to the rear of the structure and reworking the front entrance C Smith asked F Polito han is accessibility provided') F Polito responded. the proposal includes a ramp and lift on the north side of the structure F. Polito stated that the bathrooms will be accessible also_ F Polito stated that parking for the church is on -street F Polito stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals required the applicant to reduce the size of the addition such that it did not foreclose the opportunity of installing a row of parking along the alley M Mylott asked F Polito are you removing the 2 existing parking spaces'? F Polito responded- the applicant would like to remove the pavement associated with the parking spaces M Mylott stated that the church is probably legal nonconforming as to the number of parking spaces, if those parking spaces count toward the number of required parking spaces they cannot be removed M. Mylott stated the he will look into this matter A Altersc^ asked F Polito does the plan include a provision for bicycle parking? F Polito responded no F Polito stated that all budding matenais wiii match the existing materia;s D Marino asked F Polito are you proposing any additional landscaping' F Polito responded no C Smith stated that exterior lights m;;st have sharp _ut offs such that no light spills on to neighboring properties D Jennings motioned to grant final site play and appearance review approval, subject review and approval of the existing on -site parking spaces by the Zoning Dw sion D Marine seconded the motion Commlttee ponroved the motion 18-0f to ❑rant final site plan and aeoea+ance revieor paproval. subject to review r�i approval Of the exislina on -site parking spaces b tY he zCnma Divisign. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN ANC APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMIrrEE �► March 17 1999 Page 3 of 4 )t i SPAARC 99-019 425 Howard Street Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM Construct 4-story office building. J. Aiello stated that she and L. Lyon presented the Committee ccmrrrents from February 17. 1999 to tme developer interested in constructing a 4-story office 3Jrldrng on the former Genet Trust Life parking lot (425 Howard Street) J Aiello stated that, as a result, the croposaf has been revised: the building is no longer cm stilts the north alley has been vacated. and a new air ey is provided along the east side of the property L Lyon stated that one concern of the new site plans that trucks need-ng to access the building to the ealrt will not be able to make the turn of the new alley. L. 84ck stated that trucks may stack along Howard Suet as a result. D Jennings asked J Aiello can the developer provide a wider replacement alley? J Aiello responded: the extra width of the alley may affect the parking arrangement J Aiello stated that she wilt chedk to see if the parking dimensions are greater than what, the Zoning Ordinance requires J TaNunson staWd that the developer could use the parking aisle as _-+zcess A Alterson stated that the site may have a proscriptive easement for the trucks J Tonklnson agreed C Smith stated that the developer could not have any a"dcw*s on the rc ;h side of the budding, because Me wall is located on the lot line J Tonklnson stated that many power poles run close to the north lot line_ S Levine asked J Aiello why has the developer propcsed 2 separate par-ung areas? J. Aiello stated that she and L Lyon suggested pushing the building to one side of the property Cr the other. D Jennings stated that combining the 2 parking areas would reduce the nurrzer of parking spaces by 4 M Mylott stated that he recalls that Committee members were concerned that properties along --nis side of Howard Street would be considered desirable locations by fast-food restaurants h1 Mylott stateC mat, If the building is located in the middle of the site. flanked by 2 small parking areas. then the 2 s.-naller parcels may be subject = redevelopment pressure by fast-food restaurants: howe•. er if the building :s pushed to one side of the propertl- or the other, a iarger amount of land is -available-. pcsslbly permitting 'redevelopment' by a second office building or other large user C Smith stated the she shares Committee members' concerns regarding the long-term development opportunities on this block. C Srruth stated that. j the building was moved to the east side of the property a larger parcel could be made available for redevelopment, including the existing building located to the west, the developer would only have to-rovide a wider a.,ey D Marino motioned to encourage the applicant to pursue the proposed s,:e plan, Including using the aisle of the eastern parking area as access D Jennings seconced the motion C�mmrdee aggroved the motion i5,41. to encourage the apghcant to oursue the proposed site -:an including us no the aisle of the eastern aarkina a2r a as access A Alterson abstained Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4 15 p m es ectfutty submitted March 23,1999 Marc Steven hlylott Zoning Ian er Date FINDINGS SITE PLAY SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW GG+.tt,lrrTEE AN (j March 1- 1999 � Page 4 of 4 X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 10, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino. D. Jennings. D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith. Members Absent: J. Aiello, J. Glus, K. Kelly, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinskn. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: L. Lyon. M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. Commencement C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 105 p m SPAARC 99-024 1030 Davis Street Renovate facade of recording studio. Applicant canceled appearance SPAARC 99-022 2430 Orrington Avenue Preliminary Preliminary and Final Install front dormer within east roof of single-family residence, requiring major variation M Mylott presented an Applicabon for Major Variation (ZBA 99-08-V(F)) to permit construction of a dormer within the eastern roof of the single-family residence located at 2430 Ornngton Avenue C Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved this proposal. D Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and finall site plan and appearance review approval. L. Slack seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (") to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. SUMMARY OF FINDIMM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUr rEE March 10. T999 Page T of 7 XI SPAARC 99-021 1142 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct accf tions and replace frcrt porch of single-family rest e-ice requirirL r,d%Jr variations Mr Vic Neisc^ famhitecu presente. an Application for Major Varation tZBA 99-09-Vi,F11 and site anc:: area photographs :c permit constructicn of additions to and replace the `rant porch of Me single-family restatence located at 1 142 Hinman Avenue Nis Stephanie Newsom was available to answer Luestions V Nelson star that the intent of tt'e proposal is to restore the residence to Its corn-tion in 1898. including: 1 replac.ng the enclosed front porch with an open porch 2 consn%ictang a 1-story additicn at the southeast comer of the residence The original foundation still exists The exterior buildirg material will be similar to the wood siding used elsewhere area Ithe residence 3 constructing a 1-story additicr, at the southwest corner of the residence under an existing se=nd- story Veepmg porch The exterior budding material will be similar to the wood siding used elsewmere on the residence 4 constricting a 1-story addaian at the northwest comer of the residence The extenor building material will be crick reused from elsewnere on the residence The stone base will match the existing stone base A Alterson askea the applicants how w:ll the setback of the new front porch compare to the setback of acmer front parches in the Immediate area) V Nelson responded the setback will be approximately the same C Smith asked ine applicants have you received any comments from the property owner to the south? S. Newsom responded we have not contacted that person A Alterson stated that contacting the neighbors poor to a public hearing is always a good Idea H Friedman asked the applicants have you contacted the want alderman*7 S Newsom responded no C Ruiz asked the applicants have you changed the plans since the last review by the Preserva".'on Commission'? V Nelson responded no V Nelson stated that he believes that the plans submitted to sae Zoning Board of Appeals Incorporates all the changes requested by the Preservation Commission C Ruiz stated that the aoolicant's Certificate of Appropriateness has expired C Ruiz stated that the applicant rrest reappear before the Preservation Commission if the changes are new to the Commission: if the applicant has made no changes or the changes simply incorporate the Commission recommendation he may reissue - ke Certificate of A.ccropnateness after the Application is updated M Mylott stated that the applicant must provide the Zoning Division with 10 copies of the Zoning Board of Appeals packet and proof of ownership as soon as possible H Friedman mctaned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agoszim seconded the rrotion Committee aearoved the motion t7-01 to arqaLipreliminary and final site plan anj appearance review approval A site plan illustrating the improvements to the subject property in 1898 has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-021) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE i STCh 10. 1999 Page 2pl7 x SPAARC 99-023 1430 Chicago Avenue Preliminary Convert former r,cepericFrt .rang `ac+lrty to multi -fa- r?Bice rf :31 bs..;drng 1 1`3 _n")dprrl rvwr ,i;t rgQJJirrng major vanat:.wns Mr Mike Reatmutc (architect) Mr George Ardelear 'developer, and Mr James Wray (attorre. t pr+e�nted an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 99-06-VrFI) a revised site plan floor plans existing and proposed elevations. and sre and area photographs to permit cc^verLng a former independent living facitit, to a multi- family residential tuilding voth as many as 13 condcr-- niur^s located at 1430 Chicago Avenue M Mylott stated that the developer is seeking permiss cn from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to convert the existing c.jilding to 13 :ardcminr;ms M Mylott stated that this proposal includes 2 units or 61h and 7th floors each and 1 unit on t*e Hth floor however the developer will attempt to sell 'ne 6th and 7th floor as 1 unit each. re�ucirg the de^sfiy to 1 t dwelling units 1.1 Mylott stated that the end croduct will to a result of the market M Realmuto stated that the first 2 floors of the Chicago Avenue facade (east) are stone, the remaining 6 stories are Gnck to Rea rnuto stated that this facade includes limestone accer:s C Smith asked the applicants, what is the material berAieen the windows' M Realmuto responded- I am not sure at this point: it could be slate M Realmuto stated that the upper6 stones of the east facade include 2 columns with 4 narrow windows within each columr. they propose to remove the center 2 windows within each column and install i larger window C Smith stated trat she aDcreciates the desire to provide larger windows however nis proposal drarratically changes the proportions of the building that work so %%ell now C Smith stated that she finds the proposal 'problematic' because it converts a very elegant tirear facade to a 1950s look G Ardetean stated that he must provide an less -restricted lake view to sell the top -floor units G Ardelean stated that the existing windows have thick frames looking through them is -like Ioc.king out a jail' C Smith asked the applicants what type of windows are the existing windows? M Realmuto responded double -hung with a sash C Smith asked the applicants' do you plan to replace all the windows? 1A Realmuto responded: yes C Smeth stated that the applicant could replace the center windows within the east facade with a fixed window of the same width but with a thinner frame C Smith stated that she is even afore reluctant to support replacing tre narrow windows with larger windows after seeing that the north facade already has large windows G Ardelear stated that he Couid replace the windows at the second floor of the east fa; ade with the proposed larger windcr.,s A Alters--^ stated !1,at this alternati� a ststl disrupts the linear arch ,ectural features that run along the top 6 floors the budding C Smith stated that, given the proposed altematjve. she still recommends using Fixed glass of the same width but with a thinner frame A Alterson stated that f=Lxed glass on this facade would be unfortunate. as it would reduce the opportunity to enjoy lake breezes G Ardelear stated that he could replace the 4 narrow windows within each column with 2 larger windows. C Smith stated that this second alternative does not address her concems C Smith stated that she does not believe that the top -floor units must have an unencumbered lake view to seal 0 Marino asked the applicants r.ow wide is the glass portion of the existing windows? M Realmuto responded approximately 24 inches wide L Lyon asked the applicants does a restnction on replacing the windows with larger w�.-idows affect the marketing for these units J Murray responded the ability to sell the 6t; , and 7th floors as 1 unit each depends upon the view that the developer can provide C Smith stated that she would support a proposal to replace the windows if the proposal did not create such a dramatic change to the facade of the building. with the proposal and alternatives presented the sacrifice to the facade is simply too great SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO MrrrEE Mamtt TII. 1999 Pane 3 of 7 xI H_ Friedman asked the ace; -:.a-ts have you nvestigated why the top Roars have had brick replaced? M. Realmuto responded no C S^-t stated that the newer brick could be stained to make it more Corr-catibte with original brick M. Mylott statec that he .%eu•a i•Ke to see the applicant •ernove the second curb cut because it creates an additional conflict point be,%e--n peCestnans ana veh:c:es M Mylott stated that the drop off will only to used by delivery vehicles. because tie building does not ir:clude a canopy with the drop off, residents wilC have access to a protected entrancevia the covered parking garage hi. Mylott stated the applicant should install a new street tree at the approx= a;e location or the second curb cut C Smith agreed C Smith stated that the developer shculd provide a glass canopy s:,ch as those found on buildings along inner take Shore Drive, because the current entrance is ninvi ing a glass canopy will not compete with the existing architectural elements around the entrance M. Mylott asked tfie applicants have you resolved the cisoute of the parking space :rat straddles the IC. line? J Murray responded we will act as if the parking space t:elongs to no one C Smith stated that the applicants must ensure that the parking garage has conforming fire exits. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan review approval D. Marino seconded the mabon Discussion M Mylott asked D Jennings row do you feel about the second curb cut and the existing drop off'? D Jennings responded the drop off is not great, out it is usable. D Jennings stated that he prefers to have a vehicle off the street rather than having it illegally parked along Chicago Avenue C Smith stated that she would like to see some landscaping at the entrance. D. Jennings stated that the applicant should plot the turning radii necessary for the drop off to determine if any land is available within which landscaping may be provided D Jennings amended his motion as such. grant preliminary site plan review approval, provided the applicant investigates the feasibility of providing landscaping at the entrance. D Marino amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion Committee aooroyed the motion 18-0) to arant preliminary site plan review approval_ orovided the a !QQ is jr t investigate the feasibility of Drovidina landSC3DLng at the entrance H Friedman motioned to deny preliminary appearance review approval A Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion A. Alterson stated that generally he is not one think that a building must remain as it was originally constructed, however, in this instance, the vertical architectural element is so strong that it merits retention C Smith agreed Committee ao[sroved the motion (8-0) to denv preliminary @garance review aooroval. The revised site plan, floor plans, existing and proposed elevations, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-023) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Marsh 10. 19" Page 4 of 7 119 SPAARC 99-017 1810 Church Street Preliminary and Final Construct front and rear adwions and new porch (two-family o ening unit) Mr Roger Pans i contractor. cresented working drawings to construct front and rear additions to the two tarntly dwelling una located at 1810 Churcfi Street. Mr Faruk Cerkie (architect) was avaiiaole to answer ques ,cf^-i R. Paris stated that the builc:ng would contain 2 dwelling units. approxrmatety I OGD to 1,200 sq.ft. e3':h R Paris stated the previous 1-story aoddion at the front of the budding is brick- the remaining portions of building is frame R Pans stated that the frame portion of the building and the adc;tions will be sided A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Dfvision has not determined whether or not the rroposal is an expansion of an nonconforming use A. Alterson stated that he wanted the Committee to review this proposal primanly for appearance rriarters C. Smith stated that she would like to review photographs of the building and the area buildings D. Jennings agreed. D Jennings stated that, without photographs, determining how this proposal relates to the cont&A of the neighborhood is impossible determining this relationship is a primary responsibility of the CornrTm, ce R. Paris stated than anything performed to this building will improve the Church Street and Dodge A-verae neighborhood A Alterson stated that he is sympathetic to the owners' desire to proceed: however, ttt.:s building is not a -throw-away' building A Alterson stated that he believes that a very attractive budding eS hidden underneath a `hideous' commercial facade: he is eager to have the bu.4ding occupied as residers C Smith asked the applicants is the window within the bnck portion of the budding fixed? F Cerlive responded yes C Smith asked the applicants how is fresh air added to this area? F Cerkie responded - a window is provided on the west side D. Marino motioned to table this item until such time that the applicant can provide photographs of the sAe and area. D Jennings seconded the motion Committee g,00roved the motion (8-01 to table this item Until such time that the apolicant can provide photographs of the site and area. SPAARC 98-0126 2425 Oakton Street Conference Discuss approval of 120-foot monopole (Cellular One) A Alterson presented 3 handouts (memorandum from A. Alterson dated 2/23199, .titter from Celluta: One dated 2/24199, and memorandum from A Alterson dated 318/99) discussing events fdAowing the Comma ee's approval of the 120-foot monopole for Cellular One at 2425 Oakton Street on 2117/9-9 A. Alterson stated that, following the Committee's approval, the attorney for Cellular One had a problem with the proceedings. A Alterson stated that the attorney for Cellular One stated that Cellular One would meet the condition of approval, but the attorney did not want the condition on the building permit A. Alterson stated that he recommended that Cellular One modify the proposal to be a 120-foot mcnopole and a 510,0W neighborhood improvement project H. Friedman stated that he thought that the Committee's approval was "totally inappropriate", the ComrriCee should not establish monetary 'incentrves- D Jennings agreed D Jennings stated w.at the Committee must ensure someone does not perceive that an applicant is paying for a building perr^i' L Black states that amounts regarding 'payment-in-tneu-or should come from the City Councnl, or the Cir1 Council should provide the Committee with clear guidelines regarding how to operate in these instances C Smith stated that the SUMMARY OF FINQlR1 W SITE PLAN AND APPEARAdrCE REVIEW COMNR TEE Pager-$ of 7 3r intent of toe Committee approval was good, but it c.^"uid have teen misconstrued A Al?erson stated Ow-0 this approval was -ot a -bribe', the money will provide landscap rg :o mitigate off -site impacts M Myfc-= agreed A Alterson s a'ed that assigning the dollar amount to the Co-rimee intent to mniogate off -site impact trirrrlgh landscact.nn boas done at the request of the applica-t A Alterscri stared that the Committee has an extra ordinary re+, hew of these faClhbes A Alterson szw chat the Car nittee can not deny these facilities. hc,vever , e Committee can work to make ttem more "palatable' D Manno stated that this situation is sornewnat s.rnrar to Horne Depot. however. he is oxicenned that a Cotinmittee member suggested a dollar amount D Jerrangs stated trial he sees a difference between the approval of a building permit and a condition of a rede►e+cornent agreement D. Jenninggs stated that he does not like the letter from Ce:�uia- One A A;terson and M Mylott aC-eed. M Mylott states that the only problem he had with tre Comm:-== s approval was that the dollar arrourlt was not speci,114:.alty 'tagged' for a neighborhood beautification pro;ecr. M Mylott stated that. in the future, tie would be comfortable with requiring an applicant to submit a plan for a neighborhood beautification project to mKsgaile the potential negative Impacts of a wireless communication fach y (WCF). in this manner. dollar amccunts are never discussed M Mylott stated that Chicago Tribune repartae—a that Lake County reduced the assessments of North Barrington properties located near a cellular telephor�-_ tower A Alterson stated that he oelieyes Cellular Gne is .oncerned about the type of precedent this approval sets for WCF providers A. Alterson stated that he grants to establish that type of precedent A kilerson stated that if Evanston must permit WCFs, thcase ca-npanles should provide something back to the crmmunity D Marino agreed, and stated that it is not unusual for a municipality to require an applicant to prc•. ide a public good to off -set a "public blight'. D. Jennirgs stated that he would stay away from that type of approval C Smith stated that on-sRe landscaping will certainly not hide a WCF pole or tower H Friedman stated that. if the City Council determines that V,1CFs are detrimental then a special ouildang permit fee Is more appropriate. M. Mylott disagreed, and stated that the amount of a building permit fee should have an approximate relationship to the amount of resources the City must commit to reviewing that permit. M Mylott stated that the Committee is actually discussing an existing tool used by other communities to receive compensation from developers for Impacts on school i-ansportation. sewer, and water systems - an Impact fee M Mylott stated trial he would support rescinding the previous acaroval and approving the proposal, provided the money was specifically -tagged" for a neighbomood beaL'-fication protect. A Alterson and C Smith agreed. A Alterson stated that the applicant may propose a prele_t that includes the pole and a neighborhood beaubficat�cn project, he would prefer that the mcrey go a,rectly to the Parks. Recreation & Forestry Departmert to allow that department to determine is best use P. D'Agostino disagreed. and stared that $10 000 does not purchase much landscaping; further he does rc' have the staff available to commit :o these types of studies D Jennings motioned to rescind the previous approval and grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval with no conditions. H Friedman seconded the motion. Committee a r ved the motion 16-21 c_rescind the PreV14U5 aD"r val and qrant pre{rrlrnary and final site plan and aiDBearance review acoroval with no conditions The 3 handouts been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98- 0126) SUMMARY of FINDINGS ?�! SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CONIK41TTEE `ff�' March 10. 1999 Page 6 of 7 SPAARC 98-0122 Conference (No Action Requested) OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Request to posinone special Comrni a meeting rlegardf V bffk*V appeararm review, scheduled for January 8, 1998. M. MyM stated that he was unable to corn ile the information requested at the December 11, 1998 speaat Comm ttee meeting regarding binding appearance review, because of the hoidays . -• • : r• • a• , • i • -ah 1 1l �i •i r1•J L-a• a! � 11.• a 1 • �•p I �.,L_ �4= FJ r.! •1=t - •.=s•a • 11 !! Il ' = ILA" �! • LZI! MjL-1551-710 • • •. � lala - 1 3. tea.. •.•1S l• •� 4=i Ll. 1--.• Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings ci December 18,1998. P. t7Agostino seconded the motion. Committee approved the rnaWn (M) to_aMMM the Summary of EMding5 of December 18- IM Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p m. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 6 1999 Page 6 of 6 M4P Date X SPAARC 99-004 2313 Sheridan Road Preliminary, and Firml Convert student housing to frater,'Xr house (Chi Psi Lodge). construct two 1-story additions. Mr. Cary Jacobson (arcndect) presented working draivings. a site plan. floor plans, color elevatkwn. a landscaping plan, a plat of survey. sate photographs, and a campus -wide parlang analysis to convert swdlitr^t housing to a fraternity house (Chi Psi Lodge) at 2313 Sheridan Road. C. Jacobson stated that the bu*hng was used for student housing; now, it win be used as a fraternity house for Chi Psi. C. Jacobson stated that tie remodeling Includes adding spnnkfers, replacing the windows, and creating a dining room and a more ficrml entry. C Jacobson stated that the plans include 1-story addllbms on the west side (to expand kitchen) and east side (to create vestibule) of the building. C Jacobson stadea that the space below the west s2de expansion will be used as bicycle storage C Jacobson stated that Ve plans include brick work around t:-e west -side windows C. Smith asked C. Jacobson: what is Lie roof material for the 1-story addition to the west side? C. In I. P. responded; copper, an alternate is for pre -patina copper. C. Jacobson stated that the existing state root VAM be repalred. C. Jacobson stated that no changes to the extenor lighting Is proposed C. Jacobson stated that the builduug Ls a landmark, and the Preservation Commission has granted �.. �, 1, ., , at approval. C. Ruiz stated that tfe arc:hnect is to provide brick samples and information on the propcisied windows. P. D'Agostino stated that the lanoscaoe plan appears acceptable, however, it must Include a species list J. Tonkinson motioned to grant prelirrirnary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to (1) review and approval by the Preservatw Commission. and (2) review and approval of the landscape plats by P. D'Agostino. D. Jennings seconded ne motion Committee aporoved the rnotion (8.01 to grant prelim tally and final site plan and apcearance re-ioew approval. subject to t 1 i review and approval by the Preservation .Commission. and_0 review and acoroval of the landscape plan by P D'Avostino. The site plan, floor plans color elevat)ons, landscaping plan plat of survey site photographs, and padccq analysis for Northwestern IJnrvers;ry have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Rev*w Committee folder for this case (99-004i SPAARC 99-005 1141-1143 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final Install 21 air-conditioning condensing units on roof of multi -family building Applicant canceled appearance SUMMARY OF FINDINGS. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January B 19W Page 5 of 8 x SPAARC 9"1" 301 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and FVW install aboveground storage tank of maintenance turdcrrg (Calvary Cen-+efery) Mr. Robert J. Mustan. Jr (design engineerl and Ur Steve Tuttle (insulter) presented a site p4m and equipment photographs to instal ar. aoove-ground saorage tank at the maintenance building of Calvary Cemetery, located at 301 Chicago Avenue Mr Rcibert J Mustan. Sr {design engineer) and Mr. Rids Kwasuiak (Catholic Cemeteries) were available to answer questions S. Tuttle stated that the applicants w4 remove the exwt:ng underground s=rage tanks and install an abvtre- ground storage tank, containing botr1 gas and diesel hxls S Tuttle stal P that the tank has a 4-hour fart rating. S. Tuttle stated that the system (tank and accessories) wig be sun-cunded by concrete bollards, an 8- foot chain link fence, and a spill ccnitarnment basin C. Smith asked the applicants: have you discussed mas proposal with Mr Michael Whalen (HalxardDus Materials Coordinator)? R Mustan. Jr responded we have had several cartversabons with M. Whalen si ce June; all system specifications were sent to him on September 24, 1998 J Tonkinson stated that the Fav Department must approve this Application for Building Permit D Jennings asked the applicants row do trucks access the tank? R Mlustari Jr responded, through fhe garage or via the alley D Marino stated that he is concerned that approving tsar Application creases an undesirable precedent his primary concern is that auto dealers will want to install above -ground storage tanks C Smith stated that approving this Application does estabash a policy that ary future applicatier. for an above -ground storage tank will be approved, any future applicaton would be evaluated by the ComrrMee on its individual merits. R Mustari, Jr stated that the issue s safety, this type of tank is safer than underground storage tanks J. Tonkinson stated that the issue is economics the type cf system proposed can be located underground J Tonkinson motioned to grant prelirtvnary and final sate plan and appearance review approval. subject W review and approval by the Fire Depar7,ent, recognizing .*tis specific site as uniquely qualified for an above ground storage tank. D. Manna seconded the motion Discussion R Walczak sated that he is ccrcemed about una,-,thonzed persons gaining access to, and attempting to operate me tank R Mustan Sr stated that the system has too many safety features, only someone trained to operate the system will be able to do so. R. Mustan. Jr stated ziat all electncrty to me system is turned off at nught. D Jennings stated that he wonders if screening me tank makes the situation better or worse R Mustari, Jr stated mat. in his expenenc a the more visibility on the tank the better J Tonkinson asked the applicants are you +nstalling additional hghtirv? R Mustar J- responded no Committee aooroved the motion i 8-0i -:) oranrpreliminar, and final site olar, and appearance review approval- subWj to review and anoroval by the F�ra pecartment recoanizino this *cec fic site as un,euely aualifted for gn above-gjgund storao ank The site plan and equipment photographs have been c,aced within the S .e Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0144) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIBV COMMITTEE; January 6 1999 Page 4 of 6 a� W SPAARC 99-002 500 Asbury Avenue Preliminary and Fatal Renovate lobby and drrveway leading to lobby (St. Francis Nursing and Rehabiddabon Center). Mr. Mark Jones (project manager) presented womng drawings, a site plan (including landscaping), ifloor plans, color renderings, and site photographs to renovate the lobby and driveway leading to the lobby fiyr St - Francis Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, located at 500 Asbury Avenue_ M. Jones stated that the project will not increase the number of patients M Jones stated that the project will develop over 2 phases. M. Jones stated that phase t includes: renovating the lobby; adding an assisted bathing room (required by the State); and renovating the administration areas to create a new conference room and copy room. M. Jones stated that phase 2 includes: enclosing the area underneath the existing canopy to create a new vestibule. removing the existing concrete sidewalk and asphalt drive: and instalIng a new brick paver sidewalk with 8 concrete bollards and asphalt drive M Jones stated that the new driveway will be approximately the same configuration, except the northwest comer will have a curbed curve such that ambulances are kept back from the new vestibule. A k Jones stated that the bollards may be lighted; no other lighting is proposed. M. Jones stated that the aluminum frames found within the canopy and end stairs will be painted to match the existing brick. M. Jones stated that they had considered covering the carioopy with Dryvit C. Smith stated that painting the aluminum frames is a much better solut)on M. Jones agreed M. Jones stated that they are proposing a screened air conditioning unit along Asbury Avenue P D'Agostino stated that the landscaping plan Is acceptable. J Wolinski asked M. Jones. are you proposing any work on the pa"9 located on the west side of the building? M. Jones responded: no. M Jones stated that he believes that that parking area was paved by the owner. C. Smith asked M. Jones. are you proposing any work to the windows'? M. Jones responded: no M. Jones stated that, contrary to the photographs, the windows have been replaced vnth bronx�-framed windows, D Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott asked M Janes: is the awning shown wrthin the color renderings part of the permit application? M. Jones responded: no M. Jones stated that the aluminum - tube and canvas awning will be purchased by the owner Committee approved the motion f8-O) to grant preliminary and final site Van and appearance review aooroval. The site plan (including landscaping), floor plans, and sire photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-002). SPAARC 99-003 1623 Lee Street Preliminary and Final Construct second -floor addition and 2-story rear addition to single-family residence (requires variations) Applicant canceled appearance SUMMARY OF FiNDINW SITE PLAN Ah'O APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 6 1999 Page 3 of 6 the required width can not Include the curt} top. C. Smith stated that the applicant may need to provide a tip along curb. reducing the chances a user will fall J Tonkinson stated the he has reviewed and approved the photome-tric plan, provided the lighting level at the western lot line does not exceed 0 foot candles E Eriksson asked J Tonkinson can the lighting Level e7zeed 0 foot candles if requested by the neighbors J Tonkinson responceed no J. Tonkinson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance renew approval D Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion f6-0) to grant final site titan andacoearance review a2RrgXM. The landscape plan and site grading plan have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (95-0003) SPAARC 99-001 1723 Benson Avenue Preliminary and Final Convert 81h floor to dwelling unit and add 4-story stair tower from 4M to 8th floor (Evanston Athletic Club), Mr Mark Walsh (architect) presented working drawings, color elevations. a plat of survey, and a site photograph to convert the 8th floor to a dwelling unit and add a stair tower from the top of the 4th floor to the 8th floor of the Evanston Athletic Club, located at 1723 Benson Avenue. M Walsh stated that the space is currently unused. the 5th and 6th floors will be studio space for the health club the 7th floor will remain vacant, and the 8th floor will be converted to a full-time dwelling unit for the owner M Walsh stated that a stair tower will provide an exit stair for fire safety the tower poll be constructed of foam -insulated metal panel and Include 4 exposed ducts along the south side M Mylott asked M. Walsh: is the stair tower required by the building code? M Walsh responded: yes C Smith stated that she is concerned that the exposed duct work looks cheap. D. Manno asked M. Walsh: are the exposed ducts an architectural statement? M Walsh responded they are less an architectural statement, more a reflection of economics. C. Smith stated that an enclosed shaft, constructed of the same material as the stair tower, is preferred. J Wolinski and J Tonkinson agreed. C Smith asked M. Walsh. what type of windows are you proposing? M. Walsh responded dear glass with light bronze. anodized aluminum frames. J Tonkinson stated that approximately 2 down spouts from this building were disconnected from the sewer, creating problems for property owners across the alley. fixing this problem should be a condition of approval. C Smith stated that the property owner and architect (Mike Molinaro) are aware of the problem, and no permits will be Issued until the problem is fixed M Wa!sh stated that the problem is being reviewed by a mechanical engineer D Manno motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided (t) the drainage problem associated with the disconnected down spouts is faxed and 12) the ducts are enclosed with a shaft constructed of the same material as the stair tower J Tonkinson seconded the motion Comm_rttee approved the motion (7-0) to grant creliminary and final site DIan and appearance review approval_ pfoyded (1I the drainage oroblem associated with the disconnected down spayts Is fixed and (2) the ducts are gnclosed with a shaft construgd of the same material as the stair tower The plat of survey has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder far this case(99-001) SITIE AARYPLAN AN FINDINGS SfTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE PE`J:E',"f COMMITTEE January 6 1999 a Page 2 of 6 it SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 6, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M: Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus, K. Kelly. B. Fahlstrom, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. C. Smith (crair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 P.M. SPAARC 95-0003 2201 Foster Street Final Construct audition to Friendship Baptist Church Mr. Eric Eriksson (architect) presented working drawings, a landscape plan, and a site grading plan to construct an addition to the Friendship Baptist Church located at 2201 Foster Street. E. Enksson stated that he developed the landscape plan following several meetings with S Levine. E. Eriksson stated that he believes that he can safety say that S Levine is happy with it, as is he. M. Mylott asked E Erksson what is the treatment along the western lot tine? E Eriksson responded: an existing chain link fence: t`at fence is located on the neighboring property M. Mylott asked E. Eriksson: have you had any discussions with your client regarding the proposed phasing of the landscape plan? E. Eriksson responded, no. E Enksson stated that he hopes to have the client install approximately '/a of the plant material, including the specirre-n trees. soon after construction D Jennings stated that he has reviewed the proposed parking layout. D Jennings stated that the small lot requires heading in to and backing out of the parking spaces he sees no opportunity to improve this condition D. Jennings asked E Enksson how wide is the courtesy walk along Hartrey Avenue? E Enksson responded- approximata-4y 36 inches J Tonkinson stated that the plans indicate rt may be less C Smith stated that. because the walk will be used as an accessible way. the courtesy walk should be 4 feet wide. J Tonkinson agreed. aria stated that the applicant will require a permit to conduct such work J Tonkinson stated that the applicant nrray be able to add to the existing width of the courtesy walk. provided the applicant maintains the walk. he will make a determination on this issue during the permit reviewer process D Jennings stated that f SUMMARY OF FINDiNG5 SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COILUAFTTEE January 6. t999 Page 1 0 6 it SPAARC 99-007 710 Oakton Street Recommendation to Sign Boats; Erect temporary free-standing sign within resdentW zoning district C. Sman presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application to erect a temporary free-standing sign wta%ln a residential zoning district (710 Oakton Street). C. Smith stated that the application relates to a condominium conversion. C. Smith stated that the. J sign does not conform to the Sign Ordinance in that it: (1) is located within a residential zoning district (2) contains too much information; (3) does not indicate the amount of time it will remain in place. J. Woiinski stated that the amount of information on the sign is excessive. A. Alterson agreed. J Wolinski motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, provided (1) the bullet points are limited to the first 3 bullets, minus the words'... with Ail -White Appliances% and (2) the sign is removed within 6 months or after the last unit is sold, whichever comes first. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the mntion (10-0) to recorr =nd that the Sian Review and &peals Board aeorove ttte ,%n OrdinanceVariaJon 6Wicabon. provided f ) ft buftt points are limited to the first 3 bullets. minus the worm... with All- ite Appliances': and 12) the sign is removed within 6-months 2[ alter the last uni�soid, whichever comes first The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-007). Approval of Summary of Findings J Tonlunson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of January 6. 1999 J Wolinsk) seconded the motion gommittee approved the motion 19-01 to approve the Summary of Findings of January 6- 1999, H. Fnedman abstained. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3 45 p in tjt ectfully submit Marc Steven Mylott. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEYY COMMITTEE January 13 1999 Page 4 or 4 a$� Januerr .'✓E>11.,1�� Date k SPAARC 98-0136 26N Ridge Avenue Preliminary and Fine! Construct 3rd floor addition (infill) to D 3 T SuAdrng at Evanston Hospital Mr. Mark Nichols (architect) presented +corking drawings. a site plan, elevation, and site photog=hs to construct a 3rd floor addition (infill) to the DA T Building at Evanston Hospital, located at 2650 Rare Awenue Mr. Devin Kincaid (project manager) and Mr Lours Bowers (Evanston Hospital) were availatke to amswer questions. M. Nichols stated that the proposed addition will be flush with the existing Facade, and the materials will' -notch the existing materials (precast concrete and Gear -glass windows). M. Nichols stated that the proposed addition is not visible from any residential property M. Nichols stated that staging for the consmjcbart wig take place from the below -grade truck dock, located off Girard Avenue C. Smith asked the applicants'r is this building one of those proposed to be clad in brick during ilia panting garage and lobby project? 0. Kincaid responded: I do not believe so. A. Alterson stated that this project conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D Jernnfings seconded the motion. Commrttee Uoroved the moon 0") to grant oreliminaryr and final sic plan and ape rance review approval. The site plan, elevation, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0135). SPAARC 99-008 Communication Review 1998 Site Alan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Report M Mylott presented the 1998 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Report M Mytott stated that the number of items considered by the Committee during the 1998 calendar year increased over 16 percent from that number considered during 1997 the Committee considered 284 items during 1998 arc 246 items during 1997 J Wolinski stated that M Mylott should be commended for preparing this report J Wolinski motioned to forward the 1998 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Report as a communication to the Planning & Development Committee J Tonkinson seconded the motion. commgm aooroved ttre motion (10-01 to forward the 1998 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Re W as a communigat9n to the Plannina & Oevelooment Committee SUMMARY OF FINCINM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW GOWMATTEE January 13 1 M Pay^e 3 vF 4 0 Public Works Department, not the Parks Department; work with the Parks Department should be Iimittliid to how the facility will look D. Jennings stated that MediaOne will require a license agreemenr.. J Tonkinson stated that the City can stilt require MedaDne'o move its facility under a ►icense agreement C Smith staftd that she likes the proposed location M. Mylott asked the applicants how t�)gh is the building? T Arvidson respercjed 9 ice; Including Cite foundation. C. Smith asked the applicants. what are the dotted lines showy aroi..-sd the building on the site plan? T. Arvidson responded: the solid fine is the foundation; the dotted line depicts the shape of the bt b*V and air conditioning equipment on the foundation. C. Smith asked the applicants: what type of fence is proposed? T Arvidsor responded typically, MediaOne installs an 8-foot chain link fence. T Arridson stated that that height can t✓e reduced J Tcr-Lkinson asked the applicants: how high is the CTA fence? T. Arvidson responded: approximately 2 feet J_ TaNdrison steed that he is concerned about the condition of the CTA fence. J Tonkinson asked T Arvidson. is MediaCre willing to install a new 8-foot fence around the entire facility. including replacing t'ie appropriate sections of the CTA fence? T Arvidson responded yes C. Smith asked the applicants does the site pose any other risks besides graffibl T Arvidsxvn responded: no. T. Arvidson stated that the building and generator are secured; the facility will have iarrlps on motion+ detectors and video surveillance. T Arwidson stated that the building is covered with a treated aggregate stone, making graffiti removal easy S. Levine stated that she would like to see more attention to the landscaping, me proposed larescaping plan "looks weak". R. Walczak stated that he would like to see a landscaping treatmern that does not eliminate natural surveillance C Smith stated that MediaOne should work with the Parks Department and the Police Department on improving the landscaping plan D Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. pro,.•ided (1) the applicant work with the Parks Department and Police Department on improving the landscape plan, and (2) the applicant receives a license agreement from the City Council J Wolinski seccrided the rr*tion Discussion: M Rubin stated that the location of the building and the generator shoed be flipped. such that the generator is screened by the budding T Anndscr, stated that MediaOne can flio the location of the building and the generator the Committee agoroved the motion t9-0i to grant oreliminary site plan and appearance rev;ew a roval_ provi ed f11 the 42olicant work with the Parks Dej751rtment and P lice Deoarrnent on it-arovina the ta=Caoe Dian and (2) the aoolicant receives a license aareement from the Or. Council = Tonkinson abstained The site plan, building plans landscape plan and project summary have been c:acec wrthin the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-006) SPAARC 97-0059 2650 Ridge Avenue Final Demohsn existing and construct ne►v parking st%,cture ana erect neiv lobby aedincr at Evanstcw-s Hospital Applicant canceled appearance SITE ARYPLAN AN FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 13 1999 Page 2 -2i 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 13, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus. D. Marino, H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3 10 p.m, SPAARC 99-006 James Park Preliminary Construct cable equipment building (Media0ne) adjacent to roadway into James Park. Mr Tom Arvidson (bt¢dia(Dne) and Mr Max Rubin (Facilities Management) presented a site plan, building plans. landscape plan and project summary to construct a cable equipment building for MediaOne adjacent to the roadway into James Park Ms Sharon Douglas (Medie0ne) was arrailable to answer questions M Rubin stated that tre proposed site is near the Chicago Transit Authority . CTA) Yellow Line embankment. M. Rubin stated that this building will serve as the hub for the main cable feed, service to the City will branch from here M. Rubin stated that the current hub is located near Crain Street and Pitner Avenue J Tonkinson asked u e applicants do you plan to erect a tower? T Arwcson responded ra T Arvidson stated that the facility will have no provisions for a future tower A Alterson asked the applicants as shown on the plans, is a propane tank necessary7 T Arvidson responded no T Anf)dson stated that MediaOne has confirmed that natural gas is available at the site: a power supply (natural gas) is required for the back-up generator T Arvidson stated that the generator will be exercised once a �aeek. then only as needed for back-up power T Arndson stated that no fuel wilt be stored on site M Rubin stated that u-= proposal will require City Council approval similar = the approval process required for a wireless commurcation facility M Rubin stated that the applicant will &ork with the Parks Department to negotiate an appropriate rent J Tonkinson stated that the budding is located within the Mulford Avenue right-of-way. not James Park J Tonkinson stated that MediaOne should conduct any negotiations with the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS S+TE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW coMMITTEE .:arivary 13. IM Page 1 014 of long views to there. D Jennings stated that the applk=1 should construct a mock-up to demonstrate whether or not the unds are visible. C Ruiz stated that. 4 the units are visible from the public war or alley, the Preservation Commission will have to review the proposal C Smith stated that the applicant should consider placing the air-cond.:ioning units on neoprene to further insulate the dwelling units below from vibration. J Lankkanen stateo that they are proposing rear balconies on the second and third floors of the Hamitton building C Ruiz slated that. I the balconies are vLs-ble from the public way or alley, the Preservation Commission will hare to review the proposal. C. Smdh asked the applicants: of what material vA the balconies be constn:cled9 J Lankkanen responded: wrought iron. C. Ruiz asked J. Lankkanen: is wrought iron used anywhere else? J. Lankkanen responded: yes. at the link between the Hinman building and the Hamilton building. C Ruiz asked J Lankkanen: are the designs similar? J. Lankkanen responded: the design of the balconies will be consistent with the design of the wrought Iron used at the link, however, the balconies do not intentionally reflect the design of the wrought iron used at the link. A. Alterson asked J. Lankkanen. is each balcony desagned the sa ne? J Lankkanen resowded- yes A Alterson motioned to grant pre'-iminary and final approval. pending review and approval of the roof-Wp air- candiGoning units and the rear baronies by the Preservation Commission. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee aoorovea the rnotmn r7-0l to grant oreliminary and final approval. oendina review and approval of the roof-tqo air-condition ina units and the rear balconies by the Proervation Commission D. Marino abstained. The site plan, floor plans (inciud4ng rooftop), and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Comm.cttee fcider for this case (99-005) Approval of Summary of Findings A. Alterson motioned :o approve tree Summary of Findings of January 13, 1999 H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee a2proved the rnobon [7-01 to approve the Summary of Findings of January 13. 1999. D. Marino abstained Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3 35 p m Pitejti;j Marc Steven Mylott, ZoninglPlanrer SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEAFD+NCE P"EVI COMMITTEE January 20 1999 Page 2 of 2 eo� Janwry'�Z1999` Date 3C i SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 20, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, P. D'Agostino, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, J. Glus. J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. H Friedman. Cr Ruiz. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meetrng at 3 10 p m SPAARC 99-005 1141-1143 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final Install 21 roof -top air-conditioning units and construct year balconies (The .Hamilton Club Condominiums). Mr Jim Lankkanen (Cyrus) presented a site plan. floor plans (inclerding rooftop), and site photographs to install 21 roof -top air-conditioning units and construct rear balconies for T ,,e Hamilton Club Condominiums, located at 1141-1143 Hinman Avenue and 418426 Hamilton Street Mr George Cyrus (Cyrus), Mr Tom Riker (Cyrus) Ms Betsy Hohman (Cyrusi and Mr Petru Cladoran Iccrtractor) were available to answer questions J Lankkanen stated that the property is located witnin the Lakeshore Historic District. the Preservation Commission approved the proposal provided the wiracws are repaired rct replaced J Lankkanen stated that they will install new storm windows J Lankkanen stated that the roof -top air-conditioning units are 2 feet nign and 2 feet wide by 3 feet deep. J. Lankkanen stated that the roof -top air-conditioning units will be Instatted on the sun porches of the Hinman building and toward the rear of the flat roof of the Hamilton building J Lankkanen stated that the units installed on the sun porches will be screened by the existing parapet A ".erson asked J Lankkanen: how high is the parapet? J Lankkanen responaea approximately 2 to 3 feet C Smith stated that she has no problems with the units located toward the rear of the flat roof. however she :s concerned that the sun -porch units may be visible J Lankkanen stated that they only intend to located tt•e units on the sun porches if they are not visible J Lankkanen stated that an alternative proposal locates 're sun -porch units with the units located toward the rear of the flat roof however running the lines from .rose air-conditioning units to the dwellirg units may be a problem H Fnedman asked the applicants how Mgti is the parapet on the remainder of the building? P Cladoran responded approximately the same as the parapet on the sun porches. H Fnedman stated that he is more concerned about the units located toward the rear of the fiat roof because SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PtAh ANC APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 20 1999 Page t of 2 T. White stated that the southern comer element of the anchor retail tenant has been squared. C. Smidh stated that the round comer element made sense, because it reirtforced the circular pattern within I ..fe pavement. J. Glus stated that the buildings need to reflect the concept within the pavement; otherwise, the pavement concept should be abandoned. C. Wonders stated that he prefers the squambd comer, and it serves to break up the buildings along Church Street C. Ruiz stated that this comer calls br something mere than a slightly razed roof. whether round or square. M. Mylott agreed, and stated that the entire project, whi ie consisting of marry interesting places, lacks one specmd meeting place mooed by a special, feature; this corner appears to be an exw1lent opportunity to provide that unique sense of place. M. Mylott staffed the developer should consider the clocks of the Marshall Fields buriding as an examp4e. C. Smith stated that, from what she can tell from the drawings, the muR)4amily resident" building appears to be coming along nicely; it has some good dlfferrent atron of mass. C Smith asked T. VVhjte: will the mUD- family residential building have a recessed entry along Maple Avenue? T. White respor ded: yes. C, Smith stated that, while the concept is "different architects at different times', the entire project must have a basic vocabulary. C. Smith stated that canopies may be a good feature to pull together different buildings. Adjoumment The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. s ctfully submitte , r "�Ct `.'i: : i`!i' ��� :..;T�9;,!7 �� ". :.� fi�E:r;�atZ G'��4:C�G_< -_�y91"tli: %�• 'is:t it{. t: �:' "*a?.`..: � a� r S7 t'fi7} ��rr�•^+u7+. .. r3:{t .7 F: u'1�; �.:����) ��" Marc Steven Mylott. Zonin P nner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE .January 2T 1999 Page 6 of 1� pavilion building footprint would irlcrease accordingly. K. Kelly asked T. White, If the CTA easement is used, wait the concept of an overhang change) T White responded: not necessarily T White stated that the plat of survey will be superimposed on the site plan in the near future T White stated that the cinerna drop off (along the east side of Maple Avenue) wall not Rave parallel parjung spaces as shown 0 Jennings stated that the Parking Committee will be considenng parking along Maple Avenue at its meeting tonight D Jennings staled that he is not nappy with the design along Maple Avenue, out he is confident it can be worked out D Jennings stated that he would rather have dual left turns, *= Maple Avenue southbound cnto Clark Street J Tonkinson asked D Jennings: are the street divisions striping or curbing? D Jennings responded: striping D Jennings stated that the U-tum for the residential parrldng should be eliminated H Friedman asked 0 Jennings: will the Maple Avenue median north of Unrver3xcy Place remain? 0 Jennings responded: probably C Smith asked T White, what is the material shown above the brick on the main pavilion? T. Whine responded probably precast concrete. T White stated that they are still reviewing how to better break up the massing C Smith stated that the center 'block" of the main pavilion is not well developed, on the other hand, the noM end and the south end of the main pavilion work well. C Smith stated that the center block" lacks attention to detail. the north end is beginning to have good attention to detail C Smith stated that the developer may consider an even stronger break between the center *block' of the main pavilion and the ends: this may help further the concept of "different architects at different times' H Friedman asked T White what is the purpose of the vertical an deco element on the main pavilion? T. White responded to provide signage for the cinema operator; the degree of projection has not yet been determined, because the signage requirements have not yet been determined. C Ruiz stated that signage should not be the only way in which a visitor knows that the building is a movie house, the building design should reflect the user C Smith agreed H Friedman stated that the art deco element will appear overwhelming on the street. it is more appropriate for a suburban stropping center, H Friedman stated that the farthest away from where this building and the art deco element mll be seen is across the street. C. Smith stated that she thinks the building should not reference art deco at all; with additional attempts to soften the art deco element. it becomes 'nothing" C Smith stated that the pieces of the center "block' are too large and do not work well together C Wonders stated that removing the vertical art deco element may create too much 'horrzontatity" along the east side of Maple Avenue C Smitr disagreed. and stated that the center 'block" is simply too long C Smith stated that street level lacks ar. r-ulation H Friedman asked T White do you think these buildings contribute the architectural integrity of Evanstan7 T White responded yes, when they are completed they will lend thee"selves to the City's character T White stated that these buildings will provide a new look. enhancing the dc.vntown experience D Marino stated that he and others would benefit from a perspective or rendering J Aiello stated that this level of drawing is schematic C Smith stated that she appreciates the developers time frame, however the more time the developer spends in design development, the better the resulting design M Mylott asked T White what is the approximate amount of square feet of the anchor retail tenant) T White responded approximately 24,000 sq ft M Mylott stated that the site clan shows the anchor retail tenant with approximately 11.000 sq ft A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS a� SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO&AMI I L January 77 T 90 Page 5 cA 6 n' D. Jennings stated that the truck tuming movements still need to be worked out, ails ronfrgutatlon shins a truck traveling through the loading dock and a small portion of fence J Tonkinson stated that the southern radius of the southem curb cut can not extena south of the su?Sject property. J Aiello stated that this configuration may send trucks south along a street that is nct a truck route (As_"- y Avenue). D. Jennings stated that he will review the truck route map. D Jennings stated that the configuration may pose a conflict between trucks entering the subjW property from Asbury Avenue, traveling toward the loading dock (along the south, then west sides of the buibdmg. backing into the loading dock) and automobiles entering the subject property from Oakton Street, traveling toward the entrance to the drive-thru lane (along the west, then south, sides of the bcalding, turning north to the drove-thru lane). D. Jennings stated that the conflict may not be serious, given Cisco representatives say the site will generate 1 large truck per week. H. Friedman stated that the loading dock could be turned around, such that trucks would access it from Oakton Street. K Kelly stated that turning around the loading dock would enable Os= to put the drive-Mru facility along the south side of the building. D. Jennings stated that he would communicate these comments to the architect The revised site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Carnmittee folder for this case (98-0139). SPAARC 87-0065 Church Street Plaza Preliminary Staff Review Conduct preliminary preapplication conference for Church Street Plaza (Research Park Urban Entertainment Complex). M Mylott presented a site plan for Church Street Plaza and elevations for the main paWion and anchor retail tenant (prepared by Eibasanl & Logan Architects),- a site plan, floor plans, and elevations for the multi -family residential budding (prepared by De Stefano & Partners), and a site plan and floor plans for the public parking garage (prepared by Walker Parking) to permit staff to conduct a preliminary preappLication conference for the Church Street Plaza (Research Park Urban Entertainment Complex) Mr Tom White (Arthur Hill Company) was available to answer questions M Mylott stated that the planned development process requires a preapplicat,on conference between the applicant, the Ward Aldermen. the Plan Commission chair, and the Committee J Aiello stated that this preapplfcatlon conference will be held February B. 1999 at 2 p.m. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Division is conducting a preliminary zoning analysis on these plans. J Aiello stated that the plans are being presented to the Committee so members may have additional time to prepare, and/or opportunity to offer, comments. T White stated that the public parking garage now has access to University Place, in addition to improving circulation. this configuration provides an opportunity to install a drop off for the hotel K Kelly asked T White do the upper floors of the main pavilion overhang the loading area and access aisle on the east side? T White responded. yes T White stated that this site plan does not use the CTA easement, If that land became available. it would be used as the loading area and access aisle, and the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 27. 1999 a Page 4 of 6 k SPAARC 98-0073 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue Revision to Final Reconsider treatment of north fence for retail goods establishment (The Pec)p+e r marketj Mr. Todd Walker (protect manager) presented a request to reconsider the trea-,,rier4 of the ncrt-M fence for the retail goods establishment (The People s Market) located at 1101-1137 Chzagc Avenue T. Walker stated that he has contactec :he 4 property owners immediately nk-gt1' of the subject property. 1 does not want a fence. 2 have no preference as to height, and 1 would prefer a Moot fence T. Walker stated that they would like to 'nstall a 6-foot fence along the south tot tines of the 3 westem-most properties, stopping the fence at the s.-.dhwest comer of the property located a• the southwest comer of Hamilton Street and the alley. T Walker stated that the property owner at the scu-.hwest touter of Hamilton Street and the alley does not want a fence. because he/she is concerned that a fence will reduce his/heratNTrty to maintain his/her property as the residence is located so dose to its south lot fine. T. Walker stated that the property owner requesbrlg a 6-foot fence did so to permit more light to his/her yard T. Walker stated that whatever fence cation is required. The People's Market ras agreed to remove the existing fences along their north lot line J. Aiello stated that a continuous fence along the north lot line of the subject property will protect the property owner at the southwest corner of HarniltDn Street and the alley from illegal dumping 0. Jennings stated that T Walker shoulc ask the property owner at the southwest comer of Hamilton Street and the alley if he/she would like a 'pass through' C. Smith stated that T. Walker should provide letters from each property owner, stating his/her preference. C. Smith stated that she already has a letter from one of the property owners that T Walker may use. J. Wolinskr motioned to table this item, such that the Ward Alderman may be Informed of the proposed revision. J Tonkinson seconded the me:ion Discussion. T Walker stated that they would like to begin installation on February 8th; however, they have a Building Permit for the fence along the north side of the subject property, and they can start installation there. Commi a aooroved the motion (8-41 tQ_tanle this Item. such that the Ward Alderman may be rnforrned_gLft proposed revision SPAARC 98-0139 430 Asbury Avenue Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM Reconfigure southern curb cut for proposed retail goods establishment ; Osco) D. Jennings presented a revised site plan to reconfigure the southern curb cut for the proposeo retail goods establishment (Osco) located at 430 Asbury Avenue D. Jennings stated that the revised site ;:.'.an was faxed to him by the architect 0 Jennings stated that the revised site plan modifies the southern curb cut (to Asbury Avenue), making it left Itum out and right turn out from the subject property. and only left Vim in from Asbury Avenue; the original =nfiguration provided full access to and from the subject property SUMMARY OF FINU NGS SITE PLAN AND APPEAR-kNCE REVIEW COII.tUMEE January 77, 1999 Page 3 016 it H. Friedman asked 13 James: what and where is the kind use immediately south of the subject property? B. James responded_ a 1930s 2-story 240at, approximately 4 feet south of the north lot line M f,Aylott stated that the Committee wig' have an opportunity to review the proposed new construction, evert thought it is single-family residence. tecause it requires a variation C Smith stated that each structure must be at least 3 feet from the lot line for fire -rating purposes. B. James stated that the resubdlvislon will provrce approximately 4 feet on the south side of the existing two-family residence. J Wolinski motioned to grant prelimrnar, and final approval for the resubdnnsion only. J Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee_aoroved the notion (9-0) to orant oreliminary and final aporovat for the resubdivision only The plat of survey. site plan depicting the proposed resubdivision, and a photograph of a sirnntar project at 623 Oakton Street have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (9"09). SPAARC 99-010 1300 Oak Avenue Concept Alter physical structure of sheltered care home to comply with Medicaid regulations including construct ramp in side yard (Oakwood Terrace). Mr. Michael Aronson (architect) presented working drawings and original construction drawings to install life - safety devices and accessible facilities for a sheltered care home (Oakwood Terrace) located at 1300 Oak Avenue Ms Pat MCDlarmid (Oakwood Terrace) was available to answer questions M Aronson stated that the renovations are required to receive reimbursement from residents' Medfcald and to comply with ADA. M Aronson stated that they plan to install sprinklers and a fire alarm system M Aronson stated that part of the life -safety system requires renovating the basement, eliminating the parking area, access to the parking area would also be eliminated. M. Aronson staled the parking is not used. A. Alterson stated that Oakwood Terrace should apply for a zoning analysts. because eliminating this parking is probably elirrunating required parking. A. Alterson stated that, if the zoning analysis reveals the parking spaces are required, Oakwood Terrace can apply for a variation to eliminate required parking spaces, the CItii Council is the determining body on applications of this nature C Smith stated that she would certainty support going forward with the file. safety improvements A Alterson and J Aiello agreed M Aronson stated that they would like to install an accessible ramp along Dernpster Street_ A Alterson stated that he considers accessible ramps as the same form of yard obstruction as open steps. J Aiello asked the applicants what is Me maximum number of employees on site at one tune? P McDiarmid responded each shift is approximately 7 to 6 persons. C Ruiz staled that this property is located wrthin the Ridge Historic District, Preservation Commission approval is requred M Mylott motioned to grant concept approval. J. Aiello seconded the motion Committee aonroved the motion (10-01 to Grant concept ar)vroval SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COFJ%UTTEE G. January 27 1999 a Page 2 of 6 t7n SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 27, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Aiterson, J. Glus, D. Jennings, K. Ke9y, P. D'Agostino, D. Marino. M. Mylott, C. Smith. J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: L. Black. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: L. Lyon, M. Robinson, M. Rubin, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, C. Wonders. Commencement C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3.05 p.m. SPAARC 99-009 327 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Resubdivide 1 zoning lot into 2 lots of record. Conven existing two-family residence into single-family residence. construct single-family residence on vacant lot. Mr Bill James (Oakton - Custer L L C.) presented a plat of survey, a site plan depicting the proposed resubdivision. a Sidwell map of the neighborhood. a site photograph, and a photograph of a similar project at 623 Oakton Street, to resubdivide 1 zoning lot (327 Sherman Avenue) into 2 lots of record, convert the existing two-famity residence into a single-family residence. and construct a new single-family residence on the vacant lot 8 James stated that he is the contract purchaser of 327 Sherman Avenue B James stated that the lot width meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements: however, the depth is insufficient to meet the minimum tot area required to construct a single-family dwelling unit. B James stated that he has submitted an Application for Variation, seeking permission to reduce the minimum lot area of each new lot of record to approximately 4,227 sq.ft whereas 5,000 sq ft is required B James stated that his prelimmuiuy analysis of area lots indicates that most are nonconforming as to lot area. B James stated that the existing two-family residence was originally a single-family residence. B James stated that he is not seeking the highest return on his investment. because a developer could construct 4 townhouses without a variation; he believes that single-farrsty residences are a greater asset to the neighborhood SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COULVTTE1E January 27 1999 Page 1 as J Wolinski stated that this proposal :s a'bad idea' M %N-an sateac ,at he s rraernec. 3i ut tfe -eartt of the trees the pavement would ce well within me �--s =-ip Zane P D,•Ls ra sta:ea :gat he am-cs 20 inspect the site before he offers an pinion D Marrc stat-L-o mat -e does na .a^t to enc_— .-age tnx : fie of proposal C Smith agreed. A A, erson stated mat n-de -�e cs s-p—camebc = Me cesire :c -ave parking he �s concerned that the crcperty owners =r . s.=rs w1l s.-.cry park arrg tie _,M e-,%3y (wfnr- "I e front yard) zecause the parking sca=es are too sra.l SPAARC 98-0139 430 Asbury Avenue Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Project status of proposed rera-1 ;,oces esta:,fthment IOsco) D Jennings stated that the appl:carts for the proccsed ret-ail goods establisnment (Osco) at 430 .-stiry Avenue will present revisions to the Committee on Fecruary 10. 1999 SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Announce date time, and tocabcn ofrxeapplK po conference for Church Street Plaza M. Mylott stated that the preapplicat:cn conference for tree Crn,rch Street Plaza will be conducted on Fetxuary 8 1999 at 2 p m. within the City Council chambers &I Mylcnt stated mat the preapplication conference is a required meeting between the ward aiderman, the Plar. Commission Cnair. the Zoning Administrator. and else Committee Approval of Summary of Findings D. Jennings motioned to table the approval of the Surnmart of Findings of January 27, 1999. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion (11-0) to table the approval of thr! Summary of Findi gsof January 27. 1999. J Wolinslu motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of January 20, 1999 J Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee aaoroved the motion (11-0) to aaorove the Sumrrrary of Findings of January 20. 1999 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 145 p m F ectfulty submitt = Feftua4 Marc Steven Mylott, Zoni anner Date {�' SUMMARY OF FUIM WGS PLANIiit SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMT rE3E Februuy 3. 1M Psya 3 0l 3 3t K Kelly asked tre applicants where does the nccrth stair well exit-7 O. Pasma responded. one stag well must exit to the =xtercr the ptars wily =e revised tc neet that requirement C 'errings state-- that the aczess Lie parking space inumber 2a) is drawn wrong, r-e total width mus' ve 16 reef split a de lI, t r oetween "3 stari and loading area C Smith stated that 98 incres of clearance ''-iust be crc;wded fcr the accessible space Q Jennings stated that parking space numbers 29 and 10 are :;MCLlt to enter cecause of ,re wail arty additicral clearance that eauld be provided along the wall w-11 make trese spaces easier to use D Jerr„ngs statee that the basement columns must De shown on the. w:ar" Ciar.. because they affect mar ew erability D Jennings stated that the (caning certh is totally unusable. and a 14-foot door and turning radii r"Lst be prcvrded ID Pasma stated trat tre ieading berh could be moved outside C Smith as.(ed the applicar s e,nat is the proposed exterior material) D Pasma responded. e:Aerior materials wW to Ceveloped in --;,nlunction with the financing H Friedman asked the appitcants is Kaehler Luggage still the intended tenant? D Pasma responded we are in discussions with Kaehler Luggage. H Friedman asked C Smith can a stag exit to a ramp? C Smith responded: a 42-fnch, flat landing crust be provided C Smith state that the applicants should be very definitive with all dimensions dunrg the early stages due to the site cerstraints. C Sman stated that she hopes the commercial space is not further reduced. hi hfylott stated that the applicants should submit for a Zoning Analysis, following that review, the appf,cants should submit an Application for Vanation M Mylott stated that the applicants can realty go no further t al-liout the variation to permit the addit ;nal dwelling units A Alterson motioned to approve me revision to the concept of a mixed -use development at this site, expincitly avoiding commentary on the n::mber of dwelling units. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Comrrnrttee aggrgygd the motion (9-21 to aonrove the revision to the concept of a mixed -use development at this site- eXDIiCitiV avoidina commentate cn the number of dwelling units. The site plan and floor plans have oeen placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee fbider for this case (98-0092). SPAARC 99-014 2142 Sherman Avenue Conference OFF -AGENDA ► TEM. install off-street parking spaces and associated driveway for single-family residence D. Jennings stated that the applicant would like to install off-street parking spaces within the south side yard and a driveway leading to those parking spaces. D. Jennings stated that the applicant only has 7 feet 9 inches between the south side of the residence and a fence along the south lot fine. the application would require zoning relief. D. Jennings stated that #1e applicant is proposing a winding. a -foot dnveway between 2 36-inch trees; the trees are located within the right-of-way and 13 feet apart. D. Jennings stated that the proposed radii of the driveway are too tight SUMMARY OF FLNo1NGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVISd Ct}MM TTEE + February 3, 1999 �✓h Page 2 of 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 3, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, D. Jennings, K. Kelly. P. UAgmtinc. D. Marino. M. Mylott. C. Smith, J. Tonkinson. R Watczak. J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, J Glus. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, C. Wonders. Commencement C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and Megan the meeting at 3:05 p.m_ SPAARC 98-0092 1421 Sherman Avenue Revision to Concept Demolish building (Kaehler Luggage) and build 7-story mixed -use building. Mr. Doug Pasma (architect) presented a site plan and Roar plans to demolish the existing Ixmiding and construct a 7-story mixed -use building at 1421 Sherman Avenue (Kaehler Luggage). Ur Dan Buck (developer) and Mr Ken Sproul ;developer) were available to answer questions. D. Pasma stated that the market is demanding smaller units (1,100 sq.ft. to 1,200 sq.ft.); the size of units originally proposed (1,800 sq.ft.:a 1.900 sq ft) is not selling D Pasma stated that the new ptans include- 30 dwelling units, sold as condominiums 2. ground -floor commercial space 3. parking at the rear of the ground floor and within the basement 4. the ziggurat setback. D. Pasma stated that the new plans require a variation to the minimum lot size regrsirenv!iM tine Zoning Ordinance permits approximately 23 dwelling units C. Smith stated that the middle units will have problems with exterior wall and opening requ.. SUMMARY aF F943EM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIAMFTEE Feb%wy & 1999 Page 1 of 3 Approval of Summary of Findings M. Mylott stated that the Summary of Findings of January 27, 1999 sail] remain tabled. C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of February 3, 1999. P. D'Agostino secxrded the motion. Committee aporaved the motion (7-01 to aoarove the Sumrr3n of Findngs of February 3. 1M. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. s lly submitted i 3 ` FibrweY7T, �l14 Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning.P*ner Date SUMMARY OF FMINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COAAWTTEE February 10. 1999 Page 7 of 7 x SPAARC 99-012 2536 Ewing Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Reduce freight of existing rr- -standing sign at White Hen Pantry C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application to reduce the height of the existing free-standfog sign at White Hen Pantry (2-S36 Ewing Avenue). C. Smith stated that the a=llcant wishes to lower the height of the sign from approximately 24 feet to approximately 19 feet. C Sriith stated that the proposed sign does not confiorr to the Sign Ordinance in that it: (1) exceeds the maximurrr permitted height of any sign; (2) Is too high, given its distance from the lot line. - and (3) is located too close ?J a driveway. C. Smith stated that, if the aecilicant is going to spend the money on this project it should conform to the Sign Ordinance in all respects: sre recommends eliminating the free-standing sign and irstaning a monument sign C. Smith stated that all sigrs must conform to the Sign Ordinance by 2003 D. Jennings motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, proviCed the height of the sign does not exceed 15 feet 5 inches M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee accroved the motion (4-31 to recommend that the Sian Review and Appeals Board app ve the Sian Qrdinance variation Application_ arovlded the height of the sign does not exceed 15 few inches. The Sign Ordinance Vanaton Application has been placed within the Site Purr and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-012) SPAARC 99-013 1918 Dempster Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Install wall sign at proposes Blockbuster Video within Evanston Plaza. C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application to install a wall sign at a proposed Blockbuster Video within Evanston Plaza i 1918 Dempster Avenue). C. Smith stated that the proposed signage does not conform to the Sign Ordinance in that it- (1) exceeds the maximum permitted height c' any sign. and (2) covers a significant architectural element (column). C Smith stated that she does not have a problem with the "ticker sign located on the end M. Mylott agreed. H Friedman disagreed B Fahistrom stated that Discovery Zone has signage in a similar location C Smith stated that she does not want the signage over the column M. Mylott motioned to recur. ;,nend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, except br the signage over the architectural element (column) P D'Agostino secanded the motion Committee aoar^ved the motion (6-0) to recommend that the Sian review and Aoeeals Board 22nrove the SiqM__Qjdinance Variation Aovfication except for the 5ignaae over the architectural elemgWi icolumni H Friedman abs=- ned The Sign Ordinance Variatio- Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-013) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RSYIEW COMMITTEE February 10. 1999 Page 6 of 7 1K mind and wants the fence installed at a later date, will The People's Market Install Blot segment of the ? T. Walker responded: yes T. Walker stated that the 6-foot shadow box fence would run from the northwest comer of the subject property, along the northern lot line, stopping at a point approxxnately at the sour ywest comer of the exast:rng residence located at 519 Hamilton Street. T. Walker stated that the 8-foot fence along the eastern lot tine would be extended north to a point approximately at the southeast comer of the existing residence located at 518 Hamilton Street. T. Walker stated that Mr. Willis has expressed 'no real interest' in a cut -through. P D'Agostino stated that the proposed landscaping along the north lot line does not satisfy the request of Alderman Wynne. C. Smith stated that evergreens would be one suggestion. M. Mylott stated that, if the metal posts will be visible, they should only be visible from the subject property, not from the alley. M. Mylott motioned to approve the revision to the final approval, permitting the change to the northern fence, subject to review and approval by P. D'Agostino and the property owner of add:bcrra! landscaping inmiediat5ely south of the residence at 518 Hamilton Street. D. Jennings seconded the motion. motion 17-0l to aoorove the revision to the: b W review and aoaroval by P. D'Agostino and the gpertv owner of;S¢itional landing immedi8lClylouth pf the residence at 518 Hamilton Strepff The site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0073) SPAARC 99-011 2300-2312 Main Street Recommendation to Sign Board Erect free-standing sign for existing multi -tenant building. C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application to erect a free-standing sign for an existing multi - tenant building (2300-2312 Main Street). C. Smith stated that the proposed sign does not conform to the Sign Ordinance in that it is too high, given its distance from the lot line. C. Smith stated that the applicant will have to ensure that the sign does not extend within the right-of-way. D Jennings motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, subject to eliminating all current and future signs within the right-of-way. P. D'Agoshno seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion (Z&Lto recommend that the Sian Review and Antaeals Board aoorove the Sian Ordinance Variation Application. suoieet to eliminating all cttrren"nd future gs�s within the nght-of-way. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-011) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW couurrrEE February 10, IM Page 5 d 7 C. Smah asked the applicants- will you screen the roof -top mechanicals? L. VAnter responded` the roof -top mechanicats will not be seen P. Theodore stated that the roof -top rnechanicais will be screened with the same metal used on the facades. C. Smith stated that she would like to see the same thoughtfulness that was applied to the design of the building apprised to the design of the signage. C Smith stated that. while the stre and scale are acceptable, she would hate to see the appearance of the building compromised by signage that appeared to be an "add - on' H. Friedman stated that the 3-section bay of windows (northern -most bay along the eastern facade) should be broken into 4 sections similar to the other 4-section flays, the end metal panel should have a center Joint, such that it reads as 2 sections of the same size as the 2 windows. M Mylot; agreed. C. Smith stated that the western side of the north facade would be an excellent location for a specimen tree. P Theodore agreed. M. Mylott stated that a portion of ti+e sidewalk shown in ttsat location could be converted to a large planter for such a tree. C Smith stated that, like signage, fighting should be an integral component of the design. L, VAnter stated that the fighting will be designed with the building P Theodore stated that the lighting will be strategically located within the awnings or located to shine up onto the building. P Theodore stated that the drive-thru window awning will have recessed can lights. P Theodore stated that the %W1 pack lights will be 'small, tasteful, tow -level" lights M Mylott stated that his previous comments regarding the optimum location for this building still stand; however. if this location is where the building is going to be, the architect has designed a building that responds well to its location H Fnedman asked the applicants what features of this building do you anticipate losing as It is priced out? P Theodore responded not anything. L Winter responded very tittle D Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval J Wolinsk, seconded the motion Committee acoroved the motion LU) to Grant orelimmary site Nan and appearance reviey approval The site plan landscaping plan, and color elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0139) SPAARC 98-0073 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue Revision to Final Reconsider treatment of the north fence for retail goods establishment (The People's Market). Mr Todd Waiker presented site and area photographs to reconsider the treatment of the north fence for the retail goods establishment (The People's Market) located at 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue. J Walinski stated that he has spoken with Alderman Wynne J Wofinski stated that Alderman Wynne stated that she apolcgtzes for not being at the meeting, and, if Mr Willis (518 Hamilton Street) does not want the fence along his southern lot line. she will support stopping the northern and eastern fences at the respective southern corners of his residence. provided landscaping of approximately the same height as the fence is provided J Wolinski stated that Alderman Wynne wanted to ask the applicants if Mr Willis changes his SUMMARY OF APPEARANCE FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 10 19% Page 4 of 7 5C ground. L Winter stated that they will raise the height of tt -ie existing fence (along the south lot kne), their will instan a 6-foot board -on -board fence along the southern Xz of the west lot line and the short eaxt*est return. P. Theodore stated that. as proposed, trucks will enter the ste at Oakton Street. head south along the weszem side of the building, turn left. head east along the scuMern. side of the building, travel past and back to the loading dock located on the south side of the building, trucks will exit at the southern -mast driveway abng Asbury Avenue. P. Theodore stated that vehicles using v.e dnve-thru window travel along the sarne pattt, except they continue past the loading dock, turn left on -site head north along the east side of the buAd: to the drive-thru window. P Theodore stated that the scjther-, -most driveway along Asbury Avenue will be exit only. L Winter stated this driveway will be signed as requested by the City_ P. Theodore stated that MA*s using the loading dock and vehicles using the drive-thru window will have 'absolutely no conf6ct', because the loading dock will be used primarily during off-peak hours (morning) and the dnve-thru window will have a low volume; the peak use of the drive-thru window may reach i0 cars per hour P. Theodore stated that he has superimposed the IDOT truck radu on the site plan. D. Jennings stated that the proposed circulation pattern is 'as good as it will get', given the location of the ouilding; the exit -only driveway to Asbury Avenue is much better, because it allows right- and left-hand turns from this driveway D. Jennings stated that the turning radii appear fine. A Jennings stated that the accessible parking spaces appear fine. C. Smith stated that the circulation pattern for the drive-thru window neces&Uites directional signage for the drive-thru window, that signage should not be too big. L. Winter stated that he understands the concerns related to directional signage, and it will conform to City requirements. P. Theodore stated that the redesigned building is a 'one --of-a-kind building'. and the design is appropriate for this location P. Theodore stated that the building wall stand on its own, whether or not it is used by Osco. P. Theodore stated that the building is not overpowering in height, and it includes the 3 traditional components of a building -- the base, shaft. and cap. P. Theodore stated that the Asbury Avenue elevation has become 'highly animated" with minimal ornamentation; portions cf tnts elevation 'unfold to the street'. P Theodore stated that the budding will have a 'tectonic value of materials'. the materials are high -quality, including masonry, limestone, tin, and glass. P Theodore stated that the base will be constructed of precast concrete with a limestone finish to provide easy maintenance especially during snow plowing along the narrow drive-thru lane D. Jennings asked the applicants will the sales floor be vrsibie from Asbury Avenues P Theodore responded: you will be able to look through the windows and see activi-y P Theodore stated that this Osco is the first of which he is aware that is pulling its shelves and fixtures away from the walls. C. Smith stated that she would like to compliment the arcnrtr_; on designing a 'very very nice retail budding', it is not -traditional looking-. rather it looks towards the hex::entury H Friedman agreed C. Smith asked the applicants do the elevations depict 2 sizes of brick? P Theodore responded: i was asked to investigate the use of colored block along the south and nest elevations M. Mylott stated that, while he appreciates attempts to use less -expensive materials alcrg elevations that are not visible, the southeast corner of this budding, including a large portion of the sou,-- elevation. is highly visible; such a noticeable change in detailing will detract from the well -designed eastern facade M Mylott stated that the developer should consider using the same brick shown on the north ar•.d east elevations along the south elevation t- Winter stated that the budget will not permit that modifcarcn C Smith stated that this corner needs some attention C Smith stated that. at a minimum. the deve?c:*?- =uld wrap the smaller brick around the corner, stopping it at a Point somewhere along the southern fa: ace C Smith asked the applicants could the horizontal feature cr. the north elevation be the same green material used on the east elevation? P Theodore responded I am not opposed to making that change SUMMARY OF FINDr 4GS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUr1TEE Feetuary >;o_ IM Page 3 of 7 4 looks "so boxy". J Aiello stated that ttm building looks 'so instittMonar. J. Wolinski stated that his ma)or concem is that this location is a prominent site, and the proposed building `doesn't make it J. Wolinski stated that other applicants with federal funding have requested and received addtional funding from the grantor when the additional funding was to necessary to provide an improved design. J. Wolinski asked the applicants have you requested additional funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ? L. Parkman responded: we have tied several times. J. Aiello asked L Parkman: who have you been working with at HUD7 L Parkman respar%ded: Mr. Edward Hinsburger. J. Aiello stated that staff could check the availability of the ll+tayoes Special Fund for Housing. J Wolinski stated that the Mayors Special Fund for Housing is an option worth exploring. M. Mylott stated that the grant of special use and vana'lon may have tied the applicant to a gabled -roof building J Wolinski stated that the original grant of speial use-haslepi a" w111 ��ge 74,a Itf . Cr Smith asked the applicants: do you propose to provide roof -top mechan ? L_ Parkin responded: yes. C. Smith stated that roof -top mechantcals must be screened; their location must be depicted on the Pfarls. D. Jennings stated that the neighbors have requested changing Dewey Avenue. north of Emerson Street, from two-way traffic to one-way, north -bound traffic. D. Jennings stated that Traffic Engineering has looked at this proposal, and it appears feasible: he is going to report track to the neighbors. J. Wade stated that this proposal is acceptable J Wolinski motioned to deny the revision to preliminary appearance review, retaining the onginal preliminary site plan review approval. D Jennings seconded the mat an Discussion: J. Aiello stated that the applicants should provide staff with the cost for the revisions to the parapet as well as the cost for the original gabled roof. J Wolinski stated that comments regarding appearance review are advisory only. .Committee a2gl d the motion (9-0) to denv the revision to oreiiminary appearance review rWainino the, Qnarnal oreliminary site clan revieyl ggoomval The site plan with landscaping. a floor plan elevations, and a color rendering have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (96-0025). SPAARC 98-0139 430 Asbury Avenue Preliminary Demolish Asbury Markel and erect retail goods establishment (Osco). Mr Lee Winter (developer). Mr Peter Theodore (architect). and Mr Ben Bussman (landscape architect and civil engineer) presentee a site plan, a landscaping plan, ana Dolor elevations to demolish Asbury Market and erect a retail goods establishment (pscol at 430 Asbury Avenue P Theodore stated that they have wrappea the perimeter vi ;-,n additional landscaping, moved the building as close to Asbury Avenue as possible, rercuted the circulaticri patterns, and redesigned the building. B Bussman stated that he has worked with S Levine and aoded additional trees along Asbury Avenue and adjusted the spacing R Walczak asked the applicants -Anil this landscaping provide concealment? B. Bussman responded no. the canopies of the street trees will begin approximately 8 to 10 feet from the SUMMARY AN APPEARANCE OF FINDINGS PLANApi SITE PLAN APPEARANCE REVIEW COAihirTTEE February 10 1999 �. Page 2 of 7 k SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 10, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, P. D'Agosbw, M. MybM C. Smith, R. Walczak, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present Other Staff Present: Commencement A. Alterson, J. Glus, D. Marino, J. Tonkinson. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom. L. Lyon, M. Robinson. M. Myiott stated that he will be siting as the Zoning Adrmnlstrator in the absence of A. Attemon. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meebng at 3,05 p.m. SPAARC 96-0025 1607-25 Emerson Street Revision to Prellminary Revise roof for S-story, 76-unit independent Irving facility (Jacob Slake Manor). Mr Larry Parkman (architect) presented a site plan with landscaping, a floor plan, elevations. a color rendering, and site photographs to revise the roof for a 5-story, 76-unit independent living facitidy at 1607-25 Emerson Street (Jacob Blake Manor) Pastor James Wade (Ebenezer A.M.E. Church) was avaliEable to answer questions. L Parkman stated that, after receiving tt~e bids for the gabled -roof building. they determined mat the gabled roof was too expensive. Instead, they are proposing a flat roof L. Parkman stated that the revisions also include removing the partial basement and moving the mechanicals up to the ground floor. L Parkman stated that the site plan..rcluding the buitatng footprint, parking, and tandsc2.o,ng. rlas not changed L Parkman stated that 1 dwelling unit has been eliminated, the proposed building naw cartains 75 dwelling units J Wolrnskr asked the applicants what is the cost difference between a gabled roof and a flat rocV L Parkman responded between 5300,000 to $500.000; closer to $500.000 C Smith asked the applicants, have you considered other ways to achieve variation in the rccs plar.e. such as Increasing the parapet heights? L Parkman responded we looked at different options C SmiM, stated that she Is sympathetic to the cost concerns, however, even a variation of a couple of feet within the parapet will tend much to the design H Friedman asked the applicants: how high is the proposed parapet? L. Parkman responded: approximately 2 feet C Smith stated that she is concerned that the current proposal SUMMARY OF FINDglGs SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEWCOIIWn-rEE aFebruary 10. 1999 Pale 1 of 7 Approval of Summary of Findings D Manno motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of January 27, 1999 February 8 ' 999. and. Fet ,ziy 10. 1999: J Aiello seconded the miction Discussion M Mylott stated that SPAARC 96-0025, located on page 2 of the February 10 ; 999 Summary of Findings, should be corrected in trie folle ving manner the sentence -J Wolinski stated that the original grant of speciaf use has lapsed ' should be changed to - I Wore^ski stated that the originat n•.nr o' sppcia' u%e v/W 1-rose �► �rtly' D. Marino amended his motion as such; approve the Summary of Findings cf January 27. 1999; February 8, 1999, and February 10. 1999. provided SPAARC 96-0025, located on page 2 of the February 10, 1999 Summary of Findings, is corrected in the following manner the sentence 'J Wolinski stated that the anginal grant of special use has lapsed ' should be changed to `J Wolinski stated that the anginal grant of special use will lapse shortly' J Aiello amended the second to be consistent wrth the amended motion. Committee a2oroved the motion (I U) to_appro•.,e the Summary of Findinas of January 27 1999: February 8. 1999- and February 10. 1999 provided SPAARC 96-0025. located on pace 2 of the February 10 1999 Summary of Findings. is corrected in the followno,Manner the sentence 'J Wotins kr stated that the original grant of 1pecial use has lapsed ' should be ehanaed to 'J Wolinski stated that the_ongrnal grant of special us it !Me shortly' Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4 45 p.m Marc Steven Mylott. February 23,1999 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 17. t999 Page 7 of 7 I( SPAARC 99-019 425 Howard Street Conference OFF--' ! ` 1.C,: , -i Ev Cis'-. I-vory office cu.Uai g J A�&!c sla � via' s~,e arc _ :, -.n -net with a Ceveicper interested in constructing a 4-story office J:;, iiding On te Be-e! T - s: *-'-e ,an<irg :at L L fcn stated that the ,property has not been operated as a pairking lot for a= -max mwe..r F c.:_`s J A-e `-y-ram I -al ",, plr- k:�5j, s a response :J a Request for P-sposals by Vllhn-.c nepartrnent r.! "z-a'th and il.;-, DH"S::- pro., -de adm,n,stra:.r+e offices i Aiello stated that IDHHS would have a 5- year lease :�r : e o mg s-,: -nat it would not be removed from the tax rolls J Aiello stated that IDHHS would er--;,cy approx;rna'e,I t -'- people J Aiello st-ed 71e Cevelcper ;noosed a 41 000 sq ft_ building, built on stilts, over at -grade parking J ;cello stated tt'a; �e proposal reC.sres 75 parking spaces whereas 68 parking spaces would be provided J A.,ello stated tt-e Zcning Ordinance permits an 85-foot nigh budding J Aiello stare*: tnef expressed cceiserns regarding aesthetics and safety with a stilted budding J Aiello stated that they crscussed alternatues :a the proposal including lawer►ng the budding to -ne ground and moving it east against an existing budding The remainder cf )e site would t:e cff-sweet parking azztng the existing eas:west alley moving the budding north to provide additional green space in fr:: mt of the building A r.ew north/south alley would be provided along the east side of the subject property to service adjacent buildings, and the applicant would took to acquire the 2-story building rrnrnediately west of the property J Aiello stated that this proposal may be able to take advantage of the parking provided at the Gateway Development in Chicago J Tonkmson stated that he would be concerned about making people cross Howard Street A Alterson stated that IDHHS may be hesitant to commit to a project that does not provide adequate on -site parking J Aiello stated that the developer needed to consult the IDHHS for requirements about on -site parking J Tonkmson stated that the alternate alley configurations are better than the current conditions, because the grades would work better M Mylott stated that the approximately southern 'h of the ground floor (along Howard Street) could be building and have an at -grade parking area behind it; this way, less -expensive parking is provided while the integrity of the street front is maintained C_ Smith stated that she believes the parking should be located underground. H. Friedman stated that deck parking could be provided J Aiello stated that the IDHHS will riot pay that much money: further, it increases the required rents for future users C Smith stated that 1 level of underground parking is comparable to a basement D Marino stated that underground parking poses security problems C Smith slated that this parking would be for employees only L Lyon staled that. if the developer does not receive the IDHHS contract, he will pursue a different concept A. Alterson asked J Aiello has the developer had the site tested? J Aiello responded- the site is clean. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 17, IM Page 6 of 7 ce SPAARC 96-0025 1607-1625 Emetson Street Conference Report on 5pec:a! Use Crc:rance for 5-story 76-unit indepenc- nt living facility (Jacob Stake Manor,' M Mylott presented Ordina.^ce No 27-0-97 granting a spec:z` use and major variations to constrict a 5- story, 76-unit independent 'ving facility (Jacob Blake Mar.cr, at 1607-1625 Emerson Street. M. Larry Parkman (architect) and Pas=r James Wade (Ebenezer A.M E Church) were available to answer questions. M Mylo" stated that Sep c- 3 No ? of the ni-!:rance gra-is the Site Plan and Aaoeairan-:e ?eview l:urnrnittee binding appearar—ze review A Alterson stated that to ensure the special use does not expire the applicants need to provide a written request for an extension if tie request is provided imrrediately. �— e City Council may be able to cons;der the request on February 22, 1999 J Wade stated that he will provide the request "before he leaves the bWding'. Ordinance No. 27-0-97 has teen placed within the Site Plan ara Appearance Review Committee fai'�der for this case (96-0025) SPAARC 96-0025 1607-25 Emerson Street Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM Retum to gabled roof for 5-story. 76-und independent living facility (JacoG Blake Manor). Mr. Larry Parkman (architect) and Pastor James Wade (Ebenezer AKE Church) presented the original site plan with landscaping and south elevation for the 5-story, 76-unit independent living facility at 1607-1625 Emerson Street (Jacob Blake Manor). J Wade stated that, regarding the roof, they have returned to the original plans; the original plans included a building with a gabled roof. M. Mylott asked the applicants will you return to a partial basement? L. Parkman responded: that has not yet been determined C Smith asked the applicants will the mechanicals be located under the gabled roof? L. Parkman responded yes. C Smith stated that she is glad to see the plans reinstate the gabled root. C Smith stated that the Committee will conduct final review on the construction drawings. M. Mylott stated that the applicants should obtain a Committee primer from the Zoning Division; this document will inhwn the applicants of the items they are required to provide during Final review. SUMMARY OF FINCOVW SrM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIUIYUTTEE February 17, 190 Pnee 5 of 7 x C Ruiz stated :teat this tu:icling is a landmark. and this project will require review and approval tr the Preservation Commission J Torkinscn rrat aned to gr3-t preliminary arC final site plan ane appearance review approval proved Me applicant provide a photcmetric plan or ccrduct a site visit to den-cnstrate that the existing ligt WV is adequate U My:cn secerced the motion C .mmittee aonroved the motion 00-01 to orant ore)'Mina+v end final site olar arc acnearar.ce review approval orovided the acciir-.ant orovide a ohCtometnc plan or car)dig= a site visit to dernonstrate Ma, the exishna liahhno is adeauate T. .........;gig dra,.. ��. i" .Z ig ..-,:! Plat i..' b' . -, :,3.e LVt:, : ,e S,:e Plan ana AppeaTan-a Review Committee folder for :lies case (99-015) SPAARC 99-016 2930 Central Street Preliminary Construct second -story add"n to vacant i-Story building (forme�gy MicheGrn's Restaurant). Mr Nate Kipnis (architect) and Nlr Aarush Mabali (contract purchaser) presented a site plan, floor plans, north elevation, and Site and area photographs to construct a second -scary addition to the vacant 1-story building (formerly hhchelini's Restaurant) located at 2930 Central Street N Kipnis stated that the building is under contract. both floors would be used for mortgage banking by Clybom Financial N Kipnis stated that the second floor is under 1.000 sq.ft and will not cover the entire footprint of the first floor N Kipnis stated that the approximately 1 foot 4 inch overhang is designed to reflect the approximately 30 inch overhang of the building immediately to the west of the subject property. N. Kipnis stated that the north side of the second story is flush with the first floor, the juliette doors will include a false balcony J Tonkinson stated that the parking area must be hard -surfaced and drained. the applicant will require a permit from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, A. Alterson asked the applicants will the mansard be removed? N_ Kipnis responded_ yes. N Kipnis stated that the lot is only 20 feet wide; with this constraint, they cannot meet the setback requirements for the required parking spaces. A Alterson stated that the applicant will require a variation from the Zoning Board of Appeals N Kipnis asked the Committee: can the owner increase the floor area up to 3,000 sq ft. before he would have to provide a third parking space? A Alterson responded: yes. C Smith stated that the location for rubbish should not be within the path of egress. J. Tonkinson stated that the location for rubbish could be on the other side of the property. C Smith stated that the applicant should provide some device to ensure the dumpster stays in its designated location. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aDQrpved the motion (0-0) to grant preliminary site plan and appegrano w ;apgroca 1. The site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Commdtee folder for this case (98-0073). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 17. 1999 a Page 4 of 7 The site plan, elevation slat of survey anc detail regarding area tcwer heigms have been ! t it w+t"'nri the Site Plan and Appearance Review Comrrrtee folder for this case .�a8-012& SPAARC 99-015 600 Emerson Street Preliminary and Final lnstalf landscaped plaza at Scott Hall (Ncrhwestern University). Ms Claire Kettlecampe (Doug Hoerr Ass, ^.a'es) and M- Lon 11W­i-iris (No"* %tlsl^ n I)n!%em.r, ' prs-e -nt-,l working arawings, a renoenng a site priGM-grapn. ano a plat of survey for a landscaped plaza at Scan Hall (Northwestern University) -300 Emerson Street Ms Ann Ziegelmaier (Northwestem University) was available to answer questions C. Kettlecampe stated that. 1 they would like to replace the stone containers along Shendan Road with 2 planting beds. saw -cut into the concrete 2 they would like to replace the existing hedge at the southwest corner of Emerson Street and Sheridan Road with a landscaped plaza, including an i 8-inch high masonry seat wall. The masonry will match the masonry of the budding. 3 3 existing trees will remain, and 1 existing tree will be removed and replaced 4 that they will relocate the existing b+cycle rack. 5 the plans will not obstruct sight lines M. Mylott asked the applicants: are you proposing any changes to the building? L. Wriliams responded: no. P. D'Agostino stated that the plans also depict removing a tree from the parkway. P. D'Agosbno asked the applicants: how big is the parkway tree to be removed? C Kettlecampe responded'. approximately 18 inches diameter C. Kettlecampe stated that the tree is a Norway Maple; approximately % of it is dead, and she is concemed it will fall, M. Mylott asked P. D'Agostino would you like the applicants to provide a new parkway tree within the closest new plating bed? P D'Agostino responded- no C. Smith asked K. Kelly: does this proposal impact the area hydrant'? K. Kelly responded no J Tonkinson stated that the applicants will require landscape, State, and City permits. J. Tonkinson asked the applicants, will the landscaping be imgated? L. Williams responded: yes. J. Tonkinson stated that irrigation will require an additional permit C. Smith asked the applicants: are you proposing lighting? L Williams responded: no; the area is illuminated by City street lights and 2 lights on the building. R. Walczak stated that he liked the plan, but he would like some assurances that the area lighting is adequate. C Smith stated that the applicants could install bollard lights or wall -mounted lights C Kettlecampe stated that they will revisit lighting. L. Williams stated that their budget is somewhat limited, because the money for this project is a gift to Northwestern University C. Smith stated that the plans could be modified such that adding lighting is feasible, should the existing lighting prove inadequate. SUMMARY OF FPS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CCMMrrTEE Fe"blmy 17, t9" Page 3 of 7 Crandall stated that —,.e requested height has nothing to do with the heiV: ct .ampetitcr`= tacilites M Crandall stated that requested height relates to the height of, and aistarize w other facilities >o nin the network. a facility that is too high can be as bad as a facility that is tcc shcr! \t Crandall sued —,a-, any company will seek to =ear the existing tree cover to Take a good conrecticr ire ',eight to actJmvlis.' such an objective in this area �s between IC-0 and 130 feet A Alterson s:ate-a :na: according :*_ the Federal Communications Car-ussion (FCC, ne believes tr:at the City cannot 'imit t~e neigh1 of a `ac.0c y crz-vided the applicant proves tra: the height os required M Crandall stated trat if :he Committee rwas to trait the height of the monopole to 100 feet. Cellular One would have to study whether tr,e ccst of anew -nonopcae was worth the improvement to service A Alterson stated that he doubts that the visual impact between a 100- and 120-foot monconle vrcuid be noticeable, however he would like to see the applicant coninbute something to the area to comet the visual impact to the area A Alterson stated that. while he is open to suggestions from the applicant be is roping that the contribution will be in the form of landscaping and/or other physical amenities to tmprc�, = the Oakton Street parkway and/or an area park A Alterson stated that Cellular One could work wicn the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Department to devise such a contribution M Crandall stated that Cellular One would prefer to contribute a specific dollar amount; the City could apply that money toward whatever such program they thought Cesirable J Wolinski stated that an appropriate amount could be based cn 100 dollars for every foot in height above 70 feet high M Crandall stated that Cellular One wants to be a gcod corporate neighbor; monetary cormbutions in similar situations have been approximately 5 000 dollars J Aiello stated that 10.000 dollars may tie more appropriate C Smith stated that she believes that Cellular Ore has met the Committee's concerns regarding aesthetics by converting the facility from a lattice tower to a monopole J. Tonkinson agreed. A. Alterson stated that he appreciates Cellular One s willingness to replace the Lattice tower with the monopole however, the applicant is seeking an additional 20 feet of height beyorr_ the onginal Committee consideration J Tonkinson asked lit Crandall. have you sought the opinion of Commonwealth Edison'? 11A Crandall responded: no J Tonkinson stated that Cellular One should present this proposal to Commonwealth Edison, because, while the tower is not within the Commonwealth Edison easement, it is close to .the wires. M. Crandall stated that Cellular One has researched FCC and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. J Tonkinson asked M Crandall: how wide is the monopole? M. Crandall responded. approxin-ately 3 feet diameter at the base, tapering to approximately 1 % feet diameter at the top. J Tonkinson asked M Crandall, what color is the monopole'? M Crandall responded: the nonopole is galvanized steel, but it can be painted to whatever color the City requests. M Crandall shed that the galvanized steel will not rust, but the paint may peel. A. Alterson stated that he prefers an unpainted galvanized steel monopole. C Smith and J. Tonkinson agreed M. Crandall asked the Committee: what is the maximum permitted height of fence surrounding the facility, seeing that the height of the existing fence is 10 feet? M. Mylott responded. any sections =1 you are replacing may be 10 feet high; however, any new sections of fence may only be 8 feet high. C. Smith asked M. Crandall. are you proposing changing the equipment shed? M. Crandall responded. no. A. Alterson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval c` a 120-foot monopole, subject to a one-time contribution of 10,000 dollars to the City of Evanston. J. Wolinsu seconded the motion. QommittC2 aaoroved the motion (8-21 to avant oreliminary and final site clan and a pearanre review apprQval of a 120-foot monopole. subiect to a one-time cantribution of 1Q O dollars to the Citv ni Evan5ton SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PUN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 17. 1999 Page 2 of 7 k SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 17, 1999 Room 2404 Members Present: J Aiello, A. Alterson, K. Kelly. P. D'Agostino. D. Main, k! IkA-dott. C !z—ith i Tn► kinson R Walc7-:?. ,1 V,ollnskl. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Stan Present: Commencement J. Glus, D. Jennings. H Friedman. B. Fahlstrom. S. Lufkin, L Lyon, M. Robinson. R. Schur. M Mylott stated that t)e wilt be srti4 Ps the�oning Administrator in the absence of A Alterson C Srr1dll (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3-05 p m SPAARC 98-0126 40946 Oakton Street Preliminary and Final Replace 70-1oot wrre)ess communication tower with 120-foot monopole (Cellular One) Mr Mike Crandall presented a site plan elevation, plat of survey, and detail regarding area tower heights to replace a 70-foot wireless communication facility lattice tower (Cellular One) with a 120-foot wireless communication facrlrry monopole at 2245 Oaxton Street M Crandall stated C1at Cellular One would like to construct a 120-fact wireless communication facility monopole, following is construction. Cellular One would take down the existing 70-foot lattice tower M Crandall stated that Cellular One presented a proposal to increase the height of the existing lattice tower by 30 feet; the Committee denied that concept. but indicated a general support for a monopole M Crandall stated that the monopole will resemble the existing monopole north of the subject property, only approximately 15 feet higher (see "Tower Height Detail', Lot 2 within the Zera Subdivision No. 3), M Mylott asked M. Crandall. why are you now seeking an extra 20 feet of height? M. Crandall responded. an additional 30 feet to the existing tower was within design specifications: however, if an entirely new structure is to be consj-acted, 120 feet is ideal M Mylott asked M Crandall what is the lowest height Cellular One could accept? 11.11 Crandall responded as close to 120 feet as possible C. Smith stated that she is concerned that the wireless communication providers will begin a 'game of escalating heights" — that the next applicant will seek 130 to 150 feet to *out do' Cellular One. H. Friedman stated that the City should adopt a policy regarding the maximum height of wireless communication facilities. C Smith stated that she would like to set a cap at approximately the existing height of area wireless communication facilities — 100 feet. M. SUMMARY of FINDWGs SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWAnrTEE February 17, 1999 Page 1 of 7 x SPAARC 99-019 Conference Consider apprcac!-es to minimize regional adverse ur. pacts 31fnr:uAed Ni wouless cc.~xnunicato`n fac;lities. P D Agostino motcred to table this item R Watc--ak seconded the noton Commttez sjgoroyN the motion (6-0 to table this gram SPAARC 99-020 Communication Photocopy of newspaper article. 'North Bamngton Cellular tower )�-s to lover assessm. ents- Chicago Tribune February 21, 1999 M. Mylott stated that he would like to thank L. Lyon for providing this article to the Commttee Approval of Summary of Findings H Friedman motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of February 17, 1999; R. Walczak seconded the motion. Discussion M Mylott stated that C Ruiz attended the February 17, 1999 meeting. H Fnedman amenCFd his motion as such. approve the Summary of Findings of February 17 1999. provided C. Rutz is added to use list of "Other Staff Present' R Walczak amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee aoaroved the motion 16-0110 aanrc%+e t!w- Sumnary of Firtdm�gf February 17. 1999. QMvided C Ruiz is added to the list of 'Other Staff Prey Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. R*fpectfully submit• ! ii ' YV�RJ 1 Marc Steven Mylott. Zon' g canner SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 6 1999 C Page 6 of 8 March 5, 1990 Date KA vehicle cannot be raised r.,gh ercugh within the existng bays sucr vrae an employee car, stand underneath -t to work C Smith asked the aprlicant5 what is the slatted mataral a the center of the southern facadel) * Berger responded cedar siC:rg M Berger state± that he wect: cilia: to remove the cedar sliding M Berger stated that the proposed fighting fixtures -rill match the scst rig fixtures C Smith stated that tie croposed sgnage may exceed the maxirr�_m c+ermitted height. rcwever, sigrlage is reviewed under a separate perrmt A Alterson motioned to grant prefiminary site plan and appearance -evie& approval P D Agostino seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion f5-1> to grant orel:r-+:nairy site clan and appearance review approval The revised site plan w!th parking layout has been claced withrr+ the Site Plan and Appearance Revi&hr Committee folder for this case (98-0121) SPAARC 98-0114 2520 Gross Point Road Preliminary and Final Plat of consolidation. relating to proposal to reconfigure existing and construct new parking spaces and gazebo on property to south for Alden Estates Applicant canceled appearance SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Preliminary and Final Plat of subdivision. relating to proposal for Church Street Plaza (Research Park Urban Entertainment Complex). M Mylott presented the proposed plat of subdivision for Church Street Plaza H Friedman stated that the lot numbers on the proposed plat are different than the parcel numbers used within the Research Park Master Plan even though they refer to the sarre land. M. Mylott stated that the lot numbers on the proposed plat are for recording purposes and are rcr meant to supersede designations o*eviously established m to-.Resnar-:h Park Master Pan even if Vt nu-ihers attrihided to different'parcels cnanqu, the puuCles aaop,ro ana aMenoea tram time to time for the ur-derfying land wows not cnange. C Smith stated that J Tonkinson stated that he would like to review tie proposed plat of subdivision pnor to signatures. C Smith asked M Mylott why is lot 5 oddly shaped? M Mylott respondec the extra -triangle' accommodates the driveway from the north side of the parking garage to University Place, this parcel conforms to the stipulations outlined in the land swap agreement with Northwestern Unr.ersity M Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the plat of subdivision R Walczak seconded the motion Qommttge approved r-,a motion iF-DI to orant oreliminary and final site clan and appearance review approval The proposed plat of subdivision has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (97-0065) su161MARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN ASiD APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM TTEE February 24. 1999 Page 5 of 6 E7 SPAARC 98-0130 425 Dempster Street Revision tc Final Pcof--top air- cnd+troner condenser for 4th floor remodeling of educabonat rnstrtution {Chraravalle Mortsa_-sson Scnooll Mr Errol Jay Kirsch (architect) presented a site ptan. first floor Dean. west elevation. and site photograoh to locate an air -conditioner condenser on the roof of an educationai rnsvWWn (Chlaravalre Montessan ScMDA at 4'25 Dempster Street E J Kirsch stated that he nas de-_ zed to locate the air conditioner condenser on the ground. in the cerrrrer of L of the builoing E J Kirsch stared that the condenser will be surrcundec cy landscaping the iandscaoing will be as dense as possible. N1 hlylott stated that the Committee can review the specrfxs of the landscaoing during the phase 2 review E J Kirsch stated that all piping 'cr the condenser will be located wr-nin :ire budding. except the honzc+ntal piping from tt a unit to the nearest wall. E J Kirsch asked the Committee for security purposes could I ,nstail a decorative fence behind, and t:eilow the neight of tie landscaping? R Walczak resperded yes J Tonkinson motioned to approve the revision to the final approval P O*Agostino seconded the rr con. Committee aaoroved the motion 16-0) to aoprove the revision to the f:--nal approva1. The site plan first floor plan west elevation, and site photograpn have bee- placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee fcIder for this case (98-0130). SPAARC 98-0129 2421 Dempster Street Preliminary Revise parking area accessory to proposed f -story addition at auto repair facility (Evanston Tire and Atoo Service) Mr Ali Sajadi ; architect) presented a revised site plan with parking layout for a 1-story addition to the auto repair facility (Evanston Tire and Auto Service), located at 2421 Dempster Street. Mr. Mike Berger (owner) was available to answer questions 5�rau� ,iaizu aI the parking conngurauon has uNen reviseo sucn tnas the parking spaces meet trite ocation requirements A Alterson stated that the applicant is seeking a variation to reduce the nunioer of required parking spaces from 14 to 7. he anticipates that the Zoning Board of Appeals will discuss the difference between the number of regulatory parking spaces versus hoar the site is used. C Smith stated that the owner must provide an accessible route from the accessible parking space to an accessible entrance to the building. C. Smith stated that access to an accessrble parking space, and the Pam `~om it to the entrance to the building, must remain clear at all times C Smith stated that the City sidewalk may be used as part of the accessible path C. Smith stated that the applicant may vnsh to switch V*e a .cessrble parking space with parking space numbers 6 and 7 C. Smith stated that appeals of access:bdcy orovisrons are made to the State Capital Development Board, she can see no real reason why the State vrcKW grant such an appeal A Saladi stated that the exterior materials of the addition will match the existing materials. only the addrbw will be slightly higher M Berger stated that additional height is necessary. because a van or sport unir:y SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 24. 1999 00.4 Pape 4 of 6 SPAARC 99-018 1326-1328 Greenleaf Street Preliminary and Final Replace rear deck for and remodel intenor of easte,^ urn: on secerr(t `odor of nl(%Nt1-i1_" to lying Ms Anne Nteriolson Wilson and fvtr Kent hta""a,er i a'zn;tecti DresenteC worrcng dra4%ings s ^Cvoing elevations and a plat of survey, and site pr-,ctogract-s to replace the rear deck ", r and remodet the Interior of the eastern dwelling unit a tie second floor of tie mixed -use building at 132i�--1329 Greenleaf Stre*! A N 'AL'Iscn bic',ed that trey d'= ar: ex _t:ng d* c♦ anc. ,tstakin• -; .3'9c,• deck and a se-z-ond chimney J Tonkinson motioned to grant creliminary anct final sae plan and appearance revTew approval P D'Agestino seconded the motion Cornrr.-tee aoorovei the r^-.' on (6-0) to orant oreliminary and final site plan Ang appearance review aooroval The plat of survey. rear elevat -,n and sire phat--graphs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee `cider for this case 99-018) SPAARC 97-0002 1834-1840 Ridge Avenue Revision to Final Install exhaust vents on front and rear elevations (co^dominiums) Mr Jaynes Kobeck (developer) Mr Gary Poter (developer), and Mr Ed Noonan (architect) presented elevations building material sarr ctes and site and rrcdel photographs to Install exhaust vents on the Front and rear elevations of the buildir9 at 1834-1840 Ridge Avenue E Noonan stated that the revis,cns are necessary to exhaust the garage. E, Noonan stated that they would like to install an exhaust pipe cn the alley elevation a make-up au intake louvre on the Ridge Avenue eievaoon, and a garage unit -heater flue out the roof along Ridge Avenue E, Noonan stated that they will paint the pipe and flue to match the existing brick as close as possible E Noonan stated that the color of the pre - finished louvre will match the color of the existing brick as close as possible H Fnedman asked the applicants are chimneys necessary E Noonan responded yes, according to our engineer C Smith stated that s^e believed the engineering is accurate E Noonan stated that the exhaust dice alone t� p r r apn'7v ^ �•�',. ^.r� foFt rr n : �r lit l nn C Smith stated that she would prefer a perforated cap on the exhaust pipe, rather than a "mushroom` cap E Noonan stated that he will took at alternatives C Smith stated that she would prefer a prefrnished pipe and flue, matching the prefinished metal of the penthouse, rather than painted metal, to avoid long-term maintenance issues E Noonan stated that prefin+shed pipes and flues are not available M. Mylott stated that the pipe and flue should remain unpainted. allowing the condominium association to decide if they would like to paint the pipe and flue and assume their maintenance, or leave them unfinished J Tonkinson agreed M Mylott motioned to approve the revision to the final approval. subject to review and approval of the exhaust pipe cap by C Smith J Tonkinson seconded the motion Committee approved the motion t6-01 to apt the revision to the final aooroval subject to review and aooroval of the exhaust Dine cao by C Smith The elevations and site and model photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (97-0002) SUMMARY OF FiNOINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE aFebruary 24. IM Page 3 of 6 W Eckenhoff stated t*a- - e •ccf is a white EPWA membrane H Friedman asked 141 E_kenrcf' will a pedestrian along Emersc,7 Street be aware of the curvature of the roof? W. Eckenncff ^esporced the perception will be minirra' W E:kenhoff slated t<zat they are using dark colors at the eda-e of t.-e r;W to 'accentuate the reveals : Sr-- stated that a Migher pitch to the rcof would ac=mplrsh tr.e oC3ac'.ve H Friedman agreed H F =:mar stated mat a wider cornice man alternative C Smith agreed C Sr-iith stated that the cornice tc ce larger and mcre elaborate W Eckenhoff stated that -e cr.-^;c& is a standard piece W EcK_-heff stated that lie w,l; strengt)ien the cornice by adding ancner rsn at the limestone color block H Friedman stated that -2 rrou:c like the erd ccic-s (red and greens to extend to the top of .he rccfs W Eckenhoff stated that he s : o nIcnable with V)at c.`i-ange W Eckenhoff stated that "e of the gutters aro downspcuts will match the aluminum cf the v. "dalms C Smith stated that the a - ;ond;t.cner condensers a:pear higrer than the screen wall 14V Ec.Aenh_'.f stud that they will ensure that cre screen walls are the same height as the air conditioner condertsers- S Kardel stated that coteled b;cycie accommodat)ons (shed` will depend upon the tenant W Eckereitioff stated that. at a minlmun- tney v 'I provide a bicycle rack W Eckenhoff staled that efuse s located behind 5-foot grourc-face block walls including an ofnamental steel hinged gate the blccK :s the same color as me base of tie building H Friedman asked the a, -::' cants s the proposed setback along Emerson Street ;n line wits �ne b;. 'ding at 1890Ams=oQ Street? Vi Eckennoff responded they are almost identical L Glasscock stated the lardscaprng will include Maple Avenue street trees. foundation plant:rgs. clantings at the entrance. ivy on tie back wall. and screening for the transformers L Glasscock stated that Me screening provides clearance for Commonwealth Edison P. D Agostino stated that the street tees are shown in concrete L Glasscock stated that the street trees well be within the grassed portion of the right-of-way M Mylott asked the applicants is the fence shown existing S Kardel responded yes W Eckenhoff stated that he will forward the photorrelric plan to J Tonkinson for review and approval J Tonkinson provided W Eckenhoff with his plan review comments W. Eckenhoff stated that they need to revise the location of the original curb cut. because of an existing, at - grade. Commonwealth Edison power source for rrregation, street lights, and proposed traffic signals D. Marino motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of the photometric plan by the Cary Engineer M Mylott seconded the motion Committee annrnv motion (6-1) to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. subject to review and ar royal Eft photometric plan by the City Enarneer SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 24, 1999 Page 2 of 6 x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 24, '1999 Room 2404 Members Present: A Alterson, P. D Agostino. D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. SrTiilh, J. Tonkinson. R. Walczak. J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello. J. Glus, D. Jennings. K. Kelly, H Friedman. L. Lyon, M. Robinson. C. Ruiz, R. Schur, S. Won, C. Wonders. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the rreedng at 3 05 p m SPAARC 98-0087 1880 Oak Avenue Final Construct 3-story office building on Parcel 1 6v;thin the Research Park (Scnbcor Real Estate Services). Mr. Walt Eckenhoff (architect) and Mr. Larry Glasscock (landscape architect) presented working drawings (including a landscape plan), a color perspective. and material samples to construct a 3-story office building for Scnbcor Real Estate Services on Parcel 1 w.Min the Research Park. 1860 Oak Street Mr Stephen Kardel (Scr+bcor) was available to answer questions W Eckenhoff stated that the information presented to the Cornmatee Is the same as that submitted with the W Eckenhoff stated that the building materTV is Tread Stone Ground Face Masonry Units the colors are -colonial red-. -hampton green', "dover grey', and "sandstone'. C SrrNth asked W Eckenhoff, will the material have a sealant' W Eckenhoff responded yes W. Eckenhoff stated that the sealant Is not a graffiti protectant, but It will help with removal if necessary W. Eckenhoff stated that the windows are grey -tinted glass in 'goldfish bronze" alumuiunZ the glass planes will be broken on the outside with authentic muttons. C. Smith asked W. Eckenhoff' catty not use a dear glass? W Eckenhoff stated that the grey -tinted gtass reduces heat gain and glare and provides some ultra- violet light protection C Smith stated that she prefers clear glass because it is more +n keeping with the traditional appearance W Eckenhoff stated that the grey -tinted glass also minimizes t^e appearance of possible inconsistent use of interior window treatments C. Smith asked W Eckenhoff. are the windows recessed? W Eckenhoff responded- yes suN11114ARY OF FINDL% iS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIYWITTEE aFebruary 24, 1M Page 1 of 6 Approval of Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of February 24, 1999. H Fredm4n seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that the reference to'1890 Emerson Street' appeanng on page 2 should be 1890 Maple Avenue'. C. Smith amended the motion as such: approve the Summary of Findings of February 24, 1999, crtangrr,g the reference to ' 1890 Emerson Street' appearing on page 2 to ' 1890 Maple Avenue', H Fnedman amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motion (8`O) to aphrove the 51MIpary of Findings of February 24. 1999_ ghanoina the reference to '189Urrerson Street` afloeanng on page 2 to'1890 Maple Avenue'. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4,55 p.m, s ctfully submi Marc Steven Mylott. Zo ng lanner 94P March 17, 9ng Date SUMMARY OF FIND04GS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 10. Im Pape 7 of 7 DRAFT NOT APPROVED MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD THURSDAY, DECEIIBER S,1999 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Larson, J. Weiss, L Berkun MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Thomas (additionally, one position on Board is vacant) STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith OTHERS PRESENT. Virginia Campione of Vincent Sign Co. for Osco Drug, Bill Smith for Great Bank, James T. Murray and Carol Cooney for The Cos Building, and Buzz Kaehler of Kaehler Inc. OTHER BUSINESS: None. MINUTES Chairman Larson declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:33 p.m. L Berkun motioned to approve the meeting minutes of the November 11, 1999 meeting, seconded by J. Weiss. The meeting minutes of the November 11, 1999 were approved, 3-0. CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. Gordon McGrew of 2505 Ridge Ave. was present to review the proposed variation procedure for 99-18 for the Cos Building at 25W Ridge Ave. NEW BUSINESS S.R.A.B. # 99-15: Osco Drun. 430 Asbury Virginia Campione of Vincent Sign Co. representing Osco Drug explains the request for variation is for the mounting height for the wall signs. Ms. Campione illustrated, with a submitted drawing, it her client was required to comply with the City Ordinance, the signage would look out of proportion with the building. J. Weiss stated that he is in agreement with the proposed mounting height of the signage, with one exception. That exception is the wall sign on the north elevation that says 'Food Mart — 1-hour Photo", which should be mounted at 16-6" to the top. The rest of the Board agreed, stating that this would look better on that elevation, than up any higher. J. Weiss then motioned to carant approval of the Dronosal, continaent upon the north facing alien "Food Mart —I -hour Dhoto scan be mounted such that Is at 15'-6" at the toD. AN. Larson seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved. 3-0. Subsequent to the motion. J. Weiss questioned the height and location of the proposed free standing monument sign at the comer of Oakton and Asbury. Ms. Campione clarified that what is proposed is a box sign that sits on top of the stone base that has already been installed. C. Smith then stated that this was not clear in the permit application submitted, and informed Mr. Campione that this would not be allowed within the Sign Review and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes —December 9, 1999 Page 2 of 3 ordinance. A discussion then ensued regarding the options available. The discussion centered on the new Jewel/Osco sign in Wilmette. The sign for that store, it was stated, is an attractive ground lit sign with metal letters incised in the stone. The board felt that this type of signage, or metal letters that would 'float on the existing stone base would match the subtly of the building Oesign. J. Weiss then motioned to deny the nr000sed monument s;cri (shown on the drawings subff*W for variation dated 11/10199). This motion was seconded by L. Berkun. and oassed unanimousty 3-0. S.R.A.B. # 99-16: Mindscaoe Adornments. 2114 Central Ave. No one was present to present this proposal S.R.A.B. # 99-17: Chicano and Main L.C.C.. 905 Chicaclo Ave. Mr. Bill Smith presented his proposal for two temporary real estate signs for the proposed construction. J. Weiss asked what the schedule for this project is, particularly the ground breaking. Mr. Smith replied that he thought possibly as earty as the end of February. Chairman Larson suggested that the Board review the issue of items of information. The main focus of the sign is the rendering, with the phone number and address information, which is already down to the basics. J. Weiss suited that he thought this appropriate. A discussion then took place regarding the length of time that the signage would be up, and when it would need to be moved to accommodate the construction. C. SnvM added that sidewalk protection would need to be provided once the building superstructure began to be erected. During the foundation construction, the only required site protection is a chain link fence. J. Weiss motions the aaaroval of the slans as submitted for a time cerlod beginnina now through a 24 month period. Should a hermit not her secured by the end of February_ 2Q00, the sianape must be removed. L. l3erkun seconds this motion. and it was passed 3-0. S.R.A.B. # 99-18: The Cos Buildina. 2500 Ridge Ave. Mr. Murray, representing the Cos Building, presented the proposal for a freestanding sign. The parking lot and driveways were reconfigured as a part of a PUD in 1997 As a part of the requirement, a landscaped berm was mandated As a direct result, the building is not as visible. Even if it were visible, the design of the building does not lend itself to any building signage. Mr. Murray confirmed for Mr. Gordon McGee. a neighbor that was present, that the signage would be non -illuminated The Board questioned if Mr. McGee knew if the neighbors had any problems with the proposal Mr McGee responded that he did not wish to represent the neighbors M. Larson motions the aaaroval of the scan. J. Weiss seconded this motion. and It was passed 3-0. S.R.A.B. # 99-19: Kaehler Luaaaae. 1724 Sherman Ave. Mr. Kaehler presented the proposed signage. He explained that in reviewing this proposal with a representative of the City, they were told that the sign would be allowed within the Code, and proceeded to have their sign company develop drawings for the sign. When they submitted 4 for the actual permit, it was Sign Review and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes —December 9, 1999 Page 3 of 3 denied. This cost them 3-4 weeks of wasted time. The advantage of this proposal, stated Mr. Kaehler, is that their logo will be displayed. If they would be required to stay within the band of the wasting building protection, as Starbucks has done, this would not be possible. C. Smith gave some history on the Starbucks sign stating that the City allowed the sign as a'wall sign' as long as it did not project above the top of the canopy. C. Smith continued by noting that the existing architecture makes the application of the Ordinance particularly difficult_ J. Weiss said that although he can empathize, he could not support any signage that projected above the line of the existing projection. He continued that there is already a large marketing advantage inherent in being located out that far. Chairman Larson questioned if the sign could be rearranged such that 'Kaehler Travetworks' could be horizontal, although using the same typeface and color? Mr Kaehler responded that this would not give them the recognition that they are looking for, that they have registered as a trademark_ Chairman Larson commented that this is a horrible looking canopy to begin with, and squeezing a sign on might not be the right thing to do. J. Weiss responded that he is not inclined to support any motion that would vary from the type of sign that Starbucks has. Some discussion ensued involving different color combinations and graphic representations. Mr. Kaehler stated that anything other than their registered trademark puts them at a disadvantage L. Berkun commented that she could appreciate how important it rs for a retailer to have a definitive identity. Chairman Larson stated that it is unfair to penalize them, as there are many signs on this elevation already. J Weiss responded that he thinks that the sign format could in fact vary from the print format, and that he strongly feels that the sign should not project from the top of the existing building projection. L. Berkun motions to aoprove the proposal as submitted. Chairman Larson seconds, and the motion is not approved by a 2-1 vote. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no other business. Chairman Larson motioned adjoumment at 8: 50 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is for Thursday. January 13. 20M. Carolyn Smith Assistant Director Community Development - Building Division cc: J. Wolinski K. Mims DRAFT NOT APPROVED NNUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD TH X SOAY. MOVE203ER 11. It" EVANSTON CHIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Larson. C. Thomas, J. Weiss. L Berkun MEMBERS ABSENT: Non* (one position on Board is vacant) STAFF PRESENT: C. Sni" OTHERS PRESENT: Tun Croke — Cokiwell Banker, Dave Monahan — AC American Sign Company representing Cokiwett Banker. James Murray representing Allegreth Rug Masters. Mark Allegreth — Allegretti Rug Masters OTHER BUSINESS: None. MINUTES Chairman Larson declared a quorum and opened the meebng at T30 p.m. J. Nlfeiss motioned to approve the meeting minutes of the October 14. 1W9 meeting, seconded by C Thomas. The misting minutes of the October 14, 11999 were approved. 4-0. CITIZEN COMMENT No citizens were present for comment_ NEW BUSINESS S.R.A.B. 0 99-13: Coldwell Banker, 2929 Central Street Mr. Tim Croke of Cotdwell Banker and Mr Dave Monahan of All American Sign Company presented the proposal to reface an existing freestanding sign, which is at the corner of the parking lot for Cotdwell Banker at Central and Central Park. Mr. Croke explained to the Board that currently, Caldwell Banker has no way to designate their parking lot, which they share with the First Bank and Trust of Evanston. The bank, he continued, has a freestanding sign that leads many people to believe that the entire parking lot is for bank parking. He presented a color version of his sign proposal, which indicates white letters on a blue background, in the existing sign, box, which is currently blank J. Weiss asks if Cokfwell Banker restricts parking by bank customers, or visa versa? Mr. Croke stated a curb divides the 2 lots. There is one sign, so it is confusing. The Cotdwell Banker lot is at the canner. Without signage, many of the shoppers on Central Street use the lot_ Chairman Larson commented that the primary goal for this signage appears to be identity of the parking area, although the size of the'Coldwell Banker" logo is larger than 'customer parting`. This makes due sign appear to be more of an advertisement for Cotdwell Banker. L. Berkun stated that she agrees with M. Larson, and would suggest that if approved, the lettering of the words "customer parking` must be larger to accomplish the stated goal. Sign Review and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes — November 11, 1999 Page 2 of A C. Thomas at this point gives a brief history of this lot; first Glidden Paint and Cyrus, then First Bank and Trust of Evanston, now Coldwell Banker. They have all been before the Board over the last 2 years regarding signage for this lot. C. Thomas continued by stating his position that the Board had approved the Bar* for signage, and now, he would not feel justified in denying this proposal for a similar situation J. Weiss commented that the existing sign pole is to close to the drives and to close to the property line. Also, no matter what this Board decides, it will still be a non conforming sKjn that would have to conform or be removed by 1/1/2003. The applicant then suggested that the Board grant approval to their request, provided that they would then begin to work with the bank towards a proposal of one sign by i/112003. C. Thomas then motioned to grant approval, contingent upon Caldwell Banker Propvsing a slgn in collaboration with the First Bank and Trust of Evanston that will be in conformance by 111rAW. J. Weiss seconded. and the motion was unanimoustv aimroved, 4-0. S.R.A.B. 0 99.14: Allegretto Run. 815 Lake Mr. Jaynes (Jim) Murray and Mr. Mark Allegretb presented their proposal Mr. Murray apologized for his alert repainting the existing signs without permits Mr. Murray expressed to the Board that he is not in agreement with the City's interpretation that the east facing sign is a sign that is not allowed within the context of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Murray continued by showing the Board members a copy of the City's Zoning map, where the roadway that abuts the east property line of the subject property is indicated as 'Sherman Avenue'. On the survey that was submitted with the variation request, this roadway is indicated as 'Railroad Avenue', on both cases, this is indicated as a street, not an alley. As such, the signage would be allowed by right, without variation to allow such signage. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Murray is correct, and that the east facing signage may be permitted by right, without need of a variation as it does face a 'public thoroughfare'. Mr Murray then went on to discuss the unique location of this business. with the viaduct to the east, and a Cny pumping station without a visible address to the north. Their main opportunity for identity for retail customers is the west wall. Mr. Alleg►etb stated that he had contacted the residential property owner to the west, and the property owner stated that'... not only did they not mind the location of the signage, they were happy to have it illuminated, as it created a more secure environment for them and their farruty.' J. Weiss questioned why the north facing sign is just above the door, ar4 not between the coping and soldier course of brick? Mr. Allegretti stated that this is for security reasons as there is a transom lust above time door, and the sign affords a more secure entryway C. Thomas asked what type of business is Allegreth Rug Masters? Mr Atlegretti responded that they dean and sell rugs from this location. Mr. Murray commented that it is a destination business. Many of their customers had difficulty finding this building. Mr. Allegretti stated that since that repainted the signs, their business has increased substantially. C. Thomas asked if the applicant would consider moving the north fang sign up to the cornice level? Mr. Murray stated that this wouldn't solve the problem with this sign, which are too many items of information. C. Sign Review and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes - November 11, 1999 Page 3 of 4 Thomas responded that this would make the sign and the building look better. L Berkun added that d world also help make the signage more visible. Mr. Allegretti stated that this would be fine with him. He is interesad in rehabbing this building, but it is costly and he has to wait awhile. J. Weiss stated that he has a big problem with the west facing sign, and has a suggestion that would be cost effective. He suggested that Mr. Allegretti rek=te his west sign to the north of the budding, replacing the non conforming sign that is there. This, he stated, would solve both code problems. Mr. Allegretti that the west sign is crucial to his business and his identity. He continued that they have trued to create a presence in the area, which is has been fraught with graffiti problems, litter problems and safety issues. He has had his employees go out to pick up trash from the right of ways, including the railroad tracks and the City's pumping station. He paints his garage door every other week all year long because of graft problems. In an area where buildings are being tom down and replaced with large Condominium buildings, he would like to stay. L. Berkun questioned Mr. Allegretti about his building design plans, and she inquired if the new building design could incorporate appropriate locations for signage, as they had been discussing. Mr. Allegretti responded that he would take all of this into consideration with his renovation, except the renovation work might not be happening to quickly. J. Weiss asked Mr. Allegretti if the new work would include windows along the Lake Street facade. L. Berkun added that when she had previously visited the store, she had felt uncertain if she should enter the building at all, as the building has an awkward retail presence. Mr. Allegretti responded that this was his plan. Chairman Larson concurred with J. Weiss. He stated that while he likes the red background and the identity that it creates, the problem is centered on the fact that it faces a residential property. C. Thomas suggested at this point that the north facing sign should be moved up, and have the same red background, then move the west sign up to the same height. This would give the building in 3 dimensions something that works together. A more unified identity. This would give Mr. Allegretti an incentive to work on the north sign more than he is otherwise obligated to do. L. Berkun stated that as a merchant, she could support the applicants' need to have the west facing sign. C. Thomas motions the north facino elan should be moved uo. and have the same red background,. and wording as the west elan. and move the west elan uo to the same helaht. L Berkun seconds this motion. The motion is unsurrmmful. with a vote of 2-2. (This motion was subs_ eauently revised to be annroved by a vote of 3-1. See comments below.) J. Weiss then motions to move the west facing sign to the north elevation, and eliminate the existing north facing signage. This motion is politely challenged by Mr. Murray as exceeding the Boards authority, as what happens to the north sign Is not dictated, except as required In the Ordinance, which Is an "Items of Information" Issue only. C. Thomas states that although he could support the motion of J. Weiss, he agrees with Mr. Murray regarding the authority of the Board. Chairman Larson comments that with the suggestion of C. Thomas, the tops of the signs would still not be aligned, as the east parapet is lower. Sign Review and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes — November 11, 1999 Page 4 of 4 After some discussion, J. Wei" announced that he wound revise his vote on the original motion, such that the motion passed, 34. Off Agenda Item: Millennium Siansae for Downtown Evanston At the request of the City Manager, C. Smith asked that the Board consider an 'Off Agenda Item'. Chakman Larson accepted this request. C. Smith proceeded with distributing a memo and phokxriontage of a proposal from Ira Golan and Evmark to install a 10W SF sign on the north face of the Fountain Square Building to announce the coming calendar change. The following highlights the discussion. L. Berkun stated that she liked the concept, but the graphics appear weak. She added that the idea is one of celebration, and yet the graphics appear static, and the point unclear. J. Weiss commented that he agrees that the graphics do not represent the concept well, and that a professional graphic designer should be engaged. It's proposed prominent location in the City mandate a dynamic and professional graphic. This representation falls short. Chairman Larson added that many towns seem to be doing things such as this, but he is unclear of the message. What is the benefit to the community? What are they trying to communicate? C. Thomas stated that this does not bring people to the downtown, and also questioned the benefit Chairman Larson agreed to author a letter to the City Manager in response to his request of the Board. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no other business, Chairman Larson motioned adjournment at 9:15 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the S.R.AB. is for Thursday, December 9, 1999. Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director Community Development - Building Division cc: J. Wolinski K. Mims j �. DRAFT NOT APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: OTHER BUSINESS: None MINUTES MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14,1998 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 M. Larson, C. Thomas, J. WeTe:s A. Spaeth, L. Berkun C. Smith Pat Ryan - Keiffer Sign Company. BE Holly - Bright Light Sign Co. Chairman Larson declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7 34 p.m. Thomas motioned to approve the meeting minutes of the September 9, 1999 meeting, seconded by Weiss. The meeting minutes of September 9, 1999 were approved, 3-0. CITIZEN COMMENT Several citizens were present regarding the appeal at 2800 Central (S.R.A.B. 0 99-111, although no one wanted to identify themselves for the purpose of recording their comments NEW BUSINESS S.R.A.B. 0 99-11: Blockbuster Video. 2800 Central Street Mr Ryan presented the proposal for his client. Blockbuster Video He explained that he proposal included an awning on the east and north face of the new location for Blockbuster Video. They would like to propose a vinyl fabnc that has a white backing material adhered to it. He gave a sample of this material for review. C Smith stated that vinyl fabnc in not allowed in Evanston for iDumenated awning material, as it is impossible for that material to adhere to the Ordinance, as light will always be able to shine through this material. Mr Ryan then produced samples of a canvas type material, and stated that they would request that this material be used. with the letters for the 'Blockbuster' wording be stitched in a yellow color, wrth the remainder blue. Mr Ryan continued by stating that the actual variation is for the %orn ticket' illuminated sign that they would propose to be added to the existing pole sign, beneath the White Hen Pantry sign. This sign would be as wide as the existing signs above A discussion followed regarding the awnings. Mr. Ryan stated that Bk)ckbuster would like the awnings, which are similar to the ones on Chicago Avenue in Evanston, because it gives Blockbuster recognition. People have come to associate them with this blue awning with the yellow letters. Several members of the Board commented that they felt that the awning, mounted on top of a mansard 'roof" looked odd. C. Thomas stated that the mansard 'roof is in fact already an awning, so d would appear as an awning, with another awning on top Thomas continued that this would look unacceptable, and not give Blockbuster the image that they are Meeting Wnubs - Sign Review and Appte+ab Board October 14, 1999 Pape 3 Hearing no other business, Chairman Larson motioned a*&wrment at bt:30 p-m. LiEXT MEETING The next meeting o the S.RAB. is for Thursday, November 11, 1999. n Carolyn Smith, Assistant D r Community Development - Building Division cc: J. YWinsld K. Mims 1` MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 19" EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Larson. L. Bedr ut. J. Weiss MEMBERS ABSENT: A. Spaeth, C. Thorru<s STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith OTHERS PRESENT: A. Koroboukas - Riverwind Development, Greg Greif - Riverwriind Development, James J. Sayegh - Cummins Renaissance, L.L.C., Tom Roszak - Roszak ADC As the term of the former Chairman of the Sign Review and Appeals Board has ended, Lindsey Berkun nominated Mark Larson to the position of Chairman of the Sign Review and Appeals Board. This nomination was seconded by Jack Weiss, and approved by a vote of 3-0. MINUTES Chairman Larson declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:33 p.m.. Berkun motioned to approve the meeting minutes of the last meeting {June 10, 19991, seconded by Larson. The meeting minutes of June 10, 1999 were approved, 3-0. None were present. NEW BUSINESS S.EI.A.B. # 99-08: The Renaltsance Condominiums. 130 Central Mr. Sayegh, of Cummins Renaissance presented his proposal for a temporary freestanding sign, He stated that this is the first development of his company in Evanston. They have invested substantially in both money and time in this property. To that end, they have carefully considered this sign to make it tasteful, and not distracting. They have modified their proposal twice. The first time was to reduce the items of information, as they realized that this vras a problem in the Evanston Ordinance, and graphically it improved the copy by emphasizing the critical information. It was revised a second time to improve the readability of the sign, realizing that they did not need a photo in the background, as the building itself is behind the sign. The color of the background will be the same as the window trim color (Richmond Bisque). Mr. Sayegh added that they would like the address on the copy to be brighter, maybe even white. r Meeting Minutes - Sign Review and Appeals Board September 9, 1999 Page 2 J. Weiss commented that he likes the vertical orientation of the board, and likes the 'pared down' version. Chairman Larson agreed, but added that he agrees that the address on the sign needed to be 'popped out'. Larson motioned to approve the.proRQsab as submitted. exce9 t that the address on th sign copy shall be brighter, Weiss seconded. and the motion was unanimousbv &Rproved. S.R.A.B. All 99-09: New ConctMiniums. 1421 Sherman Ave. e Mr. Tom Roszak of Roszak ADC apologized for the fact that the signage was erected earlier in the week prior to the approval being granted, but cited a mistake in communication with the sign company for the mistake. Mr. Roszak then presented his proposal for a temporary freestanding sign and a temporary banner. It was clarified by C. Smith that although the proposal indicates that the freestanding sign is to be located on the public way (and the sign was in fact erected without permission on the public way), that this is not allowed, and would need the permission of the Public Works Department in the City of Evanston to do so. J. Weiss added that in addition to the height and time frame variations being sought, the size of the freestanding sign also needs to be allowed by the Sign Review and Appeals Board, as it exceeds the allowable (32 SF is allowed - and 63 SF is requested.). Mr. Roszak commented that they collected marketing data from the property that they developed next door, and the sign was the #1 traffic generator for the project, even though they advertise in the Evanston Review and other publications. At that project (1415 Sherman), 28 out of 31 units have been sold. Most of the buyers, Mr. Roszak continued. are Evanstonians lapproximately 70%) Chairman Larson commented that a rendering on the sign vs. a lot of verbiage, seems to be your style. Mr. Roszak commented that yes, they feel that for new construction, this conveys the message. They don't like to be fussy with advertising. L. Berk then motions to Mrove the free standina sign. as submitted. This motion is seconded by The Board then reviewed the banner. J. Weiss motioned to approve the banner, not to_exceed a 12 month duration, Chairman Larson seconded and the motion was appEoved 3-0. S.R,A.B. # 99-10: Main Strgtrt PIaGq Condominiumg, 1112-14 Main StrW Ms. Alexandra Koroboukas stated that they had small signs flow) that were covered with graffiti. They need to have the sign mounted higher, and closer to the building to hopefully avoid more graffiti. They have sold half the units to date. Chairman Larson reviewed the issues. He asked the Board if any member has a problem with the 10 foot height, without being set back 10 feet? J. Weiss asked if the sign could be set back 10 feet from the property line? The response was that there isn't 10 feet available. J. Weiss asked if the trees would be in the way at that location? The response was that they have measured the location, and the trees won't block the sign, and furthermore, they don't want to sign to block the picture window. Chairman Larson stated that even though there is a lot of information on the sign, it is assumed that it is to be read from the sidewalk, and not from cars. Ms. Koroboukas added that it is also a 'locator', i Meeting Minutes - Sign Review and Appeals Board September 9, 1999 Pale 3 just to put us 'on the map'. L Berkun asked 0 they could take out the "with fireplaces' veebtage. and respace. Also, she suggested that they use a colored background instead of white buckgroucid, to avoid being less of a target for graffiti. Also, L. Berkun suggested that they only use one type face. And that the type face should match the brochure (at least for the 'Main Street Place' title) wf gch is a serif style. The Realty Company identity could be san serif. The Board then discussed the time frame. Mr. Greif suggested that it would be at least the iim quarter of next year before they would be sold out. At this point, J. Weiss suggested that the sign be afdowed for 6 months. ADJQURNMENT Hearing no other business, Chairman Larson motioned adjournment at 8:30 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of t S.R.A.B. is for Thursday, October 14, 1999. Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director Community Development - Building Division cc; J. Wolinski K. Mims t It 1.1 i"I MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD THURSDAY, .TUNE 10, 19" EVANiSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: M. Larson, C. Thomas, L. Berkun R.Qualty, A. Spaeth R. Fakhtrom Dennis A. Harder Acting Chairman Larson declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:31 p.m.. M. Larson motioned approval of the meeting minutes of the last meeting (May 13,1999), seconded by Thomas. The meeting minutes of May 13,1999 were approved, 3-0. None were present. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Dennis Harder of the Joseph Freed Association presented hs company's proposed Unified Center Sign Plan for the Evanston Center ( Dempster and Dodge) shopping center. Mr. Harder noted that the existing shopping center is an `L' shaped building with essentially 2 wings. The wing which runs cast to west is taller than the wing which runs north and south. The taller wing has a Dryvit /stucco wall portion over a brick masonry base. The lower wing has only a brick masonry base. The taller wing is designed to be marketed to national corporate retailers who require larger spaces and want more sign space and enhanced marketing presence. The lower wing is typically occupied by smaller local retailers and businesses who have smaller space and signage needs. The proposed new Sign Plan allows the larger wing to advertise at a higher height using the stucco sign band. Mr. harder emphasized that the Sign Plan mandates uniform style signs (channel letters) in a uniform graphic style (Futura), and that the plan mandates that all tenants obtain Permits from the City for all proposed signs. � V I Meeting Minutes - Sign Review and Appeals Board June 10, 1999 Page 2 M. Larson notes that signs that will be placed on the Dryvit sign hand appear to exceed the allowed height limit of 15' •6" to the top of the sign. He questions why is this necessary? Mr. Harder replies that the larger stores which will rent in the taller %King %%ill desire a more pronounced marketing presence and they are more demanding in their signage needs. C. Thomas states, that to him, the idea of the 2 different levels of signs makes complete sense. Thomas notes that this center needs to be visually lively, and that the recommendations from the Sight Appearance and Review Committee for a uniform datum line of signage and only one color , are too restrictive. C. "Thomas states that he's aesthetically for diversity as opposed to uniformity and that shopping centers are more attractive when they look like an assemblage of many building versus one large building. Thomas notes that this shopping center is already somewhat monotonous in appearance and that varying the sign heights for the 2 wings and allowing several; signage color schemes will provide visual interest. L. Berkun agrees with Thomas. Thomas then states that the Sign Plan seems to be very reasonable. Thomas then queries Mr. Harder about the future of the 'Blockbuster Sign' which will be incompatible with the proposed guidelines of the new Sign Plan. A general discussion then follows about the Blockbuster sign and all of the time that the Board has spent reviewing the proposed Blockbuster Signage schemes C. Thomas states that the wall signage plan seems to be very comprehensive and that the Board should discuss the proposed kiosk sign. L. Berkun notes that the kiosk (freestanding ) sign - .: ., 1. appears to be to visually confusing especially the vertical stone elements. C. Thomas states that the bottom of the sign should be aligned with the stone belt course on the brick piers for a better architectural appearance. A general discussion followed between Mr. Harder C. Thomas and L. Berkun about the visual appearance of the kiosk sign. N1. Larson also questioned the status of the existing Frank's Nursery sign and whether or not it will conform to the parameters of the new Unified Sign Plan. A general discussion follows on the the future of the Frank's Sign. L. Berkun states that from a retailers point of view, she doesn't feet Frank's should be made to change their sign. C. Thomas asks Mr. harder if the Franks sign is in conformance? Mr. Harder replies that the Frank's sign is essentially in conformance. Nl. Larson queries Mr. Harder as to how will Joseph Freed distinguish between Corporate Signage graphic styles and the proposed uniform `Futura' letter style? Sir. Harder replies that by adopting 'Futura' as a base standard for all future signage, The Joseph Freed .association ttill save themselves many headaches because this [Unified Sign Plan will simplify the sign packages and remove excessive or inappropriate graphics. Meedag Minutes - Stign Review and Appeals Board Page 3 Larson. Thomas and Birchen all agree that 'Future* is a good base graphic style and that the options on the colors am acceptable. M. Larson asks the Roam how they feel about the Blockbuster sign on the tower ? Mr. Harder states that using the towers gives Joseph Freed flexibility in meeting the needs of larger corporate customers. A 2nd general discussion follows concerning the blockbuster space and signagc. r The discussion returns to the freestanding kiosk sign. C. Thomas notes that the version of the sign with the pediment top is preferable to the version with the flat top. At this time, Mr, Harder shows the Board Dominick's request for a special colored sign with a white background to sit at the top of the sign field in the freestanding sign. C. Thomas, summing up the reaction of iii ' Board, states that this proposal is unacceptable and that he would only approve sgnage for` ` ' }T Dominick's as shown in the original proposal for the freestanding sign. M. Larson also notes that the white background for the Dominick's's sign proposal is not allowable under the Sign Ordinance. C Thomas motions to accept the proposal for the Unified Sign Plan subject to the following: 1. The pylon / freestanding sign design must eliminate the vertical stone elements and align the bottom of the sign with the bottom of the horizontal stone belt course. Signage for Dominick's is approved only as shown on Drawings submitted to the Board for the Unified Sign Plan. These renderings of the freestanding sign shows the Dominick's sign as white letters with a black background similar to all of the other tenant signage locatsd on the freestanding sign. 2. Blockbuster must bring their signs into conformance with the new Sign Plan within G months.. L. Berkun seconds, and the motion passes 3 -0. �i I Cfli) 7�31��1 Hearing no other business. M. Larson motions for adjournment at 8:20 p.m.. Sign Appearance and Review Board - Meeting Minutes Jane 10,19" Page 4 NEXT MEETIDIG The Next meeting of the S.R -A.B. is scheduled for Robert Fahlstrom, Plan Reviewer Community Development - Buildiut Division CC J. Wolinski K. Mims I MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD THURSDAY. MAY 13, 1999 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 R. Qually, M. Larson, C. Thomas L. Bw tun, , A. Spaeth C. Smith Marvin Cohen - North Shore Hotel, Johnnie Capron - Home Depot Chairman Qually declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:33 p.m.. Larson motioned to approve the meeting minutes of the last meeting (February 11, 19991. seconded by Thomas. The meeting minutes of February 11, 1999 were approved, 3-0. rtTIZEN COMMENT None were present. NEW BUSINESS S R A B X 99.05• The North Share Hotel. 1611 Chlcaao Ave, Mr. Marvin Cohen of the North Shore Hotel presented the proposed Unified Business Center Plan, identifying that the plan incudes only a proposal for the awnings. He explains that the awning recently approved by the City, erected by the retailer Non Pareil is what the plan is modeling itself after. The existing awnings are flimsy, and easily damaged in storms. The proposal indicates that the color choices of the awning fabric will be limited to Burgundy, Green, Grey, Ivory and White, and would specifocally prohibit any garish colors. There would be stripes that would be in a similar configuration to the Non Parei( awnings, chosen from the colors identified above. The wording on the vertical face of the awning would be limited to the store name, rn a type face that would be able to vary with the store owners need, although the size of the lettering would be the same. Qually questioned if the proposal is for changing of all the awnings at the same time. Mr. Cohen responded no; the plan would be for any future awnings. Currently, there is a tenant, New Attitude, that has put in an application for an awning that was denied based an the requirement for the building to file for a Unified Business Plan. C. Smith added that the Non Parei( awning, permitted recently, was issued erroneously. Although it met the City's Sign Ordinance, and as no Unified Plan was indicated as having been filed at this address, it was permitted. it was only after they were erected that the need for a Unified Plan to be filed was identified. Qually questions Mr. Cohen regarding what would happen to the Tapas Barcelona awnings, if the Board would approve this plan? C. Smith clarifies that should the Board decide, it could be included with the motion to require that it be replaced to match (hopefully within a reasonable time frame), or not. if it /. Meeting Minutes - Sign Review and Appeals Board May 13, 1999 Page 2 would not be included within the plan currently, then at whenever time in the future, st would then have to conform, or come back to the Board. Qually comments that if the management prefers the look of the Non Pareil awning, you should still look 'unified'. At this point Qually questions who pays for the awnings? Mr. Cohen responded that the original awning is provided for by the North Shore Hotel. but Non Pareil and Tapes Barcelona both paid for their own awnings. Qually stated that he would like to maintain a uniform appearance. Thomas agrees. Thomas continues by stating that he also likes the openness of the existing awning style. It is more in keeping with the architecture of the building. The awning style being proposed Ito match Non Pareil) has the closed ends, and looks more like the 1970's, but he is understanding of the need to have a frame that is more long lasting. The important benefit is the repetition. Thomas states that he is in favor of the green that is currently on the majority of the storefronts, as it is more characteristic of the elegance of the building style. Qually agrees, commenting that the existing colors are attractive. Mr. Cohen responds by stating the management liked the bolder, more lively look of the Non Pareil awning. At thig point. Qually motioned to approve the followina for a Unified Business Center Jign Plan for the 1611 Chicano Ave. Buildina- ri>7�iTT+i[ifl=�t.l+ • •11�TIiii ■C eI ii� • • ■ u = ilhii ■ - a iFTfi S.R.A.B. # 99-06: The Home Deuot, 2201 Oakton Ave. Ms. Johnnie Capron, representing Home Depot presented the proposal for 2 wall signs and a modification to the existing freestanding sign. She stated that this store operationally will now be a 24 hour store, and Home Depot would like their customers to be aware of that fact. Also, as after 10:00 p.m., only one of the entry doors will be open, in the interest of safety, Home Depot would like to identify that door location as well. Qually asks why the 24 hour door is odentified at a door that is currently an exit only door. The response is that this is the location of the cashier stations, and they would like to control that aspect. Thomas questions the need for 2 wall signs, indicating that he believes that this is redundant. He stated that he understands the need for safety reasons. to mark the 24 hour entrance °ocation, but sees no reason for the "Open 24 Hours" wall sign. Larson agrees by stating that he could not support the "Open 24 Hours" wall sign. Qually comments that the proposed change to the free standing sign graphically works for him. Q g1ly then motL_gns to aoorove the free standing sign, as submitted. with the stipulation that if the store ceases to operate as a -24 hour' store, the sign must revert back to the current sign face. This Meeting Minutes - Sign Review and Appeals Board May 13, 1999 Page 3 As for the wall signs. Qually then motions to ggprove the '24 how w rance' sign. as submitted. wittti the stipulation that if the store ceases to operate as a "24 hour" stain. the sign must be M=ved. and to deny the approval of the "24 hour store' sign. This motion is seconded by Larson, and is gZaMd 2--Q. Additionally, Ms. Capron requested that the Board consider an additional sign, that was inadvertently left out of the proposal. The Board agreed to consider it at this meeting. The proposal, that she presented to the Board, indicated a wall mounted sign, of a similar type and mounting height as the '24 Hours Entrance" sign, that stated 'Tool Rental'. Qually responded that he would prefer to see this type of sign in the inside of the store. It's a feature or benefit, but not a necessary element for the exterior. Larson concurred with Qually. He stated that his concern is one of precedent setting. Every time Home Depot enters into a new speciality, they will want a sign. Qually Motions to deny the proposal for a gall sign. as described above. for 'Tool Rental' This motion Is seconded by Laraan. and passed 3-0. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no other business. Chairman Qually motioned adjournment at 8:15 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is for Thursday, June 10, 1999. , ,r Carolyn Smith, sistant Director Community Development - Building Division cc: J. Wolinski K. Mims M1NUI'ES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11. 1999 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Larson, A. Spaetb, G Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Quatly, L. Berkun STAFF PRESENT; R. Fahistrom OTHERS PRESENT: George Vytacil - Northshore Sign Steve Shostok - Metro Resource tn%vc ament & M=gement Lisa Wentland - Blockbuster (Kieffer Signs) R. Fahlstrom distributed the recommendation for the February 10. 1999 agenda fmm the Site Appearance Review Committee, a copy of which is attached_ Acting chairman Larson declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:34 p.m.. C. Thomas motioned to approve the minutes, seconded by Spaeth. The meeting minutes of January 14, 1999 were approved, 3 - 0. t None were present. *12 Mr. Shostok and Mr. Vytlacil presented their proposal for re -using the existing pole in its present location with a new 8 x 12 sign face which would have signage graphics for both 'Vanity City' and 'Creators Way' on the same sign. Spaeth asked where the new sign was in relationship to the property line. G. Vytlacil noted that it was in its existing location. Spaeth re%icwed the ordinance issues involved in this variance pertaining to existing non -conforming pole signs. G. Vy lacil stated that the sign pole was a few feet back from the street lot line. Spaeth questioned vw•hy wasn't the sign pole being moved back. S. Shostock stated that the existing pole was being re -used to minimize expenses. Also, the new sign would permit them to have a better advertising presence and to remove the clutter of non -approved signs. r' Meeting Minutes Sign Review and Appeals Board February 11, I999 Page 2 Spaeth questioned why the sign face was so large. Mr. Vytlacil noted the sign was only 96 square feet in area. Spaeth cautioned the applicants that a new Sign OR.DINA.NCE becomes effective in 2W3, and that the Sign Board does not like to approve non -conforming signs that will need to be replaced or removed after that date. Thomas stated the applicants would either nerd to conform the Sign Ordinance now. or replace the sign in 2003. Thomas told the applicants that either they should conform to the Sign ordinance now or be prepared to remove the sign in 2003. A general discus followed between the applicants and the Board about the expense issues involved in relocating the sigh. M. Larson reviewed the 1 S' -6" setback requirement and elaborated on the design criteria which allows a sign to be only as high as it placed back from the street lot line. G. Vvtlacil wanted to know that if they reused the existing sign pole that they would be allowed to keep it until 2003. Thomas answered this question stating that only if the Board votes approval may the sign be reused in its existing location and kept until 2003. At this point Mr. Shostock and Nir. Vytlacil held a general discussion between them on what would be required to relocate the existing sign pole. Larson and Thomas also asked for staff clarification of several Sign Ordinance related issues. A general discus was held with R. Fahsltrom concerning the proposed sign face size, the setback requirements. and distance to a public way. Spaeth questioned the proposed background for the sign and asked for Staff clarification of this issue. R. Fahlstrom reviewed the sign ordinance requirements for illuminated signs and that the requirement that levels of background illumination may not shine fully through the sign this would onIN be allowed through the characters and sign graphic elements. A general discussion followed between the applicants themselves and the Board about lowering the sign and ,.%here to place it. At the end of this discussion Thomas told the applicants that the decision was theirs to make. Mr. Shostock noted that they needed to make the best decision for the 2 businesses involved. Mr. Shostok and Mr. Vytlacil discussed how to proceed with the project_ Thomas noted that they should go back and reconfigure the sign so that it is closer to conforming and come back for a decision. Nfr. Shostok and tilr. Vytlacil agreed with the Board that they would have to do this in any case if the Board rejected their present application. Mr. Shostok and Mr. VydaciI agreed to reconfigure their proposal and to return at a later date for a decision. No motions were made and no vote taken. Meeting Minutes Sign Review and Appeals Board February 11, 1999 Page 3. There being no representatives or applicants present for this rase the Board moved on to the next case. S,$$A.B ft"8-04: Blockbusier Video, Ev Lisa Wendtland a representative for Blockbuster Video from Kieffer Signs reviewed the proposed wall signs for Blockbuster video's proposed new store at the Dempster Dodge Shopping Center. L. Wendtland noted that the total square fcoatage for the area of the signs was 132 square feet which was less than the 150 square feet that mould be allowed. A general discussion followed in which the Board essentially approved the north facing sign and the overall concept of the tower sign but questioned the architectural placement of the east facing sign. Thomas stated that he agreed with the Site Appearance and Review Committee's ruling that the eastern sign was awkwardly placed in its relationship to the arcaded columns below. Thomas stated that the sign should be relocated so that it is centered between the columns. L. Wendtland states that the sign could be placed centered between the column bay. A general discussion follows with Staff on the possibility that the columns might be pilasters which would create a non -conforming projection for the sign and necessitate the use of a structural raceway instead of the Unified Business Center Plar. approved individual channel letters. The discussion then moves to where to place the sign. The Board feels that the proposed wall sign shall be centered between the columns and reduced in size so that it does not appear to overlap the inter face of the columns on either side of it. L. %Wendtland is concerned that this would require a significant reduction of the sign's graphics. Spaeth notes that judging by eye, a probable 5% - 10% reduction in the overall dimensions of the sign should be all that is required to meet the Board's criteria. NI. Larson agrees. with Spaeth. The Board then discusses the proposed to%%er sign . R. Fahlstrom notes that there is a precedent for the sign at the Dempster Dodge Shopping Center in the use of the tower for a Logo Sign by `Discovery Zone. A general discussion follows with Staff concerning a future Unified Business Center Sign Plan for the Center in the future based on the new tenants and Dominick's Store due to be built in the near future. R. Fahistrom also notes that it is important to note that even though most wall signs in the Center's sign band exceed the 15'-6" height limit. that they all align with one another at the top of the signs to form a unified datum line along the facade of the Center. le Meeting Minutes Sign Review and Appeals Board February 11,1999 Page 4 Thomas and Spaeth discuss how to center and size the easrern facing sign so that it does not protrude over the inner face of the column bay in which it is centered. L. Wendtland expresses concern at the potential downsizing as Blockbuster has a sign criteria that she must meet. Thomas and Spaeth agree that about a 5% reduction should be sufficient to realize the Board's criteria. They all agree that the sides of the sign shall visually be held to 6" away from the h2dde face of the columns on either side. Thomas moves to approve the proposed signange subject to the following: The eastern facing shall be centered in the middle column bay of the Blockbuster Facade. Further, The sign shall be reduced in area so that it does not overlap the inside face of the colul ans of the column bay in which it is centered. The motion was seconded by Spaeth and is passed 3-0 . There being no other business, Acting Chairman Larson motioned adjournment at 8:22p.nk The next meeting of the S.R.A.B. is scheduled for March 11,1999, 4 G? 4� FW4" Robert Fahistrom - Plans Examiner C.C. James Wolinski, Carolyn Smith MINUTES SIGN REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1999 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER. ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Qually, M. Larson, A. Spaeth, C. Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Berkun STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Szymanski - Urban Equities, Inc. C. Smith distributed the recommendation for the January, 1999 agenda from the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee, a copy of which is attached. Chairman Qually declared a quorum and opened the meeting at 7:33 p.m.. Larson motioned to approve the minutes, seconded by Spaeth. The meeting minutes of December 10. 1998 were approved, 4-0. CITIZEN COMNTM None were present. S.R.A.B. # 99-01: Condom(Lium Conversion, 710 Oaktgn Street Mr. Szymanski presented the proposal for a freestanding sign. Mr. Szymanski stated that the purpose of the sign is to inform people who live in the area that he has condominiums for sale at this location. He stated that he will also be advertising in the newspapers, but he hopes to entice renters who live in the nearby area with this sign. Spaeth asked what time frame he is asking for, as that information was not included in the application. Mr. Szymanski responded that he hopes to be able to post the sign when the models are complete, which should be in approximately 2 weeks, and leave it up as long as the Board suggests is reasonable. A discussion then took place between the Board and the applicant regarding the specific information on the sign. Qually stated that this is more than a sign. It is a "pitch"; an ad. He suggested that in trying to do everything, you end up getting nothing. A typical real estate sign has much less information. Thomas noted that with 26 units, he could theoriticai[y have 26 real estate signs up. Qually then suggested an example of how the sign could be reworked, with only 12 items of information. The discussion proceeded with all Board Meeting Minutes - Sign Review and Appeals Board January 14, 1999 Pale 2 members and the applicant reviewing each item of information, and it's value on the sign. The left side of the sign shall read: 710 Oakton, Renovated Condominiums, the price. Bob Szvmanski. t e phone number_ and the right side shall only contain the following 'bulleted' items: -1 and 2 Bedrooms. Parking Included. Individual Heat and Air Conditioning-. This motion was seconded by Thomas. and_is passed, 3-1. With regard to the length of time that the sign may be erected, Qually motioned to allow the sign to stay up for 6 months, beginning no sooner than when the models are available. This motion was seconded by Spaeth and approved 4-0. Ap.JOURNMUa Hearing no other business, Chairman Qually motioned adjournment at 8:25 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the S.R.A.6. is for Thursday, February 11, 1999. Carolyn Smith,S<ssistant Director Community Development - Building Division cc: J. Wolinski K. Mims