Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1999 - 2000SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES December 27, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: P. D'Agostino (S.Levine), R. Dahal, M. Mylot, C. Smith Design Professional: - Other Staff: W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting. Committee Business: A motion was made to approve the draft of the 12/13/00 Meeting Notes with the following changes: -for 1123 Madison in the second sentence of GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTA riON change the word "west" to "east". -for 925 Hamlin change the PROJECT REPRESENTED BY" from `Mr. Marc Mylot" to "Ms. Sushant Jain assisted by Mr. Marc Mylott". -for 624 Davis change the address to 622 Davis. and was passed by unanimous vote. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-161 1800 Sherman - VoiceStream Concept (Changed to Preliminary and Final at the Meetina) Propose roof -top installation of antenna for a wireless communication facility. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Tom Ebels, Paul Bongaarts, and George Ditchman GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: This proposal includes three antenna arrays, mast mounted on the penthouse walls and a equipment area on a screened roof area. A coverage map was presented which demonstrated the need for antenna at this location. Cable tray from antenna to equipment will be painted to match the building and antenna will be gray in color. Mr. Bongaarts has checked sightlines and the existing penthouse roof is only seen from Foster ,at the closest. The equipment will be in the center of a roof area, shielded by a parapet wall. Page 1 of 2 12i27/00 x DISCUSSION: The 7 ft. height to the top of the mast above the penthouse roof was questioned. Clearance of the antenna signals from the existing roof -top air handling units and ' other building elements generated the moun"Aing height. It was agreed by the Committee that the extensive information presented justified review at the Preliminary and Final levels. ACTIONS. A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 2 12/27/00 SPAARC 00-104 1901 Greenbav Road — Currencv Exchange Preliminary and Final Consider remodeling of existing store into retail service establishment. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Andrew Wang — Architect Mr. Kevin Wiley, Mr. Barry Shaw, Mr. Jonathan Miinkes - Owners GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Parking layout is now shown on the site plan and the two existing curb cuts are shown widened to improve in/out traffic flow. A small landscaped triangular area is located a the south tip of the property and a 3 ft. high hedge strip is indicated along the southern sidewalk. Bicycle parking is planned by the store entrance. The building elevation proposes removal of the existing metal facing and the openings now agree with the existing conditions. Brick inAll of the northern opening and the north one third of the center opening is shown. DISCUSSION: It was noted that the three spaces shown in the extreme south site area require backing up for a considerable distance for exiting. This exit path also goes directly behind the other parking spaces proposed creating a very dangerous cross traffic. It was suggested by the Committee that the southern spaces be reduced in number; be at ninety degrees to the other spaces; and be used for employees only. The owner's expressers concern that this might create a security problem, but it is difficult to understand since the distance from the closest to farthest parking space is only around 50 feet. It was noted that the accessible space must be as close to the building as possible Revision to the parking at the south end of the site could result in a significant increase in the landscaped area and introduction of trees, etc. It was noted that the 3 ft. high hedge along the walk is not permitted as it would restrict driver's views of pedestrians. Possible increase of the small curb cut at the extreme northern end of the site was rejected by the Committee because the site is already served by two curb cuts. Again the Committee suggested that the metal facing above the window openings be retained and an awning over the public entrance door be used to tie this building area into the existing elements farther north on the facade. Possible use of aluminum framing with opaque glazing instead of the brick in -fill was suggested for the northern window openings, but the final design is the Architect's choice, of course. A Committee member suggested that increasing the lighting level at the site would improve security on the existing the dimly lit site. A Committee member noted extensive window signs on a currency exchange in Chicago owned by this chain. The owner's suggested that they are necessary to promote new business at some times, but the Committee noted that Evanston has severe restrictions on window signage in their Sign Ordinance that this must be complied with at all times. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review of this project. subject to site layout; landscape planning; and elevation review by City staff and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 3 of 5 09/27/00 SPAARC 00-133 2040 Brown Over -the -Rainbow Association Prellminary awid Final Consider installation of an emergency generator for a sheltered cars home. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Chris Callahan GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Proposal consists of installating a package emergency generator on an existing loading area pad with steel bollard protections, adjacent to the existing dumpster area. DISCUSSION: Some discussion concerning the possible fencing of the generator area was held by the Committee, but the security issues raised by its use negated the suggestion. Additional planning of the generator location was suggested by some Committee members. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed, with M. Mylott and S. Nagar voting no. SPAARC 00-134 2600 Central Park — Mitchell Museum Prellminary and Final Consider conversion of existing attached garage space to library at this cultural facility. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Janice Klein GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: About 10,000 people visit the museum yearly, including around 6,000 students. They have an acute need for additional library space which will be provided by this project. DISCUSSION: The elevation drawing of the in -fill at the removed overhead door location was difficult to understand. Some lines seem to imply depth to the masonry work, but the plan shows a flat plane. The presenter agreed that the in -fill design was flexible and all agreed that it will be better than the garage door. Elevations will be clarified for final review. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary (final deferred) site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote SPAARC 00-099 1801 Manle - Metricom (Added at meetinr�) Prellminarv_ and Final Consider installing antennas on an existing building for wireless communications. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Robert Kelly — Metricom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A pipe mount for the south antenna array, which was excluded from the 9/20 meeting approval, is proposed but the sled mount is possible. DISCUSSION: A pipe mount on the parapet was agreed to by the Committee and Metricom. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 5 of 5 09/27/00 x' SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES September 20, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: A. Alterson, L. Black (R.Walczak), P. D'Agostino, R Dahal, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz, R.Fahlstrom, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the mooting_ Committee Business: A motion was made to approve the draft of the 09113/00 SPAARC Meeting Notes and was passed by a 9 to 'I vote with A. Alterson abstaining. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-129 1725 Orrinaton - NWU 1101cManusl PrslkninarK and Final Install new door in existing storefront window system at existing dormitory building. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr.Ryan Nestor - Architect GENERAL, PROJECT PRESENTATION: The work consists of removing a 10' wide section of an all window storefront system and installing a storefront system with a pair of doors which will match the existing in color and style. This alteration is located in a building recess and will not be visible from the street. Its purpose is to provide access to the outside area for group activities. DISCUSSION: Why the west sidelight has a knee wall, like existing, but the east sidelight has none was questioned. The presenter said it was desired by the client. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval with a strong recommendation to add a knee wall on the east sidelight and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 1 of 6 9/20/00 it SPAARC 00-127 2500 Emerson - Fucy." Heck Paris Preliminary and Final Consider renovations to existing city park. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Stefanie Levine GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: With local residents and other community input a plan to renovate this park was developed. This first phase is the re -construction of the children's play area in a new location. Subsequent phases will include bike pathway renovation; a fitness station; and landscaping improvements. DISCUSSION: The Committee only asked for the phasing of this work, which was answered (above). ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-128 1701-1729 Main - Crown Park Preliminary and Final Consider improvements to existing city park. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Stefanie Levine GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: This project consists of the renovation of two softball backstops and the related site area. Hard surfacing will be installed in the areas outside of the field and the bleachers re -installed on it. DISCUSSION: Some Committee members wondered why the grass was going to be removed from the infield. The response was that the teams wanted it that way and it is normal for softball fields, but not for hardball fields. , ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 6 9/20i00 it SPAARC fttl-104 1901 Greenbay Road Currengy Exchanae Preliminary and final = Consider remodeling of existing store into retail service establishment. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Kevin Wiley - Owner GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A build -out of an existing empty store is proposed for use as a currency exchange. Exterior work consists of filling -in existing openings w+th storefront windows and two new aluminum entrance, glazed doors. Metal facing above the window operungs on the west face will be removed. A new curb cut is included, south of the existing curb cut, for access to parking for currency exchange customers. A small planting bed at the southern tip of the property is proposed along with a narrow planting strip abutting the existing. s4ewalk. Lot coating and re -stripping will be done but the parking layout is rrot developed at this time. The existing building extends north from the currency exchange location and houses two auto repair facilities. Massive signage is proposed for the exchange area but is not part of this review. The owner has around thirty other exchanges in the Chicagoland area uses the signage array as the chain logo to develop 'brand recognition" for his company. Store hours are 8r00AM to 11:00PM on weekdays; 8:00AM to 8:00PlN on Saturdays; and 10:QOAM to 6:00PM on Sundays. DISCUSSION: The survey presented did not show existing curb cuts and seemed to show proposed work at the south end of the site, rather than existing site survey conditions. Building permit elevation drawings do not agree with the photographs of existing conditions shown at the meeting. Other discrepancies exist between the drawings and reality at the site. The drawings musty be revised to accurately reflect existing conditions and re -submitted for building permit review. Site development became a major concern of the Committee even with the very sketchy sitework ideas presented. Judgements can only be made when complete site development drawing(s) showing traffic access, parking layout, curb cuts, and landscaping are available. The owner will contact R. Dahal of the City staff to visit the site to review curb cuts and other traffic related issues. It was noted that a currency exchange has an intense in -and -out automobile traffic load and will enter the site from a normally high traffic flow artery (Greeenbay Road just north of Emerson). This is a highly visible site and deserves considerable improvement from its current "sea -of -asphalt" condition. Significant plantings are encouraged for the site_ Leaving the existing metal facing above the window openings would continue the be with other areas on the building using this material and still provide an area for signage. An awning at the new store entry might also tie the design to the other awninged entries in the building. Window signs have been a problem at other currency exchange locations but this owner prefers to maintain vision into the facility and does not use them. ACTIONS: A motion was made to table this item and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 3 of 6 9/20/00 k� SPAARC 00-NEW 2313 Main — Bethel United Cancavt Consider remodeling of the front of the buo7ding for a religious Institution. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Cyril Power and Delroy Mangol GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A new church is proposed at this location with exterior work on the south facade facing Main Street as shown in a plan and elevation prepared by Elliot Dudnick — Architect. The lower story of the existing south building wall is covered with stucco which will be removed and the entire south wall re -faced with a exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS). Small vertical strip windows are indicated with single rows of glass block glazing. An existing canopy (completely inside the property lines) is incorporated into the design with a new transom window over it. The site has an existing side drive on the east to a rear gravel covered paving area. DISCUSSION: Real stucco on cement plaster on metal lath was suggested for the new facing rather than the ElFS proposed. The contractor would prefer to use this real "stucco" construction. It was noted that the parking area must be hand surfaced to qualify for use and a path must be provided from accessible parking spaces to the interior of the church. Several design suggests were made by the Committee: -revise elements in the design (windows, transom, etc.) using shapes with religious significance. Some Committee members preferred the window pattern on the elevation presented. -integrating religious symbols and church signage into the facade design. -make the design more'churchish'. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval and was passed by a vote of 8 to 2 with A. Atterson and J. Wolinsky voting no. Page 4 of 6 9/20100 SPAARC 00-095 1801 Maple - Voicestream Preliminary and final Consider installing antennas on an existing building for wireless communications. SPAARC 00-099 1801 Maple - Metricom Prelimir+ary and final Consider installing antennas on an existing building for wireless communications. THESE PROJECTS ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER AS THEY ARE PROPOSED FOR ADJACENT AREAS OF THE SAME BUILDING AND THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTEGRATE THEIR DESIGNS. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Chad Argentar and Mr. Paul Bonawts — Voicestrear Mr. Robert Kelly - Metricom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Voicestream cannot mount the 240 degree antenna array on the parapet comer, as disccawW in a previous meeting, and provide a good signal distribution from the antennas. They want to return to a "sled" mount at this located, as originally submitted. Metricom has made no changes since their concept presentation. DISCUSSION: The Committee understood the need to return to a "sled' mount by Voicestream and asked Metricom to lower their south antenna array. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval excluding the Metricom south antenna array and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-125 915 Chicago — Women's American Preliminary and Final Consider rebuilding rear deck for retail sales establishment. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Armando Jimenez GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: This project proposes replacement in -kind of a roofed, wood loading platform and stairs. The existing platform is badly deteriorated. DISCUSSION: Area lighting was questioned and it exists. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 5 of 6 9/20/00 Fil &A'n CQQ-116 609 Oaktnn — Multidamilw PMI"kMrVa f 1 r resurfacing and re -stripping of existing residenBal pari<ring area. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Dean Tsitsis GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: No change will be made to the lot configuration, stripping, or grades. This is a ccxmplfe one -for -one replacement of an existing parking lot for property maintenance purposes. DISCUSSION: The lot has wheel stops and security lighting. S. Nagar requested that the owner contact him to determine if the parking lot replaoement requires submission of a topographical survey to the City. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 6 of 6 9120/00 M Lott, Marc From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: FYI . , - Mylott, Marc Wednesday, September 20, 2000 2:47 PM Alan Berkowsky; Arthur Alterson; Carta Bush; Carlos Ruiz; Carolyn Smith; Ckna Dunrr, David Jennings; Dennis Marino. Doug Gaynor, Frank Aguado; Jay Larson; Jay Terry. Jim Wolinski; JoAnn Minear. Judy Aiello; Kevin Kelly; Linda Black; Lynn Fuller, Marc Mykotr Mark Franz. - Martin Travis; Maureen Barry; Max Rubin; Michael Charley; Michelle Sison; Morris Robinson; nnnnnnnnnn Fahistrom; Paul DAgostino; Rajeev Dahal; Roberta Schur, Roger Crum; Ron Walczak; Sally Lufkin; Sat Nagar; Stan Janusz; Stefanie Levine; Susan Gudedey; Walter Hallen; Wayne Moran; Wynne Harrison Background for VolceStream and Metricom at 18O1 Maple High Both VoiceStream and Methoom have indicated to SPARC that they may need a WCF antennas at the BIRL building. You may recall that VoiceStream was at SPARC last week ... Now, VoiceStream isn't sure whether or not they wO need a site at GIRL, and they won't know for a couple weeks.., Metricom seems to be proceeding _ . . I have asked C. Argentar (of WFI which represents both companies) to arrange that both companies could approach SPARC together with a unified plan for how both companies antennas would make the least impact upon the building .. . VoiceStream was a little concemed about this, given their uncertainty ... but my thoughts were this: if we allow Metricom to proceed, taking the best place on the building, we may be eliminating good locations for VoiceStream. By having them come together, with a plan that includes acceptable locations for both, we are not forced to give the best location to whichever company comes in with the building permit application first and accept a less than desirable location from the runner-up .. . m2 i CITY OF EVANSTON AGENDA DATA SHEET IFor Council Meeting of: Seoternber 25.2000 Amend Zoning btsp & Ordinarme ( otih Side of Lincoln rzen J Title: Avcnue. West of GBar Rosa, from C I to RS) I Resolution/Ordinance Number: 99-0-00 j Council Action: Docket Area: I ❑ Business of the City by Motion ❑ Finance ❑ Resolution ® PlanningiDerelopment ® Ordinance - Introduction DW f 9 t t 2Cxf0+ C] Human Services ❑ Ordinance - Action Daac 92s-2wo ❑ A&PW 0 Discussion Only ❑ Othcr... C7 Communication Rccotnmendatton of Plarr Curnmtsston to amend the Tung Map placing that portion of the current C I Description: Cott mcmial Dtstnct along the north side of Lincoln Avenac, bett►•ecn Green Bay Road and the first alley west of Gran Bay Rozi wnhin the R5 General Residential District Recommui ded Action: Plan Commission m-commended approval SI4to0. Summary of item: The Plan Cornrsuavert to 7_PC 00-08-M recommends rezoning that portion of the C I Commercial District along the north side of Lincoln Avenue. between Great Bay Road and the first alley west of Green Bay Road, to R5 General Residential. Amend" to -* —a Zoning Ordlemoe IUR Md1a test noire j aWermonle Vgft& Additional Information Attached: Yes and Sec Reverse Legislative History: City Council introduced 9/11/00, P&D recoammendod approval 9/11/04_ Plan Commission.- approval "100, Drepartmew Submitting Agenda Item: Community Final Council Action: ' De%vIooment/Zorsina Departmemptl Approval: 54aater`s Office Approval: 'r Ps Ape& Item C x SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES September 13, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal. , D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Najar, C. Smith Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz,. B.Fahlstrom, W.HaWn C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting_ Committee Business: Motions were made to approve the drags of the 08/30/00 and 09/07/00 SPAARC Meeting Notes and were passed by unanimous vote. In discussion on these motions it was noted that any no votes will be recorded in future notes with voter's name included. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-120 2122 Central —Homemade Pizza Co. Preliminary and Final Consider application for Special Use for Type-2 restaurant PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Eric Fossa GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION. - Retail store will sell uncooked pizza for take-out and now would like to add selling pizza by the slice only. No whole cooked pizzas will be sold. In other locations the Owner noted that most slices are not eaten in the store, with only an occasional slice consumed inside the premise. Based on previous history, about 7% of the total business will be "by the slice`. Soda will be sold only in cans. Hours of operation will be approximately noon to 4 PM, maybe later on NWU game days. DISCUSSION: Queries regarding the type of operation were asked and answered by the project presentation (above). ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 1 of 7 09/13/00 F,A I 1. Development, use, and operabon of the type 2 restaurant, including the dn% ►-thrW/9M tacdity, shad be in substantial compliance with the testrmcny presented by the applrcant aid sirs witnesses, documents placed on fife, and approved plans, all in connection with this ca$e 2. \ The grant of zoning relief is subject to compliance with all applicable pruvmons c` the Zoning \ Ordinance and all other appf cable legislation, including but not lIm tad to. Title 81 Health and Sanitation, of the City Code, as it may be amerded from time to time 3. The operator of the type 2 restaurant shall insMute and maintain compliance voM the lifter collection plaRas outlined in the letter regarding "Proposed Litter Plan' om Thomas A Simpson, Illinois Divisign Manager of Steak 'n Shake, Inc. to Matt Anderson/bated August 23. 21000 and hereto attached as Attachment 1, except that the operator of the pe 2 restaurant shall be responsible for litterbriginating from any source found within 500 feeof the subject property TI'e operator of the type' ,restaurant shall keep the area within 500 feet of the subject property 'free of litter. including but not limited to, food, beverages, napkin , straws, containers, bags, utensils, plates. cups, bottles; cans, and other similar litter emana g from any source. 4. The operator of the type 2 restaurant shall to all reasonable steps to secure the maximum number of waste ?eceptacles and the maxim number of scavenger service pickups necessary to ensure that at no time will the subject operty lack sufficient waste receptacle capacity to contain the waste geherated try the subj use and present on the subject proper?/ prior to the next trash pickup. The operator of lh type 2 restaurant shall at all times maintain all waste receptacles on the subject property in condrbon and with tight -fitting lids. The operator of the type 2 restaurant shall keep all waste eceptacles on well-maintalned surfaces that inert applicable City Codes. The operator of the 2 restaurant shall at no time allow the volume of waste placed in a waste receptacle to exceed jig a capacity of the receptacle such that the bd of Vv recaeptacte is not secure, and theZ shall ensure that all waste is only contained within City Code - complaint receptacles.rator of the type 2 restaurant shall at no time allow trash to be placed in or around aneptacle in a manner that would allow the accumutatyon of trash outside said receptacl 5. Violation of any of thenditions or any other applicable laws or regulations may, at the City's option, void special use permit to use the subject property for a type 2 restaurant including adrive-tht ugh faciC4 This decision final and appealable within the meaning of ttte Illinois Administrative Review Act 735 ILCS 513-101, el seq. That A'ct gives you certain rights, among which is the right to appeal this decision to the Circuit Court. Any such appeal must be filed within 35 days from the date this decision was seared upon you. Greg Nor%y6fl, Chair Date Zoning rd of Appeals Vo ' g Aye-. Clarkson, English, Norwell, and Putta. V ng Nay- None. staining: None. Absent: Reid and Sampen. %%CIVICFS_rWPPIICATIONSIZONINGIZBA 0OX)AKTON220SIZaA FINDING DOC SPAARC 00-121 1628 South Boulevard — Single Familv Preliminaev and Final Consider application for Variation to retain open off-street parking space in front yefrd. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Yair and Mrs. Dalia Babad GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: An existing single family residence is on a small lot with no alley access. The existing front walk has a concrete extension to the side lot line forming a parking pad in the front yard. No curb cut is at this pad location, but the existing curb is very low. The lot adjacemt to this pad has a curb cut to a side drive. The dimensions from the residence to the side IL2 lines are not large enough for a parking space or for a side drive to a garage. The current owners teach! live outside of the USA for six months a year and have a problem of what to do with their car during that period. They feel that the presence of a car by the residence Will increase security in their absence. DISCUSSION: The question of neighbor's concern was raised. Some mild interest in what was being done was voiced to Mr. Babad by one neighbor, but the neighbor adjacent to the pad has no concerns. These neighbors did refuse a request by Mr. Babad for a driveway easer ent on their property. Some Committee members raised the question of possible problems created from two properties sharing a curb cut, but this was not considered a major issue. It was recognized that this parking need is generated by a special case of the combination of this property with the owner's living pattern. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval provided that: 1-A curb cut is constructed to serve the parking space. 2-The neighbor abutting the pad's location agree to the parking space. 3-A covenant be placed on the property that requires the next purchaser of the property to remove the parking pad and curb cut and restore that area to the current existing condition. and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 7 09/13/00 SPAARC 00-096 1801 Maple - VoiceStream Final Install antennas on existing building for wireless communication facility. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Chad Argenter GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The same locations and mounting methods proposed in the preliminary review presentation have been maintained in the final drawings. DISCUSSION: Removal of the sled mounting for the 120 degree array and use of parapet mounting (like the 0 degree antenna array) was proposed by the Committee and accepted by Voicestream. Matching of the number and mounting height of existing and proposed antenna arrays on the north facade was proposed by the Committee and accepted by Voicestream. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval provided that: 1-The 120 degree array be parapet mounted; match the existing number of antenna (or add a "dummy" antenna); and match the existing antenna mounting height to within one foot. and was passed by a 6 to 1 vote, with M.Mylott casting the negative vote. SPAARC 00-122 526 Greenwood„— Three dwelling units Concert Consider construction of multi -family residential building. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT COME TO THE MEETING SPAARC 00-102 2209 Oakton — Steak n' Shake Preliminary Consider construction of Type- 1 restaurant with drive-thru facility. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY. Mr. Dan O'Connell, Mr. Steve Forsgren, and another representative of Steak n' Shake (name in script, not printed, on sign -in sheet). GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: As suggested by the Committee in previous meetings, the building has been flipped about the north -south axis and resultant site adjustments have been made. The drive-thru lane now faces north (Home Depot) and the dining area windows face south (to Oaldon Street and James Park). The main eat -in entry is located on the east side of the building. Signage review will be done during sign permit applivation. Page 3 of 7 09/13/00 DISCUSSION: The Committee was very pleased to see that their input from previous mews has been incorporated into the project design. Possible inclusion of outdoor seating was raised. Steak n' Shake does not offer this mode of service as a company and it wcuU be difficult to serve a very small seating area with waiters and glassware. Providing bicycie parking was suggested by the Committee and will be integrated into the final design. Introjucing planting areas with trees at the east entry area and in a parking lot island was suggested by the Committee and will also be integrated into the final design. Landscaping review will be done at final presentation. The Committee noted that only truly opaque awnings are premitted in Evanston. Down lighting can be done under awnings, but no light can cone through the awning material. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 004IS 620 Lincoln - NWU Prelirninary and Final. Consider construction of roof -top mechanical well for condensing units to serve air conditionong for building conversion to office use. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY:Ms. Sue Budinsky(NWU) and Mr. Douglas Tweedie (Architect) GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Two proposals were presented for review: Scheme -A: was the proposal for the mechanical well from the previous meeting with new construction raising the well floor. Scheme-B: removes the new construction on the well floor and lowers the condensing units and surrounding screen wall. Both schemes use a lower equipment curb than previously proposed and would use louvered screen walls colored to agree with the future re -roofing color (roofing like 630 Lincoln building). The architect prefers Scheme -A since it does not present the waterproofing and over -flow drain issues created by Scheme-B. DISCUSSION: Even at its fairly inconspicuous location, the Committee felt that the lower the better for the equipment and resultant equipment screen. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval to Scheme-B and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 4 of 7 09/13/00 SPAARC 00-108 2460 Main — Sam's Club Revision to Final Consider modification of existing retail goods establishment exterior. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE DiD NOT COME TO THE MEETING SPAARC 00419 1625 Pavne — Marengo River Mill Preliminsry and Final Consider installation of dust collector and sawdust trailer in rear of existing building. This is part of a relocation process for light manufacturing use from 1031 Sherman. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Mark Campillo GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The same locations for the dust collector and sawdust trailer proposed in the concept review presentation have been maintained in the final drawings. DISCUSSION: Use of enlarged fence corner posts as bollards to protect the dust collector was suggested by Mr. Campillo and agreed to by the Committee. The fence around the dust collector will be 6 ft. high and constructed with slated chain link fabric. Marengo will take care to avoid the trailer ever extending into the alley space. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-018 800 Davis - Mixed use building Concept Consider ideas for mixed use building (residential, parkiing, and retailtoffice?). PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Tod Desmzrais and David Hovey GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Removal of the existing building is required for both schemes presented. Two new "mass analysis` schemes were shown with diagrams indicating the use and shape of the proposed functions on all levels of the building. Both schemes indicated retail, parking, and residential areas on the ground level; parking and residential areas on levels 2 thru 4; and only residential areas on levels 5 thru 13. A feature of both schemes was the location of the parking areas in interior spaces with as little street exposure as possible. The schemes each contain 100 dwelling units and 100 parking spaces to serve them, plus 28 parking spaces to serve the retail spaces. They were presented as being within the current site zoning criteria. Complete vertical circulation; loading berth location; and retail access for receiving functions have not been fully integrated into the mass studies at this point Page 5 of 7 09/13/00 Analysis-10 has a three sided "courtyard' opening to the east which extends rip the fu4 height of the complex. A wall of the historic building at 1578 Sherman forms part of this courtyard which is gated at the ground level. Analysis-11 has a three sided "courtyard" (or notch) opening to the north which only extends down to the fourth level. DISCUSSION: Both of the schemes present interesting mass forms which generate excellient planning opportunities and are far from a "cookie cutter" solution for the site. They demonstrate that real design effort is at work in the project development. The interesting use of an almost internal courtyard in Analysis-10 and its drawing of the historic building into the project are very positive features. It was suggested that a Zoning Analysis be applied for at this point in the project design process. The Zoning Division will be contacted regarding die submission needs for this review. Again, the developer was complemented by the Committee for coming for review at these very early stages in the project life. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval to Scheme-10 and was passed by unanimous vote, SPAARC 00-115 860 Chicago —Main Street Newsstand Preliminary Consider re -opening of retail sales establishment. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Joe Angelastri(owner) and Mr. David Forte(Architect) GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The unusable end portions of the existing overhangs and the entire east wall will be removed by this work. The new east wall will be full height glass and two new full height glazed openings will be created on the north wall incorporated into angular forms. The main entry will be off Main Street at the extreme east end of the north facade. Solid panels behind the glazing will be used in the lower spandrel areas at the display/cashier area. The new eastern window on the north wall will allow view of the newspaper racks and the new western window on the north wall will have 5 ft. high display space from the street and clear view into the newsstand above 5 ft. Minor portions of the new angular forms on the north wall will be insulated aluminum panels. The old newsstand sign will be obtained from City storage and refurbished as part of this project. It is around 3.5' high X 8 long, two sided, and may mount at 15.5' to the top of the sign. This will be reviewed in the sign permit application process. DISCUSSION: Taken as a whole this is a very good design for this project. The sign arrangement proposed will require some variations, but considering its historic nature its chances for approval should be very good. The Committee encouraged the Architect to keep as much clear glazing as possible and to keep the individual panes large. BY IAC criteria, this building must be fully accessible in all of its sales areas. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 6 of 7 09/13/00 SPAARC 00-123 2202 MaDle - Allstate Recommendation to the Sign Board Consider installation of wall and window signs for insurance agency. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Robert Fahlstrom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Signs are proposed on the north side of the building; in windows facing east; and at the west parking area. DISCUSSION: Signs are not permitted on the sides of building and the proposed signs exceed the maximum allowable area. A sign for business presence is one thing, but signs to attract "off -the -street' insurance traffic are not appropriate in this location. ACTIONS: A motion was made to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Variation Application and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-124 610-635 Chicago -- For Eves Recommendation_ M the Sion Board Consider installation of new wall sign and removal of existing wall sign for retail establishment. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Robert Fahlstrom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A gray text, illuminated sign is proposed with 2'-5' high letters. DISCUSSION: The allowable sign height of V-6" at this location is consistent with the other signs in this shopping center and the allowable colors are blue, orange, red, yellow, and white. Surely good signage for this location can be developed within this allowable criteria. ACTIONS: A motion was made to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Variation Application and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 7 of 7 09/13/00 DRAFT SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES September 6, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: L. Black (R.Walczak), P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Mm**. M. Mylott, S. Najar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz, R. Fahlstrom, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-002 Church -Davis Buildina for McDougal Littell Final Mixed -use 6 story building. Ground floor retail+office and upper floors ag office. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Alice Rebechini — Mesirow Financial Mr. Bob Bundis — OWP&P GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Renderings and plans of the final design for the building were presented. Major materials were given as: -Clear low "E" glazing -Two colors of precast concrete; off white and very light tan -Curved facade precast panels will be cast in curved forms. -Silver colored finish coating on window framing and column covers. -Areas of spandrel using clear glazing with opaque backing and some (on the north face) using ribbed precast concrete. A volumn change has been incorporated into the design with the sixth floor 'notch" on the south side increased to one bay larger than previous designs. This was generated by McDougal Littell's occupancy of this floor and their request. The following additions were made tr the building design: -The east site area by the building proper has been fenced off (with gates) in a manner that denies public access but preserves exitways. -The loading area path across Church Street will have pedestrian alarms. -Bicycle parking will be provided, but this has not been positioned on the site at this time. -Vertical rod steel guardrails have been indicated around (three sides) of the south ramped driveway recess. Inclined landscaping beds are planned for this area, but they are not shown in the current renderings. Page 1 of 4 DISCUSSION: A major discussion occurred on the issue of awning and pier design on the Church Stree facade. With a 3 ft. projection from the budding face at a 12 ft. height, the awnings presented are decorative and offer almost no protection to pedestrians. References to the Church Street Plaza theme, without simple copying, for both the awning and pier design has been the direction of the Architect. The Committee thought that the need for pedestrian protection had been established in the Concept review stage of the SPAARC process. While it was agreed that the width of the walk on this side of Church Street and tree foliage space create constraints on the awning design, it was suggested that the awning projection be increased as much as possible. The pier design can be modified and stilt be in the "family" of piers on the Church Street Plaza. Using a different material and/or shape at the column base and re -thinking the wall projections south of the column covers were suggested. It was agreed that addition studies of the awning and pier design would be presented to the Committee. The guardrail design at the south ramp recess is a concem of the Committee. While the design presented is very transparent, it does not relate to the materials used on the building. Since the rendering did not include the intense landscaping planned for this site area, it was difficult to judge the fall merits of the proposed design. It was agreed that north and south looking renderings of the ramp site area and full landscape plans would be presented to the Committee. Signage and site lighting will be reviewed as they are developed. Current signage thinking includes facility "pylons" in the northwest and southwest site areas and storefront signs similar to Church Street Plaza signage design. Other comments made at the meeting include: -Site will be owned by the developer with public access easements on most of the site which will continue through any future sales of the site. -Bollard locations in the loading dock area will be adjusted to provide the required 35 ft. loading berth without using access aisles as part of the berth space. -Lower level parking spaces will only be counted if they have proper access aisle dimensions as given in the Zoning Ordinance. -Negotiations for leasing parking spaces from the City of Evanston are in -process. -Final floor areas and resultant parking needs will be re -computed by the Architect ACTIONS: Considering the additional information requested by the Committee for the review of the building and site designs this meeting's approval was limited to the foundation portion of the project only. A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval to the FOUNDATION ONLY portion of the project and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 4 SPAARC 00-117 101 Dodge [Firestone and U-Haul) Preliminary and Final tchanoed to Preliminary at the nreetingl One-story addition to an existing service station. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Art Khunuk - Owner GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A addition to the west side of the existing building is proposed, housing a waiting room and office. The addition will match the existing building and extension/ rebuilding of the building's sloped fascia is included in the work. A small raised planter will be built at the southwest corner of the addition. The existing business does not include automobile sales and generally has two U-Haul trucks on site at any one time. The owner expressed interest in improving the appearance of his property. DISCUSSION: The addition itself was generally acceptable to the Committee with a suggestion to consider keeping the existing gable roof marking overhead door location. No sitework was proposed for the project and it was acknowledged that this site is an important `entry point" to Evanston. The current site is very barren and some suggestions for its improvement were: -Removing the west curb cut/drive on Howard Street and the north curb cut/ drive on Dodge Ave. -Decreasing the width of the south curb cut/ drive on Dodge Ave. -Introducing a 3 ft. wide planting strip on the south edge of the parking spaces abutting Howard Street. -Introducing a planting area (raised?) at the south west corner of the site. -Providing trees, shrubs, and flowers in the new planting areas. Landscape and site plans + details were requested for final SPAARC review meeting. The building addition as an accessory use to the existing special use will be considered by the Committee. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 3 of 4 SPAARC 00-118 620 Lincoln (NWUI Preliminary and Final Construct roof -top mechanical well to serve conversion to office function. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Susan Budinsky — NWU Mr. Douglas Tweedie - Architect GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The project consists of converting an existing dormitory into career counseling offices for Northwestern University. Included in the project work is providing air conditioning for the building and creating accessible, ramped access to the lower level of the facility. Part of the air conditioning work is the installation of a condensing unit within an existing recessed 'Well" on the sloped hip roof. The unit would be surrounded by a visual screen of aluminum louvers on four sides, approx. 2 ft. high at highest side and open to thoe sky. DISCUSSION: The only portion of this project's work possibly viewable from a public way is the condensing unit area visual screen. A question was raised at the meeting concerning the properties possible location in the newly formed historic district. Subsequent investigation. after the meeting, determined that it is not in the historic district. Limiting the height of the visual screen as much as possible was suggested by the Committee. Removing the new raised floor level in the existing 'well" would lower the unit and the screen. To maintain schedule NWU may elect to remove this work on the existing roof from the current building permit application and limit the permit to interior work. ACTIONS: A motion was made to table this item and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-119 1626 Payne Street IMarenoo River (Mill) Concevt Relocate light manufacturing use from 1031 Sherman Ave. Erect dust collector and sawdust trailer in near yawl. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY, Mr. Mark Campillo — Owner of Marengo River Mill GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: This business is currently located in Evanston and wants to relocate to a more industrial area. The exterior portion of this project's work consists of the installation of a dust collection system with surrounding fence and a pad for a sawdust trailer. The trailer contains discharge from the collector and is replaced when full. DISCUSSION: The Committee is always pleased to see a business stay in Evanston and locate in an area of similar companies. A suggestion was made to include protection bollards for the trailer and collector areas in the final design. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 4 of 4 DRAFT SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES August 30, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Najar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz.. C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting_ Projects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-018 800 Davis Street Consider ideas for a mixed use building. Concept PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: OPTIMA Inc. — David Hovey and Tod Desmzrais GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: OPTIMA has purchased the "Bank One", 800 Davis Street building and intends to develop the site. The building was presented as being built in 1953; having 65,000 GSF in 5 stories; needing major mechanical/ electrical upgrades for contemporary functions; and having a shape + size that combines to make replanning the existing floors to serve residential or modem office use very difficult. The development is in its very early planning stage with many different approaches to the project under active consideration. All of the studies were presented as being within the current zoning criteria for the site. Four "MASS ANALYSIS" studies were presented for discussion as follows: -Mass Analvsis 1: proposes removing the existing building and constructing two parking/ commercial levels built to the lot lines (filling the site) and 9 stories of residential use above, set back from the lower levels, This study includes 10,000 GSF of commercial; 134,000 GSF of residentiai for a total "zoning" gross area of around 144,000 GSF. Parking for 129 cars is also included in this study. Page 1 Of 4 -Mass Analysis 3(no 42" submitted): proposes removing the existing building and constructing four parking/ commercial levels built back from the lot lines (not filling the site) and 9 stories of residential use above, not set back from the lower levels, except on the south side. This study includes 10,000 GSF of commercial; 134,000 GSF of residential for a total 'zoning' gross area of around 144,000 GSF. Parking for 129 cars is also included in this study. -Mass Analysis 4: proposes remodeling the existing building and adding 3 stories to it (setback from the existing fifth floor); and constructing an addition with four parking levels built to the lot lines (filling the existing parking lot) and 3 stories of residential use above, set back from the lower levels. This study includes 10,000 GSF of commercial in the existing space; 133,000 GSF of residential (54,000 GSF in existing space and 74,000 GSF in new addition) for a total "zoning" gross area of around 143,000 GSF. Parking for 129 cars is also included in this study. -Mass Analvsis 5: proposes remodeling existing building and constructing an independent building on the western portion of the site with four parking levels built to the north and south lot lines and 9 stories of residential use above, set back from the lower levels. This study includes 13,000 GSF of commercial in the existing building; 131,000 GSF of residential (19,000 GSF in existing and 112,000 GSF in new building) for a total "zoning" gross area of around 144,000 GSF. Parking for 131 cars is also included in this study. DISCUSSION: Committee members were pleased that the project was brought to them in this very early "mass analysis", programming stage. All recognize that this is an important project on a very significant site in downtown Evanston. The studies presented were discussed at length with the following major suggestions: -Using the Planned Unit Development process seems appropriate for the site since setback requirements may have to be altered for some of the schemes. -Including open plaza space in future planning is encouraged. -With some exceptions, the Committee agreed that the studies that removed the existing building seemed to work best on the site. This was tempered by the desire to actually see what was being proposed in the building design. The existing building abutting the project site on the southeast comer has Evanston landmark status and may be considered in the design. Some Committee members suggested that a careful study be made of the existing building for reuse, before the final decision to remove it is made. Three of the four studies cover a good portion of the wall (with windows) of the existing building abutting the west property line of the site. The developer should determine what kind of agreements were made with the City when the building was built that apply to possible closure of existing windows. The developer was encouraged to provide an exciting project for this highly visible location, so important to downtown Evanston. ACTIONS: Since this was a review of pre -concept data a motion was made to table this item and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 4 SPAARC 00-017 Lovelace Paris — Nextel Tower Preliminary Construct tower within a City park for wireless communication facility. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: CIS/Nextel West Corp. Hans Mugler GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: An area in northwest Evanston and surrounding communities is not currently well served by the Nextel wireless system resulting in overload conditions with dropped calls. A wireless communication antenna installation is proposed in the extreme southeast comer of Lovelace Park, adjacent to an existing ComEd transformer yard. The antenna facility would consist of a 25' X 50' fenced area housing a 11'W X 201 X 10'H equipment shelter and a monopole antenna. A paved access drive is shown from an existing path in the park.. The height of the antenna works best at 120', but this proposal is in the 75'-80' height range. In other installations the antenna "mast" was designed as a flagpole or bell/clock tower. DISCUSSION: This presentation was the first knowledge of this proposal for all Committee members. The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry department was not aware of this proposal for an antenna in a City park. All committee members agreed that an antenna tower in this totally residential region of the City would be an issue that should be raised with with the area's Aiderperson and with the community at large. The City of Evanston's water tower is 'A mile from the proposed site. The Nextel representative did not know if antennas could serve the required area from the water tower and it was suggested that he analyze this location carefully. Mr. Richard Figurelli was suggested as a contact point for data an ground and tower space availability at the water tower site. Probable poor soil conditions at the Lovelace Park site were also noted at the meeting. ACTIONS: A motion was made to table this item and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 3 of 4 SPAARC 98-0035 15011 Sherman Avenue — Holidav Inn Concoot tchanged to Preliminary at the rtxoting) Remodel exterior and install nets, accessible lift at existing hotel. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Tracy Chen - Architect GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Unlike previous schemes, this proposal provides an accessible entry to the Holiday Inn totally within the existing building footprint and directly into the Lobby area. Previous schemes had shown significant ramp construction on the public way and entry through the lounge area. A 5 ft. strip of the south portion of the existing main entry stairs from Sherman Ave. will be removed and rebuilt level with the Lobby floor, a rise of around 52". A wheelchair lift will be installed at the west (Sherman Ave.) end of this strip with a hinged door opening to the exterior. The lift will have a gate at the Lobby level and a glass enclosed vestibule with interior door will lead to the Lobby proper. Outside of the accessible path, the scheme also changes the main entry doors to automatic, horizontal sliding type. DISCUSSION: This scheme removes all the negative issues raised by previous proposals, in particular there is no construction proposed on the public way. The Committee agreed that it was an excellent solution for a main entry accessible path. It was suggested that the inner vestibule door in the accessible path be changed to a horizontal sliding door. The Architect indicated that space could probably be made for this type door at this location. The hinged door access to the wheelchair lift from Sherman Ave. swings over the public sidewalk, but the Committee agreed that this would be acceptable considering the door's limited use. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 4 of 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 23, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, R. Walczak, J. Wolinski. Members Absent J. Aiello, D. Jennings. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: B. Fahistrom, S. Guderiey, S. Lufkin, M. Robinson, R. Schur, M. Travis. Others Present: None. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3,05 p.m. SPAARC 00-101 2209 Oakton Street Preliminary Construct type ! restaurant with drive-thru tact7ity (Steak'n Shake). Mr. Matt Anderson (architect), Mr. Dan O'Connell (Steak 'n Shake), and Mr. Steve Forsgren (Developer) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and menu to construct a one story buiifwV for a type I restaurant with drive-thru (Steak 'n Shake) at 2209 Oakton Street. M. Anderson stated the k ttowing: 1. Steak 'n Shake will use the our lot (Home Depot). 2. Proposal is similar to previous submittal brought to Committee on 7-26-00. Primary change will deal with the view of the building from the inside. The drive thru will be on the north side, menu hoard on front door. Passenger, not driver will be at window If you `flip' the inside as suggested by Committee on 7-26-00. 3. Front doors will not move. Proposal will have ten windows on south, ten windows on front, one window on north. Steak 'n shake proposes to keep floor plan, add set of windows on south elevation. Back of building will have addition glass -block windows. SUMMARY OF FMoIN S SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE MVIEW Ct]MMMM August 23, 2000 Page 5 or 5 D. O'Connell stated that glass block windows wil be decorative. M. tdlylott stated opaque glass t:Aock could be used DISCUSSION: A Atterson stated he does not understand why proposec plan cannot be 'flipped'. that proposal does not adequately serve community A Alterson stated a specific Alderperson is on record as stating that the windows s ,,cwld be placed facing Oakton Street, and urges Steak 'n Shake to conform to the surrounding environment M Myiect stated that Steak 'n Shake have turned their backs on Committee's recommendation fipr a dining room design that faces Oakton Street, and atso seed a 'flipped' design is a nroer presentation to street D O'Connell stated that Steak 'n Shake can add additional set of windows on Oakton Street C. Smith stated by'flipping' design additional windows are not necessary. C. Smith stated that she does not understand why Committee's recommendations have been ignored. C. Smith stated ti-al by 'flipping' design it wiff be more street friendly as well. D. Marino asked how many more windows could be added to north cAerabon? D. O'Connell stated four (4) additional windows could be added. A. Alterson stated if he was ezing in Steak 'n Shake he mould rather look out towards park across the street than look towards Horne Depot's parking lot. A. Alterson stated that design is unacceptable, and for the Committee to be told by the Steak 'n Shake corporation that this is one of only three accepted designs by Steak 'n Shake makes. it obvious that Steak 'n Shake is not willing to go the extra mile to satisfy community concerns with their design D. O'Connell stated the following: 1. By 'flipping' design...... All kitchen operations will be reversed on the inside. 2. By placing design orientation where parking will face front doors will result in putting the menu at the front door. This is not acceptable because to get in store you have to walk thru drive-thru. 1 Committee is creating unsafe working conditions. Redesigning of witemal functional operations of the building cannot be comprised. Complications arise you have peopie trained at other restaurants to provide food one-way. You create a training nightmare. C. Smith stated 'flipping' plan still satisfies drive-thru window problem. A Alterson stated by proposing to add phony glass block windows on south fagade does not make comffwttee satisfied. D. O'Connell asks why can't Steak 'n Shake just enhance back of store? C. Smith steed because it does not satisfy Committee's concerns. C. Smith stated drive-thru and parking configuration can be reworked. A Alterson stated his main concern is the Oakton Street elevation. Customers wailking around the building to enter will not impact business. The south elevation however does have an impact M. Mylott stated that Steak 'n Shake concerns with operations don't merit Committee's. A_ Alterson asked how will Steak 'n Shake address stacking of cars? D. O'Connell the drive-thru will serve only 15-20°% most of the people will come into restaurant and sit down. A. Alterson motioned to DENY preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (7-4. P. D'Aaestno. K. Kelly. n. Marino. 5. Naaar voted to approve) to DENY nreliminary site plan and appearance review aooroval A, Alterson motioned to grant concept appearance review approval_ D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (11-0) to orant concept appearance rev-,ew approval. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, and menu have been placed with Sde Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-101). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 23, 2DOO Page 4 of 5 x SPAARC 99-0025 1615 Emerson Street Revision To Final Change roof design for proposed 5-story, 76 unit independent Wiry Araity (Jacob Blake lieanor). Mr. Larry Parkman (arrhlect) submitted elevations and landscape plan for a proposal to change the roof design that was originally approved by SPAARC for the Jacob Blake Manor. L. Parkman stated that the proposal reduces cost of project considerably, and also achieves a sloped look appearance to the general public. L. Parkman stated that the revised roof design lowers the building height five feet. L Parkman stated that the building design, footprint, window openings, and building location will remain It a same. However, mechanical room location has been changed because of loss of attic space. L Parkman stated that height between roof deck and top of mansard is ten feet This distance should create enough distance to conceal mechanical equipment that might have to be plaoed on the roof. J. Wol0ski asked what are the cost savings of the new design? L Parkman replied $100.000. M. Myk)tt asked wiq future mechanical equipment located on roof be visible from street? L Parkman replied no. D. Marino asks C. Smith what is appearance significance of roof change? C. Smith replied appearance changes are minimal, and that revisions are acceptable. O. Marino makes motion to approve revision to final site plan and appearance review approval. J. WoIinski seconded the motion. Committee amroved the motion 1c a1. -M. Mvlott voted not to qr n pporoval try re. ions o final site olan and anpearance review argr_ I The revised elevations and landscape plan have been placed wain the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-0025). SPAARC 00-017 1450 Sherman Avenue Revision To Final Renovate facade for expansion of type l restaurant (Tommy Nevins) Ms. Healy Rice (architect) presented elevations and site photos for an expansion of the existing type I restaurant (Tommy Nevins) into the adjoining space (Old Orleans restaurant). The facade change will be a continuation which encompasses the entire building. H. Rice stated that the canopy will be eliminated. C. Smith asked for questions or comments. There were none. M. Mylott makes motion to approve the revisions to the previous preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, maintaining the original condataons. (1) the applicant use wood below the tablature, and (2) any changes to the facade be done in a manner that does as little damage as possible to the underlying facade. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (11-01 to aavorove the revisions to the orevious oreliminary and final site plan and amearance review aonroval_ maintaining the original conditions: (1) the applicant use wood below the tablature. and (2) anv chances to the facade be done in a manner that does as We damage as aossible to the underlvina facade. H. Friedman abstained. The revised elevations have been placed with the Site Plan and Aooearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-0171. SUMMARY OF FIAIDINW SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEVV COwAI► nTU "ust23. 2000 Paw 5d5 SPAARC 00-115 860 Chicago Avenue ConceW Establish retail goods establishment (Main St lllewsstan%9 Mr. David Forte (architect) and Mr. Joe Angelastri (proprietor, City Newsstand) presented a plat of swrvey. elevations, and site photographs in order to remodel, and establish a retail goods establishment Main Street Newsstand). D. Marino stated that the proposed remodeling pm)ect was previously approved by City Council to lease building. D. Forte stated that the south elevation will have no changes, and th* the west (L track side) elevation will remain as is. D. Forte stated that a new roof will be installed, and VW the City will remove certain tree branches that overhang on site. D. Forte stated that the north elevation (main street) will consist of several new windows which V11 be above magazine racks (5-7'h). D. Forte also stated that some windows will be lower so that they may be seen from the outside. East elevation garage heater to be eliminated, and a new roof top unit *0 be installed with ductwork. New fagade with stone work will be installed. and the front vestibule area %%9 be remodeled. C. Smith stated that the design requires some sort of cormection between the Chicago and the Main street facades is needed. D. Forte stated that the budget is "fted, and extensive remodeling is plagued with a lot of restrictions from inside, one of them being the columns. S. Fahlstrom stated that satisfying handicap accessibility requirements will be tight and must be worked out. H. Friedman asked about installation of skylights for roof. D. Forte stated that is a possibility C. Smith stated brickwork deeds to be cleaned and tuckpointed. D. Forte stated that brick is not exciting, and the overhangs will have to be redone. J. Wo&nskl asked how will "double parking' in front of the newsstand be addressed? J. Angelastri replied more pedestrian traffic is predicted as opposed to drive -ups. C. Smith suggested like racks should be installed to further discourage double parking of cars. M. Mylott suggested the bigger the windows the better to bring attention to what's going on inside the store. H. Friedman asked wilt telephone on north wall be removed? D. Forte replied yes C. Smith motioned to grant conceptual site plan and appearance review approval. J. WokmW seconded the motion. Committee aaoroved the motion f 11-M to orant conceptual site plan and aaoearance review approval. The plat of survey and site photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-115). SPAARC 98-0129 928-1002 Church Street Communication City Manager's decision regarding accessibility ramp at Davis Street METRA Station. Discussion centered on the City Manager's decision allowing METRA not to appear before Site Plan and Appearance Committee for final approval for their handicap ramp protect at the METRA station on Davis Street. J. Wolinski stated that METRA appealed SPAARC's derision to deny preliminary and final approval. City Manager has asked SPAARC to speak to Wynne Harrison (handicap accessibility specialist with Health and Human Services Department). METRA stated to the City manager that elevators are unrelcable, and ramps are the best option. M. Mylott stated that site plan followed the Law Department's request to give METRA an opportunity to appeal SPAARC's decision. C. Smith hopes that METRA will return for approval of lighting and landscaping plan. C Smith stated that any open ended issues will be handled during permitting process. J. Wolinski stated that when METRA comes in for permit final approval will not be required. C. smith SUMMARY OF FINDINGS S TE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 23.2000 Page, of 5 4 stated that issue of accessibility lies within the codes of Illinois Accessibility standards, meaning the law is the law. This Is what the city manager is basing his decision on. M. Mylott stated that the height of the ramps were unreasonable, and asks what determines 'too high'. C. Smith stated that we should take this issue up with the state legislative body. D. Martino stated that Wynne Harrison should be present at site plan whets handicap accessibility issues arise. C. Ruiz stated Mat METRA has been sued before over ramp heights. M. Mybtt stated that the outstanding issue is METRA Is receiving governmental funds to complete project, and therefore must ad ,ere to MrxA Accessibility codes. D. Marino motioned to invite Wynne Harrison to discuss handicap accessibility ramp requurements before proceeding to state Legislative branch for possible changes to ramp height requirements. R. Dahal seconded the motion. Committee avoroved the motion 16-2-2. M. Mviott and K Kelly voted no. J. Wolinski and S. Nagar abstained] to invite Wvnn Harrisnn to SPAARC for discu_s_s_ ions on pr9ppedinc to the State of Illinois regarding chances to ramp height rgquirements. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m_ Respectfully submitted, Martin P. Travis Zoning Officer SULG ARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW Co&MMTTEE August 23.2000 page 5 d 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 16, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, R. Dahal, S. Levine (far P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smite, R. Walczak, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Markm. H. Friedman. C. Bush, S. Guderley. W. Hallen, R. Schur, M. Travis. None. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-114 2142 Ashland Avenue Preliminary lntenorlexteriorremodeling to convert warehouse to multi -family residence. Mr. John Leineweber presented a site plan, floor plan, and elevations to convert a commercial building into a multi -family residence. J. Leineweber stated that the adjacent structure at 2144 Ashland Avenue contains seven live/work loft units that are fully leased, and that the concept for 2142 will be virtually the same which is to convert the building into three livetwork units. J. Leineweber stated that the 2142 building is currently land locked and inaccessible from rear. J. Leineweber stated that in remodeling the 2144 building he took a bow truss roof, rebuilt the trusses and built interior street or courtyard design. The same concept is being proposed for 2142, where the front entry will be setback 10' from 2144 Ashland. J. Leineweber stated the entire front yard of building will be landscaped, and the first portion of building on the inside will become an interior courtyard bringing in light and air into space. J_ Leinw*eber stated the proposal also includes constructing a 2"d floor addition on back of building. containing skylights (total of 15). and setback walls that allow windows for additional light and air into the studio apartments (900sq.ft.). SUMAW of FI1 AXNG'S �(, SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO&MAITTEE AWust M, 2000 Page sds J. Leineweber stated that the two back units will be two story with roof top deck (2200sq.ft). J. Leineweber stated the proposed fire safety system has been approved by Fire Department and C. Smith. J. Leineweber stated that the front facade of building contains an iron sculptured piece which will be enhanced. M. Myllot asked what its the proposed exterior material? J. Leineweber replied wood siding with a corrugated steel roof. A. Atterson stated a Special Use will be required. C. Smith asked has there been any neighbor objections to the proposal? A. Alterson replied no. J. Leineweber started that providing off-street parking will not be the problem, rather the transition going from commercial to a mixed use building will create a different kind of impact that will not be negative to the neighborhood. M. Mylott asked will people live at 2144 Ashland but teach classes at 2142 Ashland? J. Leinewebber replied yes, a holistic teacher wil use classroom. M. Mylott asked are all the units at 2144 Ashland solely rental? J. Leinewebber replied yes. C. Smith stated the front elevation works well. S. Nagar motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to arant Dreliminary site plan and appearance review approval. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-114). SPAARC 00-112 500-514 Asbury Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct parking area for retirement home (St Francis Extended Cane). Mark Jones (architect) presented site plan, area photographs, and landscaping plan :in order to construct a new parking area for the St. Francis Extended Care. M. Jones stated the scope of work as follows: I. Demolition of existing single family residence. 2. Construct a surface parking lot containing thirteen (13) parking spaces in which access will be one way from Asbury Avenue not exiting at Asbury alley only. Paving of existing alley is also part of the scope (Oakton to south Blvd). Surface parking lot will have catch basins connected to storm line handicapped spaces are located on main parking lot. Hours of parking is restricted to 6am to 11:30pm. No staff parking allowed parking lot will be asphalt north prop line to have 6'h vinyl fence in previous agreement with owner at 517 Asbury south prop. Property line will have 6'h chain link (black)entire lot to be landscaped screening will be provided along proposed fences. Lighting will be provided by light bowers. There will be nine on site 6 at entrance. SUMMARY OF FINDWGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 16. 2000 Ps" ior5 x Three surface mounted fixtures will be mounted on north side of building 20' above ground lighting. All fixtures will be on timers. J. Aiello asked is there parking on west side of building? M. Jones said yes, a total of 25 spaces. J. Aiello asked why not allow 1130-7am shift park there? M. Jones replied those will park at rear of facility Additional parking is needed to bring in additional physicians. Agreement exist between school to park there. S. Nagar stated that alley design is not in compliance and no drainage is being proposed. This was discussed six months ago w engineering. Nothing has been proposed. M. Jones stated that civil documents have been drawn up, and all requirements will be met when building permit is applied for. M. Jones stated that a water retention pitch into the alley is more desirable than the installation of sewers. S. Nagar stated that parking lot does not have capacity to take on water. R. Walczak asked is vinyl fence open with slats?. M. Jones replied no it will be solid. R. Walczak stated that for safety reasons slats (openings) on fence is more desirable. M. Jones stated that St. Francis doesn't want headlights to shine onto adjoining properties. A. Atterson stated that himself, J. Wolinski, and the ward alderman have been brought in on this project, and all involved are in agreement with project. J. Aiello asked what is structure west of alley? M. Jones replied a two -fiat. S. Levene stated that landscape plan as proposed is satisfactory for preliminary approval, however more information is required prior to issuance of building permit. For zoning purposes covenant is required prior to zoning approval (operational concerns, specifically building addition will not be allowed to be built). M. Mylott asked is the use a nursing home? M. Jones replied it is an extended care facility. M. Mylott asked are there people who stay permanently? M. Jones replied no. C. Smith stated that chain link fence is not very attractive if you're driving southbound on Asbury Avenue. M. Jones stated that there is an existing drop-off in grade which necessitated a guard rail. C. Smith stated design is guard rail is Heavy handed, suggests curbing with wrought iron (decorative form work) will be more attractive. J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Review and approval of alley and site design for water retention by City Engineer. 2. Final approval of landscape plan. 3. Approval of covenant by assistant Director of Zoning (A. Alterson). S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion !8-0? to grant preliminary site plan and apoearance review approval subject to the followinq conditions: SUMMARY OF FINDUNIGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWrr E€ August I& 20M Pop Sd5 X 4. Review and approval of allev and site design for water retention by City Enaineer. 5. Final approval of landscape plan. 6. Approval of covenant by assistant Director of Zonina (A. Atterson). The site plan, landscape plan, and area photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-112). SPAARC 00-113 1723 Benson Avenue Concept Construct 4-story addition to Indoor Recreation Center (Evanston Athletic Club) Mr. Mark Walsh (architect) presented site plan, floor plans, and elevations for a four story addition to the Evanston Athletic Club. Subject property houses the Evanston Athletic Club, restaurant, and retail space (1 story). M. Walsh stated that proposal is to tear down portion of one story building, then construct four story addition to Evanston Athletic Club. Additionally, interior/exterior remodeling worts is also being proposed. M. Walsh stated that existing windows will be replaced with larger windows. Additionally, a stair tower will be added on to gain access to the other buildings, and the Ist floor will remain as a retail space and athletic club. M. Walsh stated that roof plan will consist of a four lane lap pool with whirpool/spa. In order to provide handicap access to pool, a portion of building will house elevator. C. Smith asked what is outside material? M. Walsh replied brick and a limestone band. The idea is to match existing fagade as much as possible. C. Smith asked about rear building and stair tower (materials)? M. Walsh replied a cr6me colored texture material will be used. M. Walsh stated a heated bubble is being proposed to encase the pool during the winter months. C. Smith asked what kind of windows are being proposed? M. Walsh replied large fixed glazing is being proposed. M. Mylott stated existing windows are lined up with base, and that new windows have no relationship to existing base. C. Smith stated type of window is just as important as relationship. C. Smith stated that building is a heavy massed building, and double hung windows would look better. M. Walsh stated larger windows are a benefit to occupants. A. Alterson stated that zoning analysis reflects several zoning problems one of them being building height. A hearing to the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required, as well as Evanston City Council approval. A. Alterson asked is building landmark? M. Walsh replied he does not believe so. A. Alterson stated that 1701-1717 Benson is a landmark, and that 1721 Benson should be landmark also. C. Smith stated she is proponent of new material, but questions if new proposed materials can be effectively used. M. Mylar stated that concept mimics structures to the south, and that a subtle transition between north and south structures should be smoother. C. Smith stated that maybe more glazing on first floor is possible, follow more closely to what is there, and that plans should be clearly defined to depict a balance. A_ Alterson stated that south SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 16. 2000 Page 4 of 5 w .•4 end of building of first floor functions well. C. Smith stated as a concept proposal works well, but does not support dome (pool bubble). C. Smith stated that inclement vier around Evanston means bubble will be up nine months. C. Smith stated that bubble will not work well, and if pool needs to be enclosed, enclose it- J. Wolinski makes motion to table concept approval because of design conoems (bubble). M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aovroved the motion (7-1. A. Alterson voted no) to table concept approval. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations have been placed with the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-113). SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Review plat of resubdivision (Church Maple First ResubdMisan). C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review. R_ Walczak seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (8-01 to arant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A copy of the plat has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-OW5). SPAARC 00-002 Church Street Plaza (Lot C) Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Review plat of resubdivision (Davis Church Resubdivision). C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and Final site plan and appearance review. R_ Walczak seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A copy of the plat has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-002). Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martin P. Travis Zoning Officer SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SnE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW 00MWrrEE Auguai 15. 2000 Pope 5 or 5 k SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 2, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement A. Akerson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, M. Wad, S. Nagar, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. WolinskL J. Aiello, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marina, C. Smith. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, W. Hallen. M. Mylott motioned to appoint A. Alterson as acting chair. R. Dahal seconded the motion. CornrnitteQ approved the motion (9-0) to appoint A, Alterson as actino chair. A Atterson (acting chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-062 1000 Grove Street Preliminary Construct 2-story addition to gymnasium within mixed -use bur7ding containing public recreation center (A#cGaw YMCA) and residential. Mr. Lary LaRoi (architect) presented Application for Zoning Analysis 00-704-ZA, including a site plan. floor plans, elevations, plat of survey, and site and area photographs, to construct a 2-story adddm to the gymnasium within the mixed -use building containing a public recreation center (McGaw YMCA) and residential located at 1000 Grove Street. Mr Tony Lee (executive director) and Mr. Chuck Staley (attorney) were available to answer questions L. LaRoi stated that 1. the building materials would include similar brick and cut limestone belts as the 1993 addbon. Each side of the addition would be constructed using standard -size face brick. 2. the proposal reduces the number of exasbng parking spaces from 135 to 118. The number of existing parking spaces includes the 34 spaces located west of the building, across the aAley 5WAMARY OF F1Lt OOM SrfE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CC&"iiEE A Z1 of5 rVj A. Alterson stated that the use is required to provide 314 parking spaces — 271 spaces ,tar the recreational facility and 172 spaces for the rooming units. A. Alterson stated that the applicants may need a variation to reduce the number of existing parking spaces and a new snecLal use permit; both types of zoning relief requite final approval by the City Council T. Lee stated that the western parking area and the first and second rows (from north ro south) of the southern parking area are metered, the revenue is split between the City and the YWCA. C. Staley stated that the YMCA leases the third and fourth rows of the southern parking area to the City for use by commuters. T. Lee strted that those permits could be terminated within cD days, according to Jean Baucom. A Atterson stated that he is not certain the applicant should have counted those parking spaces wrthin the number of existing parking spaces; if the parkx-g spaces eliminated due to the proposed addition should not have been counted. a variation to the number of parking spaces may not be necessary. A. Alterson stated that the applicants should provide him with documentation regarding the various arrangements with the City. S. Fahlstrom stated that the parking areas must conform to the Illinois Accessibility Code. C. Staley stated that they sent notices to the persons residing at 1501-1503 Oak Avenue; one couple attended the meeting, and 'they loved it". T. Lee stated that Alderman Bernstein is aware of ttus project. A Alterson asked the applicants: did the notice point out, and is the Alderman aware of, the reduced number of parking spaces? C. Staley responded: no. T. Lee stated that the YMCA has always contained 172 rooming units; he is uncertain why an earlier zoning analysis notes the number of rooming units as 160. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary site ptan and appearance review approval. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that the additional and more efficient recreational facilities are worth the proposed decrease in parking spaces. J. Wolinskl agreed, and stated that the improvements help the City accommodate increasing recreational needs. B. Fahlstrom stated that this improvement includes fully sprinklering the building. Committee aDDroved the motion f8-01 to arant oreliminary site Dian and apmearance review aooroval. A. Alterson abstained. 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 folder for this case (SPAARC 00-082). SPAARC 00-097 500 Davis Street Install bicycle racks within plaza of mixed -use building (Chandler Building). Applicant did not attend. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COFMArrr E August 2.2000 Pegs 2 of 5 Preliminary and Final sr SPAARC 00-057 1113 Clark Street Preliminary Construct 3-story addrtion to religious institution (Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church) Mr. Sheldon Hill (archdect) and Mr. Michael ,Johnson (designer) presented Application for Zoning ArriaV.A 00-764-ZA, Including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, to constrict a 3-story addition to the religious Institution (ML Zion Missionary Baptist Church) krcated at 1113 Claris Street M. Johnson stated that: 1. the concept for the addltton has not changed; it would `wed the old with the nevi. The a*Mn would be constructed of standard -size brick. They would add an at -grade exit along the west side of the addition. They estimate the construction to cost $1.8 million. 2. they will 'downpfa}r• the new entrants, but they have not yet made that change to the drawings 3. the parking area has been reconfigured. Persons leaving the parking space at the southeast comer of trie site could back out to the north such that they do not back into the street. The existing site contains 10 parking spaces; they propose to install 23 parking spaces. 4. the entire subject property is currently off the tax rolls. B. Fahtstrom stated that the accessible parking spaces cannot share loading zones, and a loading zone must be at the grade of the parking space A. Alterson stated that no zoning relief is required for the construction of the addition, but the parting area would require variations due to insufficient setbacks. M. Mytott stated that the additional parking spaces benefit the community in that they alleviate on -street congestion; perhaps the parking area could be screened with shrubs planted within the right-of-way. J. Wolinski stated that the City may be able to have an arrangement with the Church to utilize parking spaces during the week. S. Hill stated that the Church would utilize some of Vvm parking spaces during the week. S. Nagar stated that the applicants should contact him regarding detention requirements. S. Nagar motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aDDroved the motion (9-0) to grant preliminary site plan and apoearance review approval. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-057). SUMMARY OF FMNW STTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW GOWNTTEE a August Z 2000 Page 3 of 5 SPAARC 00-103 2145 Sheridan Road Preliminary and Final Install wireless comrrwnocation facility (Sprint PCS). Mr. Patti Bemhard (attomey) presented working drawings, propagation maps, before -and -after photographs, and site photographs to install a wireless communication facility (Sprint PCs) at 2145 Sheridan Road. Mr. Joseph Rizzo (RF engineer), Mr. Bill Buchalter (eng)neer), and Ms. Kristin Klreszyk (Sprint) were available to answer questions. P. Bemhard stated that the equipment accessory to the antennas would not be visible from Sheridan Road. S. Buchalter staled that the white antennas would be 12 to IS inches wide and approximately 6 feet high; white blends the best with the sky based upon their experience. M. Myiott stated that antennas should not extend above the roof to which they are mounted. J. Rizzo stated that lowering the antennas would make them accessible to the general pubic through the windows; the FCC prohibits access to the equipment by the general public. B. Buchalter stated that the cables connecting to the antennas have minimum bend radii; the antennas may be more visible due to cables that could no bnger be hidden behind the antennas, and they would have to drill through the parapet P. Bernhard stated that the lease requires 'as little invasion to the building as possible'. K Kleszyk stated that Sprint has no other sites planned for this area through 2002. P. Bernhard stated that Sprint could need additional facilities if it began to experience capacity problems J. Wolinski asked the applicants: what are the terms of the lease with Northwestern University? P. Bernhard responded: I can not answer that question. B. Fahistrom stated that an architect or structural engineer must stamp the working drawings. J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review apprvrai. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion 18-1I to Grant oreliminarr and final site ohan and ap*earance review aooroval. M. Mylott cast the dissenting vote. The working drawings, propagation maps, before -and -after photographs, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-103). SPAARC 00-104 1901 Green Bav Road Preliminary and Final Remodel store front for retail service establishment (Currency Exchange). Applicant canceled appearance. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE: PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrr rEE August 2.2000 Pape 4 of 5 P. SPAARC 00-105 827 Greenleaf Street Preliminary and Final Subdivide one zoning lot into two zoning lots, requiring major variations. Ms. Renee Worthington (applicant) and Ms. (Jacquelyn Woodyard) presented Apprx3bon for Variation 00-21-V(F), including a site plan and plat of survey, and site photographs to subdivide one zoning lot into two zoning lots at 827 Greenleaf Street M. Mylott informed the Committee of the requested variations. R. Worthington stated that the northern one-third of the detached garage collapsed; at this location, she would install two open, off-street parking spaces accessory to 1107 Elmwood Avenue. M. !Mylott stated that the applicant has enough room to legally locate two parking spaces there, despite having asked for setback variations R Worthington stated that she would withdraw the request for those variations if enough space were available. J. Woodyard stated that residence at 827 Greenleaf Street is 128 years old; former Mayor Bartlett lived here. A. Alterson stated that this residence is a landmark. J. Wolinski stated that the City Couned could not act upon the subdivision until it reviews a Preservation Commission report on the application. A Alterson stated that the proposed configuration allocates most of the lot area to the landmark portion of the property. M. Mylott stated that the applicant seems to have proposed a slightly substandard lot size for 1107 Elmwood Street such that 827 Greenleaf Street would meet the rear yard setback requirement and have adequate space for backing from the garage. A Alterson stated that the current zoning lot has enough lot area to create two zoning lots that would conform to the minimum lot size requirement J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion r9-01 to orant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review aoDroval. Summary of Finding9 R. Walczak motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from September 29, 1999 and June 7, 2000. R. Dahal seconded the motion. Committee aoaroved the motion (8-0) to aoorove the Surnmary of Findings from September 29. 1999 and June 7. 2000.. S. Nagar abstained. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. ully submitted teven o , All Acting Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COLWTTEE eoAu{apga 5 d20005 S SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 26, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present Design Professional Absent,: Other Staff Present: Others Present' Commencement A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino. D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, R. Walczak, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, R. Dahal, K. Kelly, J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. W. Hallen, M. Robinson, M. Travis. None. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-101 2209 Oakton Street Preliminatry Construct type ! restaurant with drive-thru facility (Steak 'n Shake). Mr. Matt Anderson (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and menu to construct a one story building for a type I restaurant with drive-thru (Steak 'n Shake) at 2209 Oakton Street. The proposed Steak 'n Shake will be located at the 'out' lot of Home Depot. M. Anderson stated the following: 1. Customer parking will be located out front. 2. A drive-thru with menu board is also being proposed. 3. Three (3) curb cuts are being proposed off of Oakton Street_ 4. A trash enclosure is being proposed. M. Mylott asked what material will be used for the enclosure? M. Anderson stated that the material will be white concrete block. J. Wolinski stated many proposals have been seen for this out lot. J. Wolinski asked what phase Is Steak 'n Shake in with the negotiations? M. Anderson replied that Steak 'n Shake Is in the process of negotiating a deal. The reason for the delay was due to Steak 'n Shake's concern over existing soil conditions. M. Anderson stated that Steak'n Shake is ready to move forward with the project M. Mylott stated that the floor plan would be more appealing if the glass facade dining area was facing Oakton Street instead of Home Depot. M. Mylott stated the floor plan should be 'flipped', with the dining area facing Oakton Street, the kitchen and prep areas facing Home Depot. A. Alterson asked is the drive - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 26. 2000 ]� Page 3 d 4 thru the primary function of the restaurant, or well the Sit-down be the primary function? M. Anderson stated that drive thru accounts for 15% of sales A Alterson stated that the neighborhood is loo" for a sit-down restaurant not a fast food use ala McDonalds. M. Anderson stated that Steak 'n Shake does not consider themselves competitive rivals to McDonalds. D. Marino asked what is the proposed seating? M. Anderson stated the restaurant will seat ninety-nine (99). M. Mylott stated that window Exposure would be more benefiaal facing Oakton Street rather than Home Depot and Pet Smart. C. Smith asked what wdl the exterior material consist of? M. Anderson stated that masonry (full white standard brick) will be used all around building. M. Anderson stated that the back of the building will face the direction when the customers approach, and this will not be to the Irking of Steak'n Shake A Alterson stated the front of the building should be facing street A. Akerson stated that the drive-thru will function better facing Home Depot rather than Oakton SreeL M. Mylott asked to describe awning? M. Anderson stated awning is plastic with lighting underneath. C. Smith stated that canvas, not plastic is acceptable. A. Alterson stated that a Special Use is required for the drive-thru. C. Smite asks for a motion to approve for preliminary approval. M. Myiott stated that he would like to see how Steak'n Shake responds to the Committee's concerns before giving preliminary approval. M. Mylott motions to table D. Marino asks could preliminary approval be granted subject to condi i"? M. Mylott stated there are too many issues to be resolved for preliminary approval. M. Anderson stated that Steak'n Shake will not agree to "flip" plan to have seating facing Oakton Street D. Jennings asked whether or not Steak 'n Shake will 'flip" building design? M. Anderson replied no Steak 'n Shake will not 'flip' design. D. Jennings stated having glass and seating facing Oakton Street is an optimum design. A. Alterson stated he would favor an outdoor seating area facing Oakton Street A Alterson asked what would be the business hours of Steak'n Shake? M Anderson stated Steak'n Shake is a twenty-four hour operation. M. Mylott motions to table preliminary approval until Steak 'n Shake satisfies Committee's concerns regarding the building design. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aDDroved the motion (10-01 to table preliminary appearance review aooroval. A. Alterson motioned to grant concept appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee aaproved the motion (10-01 to orant conceot appearance review aooroval. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, and menu have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-101). SPAARC 00-059 222 Chicano Avenue Final Install antennas on existing monopole for wireless communication facd#y (Voice Stream). Mr Tom Ebels Jr (Voice Stream representative) presented a site plan and site photographs for a proposed installation (existing monopole) of wireless antennas for Voice Stream Wireless. T. Ebels stated Mat antennas will be attached to the Nextell tower, and located be below Nextell's antennas by approximately ten feet. M. Mylott asked if submitted plans are identical to building permit plans? T. Ebels replied yes. A. Alterson asked if all landscaping issues had been resolved? T. Ebels replied yes. Committee informed applicant that site must comply with requirements of SPARC 99-062 prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. SUMMARY OF FINOINW 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Joy 26. 2000 Papa 2 of 4 s D. Marino motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott secoweW the motion. Committee approved the motion (01. J. Wnfirtsia voted no} tv grant final site vtVL_AmQ appearance review approval. The site plan and site photographs have been placed wimin the Site plan and appearance P&Y*w Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-059). SPAARC 00-101 3330 Central Street Preliminary and Final Operafe retail sales establishment (in -Season Flowers) at acdcmobile repair service establishment OCBT Motors), Mr, Brian Farrow (Evanston homeowner) presented a site pfan with area photographs and revealed dtat he has approached Keiji Motors about locating a flower cart on the comer (Central/Crawford Avenue) of their lot. M. Mylott asked will cart be located on public or private property? B. Farrow replied d wil be located on private property. B. Farrow stated that the distance from the cart to the nearest wall of tt e principal building will be approximately thirty feet. B. Farrow stated that the cart measures 4' x 5', and will only operate between on Fridays (2-0pm) and Saturdays (8-12pm). M. Mylott asked what happens to cart after the business day is over? B. Farrow replied that the cart will be loaded onto a trailer and driven back to his house on Lawndale Avenue. M. Mylott asked has Mr. Farrow applied for business license? B Farrow replied yes D Jennings asked how does business work? B. Farrow replied that customers, after seeing his sign, will drive on property, exit their cars, and walk over to cart to buy flowers. D. Jennings asked will you walk up to cars on street? B. Farrow replied no. C. Smith recommends flower sign advertisement be attached to cart, J. Wolinski stated that florists in town who pay taxes and leases are not at a competitive disadvantage, and doesn't see difference between peddlers who are standing in streets D. Marino stated intersection In question has too much concrete, little greenery, and Osco Drug acnm Ov street. D. Marino stated that cart could be attractive during summer months. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval subjed to., 1. Approval is for ninety days only 2. Flower cart is to be removed when not in business 3. All flower sales take place on private property. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (9-1. J. Wolinski voted not to orant preliminary and final site olan and appearance review approval subiect tm 1. Approval is for ninety days only Z. Flower cart is to be removed when not in business 3. All flower sales take olace on private orooerty. The site plan and area photos have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-101). SUMMARY OF FRIpIMGS Sr M PLAN AND APPEARAWX RE%nEW OOMPAXTU July 25. 20W page a of 4 �Ii SPAARC 00-162 Drop Boxes OFF -AGENDA ITEM Consider implications of drop boxes. Discussion Committee discussed the green boxes appearing at various locations throughout the City and Chicago. Some Committee members felt that these boxes should be regulated by the Site Plan and Review Committee as they may overflow from time to time. creating a nuisance; others felt that such an Issue was already the purview of the Property Standards Division o; the Community Deveiapnent Department. D. Marino motioned to send a letter to drop box operators, informing them that they must appear before, and be subject to review and approval by, the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee denied the motion (2-81 to send a letter to drop box informina them that they must apmar before, and be subject to review and a22[ovat bv_ the Site Plan -an Appearance Review Committee. D. Marino and S. Nagar cast dissenting votes. SPAARC 00-057 1113 Clark. Street Prerminary Construct 3-story addition to religious institution (ML Zion Missionary Baptist Church). Applicant canceled appearance. Summary of Findings R Walczak motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the May 31. 2OW meeting. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (8-01 to aoorove the Summary of Findlnas from the Mav 31. 2000 mee6nq. S. Nagar abstained. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martin P. Travis NARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUr ME .d* 25,2000 Page2di x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 5, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent Outer Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement D. Jennings, K. Kelly, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Marino, M. Myiott, S. Nagar. C. Smith, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, A. Aiterson, L. Black, R. Dahal. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, S. Guderley, W. Hallen, J. Larson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. M. Mylott stated that he would serve as Zoning Administrator for matters regc kft a quorum. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 00-093 1029-1101 Howard Street Conosot Replace and reconfigure the parking area for medical center. Mr. Frank Karkazis (owner) presented an existing and proposed site plan, plats of survey, oxiginal construction drawings, and site photographs to replace and reconfigure the parking area for the medical center located at 1029-1101 Howard Street F. Karkazis stated that: 1. he would like to completely remove the asphalt, not simply recover the existing asphalt. He would like to replace the cement walkway as well. 2. the parking area was striped. but it is not striped now. The existing parking area could contain 12 parking spaces, if it was stnped to meet the current Zoning Ordinance. I the proposed configuration includes double -loaded angled parking; he could have approximately 18 parking spaces with the proposed configuration. This configuration would SUMMARY OF FINO C,S SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIALU TEE Atj 5.2WO Page I Of 7 x require removing the 3-foot wide planter along Howard Street. Also, this configuration would reduce the number of curb cuts from 3 to 2. D. Jennings stated that the parking spaces closest to the building are angled the wrong way; they should be rotated such that a vehicle would enter at the east side of the parking area and enter at the west side of the parking area. D. Jennings stated that, once the applicant has a configuration that works, the applicant could then determine the best location for accessible parking spaces D. Jennings stated that the applicant could place 9D-degree parking spaces at the end of the aisle, using the driveway to account for the additional required aisle width D. Jennings stated that the applicant could install steeper -angled parking on one side to meet the aisle width requirements. J. Wolinski stated that the applicant should contact the Zoning Division to ensure that the proposed number of parking spaces is not below the amount required when the buildings were originally approved. C. Smith stated that the Zoning Division would have to review the number of required accessible parking spaces as well. S. Nagar stated that the applicant would need drainage plans, including the proposed grades. M. Mylott stated that the Committee should consider whether or not six additional parking spaces Is worth removing the landscape buffer along Howard Street; the proposed configuration would place vehicles at the sidewalk with no screening C. Smith stated that the applicant must fast develop a configuration that works, then the Committee can evaluate that question. K Kelly stated that the applicant might be able to install landscaping within the parkway. J. Wolinski stated that the Zoning Division would want to check to determine if this proposal is on one or more zoning lots. C. Smith stated that the applicant should first work with the Zoning Division to determine the required number of standard and accessible parking space; second, develop a configuration that meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements; third, work with the Division of Transportation to ensure the configuration is functionally sound; finally, take the configuration to a civil engineer to develop grading plans. M. Mylott motioned to table this item. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion 1") to table this item. The existing and proposed site plan, plats of survey, original construction drawings, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-093). SPAARC 00-081 2604-2606 Eastwood Avenue Preliminary and Final Rebuild rear stairs for multi -family residential building (rental). Mr David Kase (property manager) presented an Application for Building Permit No. 00429. including working drawings, to rebuild the rear stairs of the multi -family residential building (rental) located at 2604- 2606 Eastwood Avenue. D. Kase stated that. 1. this project was started prior to being cited by the Property Standards Division. SUMMARY OF FINEXNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARMCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 5, 2= Pape 2 of 7 2 the existing stales a-e 'almost ffush to the budding' 'rle stags are wood with cement pta*rm5. the now stairs wou4 re treated wood canforr',ing to the Building Code The existing roof would remain R would not tse extended C Sm:~z+ sta:ea that some form of weather protection might be required: the applicant could use an expancec metal stag mat allows rain anelor snow to pass 4. they propose to paw* the area west of the star case (along the west lot tine) for parldng. The parking area wouid be configured one-way south, requiring a curt, cut at Central Street. C. Sm4h stated that the new stags would interrupt the walkway, possibly blocking a means of egress D. Kase stated that parking would be restricted around the staircase; egress would be provided within the driveway C Smith stated that the proposed landings are larger than thsi required by the Building Code, she recommends that the landings meet the minimum requirement (3 feet 8 inches) such that the encroachment into the means of egress is minimized. D Jennings stated that in addition to a review by the Zoning Division, the parking area would need a driveway permit D Jennings stated that the newly paved area would need to be drained. K Kelly stated that he would like to meet at the site with the applicant to verify whether or not additional safety measures would be required during the period where the second exit was unavailable. K Kelly stated that past applicants have been required to provide automatic door closers and extra smoke detectors C Smith stated that the City would want to know the demolition and construction schedule. M Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval to replace the rear stairs only, provided (1) the applicant meet with a Fire Department representative on site to consider whether or not additional safety measures are required, the intent being to ensure the safety of residents during this construction, and (2) no demolition permit shall be issued until such bme that the building permit is issued C Smith seconded the motion Committee aaoroved the motion (8-0) to grant preliminary and final Site plan and appearance review agaroval to replace the rear stairs only. provided: (d) the applicant meet with a Fire Department representative on site to rpnsider whether or not additional safety measures are reouired the intent beina to ensure the safety of residents during this construction: and (2) no demolition permit shad be issued until such time that the building oermit is issued. SPAARC 00-083 2101 Dempster Street Preliminary and Final Install three roof -top air-conditioning condensers for religious institution (The Worship Center) Mr. Doug Pasma (architect) and Mr Rich Burrows (architect) presented working drawings and a sight -line diagram to install three roof -top air-conditioning condensers for the religious institution (The Worship Center) located at 2101 Dempster Street Mr Lyle Foster (pastor) was assailable to answer questions. D. Pasma stated that the air-condrtioning condensers are required for the temporary worship space; the Condensers would remain as the space is later conversed to classrooms R Burrows stated that two of the condensers would be located toward the rear of the building, but one condenser would be located closer to Dempster Street because the supports and duct work for this condenser are already in place. W Hallen stated that the proposal is structurally acceptable SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUM EE J* 5, 2WO Pape 3 d 7 X D. Jennings asked the applicants: does the parapet extend around all sides of the condenser cft:4 t to Dempster Street? R. Burrows responded: yes. M. Mylott asked the applicants: are the working drawings presented to the Committee the same as those submitted for building permit? D. Pasma responded: yes. C. Smith stated that the working crawwq$ presented to the Committee are dated May 19, 2000. J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. provrled the applicant shall return to the Committee with a proposal for additional screening it the air-condboniing condenser closest to Dempster Street cannot be installed as depicted within the sight -line diagram. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to Grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review aDDrnyal, provirlect tt,P Ipplicant steal return to the Committee with a proposal for additional screening if the air-conditioning ann_�ser ciasest to Dem, Aster Street grmot be installed as depicted within the sight -line diagram. The sight -line diagram has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-083) SPAARC 98-0035 1501 Sherman Avenue Revision to Concept Remodel exterior and install new accessible ramp at hotel (Holiday inn). Ms. Linda Scheck (manager) and Mr. Tracy Chen (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevation, color elevations, franchise information regarding a proposed restaurant and site photographs for a revised concept to remodel the exterior of and install an accessible ramp at the hotel (Holiday Inn) torated at 1501 Sherman Avenue. T. Chen stated that 1. the original concept included an accessible ramp at apprntamatety the midpoint of Lake Street. 2. the revised concept reflects a desire by Alamo Grill to have an entrance at the comer of take Street and Sherman Avenue. 3. the accessible ramp has been moved west, closer to the comer. The accessible ramp would be approximately 43 inches above grade. The concept would include stairs along Sherman Avenues. C Smith stated that, at its proposed location, a person using the accessible ramp feels as it they are entering a restaurant, not the hotel. C. Smith stated that one of the reasons the Committee has been supportive of using right-of-way for this project is to provide accessibility to the: hotel; this proposal discourages persons from using the accessible ramp. C. Smith stated that the location requires a person to travel through the bar and lounge to get to the main corridor that leads to the lobby. M. Mylott agreed. 13. Fahistrom stated that the chairs and tables within the bar and lounge could be moved such that they block an accessible route. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: would the corner door be open at all times? L Scheck responded: that door could be answered via a doorbell or a security card to admit existing guests. C. Smith stated that that door would have very little supervision. C. Smith staled that the original concept aligned the ramp with the main corridor of the hotel as well as within the Lake Street elevation; the proposed concept loses those connections, SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 5, 2OW Page 4 or 7 x H Friedman stated that the accessible rar.-Ap could start at the comer, rise as it ran north. turn at the existing stairs, and run the remaining distance to the main lobby; the plans ccx still incorporate stairs for a separate restaurant entrance. L Scheck stated that the separate entrance is necessary, because, while Me franchise wants to be complimentary to the hotel, it would also like to stand alone. C. Ruiz staged that a separate entrance could enhance the street. C. Smith stated that the architect would have to check whether or not this suggestion woufd cut into the below -grade parking. C. Smith slated that she would like to see the restaurara stairs remain on private property as much as aossible; giving up sidewalk for a private use is not desirable. M. Myiott agreed. C. Smith stated that any use of the right-cE-way would require an easement agreement 4, the restaurant would include an at -grade dining area along Sherman Avenue. C. Smith stated that she would like to reserve reviewing this aspect of the project unfit such tirne that the site plan is revised. 5. they are 'working out a schedule to fully sprinkler the building". C. Smith motioned to table this item. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee a{oproved the motion (8-01 to table this item. The site plan, floor plans, elevation, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0035). SPAARC 00-082 1624-1630 Sherman Avenue Preliminary Raze site and construct t 1-story mixed -use budding (ground -Boor refaif (Osco Drug) and parlang and multifamily residential within upper floors). Mr. Pat Fitzgerald (architect), Mr. Jay Hubble (architect), and Mr. Stuart Handler (owner) presented Application for Zoning Analysis 00-716-ZA, including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, section, and plat of survey, to construct an 11-story mixed -used budding at 1624-1630 Sherman Avenue. P. Fitzgerald stated that: The first floor would contain Osco Drug, me residential lobby, an exercise room, an office for the management company, and three loading berths with 14-foot clearance. Two of the loading berths would be for Osco Drug and the remaining loading berth would be for the mufti -(amity residential use. The entrance to the parking area and the residential lobby would be along Church Street. D. Jennings stated that the applicants should place template markings on the drawings demonstrating that vehicles can use the Icading berths; the narrow width of the alley may require that the loading berths be angled. S. Handier stated that the loading berths could not be angled if such a configuration reduces saleable square feet S. Handler stated that the loading berths meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. D. Jennings stated that the applicant must demonstrate that the loading berths work. 2. The second and third floors would contain B9 parking spaces, including five accessible parking spaces. The parking spaces for the retail and residential would not be separated. SUMAARY OF -. . i ,u SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C06AW TEE e0 .Pa s.5000 Page S d 7 At I The upper (leers would contain 62 mutti-family residential dwelling units for rent. J. Walinski asked the apr5cants: what is the approximate mix and size of the units? S. Handler responded: approximatey 50 percent 1-bedroom units and approximately 50 percent 2-bedroom units; the units would be approximatey 800 sq.ft or more. J. Wolinski asked the applicants would these units be 'upper end"? S. Handler responded: yes. 4. The design of the building includes at least the required ziggurat setback on each side The space created by the ziggurat setback would be used as private decks for the adjacent dowelling units. The ground -Floor windows would start at approximately 7 feet from grade. The glass would be Gear. C. Smith stated that she is very sorry to see the windows start so high; this configurad= is unfortunate from a security perspective. and it does not promote a pedestrian envinxurlertt. M. Mylott agreed, and stated that he has no problems with any other aspect of this project r4w+ever, he could not support this project based solely on the current configuration of the windows M. Mylott stated that Osco Drug has demonstrated that they do not have to use 'cookie otter layouts when they used large storefrrnrt windows at a much less urban location — the corner of Oakton Street and Asbury Avenue. 0 Marino stated that the proposed site is part of a mrajor retail core, and such a street front design is unacceptable; the windows must be lowered. J. Wolinski stated that he cannot support this window configuration, the current confgurat:+on is pedestrian unfriendly and it makes no sense to repeat this mistake. S. Handier stated ttat he would express the Committee concerns to Osco Drug, and he would 'go to bat' for the City. S. Handier asked the Committee: at what height would the Committee like the windows to start, ideally? C. Smith responded: having the ground floor completely open would be ideal; however, that may not be realistic. C. Smith stated that she could accept a ground flow that was 50 to 75 percent open, where the glass started no higher than 36 inches. M. Mylott stated that the Committee is not talking about a storefront in which Osco Drug would install shelving against the outer wall. S. Handier stated that Osco Drug may not participate in this project with such restrictions. C. Smith stated that the Osco Drug on Green Bay Road exceeds such restsicbans. C. Smith stated that a high degree of pedestrian interaction would make, or help make. this project successful; at one time, retailers used storefront windows for marketing. C. Ruiz stated that the City should ensure that the Sign Ordinance does not permit covering such storefront windows with signage and other advertising, enforcement is equally important C. Smith and M. Mylott agreed. D. Marino stated that he would like Osco Drug to consider a second entrance at Sherrnan Avenue. M. Mylott stated that, except for the ground -floor windows, he likes the building design:, espec+atly the setback of the residential tower. C. Smith agreed. H. Friedman disagreed, and stated that he did not like the rhythm of the bays; the architect should consider separating the second and third floors from the base. H. Friedman stated that he has no problem with a we44esigned contemporary building; however, this proposal tries to incorporate too many styles. C. Smith stated that the building should be more responsive to the comer, the architect and owner should not overlook the unique opportunity to design a corner building. S. The building materials would include face brick and renaissance stone within the first three stories and face brick and metal panels within the upper stories. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW commrrTEE My b. 2000 ��v s Page 6d7 D. Marino stated that the proposed materials look good. 8. Osco Drug would temporarily lease space in the former Varsity Theater for at least the pharmacy. D. Marino asked the applicants: would Osco Drug serve liquor? S. Handier responded: I am not sum. C. Smith stated that liquor must be sold in a separate area, but a separate entrance is not required. H. Friedman asked D. Marino: what is the relationship of this project to Shermdr Plaza? D. Marino responded: the applicants for Sherman Plaza did not control this portion of the site; the applicant for this proposal is property owner. J. Wolinski stated that he would like to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the Committee concems about the window configuration at the ground floor and the loading berths- J. Wolinski motioned to table this item. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the mom to table this item. The site plan, floor plans, eievations, section, and plat of survey have been placed within the Sate Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-082). SPAARC 00-021 300 Dodae Avenue (James Park) PmOminary Construct new senior center. Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 00-094 Meetina Arr2ngements Discussion OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Adjust July 12, 2000 meeting time to accommodate large agenda. M. Mylott stated that the agenda for the July 12, 2000 meeting may be usually large. M. Myk* asked Committee members: does anyone have a problem with starting next week's meeting at 2:30 p.m. or 2:00 p.m.? No Committee member responded that such a change would be a problem. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MA Steven Mylott, CP Acting Secretary ., SUMMARY OF FINDDM SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C0WATTEE July 5. 2000 Page 7 d 7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 14, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present A. Aiterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, K. Kelly, D. Marino. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, M. Franz, W. Hallen, S. Levine, M. Travis. None. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-073 1608 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Construct 1-car attached garage to single-family residence, requiring major variations. Mr. Hans -Georg Simon and Ms. Petra Fey (owners), along with Mr Robert Lubotsky (architect), presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site and area photos (surrounding neighborhood) to construct a 1-car attached garage to an existing single family residence located at 1608 Davis Street. R. Lubotsky stated that 1. The subject property is located directly across Mason Park and is located on a sub -standard lot size of 50' x 39'. It appears that three (3) sub -standard, adjoining lots were created from one large lot approximately one hundred years ago. 2. The proposed carport would be built on the east side where a garage formerly exists. The carport would be accessible via an existing driveway off of Davis Street. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW Coly Mfr EE June 14, 2000 page 1 of 8 3. Front elevabon would contain wood doors. The sides would be latrice, while the back of the carport would be open Carport would be roofed, with the passibility of glazing (within roof) being installed for use as an outdoor garden. The carport is necessary due to difficulties of finding parking on the street. A. Alterson asked the applicants has there been any negative response to this project? H Simon responded that there has been no negative response to their proposal. H Simon also stated they have personally notified owners via letters of their intentions, and as of today no objections have been expressed to them. M. Mylott stated that as of today the Zoning department has not received any negative opposition to the project. A. Alterson stated his concerns regarding fire separation because of the close proximity to the neighbor's house. C. Smith stated that the project DOES NOT fall under any fire rating guidelines of a garage because one side would be open. A. Alterson stated that despite the rigid restrictions due to lot size. it is a very favorable proposal A. Atterson motioned to grant preliminary and final stie plan and appearance review approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee ammved the motion f 10-01 to orant Dreliminary and final sitq Dian and appearance review aaoroval. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site area photos of the carport have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-073). SPAARC 00-074 934 Asbury Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct 1-story addition and porch to the front of the existing single-family residence. requiring major variations. Mr. Reid Mackin and Mr. Seymour Turner (Alroom Inc.). as well as Mr. Aryeh Kitzes (owner), submitted a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site and area photos (surrounding neighborhood) to construct a one- story addition to the front facade of the single family residence located at 934 Asbury Avenue, M. Mylott staled that variations were necessary because: 1. The required front yard for the subject property is 27', whereas the proposed front yard setback Is 17'. 2. The required side yard for the subject property is 5'. whereas the proposed side yard setback (north, south) is 3'. 3. Front yard setback for the porch is proposed at 13'. which exceeds the maximum encroachment allowed for a yard obstruction into a required front yard A. Alterson asked what is the relative relation of the addition to the adjoining properties? A. Kitzes replied that the addition is recessed from his neighbor on either side. C. Smith pointed out a discrepancy on the proposed site plan. Sheet A2 shows a site plan containing only stairs. Sheet A5 shows a site plan containing porch/landing with stairs. S. Turner responded that Sheet A5 is the correct plan. B. Fahlstrom stated that the porchllanding is the minimum size required by the B.O.C.A code. A. Alterson stated that because the front porch would be setback thirteen feet (1T) from the front property line, the proposed porch would 'jet` out further than the adjoining neighbors. A. Kilzes acknowledges this fact, and stated that the actual projection past his neighbor would be two feet (7) to the south, three feet (3') to the north. A. Alterson asked were there any neighbor objections to the project? A Kitzes replied that the neighbor to the south (Mr. Dave Hunt) had no objections, and that there were no objections from anyone else in the neighborhood. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW commiTTEE June 14. 2000 Pape 2 of 6 A Atterson stated that front additions are very risky because they are more obtrusive to the s.-r+eet, and therefore would have the most impact to adjoining properties A. Alterspn asked A Kitzes why not *build out' from the rear of the property? A. Kitzes responded that the rear 0 the property is the luk-Am the intent being to build a music room that will come off the living room a. Kitzes stated that the rouse is small and cramped and that the porch is sinking prompCng the proposal � the first place. C Smyth asked if the area off the second floor will be used for outdoor space? A Kitzes replied that the spade will be used only to 'step out` briefly, and to house planbngstflowers. C Smith stated that the applicant should consider a roof line that is `harmonious' with the adjoining structures C Smith stated that 'harmony` can be achieved by installing more windows to add 'lightness', thereby making the addition more resemble an enclosed porch. S. Turner replied that by using a 12x12 roof pitch the impact will be lessened. A Alterson asked was there ever a front porch existing besides a land;ng? A Kitzes replied that he does not believe so. A. Kitzes stated that they plan to reside the entire residence with cedar siding. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and Final site plan and appearance review approval. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion f 1 A A1ter%w opposed) to chant pretiminary and Final site olan apoearance review approval. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site and area photographs of thoe proposed addition have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-074). SPAARC 00-076 1560 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Renovate front plaza of office building (Rotary Center Building). Ms Dawn Ruth (Newman Architecture) and Mr. Gerard Grabinski (Hard Surface Finishes) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site and area photographs to renovate front plaza of office building at The Rotary Center Building. D. Ruth stated that paving already exists to the east and north of the building. D. Ruth also stated that 75% of the plaza area has been re -paved, and the present proposal is to complete the project. D. Ruth stated that the plaza is already excavated, and new railings would be installed. C. Smith asked if detectable warnings would be installed? D. Ruth replied yes. C. Smith inquired about current landscape areas. D. Ruth replied that all landscape areas would remain the same. C Smith inquired about site lighting. D. Ruth replied yes, that 'A' type bollards (30' high) would be installed. C. Smith asked would the lenses be obscured? D Ruth replied yes, the light source would be hidden. D. Ruth stated that 'B' and 'C' type fixtures would be installed as well These fixtures will be recessed into the ground and can be raised. D. Ruth also stated that there will be lighting directed into the trees to achieve 'dramatic lighting' at the street level. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-0) to orant oreluninary and final site plan and appearance review approval. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Sde Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-075) SUMMARY OF FR4LNGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWATTEE J" 14. 2OW 4V Page 3 d 6 SPAARC 00-072 2628 Gross Point Read Preliminary Construct one story addition to automobile service station (Gas Go Oil Company). Mr. Kirit Patel (Engineer) and Mr. Abdulah Sayann► (perspect m buyer) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site and area photographs to construct a one story addition to an existing automobile service station K Patel stated that the existing building contains approximately 900 square feet and riat the proposed addition will add sixteen feet (16') on the west and south side of the existing building. K Patel stated that the number of islands would remain the same (2). and that the number of gasciline pumps would remain the same (4) as well. K. Patel stated that new fascia panels to the existing candy would be installed, including recessed lighting installed within the underpanel of the canopy. C. Smith asked the reason for the addition to the building? K. Patel responded that A. Sayani is a perspective buyer of the gas station, and that he needs additional space to 'run a competitive and profitable business', and install an accessible restroom. K.Patel stated that the existing facade is brick. The proposed addition will be 'split -face' block. A. Alterson stated that the "split -face` brick motif is not an acceptable facade material. C. Smith agreed, and added that additional windows would be preferred. R. Walczak stated that the SW elevation is too 'solid' and that securtty will be a concern. J. Wolinski asked if automobile repair/servicing would be done on site? K. Patel replied no, only gasoline and food. C. Smith asked if roof or canopies would be illuminated? K. Patel responded no. A. Attersan asked if perspective owner will be a Citgo franchisee? K. Patel responded yes. A. Alterson and C. Smith concurred that additional landscaping would be necessary to enhance the site. C. Smith asked if new signage was being proposed? K. Patel responded yes. C. Smith stated that the existing cigarette sign has received numerous neighborhood complaints and removal would be welcomed. K. Patel stated that they would propose to install a free-standing sign on the southwest comer of the property. C. Smith stated that the applicants should obtain a copy of the Evanston Sign Ordinance. C. Smith stated that with respect to free-standing signs, a 1 1 ratio (sign height -to -sign setback) is required. C. Smith stated that more site development with respect to landscaping, appearance, signage, and safety issues is required before the Committee could take further action. A. Alterson motioned to table this item to allow the applicant to prepare a more detailed site plan. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aaproved the motion (10-0) to table. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site and area photographs of the proposed addition have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-072). SPAARC 00-076 3201-3231 Harrison Street Preliminary and Final Exterior improvements to Bent Park (City of Evanston) Ms. Stefanie Levine (Dept. of Parks/Forestry) presented a site plan for a building permit (#00-621) to complete the 2i° phase of an improvement project for Bent Park Ms Levine stated the project includes the following scope of work 1. Installation of an accessible drinking fountain. 2. New sidewalks for accessibility to the tennis and basketball courts 3 New seating areas (benches). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RMEW COMMITTEE �G, June 14, 2000 <`�'T Pape 4 of 6 M. Mylott asked whether new landscaping was being proposed? S. Levin replied yes, including canopy and ornamental trees, new shrubs, and ground aoverl. A. Atterson motioned to grant preliminary ar*, d final site plan and appearance review approval. R. Dahal seconded the motion. Committee aDDroved the motion (10-0) to arant creliminary and final site clan and aopearance review aooroval. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder frrr Stirs case (SPAARC 00-076). SPAARC 00-077 1201 Crone Street Preliminary and Final Exterior improvements to Alexander Park (City of Evanston). Ms. Stefanie Levine (Dept. of Parks/Forestry) presented a site plan for a building permit (#t]0-497) to complete exterior improvements to Alexander Park. S. Levin stated the project includes the following scope of work: 1. Installing new compliant playground equipment with a 'tone dawn' color scheme. 2. Accessible drinking fountains. 3. installation of new trees, landscaping, and benches. C. Smith asked would there be new lighting? S. Levin replied that new lighting will not be part of this phase, the neighbors have requested *full height' Tallmadge lighting. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. My o t seconded the motion. Committee aaaroved the motion (10-01 to Grant oreliminary and final site clan and appearance review aoaroval. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-077). SPAARC 97-076 1201 Chicano Avenue Revision to Final Construct new Canopy (Shell Oil Company). Mr, Jim Fraizer (Warren Johnson Architects) submitted a revised site plan that would reduce the amount of landscaping originally approved by the Committee on September 22, 1999, J. Fraizer stated that the reduction of landscaping will occur to both the northwest and southwest comer of the subject property. J. Fraizer stated the reason for these changes is that the tanker trucks upon entering the property would not be able complete their radius turns without running over and destroying the landscaping. C. Smith stated that she agreed with the new proposal, and that by cutting the concrete curbing angle further greatly increases the likelihood the landscaping will not get destroyed. C. Smith asked what the curb material will be? J. Fraizier responded concrete. C Smith motioned to approve the revision to the previously approved landscaping plan subject to the following conditions 1. That the north face of the landscape island at the southwest drive must meet the sidewalk. 2. That the east face of the landscape island at the northwest drive must extend at least three feet (T) to the east. 3. Detectable warning systems must be installed at driveway and sidewalk intersections. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 14, 2= 41� Page 5 0(6 J. Wolinskl seconded the motion. Corrwnittee aDoroved the motion (7-0) to awrove the revision to the previoustv aooroved landscape Dian subiecd to conditions: 01 North fac* of tt>P tandM*ao is WW at the southwest drive must meet the sidewalk (21 East face of the iandscaoe island at the northwest drive mrxjl4 extend at least three feet (31 to the east. (3) Detectable wamino systems mtcst be installed at drnewaY and sidewalk intersections. The revised site plan of the previously approved landscaping plan have been p4wed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder of the case (SPAARC 97-076). Summary 9f Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of May 24, 2000. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-01 to aoarove the summary of Findrms of Mav 24.2000. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martin P. Travis Zoning Officer SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SME PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 14, 2DDO �C�"Q Page 8 or 6 - x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 7, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, P. D'Agostino, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, S. Guderley, W. Hallen, S. Levine, J. Minear, M. Robinson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p-m. SPAARC 00-069 1802 Sherman Avenue Concept Construct 10-story mixed -use building (ground floor retail and parking, parking with 2n° through 40 floors, and 6 stories office.) Ms. Eileen Andrews and Mr. Dan Cushing (property owners and developers) and. Mr. Steve Wright (architect) presented a site plan, noor plans, section, neighborhood map, and plat of survey to construct a 10-story mixed -use building at 1802 Sherman Avenue. S. Wrlght Stated that, he worked with Frank Aguado, Zoning Officer to meet the zoning requirements. Given the lot area and D4 zoning, the property is permitted to have approximately "7,000 square feet of gross floor area. They may need a variation to the ziggurat (vertical setback) requirement along Benson Avenue. 2, the existing site improvements include the 1800 Sherman Avenue building with approximately 145,000 square feet of gross floor area and 182 open parking spaces. S11MMhRY OF FINDINGS �(, SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMWI EE eloPage 1 d 7 Xi 3. the proposed building would be 10 stories high pkm a penthcN.Ise "ner understand V%at the building can be 85 feet high over and above 40 feet or 4 stones of parking - the 40 feat or 4 stories of parking being exempt from the Zoning Ordinance definit-on & ;nuiminp height They are concerned that they may exceed the 40-foot limit because eacr f o%:-6- .0 tnt:o parking 54 ucsrre must provide 8 feet 2 inches of vertical clearance to meet aaessit.a tr rxQuirvments 4. the top six floors of the building would be office. J Wotinski asked the applicants: how similar is the proposed bu iding r., the original plats that included a second building? D. Cushing responded very similar -; Friedman agreed. J. Wotinski stated that he is pleased that the proposed use is not conaomir ims D Marino agreed. D. Cushing stated that they had inquiries about condominiums D Cus.�ing stated that the office building responds to requests from existing tenants that wish to ex --nand while allowing 0* developer to explore "other opportunities"; such a building would be "difficult to make work on a purely speculative basis", J Wotinski asked the applicants. are you seeking financial assistance from the City• not that I am offering? D Cushing responded: we will not do the project if the finances do not work D. Cushing stated that they would consider an opportunity to collaborate wim the City 5. the primary use of the first four floors would be parking, providing acoroximately 500 parking spaces. This amount satisfies the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 2 c.arking spaces per 1.000 square feet of office use plus any accessory uses located at grade D Jennings asked the applicants: please clarify, do the number of parkirg spaces proposed meet the parking requirement or satisfy the true parking demand? S. Wnght responded: they meet the parking requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. D. Jennings stated that the applicants should consider meeting the parking demand. A. Alterson agreed D. Jennings stated that the site does not have enough parking spaces now, additional parking spaces are purchased from the City. D. Cushing stated that that suggestion would have to be reviewed financially. D Jennings stated that the applicant should study the existing tenants' transportation habits :o determine modal split. 6. They are considering different schemes for the ramping. Curreritt f. the plans include an entrance and exit at Clark Street and Benson Avenue However, they nave not decided upon a one-way system or a two-way system or whether or not they would like ramps at Davis Street. They may use Walker Parking Consultants. D. Jennings stated that one-way traffic would be more efficient• and the applicant should consider angling some parking spaces the office portion of the proposed building would be located at the southeast corner Benson Avenue and Elgin Road on top of the parking structure The location provides 'distance' between the existing and proposed buildings C. Smith stated that the Benson Avenue and Elgin Road corner is 'very solid', the applicant should consider providing some relief at this location rather than the open space at the middle of Elgin Road that 'opens out to nothing" D Cushing stated that the proposed open space provides 'a pocket park` to support the restaurant within the 1800 Sherman Avenue building; this use, which does not want to move, would benefit from -a sense of place' C. Smith stated that to develop a site plan around an existing tenant is "a little short sighted', the site plan should provide some relief at the Benson Avenue and Elgin Road comer SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW coMMirrEE June 7, 2000 Page 2 of 7 4 D. Cushing stated that they may add visitor parking within the proMsed turnaround 8. the parking structure would be located along most of Benson Avenue because the elevated railroad tracks are on the other side of Benson Avenue Also, I* length available along Elgin Road is approximately one-half that along Benson Avenue, making the parking less efficient, they would have to take the parking twice as high to provide the requuei number of parking spaces D. Jennings stated that the length is required to allow the ramps to get above the ground floor C. Smith stated that some parking could be below grade. D Cushing stated that the site has 'unsuitable soils', and they only intend to place detention below grade 9. C. Smith stated that the proposed amount of parking along Benson Avenue creates an undesirable pedestrian environment D. Marino agreed, and stated that this comdor is a growing retail corridor, it is a gateway to Church Street Plaza S. Wright stated that the parking structure would be articulated. including 'some attractiveness but openness for ventilation S. Wright stated that they could expand the retail proposed at the comer of Clark Street and Benson Avenue to the north and east. A Alterson stated that he does not believe that the proposed configuration along Benson Avenue meets the Zoning Ordinance requirement that street frontage be dedicated to retail use. S. Wright stated that he does not believe that retail space along Benson Avenue is viable, especially with the railroad embankment. D. Manno stated that he would have agreed with that statement 1 %: years ago, but he believes it could work now. D Cushing stated that, while he is 'not an expert in retail' and he did not 'study the retail', he 'senses that retail is at a saturation point', and Benson Avenue 'is not particularly attractive'. D Marino stated that the City is projecting over 900,000 annual visits to Church Street Plaza; this location is a natural extension of the new retail corridor. D Jennings stated that, absorption rates aside, the City does not want a 'dead street'. C. Smith stated that the overall site plan is not great, and it is not compatible with the City's 'vision of downtown" C. Smith stated that it would be a mistake to permit this site plan, especially given all the effort expended on Church Street Plaza. S. Wright asked the Committee would the City grant the developer 'latitude' to increase the height of the parking structure to accommodate ground -floor retail along Benson Avenue? A Alterson responded: the developer may apply for a variation or a planned development. D. Marino stated that he would be supportive of such a request: this location is one at which additional height is reasonable. A Alterson stated that he can not determine ii he would support such a request because the amount of information provided is 'too sketchy'. D. Marino stated that the area has few if any residential neighbors. 10. enclosed loading would be located along Benson Avenue. C Smith stated that the applicant should consider a site plan that combines the existing loading berths for the 1800 Sherman Avenue budding with the required loading berths. R. Dahal asked the applicants: have you conducted a traffic study? D Cushing responded- not yet. R. Dahal stated that the City would require a traffic study A. Alterson motioned to table this item C Smith seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrrEE June 7, 2000 Page 3 of 7 Discussion* J. Wolinski stated that he would prefer to hold this item In Committee such that the Committee encourages the developer to return to the Committee after addressing the Committee concerrxs. D. Marino stated that he is inclined to grant concept approval, subject to satisfying the Committee concerns. A. Alterson disagreed, and stated the developer has presented little more than an economic concept; while he supports the economic concept, he has not seen enough to know whether or not the physical concept works towards or against Committee standards_ C. Smith stated the site ptan Is not an acceptable concept; she could not support it A. Alterson withdrew the motion. C_ Smith withdrew the second. J. Wofinski motioned to hold this item in Comrruttee and to encourage the developer to further refine the concept. A. Alterson seconded the motion Discussion_ C. Smith stated that the applicants should work with the Department of Public Works, C. Smith stated that the applicants may want to develop elevations, even at the conceptual level; in that manner, the Committee could provide comment earlier rather than later. Committee aooroved the motion (10-1) to hold this item in Committee and to encouraae the developer to further refine the concept. D. Jennings cast the dissenting vote. The site plan, floor plans, section, neighborhood map, and plat of survey have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-069). SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicaao Avenue Final Construct 11-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and 21 dwelling units within upper floors). Applicant canceled appearance SPAARC 00-070 1007 Church Street Recommendation to Sian Board Display commercial flags within exterior plaza of office building (Shand Morahand) B Fahlstrom presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-16) to display commercial flags within the exterior plaza of the office building (Shand Morahand) located at 1007 Church Street. B Fahistrom stated that the proposed flags are corporate flags that would advertise existing tenants. B. Fahtstrom stated that the flags would be flown from the existing flagpoles; although he is not certain how many flagpoles would be used A. Alterson motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Ordinance Variation Application S Nagar seconded the motion SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 7, 2000 Page 4&7 11L Discussion.- D. Marino stated mat the City has allowed temporary banners within busirn districts that display the names of businesses: his concern is the design of the flags. B. Fahlstrom stated that the application is somewhat incomplete C Smith stated that the difference between corporate flags and banners is (ts39 the arty controls the banners J. Wolinski asked C Smith: what did the Sign Review and Appeals Board do with the application by Citibank to display their corporate flags? C Smith responded; they approved the application C. Smith stated that an applicant could fly a flag of solid color. M. Mylott stated that the Sign Ordinance is not equipped to handle flags that function as signage-. far example, it has no limitations on how big the flag could be. D. Marino stated that he has confidence in this property owner that the project would be accomplished tastefully, but he is not convinced that other property owners can be trusted M Mylott stated that approving this application would set bad precedent. A. Alterson withdrew the motion S Nagar withdrew the second. D. Marino motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application. D. Jennings seconded the motion Discussion: S. Nagar stated that the appticabon is toe incomplete. B. Fahlstrom stated that the Committee may want to consider prohiWng words on the flags D. Jennings stated that, if the flags were installed today, he doubts arryone would have a problem with them D. Jennings stated that the Committee should consider that rarely would the wind be strong enough for someone to fully view the flags. C. Smith stated that she is not troubled by this application. but she is not so trusting of other property owners; such signs are too difficult to control. Committee failed to approve the motion (2-8) to recommend that the Siqn Review and Appeals Board approve the Siqn Ordinance Variation Appiication. D Jennings and D Marino cast affirmative votes. C. Smith motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Ordinance Variation Application. M Mylott seconded the motion Committee approved the motion f7-31 to recommend that the Siqn Review and Appeals Board deny the Siqn Ordinance Variation Application A Alterson, D. Marino, and J Wolinski cast dissenting votes The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-070) SUMMARY OF FPDDdGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C01AITTEE J" 7. 2= e Page 5 of 7 Jr SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central RUPet Recommendation to Sign Board Review Comprehensive Sign Plan for re:" portion of mueJ-use budCog ignokund-floor -eml and upper - floor residential) B. Fahlstrom presented an Application fcc a Comprehens-Ne Sign Plan (SRAB 00-17) for .'te retail portion of the mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and upper-P.00r resldemai) located at 2953 Central Street C. Smith stated that the applicant proposes green awnings wan white lettering M My1C;:! stated that the awnings provide much needed relief to use streetsrape C Smith agreed C SmiM stared that the businesses could also have a window sign, the size of these signs meet the Sign Ordinan=e C. Smith stated that the applicant requests directional signs for the ATM over the aria,.-e abng Central Street and on both sides of the corner of use building at Central Street and Central Park Avenue J. Wolinski motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve We Application for a Comprehensive Sign Plan A Alterson seconded the mouon Committee approved tPye rrv.-)tion (10.0J to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Application for a Comprehensive Sion Plan. A. Alterson, D. Marino, and J Wohnski cast dissenting votes The Application for Comprehensive Sign Plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0005) SPAARC 00-015 1210-1238 Chiraao Avenue Recommendation to Sian Board Install freestanding real estate sign for three 7-story multi -family residential buildings (condominiums) and one 4-story mixed -use building (ground -floor office and residential within the upper floors) S. Fahlstrom presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-18) to install a freestanding real estate sign for three 7-story multi-fam,ty residential buildings (condominiums) and one 4-,story mixed - use building (ground -floor office and residential within the upper floors) at 1210-1238 Chicago Avenue. B. Fahlstrom stated that the curved sign would face east onhf and cover the sales trailer D Marino motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the S►gn Ordinance Variation Application A Alterson seconded the motion Discussion D. Marino stated that this sign is an opportunity to promote Evanston C. Smith stated that the sign is too big. H. Friedman agreed C. Smith stated that this sign could be up for awhile since the project is to be phased. D. Marino amended the motion as such recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Vanation Application, provided the sign is (1) proportionally reduced in size by 113, and (2) setback from the front lot line by at least 10 feet A Alterson amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion B Fahlstrom stated that the words 'Be First!" should be removed C. Smith agreed D Manna stated that the Committee should permit creative license. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Sr7E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMI-ME June 7.2000 Pne 6 of 7 20 Committee anoroved the motion 1641 to recommend that the Sian Review and Arceals Board amrove the Siqn Ordinance Variation Aoolication. orovided the sien is: (1) or000rtionalty reducers in size t:v 1r3 and (2) setback from the front lot line by at least 10 feet. H. Friedman. D. Jennirsgs, KI Mylott and C. Smith cast dissenting votes. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-015). SPAARC 00-071 Sidewalk Cafe Reaulations Recommendation to City Council Review amendment to regulations regarding Sidewalk Cafd Regulations A. Afterson presented an amendment to the Sidewalk Caf6 Regulations. A. Afterson stated that the amendment would allow the City Council to waive regulabons related to the way in which food and beverages are served; currently, the City Council can only waive the requirement that beverages be served within nondisposable containers. C. Smith motioned to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment to the Sidewalk Cafd Regulations. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that he is concerned that typical fast food restaurants could now have sidewalk cafds. A. Alterson stated that the process to use the public right- of-way for a private use is "completely discretionary`; the City is 'fully justified to arbitrarily approve or deny" such applications. Committee awroved the motion 18-21 to recommend that the Citv Council adopt the amendment to the Sidewalk Cafe'! Reaulations. J. Wolinsly and H. Friedman cast dissenting votes. Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the May 17, 2000 meeting J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aporoved the motion (8-01 to aoarove the Summary of Findings from the Mav 17. 2000 meetina. D. Marino and S Nagar abstained. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. �e pectfully submitt arc Steven Myiott, AICP Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 7. 2000 Page 7 of 7 AGENDA SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE JUNE 79 2000 3:00 P.M. ROOM 2404 TO: Judy Aiello, Arthur Afterson, Linda Black, Roger Crum, Paul D'Agostino, Rajeev Dahal, Hans Friedman, David Jennings, Kevin Kelly, Dennis Marino, Marc MylotL Sat Nagar, Carolyn Smith (CHAIR), James Wolinski. Approval of Summary of Findings May 17, 2000 SPAARC Meeting SPAARC 00 - 069 1802 Sherman Avenue Concept 3:00 p.m. Construct 10-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and parking, parking within 2nd through 4th floors, and 6 stories office). SPAARC 00 - 004 a17 Chicago Avenue Final 3:30 p.m. Construct 11-story mined -use building (ground -floor retail and 21 dwelling units within upper floors). SPAARC 00 - 070 1007 Church Street Recommendabon to Sign Board 4:00 p.m. Display commercial flags within exterior plaza of office building (Shand Morahand). SPAARC 98 - 0005 2953 Central Street Recommendation to Sign Board 4:10 p.m. SPAARC 00 - 015 4.20 p.m. SPAARC 00 - 071 4:30 p.m. Review Comprehensive Business Center Sign Plan for retail portion of mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and upper -floor residential). 1210-1238 Chicago Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Install freestanding real estate sign for three 7-story mufti -family residential buildings (condominiums) and one 4-story mixed -use building (ground -floor office and residential within the upper floors). Sidewalk Cafe Regulations Recommendation to City Council Review proposed amendments to regulations regarding sidewalk cc via Frank Aguado, Alan Berkowsky, Carta Bush, Civia Dunn, Robert Fahlstrom, Mark Franz, *-nAll: Lynne Fuller, Susan Guderley, Wynne Harrison, Jay Larson, Stephanie Levine, Sally Lufkin, Morris Robinson, Carlos Ruiz, Roberta Schur, Michelle Sison, Jay Terry, Martin Travis, Ron Walczak. IL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 31, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent Design Professional Present; Design Professional Absent; Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, D. Jennings. H. Friedman. B. Fahistrom, S. Guderley, W. Hallen, J. Minear, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz Aid. Melissa Wynne. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-063 1905 Jenks Street Preliminary and Final Construct addition to and carport for single-family residence, requiring major variations. M. Mylott presented Application for Major Variation ZBA OD-10-V(F), including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, to construct an addition to and carport for the single-family residence located at 1905 Jenks Street. Ms. Val Osakada (owner) and Mr. Walter Sobel (architect) were available to answer questions. M. Mylott stated that the top % story of the residence would be too close to the north and east lot lines. However, tha applicants only seek to align the addition with the existing wails. The north and east walls of the residence are approximately 2 feet from the north and east lot lines. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-foot setback along the north lot line and a 5-foot setback along the east lot line. The proposal complies with the height requirement of the R1 Single-family Residential District. 2. the carport would be approximately 3 feet from the west tot line whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 5-foot setback. SMAJAWY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWAr17EE May 31. 2000 Page I or a Ar i C Smith asked the applicants: have you discussed tare proposal wfth the neighbors? V Osaka responded: yes, the neighbor to the west was not very excited about a proposal by a previous owner to construct a garage, but they like the open carport 'quite a bit' A Akerson stated that this property appears to have been subdivided from the property of the neighbors to the west, he believes that it a previous owner sold a portion of the original land to be used as a single-family residence, then all future owners 'buy iWo the issues associated with such a use'. V. Osakada stated that a neighbor a" Woodbine Avenue was concerned that headlights from vehicles using the carport would disturb backyard parties that he hosts. M. Mylott stated that he received a telephone call from a man who Ireed on Woodbine Avenue expressing a similar concern, this person also said that he was concemed that views from his backyard would be of a vehicle parked at the subject property. M Mylott stated that this person raises good points. V. Osakada stated that they would construct a 7-foot high wall along the north side of the carport to screen backyards to the north from a vehicle parked within the carport V. Osakada stated that the waif would be constructed like a shadow box fence. V. Osakada stated that they do not believe that trio owners to the west would like a similar wall along the west side of the carport. W. Sobel stated that the area of the carport is already improved with an existing curb cut and driveway. V. Osakada stated that they park there now, but the vehicle either hangs into the street or blocks the sidewalk. V. Osakada stated that their tax bill lists a garage as one of the property improvements. S. Nagar asked the applicants: what is the width of the proposed driveway? W. Sobel responded: 11 feet- S. Nagar stated that that width might need to be reduced such that the proper radius can be provided at the curb. S. Nagar stated that the applicant would need a driveway permit W. Sobel asked the Committee: could the applicant change the balcony proposed for the second floor to a railing along the rooftop of the 1-story sunroom? M. Mylott responded: yes, but you should amend the plans such that those plans submitted to the zoning Board of Appeals accurately represent what you intend to build. A Alterson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. 0. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-0) to Brant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 00-064 3003 Park Place Prellminary and Final Construct dormer within existing roof of single-family residence, requiring major variation. Mr Len Sciarra (owner) presented Application for Major Variation ZBA 00-11-V(F), including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, and site photographs to construct a dormer within the existing roof of the single-family residence located at 3003 Park Place. M Mylott stated that the proposed dormer would be 4 feet from the street side lot line whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 15-foot setback. L Sciarra stated that: t. the subject property is only 30 feet wide whereas 'typical lots in Evanston' are 35 feet wide. 2 the existing residence was built in the 1950's. It is only 2% feet from the lot line SU&6MRY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REMEW COMMITTEE May 31. 2000 Pape 2 of 8 X. 3. the dormer would be a shed downer along the south side of the existing roof for'madTms-i Saw gain'. The dormer would have an overhang to shield the summer sun. The roof has a IW12 to tch with an unfinishep attic. They would like to add the dormer to create a bedroom A Alterson stated that the plans 'look wonderful' 4. they also plan to repaint, re -roof, and install glass within the existing breezeway to 'mate V a greenhouse of sorts'. 5. the plans do not expand the footprint, and the plans do not change the ridge tine of Ow sad C. Smith asked the applicants: have you discussed the proposal with the neighbors? L S=arra responded all agree that plans are fine. A Afterson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. C Smim seconded tf►e motion. Committee aporoved the motion 110-01 to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review aooroval. SPAARC 00-065 813 Crain Street Preliminary and Final Construct top X story for single-family residence, requiring major variations. Mr. Daniel Kaplan and Mrs. Rebecca Kaplan (owners) presented Application for Major Variation ZBA DD- 13-V(F), irxiuding a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and plat of survey, and site photographs to construct a top % story for the single-family residence located at 613 Crain Street R. Kaplan stated that: 1. in 1995, they bought the 2-story frame house from the family that now resides in the _ X J factory; the garage spaces are shared. The ownership Is condominium because the property cot not be subdivided; the grounds around the units are under common ownership. A Alterson asked the applicants: does the condominium declarations have any restrictions against a proposal of this type? R. Kaplan responded. no. 2. the 2-story frame house is only 6 inches off the oast lot line. The addition would expand this existing legal nonconforming characteristic in the vertical sense only. 3. the other condominium owner will be present at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in support of the application. At least one other neighbor will be present at the public hearing in support of the application. They have heard no negative comments about this proposal. 4. the proposed building material would match the existing building material -- wood siding D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-0) to grant preliminary and final site clan and appearance review approval. The site plan, floor plan, section, rendering, and site photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (OD-454). SUMMARY OF Fl04XMG5 SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CDWAff "EE M&Y 3f, 2OW Psp3dE Fil SPAARC 00-066 1627-1645 Ridoe Avenue Preliminary and Final Replace rear porches in -kind for multi-farnj7y residential building (rental). Mr. Sheldon Kantoff (property manager) presented Application for Building Pesrrui #00-441, includirQ a plat of survey and site photographs, to replace the rear porches of the mule-farnily residential buirdq located at 1627-1645 Ridge Avenue. S. Kantoff stated that: 1. the building was built during the 1920s. it is a landmark, and he understands that the Preservation Commission has approved this project 2. the dwelling units are rental 3. they inspected the rear porches during their Spring repair program, and they determined trial they were beyond repair. As he understands, the porches were original to the building. 4 the project includes replacing five steel porches nearly in -kind. The rails would be ck ser together to comply with the BOCA Code, and the decks would be non-skid plated steel radw than concrete. W. Hallen stated that no horizontal bars are allowed; they must be vertical rats or mesh 5. the project should take approximately 2 months to complete, and it would be performed `in stages". They would replace the 'long porch' first, hoping to minimize safety concerns. The demolition permit has already been issued. He hopes that the building permit would be issued "very quickly' so they may order the steel. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subled to re - review by the Preservation Coordinator for compliance with the Preservation Ordinance. A_ Afterson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion ! 10-0) to arant areliminary and final site olan and appearance review aaorovat, subiect to re -review by the Preservation Coordinator for compliance with the Preservation Ordinance. The plat of survey and site photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-W) SPAARC 00-067 1406-1408 Brown Avenue Preliminary and Final SubdMde one zoning lot into two zoning lots. Mr Ira Pettius (owner) presented Application for Zoning Analysis #00-238-ZA, inUxifg a proposed plod of resubdivision and plat of survey, and site photographs to subdivide one zoning lot Into two zoning lots. I. Pettius stated that he and his wife purchased the property in 1996. They live within one of the three dwetfrng units at 1408 Brown Avenue. City records from 1946 show that the structure contains three dwelling units. They have performed over $100.000 worth of work on the property. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMIMrTTEE Map 31.2000{,a`Q Page 4 of 8 Ll A. Alterson stated that the applicant should have the Zoning Analysis corrected because it lists the number of dwelling units as two; such an inaccuracy could create problems in tihl: future. 2 they propose to take three lots of record and create two zoning lots with apprax=uvely 57 (W of frontage each. Each lot would be approximately 7.600 sq.ft. A. Alterson stated that this proposal does "a service to the neighborhood' because it appears that the applicant could have three buildable tots. The new coning lot has never had a structure located upon it, They would sea 1406 Brown Avenue because 'they need the money'. A. Alterson stated that the application has no zoning issues. 4. they would require that the contract purchaser allow them to review the plans tore finalizing the sale. A. Alterson stated that the applicant should include such a requirement within a deed rresbicWm J. Wolinski stated that he does not want to see a two-family dwelling constructed upon the new zoning lot; such structures `end up with illegal dwelling units in the basement. i. Penkm stated that he has no intention of permitting such a use. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion QCr P) to arant oreliminary and final site tan Im appearance review aoorovat The proposed plat of resubdivision, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed **Ah SO Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-067). SPAARC 99-122 1935 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct 4-story, 8-unit, multifamily residential building (condominiums). Mr. Ryan Nestor (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, and elevations to construct a a -story. 8-unit, mutt -family residential building (condominiums) at 1935 Sherman Avenue. R. Nestor stated that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee granted final site ptan review on March 29, 2000 such that they could pour the foundation. C. Smith stated the applicant was to protect the trees during excavation. R. Nestor stated that the trees were protected during excavation, and they are `doing fine'. R. Nestor stated that 'only brae win teif whether or not the tree closest to the foundation would survive; he received 'mixed signals' from the 'tree experts'. C. Smith stated the one remaining issue was the cost figures regarding the masonry. R. Nestor stated that the cost to clad the entire building with standard -size brick would be $425,000; the cost to dad the front of the building with standard -size brick and use split -face concrete block on the sides and near of the building would be $245,000; and the cost to clad the entire building with jumbo -size brick would be $325,000, SUMMARY OF MON" SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIN60TTEE Ukry 3-7. 2WO Page 5 of 8 R, Nestor stated that the developer is proposing two options to clad the building: either use jumbo -size brick on the ensue building or use standard -size brick on the front of the building and split -face concrete block on the sides and rear of the building. R. Nestor stated that he be5eves that an 'all jumbo' option is better, the north elevation is 'quote exposed'. C. Smith stated that she would accept standard -size brick on the front and sides of the boding and split -face concrete block on the rear of the building. A. AXerson stated that he prefers an 'all jumbo" option. D. Marino agreed. J. Wohnski stated that he believes that any multi -family building proposed within a reszienbal neighborhood should be entirely dad with standard -size brick: he does not support either option proposed by the developer, C. Smith agreed and stated that proposals such as this are "slowly eroding the character' of Evanston's neighborhoods_ C. Smith stated that jumbo -sized brick does not work well because the textual difference is very noticeable; she is afraid that people are simpy *getting used to it' R. Nestor stated that the proposed brick would be 'pale maroon with a purplish hue'; they would use renaissance stone coining. 0. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, including support for the option to clad the building entirely in jumbo -sae brick. R. Dahal seconded the motion. Committee failed to aoorove the motion 15-51 to Grant oreliminary and final site can and aooearanee review anoroval. incudina su000rt for the option to clad the building entirely in iumbo-size brick. M. Mylott motioned to grznt preliminary and final site plan review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee aonmved the motion f i0-01 to Grant oreliminary and final site plan review aooroval. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee failed to annrnve the motion (5-51 to grant preliminary and final sooearance review ar)aroval. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-122). SPAARC 00-M 845 Chicago Avenue i'.c�eca Construct 12-story mixed -use building (ground floor retell and residential within the upper floats), SECOND CONCEPT FOR SITE Mr. John Madsen (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, and elevations to construct a 12-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and residential within the upper floors) at 845 Chicago Avenue. Mr. Gregory Hughes (representative of management company) was milable to answer questions. J. Madsen stated that: 1, they placed more retail space along Chicago Avenue. 2, they increased the number of off-street parking spaces. 3. they responded to concerns about the mass of the base and the top of the building. The recesses within the base, especially along the north side, follow the recesses within the tower. The proposed railings 'blur the edges' of the building and *soften the top'. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COf NIM ME May 31, 2000 pap 6 of a i3 M Mylott stated that he kited how the design of the balconies reflected the treatment of the parapet and cornice. C Smith agreed, and stated that the elevations 'look nice': she 1*e8 the articulation and setbacks C. Smith stated that the treatment of the base has improved. W the architect should consider further increasing the size of the buyers A Alterson asked the applicants: could you use grills instead of louvers? J. Madsen responded- we could: however, k> rvers prevent snow from entering the parking garage. 4. the site plan includes a setback along Chicago Avenue. However, they would simply move the building back to the Chicago Avenue lot hne if they were required to seek zoning relief to provide this setback. C. Smith stated that she liked the additional width along Chicago Avenue; she hopes the applicant would "find away" to maintain the setback. 5. the parking garage is still mechanically ventilated. 6. they have started to create a perspective drawing. this proposal requires the demolition of The Main; it does not include the Bevco building. A_ Atterson asked the applicants: what is the status of negotiations with the owners of the Bevca building? G. Hughes responded: efforts related to the Bevco building have been *put on hold'. S. Nagar stated that he is not certain that the alley in its current condition can handle the traffic associated with this development: the developer may have to improve the alley D. Marino stated that other parties contribute to the amount of traffic within the alley. J Madsen asked the Committee: was such a requirement placed upon the developers of '515 Main Street'? S. Nagar responded: I am not certain M. Mylott stated that he would hope that requirements for such a significant off -site improvement would be applied universally. S Nagar stated that such requirements must be looked at on a case -by - case basis. D. Marino stated that this item could be revisited during preliminary site plan and appearance review. R. Dahal stated that they worked with the architect to design the vehicular access such that most traffic entered and exited the alley From the north; he would recommend that the developer only be responsible for that portion of the alley immediately adjacent to his property. A. Alterson stated that: he is not certain that 75 percent of The first floor is parking If 4 were not it would count toward building height. J. Madsen stated that they are 'walking a fine line" between providing retail space, especially along Chicago Avenue, and maintaining 75 percent parking the amount of floor area devoted to retail space along Chicago Avenue within the plans presented to the Committee on May 24, 2000 was a problem He believes that the revised floor plans meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance: the areas not devoted to retail are devoted to necessary pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress. C. Smith stated that the area within the southwest comer of the parking garage could be used for bicycle parking. G. Hughes stated that restaurant valets could also use that area. J. Madsen stated that that area may need to be reserved for a stairwell SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMWTTEE Map 31.2000 a pale 7 of a 3. the setback along Chicago Avenue may be a problem. The property owner mgM dorra" an easement along Chicago Avenue to the City whereby the property owner would retain maintenance obligations to that area but permit persons to access that area as a general sidewalk. With such an approach, the City may be able to say that the building Ierne is the east line of the easement. J. Madsen stated that the property owner would be willing to make such a donation, provided the amount of lot area donated is not deducted from the lot a.'ea; the ict area is used to caboulate FAR and other density factors. C. Smith stated that the proposed approach seems reasonable D. Marino agreed. 4, the FAR may be slightly over that amount permitted; however, the dimensions of the lot Crary. The property is a consolidation of a resubdivision of a pre -Chicago fire plat. As a result he could not accurately determine the lot area. J. Madsen stated that he is "confident' that the lot area is 30,475.81 square feet he used recorded figures to determine that number. 5. the required rear yard setback is 10 feet. The alley abuts a nonresidential zoning district. J. Madsen stated that they used Main Street as the front yard, making the alley lot One an interior side lot line. 6. the mechanical penthouse would not be counted toward the height of the building provided it was not visible from any portion of any street immediately adjacent to the subject property. C. Smith stated that the architect has demonstrated a good -Faith effort to comply with the Carnal dee concerns; she hopes that the architect can find a way to make this project work within the confines of the Zoning Ordinance. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval, subject to resolving the outstanding zoning issues which shall be revisited during preliminary site plan and appearance review. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion f 10-01 to orant concept aooroval_ subiect to resolving the outstandinq zoning issues which shall be revisited during oreliminary site clan and appearance review. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-060). Adloumment The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. ally submi Marc Steven Mylott AICP' Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVnF-w COMMITTEE May 31, 2000 Page a of a eo SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 24, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Atterson, A. Berkowsky (for K. Kelm. P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C_ Srnith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent; Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present; Others Present: Commencement L. Black, S. Nagar. H. Friedman. B. Fah(strom, S. Gudedey, W. Hallen, J. Minear, M. Robinson, M. Rubin, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. Aid. Melissa Wynne. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 105 p.m. SPAARC 00-059 222 Chicago Avenue Preliminary !natag antennas on existing monopole for wireless communication facility (VoiceStream). Mr Chad Argentar (agent) presented a site plan, elevation, site and area photographs, and composfte coverage maps to Install antennas on an existing monopole for a wireless communication facility (VosceStream) located at 222 Chicago Avenue C Argentar stated that: I the objective of VoiceStream is to provide quality, in-lwvdding ooverage to its customers. Those areas shown on the composite coverage maps in red represent the hest in -building coverage: areas in orange are lesser quality in -building coverage, areas in yellow represent in -vehicle or outdoor coverage; and all other colors represent unreliable coverage. H. Friedman stated that the composite coverage maps were very helpful. C. Smith agreed. 2 the area around the proposed site only has in -vehicle or outdoor coverage. The proposed antennas would provide acceptable levels of service to southeast Evanston as well as provide in - vehicle or outdoor coverage to downtown Evanston. SUMMARY OF FINDO1GS sne PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWA rTM May 24- 2=1 Faye 1 d 11 JV 3. the existing tower carries Nextel antennas. 4 the height of the existing tower would not change The antennas would be bcared at approximately 97 feet. 5. the plans include 9 antennas. Each antenna would be approximately 10 feet tall —'dose' �n size to the Nextel antennas While the plans show that VoiceStream antennas would align En plan with the Nextel antennas, VoiceStream cannot guarantee that this configuration would occur 6. VoiceStream would require one other site within Evanston to provide 'excellent' coverage to the downtown. They were considering the BIRL Building before they found out about the residential tower within Church Street Plaza. A_ Alterson stated that few people would notice if a proposed wireless communication facility (WCF) were attached to the public art on the library, 7. VoiceStream is evaluating a site within downtown Wilmette. J. Wolinski stated that he would like a guarantee that the proposed WCF within Wilmette would not be located within Evanston. C. Argentar stated that he cannot guarantee any site in the future. J. Aiello stated that a north Evanston WCF could reach south Wilmette. C. Argentar stated that, if the downtown Wilmette WCF was located within north Evanston, the center of Evanston would still be uncovered and VoiceStream would still need a Wilmette site. C. Argentar stated that their engineers would probably reject a north Evanston site because the resulting network would be too close together, it would be too expensive to construct. A. Alterson stated that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee approval for the existing tower was subject to installing landscaping as modified during Committee review; landscaping was not installed. M. Mylott stated that he would investigate the degree of compliance. A. Alterson motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, subject to ensuring that the site complies with the conditions of the previous approval. M. Mytott seconded the motion. Committee afloroved the motion (8-11 to arant oreliminary site olan and anoearance review aooroval. subject to ensurino that the site complies with the conditions of the previous arimoval. J. Wolinsia cast the dissenting vote. The site plan, elevation, site and area photographs, and composite coverage maps have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-059). SPAARC 00-055 2620 Green Bav Road Preliminary and Final Construct 1-story addition and create additional off-street parking spaces for retail service establishment (Duxler Tire). Mr Cary Jacobson presented a revised site plan to construct a 1-story addition and create additional off- street parking spaces for the retail service establishment (Duxler Tire) located at 2620 Green Bay Road. C. Jacobson stated that: his client has purchased the property immediately north of the subject property as well as the property at 2636 Green Bay Road. The previous use at 2636 Green Bay Road was a fumiture SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLJW AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 24. 2000 Page 2 of 11 X store; it would be split approximately 'longitudinally' between offices for DLDJer Tire avid Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Enterprise Rent-A-Car has a 2-year tease; at its won. Pits c5ent would demolish either part or all of the existing building and convert the rest of the site to parking. 2. Some of the parking to be installed at 2636 Green Bay Road would satisfy the zoning requirement at the subject property A. Alterson stated gnat this proposal meets the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3, he would meet witn his client and propose a sign package to direct customers around J)e site. Two to three customers qn site at one time 'would be a lot'. J. Wolinski stated "t he has seen vehicles queued within Green Bay Road 'a couple tirrcbC. C. Smith stated that she is not certain signage could alleviate her concerns. C. Smith stated that the Green Bay Road traffic is heavy and quick moving. C. Smith stated that the service bays should only be accessed at the rear of the building, not from Green Bay Road. C Smith staled that some of the existing curb cuts could be filled in with landscaping as this area abng Green Bay Road is void of tandscaping C Smith stated that the Committee must be 'mindful of opportunities to increase pedestrian onentation'. C. Jacobson stated that they are not proposing any new curb cats C. Jacobson stated that perhaps they could eliminate some of the ctab cuts, because only the southem-most curb cut is needed. C Jacobson stated that customers enter the site here; then an employee (a 'hiker') moves the vehicle to a bay or other designated space on site. A. Alterson stated that he doubts that this area would ever be pedestrian. A. Alterson stated that he is concerned that part of Green Bay Road would be used as circulation for the site; the circulation should be kept an site as much as possible. A. Alterson stated that, to the extent that elirr nabng curb cuts keeps circulation on site, he would support their removal. C. Jacobson stated that the distance from the building to the street is 25 feet; the distance from the building to the lot fine is 16 feet. M. Mylott staled that the applicant should work with Traffic Engineering and the Parks and Forestry Division to determine the minimum depth along Green Bay Road that would support landscaping; the remaining depth within the right-of-way could be used for circulation A. Alterson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to: (1) review and approval by the Engineering Department of the curb cuts, circulation pattern, and use of the right-cf-way for circulation, and (2) review and approval by the Parks & Forestry Division of the opportunity for landscaping along Green Bay Road. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion C Jacobson asked the Committee. how can such conditions be imposed when they are proposing no change to the curb cuts? D. Marino responded: this proposal intensifies the use, raising the level of concem about cur= bon. A. Alterson stated that his motion was not intended to create a pedestrian environment, rather it was intended to keep vehicles out of the travel portion of Green Bay Road Committee aooroved the motion (9-01 to grant oreliminary and final site olan and apoearance review approval, sublect to: (11 review and approval by the Enaineerina Department of the curb cuts. circulation aattem. and use of the right-of-wav for circulation. and (2) review and aoeroval bv_ the Parks & Forestry Division of the 0000rtunity for landscapina alono Green Bav Road. The site plan has been paced within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-055) SUMMARY of FOdDOM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO%*A TEE Iuay 24, 2WO Page 3 of 11 aw! 3PAARC 00-018 121 Asbury Avenue Proliminary Construct 8-story mixed -use development (ground -floor retail and res,denclat within the uPro," /hors) Mr. Michael Winfield (developer), Mr. Kevin Brown (developer). and Mr Clarke Fell (arlchittct) presented the results of their reighborhood meeting related to their proposal to construct an S-stay morel -use development (ground -floor retail and residential within the upper floors) at 121 Asbury Avenue M. Winfield stated that they attended a neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2000 Tie rrain issue was the size of the project, 'down -sizing' the project is not economically feasible. C Smith asked the applicants: did the neighbors raise any issues that you could address? C Fell respa-)ded. the principle Issues were height and the number of parking spaces. C Fell stated that the projeC meem the height and parking requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. C Fell stated that they told the neighbors of the issues raised by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee and how they were addressed J. Wolinski stated that the applicant has met the condition of the previous Committee decision to table. J. Wolinski motioned to remove the item from the table and grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he would vote against the motion because the amount of parking spaces proposed is insufficient. given the existing parking conditions within this neighborhood, this project would cause an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. A. Alterson stated that, while the project meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, his rationale relates to a requirement that the Committee review the circulation and site plan. C. Smith asked the applicants: did you conduct a parking study or comply with the zoning requirements. M Winfield responded: we conducted 'extensnre market research' and determined that to provide more parking spaces would be 'surely detrimental", because it is not a reality to sell extra parking spaces at this location. C. Smith stated that the cost of the extra parking space would be included with the unit price. M. Winfield stated that they could not increase the unit price equal to the cost of the parking space and remain competitive. A Alterson stated that the development at 141 Asbury Avenue provided parking at a rate of 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit M Winfield stated that each site is unique. A Alterson stated that his professional opinion is that Me property is inappropriately zoned A Alterson stated that, even if the property was appropriately zoned, the number of parking spaces proposed runs counter to what the City knows are the parking demands from such a project J Wolinskf stated that the Committee would be 'in dangerous waters" should a contradict the Zoning Ordinance. A. Alterson stated that some believed he should recuse himself from this item because he lives within the area. A. Alterson stated that where he lives does not affect his professional judgement. A. Alterson stated that, if the City adopted such a policy, he doubts whether or not any of the City's numerous committees could conduct business A, Alterson stated that he is not aware of a City policy to discourage City staff from residing within Evanston SUAWARY OF FINDtNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrTEE May 24.2WO Pape < of 1 i C. Smith stated that the applicant ins ao consider making the south elerabOn 'more friendly'. C. Fell stated that �9 vrould consider that suggestion during the next phase'of design. C. Smith stated that the Committee suggested using ivy along the parkir►g garage to soften its visual impact. M. WrTfx 4d stated that he is 'not adverse to that suggestion'. H. Friedman stated that the design is r,andsome — above the level of most projects reviewed by the Committee. H Friedman stated that the garage is = figured such that it would 'Trot be a great expense' to go below grade 1A ;e4el or approximately 5 feet to provide additional parking spaces. Cr Fell st; ed r-tat such a configuration would provide 13 additional parking spaces. M. Wirr field' stated that o v Committee must have a point at which it stops raising costs. ►,A Winfield stated that he does not believe that the area parking is *as bad as people say'. B. Fahlstrom stated that BOCA does not permit horizontal railings; the applicant should consider vertical railings or solid panels. Committee aooroved the motion (8-11 to remove the item from the table and arant creliminary site plan and aooearance review aooroval. A. Alterson cast the dissenting vise, SPAARC 00-060 845 Chicago Avenue Conceot Construct 12-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and residential within the upper (loons), SECOND CONCEPT FOR SITE. Mr. John Madsen (architect) presented the site plan, floor plans, and elevations of a second concept to construct a 12-story, mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and residential within the upper floors) at 845 Chicago Avenue. Mr, Gregory Hughes (representative of management company) was available to answer questions. J. Madsen stated that the revised concept requires demolition of the existing building. C. Ruiz stated that the existing building has the scale, matrerials, details, and overall character that adds 'ambiance' to the street. C. Ruiz stated trial he hopes the applicants give strong consideration to adaptive reuse; at a minimum, the applicant could place the new building behind the existing facade. J. Madsen stated that that concept was part of a larger, separate project; unfortunately, they were 'caught in a zoning change' such Ma; they could not do that project H, Friedman stated that a zoning change is not intended to -denolish a part of a community' B. Fahlstrom stated that the applicant made a good -faith e°lor, 10 save the existing building J. Wolinski stated that he is not certain the existing building is wcr.h saving, given its condition. 2. the revised concept includes 76 dwelling units. The dweang units would be constructed within the top 8 floors — 4 floors would have 9 dwelling units and 4 troors would have 10 dwelling units. The dwelling units would have semi -recessed balconies, exreot no balconies would be installed SUMMARY OF FlNOINGS SrTE PLAN AMD APPEARANCE REV EW wmai TTFE May 24. sooa Paw 5d11 k along Chicago Avenue. The average 1-beorcorn Cwemng us%r, w"Aa be 800 sR ft- Jod average 2-bedroom dwelling uns would be 1 100 to 1 2-00 sq ft Tl-* Xa-foot deep rooft:'P d �e parking garage would be landscaped for tenarm The kMv %t-c!d tNe accessed rt'm 16tain Street. M. Mylott stated that he strongly encouragesx the apoant to prov%ce cc on 0Grn spy upon the rooftop of the parking garage. a development of tn:s size sn wed wouce a larger onto= avea available to all oersons 3. the revised concept includes retail along Main Street The deptn of the retail space is ?C feet at its narrowest. They hope to relocate many of me existing tenants to temporary space and bring Own back when the building was complete. 4. the building materials include stone, buff -color trick. and precast concrete At the base, the brick would be modular size, within the tower, it may be jumbo or utility size The palette would be buff and bone dolor The parking garage would not have louvers, it is mechanically ventilated C Smith stated that the mass of the parking garage is very heavy, decorative grills would help lightening this mass and help the ventilation requirements. W. Haden and C Ruiz agreed C. Smith stated that the rhythm of the tower is 'a tittle too regular'. but she likes all the Windows- W. Hallen stated that the design is rather conventional C Smith stated that she likes the buff -color brick C. Smith stated that the applicant has been very receptive to Committee feedback. 5. they have completed the tragic report The site plan and parking garage have been redesigned in response to the comments from the Engineering Department on the traffic report The vehicular entrances for the residential and retail would be separate. The vehicular entrance for the retail would be at Chicago Avenue with flared curbs and signage dictating right -in and right - out only. This entrance is too close to the signal to permit full access. The vehicular entrance for the residential would be at the alley. B. the space at the southwest corner of the building is a 'dead corner' H Friedman stated that the frontage along Chicago Avenue is "just terrible'; this building inns its back to Chicago Avenue C Smith stated that the applicant should consider ways to develop this comer as retail J Madsen stated that the space would not be very large, and it would not have access to the rear loading docks R Dahal stated that the applicants could use remove the island to provide more active space G Hughes stated that they would consider that suggestion A Atterscn stated that he cannot support this concept because of the lack of retail at Chicago Avenue. A. Alterson stated that, while he is not certain the existing building is worth saving. a addresses the street very well 7. the revised concept includes up to 138 parking spaces 105 parking spaces are required, d the non -required parking spaces count against the floor area requirement, they may have to be eliminated M. Mylott asked the applicants- what would the extra parking spaces be converted to, if they could not be parking spaces? J Madsen responded, that space would not be built. A, Alterson SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �C. May 24, 2000 i�►'T PAW 6of11 it stated that, while the Zoning Analysis indicates that the proposal exceeds the permitted floor area, he is not certain what floor area was or was not counted. 8. the building would be set tuck along Chicago Avenue between 2 to 5 feet to provide for landscaping at the base and street trees. C. Smith stated that she applauds this setback; the width is needed. A Alterson agreed, but stated that this zoning district requires that the building be built to the lot line. C. Smith stated that the site conditions pose a hardship. A. Alterson stated that the property owner could donate the area to the City, creating a new lot line. J. Madsen stated that, if this requirement is a problem, they would rather move the building to the lot line than seek zoning relief. 9. the revised concept includes 2 loading docks at the alley. The docks would be enclosed. Also, the docks would be angled at the suggestion of the Engineering Department. M. Mylott stated that the turning radii appear taght M. Mylott asked the appiicarim does a driver have to turn the delivery vehicle exactly as shown, or does the site plan permit some kwway? J. Madsen responded: the site plan provides 'qucte a bit of leeway'. J. Madsen stated that the site plan provides space for a delivery vehicle to park off the alley. C. Smith stated that persons from the audience have requested an opportunity to speak_ J. W06nW motioned to allow persons within the audience to comment on this case. I Aiello seconded UX motion. Committee aooroved the motion (10-0) to allow oersorrs within the audience to comment on this rase. Aid. Wynne stated that proper retail must be maintained on Chicago Avenue: this issue was utitiraI during the evaluation of the C1a Commercial District. Aid. Wynne stated that an expanded sidewalk would help retail. M. Mylott stated that he would like to see how the applicant responds to Committee concerns about the uses along the Chicago Avenue frontage. D. Marino asked the applicants: did an earlier version include underground parking? J. Madsen responded: underground parking is too costly. C. Ruiz stated that the applicant should consider making a statement with the top of the building. M. Mylott motioned to table this item. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (10-01 to table this item. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-060). SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Preliminary and Final Review landscape plan for mixed -use development (Church Street Plaza). Mr. Larry Glasscock (landscape architect) presented a landscape plan for Church Street Plaza. Mr. Michael McKenna (Arthur Hill Company) was available to answer questions. L. Glasscock stated that SUMMARY OF RAIDMISS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVEW COMMrrt'EE mey 24. 29ma Pap7d11 rAA 1. The materials along Church Street and Clark Street would be simr7ar or exactly 8wce the downtown London -walk pavers. H. Friedman stated that the existing pavers are 'ugly'. J. Aiello and C. Smcn dmagreed. 2. Along Maple Avenue, beyond the plaza, the pavers would change to a checkerboard pattern J. Aiello stated that she thought that they talked about reducing the amount of pavers along Maple Avenue; the proposal looks 'very busy and very high maintenance' L Glasscock slated that the colors within the checkerboard are very similar, the difference between them =0, Id be subtle. J. Aiello stated that she would need to review the budget 3. The plaza would contain the Wolfgang Puck outdoor patio; however, they would be rer mwg the fencing and fire pit The plaza would contain 194nch precast seat -wails with 24-inch columns forming planting islands. The columns would have lights on both sides. The planting islands would contain up lighting for the proposed canopy trees. M. Robinson stated that the columns could be used as pedestals for art. L. Glasscock stated that the outside edge of the columns would have art panels. J. Aiello asked the applicants: would this art be discovery art? L. Glasscock responded: no, discovery art would be located within the plaza. J. Aiello stated that she is hopeful that the art panels would be `more art than advertising`. 4. They would close off the area between the hotel and the parking garage with an 9-foot wrought iron fence at Maple Avenue. The interior would be a ground cover and paving stones. The responsibility for maintenance is uncertain. J. Aiello stated that that area is City property A Berkowsky asked the applicants: would the gates open? L. Glasscock responded: yes. A Berkowsky stated that the Fire Department may need access, but it would not be required access. 5. Outdoor furnhure would include two benches within the plaza and 'more' along Maple Avenue; five trash receptacles, including one at every intersection; and one precast planter at each comer. The trash receptacles would be mounted on concrete pads with removable liners. The City would be responsible for emptying the trash receptacles C. Smith stated that fire trash receptacles are not enough. J. Aiello stated that. once the various uses within Church Street Plaza are operating, if the City determines that more trash receptacles are required, more could be installed. C. Ruiz stated that he would hope that the trash receptacles are located far from the discovery art. 6. The tree grates along Maple Avenue would contain Maple trees. P. D'Agostino stated that he would like to review the other plant material At points of truck traffic, the pavers would be replaced by concrete. J. Aiello asked the applicants: have you priced this proposal? L. Glasscock responded: yes M. Rubin stated that the pavers cost approximately 2/3 more than concrete. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMI ME May 24. 2000 Pape a of t t X J. Aiello stated that they would need to discuss the temporary sidewalk treatments; the City does grant them to look like part of the site. A. Atterson stated that he would like to see a proposal for bus stops and newspaper stands. J. Aiello stated that a bus stop exists along Church Street, near the former senior center. J. Aiello stated that a bus stop should be provided near Clark Street C. Smith stated that the City should work with the Chicago Transit Authority on this issue. A Akerson stated that the City must evaluate bus shelters versus benches as well as signage C. Smith stated that the existing bus shelter is unattractive. J. Aiello stated that newspaper stands are already regulated. A. Alterson asked the applicants; where would you provide bicycle parking? L. Glasscock responded: one 13-foot, 9-bicycle rack would be installed at each end of the alley behind the main pavilion, and 5400t serpentine racks would be installed near the street benches. J. Aiello stated that the bicycle racks at the plaza should be moved across the street to keep the plaza clean. C. Smith stated that if the City does not provide bicycle parking, people would lock them to other street furniture. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of the budget and maintenance agreement C. Smith seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smrth stated that she would hope that the City would retain the pavers along Maple Avenue; this level of detail is important to the overall streetscape. Committee aooroved the motion f8-11 to orant oreliminary and final srte plan and appearance review aooroval. subiect to review and aaoroval of the budaet and maintenance agreement. A Alterson cast the dissenting vote. H. Friedman abstained. The landscape plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065) SPAARC 00-062 1000 Grove Street Conceot Construct 2-story addition to gymnasium within mixed -use buu7ding containing public recreation center (McGaw YMCA) and residential. Mr. Kent Davidson (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, plat of survey, and site and area photographs to construct a 2-story addition to the gymnasium within the mixed -use building containing a public recreation center (McCaw YMCA) and residential located at 1000 Grove Street Mr. Tony Leg (executive director), Mr. Ai Butkus (board chair), and Mr Larry LaRoi (architect) were available to answer questions. K. Davidson stated that: 1. the addition, proposed as a second and third floor above the existing swimming pool, would house a family activity center and field house. 2. the project also includes interior renovation to integrate existing activities. 3. when the pool was built, it assumed the eventual construction of this addition. The existing caissons are sized for the addition, and they respond to substandard soil conditions. SUMMARY OF FWDWGs 9rrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUfrrEE May 24. 2000 Pne 9 of 11 x the plan sought to retain as much parking as possible. The const uckm would only eiarrom" 13 parking spaces. J Aiello stated that this proposal may eliminate required parking spaces- K Davidson 3t3W that McGaw YMCA owns parking tots to the south and west the City meters the tots and shard the revenue with McGaw YMCA. A. AtMerson stated that he is troubled by the loss of parking spaces. 5. the building materials would be blond brick with limestone detailing — the same material as, and the same detail as, the swimming pool addition. C. Ruiz asked the applicants- is the addition flush to the existing building? K Davidson responded: yes. C. Smith stated that appt-icant should consider more reveal between the addition and the existing budding. C. Ruiz stated that, if the structure is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the applicants should check to determine whether or not this project requires review. T. Lee stated that such review was not required for the swimming pool addition. J. Aiello motioned to grant concept approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. CommittgL poroved the motion f9-0) to grant conoeot aooroval. 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 folder for this case (SPAARC 00-062). SPAARC 00-061 717-723 Reba Place Preliminary and Final Convert 2F.runit, multi -family residential building (rental) to 25-umt, mutWamily residential bu#dirtg (condominiums) and modify exterior. Mr. Laszlo Simovic (architect) and Mr. John Heimbaugh (owner) presented 25 Applications for Budding Permit, a site plan of the gate, an elevation of the gate, a plat of survey, and site photographs to ccrroW the 25-unit multi -family residential building (rental) located at 717-723 Reba Place to a 25-unit, muti- famiiy residential building (condominiums) and modify the exterior. L. Simovic stated that: they have not yet started the condominium conversion process yet J Heimbaugh stated that he is aware of the process. C. Smith stated that the owner should contact R. Schur. they would replace the windows on the Reba Place side of the building, or they may replace aft the windows, with vinyl, double -hung, clear -glass windows. 3. they would refinish the two decorative columns, refurbish the lights, and install a decorative gate across the entrance, including a buzzer. A. Aiterson stated that this structure is not a landmark. A Berkowsky stated that the Fire Department would require a Knox box on the gate. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 24. 2000 Pape 10 of I J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. C. Sniith seconded the motion. Committee aocroved the motion (8-0) to grant oreliminary and final sitg.dlan and appearance review aoaroval. J. Wolinski abstained. The site plan of the gate, elevation of the gate, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed wittvin the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-061). Summary of Findinas J. Aiello motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the May 10, 2000 meeting. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aaon7ved the motion f8-01 to aoorove the Summary of Findinas from the Mav 10. 2000 meeting. J. Wolinski abstained. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Secretary SUMMkW OF F NDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COAVAMEE Lby 24, 2= Page 11 of 11 IL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 17, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, C. Smith. J. Aiello, L. Black, R. Dahal, K. Kelly, D. Marino, S. Nagar, J. Wolinski. Design Professional Absent: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: B. Fahlstrom, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. Others Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-057 1113 Clark Street Concept Construct 3-story addition to religious institution (Mt Zion Missionary Baptist Church). Mr. Michael Johnson (designer) and Reverend Dr. John Norwood (pastor) presented the original building: plans, a proposed site plan, proposed elevations, a color rendering of the proposal, a plat of survey, and site and area photographs to construct a 3-story addition to the religious institution (Mt Lon Missionary Baptist Church) located at 1113 Clark Street. J. Norwood stated that the original plans for the Church included the proposed addition, they started the fundraising process for this addition 5 years ago J. Norwood stated that the Church has been at the existing location for 100 years. M. Johnson stated that: 1. the addition would contain the parsonage, educational uses, and a kitchen [torn which the Church could serve weddings, community events, and other accessory uses. A. Alterson asked the applicants: was the parsonage built at the same time as the Church? J. Norwood responded- no, it was one of two houses moved to this site much later. J. Norwood stated that the parsonage would be demolished. SUMMARY OF FINOO s SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIORT'TM May 17. 20M i� Pape i d T jr B. Fahistrom asked the applicants: would the Church only offer child d3r :are dunng rizigular Church services? J. Norwood responded: they may offer full -tune day care ?a lowrncorrrie and indigent persons, providing an opportunity for children to mix with seniors S Fahrstrom Mated that the applicants should review the fire requirements, because they are st-►cter for uses; that accommodate children under the age of 2% years. C. Smith asked the applicants would the addition have an elevator? M. Johnson responder: yes, C. Smith asked the applicants would the addition be sprinklered? M. Johnson responde(Z yes. C. Smith stated that the addition would need to meet the fire separation wuirements `br the different uses proposed winin the addition. A Afterson stated that religious institutions are a permitted use in the C2 Commercial District M. Mylott stated mat the parking requirement for religious institutions is based upon Lne number of seats in the sanctuary; that number would not change. C. Smith asked the applicants: is the proposed arnount of parking similar to the amount of existing parking? J. Norwood responded: yes. arc on -street parking may be available C. Smith asked the applicants: is the existing parking area sitrt d? J Norwood responded: no. A. Alterson stated that this building is not listed as a landmark. J. Norwood stated that they are working toward landmark status. C. Ruiz stated that he was glad to hear that C. Ruiz stated that he is concemed about how the addition connects to the building. perhaps the designer could consider an approach that separates the addition from the original building such Mat the addition and the original building were distinct. C. Ruiz staled that the addition could affect the application for landmark status: the Secretary of the Interior evaluates the impact of an addition [rased upon its ability to be removed without impairing the integrity of the original building. C_ Ruiz stated that, while a change would affect functionality, he is not certain the proposed addition es the best design solution. M. Johnson stated that he has dealt with similar issues before. M. Johnson stated that the brick of the proposed addition would be different, although it would be painted to match. C. Smith stated that, while the plans appear to comply with the BOCA requirenwrits regarding unprotected openings, the designer may want to review the north elevation. C. Smith stated that she would encourage the applicants not to disregard the existing entrance; making the proposed entrance "more grand' does a disservice to the building. C. Smith stated that the applicants should consider lighting within the parking area to provide security, perhaps a low bollard style light. D Jennings stated that the exiting street lights may help. J. Norwood stated that the Church has cameras 'ail over the plane' M. Johnson asked the Committee must the existing restroom facilities meet accessibility requirements? C Smith responded no, provided the addition meets the accessibility requirements and an accessible route is provided D. Jennings motioned to grant concept approval A. Alterson seconded the motion. Ccrnmittee aaccoved the motion (5-0) to Grant concept aooroval. The proposed site plan, proposed elevations, color rendering of the proposal, plat of survey, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-057). SUMMARY OF FINDiNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrr rEE May 17. 2000 Page 2 or 7 %4P SPAARC 00-068 2545 Prairie Avenge Recommendation for Sidewalk COO Review application for Sidewalk Cafe for type 1 restaurant atthin 200 feet of re wentmi use (Jacky's Bistro). Mr. Jacky Pluton (owner) presented a Permit Application for Sidewalk Cafe, inducing a site plan and menu, and dcshware to establish a sidewalk cafe for a type t restaurant wrtrn 200 feet of a resides:tW use (Jacky's Bistro) located at 2545 Prairie Avenue, J. Pluton stated that this sidewalk cafd would consist of ten tables with 56 chaL..-s C. Smith read the sidewalk caf6 requirements as established in the Type II Restaurant Sidewalk Cafe Review form. J. Pluton responded that Jacky's Bistro would comply mth ail requirements, and he does not require the waiver that would permit disposable beverage containers. J. Pluton stated that he would use planter boxes as a delimiting device. C. Smith stated that those dewces dearly meet the intent of tW City Code. J. Pluton stated that he has notified the neighbors of today's meeting M Mylott stated that, while he appreciates the applicant's efforts, he must also notify the neighbors that the F*annng and Development Committee of the City Council would consider this item on May 22, 2000 A Akerson stated that that notification would need to occur this weekend. A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Division has received an inquiry regarding Mrs application; the person was concerned about vehicles being parked in residential parking areas and the hours of operation — specifically, when would the sidewalk cafa close in the evenings. J Pluton stated that the restaurant and the sidewalk cafd would close between 9:00 p m. and 9,30 p m C. Smith stated that remaining open until 10:00 p.m. would be reasonable. A. Alterson agreed. A Alterson asked J Pluton: do plan to have outdoor music accessory to the restaurant or sidewalk caf6? J Pluton responded no A. Alterson asked J. Pluton: do you plan to have carry out or delivery accessory to this restaurant? J. Pluton responded: we may have a "very, very minimal' amount of carry out and no Wivery. D. Jennings stated that at least one former restaurant at this site had problems when persons would illegally park to pick up carry out orders. J. Pluton stated that this type of food does not lend itself to cant' out. J. Pluton stated that they plan to finalize a valet parking arrangement with Bank One soon. D. Jennings stated that the applicant must acquire a permit for valet parking. J. Pluton stated that he is using a company that is supposed to take care of those types of requirements J Pluton stated that lunch-time customers would use metered parking spaces. D. Jennings stated that valets cannot use metered parking spaces A Alterson motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the Applicator for Sidewalk Caft of Jacky's Bistro. P D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the moron (5-01 to recommend that the City Council aaorove the Andication for Sidewalk Cain of Jackv's Bistro The site plan and menu have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee fokW for this case (SPAARC 00-068). SUM MRY OF FFNDMIGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARAWE REVIEW C MAM7TFE May 17. 20W Pays 3 of 7 14P SPAARC 00-054, 3200 Grant Street Prourninar►r Construct 4-story, 24-unit residential building at Presbyterian Homes. Ms. Nancy Tolan (facilities manager, Presbyterian Homes) presented a site plan, floor plan, section, rendering, and site photographs to construct a 4-story, 24-unit residential building at 3200 Grant Se t Ms. Dana Howard (project manager, Presbyterian Homes), Mr. Robert Walker (principal architect Otis Koglin Wilson), Mr. Timothy Schmitt (project architect, Otis Koglin Wilson). and Mr. Roger Ckg*w (landscape architect, Otis Koglin Wilson) were available to answer questions. N. Tolan stated that: 1. the building would contain 24 dwelling units. The units would be for the 'youngest, mast-abie, independent living resident'. Presbyterian Homes has lost approximately 60 units since it started consolidating smaller units, and it will lose 5 more units before the consolidations are complete. 2. the budding would be 4 stories high. 3. they met with the neighbors. The neighbors were concerned about hesght Presbyterian Homes would like the Committee to consider that increasing the height of the parapet by 1 foot WOW reduce the visual impact of the rooftop mechanicals. The parapet as proposed is 1 foot 4 incurs high, they believe that 2 feet 4 inches is more effective. A. Alterson stated that only a person with 'a very precise eye` would be able to tell the difference between the two parapet heights. B. Fahistrom stated that the additional height is a good tradeoff for the additional screening. C. Smith agreed. 4. the location of the building would be south of the One Arbor building. Construction at this location would require Presbyterian Homes to remove existing residential -style garages that go largely unused; they are used primarily for storing maintenance equipment R. Dupler stated that, given the location and the existing landscaping along Golf Road, the building would be at a 'not too visible spot'. B. the color of the brick would be almond. While most of the campus buildings are constructed of rose-colored brick, attempting to closely match the One Arbor building made more sense. The details would be limestone or precast that would resemble limestone. C. Smith stated that she recommends using limestone; it would be unfortunate if the applicants used lesser quality materials on such a well -designed building. 6. the windows would be aluminum -clad wood with insulated clear glass with a low E finish. 7, the number of surface parking spaces across the campus would not change. The building would inGude 39 parking spaces 1-story underground. 8. the building would be linked to the One Arbor building via glass enclosure. 9. they have submitted an Application for Zoning Analysis. A. Alterson stated that the applicants would require a new grant of special use and a variation to the building height requirement SUMMARY OF FINDWGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrTEE r/(, May 17. 2000 {'�'? Pape 4 of 7 x T. Sct=iti stated that the penthouse would be a metal screen panel or Dry►M Dryvit permits more deW C. Smith stated that to use such a 'historically cheap material' would be unfortunate; she would recommend using metal panels N Tolan stated that she prefers metal panels; they tend to blend with the sky better. C Smith stated that the applicants should consider a protective awning or canopy; the Committee has seen several instances in which applicants have added such devices later. R. Walker stated that large buses must be able to pass through the turn around M Mylott stated that he has seen canopies that only cover % the driveway, creating a bypass for large vehicles N Tolan stated that they would consider the Committee suggestions C Smith asked the applicants: does the north side of Golf Road include a sidewalk? N. Tolan responded. no. A Atterson asked the applicants: is this property on the tax rotts? N Tolan responded: yes. C. Smith asked the applicants, why do you have a wing wail around the *all around the patio? R. Walker responded: the wing wall may need to serve as a 2- to 3-foat high retaining wall; it would be constructed out of dry -stack stone or Interlocking precast C. Smith stated that she recommends using the dry -stack stone; it would provide a very elegant look N. Tolan stated that the area would be heavily landscaped C. Smith asked the applicants: how high is the wall around the patios? R. Walker responded: 6 feet; a similar type of arrangement is found elsewhere on campus. M. Mylott stated that that arrangement provides a place for a person to hide; also, that hiding place is immediately next to an access point to the dwelling unit. M. Mylott stated that the applicants should provide natural surveillance to the patio; the applicants should leave the area between 3 feet and 5 feet high clear of visual obstructions. A Alterson stated that the applicants could use wrought iron. N. Tolan stated that these areas are not designed to keep people out, but to provide a sense of privacy. C. Smith stated that the applicants should consider other ways to provide a sense of privacy, such as trellises or landscaping. N Tolan stated that they would consider the Committee suggestions, as well as explore technological opbons. C. Smith asked the applicants. why did you decide not to include balconies? N. Tolan responded: balconies tend to be underused, and they become a place for 'junk and storage' N. Tolan stated that balconies are not provided at any other location on the campus M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval C Smith seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion t5-07 to arant orelimrnary site clan and aooearance review aocroval The site plan, floor plan, section, rendering, and site photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-054). SPAARC 00-066 605 Davis Street Preliminary Consimci 4-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and parking and residential within upperlfoam). Applicant did not attend. SUMMARY OF FtNDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARAHM REVIEW COWeTTEE May f 7. 20W Page 5 of 7 X SPAARC 00-055 2620 Green Bav Road Qrollminary and FmW Cans!"� t-story addition and create additional off-street parking spades for retail service estadtishmeoW (DcnrW Tire & Car Cars Company). Mr Cary Jacobson (architect) presented Building Permit Application #00-332, including a site plus Boor plan, and elevations, and site photographs to constnx t a 1-story addition and create additional offer parkirsq spaces for the retail service establishment (Duxler Tire & Car Care Company) located at 26M Green Bay Road C Jacobson stated that Vw Chicago Avenue Duxler Tire & Car Care Center is closing. The owner would like to add gays at the subject property to accommodate his customers. the owner purchased and razed the property Immediately to the north. the existing building has a Dryvit front and a painted concrete block back. /. the front and north side of the addition would be constructed of split face and smooth CMU; the back (west elevation) would be constructed of standard concrete block. The addition would be separated from the original building by a reveal. M Mylott stated that the reveal would probably not pose a security concern given the volume of traffic along Green Bay Road D. Jennings stated that, while he is not 'a fan of Dryvir, he is not certain that the Committee wants the applicant to change building materials. C. Smith stated that the change of material would help break up a rather long facade. 5. the addition would have 2 front- and rear-Ioaded bays. The existing bays would be double. loaded as well. 6. most often, a customer will park his or her vehicle at the east corner of the site. Then, an employee will either move it to an open bay or somewhere else. 7. this site has required off-street parking spaces at 2636 Green Bay Road, a. the free-standing sign would be removed. C. Smith stated that the site has too many curb cuts: it is very confusing, especially along a road with 'quick -moving traffic'. C Smith stated that, to do nothing, eliminates an opportunity to improve circulation C Smith stated that she believes that the owner should reduce the number of curb cuts and install a curb A. Alterson stated that, while he sympathizes with a desire to improve circulation, he does not see how the addition makes the site conditions any worse C. Smith stated that the owner is 'adding more confusion'. C. Jacobson stated that the distance from the building to the front lot line is only 118 feet; persons cannot turn a vehicle in one movement at this distance. D Jennings stated that even though the plat of survey depicts many curb cuts, the photographs show that the area is 'open across almost the enure way'. D. Jennings stated that the owner should have a permit for each curb cut on file; the applicant would need to go through his office to get a permit to open or close a curb cut D. Jennings stated that the applicant may need a waiver, given the number of curb cuts on site SLAMIAARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 17. 20W Papa 6 of 7 D. Jennings stated that the survey shows that the applicant may need to move a streeftht the applicant must provide an island for the streetlight and the Fire hydrant. D. Jennings stated that the owner should look to Improve how the customers access the sits the owner should consider providing signage or other direction to customers C. Smith stated that tje cwvner should provide a low sign at the north comer of the site to direct customers, the owner would netsd a permit for such a sign. D. Jennings stated that the owner could provide a servve writer. 4ke those used at automobile dealerships. C. Smith stated that the applicant should contact the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District to start their permit process. C. Jacobson stated that that process has already begun. C. Smith motioned to table this item. A Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that she would like the applicant to prepare a response to she Committee concerns about circulation, especially along Green Bay Road. Committee aooroved the motion 15-01 to table this item_ The site plan, floor plan, and elevations have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00.055). Summary of Findinaa C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the May 3, 2000 meeting. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion f5-01 to aaorove the Summary of Findings from the Mav 3. 2000 meetinq. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. �ReApectfully su **f LL% even M�y�la'tt� Secretary SUMMARY OF FWpNGS ��(, SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWAr EEMay$�+�rQ► MT7, 2OW Pop 7d7 D SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 10, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, L. Black, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino. H. Friedman. M. Berry, J. Minear. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and Megan the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-049 2126 Demoster Street Prellminary and Final Resurface parking area of retar7 services establishment (U-Haui), Mr. John Krowczyk (contractor) presented Application for Building Permit #00-398, including a site plan, and site photographs to resurface the parking area for the retail services establishment (U-Haul) located at 2125 Dempster Street. J Krowczyk stated that: they would raise the grade approximately 1 % inches. However, the existing pitch would remain. The parking area is already connected to the sewer system. C_ Smith stated that the applicant needs to indicate the slope on the drawings. S. Nagar stated that the slopes should pitch to the drainage stnu=res. S. Nagar stated that he is concerned about the potential impact upon surrounding properties. S. Nagar stated that the applicant must document the existing drainage structures, the existing grades, the proposed changes to the drainage structures including any changes to the elevation, and the proposed grades. S. Nagar stated that a civil engineer would be able to assist the applicant with preparing this information. C. Smith stated that this person must be licensed with the State of Illinois. C. Smith stated that the amount of documentation requested for a project of SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMfrTEE May 10.2000 Page 1 Of a it this type may be excessive; perhaps the applicant could vAx$, *Ath the Engineering Depamrrem to determine if a lesser amount of documentation would aheviate their concerns the parking area is not striped. Wheel stops are in place at several krabons along the eo;es of the parking area. C Smith stated that the applicant must stripe the parking area. including pmvid;ng accessible parking spaces. C Smith stated that the applicant should work with the Zoning Dwzcn t0 determine the appropriate parking and striping requirement M Mylott stated that files within Central Records indicate that the site contained 20 parking spaces when developed; rioweverr, Central Records contains no site plan to show where these parking spaces were located. V Mylott slated that he is not certain that these 20 parking spaces were ever striped, eecaLse Central Records contains no such documentation, he cannot determine when they may have been paved over, if they were striped. J. Wolinski stated mat he believes that the State requires that a resurfaces parking lot or area must include striped accessible parking spaces. A. Afterson agreed, and stated that the a should provide at least one accessible parking space. M Mylott stated that, until the Zoning Division determines the parking requirement, the Committee cannot tell the applicant how man. y accessible parking spaces he must provide. R. Dahal asked J. Krowczyk- why not stripe the entire parking area? J Krowczyk responded: U- Haul does not want to stripe the parking area. A. Alterson stated that he believes that, even if the parking area was striped, the current configuration of vehicles within the parking area would not change. I approximately two to three people work on site at one time They work out of the smaJ office located near the middle of the site R. Dahal asked J. Krowczyk: would U-Haul fix or remove the bollards along Hartrey Avenue that are damaged? J. Krowczyk responded. I can suggest it. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, sutpect to: (1) review and approval by the Engineering Department of the drainage configuration, and (2) review and approval by the Zoning Division of the parking and striping requirements. P. D'Agosbno secosided Mae motion. Committee anoroved the motion t7-01 to arant areliminary and final site elan and anoeardnce review aparoval. subiect to (1) review and aooroval by the Engineerino Department of the draainacm configuration, and (2) review and aooroval by the Zoning Orvision of the narkina and strmfrp requirements. S. Nagar abstained The site plan and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-049). SPAARC 00-058 711 Church Street Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe Review Application for Sidewalk Cafe for type 2 restaurant (Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.). Ms. Jennifer Gallery (attorney) presented a Permit Application for Sidewalk Cafe and dishware to establish a sidewalk cafe for a type 2 restaurant (Chipolte Mexican Grill) located at 711 Church Street Mr. David Carden and Mr. Brian Ferguson (Chipotte Mexican Grill) were available to answer questions. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 10. 2000 Page 2 of 6 y x C. Smith read the sidewalk cafb requirements as established in the Type 11 Restaurant Sidewalk Cafe Review form. J. Gallery stated that the regular operation of the restaurant includes only disposable dishware. C Smith stated that one could argLW that plastic baskets, much like wicker baskets are nondisposable. C Smith stated that the basket liners and foil wrappers conflict with provisions of tr-,e Crty Code regulating sidewalk cafes, the intent of these provisions is to minimize litter. J. Wolinski stated that the applicant is required to provide a bus person at all braes. J. Gallery stated that that bus person would be 'constantly monitoring' the sidewalk cafes; they would also be willing to place a garbage can nee the sidewalk cafd. J Gallery stated that they believe that the continual bus service and dedicated garbage can would alleviate concerns regarding litter A. Alterson read Section 7-2-6 D 5 d of the City Code: Reusable, nondisaosable flatware, dishware and beverage containers are required for use in association with all skkwafk cafes No food or beverage, induding water, shall be served in, on, or with paper, plastic, or polysryren-- plastic dishes or utensils. nor shall any food or beverage be served to the customer wrapped or packaged in fort, paper, plastic, or polystyrene plastic. The use of nondisposable beverage containers may be waived by the City Council upon a showing of good cause. A. Alterson stated that the only provision of this section that the City Council may waive is the requirement that beverage containers be nondisposabie C Smith stated that it is reasonable to assume that the continual bus service and the garbage can ,could alleviate concems over litter M Mylott stated that this standard is not discretionary. M Mylott stated that this situation is much like the situation the Committee faced several years ago regarding distance requirements for sidewalk cafes from street fixtures; the City Council could not arbitrarily permit sidewalk cafes that could not meet the required setback, rather they had to amend the City Code. C. Smith stated that she is certain that the type of food prepared by this restaurant must be wrapped in foil; it can be eaten no other way, A. Alterson disagreed. H. Friedman stated that. if the food can be eaten no other way, perhaps the City should not permit this restaurant to have a sidewalk cafb. M. Mylott and S. Nagar agreed. C. Smith disagreed, and stated that, at this location, it is in the City's best interest to promote sidewalk cafes; they bring life to the street. C. Smith stated that she does not anticipate that this sidewalk caf6 would create a problem, especially given the mitigation that the applicants proposed. J. Gallery stated that the restaurant could serve the foil -wrapped food within the plastic basket but with no flatware. A. Alterson asked the applicants: can you use reusable flatware? J. Gallery responded: no. M. Mylott stated that, while he appreciates the argument that plastic baskets are reusable, the City Code lists plastic as a material upon which food cannot be served. J. Gallery stated that perhaps they could locate a source of wicker baskets. M Mylott stated that foil -wrapped food is still not permitted J Gallery stated that they could not change the foil wrapping C. Smith stated that this Committee is only a recommending body to the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council (P&D). J. Wolinski stated that even a negatrve recommendation goes to P&D. C Smith stated that the applicant should be aware that they proceed to P&D 'at their own risk'; they may wish to contact the ward alderman M Mylott stated that the applicants should still execute the notification requirements. C. Smith motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the Application for Sidewalk Cafe-, provided that: (1) the applicant does not use a paper liner, (2) the City Council investigate whether or not it is appropriate to serve food within a plastic basket within a sidewalk cafes, and (3) the City Cocmdl investigate whether or not it is appropriate to wrap food in foil within a sidewalk caf6 M. Mylott seconded the motion SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CON9&"EE May 10. 2000 Page 3 of 6 Discussion- M. Mylott stated that perhaps the Crmr-trtsee shmid consider tabling this Qmrn� but still forward the requests that tie Crry Counca rNesugate wtsether or nct tt is appropriate to serve food vAttun a p+astnc basxet arKvor wrapped in foil wOm a sidewalk cafad S. Nagar dtsagreed J. Wolinski stated that rernoong tre paper line; from the pfaiabc basket 'OW make a bigger mess' J. Wolinski asked the appbcants is tie fooa pre -prepared or es R prepared alter a person orders it? J Gallery respondea it is prepared after a person orders it A. Alterson stated that the intent was to prevent a restaurant Dice McDonald's ar Burger King from having a sidewalk cafe J Gattery stated that Chipolte Mex=an Restaurant could remove all nonconforming ciaractenstics except the fad wrapping; the food cannot be physically served without it C. Smith stated 12IN this applicant has demomWated a unique nardship based upon the type of lbod they serve. A Alterson stated that he fads to understand why this food cannot be served without the ton! wrapping, he is aware of many similar restaurants Mat serve similar -sized food upon a reusable plate J. Wolinski stated that this item would be on the P&D agenda for May 22. 2000. A Alterson stated that the applicant may wish to propose changes to the City Code that would enable them to have a sidewalk cafe gommittee failed to approve the motusn (3-5) to recommend that the, City Council approve the ADAlicabon for Sidewalk Cafe, provided that' LlI the applicant does not use a paper liner. (2) the C+tv Court investisate whether or not it is appropnate to serve focal within a plastic basket within a sidewalk calf_ a 3 the Citv Council investigate whether or not it is approonate to wrap fgod in foil within ji Sidewalk W4. A Alterson, P. D'Agostino, H. Friedman, M. Mylott, and J. V1(olirrski cast dissenting votes. SPAARC 00-050 1029-1101 Howard Street Recommendation to Sian Board Instal( wall sign and free-standing sign at medical office building. C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-13) to install a wall sign and free- standing sign at the medical office building located at 1029-1102 Howard Street. C. Smith stated that the site contains two buildings. C. Smith stated that the setback is not sufficient for the free-standing sign. C. Smith stated that the signs contain too many Items of information H Friedman stated that he does not understand why the applicant would want to list each doctor upon the signs C. Smith stated that both signs have a white background, the applicant indicated to her that the signs could have a bronze background with white lettering. J. Wolinski stated that the free-standing sign would increase way finding C Smith stated that she would recommend only installing the free-standing sign SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 10, 2000 Page A of 6 i .0 J. Wolinski motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve that portion, ci the Sign Ordinance Variation Application that includes the free-standing sign, provided the sign backgroLxnd is dark and fight only shines through the letters, and deny that portion of the Sign Ordinance Varation Application that includes the wall sign. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aoorevert the motion (8-01 to recommend that the Sion Review and Aooeals Board aDDrove that portion of the Sian Ordinance Variation Application that includes the free-standina sign. provided the Sian backaround es dark and hgJh only shines through the letters, and denv that Dortion of the Sion Ordinance Variation Application that includes the wall sign. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (OD-050) SPAARC 00-051 2212 Green Bay Road Recommendation to Sian Board install wall sign for rat ail services establishment (Spex Car Wash). C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-14) to install a *-all sign for the retail services establishment (Spex Car Wash) located at 2212 Green Bay Road. C. Smith stated that the sign is not parallel to a public thoroughfare. C. Smith stated that the sign would overhang the property line; the applicant is aware that an easement would be required before the sign could be installed. J. Wolinski stated that the applicant has made a 'nice business" out of a building that was in disrepair; without the sign, a person could 'drive right by wits• out seeing iY. J. Wolinski motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, provided the applicant procures the required easement. P. D'Agosbno seconded the motion. Committee aDDroved the motion (6-1) to recommend that the Sian Review a0d Avoeais Board aoorove the $icon Ordinance Variation Aoafication. provided the aDolkmnt orocures the reauired easement. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-051). SPAARC 00-052 2450 Main Street Recommendation to Sian Board Install several illuminated and non -illuminated wall signs at retail goods establishment (Sam's Club). C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-15) to install several illuminated and non -illuminated wall signs at the retail goods establishment (Sam's Club) located at 2450 Main Street, C. Smith stated that the applicants propose to replace the Sam's Club sign within the free-standing sign at the entrance with a new Sam's Club sign A. Alterson asked C. Smith: would the property owner be required to remove the free-standing sign at the end of the amortization period? C. Smith responded: yes, A. Alterson asked C. Smith: is this business subject to the requirements of a Undied Business Center Sign Plan? C. Smith responded: no SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C MMrrfEE May 10.2000 Pape 5 d 6 C. Smith stated that she believes that the proposed wall signs are only upon the west elevation. but she is not certain C. Smith stated that the proposed square sign boxes containing the words *Sam's CW would be illuminated; the individual words, such as 'Optical`. 'Pharmacl/', '14-lour Photo', and 'T'ver would not be illuminated. J. Wolinski stated that identifying Sam's Club has always been difficult A. Alterson stated that the proposed signage is similar to off -premise signage, if the ability to shop at this location is dependent upon membership with a national organization. C. Smith stated that the business is a retail goods establishment a person can get instant membership at the door. H. Friedman stated that the distance between the west elevation and McCormick Boulevard is significant J. Wolinski motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aocroved the motion (6-01 to recommend that the Sian Review_ and Annuls Board aopn7vt. the Sion Ordinance Variation Apoli2ption. H. Friedman abstained, The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-052). Summary of Findinas J. Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the April 26, 2000 meeting. P. D'Agost no seconded the motion. Committee aparoved the motion (6-0) o aoorove the Summary of Findings from the April 26. 2000 meetinq. R. Dahal abstained. Adioufutment The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p,m. ,ettpectfully submitte , i I rc Steven Mylott, AICP Secretary SUMMARY OF FMNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 10.2000 Page s ors 4� 0 I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 3, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. MylotL S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: L. Black, K. Kelly. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: M. Franz, S. Guderley, S. Lufkin, M. Robinson, R. Schur. Others Present: Aid. Ann Rainey, Mr. Michael Lee, Mr. Martin Uthe. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicago Avenue Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Photocopy of letter fmm neighbor. C. Smith distributed a photocopy of a letter from Niki Hittwein, neighbor, dated May 2, 2000. SPAARC 00-044 Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Photocopy of page from Graphic Standards regarding brkkwork. C. Smith distributed a photocopy of page 148 from Graphic Standards regarding brickwork Summary of Findinas J. Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the April 12, 2000 and Apr9 19. 2000 meeting. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee avoroved the motion (7-0) to avorove the Summary of Findinos from the Aoril 12. 2000 and Aoril 19. 2000 meetinq. SUMMARY OF FDM94GS �K. SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW OON"TTEE a wy 3, 2000 POW 7 of 12 It SPAARC 00-018 121 Asbury Avenue Prelim timry Construct &story mixed -use development (ground -floor retail and residential w thin the upper floors,) Mr. Michael Winfield (developer) and Mr Clark Fell (architect) presented Application for Zoning Arkalysts 6*0-156-ZA2, including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, building sections. plat of survey, and sty and area photographs, to construct an 8-story mixed -use development (ground -floor retail with residential within the upper floors) at 121 Asbury Avenue. C. Fell stated that: 1. they met with Alderman Rainey approximately two weeks ago. At that time, they reviews© the project. They are in the process of setting a date for a neighborhood meeting. 2, they worked with A. Alterson and the Traffic Division on the parking conflgurathm, and tlhey have zoning approval They will continue to work to further improve the circulation. 3. they propose to install doors at the entrance and exit of the parking garage to increase sewrFty. They would install a decorative grill over the openings of the parking garage; the grill would have a similar'therne' to the open railings used on the balconies They would install a gale at trio trip of the stairwell along the north elevation leading from the top of the parking garage to"ground. M. Mylott stated that the stairwell should extend to the ground to eliminate a place for persons to hide. C. Felt stated that the stairwell was designed as proposed to minimize its bulk, also, a vent is provided at the lower level. C. Smith stated that the applicants must ensure that that vent :s 10 feet from a lot line. a. the building materials would include iron -spot red brick. They are considering using wsre-cut face brick at the base and as accent bands and using smooth face brick at all other locabons. They propose to use modular or standard -size brick — 3 bricks and 2 joints per 8 inches of height_ M. Mylott asked the applicants. given the Committee discussion regarding 'lightening' the middle of the front fagade, what was the rationale for leaving it as is? C. Fell responded: they are stir reviewing that issue, including much discussion with their mechanical engineer. they are concemed about the heat gain from the afternoon sun and would like to provide 'a sofrd back drop coming off the elevators'. C. Smith stated that, contrary to their concern about heat gain, the architect included extensive glass within the front facade of the dwelling units C Smith stated that the applicant should consider using the decorative grills along the south facade to make the building `more friendly to the south", the south Facade is `very sofld and foreboding". C Smith stated that the mass would 'read more gracefully' if it appeared to rest more upon the precast columns. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that the restaurant may not always be there C. Fell stated that they did not include much articulation within the south facade because the property owner to the south could build to the lot line; they did include a tight shaft H Friedman stated that several applicants have returned to the Committee stating that they must change the brick due to expenses — either with the brick itself or the buck is sacrificed due to other unanticipated costs. H. Friedman asked the applicants: to what extend can this Committee rely on you to maintain the proposed brick? M. Winfield responded. we will 'strive to keep the brick as presented; we want to hold to the proposed level of design'. M. Winfield stated that trey have already started the bidding process. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 3, 2000 Page 2 of 12 5. the projecting bays within the west elevation (front) would be glass on three sues. They vuouid use clear glass with a low 8 coating C. Smith stated that, with the amount of glass proposed, individual owners would cover that Mass in a variety of ways, detracting from the exterior appearance C Fell stated that that point irs wd! taken, necessary controls could be included within covenants. C. Smith stated that she strongly recommends such controls. 6 they propose to construct the parking garage of architectural precast concrete 7. they Included documentation that the penthouse would not be visible from an adjacent strut A Alterson stated that, while the penthouse may not be visible from an adjacent street as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, it will be very visible as one approaches from Dobson Street: A. Alterson asked the applicants: of what material do you propose to construct the penthouse? C Fell responded it could be standard precast concrete, or they could introduce architectnt precast concrete C. Smith stated that the applicants should use spandrel glass to matte the penthouse as light as possible 8 they changed the design of the balconies to include an open railing 9. they do not anticipate the need for mechanical ventilation for the parking garage, given the large louver within the south facade. At the most, they may need to 'supptemert the ventilation on the lowest level` 10 they have not yet addressed lighting. They are aware that they will need to balance the issues of safety versus impact on adjacent property 11 commercial signage would be located on a bulkhead inside the glass. J. Wolinski stated that, while the property is zoned for this bulk, the neighbors would be concerned about the height and shadows. C. Smith stated the east elevation could be softened with ivy; it would also lessen the potential for graffiti. C. Fell stated that they intend to make this area' as lush as possible'. C. Fell stated that the house immediately east of the subject property is approximately 6 to 10 feet from their rear lot line; they intend to design their rear yard setback to feel like part of the neighbor's yard. C. Fell stated that they would design the northeast comer of their rear yard setback to work with the existing landscaping within the Dobson Street traffic circle S. Nagar stated that the applicants should investigate storm water detention, because it would be a major expense. C. Fell stated that their next step is to retain engineers. J. Wolinski asked the applicants what Is your construction schedule? M Winfield responded- as soon as possible; we had wanted to break ground in July, but August or September is now more reasonable C. Smith stated that persons from the audience have requested an opportunity to speak J. Wolinski motioned to allow persons within the audience to comment on this case S. Nagar seconded the motion Committee avoroved the motion f 10d)1 to allow oersons within the audience to comment on this case. Aid. Rainey stated that this project is an example of why the 83 zoning district needs to be changed; she realizes it meets the Zoning Ordinance, but an 85-foot high building would 'loom over the Dobson Street cul-de-sac' Aid. Rainey stated that B3 zoning next to single-family residential zoning is a `terrible mistake'. SUMMARY of FWDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVWW C0MMrrtrEE May 3, 20W Pape 3 of 12 Ald. Rainey stated that the neighbors have conducted a shadow study, and this building wc Mid pradduce very long shadows. Ald. Rainey stated that, if this project required a special use, she believes it would not be apprv%tdM Aid. Rainey stated that she wants to emphasize that the Site Plan and Appearance Rev+evr Corrnittee has more to consider than 'steel, bricks, and glass'; she hopes that the landscaping propesW fcu this project is *extensive'. Aid, Rainey stated that the lot now contains 'no living thing' Aid. Rainey stated that she has requested that the developer provide information about pmie= fnarlcing and other issues, and she was told that that information cannot yet be revealed. Aid. Rainey asked the Committee: for how tong is a Site Plan and Appearance Review Comrnfttee approval valid? M. Mylott responded: I beleve the limitation is one year. Ald. Rainey stated that she is confident that the proposed amount of parking is inadequate. AM. Rainey stated that this development is 'unwelcome, unwanted, and it is a truly sad moment for the people in a special neighborhood'. Aid. Rainey stated that people are 'shocked' to realize that this building would be 35 feet taller than the blue building across the street. Mr. Martin Uthe (1216 Dobson Street) stated that he believes that the Committee should not matte a decision before the developer discusses the protect with the neighbors M. Uthe stated that an &-Vzry building at this location is 'ludicrous', it would put his property 'in a cave'. M. Uthe stated that parking 'will be impossoe' M Uthe stated that the architecture is 'cold*. and it does not fit within the neighborhood. C. Smith stated that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee has no control of matters related to zoning, such as height and parking. Ald. Rainey stated that she is aware of the Committee purview, however, the neighbors have no other opportunity to be heard. J. Wolinski motioned to table this item until such time that the developer presents this proposal at a neighborhood meeting and the Committee receives a report on the results of that meeting. S Nagar seconded the motion. Discussion. M. Winfield stated that he is 'at a loss as to how a neighborhood meeting relates to the purview of the Committee'. J. Wolinski stated that the Committee has had instances in which important site planning information has come from neighborhood meetings - information one could only get from persons who have intimate knowledge of the neighborhood. Committee aomovel the motion r9-2 to table this item until such time that the developer nresefts ttus gr000sal at a OeinhborhQod meeting and the Committee receives a report on the results of that meetinq. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, building sections, plat of survey, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC QO-018). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SYTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 3. 20M Page 4 or 12 eo 1 39 I SPAARC 00-047 812 Dobson Street Concept Install parking machine for multi -family residential building (condominiums). Mr. Robert Bailey (Prescient of SpaceSaver Parking Company) presented product catak?p to Instatt a parking machine for me multi -family residential building (condominiums) located at 812 Dobson Street. Mr. Wen Livingston ;SpaceSaver Parking Company) and Ms. Jacqueline Smith (SpaceSaver Parking Company) were available to answer questsons R. Bailey stated that they have not developed specific plans at this time They propose to convert a 6-car detached garage located off the alley into an 11- or 12-car detached garage. The condominium association feels that they need to provide at ►east 8 parking spaces for the 8 dwelling units. The owners wanted to know if parking spaces within a parking machine would count as required parking spaces from a zoning perspective. A. Alterson stated that this Committee would not decide whether parking spaces within a parking machine would count as required parking spaces from a zoning perspective. A. Alterson stated that he would want to ensure that required parking spaces had not been removed to install the parking machine, especially if the parking machine were "stuck' such that the bottom or top space were inaccessible. R. Bailey stated that he can see no instance in which the parking machine would be stuck in the down or middle position. A. Alterson stated that the Zoneng Ordinance requires parking spaces to have a minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet C. Smith stated that a 7-foot vertical clearance is required by the building code as well R Bailey stated that the typical vertical clearance is between 5 and 6.5 feet; however, they could build a machine that had a higher clearance. the parking machine stacks one vehicle on top of another vehicle. The vehicle on the bottom must be removed before the vehicle on top may be removed. His company also sells 'combilifts' that do not require a person to move the vehicle from the bottom space. D. Marino asked the applicants. who controls the equipment that moves the vehicles? R. Bailey responded: typically one person owns and therefore controls the top and bottom parking spaces. D. Jennings stated that the concept sounds like tandem parking — only vertically. C. Smith asked the applicants how safe is a parking machine? R. Bailey responded: they are very safe. R. Bailey stated that specific codes are being developed to regulate parking machines. R. Bailey stated Europe has 'thousands' of, and Chicago has many, parking machines. C. Smith asked the applicants: are parking machines UL approved? R. Bailey responded: no; however, the parking machines are built in accordance with the ANSi B10 material handling code, and Chicago parking machines are subject to review and approval by the agency charged with testing Chicago elevators R. Bailey stated that he has installed 200 to 250 parking machines — for both residential and commercial uses — over the last 7 to 8 years 3. the roof height of the garage would only increase 3 feet. 4. the cost for a parking machine is approximately 8,000 to 10,000 dollars per parking space. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrIT PLAN AND APPEARANCE: REVIEW COIul N rEE a Uny 3.2000 Page 5 of 112 J. Wolinski stated that the Committee would need a more specific plan, ill zmding srxh items as the degree of enclosure and the vertical clearance. A. Atterson stated that he would like to see more product information regarding installation cost, maintenance, and repairs. C. Smith motioned to table this item. S Nagar seconded the motion. Committee acc"Wed the (12-01 to table this item. The product catalogs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Commidee folder for this case (SPARC 004)047). SPAARC 99-137 1633 Chicaqo Avenue Condition of PnrAous ADDrova! Review signage for type 1 restaurant (Dave's Italian K6 en) as condition of preaaaus approval for separate entrance and vestibule for future basement tenant. Mr. Chad Henson (architect) presented an elevation to allow the Committee to review, as a condition of a previous approval for a separate entrance and vestibule for a future basement tenant, tfie signage for the type 1 restaurant (Dave's Italian Kitchen) located at 1633 Chicago Avenue. C. Henson stated that the sign would consist of 16- to 18-inch neon letters within metal channels. The letters would be mounted to a black raceway sitting 4 to 6 inches above the top of the brushed aluminum canopy. C. Smith stated that the letters are 'nice, and they are proportional to the buddiW. C. Smith stated that the raceway might look better lower. C. Smith stated that the raceway may look better colored silver, such that it looks like it is a part of the canopy. 2. the restaurant has no plans for window signs. C. Smith stated that she has heard marry concerns for area neighbors regarding neon signs A. Alterson motioned to approve the proposed signage, satisfying the condition of previous approval, provided that: (1) the applicant makes a good faith effort to make the raceway as unobtrusive as possible, and (2) the sign is turned off when the business is closed C. Smith seconded the moton. Committee aporoved the motion (8-01 to anorove the proposed signage. satisfvino the condition of previous approval, provided that: (1) the applicant makes a arx?d faith effort to make the racewav as unobtrusive as possible, and (2) the sion is turned off when the business is closed. The elevation has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-137). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 3. 2000 Page 6 d 12 SPAARC 004MS 619 CiiiIfax Street Preliminary and Final Replace windows and tuck point brick at fraternity house (Northwestern Unwersrty) Mr. Doug Tweedie (architect) presented Application for Building Permit s00-297. mdudmg a sft plan, floor plans, and elevations, and site photographs to replace the windows and tuck pant the brick at Ow fraternity house (Northwestern University) located at 619 Colfax Street Mr Tom Martin (Northweswm University) was available to answer questions. D. Tweedie stated that Northwestern University would like to bring back this structure as a fraternity house The structure has been vacant since the summer of 1999 when the Chi Psi fraternity occupied it: the new fratemity would be Delta Chi. 2. they do not intend to change the appearance, rather simply maintain 'what is there'. Some windows have been changed over time. C. Ruiz stated that the property is located within the proposed Northeast Evanston Historic District. C Ruiz stated that the front fagade contains a mix of casement and double -hung windows. D. Tweedie stated that, since the original submittal. they changed the plans; now, they will replace the existing casement windows mthin the existing addition (along the alley) rnth double -hung windows rather than casement windows. C. Ruiz stated the Preservation Commission approved the project as submitted originally; but, upon learning of the change to the addition, he suggested that the applicant replace the existing casement windows within the front fagade with double -hung windows. b. Tweedie stated that they are discussing that suggestion with their contractors; the additional double -hung windows 'will probably happen'. C. Smith asked the applicants: will you be able to maintain your air requirements with double -hung windows? D. Tweedie responded: yes. 3. the proposed work also includes upgrading finishes and installing sprinkler and other life safety features. 4. a shed constructed within the "L' of the building would be removed. The downspout would be removed also, and the drainage would be surface flow, pitched to a gravel bed. 5. at the kitchen, the existing window would be replaced by a smaller window. They would fill the difference with new particleboard. The smaller window would permit interior space for a shelf and other storage C Smith stated that the difference in area should be filled with matching brick, or the replacement window should be the same size. C. Smith stated that the proposed solution looks temporary; with the extent of the proposed renovations, the applicant should 'do this replacement right". D. Tweedie stated that he would discuss this concern with the contractor; he believes that Northwestern University would support one of the proposed alternatives. 6, the porch would be replaced in kind. C. Smith stated that the risers must be solid. they would re -grade the back yard for better drainage. then plant grass seed. SUMMARY OF FINOWGS �(. SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO M MEE <f"A may 3.2000 Pape 7 of 12 t 19 D. Jenn*Vs stated that the applicant should check with the Englreanng Department to asp aresat documentation would be required regarding the proposal to re -grade. the Engir f rr►g Department may require existing and proposed topography on a to -toot grvd A. Alterson asked the applicants: does any part of this proposal increase the t%or area? D Tweedie responded: no. A Alterson asked the applicants: where are dumpsters stored? D Tweedie responded: regular tag pickup from this sae has not occurred in sometime. D Tweedie stated that dumpsters could be located at the northwest corner of the site. C. Smith stated that the applicants should designate a permanent spot for the dumpsters and include a device, such as a low wall that would keep the dumpsters In place. C. Smith stated that the applicants must stripe the parting area and Include an accessible parking space D. Tweedie stated that the area has enough room for approximately four vehicles C. Smith stated Vud the applicants must stripe an area in which no parking would be permitted to maintain egress at the near entrance. A. Alterson asked the applicants; would the building be accessible? D Tweedie responded: some rooms at the lower level and a bathroom would be accessible. C. Smith asked the applicants: are you proposing any changes to the landscaping? D. Tweedie responded: we would remove a small patio and convert it to a grass surface C Smith asked the applicants: would Northwestern University maintain the landscaping? T. Martin responded: yes. T Martin stated that tney would also restore the planter boxes C. Smith stated that she would like to see more resldentialkharacter landscaping, such as annuals. A Alterson motioiied to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the Committee review and approve plans for the parking area, the location and containment of dumpsters, and landscaping. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion 18-0) to arant oreliminary and final site olan and appearance review approval, provided the Committee review and aDvrove clans for the oarkino area, the location and containment of dumosters. and landscapinq. S. Nagar and J. Wolinski abstained. The site plan and srte photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-048). SPAARC 99-164 1501-1503 Howard Street Preliminary and Final Construct second -story addition to child day care center (Toddler Town). Mr. Angelo Nikoiov (owner) presented Application for Building Permit SM371, including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations. and site photographs to construct a second -story addition to the child day care center (Toddler Town) located at 1501-1503 Howard Street A. Nikolov stated that the proposed space would alleviate Continued water damage They have spent over 5,000 dollars on repairs to this portion of the building alone. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMr1TEE May 3, 2000 Page 8 of 12 s 2 the addition would be covered with vhW sidiriQ, probably cream colored. The color MuSt be one mat Does not show too much dirt espec ally along the alley. All the siding on the building would be reptaced with the new siding such that it matched the addition in color and orientatiorr The ar nrogs would be resided as well The price difference between brick and siding for the addition ,was 20 000 dollars H Ff*dman stated that the applicant may want to seek an aftemate bid for brick, the bidder may ham bid high because he or she simply did not want to do the work. A. Nikolov stated that the responding company was the only one Mt replied to the request for bids. C. Smith stated that she -would prefer a brick addition, but the building already has areas that are covered with siding. 3 V* interior floor space under the addition would be used for storage A Alterson asked A Nikolov: would the site change in any way? A. Nikolov responded: no. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approve!_ P. D'Agosbno seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion 01-0) to grant oreliminary and final pile elan and appearance review aor)(gya. SPAARC 99-138 323 Sherman Avenue Revision to Preliminary and Final Add terrace to previously approved single-family residential structure. Mr Bill ,lames (developer) presented the prevkxmty approved and proposed front elevation to add a terrace to the single-family residential structure for 323 Sherman Avenue. B. James stated that: he added windows within the north elevation as recommended by the Committee. M_ Mylon stated that the change Rooks 'nice'. prospective buyers would like to add a roof -top terrace. He could convert inactive attic space to such a feature. The terrace would be 2 to 3 feet in front of the main gable of the front elevation. C. Smdh stated that the proposed change further reduces the mass of the building. Aid. Rainey stated that B James 'does nothing but improve the south end of town". C. Smith motxmed to approve the revision to the previous preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (1t)-0) to aoorove the revision to the previous oreliminary and final site plan and apoearance review annroval. The existing and proposed elevabons have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-138) SUMMARY OF FWDROS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWAr TirE M" 3. 300D Page 9 d 12 r-� SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicano Avenue Remand from City Mam%2Lw Elaborate upon reason for denying pnMnunary site plan and appearance rv%,*w approval Itr 11-amry mixed -use building. C. Smith stated that item is on today's agenda because it has been remanded to the Camrndlee by :he City Manager to allow the Committee to better express its rationale for denying preliminary sft plan and appearance review approval on February 16, 2000. C. Smith stated that the Committee slhaff rat consider any additional evidence. J. Woiinski motioned to deny preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, based uckw the following findings: 1. That the proposed project meets the evaluation criteria regarding building and sbuctxe location, parking areas and lots, open space, preservation, completeness, and compliance with other applicable codes as expressed in §4-17-6 (A), (F), (G), (1). (!), and (K), respectively. 2. That the proposed project falls to meet the evaluation criteria regarding circulation as expressed in §4-17-6 (E) Specifcally, the vehicular elevator proposed along dw aaey would not be adequate to serve the number of vehicles resulting from the number of residential dwelling units proposed. Were this system to be approved, it could create an amount of queuing within an existing public circulation system that could ueate congestion and dangerous traffic movements. Further, if the vehicular elevator were to out of service, persons seeking to park vehicles within the building would be forced to seek parking spaces within an area that already has little available on -street parking. 3. That the evaluation criteria regarding landscaping, graphics and signage, site illurn4vabon as expressed in §4-17-6 (C), (D), and (H), respectively are not applicable in that such criteria are not considered until final site plan and appearance review. 4_ That the applicant is not required to fulfill the evaluation criteria regarding building design and appearance as expressed in §4-17-6 (B). S. Nagar seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Atterson stated that the Commdtee should consider a motion to reconsider. M. Mylott disagreed, and stated that the Committee is not reconsidering the previous action, rather the action was remanded by the City Manager to the Committee such that the Committee may better express its rationale for denying preliminary site plan and appearance review approval on February 16, 20 _ A Alterson stated that he does not understand why this issue is before the Committee. A. Alterson stated that he is not certain what happened to the previous motion and action; the Committee has already denied this case. A. Alterson stated that he finds 'absolutely nothing improper with the Committee's previous motion and action'. A. Akerson stated that he has reviewed the correspondences from Mr. Robert Best (attorney for the applicant), and R. Best has 'committed a classical logical fallacy - linking two eiements simply because they are sequential'. A. Alterson stated that the statement by J. Wolinski preceding his motion and the Committee action are not related. A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE May 3.- 2000 Pop t o or 12 Alterson stated that he does not believe it is necessary to question the m bves of a person making a motion. A Alterson stated that he has assembled packets of information for the Committee members about this case — some of which has already been submitted. J Wolinski stated that the Committee is rtw accepting new vie dense Committee approved the motion (6-41 to demLoreliminary site plan arxi appearanc.. review aoQEZwaL based upon the followinq findings: 1. That the ornoosed project maels the evaltiahnn criteria regarding building anrt 5tructur4 location, oarkma areas and lots. oven space— - reservation. C. r)M&teness. 8n4 compliance wsth other aoalicable nodes as expressed in 64-17-6 (A). (F). (f3). ill ( and K respectivety 2. That the oroposed nmipct fails to meet the evaluation c ritena reaardino circulation as expressed in $4-17-6 (E) Specifically the vehicular elevator or000sed along the alley, would not be adequate to serve the. number of vehicles rpsuttina from the number of residential dwelling units nroposed. Were this system to be anaroved. it could create an amount of aueuinq within an existina public circulation system that could create congestion and dangerous traffic movements. Further. if the vehicular elevatcr were to out of service. persons seekina to oark vehicles within the Nsildina would be forced to seek parking spaces within an area that alreadv has little avaj!able nn-street parkmq. 3. That the evaluatirn r_,riteria regarding landscacing, aravhics and sinnaae, site d�jmination as expressed in 64-17-6 (Cl. lDl. and iHl. resoectiveiv are not aaolicable in that such criteria are not considered until final site plan and appearance review 4. That the aoplicant is not reauired to fulfill the evaluation crdena reaardina buildm desian and appearance as expressed in 64-17-6 (B). A Alterson abstained. C. Smith stated that the Committee has conducted a preliminary site plan and appearance review conference in accordance with §4-17-3 (A) and it has denied preliminary site plan and appearance review approval based upon findings C. Smith stated that the applicant would be sent a copy of the Summary of Findings containing the Committee determination and written findings at the earliest opportunity C. Smith stated that the applicant may change the proposed project such that it addresses the Committee concerns, or he may elect to make no further changes, in the latter case, the applicant may request that the Committee determination regarding the preliminary site plan and appearance review conference be applied to a final site plan and appearance review conference as required in §4-17-3 (B) C. Smith stated, at that point, the Committee could entertain a motion 10 deny final site plan and appearance review approval based upon the documents submitted for and the findings as established during the preliminary site plan and appearance review conference. C. Smith stated that denying final site plan and appearance review approval would permit the applicant to appeal in accordance with §4-17-10. Mr. Michael Lee (developer) stated that he would 'get back to" the Committee regarding this issue. SUMMARY OF FVMt M SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO&NA TEE Usy 3. 2WO ?� Page 11 of 12 Ll Adioumment The meeting adjoumed at &00 p-m. SUMMARY ARY OF FMONGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMNrTIEE May 3, 2000 Pape 12 of 12 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 26, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, M. Ntylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, R. Dahal, K Kelly, D. Marino, J. Wolinski. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: J. Lamon, J. Minear, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. Others Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 00-043 630 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Change window to door for future tenant. Mr. Mike Radis (Davis Street Land Company) presented Application fbr Building Permit 900.305, including a site and boor plan and elevations, and site photographs to change a window to a door for a future tenant at 630 Davis Street M. Radis stated that: 1. the tenant space is located between Jamba Juice and Potbelly's; it has not been leased. Jamba Juice isolated the space, making the door necessary. 2. regarding the Preservation Commission, C Ruiz stated that he could approve the plans administratively, provided the door is the produced by the same manufacturer and is the same color as the other doors on the building. They would provide a transom above the door. SUWARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APP6MRANCE REVIEW COWAMEE Apd 28.2000 Rod 1 015 A. Alterson motioned to grant preliminary and firm[ side plan and appearance review apprMW P D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee approved Vie motion ("I to Wnt orewrw4mv and fir+L>[t clan and appearance review approval. The site and floor plan, elevations, and site phatographs have been placed +war+ S4e Plan snit Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-043) Summary of Findinas P. D'Agostino motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the March 22.2000 meet. S_ NOSW seconded the motion. Committee approved the mc6on (5-01 to aoorove the Summary of Frn&nas from the March 22, 2000 meeting. A. AJterson abstained C, Smith stated that, within the Summary of Findings from :fie April 5, 2000 meeting, on page 3, wvun the second paragraph under item number 7, the word `common' should be changed to 'common -sized' P. D'Agostino motioned to approve the Summary of Frndirxgs from the April 5. 2000 meeting, provided the word 'common' is changed to 'Common -sized' on page 3, within the second paragraph under item number 7. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Cornrnrtee aooroved the motion ("I to atiorove thq Summary of Findings from the Aoril 5. 2000 meehno. provided the word 'common' is thanggj to 'common -sized' on paste 3. within the second caraoraah under item number 7. C. Smith abstained. SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicago Avenue Remand from City Manager Elaborate upon reason for denying preliminary site plan and appearance review approval for 11-story mixed use building. M. Mylott stated that the applicant contacted J. WoWvW and asked that the Committee cunt" this item to May 3, 2000, M. Mylott motioned to continue this item to May 3, 2000, A Atteraon seconded the motion. Commitdee approved the motion (6-01 to continue this item to Mav 3 2000. SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicano Avenue Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Photocopy of letter from neighbor M Mylott distributed a photocopy of a letter from Wendy Wolf. neighbor, dated April 15, 2000, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 26. 2000 Pape 2 of 5 a s SPAARC 97-0075 2040 Brown Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct entrance ramp and canopy for sheltered care home (Over the Rainbow Association). Ms. Ellen Gattand (architect) presented Application for Building Permit #00-257, including a site plan, floor plan, elevation, and plat of survey, and photographs of a model to construct an entrance ramp and canopy for the sheltered care home (Over the Rainbow Association) located at 2040 Brown Avenue, E. Galland stated that: 1. the canopy would be residential in character constructed of wood and brick rather than steel. The canopy would have a clear glass roof. trey are discussing a low E glass to reduce heat gain. The canopy would be approximately 90 feet from the Brown Avenue lot line. The canopy would be open on both sides, reducing security concerns. C. Smith stated that the canopy provides a nice demarcation of the entrance. 2. since the last Committee review during 1997, the slope of the ramp has changed from 1:12 to 1:20 due to the difficulty of using a 1:12 slope_ 3. they canopy and ramp would not be ligtited, except for two 2EHnch bollards located at the bottom of the ramp. 4. the Zoning Division stated that the request was within the purview of the existing special use. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Officer has indicated the project does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance because the canopy extends more than 5 feet from an exterior wall; this citation may not be applicable because the ramp is probably within the building envelope. A. Alterson agreed. A. Atterson motioned to grant preliminary and final sire plan and appearance review approval. S. !Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-01 to Grant Dreliminary and final site Dian and aDpearance review approval. The site plan, floor plan, and elevation have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 97-0075). SPAARC 98-0129 928-1002 Church Street Install accessible ramp at Davis Street Metra Station Preliminary Mr Mark Henderson (architect) presented a sde plan, elevation, landscape plan, and site and area photographs to install an accessible ramp at the Davis Street Metra Station. M Henderson stated that: the stairways do not meet the accessibifty requirements. They will be removed and replaced with equal riser height stairs. 2. Metra would Install accessible ramps on the east and west sides of the railroad tracks. They would reduce the width of the east ramp to accommodate the tumaround within the plaza. They SUMMARY OF FIGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C0164 isTTEE Aprit 25. 2000 Page 3 of'5 L-1 are proposing two alternatives for the west ramp, leaving the choice to the eontraMr The!first alternative has two long `legs'; the second alternative has four shorter 'legs' The first abvni tiw requires many piles due to poor soli. P. D'Agostino stated that the four shorter legs affect the landscaping: he prefers Lthe ifrrst alternative. A Alterson stated that a person within a wheelchair would prefer the first altema`rve as **k it reduces the number of turns a person would have to make C. Smith stated that she prefers the first alternative from a visual standpoint. 3. Meba would re -roof the building, refinish the windows (strip the finish, varnish the w+ xkws, reinstall the original glazing) within the waiting areas only, clean the interior waft. paki dw coiling, and refinish the wood trusses. Metra has no plans to refinish windows witthin the lower level or at the taxi stand. 4. Metra would not change the lighting. 5. Metra would not change the ticket booth 65 Metra would not change the lower level, including the restaurant or the tunnel. 7. Metra has no plans to irrigate the landscaping. He assumes maintenance would be performed ender a similar arrangement to the arrangement for the Central Street Station. C. Smith stated that the junipers and other plants at the Central Street Metra Stations are dying, the applicant must replace these plants before a permit may be Issued for this project P. D'Agosbno stated that his previous comments regarding the landscaping have not been rncorporated within the landscape plan. M. Henderson stated that he has not seen those comments; but they would respond to his concerns. H. Friedman asked M. Henderson: why not propose an elevator? M, Henderson responded: Metra believes that elevators are a 'maintenance and liability headache", they are not installing elevators anywhere. A. Alterson stated that skateboarders would create a 'liability headache' with the proposed ramps. C. Smith stated that the construction associated with an elevator would be easier A Alterson stated that he "hates when a corporation says that all their operations must be the same', dearly, an elevator makes more sense here A. Alterson motioned to deny site plan and appearance review approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that this Committee granted concept approval for a design solution based upon ramps; at that time, the Committee did not mention elevators. C. Smith stated that she is concerned that that action grves the applicant the impression that they may proceed with a design solutmn based upon ramps. M. Mylott stated that this Committee actively encourages applicants to come to this Committee early in the design process to minimize problems later, this applicant did that. M Mylott stated that when this Committee grants an approval, it should "honor iY. S. Nagar agreed. A. Alterson stated that while the Committee did not discuss a design solution based upon elevators during SUMMARY OF FINDINGS $fT'E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 26, 2000 Page 4 of 5 concept review, the applicant is responsible for providing the best solutrcin a the existing protillem; further, tie offered response as to why elevators vmm roc used is unacceptable. A. Atrerson stated that the motion is also tom: capon unresolved landscaping maintenance. S. Nagar motioned to table this item to allow the applicant to reward to Committee concerns about landscaping and landscaping maintenance and to prepare a more appropriate response to the Committee inquiry about e w a fors as a design solution. P. D'Agostino seconded the: motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicant should provide building material samples and color samples. J. Larson stated that the building is not a landmark building. Committee aaoroved the motion @:1) to table this item to allow the applicant to respond to Cer:M*m concerns about landscaoinq and landscaping maintenance and to orapare a more anpromiate to the Committee inauiry about elevators as a design solution. A Alter son cast the dissenting vote. The site plan, floor plan, and elevation have been placed with Site plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 98-0129). Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. es ully submitted / r� 1 c Steven Mylott, A P Secretary 5UMLVRY OF FY4094M 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWTTEE a Apr* Zs. 2WO Pow SCft SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 19, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, S. Levine, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present Others Present Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly, D. Marino, S. Nagar. H. Friedman. J. Minear, M. Robinson, R. Schur. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-018 121 Asbury Avenue Preiliminalry Construct 8-story mixed -ease development (ground -floor retail and residential within Me upper floors)_ Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 96-0025 1615 Emerson Street Revision to Final Construct 5-story. 76-und independent living facility (Jacob Make Manor). Rev. James Wade (pastor), Mr Lary Parkman (architect), and Mr. Wayne Hanson (supporting architect) presented previously approved and revised south elevations to construct a 5-story. 76-unit independent living facility (Jacob Blake Manor) J. Wade stated that the project is "woefully over budget', and they have 'done everything they can do to get more money". J. Wade stated that, if they could get the project within 200.000 or 300.OW dollars, "trey would be in good shape' SUMMARY OF FPS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COiAIFTiEE Apt 19, 200D Page 1 of 7 X L. Parkman stated that the original plans, for which they received a building permit, %em of a masonry building with a masonry base. but they discovered that the cost exceedea tt+e budget the proposed plans, which 'vAll not substantially change the aesthetics of the building', include three primary changes. The oranges would maintain 'residential quality" 3. first, they would replace the masonry within the second through fifth floors with Dryvit. The masonry base would remain the same. M. Mylott asked the applicants: would the base still be a mix of concrete block (CMU) and bnck? L. Parkman responded: yes M. Mylott stated that, if the applicants use Dryvit on the upper floors, withholding comment on that element of the proposed changes, the base should t>e either entirety brick or entirely CMU. W. Hanson stated that that reducing the amount of masonry would save 80.000 dollars; the Dryvit would have a block backup and moisture plane C Smith stated that Dryvit, even with a block backup, is 'a very thin coat' that is vulnerable to damage C. Smith stated that this material would require maintenance over time J. Wade stated that the building would be maintained under the guidelines of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) J. Wade stated that HUD sets aside money for maintenance every month; this money would take care of repairs and repainting. C. Smith stated that the applicants should evaluate whether or not saving 80.000 dollars in the short term is more cost effective than the amount of building maintenance required for a Dryvit building. C Smith stated that she would have a hard time supporting Dryvit: of all the areas of Evanston, the west side of Evanston most needs "solidity' and quality materials. C Smith stated that the Dryvit makes the building look like a hotel. J. Wolinski stated that this project has always been discussed as a 'gateway to the Downtown', and that it should be 'as spectacular as possible'. J Wolinski asked the applicants. can you get additional funding from HUD? J. Wade responded: we received additional money 8 to 9 months ago; at that time, we were told that this project has used up its allotment as well as funds from other projects J Wade stated that this project is 1.9 million dollars over budget. J Wade stated that they have asked the Illinois Housing Development Authonty (IDHA) for more money as well. J. Wade stated that they have no other choice but to propose these changes; they want a spectacular building too. J. Wade stated that, if the Committee wants this building to fit within the neighborhood it would suggest a frame building. the area has very few all -brick butidings. J. Wade stated that an all -brick building is contrary to the goal of providing affordable housing. J. Wolinski stated that the Committee could recommend that the City Council use HOME funds to provide the 80.000 dollars necessary to produce a bnck building, provided the money was used only for bricks C Smith stated that that is a "great suggestion' M Mylott asked J Wolinski: has the City provided any financial assistance to this project to date? J. Wolinski responded: no. H. Friedman stated that the applicants could limit the amount of Dryvit, for example, brick could be used from the gables to the base C Smith agreed W Hanson stated that any savings produced by changing to Dryvit are lost when the materials are mixed in the suggested fashion, due to flashing and labor. H. Friedman stated that the applicants could consider changing the color of the Dryvit W. Hanson stated that labor costs are affected by that suggestion as well. D. Jennings stated that he is not 'a great Dryvit fan`, but the City Council approved a Dryvit building within the downtown D Jennings stated that 'others' have told the Committee that the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Sr(E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW comMITfEE April 19, 2000 Pape 2 of 7 X quality of Dryvit has improved. H. Friedman stated that the City Council has already established that DrrA is an acceptable building material to them M. Mylott stated that, regardless of the material chosen, the buildiev is massive. and the fa;ade must be broken up to provide some relief. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that brick would not make the building less massive W. Hanson stated that D" permits detailing not permitted by brick; if they could use Dryvit, they would return to the Committee w-th such details. C. Smith asked the applicants- what size brick would you use) L. Parkman responded: utility. A Alterson stated that the grant of special use empowered the Committee with binding authority on appearance issues. 4. second, they would change the roof to a false mansard, the exterior appearance would be the same as that originally proposed. W. Hanson stated that the proposed change to the roof reduces the cost of the project by over 300,000 dollars; the mechanicals would be moved to the first floor. C. Smith stated that she has no problems with this change. D. Jennings agreed. 5. third, they would change the on -site detention and retention W. Hanson stated that the site is currently approximately 75 percent impervious surface; the proposed site plan covers less surface. W. Hanson stated that they could further reduce the amount of impervious surface, they could use the parking area for additional surface detention; they could increase detention at other areas of the site: and they could eliminate a required 5400t pipe. W. Hanson stated that they could save approximately 22,000 dollars by using surface detention and eliminating the 5-foot pipe. C. Smith stated that the applicants must not so change the parking area that the accessible parking space and route no longer meet the Illinois Accessibility Code. A. Alterson stated that he questions the condition of the parking area during heavy rains. W. Hanson stated that the release rate would have to be increased. D. Jennings stated that that defeats other purposes; he does not believe that saving approximately 22,000 to 25,000 dollars In the short term is worth the potential long-term problems with such cost cuts, 6 The windows will remain the same W Hanson stated that they would revisit the soil conditions as well. L Par kman stated that they hope to find a less costly foundation. W. Hanson stated that the amount of landscaping has not changed. J. Wolinski motioned to table this item to allow the applicant to contact other sources or the City for financial support for masonry C. Smith seconded the mention. Discussion J Wolinski stated that he is not `trying to kill the project*, but he does not want a Dryvit building. C. Smith stated that a project like this would have a significant impact on the neighborhood. Committee approved the motion (M) to table this item to allow the aaoiicant to contact other sources or the Citv for financial suDoort for masonnf. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COW& TEE April 19. 2OW e. Pipe 3 or 7 X SPAARC 0040 500 Main Street Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe Review Applicabcn for Sidewalk Cafe for type 2 restaurant (CaM Express). Mr. Nack Paik (owner) presented an Application for Sidewalk Cafe and dishware to install a sidewalk: cafe for the type 2 restaurant (Ca(e Express) located at 500 Main Street C. Smith asked N_ Paik: have you had a sidewalk cafe before? N. Paik responded: yes. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafes requirements as established in the Type 11 Restaurant Si W**k Cafe~ Review form; N. Paik responded that Cafe Express would comply with all requirements, and Caft Express would request the waiver to permit disposable beverage containers. C. Smith stated that the applicant must comply with the Procedure and Notice requirements for Sidewalk Cafes. A. Alterson gave N. Paik a copy of the Procedure and Nobm requirements for Sidewalk Cafes M. Mylott stated that the diagram of the sidewalk cafe does not riiustrate the location of the tables and chairs. M. Mylott asked N. Paik; how many tables and chairs would you have? N. Paik responded six tables and 24 chairs. D. Jennings stated that the applicant has kept the walkway clear in the past H. Friedman agreed D. Jennings motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the Application for Sidewalk Cm* of Cafe Express. H. Friedman seconded the motion, Commntee acaroved the motion (7-M to recommend that the Citv Council aoorove the Aoplication for Sidewalk Cafe of Cafe Exoress. SPAARC 00-042 1615 Oak Avenue Preliminary Remodel building for new office use (Illinois Department of Employment Security). Mr. Walter Street (architect) presented a revised site plan, revised floor plan, revised elevations, and site photographs to remodel the building located at 1615 Oak Street for a new office use (Illinois Department of Employment Security). Mr. John Bradshaw (general contractor) and Mr. Sam Lederman (owner) were available to answer questions. W. Street stated that 1. they have located both utility poles within the north alley. The diameter of each pole is 1 foot 2 they would install a 48-inch high, 8-inch diameter, concrete -filled pipe, painted yellow. R. Dahal stated that striping the pole is better, but solid yellow is acceptable. C. Smith stated that the northern edge of the pipe should be no further than 3 feet from the norM wall of the building, 3. the door on the north side of the building would be changed from a double door to a single door, swinging out, used for emergencies only. The remaining area around the new single door would be filled with brick consistent with the brick used on this fagade. The outer jam of the door would be recessed 8 Inches from the existing wall. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SIT?: PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 19, 2000 Page 4 of 7 z X. 4. the southern door within the east Nevation is only for the use of the txutd+ng owner FI"ia ;*aor provides access to the partial basement in which building services are located The Gent contains no storage. 5. the northern door within the east elevation would be filled with brick oonststent with dice b,ick used on this facade. B. the south side of the building would have no openings 7. the parking layout was amended to be consistent with the parameters of the 1984 variaticr a. the accessible panting space would be closest to the entrance. 9. the front door under the brick arch would be changed to a window. They would instant a brr,�k bulkhead. 10. the sign near the entrance covers the original batten panels. This sign would be rermxoad, leaving a "brown square'. 11. the other wall -mounted sign would be removed. The brick behind it would be tuck -pointed. 12. the area under the canopies is treated the same as around the windows. 13. the pole sign would be removed. 14. the only new signage would be located upon the sidelight. C. Smith stated that the applicants should review the permitted size of the new signage with K Mims. C. Smith stated that the applicants should inform K. Mims that the existing signage would be removed, such that he may update the sign database. 15. the existing rooftop units would be removed, and new rooftop units would be installed sling the rear of the building. They would increase the height of the parapet to further screen the units. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aporoved the motion (7-01 to oranl Dreliminary and final site plan and aa2oearance review ap nova . The revised site plan, revised floor plan, revised elevation, and site photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-042). Summary of Findinas R Dahal stated that, on page 7, within SPARC 00-024 (750 Chicago Avenue), within the se►pond paragraph under item number 2, the word 'might' should be changed to 'shall'. R Dahal motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the March 29, 2000 meeting, provided the word 'might' is changed to 'shall' on page 7, within SPARC 00-024 (750 Chicago Avenue), within the second paragraph under item number 2 A. Alterson seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (7-0) to approve the Summary of Findinn.s from the March 29. 2000 meeting, provided the word 'might' is changed to "shall' on page 7, within SPARC 00-024 1750 Chicago Avenuel. within the second paragraph under item number 2, H Friedman abstained. SWAMARY of FlNDDIGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW MMU T EE April 19. Page S of x SPAARC 00-029 319-4121 Custer Avenue Preiiminary and Final Rebuild existing porches and stairways for, and repair the parapet of, multi-farndy remcwbal builduV, Mr. Ibrahim Shfhadeh (owner) presented Application for Building Permit #00-190. indvding elevahcrm to rebuild the existing porches and stairways for, and repair the parapet wall of, the mub4amily resmCerMal building located at 319-321 Custer Avenue. I. Shihadeh stated that they are completely rehabbing the building, including tuck -pointing. the original stairs have been removed. They would install new steel stairs. The new stairs are similar to the existing stairs except that they are "a little wider". C. Smith stated that the orientation of the railings must conform to the Building Code. 3. they would rebuild the parapet, using brick that would match as close as possible. The new cap would be "limestone -like% designed in the same fashion as the existing cap. H. Friedman motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion l7-0l to grant oreliminary and final site olan and appearance review aomovat. The elevations have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-029). SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicano Avenue Remand from Citv Manager Elaborate upon reason for denyrrfg preNminary site plan and appearance review approval for t 1-stagy mired -use building. M. Mylott stated that the applicants understood that this issue would be considered on April 26, 2000. M. Mylott motioned to continue this item to April 26, 2000. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-01 to continue this item to Aorl 26. 2000 SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicano Avenue Communication Photocopy of cover memorandum and letter from neighbors. M. Mylott distributed a photocopy of a cover memorandum by A Alterson dated March 29, 2000 and an attached letter from neighbors. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 19, 2M Pape 6 of 7 SPAARC 00-041 Communication Photocopy of newspaper article: "Battling for back yards' Chicago Tribune, April 9, 2000. M. Mylott distributed a photocopy of newspaper article: "Battling for back yards' from the Chicago Tribune, April 9, 2000. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. t, iesoectfully subm' Steven Mylott, AICP Secretary SINAIMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COAA MMEE AprN 19.2000 Page 7 of 7 it SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 12, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black. P. D'Agostinai, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, M. MylotL S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement K. Kelly, D. Marino- H. Friedman. M. Franz, S. Guderley, J. Minear, M. Robinson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the me0mg at 3:10 p.m_ SPAARC 00-036 1000 Central Street Recommendation to Sign Board Install non -illuminated canopy sign for medical offices (Evanston Ncrthwestem Healthcare). C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-08) to rr:stall a non -illuminated canopy sign for medical offices (Evanston Northwestem Healthcare) located at 1000 Central Street A. Alterson stated that the budding is handsome. A. Aiterson stated that the proposed signage is superfluous; persons are aware that the building is an office boil" C. Smith agreed. J. Aiello motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion t7-01 to recommend that the Sion Review and AODeals Board denv the Sion Ordinance Variation Application, The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-035). SUMMARY of FPS �C+ SITE PLAN AM APPE MAOXE REVIEW CON&T TEE Apra 12. 20W Paw Iare a SPAARC SS-122 820-822 Seward Street Recommendation to Sign Board Install temporary, non -illuminated, freestanding neat estate sign for residential development (condominium conversion) C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-09) to install a temporary, non - illuminated, freestanding real estate sign for the residential development (condominium conversion) located at 820-822 Seward Street. C. Smith stated that the signage was installed without a permit; the owner would be fined. C. Smith stated that the sign contains 50 items of information whereas the Sign Ordinance only permits seven items of information. M. Mylott stated that the signage is no worse than other condominium signs of which the Committee has recommended approval. C. Smith motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, provided the sign is removed within 12 months or once the last unit is sold, whichever comes first. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aaora+red the motion (6-01 to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application. provided the sign Is remrnred within 12 months or once the last unit is sold. whichever comes firs. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been planed with Site Ptan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (99-122). SPAARC 00-037 822 Clerk Street Recommendation to Sion Board Review awning sign installed without permit for type i restaurant (Sushi Angola). C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-10) to review an awning sign installed without a permit For a type 1 restaurant (Sushi Arigato) located at 822 Cliark Street_ C. Smith stated that the signage was installed without a permit, the owner would be fined. C. Smith stated that the yellow awning is illuminated; the letters are black. C Smith stated that the Sign Ordinance only permits the letters within an awning to be illuminated. C. Smith stated that the awning contains information beyond the name and address of the business, and the sign area is too large. C. Smith stated that Papa Johns received a variation to the Sign Ordinance. C. Smith stated that this building is supposed to have a Unified Business Center Sign Plan. C Smith stated that a Unified Business Center Sign Plan is not retroactive. M. Mylott stated that, because the majority of the businesses already have their signs and/or awnings, a Unified Business Center Sign Plan would not "do much good'. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Ordinance Variation Application P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aopmveri the mo"n 19-OUQ recommend that the Sian Review and Aooeals Board deny the Sion Ordinance Variation Application. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-037). SUMMARY OF FoAXNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Aprd I z000 Pape 2 of 8 U SPAARC 00-038 824 Clark Street Recommendation to Sian BcW Review awning sign installed without permit for type 2 restaurant (Jimmy John's). C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-11) to review an awning sign installed without a permit for a type 1 restaurant (Jimmy John's) located at 824 Clark Street. C. Smith stated that the signage was installed without a permit the owner v.ould be fined. C. Smith stated that this application poses similar problems to the Sign Ordinance Variation ApplicaffV1 for 822 Clark Street (SRAB 00-10, SPARC 04-037); the Committee should have very similar findings. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Ordinarm Variation Application C. Smith seconded the motion Committee apomved the motion (9-M to recommend that the Sion Review and Appeals Board deny the Sion Ordinance Variation Aoplication. The Sign Ordnance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Revlon Committee folder for this case (00-038). SPAARC 00-039 817 Church Street. Recommendation to Sian Board Install Rags and illuminated wall sign and canopy sign for financial institution (Citibank). C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-12) to install flags and an illuminated wall sign and canopy sign for a proposed financial institution (Citibank) at 817 Church Street C. Smith stated that she is recusing herself from voting, but she would explain the application to the Committee. C. Smith stated that Citibank proposes to occupy the space temporarily occupied by the GAP during their construction. C. Smith stated that the applicants allege that the Preservation Commissm has reviewed and approved the application, subject to review and approval by the Sign Review and Appeals Board (SRAB); she would confirm that allegation with C. Ruiz. H. Friedman stated that he doubts the Preservation Commission approved a box sign installed underneath the canopy. C. Smith stated that this building is regulated by a Unified Business Center Sign Plan; that plan does not permit window signage or flags, only signage upon the awnings C Smith stated that the SRAB has informed past applicants that they would only approve requests to fly American flags. A. Alterson stated that the flags are simply advertising, even though they contain no words or symbols. C. Smith stated that the applicants also request permission to install a sign along Benson Street. J. Aiello stated that the applicants should comply with the Unified Business Center Sign Plan. A. Alterson motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve only that signage permitted under the Unified Business Center Sign Plan and deny all other requests. S. Nagar seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (9-0) to recommend that the Sion Review and Aoaeals Board aoorove onlv that sianaae permitted under the Unified Business Center Sian Plan and decor all other requests. C. Smith did not vote. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-039). SUMMARY OF F99MM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COM M17iEE April 12. 2000 ep Pap 3de �I SPAARC 00-002 Church Street Plana (Lot C) Announceerft OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Update Committee on progress of &story mixed -use building (ground -floor n9aii and office and office within upper floors for McDougal Lifts►!). M. Mylott stated that the Plan Commission recommended that the City Council approve the 6-story rnaad- use building proposed for Lot C of the original Church Street Plaza. M. Mylott stated that he was pheased to report that the applicant presented to the Plan Commission many changes to the elevations that were suggested by the Committee, including increasing the size of the eyebrow, unifying the treatment of the punches at the northwest corner, and providing canopies along the Church Street elevation that reflect the design of the building. M. Mylott stated that he was unable to determine whether or not the appfcarit would use butt glazing (or the windows within the curve M. Mylott stated that the applicants increased a cantilever within the southern elevation. 14 Mylott stated that he believes that the Committee would ne:t review this project when the applicant submits an Application for Building Permit. SPAARC 00-045 2100 Ridge Avenue COn"Pt OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Expand parking area of City of Evanston Civic Center. D. Jemings presented a site plan to expand the City of Evanston Civic Center parking area to the south side of the building. D. Jennings stated that: they propose to expand the parking area to provide 51 new parking spaces. They would widen the existing driveway at the southwest comer of the building, providing the first access point, and they would provide a second access point at the south end of the expanded parking area. The second access point would be required because the first access point is sometimes blocked by vehicles at the loading berth, The ends of the driveway associated with the second access point would have elevations that differ by approximately 5 feet. They would use a low retaining wall to allow the driveway to cut through the grade change; the surrounding grade would be maintained. Both access points would be two-way. 2. the property is within Alderman Engelman's ward, but he has not had a chance to discuss the project within him yet; Alderman Kent, whose ward is across the street, does not (eel that the =ject would require a neighborhood meeting. I fighting would be provided on four poles, although the style of the poles has not yet been determined. The City may redo ail the lighting within the parking area. 4. the proposal would not require the City to remove any trees. P D'Agostino stated that some of the parking spaces are very close to existing trees. D. Jennings stated that they could remove one parking space from the end of each row. P. D'Agostino stated that he would like to take a closer look at the specific trees. C Smith stated that she would like to see what other landscaping the City would install. 5. one street light would need to be moved. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Sf7E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMiTTEE April `IZ 2000 Pape 4 ar 0 S. L. Black motioned to grant concept approval. S. Nagar seconded the motion Discussion: M. Mylott stated that he could not support the motion at this time, because he would like to take a closer kook at the area in question. M. Mytott stated that he may support it later, but he does not have enough information now. A Allerson stated that he believes this response may be too soon given an increased parking demand from Administrative Review that may subside. Committee aoaroved the motion (7-31 to grant cOnceDt aooroval. A. Alterson, C. Smith, and M. Myk)C cast dissenting votes. SPAARC 00-033 2410 Ewina Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct 2-story addition and f-story attached garage to existing single-lamdy residence, requiring major variation. Mrs. Berdine Walker (owner) presented Application for Major Variation ZBA 00-09-V(F) to construct a 2- story addition and a 1-story attached garage to the existing single-family residence located at 2410 Ewing Avenue. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would consider the application April 18, 2000 M. Mylott stated that this property appears to have been carved out of a larger lot years ago. The existing building has legal nonconforming status as to the rear yard setback; the proposed addition would align with the existing rear yard setback, requiring a major variation. M. Mylott stated that the existing and proposed rear yard setback is approximately 12 feet. A. Alterson stated that the proposal meets the building lot coverage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. B. Walker stated that the adjacent neighbors have no objections. M. Mytott stated that he has received no comments on the application. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Aiello seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (10-0) to orant oreiiminary and final site clan and appearance review aoDroval. SPAARC 00-042 1615 Oak Avenue Preliminary and Final Remodel building for new office use (lltinois Department of Employment Security}. Mr. Walter Street (architect) and Mr John Bradshaw (general contractor) presented Application for Building Permit #00-282, including a sde plan, ftoor plans, and elevations, and site and area photographs to remodel the building located at 1615 Oak Avenue for an office (Illinois Department of Employment Security). SUMMARY OF FINDINM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COLtITTIE Agri fz, zaoo Page 5 d 6 u W. Street stated that: 1. OW illinols Department of Employment Security (IDES) is moving k-zrn a,',,vcan,&. t tooc* away. IDES provides employment services, such as retraining: as a rem some s.-.wv *.:Due be used as quasi -classrooms. Also, this space would support loins' Wert ioi:ce ,nit-WM—e ;Te Mew kocabon would not cause in increase in the number of staff The exssaN 6 ►-aben lnas a szaffl of approximately 80, and could accommodate approximately 120 persors The numziw of employees and customers at the new location would be dependent ucm t** economy r., Uwge part, as it would at the existing location. The new location is actually s .a."}er titan tr+e eustry locarnon; however, it may be more of cientty used. 2. IDES would only lease the building, leaving the property on the tax roils The pnevxxm kx3bon was leased by IDES as well. 3. the parking layout is dictated by a 1984 vat#ation. The parking layout w LM be revised to reffW that zoning relief. The proposed location can take advantage of a near City kx the current location has no such opportunities. R. Dahal stated that the accessible parking space should be moved ciesest to the door, because parked vehicles would prohibit a person within a wheelchair from using re sidewalk adpwmt to the bonding to get to the entrance. R. Dahal stated that the applicant mi--st provide an acc essi* path of 36 inches clear. W_ Street stated that they would like to provide a buffer between the building and vehicles. D. Jennings stated that the applicant should dimenns+on the distance from the wheel stops to the building. 4. they would remove all awnings and algnage. C. Smith stated that she is concerned about what is underneath the existing signs mounted to the building. W. Street stated that he is not certain what is behind the signs, probably stucco C. Smith stated that the pole sign must be removed; it is illegal, and d should have been removed 'a long time ago'. C. Smith stated that removing this pole would provide additional width for parking spaces. 5. they would fill the front door under the brick arch. This door serves no purpose, it is water logged and rotten, They would install Panel 15 — a plywood panel with an embossed meta! covering The color of the panel would be sympathetic to the brick The panel color would be matte, not high gloss. C. Smith stated that this feature is very much a part of the design of the facade. C. Smigh stated that the applicant should install a matching-bnck base with glass at this location. she is opposed to introducing another material to the facade H. Friedman stated that the applicant should simply install a new door without the hardware. A. Atterson agreed C Smith stated that the Budding Code has issues with inoperable doors. 8. the existing window openings within the front facade would remain. 7. they are proposing no changes to the door at the southeast corner of the building. It is hollow metal, and it provides access for the owner to the basement mechanicals The tenant would not have access to the basement. SUMMARY OF F04UNGS SITE PLAN ANp APPEARANCE RE%nEw COMMITTEE April 12 2000 Page 0 of 8 ri x L. Black stated that the plywood transom should be more secure. W Street stated that Vwy can address that concern. 8. the north wall would contain a secondary exit and new windows, as requested by the Fire _ Department_ L. Black stated that she is concerned about recessing the northern exit: R provides a place• for someone to hide. W. Street stated that he shared that concern, but the alley is heavily traced. L Black stated that she could accept a recess of no more than 112 inches. D. Jennings stained that he likes the idea of bringing the door closer toward the alley. D. Jennings asked the applicants: is this exit accessible? W. Street responded: no. C. Smith stated that this door must be 36 inches wide. and d must swing out to the alley. C. Smith stated that the applicant should install bollards at this location to prevent persons from parking a vehicle that would block this exit. D. Jennings stated that he would want to review the Proposed location of the bollards. W. Street stated that the door is somewhat protected by an existing utility pole: the pole is 2 feet from the wall, measured to the centerline of the pole. C. Smith stated that the applicant should recess the door such that it is 3 feet to the tangent of the pole. W. Street stated mat he is uncertain of the diameter of the pole D. Jennings stated that that information is required. H. Friedman stated that the other side of the alley is used as parking spaces. D. Jennings stated that bollards positioned poorly would create a backing problem for vehicles leaving these spaces. L. Black asked the applicants: could you move the door to another side of the building? W. Street responded: this location uses an existing opening, and the skies of the building are too dark, creating security concerns. L. Black agreed. W. Street stated that they would illuminate this exit C. Smith stated that the applicant must address the layout of the parking area and the secondary exit C. Smith stated that the applicant should provide photographs of the east and south alleys. C. Smith motioned to table this Rem. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee afloroved the motion (9- 0) to table this item. The site plan. floor plans, and site and area photographs have been placed with Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (00-042). SPAARC 00-046 2201 Oakton Street Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Erect tool rental storage area at rear of retail sales establishment (Home Depot). Doug Pederson (architect) presented Application for Building Permit #00-295, including a site plan and elevation, to erect a tool rental storage area at the rear of the retail sales establishment (Home Depot) located at 2201 Oakton Street SUMMARY OF FOCOM WMTTEE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE Fit:1REW CCI1rY1fITEf APO 1Z 2D O Pape 7 cf a D Pederson stated that: Home Deport would use this area to atom larger tools 2 the storage area would be surrounded by a green, vinyl -coated, chain link fence. The Ir= would not have slats. The fence would be 8 feet high, although they would like to install a laztx t high fence, The fence would match existing fences within the immediate area. A Atterson stated that this property is regulated by the 1960 version of the Zoning Ordinance, which may permit a 10-foot high fence. 3 the area would be open to the sky. L. Black stated that she is concerned that a person could back a large vehicle to the fence and easily remove the tools. D. Jennings stated that Home Depot is a 24-hour store; they can secure the area more or less as required. L. Black stated that the applicant could place a chain link top upon the storage area, more or less creating a cage. D. Pederson stated that no other Houle Depot has such a configuration. the fence would sit on a concrete stab. The area is currently asphalt D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (9-01 to arant oreliminary and final site olan and appearance review aaorovat. Approval of Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the January 24, 2000 meeting. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to approve the Summary of Findinas from the January 24. 2000 meetinq. L. Black abstained. L. Black motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the March 27, 2000 meeting. C. Sn ',% seconded the motion. Committee aoaroved the motion (9-0) to approve the Summary of Findinas from the March 27. 2000 meetinq. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 4.40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Minear Division Recording Secretary SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 12. 20M page a or a SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 5, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, B. Fahlstrom (for C. Smith), R. Dahal, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly, D. Marino, H. Friedman. M. Barry, S. Guderley, J. Larson, J. Minear, C. Ruiz. S. Grevas, Chair Plan Commission. M. Mylect motioned to appoint A. Alterson acting chair. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (M) to appoint A. Alterson aciino chair. A. Alterson (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3.05 p.m. SPAARC 00-028 1004-1010 Church Street Pre -Application Conference Constftct 170-foot high, apx 280,000 sq.fi'. mired -use building (rmfa►i, office, and 84 multi -family residential dwelling units). Mr Waler Kihm (developer). Mr. Todd Kihm (developer). Mr. Michael Gelick (architect), and Mr. Christopher Dasse (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, model, plat of survey, area analysis, parking analysis, and site and area photographs to construct an approximately 170-foot high, approximately 280,000 sq.ft. mixed -use building (retail, office, and 84 multi -family residertal dwelling units) at 1004-1010 Church Street A Alterson stated that the applicant is before the Committee to satisfy the pre -application conference requcrer-bents of the Zoning ordinance, related to the planned development application to be considered by the Plan Commission on April 12. 2000 (ZPC 00-05-PD). M. Gelk-A stated that: the site is currently improved with 1-story buildings. SUIT NLWY OF FRhDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO AWYEE April s, 2WO e0 Page 1 or 7 2. the original proposal for this site met the buck requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; howerer, it did not contribute to the comer as the paviGcn building within Church Street Plaza would The original proposal was too bulky, and it created a canyon along Maple Avenue 3. the new proposal would fit within the context of the new Downtown developments The new scheme would act as the western gateway to the Downtown The scheme would be more compact and taller The tallest portion of the building would be 170 feet high with no ziggurat setback The building would include retail a,. grade, office space within the second and third floors, and 84 condominiums within the 12 uow floors. Above the office space, on the fourth floor, the building would include mechanical Space and a recreation room for the residences. Each residential floor would have seven units per floor, configured with a minimum amount of circulation space (corridor). The units wouid range in size from 833 sq.ft to 1,744 sq.fL The retail, office space, and mechanical space anc recreation room would occupy the northern portion of the base, ground -floor retail and parking wo ild occupy the southern portion of the base. The building would not have a basement W. Kihm stated that the original proposal inciuced 105 units, but their marketing revealed a higher demand for larger units. A. Alterson asked the applicants, what is the proposed floor to ceiling heights for the condominiums? W. Kihm responded 8 fees 4 inches. M. Geltck stated that 9-foot ceilings required an extra 12 feet of building height, adding to the mass and cost; this proposal is a compromise. 4. the final location of doors has not yet been Enalized. Much will depend upon the tenants. The residential, office, and parking lobby would be along Maple Avenue The building would include elevators for the residents and an elevator for the office and parking structure, although the residential elevators could access the parking structure. W. Kihm stated that they have received two tails regarding potential tenants for the retail space; he wants service -oriented users that would fit'wnh the rest of the building'. 5 the building would include a drive•thru facility and small branch office for a financial institution along the alley. The facility would be outside and open visually, but it is under the parking structure. The facility would include three lanes -- two ATMs and one live teller Vehicles would enter at Maple Avenue and exits via one of two exits at the alley. W Kihm stated that the facility would have sue-,) security features as cameras, lights. and mirrors — similar to the drive-thru facility at 2953 Central Street. W. Kihm stated that the proposed financial institution indicated that the highest volume would be approximately 50 vehicles per day; this figure comes from another area facility with only two lanes. D Jennings stated that this figure seems low for this location. W. Kihm agreed D Jennings stated that the lanes would have to meet the City stacking requirements D Jennings stated that he is not sure that two exits to the alley are necessary. W Kihm stated that customers of the financial institution would park on the street 6. the parking structure would include 164 parking spaces, whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires 147 parking spaces. Access to the parking structure would be from Maple Avenue. The traffic and parking consulting firm KLOA is working on a trip generation study for the entire area now. The parking structure would be spnnklered SL MMOILRY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �C. Apo! 5, 2DOO (`�'7 Page 2 of 7 ?0 x D. Jennings stated that the applicant should review the column placement within :1t parking structure to ensure they must be located as shown. H. Friedman stated that the applicant may have included an extra set of ramps M. Geick stated that they would review the configuration. H. Friedman stated that the applicants shcurd review the headroom remaining under certain portions of the ramp system D. Jennings asked the applicants: did you use a parking structure designer? M Gelick responded: no, we have designed approximately 12 such structures. D. Jennings sta[ei7 toad this configuration resembles the former Evanston Hospital configuration A. Alterson sta-�d tl-aft the users would be mostly residents — people familiar with how the ramp system works A. Alterson asked the applicants: would this project consume any required par" fix the restaurant to the west of the subject property (Carmen's)? W Krhm responded no, Ms. use has its own parking behind the building. D. Jennings stated that the drawings label the vertical clearance as 7 feet; the Arniencans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires 98 inches clear (8 feet 2 inches) M Gelick stated tie drawings are incorrect. C. Dasse stated that the correct clearance is appm)amately 8 feet 10 inc'wq 7. the building relates to historic and modernistic designs as it provides a base, midd?e, and top. The building materials would include masonry at the base detailed with precast store accents. The masonry would be utility -size brick with a running bond, probabty a golden brown color rather than a deep red. The tower would be limestone -color concrete and glass, the concrete would be articulated with reveals. The balconies would be recessed within the footprint of the tower The tower would include a 'special comer" (northeast corner) wnth picture windows. AN wwxkws would be aluminum with a powder -coated finish, probably pewter in color. The penthouse would be an integral component of the architecture, including spandrel glass, metal siding, and louvers. B. Fahlstrom stated that common brick Is preferred over utility brick. M. Gelick statea that utility brick is becoming the standard brick, and it is easier to obtain: utility brick was used at the Evanston Library. M. Gelick stated that certain finishes to the brick, such as horizontal rake joints and flush vertical joints, would help reduce its scale H Friedman agreed. H. Friedman stated that the cut off between the masonry base and the concrete and glass tower Is at the wrong place; the applicants should let the concrete and glass portion of the tower come down to the ground. H Friedman stated that the masonry base for the tower should be at the first floor. M. Mylott agreed, and stated that the model illustrates that the building is at=alty two pieces — the 4-story base and the residential tower — but the architectural treatment minimizes that design A. Alterson stated that the rendering makes the tower appear very flat M Gelick stated that the balconies are not depicted within the rendering; each side of the tower would include bal=ies. M. Gelick stated that recessed balconies would better hide the traditional fixtures that residents place upon them M. Mylott asked the applicants. is the 'special comer' externally illuminated? NI Gelick responded: no 8. the site plan includes a 2.000 square -foot plaza off Maple Avenue as well as a srraller plaza along Church Street. The illumination within the Maple Avenue plaza would be either sconces or freestanding lights. The building canopy would be a soft shape. working with the landscaping SUMMARY OF F"XMGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CDMll, TTEE a ��z0M Page 3 d 7 P. D'Agostino stated that he would provide the applicants with a list of aceeptabile trees. S the planned developmeert application asks the Plan Commission to cansoer an increased height, no ziggurat setback and only four loading berths whereas the Zoning 0-dmance requires five loading berths. The number of proposed loading berths would adequatetry service the small amount of retail and office and the condominiums. 10 They would consider providing on -site bicycle parking. They plan to provide a alaae for s=nng bicycle for the residents. D. Jennings stated that the City is providing on -site bicycle parking within the Maple Avenue parking structure; however, he is not certain at what rate. S Nagar stated that the applicants would have to meet the Metropolitan Water Reclamation Destrict (MWRD) and City of Evanston detention requirements; the applicants should contact him regarding these requirements as well as the relocation of any catch basins. M Mylott asked the applicants: is this project a 'Cyrus project"? W. Kihm responded: no l am doing this protect on my own. A Alterson stated that, because the applicant has fulfilled the requirements of the pre -application conference, the Committee would close the pre -application conference, The site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, plat of survey, area analysis, parking analysis, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-028), SPAARC 00-028 1004-1010 Church Street Preliminary Construct 170-foot high, apz. 280.000 sq.ft. mixed -use building (retail, office, and 84 multi -family residential dwelling units). A Alderson stated that the Committee would consider the information presented during today's Pre - application Conference as it conducts the preliminary site plan and appearance review. 1411_ Mylatt stated that the applicant has submitted more than the typical amount of information for preliminary site plan and appearance review. D Jennings stated that he is concerned about how the parking structure works. S. Nagar motioned to grant concept approval. B. Fahlslrom seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to grant concept approval, H Friedman motioned to table preliminary site plan and appearance review. D Jennings seconded the motion Committee approved the motion 18-0} to table preliminary site plan and appearance review The site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, plat of surrey, area analysis, parting analysis, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-028). SUUMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIr UITTEE Aprti 5. 2DOD Page 4 of 7 $9 SPAARC 00-029 319-321 Custer Avenue Preliminary and Final Rebuild existing porches and stairways for multi -family residence Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 00-030 2914-2916 Central Street Preliminary and Final Resurface and res:rpe existing parking area for mixed -use building (ground -Boor retail and office and second400r residenrtiag. Ms. Millicent Knight (owner) presented Application for Building Permit *DO-204, including a site plan. to resurface and restr:pe the existing parking area for the mixed -use build:g (ground -floor retail and office and second -floor residential) located at 2914.2916 Central Street. M. Knight stated that the current capacity of the parking area is 10 vehicles: the rest rfacing and restriping would provide 10 standard parking spaces plus one accessible parking space. The project would allow her to assign specific parking spaces to the appropriate parties, including Keefers' Pharmacy, Northshore Eye Center, Housing Options for the Mentally Ili, and one apartment located within the second floor of the building. D. Jennings stated that the applicant should provide a plat of survey. ❑. Jennings stated that, while the site appears wide enough, it must be 42 feet wide to accommodate 90-degree parking spaces. 2. the large tree located along the west lot line is already buckling the sidewalk. D. Jennings stated that the City has a program in which the property owner and the City split the cost of replacing a sidewalk. M. Knight asked the Committee: can I remove the tree? P. D'Agostina responded it depends upon where the tree is located P. D'Agostino stated that, if the tree is kxated upon private property, the applicant may remove it however, if it is located upon public property or within the right-of-way, the applicant may not remove it. M. Knight stated that the tree poses a safety issue. D. Jennings stated that, if the tree is located upon private property, the applicant is required to trim the tree to a height of 7 feet. D. Jennings staled that the applicant should have the tree located upon a plat of survey. P. D'Agostino stated that applicant should install a low hedge along the west lot line, on -site D. Jennings agreed, and stated that he sees no reason why the landscaping could not be provided upon private property- M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval by the Division of Parks and Forestry of a landscape plan that includes a low hedge along the west side of the parting lot, preferably on pnvate property P D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion D Jennings stated that the applicant would require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit, demonstrating that the correct amount of water is retained on the property and released at a specific rate. D. Jennings stated that on -site water retention could be provided by sloping the pavement, allowing the SUMMARY OF FINQWNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RMEW COMMrrME ApN 5.2OOo Page 5 of 7 as water to stack upon the surface A Arterson stated that this reqururmedrrt is Statewide, not specific only to Evanston M Knight asked the Committee may I remove the garage locates .ac the southwest corner of the lot pnor to anproral of this permit? M. Mylott resperided: yes, but you must contact the Budding Dow-sion and receive a demolition aer-nit M. Mylott stated that the applicant needs to forward a landscape tW tta P. D'Agostino at the Division of Parks and Forestry Committee aoDroved the motion f7-01 to arant oreliminary and final site Wan and aDDearancae review aoproval. subject to review and aooroval by the Division of Parks and Forestry of a landscape Dian that includes a low hedge along the west side of the oarkina lot. oreferabty on orivate oroDerty. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-030) SPAARC 99-167 1700 Central Street Revision to Final Replace metal storefront system with wood windows and French doors for proposed type I restaurant (Trattoria Trullie). Mr. Lenny Rago (owner of restaurant) presented a revised floor plan, revised elevations, and a catalog cut sheet of wood windows and French Doors to replace the metal storefront system with wood windows and French doors for a proposed type 1 restaurant (Trattoria Trullie) located at 1700 Central Street L. Rago stated that they propose to change the eastem-mast set of windows to a combination of sliding and fixed wood windows, and they propose to change the middle set of windows to wood French doors. the eastem-most of which would open to the outside. H. Friedman asked L. Rago: would the windows and/or doors have screens? L. Rago responded: no. A Alterson stated that, while he thinks this proposal is good, the applicant should discuss it with the Health Department. M. Mylott motioned to approve the revisions to the previous preliminary and final site plan and appearance review D Jennings seconded the motion Committee aDDroved the motion (7-0) to armrove the revisions to the previous oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review The revised site plan and revised elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-167) SPAARC 96-0057 1745 Sherman Avenue Recommendation for Sidewalk Carte Install sidewalk cafd for type 2 restaurant (Einstein Brothers Bagels) Mr. Casey Kostov (manager) presented an Application for Sidewalk Cafe and dishware to instatf a sidewalk caf6 for the type 2 restaurant (Einstein Brothers Bagels) located at 1745 Sherman Avenue C. Kostov stated that this sidewalk caf6 would function in the same manner as the sidewalk caf+a operated last year', four tables and four chairs would be placed along Clark Street only. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 5, 2DOO Page 6 of 7 A. Alterson read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established in the Type II Restaurant Sidewalk Cafe Review form; C. Kostov responded that Einstein Brothers Bagel-, would ccrnpy aith all requirements, and Einstein Brothers Bagels would request the waiver to permit disposable bea,erage containers A Alterson asked C. Kostov: when would you like to open? C. Kos.`ov responded at the end of April or May 1, 2000. A Alterson stated that the Planning and Development Committee of the City Councd would consider this item on April 24, 2000; the applicant should contact the Zoning Division an Apnl 17. 2000 to ensure he is on the agenda. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the Application for Sidewalk Caf6 of Einstein Brothers Bagels, D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-01 to recommend that the Citv Council aoorove the Aoc6cation for Sidewalk Cafe of Einstein Brothers Baaels. Aooroval of Summary of Findinas P. D`Agoshno motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the March 15, 2000 meeting. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee avoroved the motion 15-0) to aoanave the Summary of Findinos from the March 15. 2000 meetinq. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Minear Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SRE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMPtTEE AprU 5, 2000 Page 7 of 7 Ll SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 27, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: L. Black, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, A. Alterson, K. Kelly, D. Marino. H. Friedman. M. Mylott stated that he would act as Zoning Administrator for matters relating to a quorum. C. Smah (chair) determined a quorum existed and began Me meeting at 11:05 a.m. SPAARC 00-019 Wireless Communication Facilities Discussion Discuss processing wireless communication facility applications. C. Smith stated that this meeting is important because the Committee does not have a unified approach to regulating applications for wireless communication facilities (WCFs); she believes that a consensus is important. C Smith stated that the issues that the Committee could discuss include the legal position of the City, especially in light of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and the Impact that WCFs have on the community and an appropriate amount of mitigation. S. Nagar stated that the Committee needs to have a ooiicy establishing the documentation that each WCF applicant must submit; part of that documentation snould include a area -wide service plan. H. Friedman agreed, and stated that requirements such as these, including any sort of fee, need to be communicated to applicants ahead of time. C. Smith agreed. M. Mylott stated that he wants to ensure that that the Committee is considering any fee an impact fee -- that the sole purpose of the fee is ameliorate potential negative impacts from the WCF. M. Mylott stated that he has a fundamental problem with the City imposing a fee upon an industry simply because that industry is perceived to be successful. SUMMARY OF FM40INM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMriTEE March S. 20M b Papa 1 d 4 W J. Wolinski stated that he wants to erm;.m =W Evans is not the -dumping grour?d' lice �ti�Fs. each community within the region should have ft law share of WCFs L. Black stated that the Committee sr).N is -* more k-+.r►+eogeable about tree vanous "rm-&S berg offered by wireless communication provxws L. Black stated that she would support regwr�ng an area-moe serv)ce plan C. Smith asked the Committee: are we +n a4-e-ement that we would recommenc mat the GN ktanager investigate levying an impact fee in some fcr-n or another against WCFs? M N"rt resparved G would only support an impact fee on new towers - those are the only WCFs that Wry create an rrcazt M. Mylott stated that such an impact fee woLW also encourage WCFs to locate upon exsting Call st,%%'IL es or colocate upon existing towers. S Nagar disagreed, and stated that these structures ''164-11 tie ugly' regardless. C. Smith stated that the Committee should consider limits on colocation, because she is not convinced that numerous antennas upon one tower are better than multiple towers M Myicc stalled that the Committee is considering the infrastructure for a necessary public service. M Mylott started Mat the City would not tell a telephone company or e*ctnc utility that it must pay a fee or each pole. rather It would encourage the service provider to puce the infrastructure in the least conspicuous place possible - this is the approach the City should take w-,th WCFs D. Jennings stated that he is not opposed to an impact fee, but he is not certain how he feeds about a graduated scale. 0. Jennings stated that the City could simply label this fee a license fee M Mylott disagreed, and stated that, as he understands the Committee discussion, the purpose of taus fee is to offset potential negative impacts within the neighborhood or City associated with a WCF J. Wolinski motioned to direct M. Mylott to study how area communities regulate WCFs, such that he may report back to the Committee. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion 19-0) to direct M. Mylott to studv how area communes regulate WCFs, such that he may report back to the Committee. J. Wolinski stated that he is aware of unique practices in other parts of the country with regard fo WCFe. such as designing the towers to resemble fir trees, perhaps the City should consider a standard tower or pole design to reduce the visual impact. H. Friedman stated that persons with pacemakers are encouraged to stay away from WCF base stations and to not use wireless telephones. S. Nagar stated that such devices may not be operated on a+rplanes. S Levine stated that she does not see how me City can distinguish between types of utilities, thes w4ustry is new and it only seeks to put its infrastructure in place. C. Smith stated that existing utility poles 'bother her'. H. Friedman stated that other communities have utility poles in the street; Evanston requires such infrastructure to be located within the alleys M. lAylott stated that those comments illustrate his point and what he believes is the appropriate approach to regulating WCFs - because Evanston residents dewe wireless service, City should devise a plan whereby the visual impacts of the necessary infrastr Mre are minimized M. Mylott stated that no one would consider telling the telephone company or electric utility that, because we do not like the look of your infrastructure, you may not locate here. S. Nagar stated that these companies 'are spoofing the City' only to establish their business. C. Smith stated that the situation is analogous to billboards - the perception is that the City cannot do anything because they have been there 'forever'. C Smith stated that the City must start taking control of WCFs sometime, and the City should use its laws to that end. M Mylott stated that the City laws cannot eorli%d with the rights established by the federal government C Smith stated that she believes it is reasor>alble SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE March B, 2000 Page 2 of 4 s to ask a wireless communication prof ider to provide the Committee wo an area -wide service ;Aan, recognizing that that plan is dynamic. M. Mytett stated that he does not understand why the Comeniiae would want to see such a plan; it does not help the decision -making process because each applicacon is reviewed on P own merits. S Nagar stated that wireless communication providers know this infonrun. M. Mylott staid that that does not change his opinion of the varue of an area -wide service plan L 3cadc stated that such a plan, if it went well beyond the Evanston boundaries, would demonstrate that Evar mun is not the only area community being asked to accommodate these facilities S Nagar agree -a and stated that he wants to see that WCFs are installed uniformly moss the North Shore. M. Mylott saved that, while he is not an expert, he finds it hard to believe that the technology would permit all the area WCFS to be located in Evanson and still provide acceptable levels of service to the North Shore. C. Smith stated that she sees no harm in asking for an area -wide service plan. M. Mylott stated that, even though people perceive certain fast-food restaurants as undesirable. the City does not ask each chain to provide a map showing where they plan to located or that they would be spread evenly across the North Shore. D. Jennings stated that WCFs are different in that the planning for individual sites must be performed in consideration of other area sites to create a complete network:, retail establishments do not have to make such determinations. D. Jennings stated that the City must determine what are its rights; such a determination will enable the City to determine how much control over WCFs it may have. D Jennings stated that he believes the City may require an area -wide service plan. D. Jennings stated that he believes that the City should encourage WCFs upon existing tall structures and existing towers and the City should discourage WCF towers D. Jennings stated that an impact fee, or license fee based upon impacts, should be levied upon WCFs upon new towers; in fact, the fee could be annual. R. Dahal stated that the fee could be graduated based upon the height of the new tower. C. Smith stated that the fee could be based upon the location of the tower, encouraging towers to be located within certain areas. J. Wolinski asked D. Jennings_ can you contact the Water Department to see if they have any concerns with locating WCFs on City standpipes? D. Jennings responded; yes. C. Smith stated that she would be interested in knowing how much wireless communication providers pay in rent. R. Dahal asked the Committee: for what purpose would the City use the impact fee? M. Mylott responded: if the fee is an impact fee, it must be used to offset the impact. D. Jennings stated that 6-foot trees are not going to offset an 80- to 120-foot tower. C. Smith stated that the fee could be used to beautify another area; the logic still holds D. Jennings asked the Committee. where are existing towers k}cated? M. Mylott responded: within the 200 block of Chicago Avenue, the 2400 block of Oakton, and at the Fleetwood Jourdain Center. M. Mylott stated that the Fleetwood Jourdain Center WCF, including repainting the light standards at the baseball field, is very successful. C. Smith agreed, and stated that the Committee was able to require that the accessary shed be located on the roof of the existing building. M. Mylott stated that the reason he did not have a problem with the Committee conditions placed upon that approval was because the project was on City property M. Mylott stated that the City would benefit from having a WCF Plan, wherein it included City policies and guidelines for the establishment of new WCFs. M. Mylott stated that he attended a conference at which a presenter stated that other municipalities require wireless communication providers to pay a retainer the municipality uses that retainer to pay a engineer specializing in wireless communication to review the technical aspects of the application to determine if the requested height is required, among other things. SUMMARY OF FIF UMM SME PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C.OAVAr7TEE March 8,2OW Pape 3 of 4 C. Smith stated that the Committee awaits the results of the survey; once that information is provided, the Committee can reconvene and offer fie City Manager a recommendation. C. Smith stated that, in the interim. requiring an area -wide service plan may change appkants' opinion about the Ws approach to accommodating m odating WCPs. M. Mylott stied that, if the City wanted to send a strong message to these apprmants, it could tell them that they rrwst pay to have an outside engineer speciab¢ln§6in winless communication review their plans. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. t, Respectfully sub LCSteven Mylott, AICP.- secretM i WE PLAN of FtNt)i GS EAR s� PLAN JWi] APP�aw+ricE f2£VIEIM1► COMMnTEE March S. 2000 Page 4 of 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 29, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, K. KeHy, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present Others Present: Commencement D. Jennings, D. Marino. H. Friedman. M. Barry, M. Franz, M. Robinson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-022 1900 Demoster Street Preliminary and Final Convert single retail space to multiple retail spaces within existing building (lamer Silo space). Mr. Jim Sutphe.. t,-.,act coordinator) presented Application for Zoning Analysis #100-192-ZA including a floor plan with landscaping, elevation, isometric, and plat of survey, and site photographs to convert a single retail space to multiple retail spaces within the existing building located at 1900 Dempster Street, J. Sutphen stated that 1. Silo formerly occupied the subject retail site. The proposed space would be configured to accommodate one large user or many smaller uses: the current thinking is that many users would occupy the space. They would install a door within the north and east fa,ades until the final decision has been made on leasing. 2. The proposal would include pedestrian entrances from Dodge Street and from within the shopping center. The Dodge Street elevation would include metal canopies, matctung the blue steel beams within the shopping center. C. Smith asked J. Sutphen: do you plan to illuminate the canopies? J. Sutphen responded: probably not. J. Sutphen stated that the windows would emit much light, and the fapde is very SUTAAARY OF FWAXNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RAW COUWrrEE Wrrh 29, 2000 ]� Paps i of 9 UAq close to Dodge Street. C. Smith stated that she recommends including down lighting recessed within the canopies; this lighting would help to illuminate the abu:ting sidewalk. C. Smith stated that the applicant should consider halogen lights: this fight would work well with the contemporary design of the fat lade. The landscaping shown on the floor plan depicts the ex»ng material, except shrubs. They would like to move several trees as they block views to the st=vrefronts. P. D'Agostino stated that these trees appear to be capable of w --*.standing relocation. C. Smith stated that she has no problems with the proposed landscape plan. provided the trees are relocated. A. Alterson stated that the purpose of the existing Landscaping was to screen the blank wall; as as he loves trees, the proposed change is wortli removing a few trees. 4. The site plan would include an accessible ramp, and they have added a sidewalk from Dodge Street to the parking area. C. Smith stated that the applicant should install bollard lights along the stairs leading from the Dodge Street sidewalk. J. Sutphen asked the Committee: could riser lights be acceptable? C. Smith responded: yes. 5. The desired user for the corner space would be a coffee shop They are aware that such a use would be a type 2 restaurant, and it would require a special use from the City Council. They are considering adding even more glass than that amount shown on ne elevation, specifically along the north and east facades at the northeast comer. C. Smith stated that she has no problem with the additional grass L. Black stated that she 'applauds the opening up of the comer'. C. Smith stated that this improvement is a positive one for the comer. C. Smith stated that a Unified Business Center Sign Plan has been placed on file at the Building Division. L. Black motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee approved thg motion (10-01 to arant oreliminary srte plan and appearance review approval. The floor plan wnn landscaping, elevation, isometric, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-022). SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Demolish existing stnucture and construct 4-story, 8-unit, multi-lamiy rgsidenfiat building (condominiums). J. Wolinski stated that the applicant's attorney has requested that Ow Committee continue this item to April 19, 2000; the Corporation Council has advised the Committee to continue this item. J. Wolinski motioned to continue this item to April 19, 2000 regularly scheduled Committee meeting. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (10-0) to continue this item to April 19, 2000 regularly scheduled Committee meeting. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE FLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE Uw'c i 29, 2000 Page 2 of 9 s SPAARC 00-032 355 Rldae Avenue Preliminary and Final Install exhaust fan on fool of hospital (St: Francis Hospitaq. Mr. Mark Lavender (architect) and Mr. Richard Dusing (facilities director) presented a site plan, elevations, and site photographs to install an exhaust fan on the roof of the hospital (St. Francis HospitaQ at 355 Ridge Avenue. M. Lavender stated that: 1. They are rebcating the morgue from Plunkett Hall to the basement of the parking garage The morgue would not include a crematory. 2. The morgue requires a root exhaust vent fan. The proposed location is the top of an existing loading dock. approximately 6 feet from the fagade of the parking garage. The exhaust fan would be 36 inches high and 30 inches wide. The loading dock has a 12-parapet, leaving approxunatety 24 inches of the exhaust fan exposed. J. Wofinski stated that he had many problems with an earlier unit that was very noisy. it is important that the applicants ensure that this unit is not noisy. 3_ The existing landscaping blocks the view of the exhaust fan from the residential properties to the southeast. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval by the Building Division of the sound levels of the exhaust fan. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aoorovpd the motion 19-1) to arant oreliminary and final site clan and appearance review approval, subiect to review and aooroval by the Buildina Division of the sound levels of the exhaust fan. The site plan, elevations, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00.032). SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Revision to Final Modify approved storefront for retail goods establishments (Wolfgang Puck's). Mr. Tom White (developer), Mr. Greg Hakanen (developer), and Mr. Michael McKenna (tenant coordinator) presented working drawings and building material samples to modify the approved storefront for a retail goods establishment (Wolfgang Puck's) within Church Street Plaza. T. White stated that: Wolfgang Puck has revisited the entire storefront They 'tried to work within the direction of the Committee while providing corporate identity'. They propose to retain the original stone vase and a majority of the original storefront system, except at the portal. They propose to insia3 a revolving door. C. Smith stated that this space is the most visible within Church Street Plaza; the need for corporate identity is less than other locations within Church Street Plaza, SUMMARY OF FIN OMS SFTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE: REVtEVV CONWr M March 29. 2900 Pape s d 9 jo C. Smith stated that the portal might be too high. J. Aiello stated that the common light fixtures and sconces at the portal might be too mLNM. the applicant may wish to remove one set 2. They no longer propose to clad the columns within the plaza The columns would r ck de sconces and words. C. Smith stated that she has a problem with the sconces and words on the columns: they are excessive and detract from the architecture T. White stated that the sconces woudd provide up light to wash the columns. I Aiello stated that she does not have a problem with the stances. M. Mylott agreed, and stated that the sconces and words are very clearly added on, grvus'g the area a small degree of individuality while not eliminating the common elements of the building M. Mylc" :ed that the previous proposal simply Iried to eliminate any association with the rest of the building 3. They have added awnings to the facade attributed to the restaurant within the plaza_ M. Mylott stated that he is concerned that awnings covering only within % of the plaza will appear awkward. C Smith agreed, and stated that either the entire plaza should have awnkxjs or the awnings should be removed. T White stated that the developer can dictate what type of awning the restaurant installs; this type of awning would be used elsewhere on the building. T. White stated that Urban Outfitters would not install awnings J Aiello stated that she is not certain whether the Committee has the authority to dictate whether or not an applicant may have an awning. S. Nagar agreed. M Mylott stated that the awnings serve no purpose; pedestrians walking through the plaza would be protected under the cantilever of the building, and persons sitting at the tables within the plaza would be protected by umbrellas proposed for each table. 4. Features within the plaza would include container plants, a wrought iron fence, and gas heaters — each of which is removable. M. Mylott asked the applicants: does the restaurant still propose a fire pit? T. White responded: we are still trying to have the restaurant remove it; it is problematic from a permitting perspective. S. signage at the portal would sit on top of a edge in front of the tile. Other signage would include blade signs and words over the columns within the plaza. They are not seeking approval of the signage at this time; the proposed signage would be included within the Application for a Unified Busines.;. ;—..er Sign Plan C. Smith asked the applicants what is the proposed height for the signage within Chum Street Plaza? T. White responded- most signage would be located in front of the spandrel, above the precast band. M. Mylott motioned to approve the revisions to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval, including a strong recommendation to (1) remove the awnings from the plaza; and (2) remove one set of lights from the portal. S. Nagar seconded the motion Committee aDaroved the motion (8-2) to approve the revisions to the previous final Silly nian and aooearance review aoomval, incudino a stronq recommendation to: fl) remove the awninns from the plaza: and (2) remove one set of liohts from the portal. The elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SriE PLAN AND APPE1 RANCE REVIEW commrrrEE March 29, 2000 Pape 4 of 9 '� d, SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Revision to Fi-ml Modify approved storefront for retail goods establishments (Urban Outfitters) Mr. Juan C. Bello (architect), Mr. Torn White (developer) Mr, Greg Hakanen (developer), and Mr Uid%ae1 McKenna (tenant coordinator)'present�ed working drawings, color elevations, and building maoerrsal samples to modify the approved storefront for a retail goods establishment (Urban Outf4tters) wdthrn Church Street,Plara. J. Bello stated that: They determined that keeping the fagade was 'in the best interest of the project', except timed they would like to replace the original second floor glass with a k)w E film glass to protect Tm merchar --- - from discoloration Also, within that area, they would like to eliminate the frriaed accent bands. Finally, they would like to replace the spandrel glass with clear glass, allowing persons to see the finished mechanicals along the ceiling of the store. T. White stated that the material changes at the Maple Avenue end of the curve, providing a logical break before the fatted accent bands would resume along Maple Avenue. T White stated that Urban Outfitters would occupy the entire second floor along the plaza C. Smith stated that she does riot have a problem with changing the glass or removing the bitted glass. C. Smith stated that she has a problem with removing the spandrel glass; this area is the background for the signage for the entire building. C. Smith stated that the spandrel glass is a base building element; compromising these types of elements "starts to unravel a string that is hard to stop'. T. White stated that Urban Outfitters has worked very hard to not affect the Integrity of the building. T. White stated that he too was somewhat concerned about replacing the spandrel, but he thought that this item was one that 'they could give, A. Alterson stated that he does not have a problem with replacing the spandrel glass, especially if Urban Outfitters has decided that this is the type of background that they want for their sign. I They would like to install cracked glass around their portal; this glass would be within the existing mullions. 3. The Church Street facade would have the Mylar awnings used elsewhere on the building. J. Aiello motioned to approve the revisions to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval. L. Bla, . , ---vended the motion Committee approved the motion (9-1) to approve the revisions to the previous final site Dian and apoearance review aoorovai The color elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065). SPAARC 99-122 1935 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct 4-story, 8-unit, multi -family residential building (condominiums). Mr. Kevin Barker (architect) presented Application for Building Permit #OG-046, including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, and a landscape plan to construct 4-story, 8-unit, multi -family residential building (condominiums). SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CAWA111TEE March 29. 20m Pais 5 of 9 It K Barker stated that The Committee required a landscape plan. P. D'Agostino stated that he has reviewed the landscape plan. and rt rs acceptable, except the is concerned that an adequate amount of space cannot be grren to protect the tac existing h 00-4 within the front yard, K Barker stated that the tree approximately 12 to 15 feet from the foundation has a 'better chance': the tree approximately 5 feet from the foundation has eabm d a 50/50 chance". K. Barker stated that they would protect these trees 'as best they can'; they vAll be careful during excavation. K Barker stated that, if one or both of these tees die, they would be replaced P, D'Agostino stated that as much of the tree as possible should be fenced oft M. Mylott asked P. D'Agostino: do you have a recommended replacement? P. D'Agostrno responded: I would have to see the site. 2, They are — ready to request final appearance review approval; they only seek final sine plan review approval such that they may begin work on the fourx3abon. They are not certain what the underground costs would be, once that information is knovm, they would return to the Committee knowing what they can spend on the exterior treatment. M. Mylott asked K Barker. does the way the foundation is poured in any way k d the type of exterior masonry treatment that may be applied? K. Barker responded. no. K. Banker stated that the foundation would be poured to accept utility brick on all sides; a smaller brick would simply leave a small lip at the ground. J. Wolinski stated that he wants to ensure that the applicant will not return to the Committee, claiming that they cannot install taste brick because of the way the foundation was poured. K. Barker stated that that would not be an issue. J. Wolinski asked K. Barker, what is the difference in cost between utility brick and face brick? K Barker responded: the masonry costs increase approximatety 70 percent with face brick. K Barker stated that concrete block costs approximately S5 50 per sq.ft; utility brick casts approximately $7 to $8 per sq.ft; and face brick costs approximately $12 to $15 per sq.ft 3. The only fighting would be placed upon the building; it would be within residential factures. S. Nagar gave K. Barker a handout about'fighbng information and criteria'. S. Nagar stated that he has reviewed and approved the drainage C Smith stated that the applicants would need an application number from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District prior to receiving a foundation permit C. Smith stated that she would like to see the applicant install wheel stops J. Wolinski motioned to grant final site plan review approval FOR FOUNDATION ONLY. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aoaroved the motion (8-01 to arara final site plan mview approval FOR FOUNDATION ONLY. M. Mylott stated thAt he would like the Committee to condition this approval upon the protection of the two existing trees within the front yard. J Wolinski agreed. M. Mylott motioned to reconsider the following motion: grant final site plan review approval FOR FOUNDATION ONLY. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aoomved the motion 1l3-) to reconsider the followina motion: arant final site olan review aaoroval FOR FOUNDATION ONLY. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE March 29, 2000 page 6 of 9 3C . ' W, i . J. Wolinski motioned to grant final site plan review approval FOR FOUNDATION ON0 . ,provxied' (1) the Parks and Forestry Division reviews and approves a tree protection plan, (2) said tree orotection ptan is implemented prior to any excavation on the site, (3) the applicant reptaces the two liras vacate in f -ant of the proposed building if they should die within 12 months of issuance of the final Cemfic;are of CVcuizancy as required by the Parks and Forestry Division, and (4) the applicant provides cost figurrts or the vanous masonry treatments for the exterior of the building. S. Nagar seconded the motion Ccm, � r.ee ago7aved the motion (8-01 to arant final site olan review approval FOR FOUNDATION ONLY nrovicked, (1) the Parks and Forestry Division reviews and aooroves a tree arotection clan, (2) said tree z�ntection c4an is implemented orior to any excavation on the site, i31 the plicant reolaces the two tees L_x_ate`i in Font of the proposed building if they should die within 12 months of issuance of the final CeMfrcate or Ocizv ancv as reaulred by the Parks and Forestry Division. and (4) the applicant provides cost figures on the various masonry treatments for the exterior of the building. The landscape plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Ccm. m,ttee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-122). SPAARC 00-024 750 Chicaan Avenue Preliminary and Final Sandblast paint from exterior of building (Fire House Grill). Mr. Kevin Barker (architect) presented site photographs to sandblast paint from the exterior of building (Fire House Grill) located at 750 Chicago Avenue. K Barker stated that: The concept is to return the building to its 1902 condition. They would emulate glass within the overhead doors, which still exist, the previous user only built around them The refurbished doors would not be operational. They have submitted an application for interior demolition; they would perform this work prior to any exterior work, except that they would like to sandblast the paint from the building, reprove the archways from over the overhead doors, and reprove the wood and stacco walls from around the eating area. The sandblasting would take approximately one weep They cannot get on the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) property to sandblast the rear of the butOdrrig: this fable would probably be repainted. J. Wolinski asked K Barker: how do you propose to protect the ne+gnbor iood during the sandblasting? K. Barker responded: we would use a scaffold with a curtain J Wolinski stated that the %.uy Code lists certain times of the day that sandblasting may occur. K. Barker should contact the Building Division to ensure he is aware of such limitations. R Dahal stated that the scaffold and curtain might not block the stoplight, S. Nagar stated that the scaffold and curtain might disrupt pedestrian an13 vehicular traffic. K. Barker stated that the building is approximately 7 to 8 feet from the lot line; the scaffold and curtain should be on private property. C. Smith stated that she does not have a problem with removing the arcr.,ays from over the overhead doors, provided the original overhead doors are not removed. K Barker stated that they would not remove the original overhead doors. 3. They may provide an outdoor eating area. SUMMARY OF FWDWGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANI E REVIEW GOLAWMEE March 29. 2DOo o Page 7dp 4. The will keep the existing second -floor windows. & They may cover the CMU addition with Dryvit. 6. They will move a shed and dumpster that encroach upon CTA property. J. Wolirnski stated that the applicants should consider ways in which the graffiti upon the south facade may be minimized. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and Final site plan and appearance review approval for ONLY the following work: (1) removing the paint from the exterior of the building, (2) removing the construction covering the existing overhead doors, and (3) removing the stucco and wood walls from around the former eating area: subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer of the location of the scaffold and curtain. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aporoved the motion (M) to gran( preliminary and final site clan anti ppearancs review anoroval for ONLY the folkywina work: (1) rerrloL the paint from the exterior of the buildina. (2) removina the construction coverino the existino overhead doors. and (3) removino the stucco and wood walls from around the former eatinn arew su_ biect to review and approval by ..- Llty Traffic Enoineer of the location of the scaffold and curtain. _ The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-024) SPAARC 00-025 SPARC Annual Report Communication Review 1999 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Report. M. Mylott stated that he distributed copies of the 1999 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Report to Committee members prior to the meeting, if anyone did not get a copy, please contact him. M. Mylott stated that the number of cases that the Committee considered during 1999 increased almost 12 percent from 1998. C. Smith stated that she would like to thank M. Mylott for preparing 'this excellent report'. C. Smith motioned to forward the 1999 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Report as a communication to the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (10-0) to forward the 1999 Site Plan and Aooearance Review Committee Annual Resort as a communication to the Plannino and Development Committee of the City Council. SPAARC 00-026 Communication Photocopy of newspaper arSde. "For a design to stand the test of time, the building must do the same' Chicago Tribune, Alarch 19. 2000. M. Mylott distributed a photocopy of the newspaper article: "For a design to stand the test of time, the building must do the same" from the Chicago Tribune, March 19, 2000. SUMMARY of FiND(NGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 29. 2000 Pape a of 9 SPAARC 00-027 Communication Phofopcpy of newspaper amide: 'Sears is opening up'. Ch cago Sun -Times. March 20, 2000 M. Mylott disputed a photocopy of newspaper article: 'Sears is opening tip' from the Chicago Sun - Times. March 20. 20OO. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Committee Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS v(, SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE {.�'p March 29.2000 eipage 9 of 9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 22, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, P. D'Agcstino, R. Dahal, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, R. Walczak H. Friedman. M. Barry, B. Domicker, M. Franz, J. Kim, S. Levine, J. Minear, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, M. Travis. 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 3:05 p.m. Aoorovai of Summary of Findinas L. Black motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the March 8, 2000 meeting. R. Dahal seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to approve the Summary of Findings from the March 8, 2000 meeting SPAARC 00-017 1450 Sherman Avenue Announcement OFF -AGENDA ITEM, Renovate facade for type t restaurant (Tommy Nevin's Pub). J. WaCnski stated that the owner of the building that contains Tommy Nevin's Pub informed him that Tommy Nevin's Pub does not have permission to renovate the facade of the building. J. Wolinski stated that he was asked by the building owner not to issue a building permit for this work. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SRE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWff TEE Match 22. 2000 page t of 6 it i SPAARC 99-122 1935 Sherman Avenue - Preliminary and Final Construct 4-story. 8-unit, multifamily residential buddwrg (condominiums) Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 00-021 300 Dodae Avenue Wames Park) Conceat Construct new senior center. Ms. Carol Ross -Barney (architect), Mr Joseph Freed (architect), and D. Gaynor presented site plans, a floor plan, color birds -eye drawings, and color isometric drawings of the new senior center to be located at the southeast comer of James Park or approximately 300 dodge Avenue. D. Gaynor stated that the drawings are 50 percent schematic: they would be presented to the City Council at the next City Council meeting_ C. Ross -gamey stated that: they originally considered the recycling center as a location of the new building. but the existing building proved to be too small. The proposed site would permit the least amount of impact upon the amount of existing green space and play fields. The proposed site permits the future construction of a recreation building including indoor basketball, soccer, and lacrosse courts; this project does not include that addition, but it does establish the design vocabulary The proposed site would present soil problems, they would be partially building within the former landfill. H. Friedman stated that, while he has always been opposed to moving the use from the Downtown, the concept is "very nice". 2, the new building would be similar in scale to Dawes Elementary School. The building, including the future addition, would be approximately 150 feet from Dawes Elementary School The new building was designed to be `residential friendly" but not necessarily exhibit residential character The seniors were concerned with 'visibility': they wanted the building to be 'airy and light'. The east facade would include wood louvers superimposed over glass to reduce heat gain. The sloped roof would include a long valley, but it would not leak; the roof would be metal standing seam H. Friedman stated that the elevation along Dodge Street is the least attractive; the building would "have real interest" if it paralleled the entrance road. 3. the new building would be very close to the size of the Levy Center, the new building would be approximately 24,000 gross sq.ft. and approximately 19,000 net sq.ft. The new building would include a grand space, meeting rooms, a classroom, a computer room, a library, arts and watts rooms, a gift shop, a game room, exercise and fitness rooms, locker rooms, smau offices, and a kitchen M Mylott stated that applicants appear to have given the site plan and floor plan much thought_ L. Black asked the applicants: who would have access to the coatroom? C Ross49arney responded we have not yet made that determination. SUMMARY OF FIN04NGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMRTEE March 22. 2000 Page 2 of 6 At L. Black stated that the doors near the fitness room and computer room should be nvxne flush with the facade such that a person could not hpde in the recess L. Black stated that persons using the bathrooms would have access to the locker relcir s at all times. C Ross -Barney stated that they would add a set of doors that would restrVet access to the locker room, depending upon the tame of day D. Gaynor stated that they have discussed instaliing hallway gates at vanous tocatees for security, but that concept has not yet been finalized. R. Schur asked the applicants: given that the population is aging differently. are the spaces flexible to adjust to different needs? D. Gaynor responded: flexibility would be built in to each space. D. Gaynor stated that from 8 a.m to 5 p m., Monday through Friday, the building would be a senior center, before 8 a.m.. after 5 p.m. and all day Saturday and Sunday, the building would be a community recreation center 4. the exterior of the grand space would be approximately 25 feet high. The grand space could accommodate a full-size basketball court, but it would not include the full height for seating. The grand space would include a stage, and the locker rooms could be used as dressing rooms. The grand space would not include a mezzanine because it would require a lift. The exterior wags of the grand space would be constructed of Kalwall — a translucent material allowing light through but not allowing someone to see through it These exterior wags would also include a row of windows and a curtain to make the room dark. H. Friedman stated that Kalwall is not a very good material C. Smith stated that Katwall has been improved; this proposal is reasonable C. Smith stated that the applicants should consider the acoustic surfaces within the grand space. C, Smith stated that the applicants should consider flipping the arrangement of the grand space and the associated stage and storage such that deliveries of equipment are not required to go through the building. C. Ross -gamey stated that such an arrangement created problems for persons arriving at the building as well as with other programming elements C Ross-earney stated that such deliveries would go around the building. C. Smith stated that such deliveries would go through the main doors C Ross -gamey stated that that would review this concem. 5, the gift shop provides a space in which the artwork of a "small but productive group' of persons may be sold; this space is in transition because its purpose is being better defined D. Gaynor stated that the gift shop may move closer to the entrance 6. the location of the main office permits an 'overall supervision of the building'. the south facade would include a brick chimney as a "sculptural counterpoint'. The chimney would provide air intake for an electric kiln as well as venting for a fireplace within the library 8. the rooms would be arranged around a central courtyard. The configuration would also permit indoor walking. C. Smith stated that she liked the courtyard concept: it provides very private space. J Freed stated that part of the courtyard could be paved, providing a more formal outdoor space. SUMMARY of FifDY� ,%S SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REMEW COrMiLNn EE Pa"3d6 X M. Mylod stated that perhaps the comers of the corridor In which persrns C004 conduct indoor walking are too sharp 9. the new building would not include a basement. 10. the mechanicals would be concealed within a rooftop penthouse at the nor. of Tw building 11. the new building would include a porte-cochere and drop off at the main entrance. The City has promised to run a shuttle bus to the new building. 12. they would use the existing parking lot, because the primary hours of use at the senior center would not conflict with the primary hours of use of the baseballlsoftball t5etds. The number of parking spaces would not change. This lot currently has 150 parking spaces, and the plans include an option to add more; however, they would prefer to provide niore parking near the recycling center 13. the City forester has inspected the existing evergreen trees and ornamental trees in proxvnity to the new building. He said that the existing evergreen trees could be bust around or relocated to the park as they are relatively young; they propose to move them to the park The ornamental trees are near the end of their life. S. Levine stated that she does not think the trees would survive if the building were built around them; she recommends moving them S Levine stated that moving the trees also permits better design of the courtyard. C Ross -Barney agreed, and stated that she would like to 'leave a memory of the formal crescent plantings'. 14. they would like to move into the new building in June 2001. D. Gaynor stated that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes money for a traffic light at the intersection of Mulford Street and Dodge Avenue. C. Smith stated that the applicants should contact the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District as soon as possible. S. Nagar motioned to grant concept approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to Grant concept aooroval The site plans. floor plan, color birds -eye drawings, and color isometric drawings have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-021) SPAARC 00-020 2408 Orrinaton Avenue Preliminary Install additional parking spaces and construct fences for educational institution (Kendall College). Mr. James Economou (architect) and Mr Paul Jeffrey (plant manager) presented Application for zoning Analysis #00-146-ZA, including a site plan, and site and area photographs to install additional parking spaces and construct fences for the educational institution (Kendall College) located at 2408 Orrington Avenue. J. Economou stated that he was hired to increase the amount of on -site parking. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 22, 2000 Page 4 of 6 A. J. Economou stated that the proposed site plan would add 35 parting spaces Curmntty the site contains t:C swing spaces, but this amount does not handle the demand The plans would require remc%!r-g a play lot and garage accessory to the residence at the corner 01 Cc fax Street and Sherm,ar Avenue. and the plans would require relocating a dumpster akxig Lovoln Street C. Smith stated trial she appreciates the College's parkzV problems. out she is reh <=W-t to support a plan that encroaches within the required setbacks of the Zoning ordinance C Srnith stated that this use is located within a residential area, and the encroachment increases the nonresidential impart. M. Mylott stated that a vanaWn from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required, if not an amendment to the special use C. Smith stated that she believes V= this proposal would be a "ddficult sell' to the neighbors. S. Nagar stated that the applicant must provide the City with the amount of existing and proposed impervious surface, such that the Engineering Department may conduct drainage calculations H. Friedman stated that the parking spaces within the proposed parking area along Lincoln Street should be on the south side of the aisle. P. Jeffrey stated that the south side of the aisle provides access to a loading facility immediately east of the proposed parking area R Dahal stated that the entrance and exits should be switched. C. Smith stated that the site plan should include hatches or some other pattern, indicating what parking spaces are new versus what parking spaces are existing. C. Smith stated that the applicant should meet with the City Traffic Engineer to ensure the site plan 'is workable' 2. one of the parking areas would require a new curb cut at Cottax Street. C. Smith stated that this area shows no new landscaping J Economou stated that landscaping could be added to that area. 3. the plans include a 4-foot high stone wall with signage along Orrfngton Avenue, a &foot high wrought Iron fence along Colfax Street, and a 6-foot high wood fence along Lincoln Street The parking area along Colfax Street is already improved with an approximately 4-foot high wrought iron fence L. Black stated that the wood stockade fence should be wrought iron to improve visibility. M. Mylott stated that that change would make the fence less imposing on the street as well. M. Mylott stated that he would like to see elevations of the proposed fences with tandscapinig- 4. the College recentry purchasing an adjacent two-story residence and would like to move the restaurant from the main building to here The residence is currently vacant. The plans include constructing a precast or masonry addition to the residence J. Wolinski asked the applicants: is this residence on the tax rolls now? P. Jeffrey responded: yes. J Wolinski asked the applicants- do you propose to remove this residence from the tax rolls? P Jeffrey responded: yes. C. Smith asked the applicants: do you own the entire bkx*? P. Jeffrey responded yes. J Wolinski stated that he could not support a proposal that removes SUNLYMY OF FVC0W 3s SirE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REWEW tb1A11aT ME March ZZ 20G0 e. pap 5dB Property from the tax rolls, unless the College would agree 2. a payment in•lleu-a! term. P. Jeffrey stated that any College use of the residence would remove It from the tax rolls C. Smith stated that the new restaurant could be 'charming', br.1t it could also Increase traff c P. Jeffrey stated that the impacts from the restaurant would not ctrange, to fact. the proposed space is smaller than the existing space. M. Mylott stated that he does not believe that the Zoning Oft-taer was aware of the proposal to move the restaurant when he conducted his Zoning Analysis_ M_ Mylott stated that he vs not certain that the Zoning Ordinance would permit such a move_ 14 Mylott stated that, under the same roof as the College's classrooms. the restaurant is a quasrclassroom or accessory to the classrooms; if the restaurant is moved to its own budding. the potential impacts front the restaurant are no different from any other restaurant M. Mylott stated that the applicants sfmuld review this aspect of their proposal with the Zoning Officer. C. Ruiz stated that this property is under the temporary protection of to proposed Northeast Evanston Historic District; this proposal would require review and approval by the Preservation Commission. C. Smith stated that the applicants should discuss this proposal w th the ward alderman. J. Wolinski stated that he believes this proposal relates to the Cotlege's 'change to a more liberal arts look', but such a change increases the parking demand in an area that aftady has parking problems. C. Smith stated that the applicants should provide information regarding righting. S. Nagar motioned to table this item. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-11 to table this item. L. Black cast the dissenting vote. The site plan and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-020). SPAARC 00-019 Wireless Communication Facilities Discussion Schedule special meeting to discuss processing wireless communication facility applications. C. Smith stated the Committee would conduct a special meeting regaromg processing wireless communication facility applications on March 27. 2000 at 11;00 a.m. at Room 2404. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 4.20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J Ann Minear Retarding Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Lfttch 2Z 20DO Page 6 of 6 x SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES December 13, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black (R.Walczak), P. D'Agostino (S.Levine), D. Marino, M. Myiott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: Other Staff: R .Fahlstrom, W.Hallen A motion was made and passed to appoint A. Alterson as temporary chair and he the determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting. C. Smith re -took the chair during the first presentation. Committee Business: A motion was made to approve the drafts of the 11/15/00, 11/29/00, and 12/06/00 Meeting Notes and was passed by unanimous vote. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-153 2936 Park Place Preliminary and Final Construct second floor addition and attached garage to a single-family residential dweAing, requiring a major zoning variation. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Dennis DeCapri — Owner/Archdect?Contractor GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A small existing lot has no alley access and no off- street parking. A very old, detached garage, which took a good portion of the back yard. has been removed years ago. An attached garage on one side of the existing residence and new second floor addition is proposed. The second floor uses dormers and steep roofs to develop sufficient interior space, but keep the apparent height in scale with the surrounding homes. Current floor area above grade is 1,200 SF and will rise to 2,600 SF with the addition, including the garage space. Page 1 of 6 12/13/00 Wi All the abutting neighbors have been contacted by the Owner, with overall positive response. The neighbor who would face the new deck over the garage was concerned about a loss of privacy, but this was allayed by including a masonry screen wall and plantings in this kx= ion. The zoning variations required for this proposal are: -a one foot side yard on the west property line at the new garage. -a 26 ft. rear yard. -a front step/ landing extending 4 ft. into the required front yard. DISCUSSION: It was noted that a wail within 3 ft. of the property line could have no openings and this will be considered in the design. The attached garage is below grade and has a trench drain at the bottom of the driveway. A Committee member reminded the owner that this drain location requires a direct connection to a City catch basin and must be engineered. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-154 422 Davis —Mather Place Recommendation to SWn Board Reface existing canopy at retirement residence, the Georgian. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Robert Fahlstrom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The fabric re -facing of existing canopies is proposed with signage on the fabric. The variations requested from the Sign Regulations are: -to maintain the height of the existing canopies, which is higher than allowed. -to have a larger text area on the street facing sides than permitted by the Regulation. -to have letters on the sides perpendicular to the street larger than permitted by the Regulation. DISCUSSION: The Committee discussion of the proposed variations produced agreement with the first and the last variation request, but not the middle variation requested. ACTIONS: A motion was made to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Variation Application with the condition that the street facing (Davis and Hinman facing) sides maintain the text area permitted by the Sign Regulation and was passed with A. Atterson and D. Marino voting no. Page 2 of 6 12/13/00 SPAARC 00-155 222-240 Asbury Recommendation to Siq�aid Review existing real estate sign, installed without a permit at a multi -family resideentWbuftng. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY. Mr.Robert Fahlstrom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A 16 SF permanent "FOR RENT" sign has ben installed without a permit in a location where only a 6 SF sign would be allowed. DISCUSSION: This blatant disregard for the sign regulations was condemned by the entire Committee. ACTIONS: A motion was made to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Variation Application and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-156 1123 Madison Preliminary and Final Sub -divide residential property from St. Nicholas Church campus, requiring major zoning variations. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Marc Mylott +, 0l GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: This property was used by the St. Nicholas' janitor and is no longer needed for that function. A 10 ft. move of thewArsVproperty line would create a sell-off lot and place the property back on the tax rolls. The zoning variations required are: -lot area will only be 5,000 SF -lot coverage will rise from 26% to 33% -parking will have no setback, rather than the 3 ft. required. DISCUSSION: Minor "major" variations seemed to easily justify getting property back on the tax rolls to the Committee. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 3 of 6 12/13/00 SPAARC 00-167 2516 Prarle Goncent Construct 8-unit multifamily residential bui7di-rig. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Mike Realmuto and Tom Gourguechon GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A 4-story + partial penthouse building is proposed on this 50' X 200' lot. Two units per floor are planned served by an elevator wdh the upper units "duplexed" into the penthouse level. Below grade, enclosed parking is indicated for 15 cars and 3 additional spaces are located on grade in the rear yard. Units are around 2,100 SF and will all be adaptable. A 4 ft. above grade terrace to the north and roof -top terraces provide common areas for all the units. Modular size face brick and stone will be used on the north and west faces and stucco or other materials are being considered for the south and east sides. DISCUSSION: The Committee greeted this concept as an excellent beginning to a very good design. The 100% adaptable feature is to be commended. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-157 1520-1622 Sherman — Bar Louie Preliminary and Final Renovate spaces into Type-1 restaurant.. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Ryan Nestor - Architect GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Final elevations use cracked mosaic tiling and real stucco between the large glazed areas. An operable wall is introduced at the north wall center to provide access to the future sidewalk cafe seating area. DISCUSSION: A question on the exterior lighting was answered with assurance that it would be only "soft` glows. The response to a query on the west parking area use was that it will not be used by this tenant as parking, only serve in the receiving function. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 4 of 6 12/13/00 SPAARC 00-159 925 Hamlin Preliminary andina Fl Construct 2-car garage and open, off-street parking spaces for dupl x. requiring major zoning variations. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: 6. Marc Mylott GENERAL_ PROJECT PRESENTATION: The four existing, open, nonconforming parking spaces will be replaced by two enclosed and one open. property sized spaces by this proposal. One person owns both abutting properties and favors this improvement. Garage construction will be by Danley. DISCUSSION: The provision of properly sized, off-street, parking spaces is viewed in a positive light by the Committee. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review: approval and was passed by unanimous vote. �ot s SPAARC 00-160 Davis Concept (Raised to Preliminary at the Meetingl Construct 1-story commercial building. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Wendy Bain GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: An elegant ,21' high fagade on Davis Street will use red -brown brick in herring bone and flemish bonds, accented with limestone and granite elements. Store glazing will be clear, housed in black anodized aluminum frames and topped with an open-ended fabric canopy. Canopy design will be controlled by building management guidelines. Retail floor area proposed is around 2,750 SF and three tandem parking stalls (6 car spaces) are shown at the rear along with a building service area. DISCUSSION: It was noted by the Committee that one of the parking spaces must be accessible and this may reduce the parking provided to 5 spaces. A Committee member requested that the limestone abutting the sidewalk be sealed or changed to granite for ease of maintenance. This welWesigned commercial building had sufficient content in its presentation to have the review raised to the Preliminary level by the Committee. ACTIONS: A motion was made to approve the concept and grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 5 of 6 12/13/00 SPAARC,. 00-102 2209 Oakton — Stgak n' Shake Revision !o Einif Consider moving the location of a Type-1 restaurant with drive-thru fa:Wfy approvimately 30 feet east, reducing the parking provided by 6 spaces.. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Dan O'Connell and Matthew Anderson. GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The motivation for moving the build'mg and surrounding parking 30 ft. east is to increase the west edge ground area from 15 & to 45 ft. and significantly enhance the site landscaping. Berms and trees are shown in the larger greenspace. DISCUSSION: This is an excellent improvement to the site development in the Committee's opinion. Limiting berm heights and introducing shrubs + planting beds were suggested. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval to the revision with the conditions that the berms be no higher than 3 ft. and that shrubs + planting beds be included in the landscaping and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 6 of 6 12/13/00 x SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES December 6, 2000 Attendees: Committee Members: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino (S.Levine), M. Mytic9t S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: Other Staff: W.Halien C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting. Prolects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-139 1611 Monroe — Pre Application Conference and PrWlminwv Consider construction of six duplexes (12 dwelling units total) PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Steven Beck and Scott Krone GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Now a planned development, the basic timust of this project's presentation was to address two major concems of the Committee. Namely: -use of a more contemporary design for the buildings to agree with the site planning. -improvement of the project's "face" on Monroe Street. Perspective sketches and elevations showed a very contemporary design using masonry walls with punched windows in one direction and vertically organized windows with cedar siding infil'l in the other direction. Queen size brick is proposed and glazed openings will include sliding doors, and casement or awning windows. Monroe Street appearance has been improved with: -varying setbacks from the street for the duplex units . -low becoming and two season plantings at the unit patios. -towering of the roof level by using contemporary design. Two groups of six units each are grouped around auto 'courts", providing access to the attached garages from the alley. Courts will be asphalt paving with some brick paver bands. A light, steel framed, modular trellis wth paint finish is used as a site element to tie the building masses together. Within the approximate 8 ft. cube trellis modules, some are left open to the sky; some are further "trellised" with closer spaced wood framing marking site pathways; and some are roofed to marls unit entry locations. Page 1 of 3 12/06/00 k A meeting has been held with neighbors and Alderman Feldman with positive results. The neighbors seem to welcome the removal of the non-residential greenhouse complex and appreciate the project design. Resistance to a yellow color for the steel trellis elements has resulted in a color change to white. DISCUSSION: The fact that steel framing on the site trellis system may create a maintenance problem for the Owner's association was pointed out by the Committee. Possible use of a special coating on the steel, rather than paint, and possible use of coated aluminum framing were suggested. After the meeting is was determined that a "queen" size brick is 2 %ftH X 7 5/8'L X 3'D which will generate basically the same appearance as a standard size brick. The unnaturalness of low hills, or berms, in the Illinois landscape was noted by a Committee member. When the Architect gave the intended "berm" height as around one foot they were considered more as site "bumps', rather than low hills. Trowel pattered concrete is proposed for the unit patios and the possible use of a more "up -scale" material, such as slate, was suggested by a Committee member. Possible use of planting beds abutting the patio areas was also suggested. The Committee noted that storm water retention requirements must be calculated for the project and detention provided, if needed. When asked, the Developer indicated unit pricing in the $320K range for 2 bedroom, 2'h bath units and $355K for the 3 bedroom + den units. PRE -APPLICATION ACTION: A motion was made to agree that the information presented at this meeting satisfied the Pre -Application Conference requirements in Section 6-3-6-7 of the - Zoning Ordinance and was passed by unanimous vote. PRELIMINARY REVIEW ACTION: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 3 12/06/00 SPAARC 00-152 2100 Demoster - NEXTEL Concoct Construct 100 ft. high monopole antenna and equipment shelter for wireless communication installation. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Msr. Michael Stem and David Dubois - Newel GENERAL_ PROJECT PRESENTATION: The leasing of a 50 ft. square fenced area housing a 11' X 20' equipment array and a monopole antenna mast is included in this (proposal. A site shielded from public view by existing buildings and fences is proposedwithin a 12 — Industrial zoning district. It is located approximately 300 ft. from Hartrey on the west and 800 ft. from Dempster on the north and will generate no noise and have no Ste lighting_ Wireless coverage maps were presented that showed the need around this kxm ion. Nextel is a "mature" provider and is experiencing system capacity issues in addition tc ooverage problems. The 100 ft. high pole would accommodate Nextel antenna at the 80 ft. level and provide for other system antenna at a higher level. A high voltage power line on high towers borders the eastern edge of this site and is followed by a shopping center to ciie east. A School District 65 site north of Dempster has been under discussion for same time, but has been dropped from further consideration. The 12 zoning district site is better land use than the District 65 site location. DISCUSSION: A Committee member suggested that Evanston should not serve as antenna sites for surrounding communities and that all should share the antenna "burden". Nextel indicated that the next site under consideration for coverage improvement was in Skokie. Without any Committee prodding, the Nextel representative stated that the company was very interested in supporting community activities, such as baseball teams, and should be contacted for possible support. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval and was passed with A. Altemaon voting no and S. Nagar abstaining. Page 3 of 3 12/06/00 X SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES November 29, 2000 Attenders: Committee IMembem: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, Black (R.Waiczak), P. D'Agosdno (S.Levine), R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Myloft. S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting. Protects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-018 800 Davis - Mixed use building Comment on Preliminary. Add drive-thru for ground floor financial institution. Project proposed is a mixed use building (residential, parking, and retail). PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Tod Desmarais - OPTIMA GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Developer has received numerous inquires from banks regarding rental of the retail space in the project and all have indicated that they need a drive-thru area for a part of their banking service. An increased width of the driveway curb cut to Davis Street is proposed with in -and -out bank traffic from this street. DISCUSSION: It was noted that the addition of a drive-thru facility would trigger the need for a zoning hearing on the project. Two problems were apparent in the proposal: -Outbound traffic from the bank drive-thru would meet inbound parking traffic, head-on. -Automobile stacking for banking service would back up on to Davis Street. ACTIONS: Only negative comments were given to this proposal. Page 1 of 4 11129/00 x SPAARC 00-115 860 Chicane -Main Stre*t Newsstand Consider re -opening of retail sales establishment. Final. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Joe Angelastri(owner) and Mr. David Forte(Archftct) GENERAL_ PROJECT PRESENTATION: Investigation of the existing roof structure condition has revealed that it should be replaced. Design modifications are proposed that replace the existing wood framed with steel framed + wood deck construction. This raises the roof level around two feet which gives a much better ceiling height to the exposed construction and allows for more windows on the north face. A spin-off of the roof replacement is the removal of interior columns which permits improved interior planning. The newsstand plans to open on April 1. DISCUSSION: Many positive features are contained in the new design with the one dravw back being the loss of the angled forms on the north wall in the first design. While the revised design has more glass on this fagade, the form removal was driven by cost increases generated by the roof replacement decision. Signage has been approved by the relevant City agencies. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval with the conditions that: -any roof extensions into the right-of-way be cleared with the City -the roof mounted air handling unit be at least 10' from the lot fines and was passed by unanimous vote. SPArARC 00-161 1611 Chicago - The North Shore Hotel Prellminary and Final Install emergency generator for retirement housing. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr.Mark Benson - Benson Electric GENERA[_ PROJECT PRESENTATION: An exterior 50OKW emergency generator is proposed at the extreme northeast corner of the property at a location with a 6' high concrete walls on the two property lines. The unit will be around 8' X 15' in plan and 6' high and will be exercised about % hour per week. Its running sound level was described as equal to a ramming truck motor. DISCUSSION: The need for this unit to serve the North Shore Hotel is overwhelming and it is located in an as -remote -as -possible location on the site. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval with the recommendation that the owner purchase the unit with best sound attenuating enclosure and was passed with A.Alterson voting no and M.Mylott abstaining. Page 2 of 4 11/29/00 X SPAARC 00-141 1881 Oak Pm iimfmry Proposed 4 story office building in Research Park. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Walter Eckenhoff — Architect Mr. Bob Plebanski - Architect Mr. Steve Kardel — Developer. Scribcor Capital GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: This presentation addressed concerns expaessed at previous meeting by the Committee with respect to site planning and building design. The Architect believes that the project's overall design is the best balance of appearance; site planning; entry development; and facility flexibility. Prospective tenant profile is reflected in the need for exposed "loft -like" construction, operable windows, flexible floor plans, and affordable rent. If the developer was interested in a really 'cheap" facility the building would have lower floor -to -floor heights; 2X4 lay -in ceilings; fixed windows; embedded stairways; and a 'dryvit' exterior. Some previous Committee comments have been incorporated in the project, as follows: -alley to Oak has been closed. -an east -west pedestrian walk has been developed thru the site -court truck traffic is one-way, south to north -common truck and pedestrian use of the court has been better integrated -front entry off Oak Avenue has been made more prominent -notches have been used on six building comers -larger windows are used on the lower level -roof air handling unit screening has been increased and sight lines checked from as far away as the Ridge/ Emerson intersection. Perspectives and elevations showed the same design as in the last presentation. DISCUSSION: A lengthy debate occurred on the issues of the existence and design of pedestrian access at the center of the block, off Emerson Street. Those against the access questioned the possible truck/ pedestrian conflicts, while those for the access argued this could be accommodated in the site design. It was noted that opening up the courtyard to Emerson would provide much needed visual relief along this walkway and provide increased security to the court area. An Architect's sketch showed a 2' planting strip and 5' walk from Emerson with the trash dumpsters moved into the courtyard area. Truck traffic level in the court is not really known at this point. The ENH Research Lab will probably generate more truck traffic than an office use building. 1880 Oak has 3 to 4 FEDX deliveries a day plus some courier traffic. A possible use by city parking garage traffic cutting through the site (south to north) could occur considering the garage exit location. This problem could be removed by some kind of off hour closure in the truck access path leading to Emerson Street. Page 3 of 4 11 /29/00 x A Cornmittee member suggested that the first facade designs were better than the second . iteration in that they had a significant rhythm in the design and the second schemes are much more regular in pattern. Use of normal size face brick was again suggested for the following reasons: = respect" for the three other brick faced buildings forming the court -preservation of the uniqueness of the 1880 Building Use of masonry unit color mortar was suggested by a Committee member and the resultant increase in building scale by its use was noted by the Architect. Design issues raised by use of vertical stripping in clear glasses at the stair towers versus the basically horizontal motif of the masonry masses were questioned by a Committee member. The Architect feels his design is a horizontal massing organized around the verticality of the stair towers. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan approval only, with the conditions that the project survives a zoning analysis and that pedestrian access is provide between the 1881 Oak and 1890 Maple buildings, and was denied by a tie vote. A motion was made to grant preliminary appearance approval only and was passed with H.Friedman, M.Mylott, C.Smith, and R.Walczak voting no. A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan approval only, with the conditions that, -a pedestrian walkway and a truck drive with restriction to off -hour vehicular traffic be developed off Emerson Street at the center of the block and that the Committee's intent to keep this area as open to the court as possible be incorporated into the design. -truck traffic loads obtained from actual use and estimates for future uses be presented to the Committee. and was passed with H.Friedman voting no. SPAARC 00-??? 1450 Sherman — Tommv Nevin's Pub Revision to Final Modify approved facade for expansion of Type-1 restaurant PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Healy Rice - Architect GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Minor revisions to the facade design were presented. DISCUSSION: It was established that the revised design would accept all the conditions placed by the Committee on the original design. ACTIONS. A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval to the revised design and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 4 of 4 11/29/00 SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES November 15, 2000 (Revised and re -revised) Attenders: Committee Members: A. Alterson, L Black (R.Walczak), P. D'Agostino (S.leWne), R. Dahal, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: - Other Staff: C. Ruiz, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting, Committee Business: A motion was made to approve the draft of the 11/01/00 SPAARC Meeting Notes and was passed by unanimous vote. A motion was made to approve the draft of the 11/08/00 SPAARC Meeting Notes and was passed with M. Mylott abstaining. Protects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-146 2650 Ridpe — ENH Evanston Hospital Preliminary Construct an addition to Evanston Hospital (Burch 1/). PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Tim Vander Mouson — IFS Mr. Bill Lampkin — ESA Architect Mr. Nick Patera — Teska Associates GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Burch 11 is to be located on the west side of the hospital complex, just south of the Women's Hospital, forming a "U" shaped court with center drive and cul-de-sac. A six story building is proposed with one story below grade, containing a total of around 65K SF in floor area. Doctor's and administration offices will be housed on the four upper floors and the two lower floors will contain research laboratories. No increase in staff size will be associated with this facility, as it will hold staff moved out to allow more single patient rooms to be developed out of multi -patient room areas. Page 1 of 4 11/15/00 A neighborhood meeting held about two months ago was sparsely attended (around 10 persons) and the project was generally well received by the group. This may be influenced by the facilities' relatively remote location, deep in the hospital site. A brink and cast stone design integrates with the adjacent existing building elements and has a battered stone base and a two tone, precast concrete upper floor treatment, Glass stair towers are proposed along with two cupolas masking exhaust stacks. A portion of the facility site contains a small staff parking area which is more than replacad by spaces in the new garage. With a new loading dock included in the project, hospital truck service will be improved. Significant landscaping is proposed adjacent to the facility and many existing trees will be transplanted. Birch's will be used in the center of the drive and addition trees + shrubs will be used in a formal arrangement abutting the building. To the south, evergreens will be used to shield the view of the loading area. A retaining wall will be needed on both sides of the drive and the material currently being considered for these walls is precast concrete. Signage is planned at the drive intersection and at the building main entry. Construction is planned to begin next spring. DISCUSSION: The project was perceived by the Committee as a well designed addition to the hospital complex, with good relationships to existing adjacent buildings. Possible use of brick on the retaining walls was suggested. When one Committee member suggested matching brick color to the Burch 1 building, the Architect noted that Burch I is relatively out of place in the overall color scheme of masonry areas on the hospital. The brick color selected for Burch Il relates to the Women's Hospital brick color, which better agrees with the overall scheme. The need for storm water detention will be evaluated by the Architect. With a 37 ft. setback from the Girard Avenue and thoughtful landscaping integrated into the building design, the Committee decided that the intent of the "transition landscape strip' required by the Zoning Ordinance had been met. The eight criteria in the Zoning Ordinance established for review of an "institutional development plan" were carefully considered by the Committee and it was agreed that the project addressed all of them in a very positive fashion. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, in particular considering satisfaction of the Zoning Ordinance criteria noted above and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 4 11/15/00 SPAARC 00-149 319 nemester Concert Rehab 4-story residential building and construct accessible ramp. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Richard Koenig — Interfaith Housing Development Corp. GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Under this $2M rehab proposal, this 1916 rooming house with common bathroom and kitchens areas would be transformed into small studio units with private bath and kitchen facilities. The number of units will remain at 49 and they will be used as low cost housing, renting for around $350 a month. Exterior work on this historic structure consists of: -creation of an accessible ramped main entry on the Dempster Street side. -relocation of the central heating plant to a small roof penthouse. -restoration of the windows facing Dempster Street and replacement of all other windows. DISCUSSION: Committee members queried the height, material, and sight line viewing of the proposed penthouse. A 9 ft. high penthouse is planned at a very northerly location on the existing roof; no material selection has been made at this time; and sight lines will be developed from the south sidewalk of Dempster Street for the next presentation. The project is in the Preservation Committee review process and probably will be considered in the December 2000 to January 2001 time frame. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-147 642 Sheridan Square Praeliminary and Final Construct front balconies on 2"° and 3`° floors of a 3-flat building. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Ellen Galland - Architect GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: These two balconies would be in a quarter circle form of B ft. radius, nestled in an existing corner of the building. Wrought iron railings are proposed to limit the visual impact of the balconies DISCUSSION: The proposal has received preliminary approval from the Preservation Commission and will return for final approval if the zoning variation is granted. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance approval, subject to approval by the Preservation Commission and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 3 of 4 11 /15/00 SPAARC 00-145 1321 Madison Preliminary and Final Construct a two story addition to a single family residential dwelling, requiring major -e-ariations. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Jack Roberts - Owner GENERAL. PROJECT PRESENTATION: Major additions are proposed to this small house unusually located at the extreme rear of the property. A garage extension to the east. a 12 ft. addition to the south, and the existing house would all be capped by a new second floor level. The intent of these additions is to bring this one bath, no garage home more in keeping with the existing area houses. Discussions by the owner with neighbors are positive for the proposal and the change to owner occupied from rental was welcomed by them. DISCUSSION: While the proposed lot coverage is well within the Zoning criteria, the additions would require that: -the 3 ft. rear yard of the existing building be continued in an addition in lieu of Ow 30 ft required in the Zoning district. -the east interior side yard be 3 ft. instead of the 5 ft. required in the Zoning district to accommodate a proper garage width. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-148 242 Greenwood Preliminary and Final Construct a deck and attached fence accessory to a single-family residential dwelling, requiring major and fence variations. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. James Dericate — Attorney for the Owner GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A narrow deck shielded by a fence on the property line is proposed along the entire east side of the existing residence. DISCUSSION: The Committee established that neighbors to the east and south had been contacted and were not concerned about the proposal. A copy of the minutes of the relevant Preservation Commission meeting were given to the presenter which indicated that the Commission had denied a 7 ft. fence height and approved only a 6 ft. fence height. Color selection was not determined at the meeting, but assurance was given that a light color, like clear stain or white, would be used on the deck and fence. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance approval, subject to a maximum fence height of 6 ft. above grade and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 4 of 4 11/15/00 SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES November 8, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino (S.Levine), R. Dahal, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: - Other Staff: C. Ruiz, R.Fahlstrom, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting_ Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-018 800 Davis - Mixed use buildina Condition on Preliminary Review truck access to proposed loading berth location. Project proposed is a mixed use building (residential, parking, and retail). PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Tod Desmarais and Mr. Mark Witte - Optima GENERAL. PROJECT PRESENTATION: Meetings on the loading berth issue have been held between the presenters and D. Jennings + R. Dahal of the City. The new position proposed for the berths is one off the southern alley, as in the original layout, but the second is in a new location in the extreme northwest corner of the building, served off Davis Street. The increased drive width on Davis would be masked by using pavers in a "plaza" configuration on the drive which serves the berth and the parking spaces The second berth off Davis is required by zoning criteria, but with only 8K SF of retail it will not see great usage. Parking spaces have been added on other parking levels to replace the spaces removed by the second loading berth location. Low use of the southern berth is anticipated as the alley access is difficult and trucks must back down the alley into this location. Both berths will have the required 14 ft. clearance but neither can handle large, aver -the -road moving vans. It is planned that parking meters will be "hooded" on Davis Street for these vans and that the timing of this activity will be controlled by the permit process required to "hood" the meters. Page i of 6 11/08/00 DISCUSSION: Careful consideration in the design of the wider drive off Davis Street was suggested by the Committee. Pedestrian sidewalk traffic across this path is a safety concern and the Architect will study and propose warning methods for this crossing. Trucks will back into the loading berth which is a safer movement than backing out of the berth would be. Non -loading berth issues raised in the discussion were: -a covenant for access to the rear entry of the historic building on Sherman Avenue is being developer between the property owners. -demolition is planned to begin in mid -December and take 3 months. The developer will address security and site access issues created by Evanston's First Night activities directly abutting the project site on 12/31/00 and 01101/01. ACTIONS: A motion was made to remove the previous condition and grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-028 1004-1010 Church — Mixed Use Buildina Preliminary Construct a mixed use building (retail, parking, and residential units) based on a previously approved planned development with minor adjustments. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Tim Anderson, Rob Walker, and Tim Schmitt. PROJECT ADJUSTMENT PRESENTATION: As a preface to the presentation A. Alterson gave an overview for the rest of the Committee of the section in the Zoning Ordinance defining "minor adjustments" to planned developments and gave the zoning division internal view that the proposed changes all meet this minor adjustment criteria. Site plan and footprint differences from the original planned development were presented as: -a curb -cut area has been added on Maple Avenue to provide a safe drop-off space. -original chamfer at the northeast building comer has been changed to a series of notches to better integrate the base into the tower form. -the notch in the base form at the extreme northwest comer has been removed. -building height is still 170 feet, but it is not set -back from Church Street. -with the original office areas changed to residential use in this proposal the number of loading berths required by the project drops to four. Thus, the variation obtained for the original proposal to drop from 5 to 4 berths is no longer needed. Variations obtained by the original proposal. still required by the adjusted proposal are: -special use to allow a drive-thru banking function. -not building up to the property line on Maple. -a floor area ratio of 5.1. -no ziggurat set -backs will be provided on any street frontage. Page 2 of 6 11/08/00 PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS DISCUSSION: A. Alterson and J. Wolinski have made a detailed review of the adjustments proposed by this project to the original planned development and reported that they believe that the adjustments all meet the intent of the "minor adjustment" criteria. The drop-off on Maple seemed like a good adjustment by the Committee and it was verified at the meeting that the proposed accessible ramp to the Metra station will discharge on the east side of Maple far south of this project site, by the existing tunnel. The notching of the base and tower forms at the Church/ Maple corner was welcomed by the Committee and not only improved the base/ tower relationship but lessened the projects spatial impact on this intersection. Moving the parking ramp away from the alley/ Maple comer improves safety. A Committee member noted that the drive-thru direction had been reversed with the entry now from the alley and questioned the vehicle load given for this function. The load will be verified by the Architect at the next presentation. Other issues raised by the Committee in the site discussion were: -pedestrian warning methods will be proposed by the Architect for the drive crossings over the sidewalk locations. -introduction of additional glass areas or removal of walls to improve driver vision of pedestrians at the drives will be considered by the Architect. -Church and Maple walks will agree with the City's downtown streetscape. -the existing alley is newly replaced concrete pavement. -a truck movement "template" will be used to check access to the loading berths. -dashed lines on the plan show an auto "template" for the drive-thru turn. -stoma water detention is required for the project. -code issues of stair exit paths and intra-unit exit distances will be checked. Proposed overall project design was compared to Exhibit-3 from the original planned development package and found to be in substantial agreement, with all of the minor variations being considered design improvements by the Committee. PROJECT ADJUSTMENTS ACTIONS: A motion was made to recommend to the zoning administrator that the planning and design of proposed project are in substantial agreement with the original planned development and that the changes made all are within the 'minor adjustment" criteria given in pargagraph 6-3-6-12 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance and was passed by unanimous vote. PROJECT PRELIMINARY DESIGN PRESENTATION: A buff color, utility size brick base is proposed with limestone ornamentation and masonry reveals. At the top of the base a mid visual level is created through the use of an ornamental frieze and colonnaded trellis. Above this level is the residential tower with coated exposed concrete and glazed areas. It was noted that the residential balconies do not simply project from the structure, but are located in notches in the tower form. Page 3 of 6 11/08/00 PRELIMINARY DESIGN DISCUSSION: Use of utility size brick was questioned by the Committee and the use of standard size was suggested as creating a better pedestrian scale. The Architect responded that he felt that the project had a strong character and that the ubTity brick was more in agreement with the four story high base form. The Committee suggested that use of limestone intersecting the sidewalk be reconsidered for maintenance reasons and that granite was the material of choice in this location. Guardrail openings were questioned and answered with the proposed use of 2X2 steel mesh with diagonal decorative elements. Storefront question was answered with proposed use of conventional systems but with metal panels with raised diagonal elements to relate to the guardrail design. Possible use of copper on some of the base elements to upgrade the project and softening of the very top of the tower at the sky was suggested by a Committee member. Other issues raised in the project discussion were: -one retail entry is shown on the north facade, but two or more will probabty be required to serve the tenants. -awnings suggested on the Church Street side are strongly encouraged along with more extension for increased pedestrian protection. An easement from the City may be required and applying for one is also encouraged. -buff brick in the $1.100 to $1,200 per thousand cost range is planned for the project. The developer indicated that demolition is scheduled to start after the first of the year and construction to begin in February/ March-2001. The Committee noted creation of a handsome project with substantial architectural improvements over previous proposals. PRELIMINARY DESIGN ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval with recommendations to consider brick size; consider redesign at the top of the residential tower; and consider granite, or other material at walk intersections: and on the condition that proper loading berth access be demonstrated and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 4 of 6 11/08/00 SPAARC 00-141 1881 Oak Conditions on Concept Proposed 4 story office building in Research Park. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Walter Eckenhoff, Robert Plebanski, Joseph Krofel, Steve Kardel, and Nick Patera. GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The primary purpose of the presentation was to address the conditions placed on the concept approval by the Committee. Major changes shown by drawings and a study model to the site development are: -closing of east -west alley and limiting thru-courtyard traffic to north -south axis. -creation of a more pedestrian focused courtyard with less formal treatment in the northern section with a paver area housing benches and trees. -provision of a screened trash areas on each side of the drive to Emerson, between the buildings. -softening of the impact on Emerson by notching the building form at its comers and by the selection of canopy trees. In addition to the notched corners, the building now uses a different window arrangement with larger windows on the first level and all windows the double -hung type. Area "lost' in the notches has been replaced by adding a four floor to the south leg of the tee. More prominence has been given to the south entry and vertical stripes are developed in the tinted glazing in this area. Configuration of the aluminum roof mounted equipment screen has been established by additional sight line studies. A horizontal banding of the walls is indicated with a light base, a medium middle, and a relatively dark top with a possible 4" setback in the masonry. DISCUSSION: A rather lengthy discussion was held on the four "L" form courtyard versus three "L" and one "T" courtyard with arguments on both sides similar to those used at the previous presentation. For brevity they will not be repeated here, kindly refer to 10/25/00 meeting notes for this discussion. Some Committee members questioned if Emerson would ever become a regular pedestrian path over a path going south on Oak and possibly cutting through the courtyard. A Committee member suggested opening the drive on Emerson to encourage pedestrian entry at this point. This was rejected by the Architect as it would create additional vehicle/ pedestrian cross traffic. Pairing of windows to develop some rhythm to the facades was suggested by a Committee member and rejected by the developer for creating an additional limit on private office layout, a real concern for some tenants. Forming "modules" on the facades like the first scheme showed was also suggested by a Committee member and use of standard size face brick was suggested by all Committee professionals. A "guesstimate" of $404,000 for standard size brick use was given by the builder and is considered very "high side" by most Committee members. After significant discussion of building design changes it became clear that no resolution would be reached in the Committee setting. A Committee member suggested that C. Smith and other staff design professionals meet with the Architect to discuss the building design and this was agreed to by the Committee. C. Smith indicated that this meeting could occur in as soon as a day or two, if the Architect is ready. Page 5 of 6 11/08/00 The developer indicated that lack of SPAARC approval could jeopardize the projeas start date /overall schedule and possibly impact funding and final project cost. A Committee member noted that SPAARC appearance review was not binding and that with site plan approval the project could move forward. In answer to this the developer noted he wanted to establish a long range good working relationship with the Committee. ACTIONS: A motion was made to remove the previous conditions and grant concept approval for site plan only and was passed with S. Levine and C. Smith voting no. A second motion was made to table the appearance potion of this item and was passed with R. Dahal, S Levine, and J. Wolinski voting no. SPAARC DQ-114 2142 Ashland— Conversion Convert existing industrial building to three dwelling units. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. John Leineweber Final, GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: No changes in design or material use have been made on the project from the preliminary presentation. DISCUSSION: No discussion was needed on the site plan or appearance of the project. An issue concerning the requirement for a new sewer to serve the building was deferred to J. Wolinski for resolution. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 6 of 6 1 1/08/00 SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES November 1, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky (K. Kelly), L. Black (R.Waiczak), P. D'Agostino (S.Levine), D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: R.Fahlstrom, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting. Committee Business: A motion was made to approve the draft of the 10/18/00 Meeting Notes and was passed, with A. Alterson abstaining. A motion was made to approve the draft of the 10/25/00 Meeting Notes and was passed with the correction of a 25 hour typo to 24 hours to agree with Earth days, with A. Alterson and M.Mylott abstaining. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-002 Church -Davis Buildinq for McDougal Littell Concerns on Final Mixed -use 6 story building. Ground floor retail+office and upper floors all oRrce. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Bob Bunda — OWP&P GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The presentation addressed concerns raised at the previous meeting on the project on the design of the Church Street facade and the site treatment in the southern area. For the Church Street issue the canopies have been lengthened by a foot and are now planar, not curved; and the precast column covers have been removed and the aluminum clad columns are no longer engaged in the storefront wall. This site was excluded from the signage district of the Church Street Plaza with the intent that it be added when signage was being developed for it. On the southern site the ramp area has extensive landscaping around it featuring multi - stemmed crabapple trees. A guardrail with vertical elements is planned at the ramp depression. A gate with bottom barrier hung from chains is planned to limit ramp use by skateboarders. Brick paver surfacing for the site is used on all of the Church Street side and extends south to the change in massing on the building's west face. South of this point extending to Davis Street , scored gray concrete site "paving" is planned. Page 1 of 5 11/01/00 DISCUSSION: Possible alterations to the aluminum column cower detail at the walk intersection were discussed. A precast concrete transition pied has been ruled out by the Architect because of the diameter dimension required for its use Glass fiber reinforced concrete was suggested and the detail will be given further study by the Architect. Railings on the building and at the ramp depression are shown ►►fth vertical elements in a very "stock" fashion. Committee members questioned if railings more integrated into the overall building design could be developed, even using just clear glass. and if the ramp guardrail could relate more to the site design. The Architect's response was a desire to use a 'simple% visually quiet railing which let the landscaping be the primary feature of the site design and have railings not be prominent on the building. Extensive use of scored, gray concrete walk paving was strongly rejected by the Committee as being incompatible with the downtown streetscape and the design agreements reached at charrettes in the Church Street Plaza development process. A Committee member pointed out the maintenance problems that the City is experiencing with the brick paver streetscape. The developer's selection of the gray concrete was partly to address this maintenance issue and to address project cost concerns. With the "public access easement" on the site it is still forms a vital pedestrian link in downtown Evanston and should better relate to the existing streetscape design, in the Committee's opinion, and the good design character of the building should be reflected in the site design. Increasing the brick paver area to at least encompass the historic Davis Street railroad station facade and possible use of brick bordered concrete areas were suggested by a Committee member. Use of raised planting beds or planting ums was also suggested for the extreme northwest site area. Bike racks are planned but not located at this time. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval with the conditions that: -site paving be reconsidered and revisions presented to the Committee in, at most, one month. -bike rack locations will be shown in subsequent presentations. -signage will, of course, go through the normal City sign ordinance review process. and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 2 of 5 11/01/00 SPAARC 00-021 300 Dodge — Evanston Senior Center Final Construct a new senior center in James Paris. L PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Carol Ross Barney — Architect Mr. Douglas Gaynor - COE GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Mr. Gaynor indicated that the facility is on a "fast track' and that the selection of the general contractor for the negotiated contract will be presented at the next City Council meeting for approval. The intent is to construct the building in eleven months. Other than minor revisions to the parking layout, no changes have been made to the projied since preliminary approval was given by the Committee. The lot was sized to maintain the number if spaces in the existing lot modified by this construction and has 136 spaces, with 6 being accessible. DISCUSSION: A Committee member questioned if a possible "MULTI-PLEX" siting in James Park would alter the site location picked for this project. The Architects answer was no, the site had been selected to be adjacent to, but not 'in" the park and this rational would not be changed by other possible facility locations. Material colors were questioned and given as a weathered gray for the no -maintenance, wood grill screen and gray for the metal roofing of the classroom "pavilion". A Committee member complemented the Architect on creation of a beautiful building. Locations for possible artwork installation include the courtyard; the ceiling inverted pyramid form at the main entry; the north corridor wall by the main toilet/ locker room complex; and at some corridor wall locations in the classroom wings. Site development in the courtyard has a turf area and paved areas for eating and class use. A fifteen foot bike rack is currently planned at the main western entry. Signage is not in the Architect's contract and will be developed by the City. Provision of parking lot lighting was questioned and unanswered at the meeting. After the meeting it was determined that the building permit drawings show complete lighting of the lot using fixtures on 30 ft. poles. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval subject to the review of the lot lighting by the Engineering, Police, and Parks departments and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 3 of 5 11/01/00 SPAARC 00-160 1560 Sherman -- One Rotary Center Preliminary and Final Addition of two antenna to the roof of One Rotary Center. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Robert Hajek and G. Adams GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Plans, sketches, and photos indicated the position of these two antenna on the penthouse walls, well back from the roof edges. DISCUSSION: Once it was determined that the two antenna are two feet high by one foot wide and are vital to ComEd's emergency communications for outages in Evanston the discussion quickly ended. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-144 542 Sheridan Concept Install an elevator serving top two stories, bypassing the first floor unit. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr, Lawrence Conjar - Condo Owner GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The existing building is a four unit condominium with this owner occupying the second and third floor units, and another owner for the first floor and garden units. The garden unit is rented at times and the other units are owner occupied. Rough sketches show a proposed small (3' X 4') hydraulic elevator built on the outside of the existing building. The elevator would open to a common entry area at the ground level and on the second + third floors, by-passing the first floor. Construction to the interior side lot line would be required to build the elevator array in the position indicated. Basic need for the elevator is generated by the owner's heart and knee health conditions. Specific location for the elevator was selected to be on the existing vertical circulation path and to limit modifications required to the existing unit planning. DISCUSSION: While it was clear that zoning ordinance and building code issues are raised by the proposal, the Committee could not make judgement on it without more detailed elevations, site plan, and floor plans of the units. The site appeared not to be in a historic district in observations made at the meeting and this was confirmed after the meeting. ACTIONS: A motion was made to table this item and was passed by unanimous vote Page 4 of 5 11 /01 /00 SPAARC 00-028 1004-1010 Church — Mixed Use Building PnsGminary Construct a mixed use building (retail, office, parking, and 84 6% elling units) 170 ft. high and 280, 000 SF. PROJECT PRESENTER DID NOT COME TO THE MEETING SPAARC 00-114 2142 Ashland —Conversion Convert existing industrial building to three dwelling units. PROJECT PRESENTER DID NOT COME TO THE MEETING Page 5 of 5 11/01/00 Final SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES October 25, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black (R.Walczak), P. DrAgostino (S.Levine), R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz, R.Fahlstrom, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting. SPAARC 00-143 Parkina Area Resurfacina► Restrirmoina Discussion Committee Discussion of process for review and approval of resurfacing/ restripping of parking lots; what is and/or should be required, who is and/or should be involved; and 1AC considerations. An applicant was told that no permit is required for resurfacing a parking lot. This is not true and staff has been informed of this need for a permit. After some discussion it was confirmed, since all resurfacings generate restripping; and most resurfacings change the lot grading to some degree, that a building permit should be required for this class of work. C. Smith will develop a checklist for applicants for resurfacing/ restripping building permits. It was agreed that this list would include requirements for: -Completing a building permit application form. -Submitting drawing(s) of the parking area showing all paving and parking stall dimensions and location of all drainage structures (manholes, inlet basins, etc.) -Consulting with the engineering department to determine if a survey is needed. -Having a final inspection of the project by the engineering department staff when all work is complete. Page 1 of 5 10/25/00 Protects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-141 1881 Oak Concept Proposed 4 story office building in Research Park. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Waiter Eckenhoff — Architect Mr. Steve Kardel — Developer. Scribcor Capital GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Mr. Kardel gave an update of the 1880 Oak building status as a preface to the presentation of the proposed new building. The existing building is 100% rented with the largest tenant being ourhouse.com with 166 employees. Other tenants are high tech,start-up companies, NVVU, and Scribcor. Tenants seem to like the following features of the building spaces: -service by glass enclosed stairwells promotes staff use of stairs (80% out, 50% in) -operable windows allow fresh air in spaces -exposed construction and space volumes fit the corporate identities housed Scribcor Capital will close on 1890 Maple soon, which has NWU as a tenant on the upper two floors, and will close on 1033 University by year's end. Tenants attracted to the Research Park complex are generally newer companies with no long range business plans who only can look forward one year. A 12 week process for lease negotiation, building permit review, and build -out can turn some of these clients away. The building proposed at 1881 Oak incorporates all the positive features found in the existing building and will have a floor of 2,000 SF size spaces built - out, almost ready for occupancy, to address the timing issue. The building proposed for 1881 Oak has the "T" shape and overall arrangement like the 1880 Oak building. A "T" shape was selected over an "L" shape because it requires less corridor and gives more flexibility in tenant space configuration. The proposed building is larger, at 69,000 SF, than 1880 and higher. The 1881 Oak building will be four stories in the 'T" section facing Emerson and three stories in the southern "T" leg. it differs from 1880 by placing roof -top air handling package units in positions which require vertical duct shafts to be introduced into the tenant space area; it has no barrel "vault" on its upper floor; and it has a one foot higher (13') floor -to -floor height. The proposed building would again use ground face concrete block , but with the color placement reversed on the "T" legs. Facade development includes: -'punched" casement windows (taller than 1880) -generally flat elevations, with only minor horizontal projections of ornamental concrete -a "townhouse" module facing Emerson with arched windows at the module tops giving "reference" to the 1840 Oak building facade -screening of the roof -top units on the east and west has a curved top giving 'reference" to the 1880 Oak building (site line studies show that the units cannot be seen from the north sidewalk of Emerson). Building entry is proposed in the comer of the "T" off Oak and a secondary entry off the courtyard to the southeast. Loading and building service is proposed between 1881 Oak and 1890 Maple with a though drive and new curb cut to Emerson. A hard surfaced area cover with pavers is proposed in the northwest area of the courtyard for outdoor seating for tenants. Page 2 of 5 10/25/00 DISCUSSION: The use of the "T" shape vs an "L" shape was strongly questioned by the Committee. This block has always been shown in previous planning as four 'L" shaped buildings creating a well formed courtyard and this has been followed by the two existing and one under construction buildings on the site. Another question raised by the Committee was the building site relationship to Emerson Street created by a four story, uni-planar facade with little space relief from the sidewalk. All the other three buildings on the site set back somewhat from the street lines and have some recessed sections to be less imposing to pedestrians. While having different designs, they create a site harmony that seems to be broken by the proposed building. In answer to these issues the architect noted that Emerson is a very busy vehicular street with low pedestrian use and an entry with drop-off on Oafs seemed better with a more pedestrian scale. Project focus should be on the courtyard, not on Emerson in the architect's opinion. An "L" would turn its back to the 1880 --1840 complex and facing 1880 to 1881 entries to each other helps tie them together. A Committee member questioned if the general public will even notice the change in the courtyard space generated by use of the "T" shape. A good place for rapid drop-off (FEDEX, etc.) is vital to the buildings tenants and using the courtyard for this function would increase vehicle traffic in the space also used by pedestrians. Site design appears to be driven by finding a good location for this rapid drop-off service. While moving the "T" leg to the west would remove the parking shown, these spaces could be replaced in the courtyard. A Committee member called the proposal an insult to the appearance review function of the SPAARC group. Many suggestions were made by the Committee for improvements in the building facades, as follows: -use brick for the masonry areas like the three other buildings in the "quadrangle" -break up the long elevations with some changes in plane, on Emerson in particular -mark of the top story, possibly with a different material and/or inset to change scale -mark a pattern on the facades, don't just repeat the same array of elements -strive to replicate the pedestrian friendly feel generated along Maple by the 1890 building and the townhouses. Security issues for the courty rd were raised by a Committee member and answered by provisions for site lighting, hour building use, and windows overlooking all the courtyard area. Another Committee memb felt that the planning in the courtyard was too rigid and geometric. ACTIONS: A motion was madeItt deny concept approval and was voted down with H. Friedman, S. Levine, and C. Smith voting for it. Another motion was made to grant concept approval with the conditions that: -use of brick be considered and cost estimated -articulation of the Emerson Street facade (and others) be considered in the design -sight lines for roof -top equipment be checked from more locations -courtyard redesign be considered -effects of moving the south leg of the "T" west be studied -possible removal of the drive and related new curb cut to Emerson and was passed with H. Friedman, S. Levine, and C. Smith voting no. Page 3 of 5 10/25/00 SPAARC 00-142 927-931 Brummel 1201-203 Ridge) Concept Proposed fill-in of area between two sections of an apartment building to house warm air furnaces for the apartment complex. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Sam Syed and Ms.Puri GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The owners are planning for a future conversion to condominiums and are doing a gut/rehab of the buildings. Part of this work includes removal of the central heating system and installation of heating/ cooling units for the individual units. Enclosed platforms are planned at each floor in a 5' wide areaway at the rear of the building. Each platform would house the furnace units for that floor and condensing units would be located on the existing roof. Access to the platform rooms would be off the existing rear porches and thru new doors in the apartment exterior walls. DISCUSSION: This proposed construction is not visible from any street and is more a conventional building code and zoning ordinance issue than a SPAARC Committee concern. It needs no further SPAARC reviews and should follow the normal building permit application path for subsequent submissions. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval and passed with A. Alterson voting no. SPAARC 00-102 2209 Oakton — Steak n' Shake Final Consider construction of Type-1 restaurant with drive-thru facility. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Dan O'Connell, Steve Forsgren, and Matthew Anderson. GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: No changes have been made from the preliminary review. Photometrics were presented for the site lighting. Signage application is in process and will come to the Committee soon. DISCUSSION. We still love the plan flip and the siting improvements created by it. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 4 of 5 10/25/00 SPAARC 00-157 1633 Central — Manufacturer's News. Inc. Final Construct second -story addition to existing office building. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mssr. Tom Dubin, James Murray, and Dallas Williams GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Lack of a good match for the existing brick and the need for more glazing to increase offroe planning flexibility drove the select of curtain wall for the new second floor exterior. The metal panels in the non -glazed areas will be gray to match the existing limestone panels. Recesses in the existing first floor facade will be matched on the second floor and the coping will run straight over_ Second floor will be all office space. The air handling units are on the roof and back from the edges to limit their appearance. DISCUSSION: If notice of the work had been to the close neighbor was questioned and answered yes, with a positive response from the neighbors. The only zoning variation needed for the addition is the same one needed for the original construction. This was for a decreased setback from Central Street and this variation request is in process. The project includes new exterior fighting with controlled spillover. An area of the parking lot close to the building is in bad shape and will be replaced. Parking count stays the same with 22 on -site and 15 rented at a remote site. Marking of accessible stalls will be confirmed and up- dated if required. Adding landscaping somewhere on the site was encouraged. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 5 of 5 10/25/00 SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES October 18, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky (K. Kelly), L. Black (R.Wakzak), P. D'Agostino (S.Levine), R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff- C. Ruiz, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting_ Committee Business: A motion was made to approve the draft of the 10/11/00 SPAARC Meeting Notes and was passed by unanimous vote with one word in it, "toes", being changed to "ties' to generate better design and appearance with the word "railroad" before it. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-140 2424 Lake — School District 65 ConCeDt Construct early childhood center and school district administrative offices. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY. Mr. Brian Jack and Mark Banholzer — Architects (Also at presentation: Pedro Cevillos — Civil Eng., Daniel Weinbach — Landscape Architect Aldo Beltran — Designer, and Anthony Oliver — Owner Services Group) GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The project is about halfway through the Schematic Design phase and proposes a 70,000 SF facility giving around 50,000 SF to the early childhood center and 20,000 SF to the District 65 administrative offices. Input from the public and Alderperson has been received at community meetings. Proposed site is on the east bank of the North Shore Channel, facing McDaniel, in the Church/ Lake Street area and has residential uses to the east and the Martin Luther King (MLK) school to the south. Site boundaries are not legally clear at this time and a zoning analysis will be requested soon. The facility was positioned to the south on the site to preserve the open space to the north as one area. The site will be screened by landscaping on the east from the residential uses across McDaniel. A playground is located south of the building and a "captured" green space is at the end of Grove Street. Page 1 of 4 10/18/00 Ground floor houses the early childhood center, special education, Family Focus, Dis.'tri� board room, and ESCCA functions; with the District administrative offices and the Jocdm Teacher's Center being located on the second level. Overall building design presented in plans, elevations, and a study model begins from a 50,000 SF "footprint" and with mag lower on the east and rising to the west roof -top equipment screens. Forms with sloped roofs and curves are indicated with some difference between the model and the drawings mlecting the in -process state of the design. A brick base is shown with a light, transparent mass above. Main entry is on the north and bus drop-offs are on the west side, shielded from the resickential properties. A new curb cut to provide bus staging is shown on Lake Street for the MLK school. A basic premise of the site design was to keep bus staging off of city streets. Changing a portion of McDaniel to two-way traffic might aid in reaching this goal. A traffic analysis was given to R. Dahal at the meeting and it indicates that the added load can be handled by the existing streets, Many of the functions served by the building generate traffic at different times which alleviates their impact. Thirtynine parking spaces for MLK school staff use are shown in a south lot to replace the spaces removed by the new construction. A north lot has 164 spaces which serves the new building staff and visitor loads. DISCUSSION: Questions were raised by the Committee concerning the possible use of the 1314 Ridge site for the facility. The Architect said the new facility and required parking do not fit on that site and the Owner's service representative said the process required for demolition of the historic building on the site was too uncertain in both timing and outcome to be considered. Other studies have indicated the facility+parking might fit on the site and that the demolition process, while lengthy, is do -able. Changing the site at this time did not seem acceptable to the District 65 representatives who are planning to sell the site after the new facility is open. The maintenance functions currently housed on the Ridge site will not be included in this new facility and will be relocated elsewhere. Another question raised by the Committee concerned the relationship of the new building design and siting to the existing MLK school and possible creation of a "campus" containing the two educational buildings. This should be considered in future design development. It was also noted that the equipment screens appear to be very dominant in the facility massing, creating a "heavy" element in the design. Security issues of the new building shielding the MLK school playground; using berms on the east side; and recesses in the school massing all obstructing views from the street were raised by the Committee, The playground will be fenced; berms are planned to be 3 ft. high maximum; and site security lighting will be installed to improve site security. After -hour gating of the west road on the site is being considered and would also improve security. Parent pick-up of MLK school students will continue to be down McDaniel to Lake Street to the existing exit area. Some students exit from the south side of the MLK school. The MLK school staff thinks that this is a good arrangement and wants to preserve the staff parking and bus positions on both the north and south sides of the existing building. Page 2 of 4 10/18/00 A cursory view of the traffic report noticed that the distribution of traffic: traffic volumes, and drop-off/ pick-up hours should be added to the study for final review. Requirement for storm water detention was noted and will be addressed in the projects civil engineering. The architect is using the area to the existing fence at the channel as his `site' and this does not include the steep drop-off west of the fence. A motion was made and approved to allow a comment from the audience. Mr. Michael Green, a residential neighbor of the site, asked that consideration be given to the following items: -Sewer back-ups into basements are common now and he questions if the load added to the sewer system in the area by the new building will make them worse? -Parents now park in the street while waiting for students and create traffic hazards. Will the increased traffic generated by the new facility make this situation worse? -How will property values in the area be impacted by construction of this facility? ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval and was voted down with S. Nagar voting in favor. It was felt that too many unresolved traffic, drainage, and building design issues had been raised for concept approval. A motion was made to table this item and was passed, with S. Nagar voting no. Requests for special consideration of the `campus' relation to the MLK school and to lighten the equipment screen were included in this motion. SPAARC 00-134 2600 Central Park — Mitnhell Museum Final Consider conversion of existing attached garage space to library at this cultural facility. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Janice Klein — Mitchell Museum GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The infill on the opening from the removed garage door has been redesigned. The flat masonry infill has brick patterns and introduces terracotta forming symbols used on Navajo chiefs blankets. New windows openings remain unchanged from the previous presentation. DISCUSSION: A request to lower the 5'H window sills was answered with the fact that this side is on a pathway from a local school and could cause distracts to the library users at times. Some Committee members suggested that the building is an excellent example of contemporary design and maybe the infill should relate more to the overall building design than it now does. A request was made to add an address on the east side of the building for ease in emergency identification. This will be done. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed, with A. Alterson and H. Friedman voting no Page 3 of 4 10/18/00 SPAARC OO-139 1511 Monroe — Dwelling Units Concept Consider construction of six duplexes (12 dwelling units total) PROJECT REPRESENTED BY Mssr. Steven Beck and Scott Krone GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A brochure was presented which furnished principal and company backround in addition to a small scale site plan and elevation of the proposed project on the almost one acre property, currently under final purchase negotiations. The surrounding neighborhood is basically one/ two story residential structures of a nondescript architectural nature. The site could be sub -divided into six lots and used to house six duplexes with conventional front and rear yards. The design presented is intended to create a better design than this 'standard" solution by having less mass fronting on Monroe Street; giving better views from the units; and providing more variation in unit type/ size. Two clusters of three duplexes are shown in the design formed around two paved "courts' with only two drives to the alley. Each unit has two parking spaces in an attached garage and two spaces for visitors the garage apron. Material thinking includes brick, cedar siding, aluminum clad windows, and asphalt shingle roofs. Court paving will not be concrete or asphalt. The courts form "community" areas for meeting neighbors and for children playing. Yards formed in this scheme are more private than conventional back yards. Attached garages are an option many people favor over detached. DISCUSSION: Most Committee members liked the proposal but felt that more development of the site is needed to include; -better, more private treatments of the rear yards -less "turning one's back" to Monroe Street -showing relation to surrounding walks, buildings, and streets on the drawings -providing more amenities in the "courts" to form real outdoor spaces -pull units facing Monroe Street in+out or notch to break up the massing even further Some Committee members felt the development was not in keeping with the "fabric" of the area while others noted that this kind of discontinuity is common in Evanston and is one of its charms. The local Alderperson's response was generally positive, according to the presenters. Average unit price and size was requested and given as $325K and 1,600 SF respectively. Areas outside of units will be held by a "common area townhome association". Paving of the alley was suggested and the developers noted that the traffic load in the alley with the 12 units will probably be less than the current load to the existing greenhouse. The possible use of more contemporary design for the duplexes was suggested. There appears to be a good market in Evanston for more modem designs with good scale, massing, and proportions. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant concept approval and was approved with S. Nagar and M. Mylott voting no. Page 4 of 4 10/18/00 SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES October 11, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky (K. Kelly), P. D'Agostino (S.Levine), R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. MykA1. S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz, R.Fahistrom, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting_ Committee Business: Motions were made to approve the drafts of the 09/27/00 and 10/04/00 Meeting Notes and were passed by unanimous votes, with the minor revision that the 09/27/00 meeting motion for 1901 Greenbay was for preliminary and final site plan and appearance approval, with the final approval being subject to the conditions included in the notes. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-015 1210-1236 Chicano t1222 and 1224 Chicano Ave. Buildinasl Final Construct PHASE 1— FOUNDATION ONLY of three 7-story multi -family residential buildings (condominiums) and one 4-story mixed -use building (ground floor office and upper floors residential). PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Tom Roszak (Developer) and Ms. Kari Omori (Architect) GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: The project is basically the same as in the preliminary SPAARC review presentation with the following exceptions: -The upper level swimming pool house is larger with a slightly different configuration and the terraces areas are reduced. This is to accommodate a larger pool with two lap lanes and a wading area. -The Chicago Avenue facade has been developed with planter boxes, parkway trees, and recesses for planters. Recessed areas will be downlit and the exterior lights indicated on the building will be soft light, frosted lens fixtures. Page 1 of 4 10/11/00 This review is for the FOUNDATION ONLY of Phase -I which includes the 1222 and 1224 Chicago buildings and the underground storm water detention system. Phase4l will be the 1236 Chicago building and Phase -III will be the 1210 Chicago building. The interior 'courtyard" was presented as brick paver surfaced with concrete surrounds and landscaping of trees, flowers, and grasses. Some planters are used and some areas are raised beds. Benches are introduced to encourage use of the area. Electrical transfcamers against the buildings are in 3-sided cedar fence enclosures. The elevations use utility size face brick, man-made stone, and window areas. Window frames are coated aluminum, blue in brick areas and yellow in man-made stone areas, with limestone sills. Some of the man-made stone is projected in narrow bands and 16"H recesses in the brick ( W deep) mark floor lines. Edges of balconies will be galvanized steel channels and guardrails will be coated yellow. Street level storefront and pool enclosure glazing will have clear anodized aluminum framing. A galvanized steel, standing seam roof will be used on the east portion of the pool enclosure. DISCUSSION. The presenter's were reminded that swimming pools require a license from the State of Illinois. They were advised to work with S.Nagar regarding streetscape City standards for the project work in the Chicago Avenue right-of-way. The committee had the following suggestions: -Could something other than railroa toes a used to form the raised beds in the complex's "courtyard". They do not compatible with the other landscape elements in this area of the project. -The fiberglass planters should have a "sand" finish at most, too rough or smooth a finish might not work with the streetscape design. -Wheelchair access between street tree grates and the building should be checked. -Clean-up of the embankment should be pursued with the CTA. The developer has contacted the CTA without results to date. -Graffiti protection should be given to the lower portion of the west wall of the project. -Could standard size bricks be used on the project? A committee member questioned the 1210 Chicago balcony spacing of 5 ft. to the property line and the developer noted it was at this spacing in the preliminary design and no change had been made. Also, one or two of the parking spaces may be shown narrower than the 8'-6" width needed, but the project provides many more parking spaces than the City ordinance requires. The presenters were complimented on the quality of their presentation drawings. It is an excellent presentation set. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant final site plan and appearance review approval to the FOUNDATION ONLY PHASE-1 construction, not including any work on Chicago Avenue, and was passed, with H. Friedman abstaining. Page 2 of 4 10/11/00 SPAARC 00-018 800 Davis - Mixed use building Preliminary Consider ideas for mixed use building (residential, parking, and retail). PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Tod Desmzrais and Mr. David Hovey GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: A study model, schematic floor plans, and diagrammatic elevations were presented. The arrangement of residential, parking, and retail uses in the project is unchanged from the previous presentation. Still 105 condo units, 8K sf of retail, and 152 parking spaces 01 for retail = 141 for residential = 1.34 spaces per unit). Overall design scheme is a "glass towed' with strong horizontal elements generated by cast -in -place concrete balcony/ terrace guardrails. The large courtyard opening to Sherman Avenue remains in the design with some cover added over its entry point. A terraced base is provided for the tower with more openness at the Davis/ Sherman corner than last shown. An integrated design for the base and tower elements is proposed. Some variations exist between the model and elevation drawings presented and are generated from the design -in - process thinking. DISCUSSION: Use of lattice at the top of the terraced base was suggested by a Committee member. Tight existing alley access to the tandem loading berths was noted. After some discussion it was agreed that since only "short" loading berths (10' X 35') are required for the project uses by the Zoning Ordinance, the alley path would be studied by the developer using a 35 ft. long truck. The committee had the following additional suggestions: -An exit exists from the Rotary Building on the project's south property line. The developer indicated that access was being worked out with Rotary staff. -This scheme requires, as did previous ones, closing of some existing windows on the east wall of the 820 Davis building and this is being looked into by the developer. -Space for underground detention tanks should be considered and possible locations were noted by the developer at the meeting. -Possible "lightening" and "softening" of the two levels of construction over the courtyard entrance off Sherman Avenue was suggested and will be considered in the design development stage. These levels create an important transition of spatial compression to heighten the spatial expansion experienced upon entering the project's courtyard. -Concern over the quality of finish that can be maintained in cast -in -place concrete construction was expressed by the Committee. The presenters are, of course, aware of the possible problems and want a natural look to the concrete areas with some variations desired in the finish. Selection of a sand aggregate to give the concrete a warm color is in process by the designers. -Provision for bike parking was suggested by the Committee and was agreed to by the developer. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval to the project, subject to providing appropriate truck access to the loading berths and was passed by unanimous vote. It was noted that the existing Zoning Analysis was not based on the drawings presented at this meeting. Page 3 of 4 10/11/00 SPAARC 00-167 1633 Central — Manufacturer's News, Inc, Final Construct second -story addition to existing office building. PROJECT PRESENTATION WAS CANCELLED BEFORE THE MEETING. SPAARC 00-116 860 Chicaan — Main Street Newsstand Recommendation to Sign Board Install free-standing sign for retail sales establishment PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Robert Fahistrom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Sign proposed is re -use of the rehabbed historic sign from the original newsstand suspended from the underside of an "L" shaped column array. Location, 2 sidedness, and use of neon lighting are some of the variations required from the Evanston Sign Ordinance for this sign proposal. DISCUSSION: The Committee agreed that the use of the sign was good, but that the mounting proposed for the sign was not good. ACTIONS: A motion was made to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Variation Application with the conditions that the sign be mounted from below to the newsstand roof and that the top of the sign be no higher above the sidewalk than 16 ft. and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-137 1612-1520 Sherman — Bar Louis Recommendation to Sign Board Install non -illuminated canvas awning for Type-1 restaurant. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Robert Fahlstrom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: An awning was presented which contained obvious advertising elements not permitted by the Sign Ordinance. DISCUSSION: The Committee agreed that no advertising elements should be permitted on awnings in Evanston. ACTIONS: A motion was made to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Variation Application and was passed by unanimous vote. SPAARC 00-138 Communication Copies of magazine article "Using Vinyl Creatively", New Urban News, September 2000 were distributed at the meeting for future discussion. Page 4 of 4 10/11 /00 SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES October 4, 2000 Attenders: *Committee Members: P. D'Agostino(S.Levine), LBlack (R.Walczak), R.Dahal. S. Nagar, C. Smith Design Professional: None Other Staff: W.Hallen, M.Travis C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting: Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-136 2014-2018 Noves Street Preliminary and Final Subdivide one zoning lot into two zoning lots. PROJECT PRESENTED BY: Ms. Bilha Salomon GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Reconfigure three building lots (one zoning lot) into two lots. Existing house is on east lot and presented intends to construct a house on the west lot. DISCUSSION: The two resultant lots conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. ACTIONS A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES September 27, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wohnski Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz, R.Fahistrom, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting_ Committee Business: A motion was made to approve the draft of the 09/20/00 Meeting Notes and was passed by unanimous vote. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00.018 800 Davis - Mixed use building Preliminary, Consider ideas for mixed use building (residential, parking, and retail+o>ffce?). PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Tod Desmzrais GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: It was suggested that the Committee vote need not vote on the material in this presentation. The drawings indicate the direction the project design is taking and are not intended for formal approval. A zoning analysis for the development has been submitted to the City Zoning Division for review. The project contains a four story parking area in the western portion with some retail facing Davis and Sherman (approx. 8,000 SF) on the first level and some residential use Rotated on the second thru fourth floors in the northeast area of the site. Set back 40 feet from this "base' is a nine story, 105 unit, residential tower with a "U' shaped court 'niche" opening to Sherman Avenue. A portion of the basement may re -use some existing stairway and interior design elements to form a lower level retail area with references to the site's past use. A "plaza" niche is shown off Davis Street in front of the parking areas. Project loading will be off the alley at the southwest corner of the site and shows two berths, in tandem, on the south property line. Page 1 of 5 09/27/00 Many terraces are incorporated into the building design. A terraced setback at the second level is shown along Davis Street and other terraces occur on the fifth level. Recesses. iin the floors above this level will form locations for outdoors spaces associated with the residential units. The tower may have two elevator cores and some portion of the tower may be higher than the other. These issues have not been decided at this time. Proposed condo regulations will control window treatment to preserve a common exterior appearance. Terrace guardrails are solid walls to conceal non -uniform terrace fumishirigs Required parking spaces number 105 for the residential use and 23 additional for the re 'use. The developer intends to add a parking level below grade which would increase tte *space -to -unit ratio to the 1.2011.25 range. This ratio fits the results of the developer's marketing study. With the court and the "U" shaped tower the project presents a very unusual, non-rectirwew massing with many changes in plane on the facades. This geometry generates residerdral unit planning opportunities that can produce exceptional units. A diagrammatic elevation shows areas of clear glass, opaque glazing, and precast concete on the facade. While the building is basically working within zoning guidelines, it was agreed that optimizing the design should be the driving force for the project. DISCUSSION: The project's design was well received by the Committee. Some issues raised by Committee members for consideration in design development are: -Zoning district (D3) and street location combination require building to the lot line. -Zoning requires that the building must rise 24 feet before a setback is permitted- -The alley serving the loading may need improvements to handle the increased traffic. -Storm water retention must be considered in the project engineering. -A staff member suggested that clear anodizing not be used on the window frames. ACTIONS: A motion was made to table preliminary review of this project with the suggestion that a mass study model and elevation drawings would be very useful for the next review and was passed by unanimous vote SPAARC 00-130 2100 Central [within ROW] Renovate existing bus shelter. PROJECT REPRESENTER DID NOT APPEAR Page 2 of 5 09/27/00 — Alice Berg Shelter Preiiminary and Final SPAARC 00.104 1901 Craenhav Road — Currenev Exchange Preliminary and Final Consider remodeling of existing store into retail service establishment. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Andrew Wang — Architect Mr. Kevin Wiley, Mr. Barry Shaw. Mr. Jonathan Minkes - Owners GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Parking layout is now shown on the site plan and the two existing curb cuts are shown widened to improve in/out traffic flow. A small landscaped triangular area is located a the south tip of the property and a 3 ft. high hedge strip is indicated along the southern sidewalk. Bicycle parking is planned by the store entrance. The building elevation proposes removal of the existing metal facing and the openings now agree with the existing conditions. Brick in -fill of the northern opening and the north one third of the center opening is shown. DISCUSSION: It was noted that the three spaces shown in the extreme south site area require backing up for a considerable distance for exiting. This exit path also goes directly behind the other parking spaces proposed creating a very dangerous cross traffic. It was suggested by the Committee that the southern spaces be reduced in number; be at ninety degrees to the other spaces; and be used for employees only. The owner's expressed concern that this might create a security problem, but it is difficult to understand since the distance from the closest to farthest parking space is only around 50 feet. It was noted that the accessible space must be as close to the building as possible Revision to the parking at the south end of the site could result in a significant increase in the landscaped area and introduction of trees, etc. It was noted that the 3 ft. high hedge along the walk is not permitted as it would restrict driver's views of pedestrians. Possible increase of the small curb cut at the extreme northern end of the site was rejected by the Committee because the site is already served by two curb cuts. Again the Committee suggested that the metal facing above the window openings be retained and an awning over the public entrance door be used to tie this building area into the existing elements farther north on the facade. Possible use of aluminum framing with opaque glazing instead of the brick in -fill was suggested for the northern window openings, but the final design is the Architect's choice, of course. A Committee member suggested that increasing the lighting level at the site would improve security on the existing the dimly lit site. A Committee member noted extensive window signs on a currency exchange in Chicago owned by this chain. The owner's suggested that they are necessary to promote new business at some times, but the Committee noted that Evanston has severe restrictions on window signage in their Sign Ordinance that this must be complied with at all times. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review of this 'project , subject to approval of site layout by the Traffic Department; approval of landscape 'planning by the Parks and Forestry Department; and elevation review by Building Division staff and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 3 of 5 09/27/00 SPAARC 00-131 1916-1918 Maple Pretiminary and Final Consider building of roof --top deck and enclosing rear poaches on residential building. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: SPAARC secretary could not read the designer's name entered on the sign -in sheet. GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Before the presentation of this proposed work began it was noted by the Committee that the photographs of the existing building showed a two story masonry wall connecting the two buildings, closing a light well. No building permit was issued for this construction. DISCUSSION: The buildings are designated historic landmarks and the wall has been built and all the windows replaced without the required historic review. The owner, Mr. Robert Taylor, has a record with the City of constructing without obtaining building permits on other projects. The work at this address seems to be leading to a conversion to four condo units, but the condominium conversion process required by the City has not been started. Mr. James Wolinski, Director of the Community Development Department, asked the presenter to tell Mr.Taylor that no building permit applications will be considered by the City of Evanston until the illegally constructed wall is removed. 'ACTIONS: A motion was made to table this item until all work done at this property without a 'permit is removed and the work done at 1103 Garnett Place follow building permit procedures and was passed by unanimous vote SPAARC 00-132 355 Ridae - St Francis Hospital Preliminary and Final Consider installing antennas for wireless communication facility on existing building. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Bob Kelly — WFII Metricom GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Mounting of the antennas on the west facing array is pipe mounted on the penthouse wall and the north+south arrays can be pipe mounted on the parapet wall or sled mounted on the roof. 'DISCUSSION: After considerable discussion it was decided that the parapet mounting looked 'better for the north+south arrays than the sled mounting and was agreed to by Metricom. It was suggested that the west facing antennas be moved away from the existing centrally located cross. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review 'approval, provided the north+south arrays are parapet mounted and was passed, with H. Friedman voting no. Page 4 of 5 09/27/00 SPAARC 00-133 2040 Brown — Over -the -Rainbow Association Preliminary and Final Consider installation of an emergency generator for a sheltered care home. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Chris Callahan GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: Proposal consists of installating a package emergency generator on an existing loading area pad with steel bollard protections, adjacent to the existing dumpster area. DISCUSSION: Some discussion concerning the possible fencing of the generator area was held by the Committee, but the security issues raised by its use negated the suggestion_ Additional planning of the generator location was suggested by some Committee members. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed, with M. Mylott and S. Nagar voting no. SPAARC 00-134 2600 Central Park — Mitchell Museum Preliminary and Final Consider conversion of existing attached garage space to library at this cultural facility. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Janice Klein GENERAL PROJECT PRESENTATION: About 10,000 people visit the museum yearly, including around 6,000 students. They have an acute need for additional library space which will be provided by this project. DISCUSSION: The elevation drawing of the in -fill at the removed overhead door location was difficult to understand. Some lines seem to imply depth to the masonry work, but the plan shows a flat plane. The presenter agreed that the in -fill design was flexible and all agreed that it will be better than the garage door. Elevations will be clarified for final review. 'The Committee noted that the curb cut and drive must be removed and the presenter said 'they would continue the existing parkway treatment of grass. The presented will work with the 'Parks and Forestry Department for the possible addition of two trees in the parkway. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary (final deferred) site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote SPAARC 00-099 1801 Maole - Metricom (Added at meetinal Preliminary and Final Consider installing antennas on an existing building for wireless communications. PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Robert Kelly — Metricom GENERAL. PROJECT PRESENTATION: A pipe mount for the south antenna array, which was excluded from the 9/20 meeting approval, is proposed, but the sled mount is still possible. DISCUSSION: A pipe mount on the parapet was agreed to by the Committee and Metricom. ACTIONS: A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval and was passed by unanimous vote. Page 5 of 5 09/27/00 Proposed amendments to 9127100 SPARC Minutes ... underline is new text, 6trW4PQ at is text to be deleted. General Project Presentation @ 800 Davis Street should read, 'Parking spaces number 105 for the residential use and 23 additional for the retail use_ The developer intends to dd a parking level below grade which would increase the space -to -unit ratio to the 1.20/ 1.25 range. This ratio fits the results of the developer's marketing study." Committee action @ 1901 Green Bay Road should read, 'A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review of this project, subject to site review and aooroval of the landscape plan by the Department of Parks and Forester and review and aooroval of &e configuration of the parkino area by the Department of Transportation. This motion and was passed by unanimous vote." Committee action @ 1916-1918 Maple Avenue should read, 'A motion was made to table this item until such time that all work conducted without a Hermit at this arooertv is removed. provided structural integrity is not compromised. and work conducted at 1103 Garnett Piace conducted without a Dermit follows oroper Citv procedures- This motion aAd-was passed by unanimous vote.' Discussion @ 355 Ridge Avenue should read, "After considerable discussion it was decided that pioe-mountino the antennas within the north and south arrays to the parapet looked better than the parapet-nae sleds and was agreed to by Metricom.' Committee action @ 355 Ridge Avenue should read, "A motion was made to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the north and south arrays are oioe-mounted to the parapet, and was passed, with H. Friedman voting no " The end of the Discussion @ 2600 Central Street should include, 'The Committee noted that the curb cut and associated concrete would have to be removed. The applicant stated that thev would continue the existing treatment of the right-of-way (grass). The Committee advised the aoplicant to work with the Department of Parks and Forestry as the rioht-of-wav apoeared long enough to accommodate two additional. street trees." General Project Presentation @ 1801 Maple Avenue should read, "A pipe mount for the south antenna array, which was excluded from the 9/20 meeting approval, is proposed for either the paraoet wall of the building (Option 1) or the top of the south penthouse wall (Option 21 SITE PLAN and APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES September 27, 2000 Attenders: Committee Members: A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahat D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinsio Design Professional: H. Friedman Other Staff: C. Ruiz, R.Fahlstrom, W.Hallen C. Smith (chair) determined that a quorum existing and began the meeting: Committee Business: A motion was made to approve the draft of the 09/20/00 Meeting Notes and was passed by unanimous vote. Proiects Reviewed: SPAARC 00-018 800 Davis - Mixed use building Preliminar►r Consider ideas for mixed use building (residential, parking, and retail+office?). PROJECT REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Tod Desmzrais GENERAL_ PROJECT PRESENTATION: It was suggested that the Committee vote need not vote on the material in this presentation. The drawings indicate the direction the project design is taking and are not intended for formal approval. A zoning analysis for the development has been submitted to the City Zoning Division for review. The project contains a four story parking area in the western portion with some retail facing Davis and Sherman (approx. 8,000 SF) on the first level and some residential use located on the second thru fourth floors in the northeast area of the site. Set back 40 feet from this `base' is a nine story, 105 unit, residential tower with a "U" shaped court "niche" opening to Sherman Avenue. A portion of the basement may reuse some existing stairway and interior design elements to form a lower level retail area with references to the site's past use. A "plaza" niche is shown off Davis Street in front of the parking areas. Project loading will be off the alley at the southwest corner of the site and shows two berths, in tandem, on the south property line. Page 1 of 5 09/27/00 x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 15r 2000 Room 2404 Members Present J. Aiello, A. Alterson, A. Berkowsky (for K Kelly), L. Black, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. JennkVs, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. WoGnsia. Members Absent Design Professional Present Design Professional Absent H. Friedman. Other Staff Present M. Barry, B. Fahistrom, M. Franz. S. Janusz, S. Levine, S. Lufkin, J. Minear, M. Robinson. M. Rubin, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, M. Travis. Others Present Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 97-0065 Church Street Plaza Construct hotel (Hilton Gardens) within Church Street Plaza. Final Mr. Robert Fischel (archdcect) and Mr Craig McKenzie (developer) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations (one set blue line, one set colored), and a landscape plan to construct a hotel (HHton Gardens) within Church Street Plaza. R. Fishel stated that they would submit an Application for Building Permit tomorrow. M. Mylott asked the applicants- are the drawings you are presenting to the Committee the same as those you would submit with your Application for Building Permit? R. Fishel responded: yes, except at the entrance. R. Fishel stated that today's drawings accurately show a cast -stone base surrounding the entrance: the permit drawings show brick around the entrance. R. Fishel stated that he was charged with converting the Hilton Garden prototype to an urban hotel; this site is approximately 0.8 acres whereas typical Hilton Gardens occupy 'a couple acres'. SUMMARY OF FtNUNGS SM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIu f TEE Marry 15, 2000 Pape 1 of 9 X hotel, north of Cie parking garage. The maintenance of the area between the hotel and the parking garage has not yet been discussed; it may be covered with a low -maintenance ground cover. C. Smith stated that the 8-foot screen wall, located between the hotel and the parking garage, parallel to Maple Avenue. should be a material that permits natural surveillance, such as wrought iron fence. J. Aiello stated that the City or the applicants might locate a surveillance camera along t�- :' "Icr as well. J Aietio stated that the City wanted to allow persons to pass through the space between the south side of the hotel and the north side of the parking garage. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that other buildings may be built west of this site; persons coming to or from these buildings should be able to pass between the hotel and the parking garage. C. Smith stated that these buildings might not have doors located within their east elevations. R. Fishel stated that they would worts with the City on designing this area. L. Black stated that the design should ensure that the south side of the hotel does not look like 'the absolute back side of a building'. R. Fishel stated that this elevation does not include any windows at the ground Roof. C. Smith stated that, on the other hand. the City would want as many people along the streets as possible. R. Fishel stated that they would prefer to have people along the streets as well. J. Aiello stated that the City would discuss this issue with the appl:cants. D. Jennings stated that he is not concerned about pedestrians crossing the driveway from potential buildings to the west of the hotel, or vice versa, because traffic entering and exiting the parking garage at that location would be very slow. R. Fishel stated that they could change material within the pavement or include stripping if such pedestrian movements were a concern. 7. the standard light fixtures used along Maple Avenue, They would took to Teska for suggestions for lighting along University Place. J. Aiello stated that the light fixtures would be the same as those in place now -- Davit Arm. 8. only 'hotel -specific' signage, no roof signs. The sign along the University Place and Maple Avenue fagade would read 'Hilton'. not 'Hilton Gardens', and include the logo. 9. the same brick as that used upon the main pavilion and the parking garage. Dark mortar would be used near darker brick. The elevations would also include composite metal panels, colored patina green, at the comer and above the arcade. 10. 2-inch by 2-inch reveals within the buff -colored EIFS. Near the comer of University Place and Maple Avenue, the windows are designed to appear as 'punches'; this detail 'anchofs the comer'. Only approximately 50 percent of the fagades are EIFS. 11. metal brackets, ranging in depth from 6 to 14 inches, supporting a metal eyebrow. 12. aluminum window systems, colored patina green, matching the metal panels. The glass would be clear. Grills, installed within the same plane as the frame, would cover the air-conditioning units. The interior window treatment of hotel rooms would include'blackout' drapes, sheers, and over drapes. 13. no lighting at the corner. Up lighting would create problems for the guestrooms. R. Fishet stated that the building would include 'a lot of articulation and reveals to produce shadows'. SUMMARY OF F94DUJGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COLW TEE M- rl: 15.2OW ]$ Paps 3 d 9 it A. Afterson responded: yes. J. Aiello asked A Alterson: could the applicant use the space as office? A AXerson responded. yes. R_ Schur asked the applicants: would you sell or lease the retail spaces? M Winfeld responded: we are not certain yet. 2. 42 duelling units within the upper seven stories; six dwelling units per floor The dwett{i V units would be condominiums. The Zoning Ordinance permits 44 dwelling units The lobby would have its own entrance, separate from the retail entrances. The dwelling units would range in size from 900 sq ft to 1,100 sq,ft, providing a mix of one- and two -bedrooms units plus studies: the units would cost from $170,000 to $220.000. 3. 42 parking spaces — approximately % above grade and approximately % below grade. The site plan includes two accessible parking spaces. The at -grade entrance to the parking area would be along the north side of the building; vehicles would exit along the south side of the building at grade. D. Jennings stated that, at the last neighborhood meeting, neighbors expressed that they do not want persors to be able to walk from Asbury Avenue to Dobson Street. L. Black stated that the applicant could install a wrought Iron fence. C. Fell stated that they would look at that suggestion. C. Ruiz asked the applicants: is the exterior of the parking garage trick? C. Fell responded: at this time. C Ruiz asked the applicants: what is the darker area along the southern elevations? C. Fell responded: the louvers for the parking garage J. Aiello asked the applicants: what type of lighting would you include within the parking garage? M. Winfield responded: we have not yet developed that element J Aiello stated that she is concerned viat light would shine out from the parking garage. especially to the second -story bedroom located immediately east of the subject property. A Afterson agreed D. Jennings stated that aw lights from vehicles going up the ramp could create similar impacts. J. Aiello stated that V* applicants should consider screening at critical locations. D. Jennings stated that a barrier wal would screen vehicles: no vehicles should be visible within the parking garage. J. Aiello stated that the parking garage needs to be more secure. L Black and D. Marino agreed. J. Aiello stated that she is concerned that someone could climb into the garage from the rear. B. Fahlstre - _-- led that the applicants could use architectural bars. M. Mylott stated that the applicants should consider putting a door across the entrance and exit to the parking garage; the applicants could include a mirror, allowing persons to see if the entrance door is open. D. Jennings stated that secure parking may be more marketable as well D. Jennings stated that this building would not have enough parking spaces; given City studies, it would be approximately 20 parking spaces short D Jennings stated that on -street parking in the immediate area is limited. D. Jennings stated that he would like to review the configuration of the exit onto Asbury Avenue; it may create a blind spot. D. Jennings stated that he would like to review the turning radii for the parking garage M. Travis stated that the double -wide module is too small by approximately 5 feet C. Fell stated that they would review that standard. SUMMARY of FtMDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REViEW COIMMMEE Mardi 15, Y0W Pape s d g x SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 15, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Aiterson, A. Berkowsky (for K. Kelly), L. Black, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Woiinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: M. Barry, B. Fahlstrom, M. Franz, S. Janusz, S. Levine, S. Lufkin, J. Minear, M. Robinson, M. Rubin, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, M. Travis. Others Present Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 1.05 p.m. SPAARC 97-MS Church Street Plaza Construct hotel (Hilton Gardens) within Church Street Plaza. Final Mr. Robert Fischel (architect) and Mr. Craig McKenzie (developer) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations (one set blue line. one set colored), and a landscape plan to construct a hotel (Hilton Gardens) within Church Street Plaza. R. Fishel stated that they would submit an Application for Building Permit tomorrow. M. Mylott asked the applicants- are the drawings you are presenting to the Committee the same as those you would submit with your Application for Building Permit? R. Fishel responded: yes, except at the entrance. R. Fishel stated that today's drawings accurately show a cast -stone base surrounding the entrance; the permit drawings show brick around the entrance. R. Fishel stated that he was charged with converting the Hilton Garden prototype to an urban hotel; this site is approximately 0.8 acres whereas typical Hilton Gardens occupy couple acres'. SULWARY Of FINDINGS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE: REVIEW COWAM'EE March 15. 2" a Papa 1 or 9 �il R. Fishel stated that the design would include: a covered arcade along Maple Avenue, connecting the hotel with the parking garage. The arcade would provide 15 feet dear height: The hotel and the City will need an easement agreement, hn►ung the arcade to the parking garage The arcade would include wall sconces, providir,5 ..yhting, as well as recessed fighting The columns comprising the arcade would be 5-feet wide and 3-feet deep. L. Black stated that she is concerned that someone Could hide Behind the columns. R. Frshell stated that the arcade would have 'eyes' on both sides. L. Black stated that those 'eyes' would not be present 24 hours per day 2. entrances at the front and back of the hates These entrances are of equal ky*Kxtance. A painted steel canopy, projecting out from the arcade, would cover the Maple Avenue entrance. The rear entrance would include a 22-foot high volume with a clear story. 3. three public sides. C. Ruiz asked the applicants: why are three windows at the ground floor of the north elevation smaller than the other ground -floor windows? R. Fishel responded: because the interior office space at those locations in only 81A feet high C Ruiz stated that the applicants could use spandrel glass to produce windows that appear to the same height across the ground floor: the applicants could even use metal panels matching the color used elsewhere on the building. C. Smith agreed. C. Smith stated that she does not mind the two windowless areas immediately west of the three smaller windows C. Ruiz asked the applicants: why does the northern elevation include such a large windowless area? R. Fishel responded: this area would contain the sides of guestrooms and the stairwell. C. Smith stated that this area could have glass. R. Fishel stated that the issue is 'one of cost. nothing e,» . C. Ruiz stated that more windows would make the elevation look more like a primary elevation. C. Smith agreed, and stated that the northem elevation begins to 'degenerate" without the windows. 4. meeting spaces and a pool deck toward the rear of the hotel. The hotel would also include in. house laundry service and a mechanically ventilated exercise room. 5. Church Street Plaza (CSP) pavers and landscaping along Maple Avenue and at the southwest comer of University Place and Maple Avenue. The sidewalk from the comer west would be an aggregate, poured -in -place concrete; pervious surface would be grass, matching the north side of University Place P. D'Agostino stated that the trees along Maple Avenue would be Maple trees. the remaining trees would be Honey Locust trees. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you discussed newspaper stands, vending machines, or bicycle racks? R. Fishel responded- no. J Aiello stated that she believes that such features would be part of the Teska 'master plan', and considerable bicycle parking would be provided within the parking garage. A. Alterson stated that, if the bicycle parking were not visible, people would chain bicycles to street fixtures. 6. an 8-foot high screen wall along the service area and between the hotel and parking garage, parallel to Maple Avenue. The plans include some mechanical units along the south side of the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 15, 2000 Page 2 of 9 hotel, north of the parking garage. The maintenance of the area between the hotel aW the parking garage has not yet been discussed; it may be covered with a iow4mn4&nance ground cover. C. Smith stated that the i3-foot screen wall, located between the hotel and the parking image, parallel to Maple Avenue, should be a material that permits natural surveillance. such as wrought iron fence. J. Aiello stated that the City or the applicants might locate a surveillance camera along th- ; --- Ior as well. J. Aiello stated that the City wanted to allow persons to pass UUZKtgh the space between the south side of the hotel and the north side of the park:ng garage_ A Alterson agreed, and stated that other buildings may be built west of this site. persons coming to or from these buildings should be able to pass between the hotel and the park-ng garage_ C. Smith stated that these buildings might not have doors located within their east elevations. R. Fishel stated that they would work with the City on designing this area. L Black stated that the design should ensure that the south side of the hotel does not look like 'the absolute back side of a building'. R. Fishel stated that this elevation does not include any windows at the ground floor. C. Smith stated that, on the other hand, the City would want as many people along the streets as possible. R. Fishel stated that they would prefer to have people along the streets as well. J. Aiello stated that the City would discuss this issue with the applicants. D. Jennings stated that he is not concerned about pedestrians crossing the driveway from potential buildings to the west of the hotel, or vice versa, because traffic entering and exiting the parking garage at that location would be very slow. R. Fishel stated that they could change material within the pavement or include stripping if such pedestrian movements were a concern. 7. the standard light fixtures used along Maple Avenue. They would look to Teska for suggestions for lighting along University Place. J. Aiello stated that the light fixtures would be the same as those in place now - Davit Arm. 8. only "hotel -specific' signage, no roof signs. The sign along the University Place and Maple Avenue fagade would read "Hilton', not'Hifton Gardens% and include the logo. 9. the same brick as that used upon the main pavilion and the parking garage. Dark mortar would be used near darker brick. The elevations would also include composite metal panels, colored patina green, at the comer and above the arcade. 10. 2-inch by 2-inch reveals within the buff -colored EIFS. Near the comer of Unrverso Place and Maple Avenue, the windows are designed to appear as 'punches"; this detail 'anchors the comer". Only approximately 50 percent of the facades are EJFS. 11. metal brackets, ranging in depth from 6 to 14 inches, supporting a metal eyebrow 12. aluminum window systems, colored patina green, matching the metal panels. The glass would be clear. Grills, installed within the same plane as the frame, would cover the air-conditioning units. The interior window treatment of hotel rooms would include 'blackout" drapes, sheers, and over drapes. 13. no lighting at the comer. Up lighting would create problems for the guestrooms. R. Fishel stated that the building would include 'a lot of articulation and reveals to produce shadows'. SUMMITRY OF FWMGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWAi1TEE March 15. 2000 Page 3 or 9 X C. Ruiz stated that the applicants should consider eliminating the two middle crhsmns at the Maple Avenue entrance because they may obstruct pedestrian movements. R. Fishel stated that the plans would provide approximately 7 feet between the door and the columns; also, the oar is a revoking boor C. Smith stated that the applicants should provide one automatic door with a cus'i plate at the Maple Avenue entrance. D. Jennings stated that the plans do not yet include a taxi stand; if such a feature was added, he would suggest locating it along University Place, not in front of the hotel. A Alterson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review apprveail, including a strong recommendation that the applicant (1) include windows within the northern elevation at the approxznate location of the stair well, (2) address the three smaller windows along the ground floor of the norU*rn elevation, and (3) work with the City on resolving the treatment of the space besveen the hotel and the parking garage. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that the Planned Development Ordinance :-tight have given the Committee binding authority regarding appearance; he would check further on this issue - A. Alterson stated that he hoped that the applicant would act or. the Committee strong recommendations, considering how closely the City has worked wth the applicant on this project. C. Smith stated that she hoped that the applicant would act an the strong Committee recommendations, considering that the applicant asxed the Committee to accept an EIFS building. Committee anoroved the motion t11-01 to arant final site plan and apoearance rev-4-ew aooroval, includinq a strong recommendation that the applicant: (1) include windows within the nort,em elevation at the approximate location of the stair well. (2) address the three smaller windows along the around floor of the northern elevation. and (3) work with the Citv on resolving the treatment of the sc.ace between the hotel and the parking garage. SPAARC 00-018 121 Asbury Avenue Preliminary Construct 8-story mixed -use development (ground -floor retail and residential wifhtn "* upper Floors). Mr. Jean -Baptiste Lionel (attorney), Mr. Michael Winfield (developer), Mr. Kevin Brawn (developer), and Mr. Clark Fell (architect) presented Application for Zoning Analysis #00-156-ZA, inducting a site plan, floor plans, elevations, building sections, plat of survey, and site and area photographs, to construct an 8-story mixed -use development (ground -floor retail with residential within the upper floors) a: 121 Asbury Avenue. C. Fell stated that the subject property is the former site of the Arby's restaurant. C. Fell stated that the design would include: two ground -floor retain spaces, with individual entrances A. Alterson stated that, at one time, the applicant presented a concept to the Zoning Division for one retail space. M. Winfield stated that splitting the ground4l000r space ar;to two retail spaces provided more flexibility; however, given the location of the lobby, both spaces could still be occupied by one tenant. J. Aiello asked A. Alterson: is ground -floor commercial required here? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Mareh 15, 2000 Page 4 of 9 x A. Alterson responded: yes. J. Aiello asked A. Atterson- could the applicant use the spare as office? A Alterson responded. yes. R. Schur asked the applicants: would you sell or lease the retail spaces? Nil Wirfield fesperded: we are not certain yet 2. 42 dweging units within the upper seven stories: six dwelling units per floor The dwethng units would be condominiums. The Zoning Ordinance permits 44 dwelling units. The lobl5y would have its own entrance, separate from the retail entrances. The dwelling units wcuW range in size from 900 sq.ft. to 1,100 sq.ft., providing a mix of one- and two -bedrooms units plus studies the units would cost from $170,000 to $220.000. 3. 42 parking spaces — approximately % above grade and approximately % below grade. The site Plan rnGudes two accessible parking spaces. The at -grade entrance to the parking area would be along the north side of the building: vehicles would exit along the south side cf the building at grade D. Jennings stated that, at the last neighborhood meeting, neighbors expressed that they do not want persons to be able to walk from Asbury Avenue to Dobson Street L. Black stated that the applicant could install a wrought iron fence C. Fell stated that they would look at that suggestion. C. Ruiz asked the applicants: is the exterior of the parking garage brick? C. Felt responded. at this bale. C. Ruiz asked the applicants: what is the darker area along the southern elevations? C. Fell responded: the louvers for the parking garage J. Aiello asked the applicants: what type of lighting would you include within the parking garage? M. Winfield responded: we have not yet developed that element. J Aiello stated that she is concemed that light would shine out from the parking garage, especiatty to the second -story bedroom located immediately east of the subject property A. Alterson agreed D. Jennings stated that the lights from vehicles going up the ramp could create similar impacts. J. Aiello stated that the applicants should consider screening at critical locations. D. Jennings stated that a barrier wall would screen vehicles: no vehicles should be visible within the parking garage. J. Aiello stated that the parking garage needs to be more secure. L. Black and D. Marino agreed. J. Aiello stated that she is concerned that someone could climb into the garage from the rear. B. Fahlstrc— .-•,,!ed that the applicants could use architectural bars. M Mylott stated that ttie applicants should consider putting a door across the entrance and exit to the parking garage, the applicants could include a mirror, allowing persons to see if the entrance door is open. D Jennings stated that secure parking may be more marketable as well D. Jennings stated that this building would not have enough parking spaces: given City studies, it would be approximately 20 parking spaces short. D. Jennings stated that on -street parking in the immediate area is limited. D. Jennings stated that he would like to review the configuration of the exit onto Asbury Avenue, it may create a blind spot D. Jennings stated that he would like to review the turning radii for the parking garage M. Travis stated that the double -wide module is too small by approximately 5 feet. C. Fell stated that they would review that standard. SUMMARY OF FiNDfNC" Ss UGC SITE PUN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COLA TTEE March 15, Z)W Page 5 of 9 it 4. a laad>ing door along Asbury Avenue. R. Dahal asked the applicants: who would control access to the loading area? M Winfield responded: we have not yet addressed that issue. D. Jennings stated that the retail operators) would control the loading area; residents moving into the building would not use the loading area. 5. a near yard setback of approximately 15 feet. This setback would not inciude a fence, but would be landscaped, 'almost giving an additional 15 feet of yard to the neighbors'. The residentirat portion of the building would be approximately 70 feet from the rear lot line. brick and glass as the primary building materials. The size of the brick has yet to be determined, the drawings depict modular brick The style of architecture was very cDmmoon during the 1950's and 1960's; it is a very economical construction type. C. Swum stated that she would discourage the applicants from using utility or jumbo bk*. C. Smith stated that the style of architecture the applicant suggests developed prior to utility or jumbo tuck; to use this larger brick would be very contradictory to the style D. Marino stated that he is uncertain why the applicants would select this style of architecti.rre; the building looks like a dormitory. C. Fell stated that this style of architecture is very common along the lake: however, this building doesn't replicate that style, rather it is a modem interpretation. C. Smut► stated that the design is 'really nice'; it is very clean. C. Smith stated that the interpretation of the style works well, whether one likes the style or not M. Mylott stated that the applicant should give strong consideration to removing the masonry from the area within the western elevation, immediately across from the elevators. M. Mylott stated that changing this material to glass would greatly help reduce the mass of the building while adding to the prominence of the entrance, A. Alterson and C. Smith agreed. C. Smith stated that, while she can appreciate that the masonry helps reduce heat gain to that area, the benefit of changing material outweighs the cost. C. Smith stated that the windows could be treated with glazing to reduce heat gain. M. Mylott stated that the windows into the elevator lobbies would add additional life to the building, and persons within the lobbies would additional 'eyes on the street'. C Fell stated that they wanted to include benches within those lobbies, and that masonry wall may be the only location for such a feature. M. Myiott stated that he rarely sees persons use benches or seats within elevator lobbies, especialty for a building of this size with two elevators. C. Smith stated that seating could still be situated against this wail, even if it was glass. J. Wolinski stated tttat the ward alderman wants to meet with the applicants, and she would like to have a neighborhood meeting J Wolinski stated that the neighbors well ask the applicants for a shadow study. J. Walinski stated that this site has been vacant for approximately 10 years; the Arby's restaurant was vacant several years before that. J. Wolinski stated that the proposed use is better than a strip shopping center, his only concern is the height and density. R. Schur asked the applicants: do you have site control? M Winfield responded: we have a letter of intent, giving us site control until the end of May. J. Wolinski asked Me applicants. what is your time line? M. Winfield responded. we would like to start construction this summer D. Marino stated that he believes this item should be tabled to allow the applicants to responded to Committee comments SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 15, 2000 Page 6 or 9 h D. Marino motioned to table this item to allow the applicants tG respond to Committee concerns alert site configuration, parking, access, security, and zoning issues. A Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Jennings stated that the applicants should expand the site plan to include the neighboring properties. J. Lionel asked the Committee: how long would Ft take to get back cn the Committee agenda? J. Wolinski responded: the timing rs up to yccr, this Committee meets every week. Committee aooroved the motion (MI to table this item to allow the aooficants to resoond to Committee concerns about site configuration. oarkina. access. security. and zonina issues. The site plan, floor otans, elevations, building sections, plat of survey, and site and area photographs have been places witrnn the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-018). SPAARC 00-017 1450 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Renovate facade for We 1 restaurant (Tommy Nevin's Pub) Ms. Healy Rice (architect) presented Application for Building Permit *00-162, including a site plan and color elevations, building material samples, and site photographs to renovate the facade for the type I restaurant (Tommy Nevin's Pub) located at 1450 Sherman Avenue. H. Rice stated that the tenant wishes to convert the facade to a traditional Irish facade; people assume the restaurant is associated with Holiday Inn across the street. H. Rice stated that: 1. the length of this facade is approximately SO feet long. M. Mylott asked H. Rice: does this project include the Old Orleans restaurant to the north? H. Rice responded: no. 2. the existing awnings and the existing wood paneiing and wood mullions would be removed. Green @urn windows and green glazed tile exist under the wood, M. Mylott asked H. Rice: would you install new awnings? H. Rice responded: no. 3. the existing lights would remain. 4, the facade would be constructed of Fypon -- a polymer denser than Styrofoam. The facade would be placed over the existing brick. M. Mylott stated that he questions whether or not this material should be continued to the ground. H. Rice stated that, if the material were abused, it would be replaced with finish grade plywood. C. Smith stated that she would recommend using wood up to the bottom of the signage; this area is simply too vulnerable to use Fypon. A. Alterson asked H. Rice: how expensive is Fypon compared to wood? H. Rice responded: it is more expensive, but it much easier to maintain, SUMMARY OF FINDWG.S SRE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COk*A TTEE March 15.20DO 4 . Page 7 of 9 x especially In terms of painting. H. Rice stated that Fypon does not crack. shrink, swett, or move as wood does. S. the signage would be gold lettering at both sides of the comer C. Smith stated that signage would be reviewed under a separate permit, however, she believes that the signage is too large. A Attea-son disagreed_ C. Ruiz stated that the size of the sign has not yet been finalized. C. Smith stated that the Guinness sign must be removed. H. Rice stated that the applicants have agreed to remove that sign. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant use wood below the tablature. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson asked M. Mylott to amend his motion to include a condition that arty ` changes to the Mpde be done in a manner that does as little damage as possible to the underlying facade. M. Mylott amend the motion as such: grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided: (1) the applicant use wood below the tablature, and (2) any changes to the facade be done in a manner that does as little damage as possible to the underlying facade. P. D'Agostino amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motion (7-2) to grant Preliminary and final site plan and appearance review aooroval. orovided: (1) the applicant use wcx)d below the tabtsIture- and (21 anv chances to the facade be done in a manner that does as little damage as Possible to the unc_te_ rlvina facade. J. "lo and J. Wolinski cast the dissenting votes, The site plan, elevations, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-017). SPAARC 00-019 Wireless Communication Facilities Discussion Schedule special meeting to discuss processing wireless communication facility appli+caWns. M. Mylott motioned to table this Item. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (9- 01 to table this item. SPAARC 99-066 2024 McCormick Boulevard Preliminary Expand ecology center building. Ms. Linda Lutz (Director of the Ecology Center), Mr Charles Smith (President of the Evanston Environmental Association and Chairman of the Ladd Arboretum Committee), and Ms. Cindy Muller (architect) presented a color rendering to expand the Ecology Center at 2024 McCormick Boulevard. Crlyn. Smith stated that some members of the Committee were concerned that the proposed changes to the building were a significant change to a building with a strong existing character. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 15. 2000 Page a of 9 Chs. Smith stated that the expansion to the Ecology Center was proposed in the currwc mainner because: the existing roof is ditcult to maintain; it needs much repair The onginai design trapped rain and snow. Also, the addition would place approximately 'A of the existing under a new roof. Changing the entire roof is more economical rather than continuing to make repaws 2. the new roof is easier on the environment and more efficient in terms of heating and coiling. C. Muller stated that the new character of the building would be more 'woodsy': the openntss is part of the design. Crtyn. Smith asked the applicants: what type of roof would you install? C. Muller nespondied: a standing -seam metal roof. C. Muller stated that they are considering patina green to blend with the tops of the trees. Crtyn. Smith stated that, while she is sympathetic to the long-term maintenance issues, she is conc>amed about the chanvc .,-e character of the building; she is sad to see such a dramatic change to well-done architecture. Crtyn. Smith stated that she would prefer to see repairs to the existing building. and the construction of a separate pavilion. M. Rubin stated that he has repaired the roof a couple of times J. Wolinski stated that the changes are more consistent with the ideals of the Ecology Center P. D'Agostino stated that the Committee reviewed and approved the same concept for the roof last fall; changes should have been suggested at that time. L. Lutz stated that this project has been Lhrou . 12 neighborhood meetings. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (10-0) to grant oreliminary site plan and appearance review approval. The color rendering has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-066). Approval of Summary of Findinas C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the March #, 2000 meeting. J. Aaelio seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (10-01 to approve the Summary of Findings karn the March 1, 2000 meeting. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 5:06 p.m. Rlly submitted, 77 Z!L lL )—' Ae Ca32 Jo Ann Minear Recording Secretary SLIAAARY OF F1NOti = SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COM11 rIEE March 15, 2WO PaP9ar9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 8, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Abe ,--!: Design Professional Present Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, P. D'Agoatino, R. Dahal, D. Marnno, M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. A. Alterson, D. Jennings. K. Kelly. H. Friedman. M. Barry, M. Franz, S. Lufkin, J. Minear, M. Robinson, M. Rubin, C. Ruiz, M. Mylott stated that he would act as Zoning Administrator for matters relating to a quorum. C. Smth (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-016 2645 Prairie Avenue Prellminary and Final Renovate fagade for type t restaurant (Jacky's Bistro). Mr. Benjamin Neuberg (contractor) presented Building Permit Application #M142. including a site plan, floor plans, and elevation, a plat of survey, a color elevation, and material samples to renovate the facade for a type I restaurant (Jacky's Bistro) located at 2545 Prairie Avenue. B. Neuberg stated that owner of the Wmnetka Grill purchased the building. B. Neuberg stated that the location of the entrance would remain the same. B. Neuberg stated that the owner would like to cover the aluminum tube storefront system with stained oak; the original system would remain underneath. 8. Neuberg stated that, if they cannot get a good seal between the oak and the aluminum and gtass. the system may be designed to be removable. B. Neuberg stated that the signage world remain at the same place. B. Neuberg stated that they would install retractable awnings; the awnings would be sienna and include scallops along the bottom. C. Smith told B. Neuberg that the previous owner had problems with customers parking illegally for pickups. B. Neuberg stated that this restaurant would have no pickups or delivery. B. Neuberg stated that the meals would cost, on average, between $18 to $20. B. Neuberg stated that the owner is trying to arrange for valet parking. SUWAARY of FftX* S SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWAMEE IWreh 8, 2= Page 1 d 4 F_3 C Smith sued that the awnings reoLad be part of the building permit not reQui" a separate sign pen, 4 because ttey contain no sgWe. C. Smith stated that the maxamum amount that an awning may eidend into the right of way is 3 feet D Marino stated that this area has a wide sidewalk M Mylott asked B. Neuberg what would be the maximum width of the awnings when opened and when retractedlo B. Neuberg responded 6 feet wtier open and 3 feet when closed. M Mylott stated that perhaps the Building Dnrmcn has some flex,biitty in interpreting this particular requr-ernent in that the maxrnum encroachment is exceeded onty cn a temporary basis. C. Smith stated mat she supports the proposed dirnensms of the awning, but she must review the permissibility. M Mylott asked B Neuberg are Ve drawings you have presented to the Commmee the same drarwings as those you have submitted with your Application for Building Perma? S. Neuberg responded: yes. D Marino mob- - , grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. L. Black seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion 19-01 to gran( txeisrninary and final Site nlan and j-Ppoearance review aooroval The site plan, Moor plans, elevatcm. plat of survey, color elevation, and material samples have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-016). SPAARC 00-011 2531 Oakton Street Final Install antennas on existing monopole for wireless communication facility (VoiceStream). Mr Chad Argentar (VoiceStream) presented a Building Permit Application sfl0-171, inrJuding a site plan and elevations, and site and area p1►otographs to install antennas on an exx5b g monopole for a wireless communication facility (VoiceStream) located at 2531 Oakton Street. Ms Charity Sullivan (VoiceStream) was available to answer questions M. Mylott stated that the Committee granted preliminary site plan and appearance review approval by a vote of 6 to 4 on February 16. 2000. those voting against the proposal thought that the applicant should provide an area plan illustrating future sites and pay a stipend to the City. C. Argentar stated that be could see no way in which landscaping would improve this site. C Smith asked the applicants: could you provide landscaping along Oakton Street? C. Argentar responded: not without permission from my superiors and a clear understanding about what is required. D. Marino motioned to grant final sine plan and appearance review approval L. Black seconded the motion Discussion: S. Nagar stated the applicant should provide an area -wide plan illustrating future sites. C. Argentar stated trial the network is constantly changing C. Argentar stated that ttiep consider opportundies for cobcation first; they have inventoried existing poles in the area and are trying to desagn the network around them. C. Argentar stated that he can only promise 'to keep the City planners up to date'. C. Argentar stated that, at this point, VoiceStream would ptouabty need 'a couple more' sites. S Nagar asked the applicants: who uses this pole? C Argentar responded: only Cellular One now. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COLO ITTEE Much a. 2000 Page 2 at 4 X M. Mylott asked the applicants how many antennas would you install upon the pole? C. Argentar responded nine. originally we proposed 12, but that number was reduced because the pole could not cant' the kiad J. Wolinski stated that Vo+aeSt earn should make a 5,000-dollar 'voluntary myrr ewit to the City to offset the eyesore'. S. Nagar agreed C. Argentar asked the Cornmiitsee: is the 5,000-dollar payment a condition of approval? D Marino responded: I do not with to make that a condition of the motion CommitG4e agoroved the motion f5-31 tQ grant final site Dian and appearance review ro_mmitt_ee @22EMI. R. Dahal, S. Nagar, and J. Wotrnski cast dissenting votes H Friedman abstained The site plan, elevations, and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Re%„--; Commdm folder for this case (SPARC W-011). SPAARC 00-017 1460 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Renovate iagade for type I restaurant (Tommy Nevin's Pub). Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 99-066 2024 McCormick Boulevard Prellminary Addition to Ecology Center building. Ms. Linda Lutz (Ecology Center) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site photographs to construct an addition to the Ecology Center building. L. Lutz stated that the Evanston Environmental Association is funding this project L. Lutz stated the addition would permit the Ecology Center to conduct two classes or two programs at the same time. L. Lutz stated that the addition would along the northeast portion of the existing building; the addition would be approximately 1,800 sq.ft. plus a gallery. L. Lutz stated that the inside would be designed to resemble a lodge, induding exposed beams and a fireplace; the fireplace would be brick rather than stone, such that persons do not climb it. L. Lutz stated that the exterior would be brick of a similar size and color to the original; the cri5. , ..as a custom order. L Lutz stated that this project would be bid like any other City project; they hope to start construction in August or September of this year. D. Marino asked L. Lutz: how is the bike path affected? L. Lutz responded: it would be moved closer to the building. P D'Agostino stated that the distance between the bike path and the curb would not change. and the path around the canal side would still go around the building. L. Lutz stated that the entire building would have a new root to make the design consistent and fur a number of leaks H Fnedman stated that he wished the applicant would come up with a different roof design: changing the style of the existing roof takes away from the building. L. Black stated that south elevation has some very vulnerable points, and the applicant should give these areas special attention, including better hardware. lighting alone would not address her concerns. D. SUMMARY OF F144DOM SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW WILOATME li rah tf. 2OW z Page 3 of 4 jc Marino asked L. Lutz: does the building have a security system? L. Lutz responded- yes. and; A the addition would be included within the system. D. Mamo motioned to grant preliminary site plan approval. pror-ded the applicant extends the bike path along a* canal side of the Widing. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Committee aooraved the matron (9- 01 to o=t oreliminary site olan aoornval. orovid the aC-�stip?n# extends the bike oath along the canal side of the buildinq. H. Friedman stated that Ray Pigozzi of OWP&P designed this building; the applicants should exhibit greater care not to change the character of this important building. H. Friedman stated that he Ries the existing building. J. Aiello and C. Smith agreed. C. Smith stated that the project architect should Wplain why he or she chose this direction. C. Smith motioned to table appearance review for this item_ J. Aiello seconded the motion. Comn VAW anoroved the motion (9-01 to table apoearance review for this item SPARC 98-0122 Bindina Aanearance Review Announcement OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Invite Committee to meet with Binding Appearance Review Committee. M. Mylod stated that the Binding Appearance Review Committee has invited the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee to meet with them on Aprdt 12, 2000 at 8:00 a.m. to discuss binding appearance review. M. Mylott stated that, prior to that meeWvg, he would give the minutes of the Snuhng Appearance Review Committee to the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee and vice versa. Aalarova! of Summary of Findings R. Dahal stated that he was not present at the last Committee meeting, contrary to the attendance list H. Friedman motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the February 23, 2000 meeting, subjed to moving R. Dahal from the list of 'Members Present' to the fist of 'Members Absent'. P, D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee anaroved the motion (M) to aoorove the Summary of Findings from the February 23. 2000 meeting. Subiect to movino R. Dahal from &* list of 'Members 'Present" to the *M of 'Members Absent". Adiourttment The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Minear Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 8, 2M 40, Page 4 of 4 iyeo 131 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 1, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black. R. Dahal, D. Jenr&xjs S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Marino, M. Mylott, S: Najar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: K. Kelly. Design Professional Present H. Friedman. Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: B. Fahistrom, M. Franz, S. Guderiey, S. Janusz, J. Larson, S. Lufkin, J. Minear, M. Robinson, M. Rubin, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. Others Present: Alderman Melissa Wynne, Ms. Niki Hiltwein. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 00-015 1210-1238 Chicago Avenue Pre -Application Conference Construct three 7-story multi -family residential buildings (condominiums) and one 4-story mbr"Luse building (ground- - - - office and residential within the upper floors). Mr. Tom Roszak (developer) and Ms. Kari Omori (architect) presented a site plan. floor plans, elevations, sections, a plat of survey, and site and area photographs to construct three 7-story multi -family residential buildings (condominiums) and one 4-story mixed -use building (ground -floor office and residential within the upper floors) at 1210-1238 Chicago Avenue, T. Roszak stated that the property includes two sites — the first containing Duxler Tire Company and the second containing the City parking lot. T. Roszak stated that Buildings A, B, and C are on the Duxler Tine Company site, and Building D is on the City parking lot site. T Roszak stated that he is the contract purchaser of the Duxler Tire Company site. SUMMARY OF FVCMICS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW rEE Wb,d, 1. 20M Pape 1 of 10 s T. Roszak stated that the four buildings would contain 157 dwelling units. T. Roszak stated that: • Building A would contain 18 condominiums, 6,2W sq.fL of office space, and underground marking. They are talking with various tenants for the office space. Building A would be four stories higrh plus a penthouse that would contain a pool house, exercise room, party room, and secured platy lots. This activity center would be available to all tenants. • Building B would contain 24 condominiums and first floor and underground parking. Building B would be seven stories high. • Building C would contain 51 condominiums and first floor and underground parking. Bundling C would be seven stories high. • Building D would contain 52 condominiums and Second -floor, first floor, and underground parrking. The first flc-: .)f parking within Building D would be City parking; the City parking lot currently contains 41 parking spaces, and they would provide 35 parking spaces. Building D would be seven stories high. • The dwelling units range in size from approximately 700 sq.fL to 1.600 sq.fL, providing a learlety of housing options. • Each building would have a lobby, two elevators, storage, and a trash room. • The total number of off-street parking spaces would be 213, not including the 35 City parking spaces. Approximately 20 parking spaces would be provided in tandem. Condominium parking would be heated and mechanically exhausted. • All the buildings would be connected via the parking underground. • The main pedestrian and vehicular entrance would be within the northern part of the site. an exit only would be provided at the south portion of the site. The only other curb cut would be for e m City parking within Building D. • The courtyards would be landscaped with potted shade trees, omamental trees, and bushes. The courtyard would be brick paver, they would use a different pattern of brick pavers for the side" k along Chicago Avenue. They would install shade trees along Chicago Avenue at locations that work with the rhythm of the facades. Also, they would install some perennials along Chicago Avenue_ The Iandscallog along Chicago Avenue would be similar to the landscaping at 1415 Sherman Avenue and coordinated with the recommendations of the Chicago Avenue plan. • The darker areas shown on the elevations would be terra cotta or Spanish red brick. The lighter areas shown on the elevations would be cast renaissance stone. The horizontal bands would be inch recessed brick, approximately 16 inches high; it would not be a solider course. • The fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of Buildings C and D would be recessed approximately 25 feet from Chicago Avenue to *soften the bulk and mass'; these upper floors would be constructed of cast renaissance stone. The comers would be rounded to increase the views, to create 'interesting spaces', and to provide rooftop terraces with landscaping. These portions of the building would have different fenestration as well. All windows would be silver or white, aluminum or vinyl, double SUMMARY OF FINCXNGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMFrrEE Match 1.2000 Page 2 of 10 ra! insulated. The penthouse on Building A would be glass; it would be seduKk tnom Chicago Avenue from 10 to 40 feet. Each building would be somewhat different to a person walking along Chicago Avenue, but the common type of material 'holds the devebprnent together'. At grade. Building D mould not hOWO a garage door to the City parking spaces, and the openings would be painted szee! grills The at - grade treatment of Building C and the treatment for the second floor of Bwlodrog D would be ftat- surfaced renaissance stone arranged %Turin three different planes to mimic winoomm C. Smith asked the applicants: are the curb arts all new? T. Roszak responded. I am reducing the number of curb cuts from six to three. C. Smith asked the applicants: would the brick pavers match a pattern used elsewhere witm the City? T. Roszak responded: the color would be the same, but the pattem may be different D Jennings stated that the area has nothing for the applicant to match". and he does not understand why the City would want an island of brit+,-,'_.,er sidewalk when the sidewalks in the area are concrete. J Aiello stated that the applicant should contribute proportionally to a fund that the City would use when it undertakes the streetacape improvement for Chicago Avenue; in that manner, the streetscape would be consistent D. Jennings stated that the funding for the study has already been approved. H. Friedman asked the applicants: what is the distance between the buildings? T. Roszak responded: we would provide approximately 33 feet from Building C to Buildings A and 8, approximately 33 feet from Building D to Buildings A and 8, and approximately 47 feet from Building A to Building B. C. Smith asked the applicants: would the bnck be the same brick used at 1415 Sherman Avenue and proposed for 1421 Sherman Avenue? T. Roszak responded: yes. M Mylott asked the applicants: would the brick be utility size? T Roszak responded yes H. Friedman asked the applicants: why are the 'openings' to the condominium parking levels solid? T. Roszak responded: because these areas are private, they do not need to be open. T. Roszak stated that no one can get to these areas except tenants, having true 'openings' would compromise the safety. T. Roszak stated that the buildings would include televised video. T. Roszak stated that condominium - parking levels are also heated. M. Mylott asked the applicants: what type of device would you use to control vehicular access to the condominium parking levels? T Roszak responded a garage door. C. Smith asked the applicants did you consider using a different color back at the base. because the proposed brick is a very solid brick? T Roszak responded: we considered that, but the variations in depth should provide enough shadow to provide a -very rich elevation' J. Aiello stated that Building C is very solid, especially at the pedestrian level; this area has no sense of place, and it is not inviting. C. Smith stated that the applicants could provide more course work at that level for a more human scale J. Aiello stated that the solA 'openings' could be light boxes. H. Friedman stated that the planters could be built into the fa0des T Roszak stated that that is a 'good idea". C. Smith stated that she couldn't determine where the top of the buildings are; they have no definition. C. Smith stated that the buildings need a 'thick cap' H Fredman stated that the applicants should include a parapet 'with some oomph'. T. Roszak stated that they would consider those suggestions: however, in perspective, the buildings would be 'very dynamic', especially with the colors. D. Jennings stated the entrance to the City parking area within Building D should be wider, perhaps extending it beyond the columns to provide better visib4lity: the City does not want to build in blind spots. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COAAAiMTTEE March 1. 2000 Page 3 d 10 rj J. Aiello stated that signage for this parking area would be very critical. 0. Jennings agreed. T. Rasrak stated that he would consider that suggestion; however, he wants to keep some residential scale. H. Friedman asked the applicants: could a person within Building D walk from the private elevators to the City parking area? T. Roszak responded, no, that elevator would be closed off from the City parking area. H. Friedman stated that the ramp up is much too narrow. T. Roszak stated that it is 14 feet wide -- the same width as that used at 1415 Sherman Avenue. D. Jennings stated that the up ramp would only serve 35 vehicles. T. Roszak stated that the down ramp is doublewide. D. Jennings stated that the elevators should not extend within the parking aisles. T. Roszak stated that they used this configuration at fdorthpoint; also, the residential floors make the configuration of these elevators very complicated. T. Roszak stated that this configuration discourages persons from speeding within the parking areas. D. Jennings stated that this configuration blocks visibility. C. Smyth stated that the elevators could be rotated 90 degrees. T. Roszak stated that he would review that alternative. D. Jennings states that the columns within the City parking area are "in the way'; the applicant should extend the parking spaces out to meet the columns. T. Roszak stated that he would make alai change. C. Smith asked the applicants: is the loading berths shown within the courtyard for everyone's use? T. Roszak responded: yes, two loading berths are required. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not require a loading dock, only a reserved space into which a truck may park for kaading and unloading. B. Fahlstrom stated that the applicants Should check with A Berkowski of the Fire Department to ensure fire trucks can make the tums shown within the courtyard. J. Aiello asked the applicants: how is garbage removed? T. Roszak responded: the management company would take the dumpsters from the basement, up the ramp, to the courtyard where a garbage truck would empty them. T. Roszak stated that the embankment would cover the first floor and the bottom 2 feet of the second floor. T. Roszak stated that there would be at least 3 to 4 feet between the building and the embankment that area would be landscaped with new shade trees and fenced. R. ❑ahal asked the applicants: have you conducted a traffic impact study? T Roszak responded: we hired Kenig Lindgren O'Hara and Aboona to conduct that study: we used the study to develop the circulation within the courtyard and parking areas and to size the entrance to the City parking area. R. Dahal asked the applicants: did the study include the intersection of Dempster Street and Chicago Avenue? T. Rosz;K responded: yes, that intersection is referenced within the study. A. Alterson stated that he would provide Traffic Engineering with a copy of the study. S. Levine stated that the City no longer uses the type of street trees depicted within the plans. S Levine gave T. Roszak a list of acceptable street trees. S. Levine stated that the City wants to have no more than 10 percent of its entire tree population within any one species. B. Fahlstrom asked the applicants: would the exit stairs at grade go outside? T. Roszak responded: all ground -Floor stairs would exit outside and to the respective parking area. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COANAITTEE �C+ March 1, 200D Pops 4 of 10 a k D. Jennings stated that parking spaces number 28 and 29 on the fast k-or are questionable. T Rcs=k stated that they are 22 feet long - more than the length required to the -oning Ordinance C. Smith asked the applicants- are you considering any other use for the ground -floor space wtihin Building A? T Roszak responded Building A has 12 spaces reserved fir its employees C SrrAh sraw that the parking requirement for retail is different from the parkiong requirement for owe T Rcszak stated that a parking surplus is available. any more required for the nonresdential use would decrmase the amount of residential parking surplus M. Mylott stated that the Zcnrng Ordinance does not sou, for whom the parking spaces must be reserved - employees versus custcrners J A.rllo stated that if. 4tre space were retail, customers would use parking spaces within the City parking area - effectively red=ing the number of City parking spaces. J. Aiello stated that the Csty nmght want to require a covenant restricting the use of the ground -floor space within Building A to office. A- Alterson stated that he is not sure he would support such a restriction. J. Aiello stated that, as an alternative. the applicant should provide customer parking elsewhere on site. B. Fahlstrom stated that the applicant should review the opening requirements within the Building cue; some buildings would be very close to the lot lines. T. Roszak stated that they would review these requirements. J. Aiello asked the applicants: would the City parking spaces be spnnklered? T Roszak responded: yes. S. Nagar asked the applicants: have you made accommodations for retention? T. Roszak responded: yes, we used the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District standards to size the basement vault C. Smith stated that persons from the audience have requested an opportunity to speak. J. Wol nski motioned to allow persons within the audience to comment on this case S Najar seconded the motion. Committee aoornved the motion r17-01 to allow persons within the audience to comment on this case. Aid. Wynne asked the Committee: could metered spaces count toward the nonresidential paddM requirement? D. Jennings responded: no. M. Wynne asked the appr"reants: do you gain any on -street parking spaces by reducing the number of curb cuts? T. Roszak responded: yes, the traffic impact study determined that two more on -street parking spaces would be available. M Wynne asked the Committee: would the City parking spaces be leased or permitted? D. Jennings responded: this lot is currently a mix of short -terra meters, long-term meters, and permits. D. Jennings stated that the City Council gave Traffic Engineering permission to make changes to meet demand on an as -needed basis; he would imagine that that flexibility would remain H. Friedman asked the Committee: should the City prohibit left turns to Chicago Avenue from this development? D. Jennings responded: no, other users are allowed to make left turns. T. Roszak stated that the traffic study saw no problem with the proposed configuration. S. Najar stated that the applicant should submit a gap analysis. T. Roszak stated that he is not certain the traffic impact study included such an analysis ' would get a copy of the study to Traffic Engineering J. Aiello stated that the northeast corner of Building C should be curved like the southeast comer of Building A to provide visibility. T. Roszak stated that that would eliminate parking spaces and impact three floors of condominiums. D. Jennings stated that vehicles would pull closer to Chicago Avenue to see beyond parked vehicles. but the applicant should consider a light and mirrors to increase awareness of pedestrians. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: have you conducted a soil analysis? T Roszak responded: yes, the Phase 1 Environmental Report'was fine', and the structural reportwas good' D. Jennings stated that. if SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SFTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIJl1WITTE'E March 1, 2OW Page 5 or 10 the footings were to encroach within the right-of-way, the applicants would have to go through a prmm ending in City Council approval. C. Smith stated that, because the applicant has fulfilled the requirements of the pre -application conference, the Committee would dose the pre -application conference. A copy of the site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, a plat of survey. and site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00 -015), SPAARC 00-015 1210-1238 Chicagio Avenue Preliminary Construct three 7-story multifamily residential buildings (condominiums) and one 4-story mixed -use building (ground -floor office and residential within the upper floors), C. Smith stated that the Committee would consider the information presented during today's Pre - application Conference as it conducts the preliminary site plan and appearance review. C. Smith stated that the applicant has submitted more than the typical amount of information for preliminary site plan and appearance revic J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, provided MWEBE requirements are included within a sales contract or redevelopment agreement J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion 01-01 to grant preliminary site olan and aopearance review approval, provided MWEBE requirements are inchj&4 within a sales contract or redevelopment agreement. SPAARC 00-012 845 Chicano Avenue Concept Construct 12-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and nesidenW within the upper Floors). Mr. John Masden (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, and elevations to construct a 12-stay mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and residential within the upper floors) at 845 Chicago Avenue. Mr Gregory Hughes (representative of management company) was available to answer questions. J Masden stated that they have further developed the plans; they would demolish the existing building and construct a 12-story mixed -use building. J. Masden stated that the building would include a 4-story parting garage with an B-story residential tower on top of the parking garage; retail uses would be provided along Main Street and Chicago Avenue. J. Masden stated that the residential entrance would be at Main Street. J Masden states • a building would include 138 parking spaces; the ratio of the proposed number of parking spaces to the proposed number of dwelling units would be almost 2-1. J. Masden stated that they would provide a loading dock accessed via the alley; this dock would be setback from the alley by approximately 18 feet. J. Masden stated that the base of the building would be colored precast concrete; the tower would be constructed of tan utility brick. SUM MO RY OF FINDINGS SxTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE M*ch 1. 2000 pages of 10 H. Friedman stated that the existing structure is part of the character of the neighborhood. C. Smith asked the applicants: why would you tear down the building when you are proposing to constiruct something very similar? J. Masden responded: the cost of restoring the building would be prohibitive. C. Smith stated that the existing facade is very important to the area. H. Friedman stated that the new proposal 'looks like a CHA [Chicago Housing Authority] project. 8 Fahlstrom stated that the open parking above the ground -floor retail would `look like Hell'; the building would 'look like a building in Uptown'. J. Masden stated that he respects the Committee members' opinions, but he is 'hearirng a demand for more parking'. C. Smith stated that the way in which the demands are balanced is She concern; tearing down a terra cotta fagade to replace it with a precast concrete facade designed weq simalar to the original is unfortunate. J. Masden stated that the changes proposed for the C1a Commercial District would determine what ttney would actually do with this building. J. Masden stated that if the owner cannot develop the propety immediately to the south of the subject property to the current standards of the C1a district, he has no other option than to develop the subject property as shown; they are here 'to protect their right to the property. C. Smith asked the applicants: why does the property located within the C1a District affect this project located within the B3 Business District? J. Masden responded: eliminating the proposed parfring exemption within the C1a District affects the economics. A Akerson stated that he understands the sentiment toward the existing building, but he believes riat airier buildings along Chicago Avenue are more worth saving. A Atterson stated that building upon an existing building is wirf,cult, but he does not understand the economic hardship. J. Masden stated thae the building needs too much work, and he cannot fit a double -wide parking garage on the site. J. Masden stated that if the parking requirement were to remain at 1 parking space per 1 dwelling unit, he might be able to develop a workable site plan; however, the parking requirements will increase. A. Alterson stated that he is hearing that the property owner cannot maximize his or her gains, not that he or she cannot save the facade for physical reasons. J. Aiello asked the applicants: does this plan include the building to the south? J. Masden responded no. G. Hughes stated that his client owns S27-829 Chicago Avenue, and he has an option to purchase 931 Chicago Avenue. A. Alterson asked the applicants: why is your client 'complaining' about changes to ft C1a District when he does not own the property? G. Hughes responded: he has other properties within the C1a District. A Alterson stated that the contract purchaser for 831 Chicago Avenue is entering into a contract to purchase with full knowledge of the potential changes to the C1a District D Jennings stated that he is not sure if the access to this property should be at Chicago Avenue or via the alley; the City will have to consider the traffic carefully. J Masden stated that they were gran preliminary guidance that the appropriate access was at the alley. D. Jennings stated that, under typical circumstances, he would agree: however, with the proposed volume, he is not certain. D. Jennings stated that the City has always been cognizant of maintaining pedestrian character. D. Marino stated that he appreciates the concems about traffic, but he Is concerned about the potential impact to tt>c pedestrian scale and retail activities along Chicago Avenue if access to the parking garage is via Chicago Avenue. M. Mylott stated that he believes that the applicant has retained a consultant to study traffic. C. Smith stated that she is not comfortable going forward with this case until the results of the traffic study are available C Smith stated that persons from the audience have requested an opportunity to speak. J. Wofninsld motioned to allow persons within the audience to comment on this case. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (12-0) to allow oersons within the audience to comment an this case. SUMMARY OF FWOMM SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMUnMM March 1, 2= Pape 7 d 10 it Aid, Wynne asked the applicant: have you considered underground parking? G. Hughes responded: we will look at that option. C. Ruiz stated that, if the applicant must dernofish the existing structure, the new structure must be as good or better than the existing structure, especially in terms of scale and materials. S. Nagar motioned to table the item. J. WoGnski seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that the Committee should elaborate upon its concerns Px:h that the applicant may respond to the concerns. S. Nalar stated that the appkartt must first provide the traffic study. J. Wolinski stated that he is `tired of ex shell game and he 'takes issue with a developer just trying to get his focQ in Me door'. A. Afterson agreed. J. Masden stated that he was 'told to move trward on this property`. A. Afterson stated that he sees no advantage to tabling this item; the apolica n should be denied. C. Smith stated that, after the traffic study is complete, the applicant may wish to meet with the Engineering Department to discuss access issues. Committee aonroved the motion 110-2t to table this item. A copy of the site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-012). SPAARC 00-014 829 Ridae Terrace Preliminary and Final Construct 1-story additions to residence and garage, construct deck, and erect fence, requiring majjor variations. Mr. Steve Hampton (contractor) presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 00-07-V(F)), intluding a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and plat of survey, and site photographs to construct 1-story addbms to the residence and garage, to construct a deck, and to erect a fence, requiring major variations, ad 829 Ridge Terrace. S. Hampton stated that the property owners would like to remove an existing screened parch and construct a 1-story family room; also, they would like to construct a deck above a new cellar. M. Mylott stated that the variations are necessary because, while Central Street functions as the rear yard for this property, it is a regulatory front yard (through tot). C. Smith asked C. Ruiz: is this property within the proposed Northeast Evanston Historic Preservation District? C. Ruiz resoonded: yes, the Preservation Commission has approved this project. C. Smith asked M. Mylott: have any neighbors commented on the proposal? M. Mylott responded. not to the Zoning Division. S. Hampton stated that neither he nor the property owners have heard negative comments about the proposal. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS _ SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Marth 1, 2000 — Paw a of 10 eol C. Smith motion& ' ..) grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. A#ybg seconded the motion. Discussion: S. Nagar stated that V* Engineering Department would require a survey VW Included the existing elevations with the Application for Building Permit S. Hampton stated that the grade would not change. Committee avaoroved the motion (8-01 to grant areliminary and final site plan and appearance [ -, aooroval• A copy of the site plan, floor plans, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs have been pk3ced within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-014). SPAARC 99-149 3200 Grant Street Final Construct accessory building to contain natural gas generators (Presbyterian Homes). Mr. Philip Barr (Presbyterian Homes) and Mr. Dave Patricoski (consultant) presented Building Permit Application #00-102 and site photographs to construct an accessory building to contain natural gas generators at 3200 Grant Street. P. Barr stated that the brick used elsewhere on the campus is not available for this project; they would use a brick that virtually the same'. C. Smith asked M. Mylott: were the neighbors notified of this proposal? M. Mylott responded: all taxpayers of record within 500 feet of the subject property were notified of the public hearing: no one objected. D, Marino asked the applicants: do you have any opportunity for additional landscaping' D. Pabicoski responded: no, we are proposing to construct the building within an existing parking area. S. Nagar motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. S. Levine seconded the motion. Committee aaoroved the motion (9-0) to grant final site plan and amearance review anoroval. SPAARC 00-020 SoaceSaver Parking Companv Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Photocopy of SpaceSaver Parking Company brochure. M. Mylott distributed photocopies of the SpaceSaver Parking Company brochure_ Aaoroval of Summary of Findinas J. Wolinski state' "3t he made the motion to deny site plan and appearance review approval for 817 Chicago Avenue, not D. Marino. S. Najar motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the February 16, 2000 meeting, subject to changing the person who motioned to deny site plan and appearance review approval for 817 Chicago SUMMARY OF FINDINW SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COM&KrTM larch 1,2OW page 9d10 Avenue from D. Marino to J. Wolinski. J. Wotinski seconded tl f motoon. CQfnrt tee anaralyd 1* rnv0vn ? to approve t" Surnmary of Findinas from the February, � 22trg sup{eat gg person who n► motioned to desite plan and aRDearance review >j2oraval for 91T Chicano Avlm a from ID. Marino to J. Wofinski. L Black abstained. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at *.45 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Jo Ann Minear Recording Secretary SLWMARV OF FINDINGS S1iE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrTEE Morh t, 2000 Page 10 of 10 elegO' Ea SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 23, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. fYAgostino Jennings, K. Kelly, D, Marino, M. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black) c H. Friedman. D. C. J. Edwards, S. Guder(ey. J. Larson, S. Lufldn, J. Minear, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. S.Grevas, Plan Commission Chair. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 00-002 Church Street Plaza (Lot C) Pre-ADDlication Conference Demolish existing improvements and construct 6-story mixed -use budding (ground -floor rieted and office and office within upper floors for McDougal Littell). Ms. Alice Rebechini (developer) and Mr. Bob Bunda (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, landscape plan, site and area photographs, model, and project narrative to construct a 6-story mixed , - building (ground -floor retail and office and office within the upper floors) for McDougal Littell upon Lot C of Church Street Plaza. J. Aiello stated the City and Mesirow Stein are co -applicants for the amendment to the Church Street Plaza Planned Development (CSP PD) for Lot C - that tract of land south of Church Street. J. Aiello stated that Lot C of the CSP PD included a senior center and performing arts building; the applicants informed the Plan Commission that they would come back if there were material changes. J. Aiello stated that Church Street would include retail to be owned and operated by the Arthur Hill Company (AHC). J. Aiello stated that the applicant would request two addresses for the property — McDougal LdWl would like a Davis Street address and the retailers would have Church Street addresses. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 5rrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CoWITTEE February 23, 2000 Pape I d s 3c� J. Aiello stated that the traffic and parking consultant analyzed this development J Aiello stated that the preliminary traffic and parking report indicates this development wouid have a 'minimal impact' because the Sherman Avenue garage was sized already considering a 150.000 sq.R. office building at this tocabon and various office buildings within the northern part of the Research Park; sorne of the buildings within the northern part of the Research Park are now smaller than when originally considered J. Aiello stated that the applicant's attorneys are updating the various reports from the original CSP PD. and they would be submitted on February 28, 2000. A. Rebechini stated that they are working with AHC to address the retail aspect. A Rebechini stated that their original elevation had the retail Rush with the rest of the fagade, AHC believes that a stronger '2- story expression' is necessary to make the retail successful. A Rebechini stated that they propose a 9- foot projection out from the rest of the fagade for the first two stories only; AHC 'seems to have accepted this scheme'. A. Rebechini stated that the architecture of the retail portion would mimic the architectural components of the retail portion of the main pavilion, including the awnings, columns, sign bands, and datum lines. A. Rebechini stated that the glass would be recessed from the columns, which would be on the Church Street lot line - the same profile used across the street. A. Alterson asked the applicants: would the awnings project within the right-of-way? A. Rebechini responded: yes. C. Smith asked the applicants: how far would the awnings project? A. Rebechini responded: approximately f feet, but i am not sure from what point that would be measured. C. Smith stated that the r- - . - urement should be taken from the lot fine, providing enough coverage to protect two persons walking side by side. C. Smith stated that this building would be very different from the building across the street; this building would be 'very format whereas the building across the street would be "playful'. C. Smith stated that using the same awning conflicts with the different concepts C. Smith stated that the applicants should consider using steel and/or glass canopies rather than a fabric awning. M Mylott agreed, and stated that a steel and/or glass canopy, designed at the same time as the building, could still pick up the rhythm established across the street while not appearing to be an 'add -art'. A. Rebechini stated that glass canopies accumulate unsightly elemenis. C. Smith stated that whatever could accumulate on a glass canopy could accumulate on a fabric awning. A. Rebechini stated that she would review this suggestion. A. Rebechini stated that the southwest ground -floor office space could be retail, but it is not likely; AHC has declined to own or operate that space. A. Rebechini stated that Mesirow Stein would require that an office tenant within this space use the area along the windows for reception or circulabon - that the area not be 'walled off" as offices. H. Friedman stated that that space would be convenient for commuters. A Atterson and J. Aiello agreed. M. Robinson asked the applicants: would the retail use wrap around the northwest corner? A Rebechini responded: yes. M. Robinson asked the applicants: could a person access the main corridor from the Church Street retailers? A Rebechini responded: no. M. Mylott stated that changing the space at the southwest comer from office to retail would increase the parking requirements. A Rebechini stated that the amendment to the CSP PD would include a request for 45 parking spaces beyond that required by the Zoning Ordinance to ensure uses could change; for example, they asp,-nnsidenng a proposal to use approximately 15,000 sq R of office space as medical office space. A Rebechini stated that the retail accommodations 'undid' some of the original concept of the building. R. Sunda stated that the east and north sides of the building are 'hard' components; 'soft' components 'floar underneath the hard components at the northwest comer of the building. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February a 2000 Page 2 of 8 x R. Bunda stated that the punched concrete treatment of the east and north elevations have became a 'spandrel and column expression', terminating at the northwest comer of the building R Bunda stated that they added more glass within the soft components R Bunda stared that the northwest comer of the building is 'much more sculptural', engaging the hard and soft comper,ents of the building and forming a 'gateway for pedestrian sequences'. R. Bunda stated that the nor.4twest comer of the site would be open, providing a strong relationship to the AHC development. M. Mylott asked the applicants: why did you not use the punched treatnents on all sides of the pro}ecting element at the northwest comer of the building? R. Bunda responded because that element needed some relief. R. Bunda stated that providing punches on ail sides appeared 'too heavy handed". M. Mylott disagreed, and stated that it appears disjointed now. A Retvmchini stated that McDougal Uttefl wanted that area to have as much glass as possible; she wanted to provide three punches within the west elevation, but McDougal Uttelt'was pretty opposed to jr. C. Smith stated that the punches would be very big windows. H. Friedman stated that the punched openings 'appear trite'. C. Smith disagreed, and stated that the change in window treatments within this element deb from a very important element of the design. C. Smith stated that, without this element, the building mould be 'terribly boring'. C. Smith stated that she appreciates that the developer has to 'design by committee`; however, this comer is critical, and she hopes that the developer could convince the other decision -makers of its importance. C. Smith stated that the applicants need to 'go the extra mile' to make this comer as strong as possible. M. Mylott agreed. H. Friedman asked the applicants: who at AHC is dictating the design of their building? A Rebechini responded: we 2—, ^avigating through difficult and complicated negotiations; the persons commenting on design at AHC are Mr. Arthur Hill and Mr. Bruce Reed. H. Friedman stated that the last plans depicted a very interesting building, now that is gone. A. Rebechini stated that, while she is sorry H Friedman feels that way, she believes the current design 'has strength'. A. Rebechini stated that AHC has asked them to consider outdoor restaurant seating under the northwest comer of the building. C. Smith stated that that area would be "a little out of scale' for such a use. H. Friedman asked the applicants: why did you not mimic the curve of the main pavilion to finish the plaza? R. Bunda responded: we considered that; however, the point of the radius impacted the building too radically. R. Bunda stated that they chose to use landscaping rather than geometry, which `came across as forced'. H. Friedman stated that the architect could have undercut the first floor. A Rebechini stated that AHC would not have accepted an undercut to the retail from a marketing perspective. C. Smith stated that she is not bothered by the different approach to the plaza proposed by the applicants, R. Bunda stated that the common building material would be buff -colored precast concrete; they are considering precast concrete or metal for the cap. C. Smith stated that the cap to the building or the eyebrow (not the penthouse) should be more substantial; it is too weak and delicate for this building. C. Smith asked the applicants: would the windows be buts -glazed? R. Sunda responded: we are looking at that, but we cannot commit to that at this point. R. Bunda stated that they must evaluate the cost associated with that type of detailing. C Smith stated that she encourages the applicants to use butt - glazed windows '_ -3ke the curve become more 'jewel-like' R. Bunda stated uidt the proposed paving pattern along Church Street respects the pattern across the street; this treatment stops at the northwest corner of the site, aligning with the southem edge of the projecting comer of the building. R. Bunda stated that, from that point south, their first preference would be to reuse as much of the existing pavers as possible, depending upon if enough pavers could be salvaged; another option would be to use scoured concrete. R Bunda stated that they could add public SLIitFINDINGS SIRE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEEViE CW oFMARTEE Fury 23.2Doo Page 3 of 8 Ci art medallions tnt- the new surface C Smin stated MW maint-_-Mrw-e of the landscaping must be "cussed. J. A,e,+o stated that that and 0&,w issues regarding the -":a are part of negotiations wiM tthe City J. Aiello stated the applicant should consult with. P D'AgescrQ regarding the landscape plant to determine what plant species would be most successful R. Bunda sided :,iey would 'heavily landscape' the area around the ramp, incJuding omamental trees. tushes, fiowers. ar-1 ivy A Rebechini stated tRat they would like to create a tree canopy covering the ra.np M Myta,,t stared that he would like to see a rendering of the landscaping around r* ramp M My'on stated tM.W. he vs not sure it the applicants are trying to simply beautify or hide the ramp A Rebecrunl sued that iris view of the ramp is not substantW, d would only be seen from on top of the embankments or from within the t;,.:loing A Atterson asked the applicants would the plaza be part of Mesirow Szein's property? A Rebechiri responded. yes. the plaza would have a public access easement eves it. except at the ramp. A. Atterson asked the applicants. would the entire property stay on the tax rolls? A Rebechini responded.- yes. H. Friedman asked the applicants. could pedestrians travel along the east side of the entrance drive to the cul-de-sac given the proposed trees? A Rebechini responded. yes H. Friedman stated that the Proposed Metra ramp would preclude pedestrian travel along the west side of the cul-de-sac from Oavi's Street_ J A*Ilo stated that she is concerned about security along the east side of the building. A Alterson asked the applicants how wide would that area be? A Rebechini responded approximately 10 feet A- Rebechini stated that, while it would not be a particularly secure spot. if it were closed off, it would be unsafe if someone was within it. A. Rebechini stated that. if the area were to remain open, they would provide a 'simple sidewalk' with adequate lighting-, the area would only be 'serviceable, not attractive'. A. Rebechini stated ...oa the area could also include a gate, permitting access only to service mechanical& C. Smith stated that the applicants may need that area for emergency access for the Fire Department, depending upon Building Code requirements M Mylott stated that the area should be left open and well tit C. Smith stated that the area would be a target for graffiti. M. Mytott agreed. R. Walczak stated that he Nieves the best approach is to gate the area and provide lighting A Rebechini stated that they need to consider insurance issues as well S Grevas stated that the Ran Commission would discuss this issue, the applicants should be prepared to answer it. S Grevas stated that some members may state that the walk around the building is too far, especially for the elderly. A Rebechini stated that they would provide a pedestrian route and destination diagram_ D Jennings stated that that diagram should note that a person crossing Church Street from the east side of the budding would do so without a traffic signal, whereas a person could use the signal at Maple Avenue (proximate to the crossing from the west side of the building) or Benson Avenue. A Alderson stated that the area along the east side of the building could be Landscaped J. Aiello stated that landscaping within that area would be hard to maintain A Atterson stated that this project would impact the Chefs Station J Aiello stated that the restaurant would be impacted during construction, otherwise, the operation would remain the same. A. Rebechini stated that they are reviewing the easement agreements in that area. they would like to create a screened area along the north side of the Chefs Station into which the owner could store his or her dumpster. A. Rebechini stated that they do not want an 'unsightly" area D. Jennings asked the applicants. to whom would the at -grade parking belong) A Rebechini responded. McDougal t.it 6 ' ,ted a few parking spaces at grade for visitors J. Aiello stated that the Chicago Transit Authority and Metra have expressed that they may want accessible parking spaces there. C. Smith stated that the applicant could simply sign the spaces as'20 Minute Parking Only% and leave them open to any user SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �G. February 27. 2000pe �`�'7 Pas or 8 x C. Smith stated that, because the applicant has fulfilled the requirements of the pniap Ocsbon conference, the Committee would close the pre-apphcation conference A copy of the site plan, floor plans, elevations. sections, landscape ptan, site and area photograpf. and project narrative have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Commettee folder trr ttxs case (SPARC 00-002). SPAARC 00-002 Church Street Plaza (Lot C) Preliminary Demolish existing improvements and construct 6-story mixed -use building (ground -floor netai+ and Office and office within upper floors for McDougal Littell). C. Smith stated that the Committee would consider the information presented during today's Pre - application Conference as it conducts the preliminary site plan and appearance review C. SmiM stated that the information provided meets the requirements for preliminary site plan and appearance review M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approraf, including a strong recommendation that the applicant: 1) include punched openings within the west side of the pronectiN element at the northwest comer of the building; 2) use butt -glaze windows within the curved portion of the west elevation; 3) investigate the material and dimensions of the eyebrow; 4) design a more permanent form of pedestrian protection along Church Street; and 5) resolve the issue of access along the east side of the building. S. Najar seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated that he would have voted in favor of the motion, except for ' the inclusion of the condition regarding the punched openings. M. Mylott stated that the condition is only a recommendation. C. Smith stated that she believes other decision -makers should understand the Importance of issues such as these. Committee approved the motion (8-1) to orant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, including a strona recommendation that the applicant: 1) include punched openlnos within the west side of the oroiectina element at the northwest comer of the building: 2) use butt-olaze windows within the curved oortion of the west elevation: 31 investigate the material and dimensions of the evebrow. 4) design a more permanent form of pedestrian protection along Church Street: and 5) resohre the issue of access alono the east side of the building. H. Friedman cast the dissenting vote. A copy of the site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, landscape plan, site and area photographs, and project narrative have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-002). SUMMARY OF FDOW.&S SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW WMIMI rEE February 2d, Z= Pale 5 of a F_J SPAARC 00-003 630 Davis Straot Prollminary and Final Consider Application for Special Use to allow type 2 restaurant (Jarnba Juice) A Alterson presented Building Permit Application #00-105. preceded by an Application toc Speciall Ulsa, to allow a type 2 restaurant (Jambs Juice) at 630 Davis Street A Alterson stated that Committee approval is required because this use is a spec&W use. A. Arawsorh stated the project involves no exterior changes, except the installatlon of awnings to match t iew Proposed for Potbelly's Restaurant C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A Arawn seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (9-0) to grant oreliminary and final site Dian ang appearance review 3DDroval. SPAARC 00-013 2045 Brown Ave►ntie Preliminary and F"mal Convert open terrace to enclosed porch for religious institution (Christ Temple Mission Baptist Church) under construction. Pastor Kenneth Cherry presented original and revised site plans, original and revised floor plans, and revised elevations to convert an open terrace to an enclosed porch for the religious institution (Christ Temple Mission Baptist Church) under construction at 2045 Brown Avenue. K. Cherry stated that the building has been under construction 'for quite awhile', but they are ready to finalize the proje:. • *{. Cherry stated that what was to be an open terrace was poured at the same grade as the interior, creating a situation that would cause flooding. K Cherry stated that they propose to cover this area, creating an enclosed porch. K Cherry stated that the porch would have no entrances from or exits to the outside; access to the enclosed porch would be via the sanctuary_ K Cherry stated ?that tt>$ area would contain no additional seating. C. Smith asked K Cherry: would the enclosed porch be constructed of concrete block? K Cherry responded: yes, and glass. C. Smith asked K. Cherry: would the windows between the enclosed porch and the sanctuary be operable? K. Cherry responded: no. J. Aiello asked K Cherry. would the windows along the exterior ►gall of the enclosed porch be operable? K Cherry responded: no. J. Aiello stated that operable windows in this location would be *nice'. K. Cherry stated that they could make that change. K Cherry stated that the enclosed porch would be slightly smaller than the open terrace because they propose to enlarge the pastor's study. K. Cherry stated that, while the plans appear to show siding, the enlarged pastor's study would be constructed of concrete block. C. Smith asked K. Cnerry: what is the material shown between the windows? K Cherry responded: glass block to reinforce the roof. C. Smith stated that the applicant should provide glass along the entire portion of enclosed porch and posts behind that glass for support. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 23.2000 Page 6 of 8 X C. Smith stated that the plans must be amended to delineate these charges. J. Wolinski asked K Cherry: Is Mr, Ken Hasslet still the architect? K Cherry responded' no, tfie architect is Mr_ lAhyne Hanson. A Alterson stated that the plans might expand the previously approved special use permit. J. Aielllo and J. Wolinski disag{clolve. C. Smith motioned to approve preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided: 1) the enclosed patio includes windows along the entire exterior wall and the structural supports are located behind the windows; 2) all windows within the exterior wall of the enclosed patio are operable; and 3) the applicant only use building materials used elsewhere on the project. A Atterson seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Aiello asked K Cherry: when would the church be open? K Cherry responded: we want to be open for faster services. Committee aooroved the motion f10-01 to aporove oreliminary and final site clan and aaoearance review aporoval, arovided 11 the enclosed oabo includes windows alnno the entire exterior wall and tithe structural su000rts are located behind the windows: 21 all windows within the exterior wall of the enclosed patio are operable: and 31 the aoolicant oniv use building materials used elsewhere on the oroiect. The original and revised site plans, original and revised floor plans, and revised elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-013). SPAARC 87-0065 Church Street Plaza Revision to Final Remove grillwort, -ter fop of City parking garage within Church Street Plaza. J. Aiello and M. Rubin presented north and east elevations to remove the grsM work from the top of the City parking garage within Church Street Plaza. J. Aiello stated that the Public Art Committee would be meeting with the Parking Committee to discuss including public art within the parking garage. J. Aiello stated that the Arthur Hill Company agreed to donate $50,000 to the provision of public art; the final accounting must still be determined. M. Rubin stated that removing the upper grillwork is a value engineering issue. M. Rubin stated that this grillwork would be located high upon the structure, and no one would be able to see it from street level. M. Rubin stated that these 'openings' would be open instead. M. Rubin stated that the banners at the Maple Avenue entrance would also be removed. M. Mylott asked the applicants: does the City still intend to provide public art within the grillwork near the street level. J. Aiello responded: yes. A Alterson asked M. Rubin: how much money would the proposed change save? M. Rubin responded: $82,000. J. Aiello stated that this saving would be reallocated to the provision of public art. C. Smith stated that she believes that architecture is public art, and she has a hard time supporting the removal of the upper grillwork from the Maple Avenue facade. C. Smith stated that a person driving towards the parking garage is afforded a bigger view of the building; removing the subject grillwork would lessen the building's hierarchy of design. C. Smith stated that she has no problem removing the upper SUMMARY of FINDINGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COLWr TEE February 23.2000 Pape 7 d e grillwork from the northem tapde, because views to it would be largely blocked. H. Friedman stated that the money Gould be used to provide public art at a more appropriate scale. M. Mylott stated that he is more concerned with the removal of the banners: the entrance to the parking garage — the terminus to Clark Street — has lost any semblance of importance. M. Mylott stated ttv the opportunity to design a building that ends a vista is rare, and the City is losing this opportunity. M. Mylott stated that the ar,,'...ai design proposed a Large, sweeping iron facade with the signage sculpted into it — a 'truly appropriate response'. M. Mylott stated that that proposal was reduced to simple banners, and now the Committee is asked to consider their elimination. M. Mylott motioned to approve the revision to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval, provided: 1) the Public Art Committee is directed to provide public art above the Maple Avenue entrance to a degree of prominence that recognizes this location as the terminus of Clark Street; and 2) a similar treatment is applied above the entrance along the north tagade. C. Smith seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Aiello asked the Committee: would the Public Art Committee be required to present their proposal to this Comrru iee7 C. Smith responded: yes. Committee approved the motion (10-01 to approve the revision to the orevicws final site dan and appearance review aeproval_ arovided: 11 the Public Art Committee is directed to pMvide public art above the Maple Avenue entrance to a decree of Drominence that recognizes this bcation as the terminus of Claris Street: and 21 a similar treatment is applied above the entrance along the north facade. The revised elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (older for this case (SPARC 97-0O65). Approval of Summary of Findings C. Smith mobone.:.., approve the Summary of Findings from the February 9. 2000 meeting. R. Wak zak seconded the motion. Committee aocroved the motion ("I to a2orove the Summary of EIndings from the Februarv§ 2000 meebnq. H. Friedman abstained. Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4.55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, o Ann Minear Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CoLg TfEE February 23, 2DDO Page a of a SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 16, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P, D'Agostino, A. Berkowsky (for K. Kelly), R. Dahal, C. Smith, D. Marino, M. Myk*L S. Najar, R. Wakxak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement D. Jennings. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, S. Gudedey, J. Larson, S. Lufkin, J. Minear, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. Alderman Melissa Wynne, Ms. Niki Hiltwein, A!ioe Muslin, Alex Sproul. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and Megan the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-066 920 Pitner Avenue Final Construct enclosed loading area for light manufacturing use (Devontry Workshop, Inc.) Mr Josef Birgmann (property owner) presented Building Permit Application 099-197, including a site plan. floor plan, and elevation, and a photograph of the dust collector, site photographs, and building maternal samples to construct an enclosed loading area for the light manufacturing use (Devontry Workshop, Inc } located at 920 Pitner Avenue. J. Birgmann stated that the addition would be constructed of cedar siding over wood studs. J. Birgmann stated that the roof material would be clear, corrugated fiberglass. J. Birgmann stated that part of the enclosure would house the dust collection device. C. Smith asked J. Birgmann: is the dust collection device now within the shop? J. Birgmann responded yes, and it is extremely quiet. C. Smith asked J Birgmann: why did you not choose to construct the enclosure out of masonry? J. Birgmann responded cost and the enclosure does not have to be fireproof. J. Wolinski mot' :o grant Final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mytott seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FIND NGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C0M1Mrn EE Febna" 16, 20M Page 1 a 9 Discussion: A Alterson asked J. Birgmann_ can a vehicle still enter the building at tt* near? J. Birgmann responded; yes. A. Alterson stated he would lice to see more details given to the encicisure because it faces residential uses; on the other hand, the enclosure is desigmd much like a privacy fence found along the back of many residential uses C. Smith asked J. Birgmann: would you paint the enclosure? J. Bkgmmnn responded: no, it would weather. Committee 000roved the motion f44 to orant final site olan and anoearance review anoroval. The site photographs have been placers within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee fWtder for this case (SPAARC 99-156). SPAARC 97-O065 Church Street Plaza Revision to F'mal Modify approved storefront for retail goods establishment (Urban Outfitters). Mr. Tom White (developer) and Mr. Aaron Richter (architect for Urban Outfitters) presented a floor plan and elevations to modify the approved storefront for a proposed retail goods establishment (Urban Outfitters) within Church Street Plaza. Mr. Greg Hakanen (developer) was available to answer questioner T. White stated that the changes would occur on the Church Street side of the building. T. While stated that the columns and their cladding would not change. T. White stated that Urban Outfitters proposes to f • raise the spanarel into the precast band, but Arthur Hill Company has not approved that change; • change the base from a darker split face block to precast concrete; • change the spacing of the mullions; • change the mullions from aluminum to stainless steel; • change the tinted glass to single -pane clear glass; and • install *signature cracked -glass" sidelights, transom, and double doors. A. Richter stated that Urban Outfitters wishes to create transparency between the street and the store. H. Friedman stated that it would be helpful, to have the building material palette that was approved with the original design to evaluate these changes. C. Smith asked the applicants: do the color elevations represent the proposed color of the building materials? A. Richter stated that the color elevation is 'very diagrammatic`. C. Smith stated that she has the same 'philosophical concerns' with this proposal as she did with the Wolfgang Puck proposal - specifically how much should the individual tenants change the storefnonts? C. Smith stated 9 ;"t is disconcerting to make too many changes to the storefronts. C. Smith stated that she is not too opposed to the change to the mullions; in fact, it would be 'great' if the entire building could SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18. 2000 Page 2 or 9 be changed from aluminum muffions to stainless steel mullions. C. Smith stated she has concerns abut the change to the base of the building, but she is unc4ear about the differences. H. Friedman stated that the original design had integrity, and changing the mullions `rubs away' that integrity. H. Friedman stated that the only reason that the applicant proposes to change the storefrcrd is to be noticed as i. `...igle tenants this building was designed as a single building, not a shopping mall M. Friedman stated that evaluating changes within a downtown requires discipline. D. Marino stated that this area is an entertainment district as well, and it requires some character. M. Mylott stated that it is very important to keep the spacing of the mullions. M. M&tt stated that he would support the change to type of glass; however. he would not support the encroachment of CI)e spandrel into the precast band, the change to the base, or the change to the mullions. A Alterson agreed. R. Walczak stated that dear glass conforms more to Crime Prevention Through Environrnerdal Design (CPTED) objectives. M. Mylott stated that he does not have a problem with the cracked -glass entrance. C. Smith and J. Aiello agreed. C. Smith stated that the entrance is the appropriate location 10 express individuality. A Richter asked the Committee would you support the change to the material of the mullions? A AJterson responded: customers' inability to perceive the change in materials does not warrant V* additional cost M. Mylott agreed. H. Friedman stated that it would be helpful to see material samples of the original and proposed mullions. C. Smith stated that the materials do 'read differently'. J. Aiefao stated that the applicant could install stainless steel mullions around the entrance. C. Smith stated V%M she would want to compare the material samples before she supported any change to the material of the mullions. J. Aiello asked C. Smith: has signage been submitted for review? C. Smith responded: no. T. White stated that the signage proposed above the door would be included within the Unified Business Center Sign Plan application. J, Aiello stated that she is curious to see whether each tenant will want their own identity or when . - e signs will be truly unified. C. Smith stated that, if the uniformity of the building is maintained, the signage could express individuality. A Richter stated that the signs on the plans merely illustrate the location of signage. M. Mylott motioned to table the item such that the applicant may explore the suggestions of the Committee. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson asked M. Mylott would you consider an amendment to the motion, approving the change from tinted glass to clear glass. M. Mylott responded: no. the motion, backed by the Committee discussion, provides enough direction to the applicant_ C. Smith stated that the applicant should explore changing the material of all the mullions along Church Street from aluminum to stainless steel. T. White stated that they would review that suggestion. Committee agpr9ved the motion (12-01 to table the item such that the applicant may explore the su(mestions of the Committee The floor plan and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065). SUMMARY OF FIND04G,S SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrTTEE Febmary 16. 2000 Page 3 d 9 SPAARC 00-011 2531 Oakton Street Preiimbmary Install antennas on existing monopole for wireless communication facility (VoiceSream) Mr. Chad Argentar (VoiceStream) presented a site plan, elevations, site photographs, and company description to install antennas for a wireless communication facility (WCF) (VoiceStream) on the a naing monopole bcate_ t 2531 Oakton Street. C. Argentar stated that VoiceStream is 'in the process of beginning to provide service' to the Chcago metropolitan area. C. Argentar stated that VoiceStream uses Global System for Mobile Communicalbans (GSM) technology — a standard used worldwide. C. Argentar stated that VoiceSream is the 7°i carnet to enter the Chicago market, allowing them the opportunity to locate upon existing towers C. Argentar stated VoiceStream would like to place antennas upon the 120-foot Cellular One tower, the VoiceStream antennas would be at 90 feet. C. Argentar stated that this arrangement would be a revenue source for Cellular One, and it would avoid having to construct a second tower. J. Wolinski asked C. Argentar will you be seeking sites within Skokie? C. Argentar responded: we will probably have a site within every community. A. Alterson asked C. Argentar what is the typical distance between sites? C. Argentar responded: if the world was flat, if communities had no zoning restrictions, and if no one built tall structures, the service radii would be approximately two to fire miles. C. Argentar stated that, more realistically, the service radii are one to two miles. A Alterson asked C. Argentar. in which other communities do you have WCFs? C. Argentar responded: Niles, Glencoe. and Winnetka. J. Wolinski stated that the City should get a fee for applications of this type: he does not want the City to become 'a dumping ground' for WCFs. M. Mylott asked C. Argentar. how many sites do you have targeted for Evanston? C. Argentar responded: it depends upon many factors. such as the height of approved sites, the ability to negotiate leases, and whether or not the City finds the proposed sites desirable; any change to any of these factors completely changes the system. C. Argentar stated that VoiceStream wc.' ; -Led "a couple more' within Evanston. D. Marino stated co -location is a good idea; Evanston does not want more towers M. Mylott agreed. D. Marina motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he 'sympathizes" with J. Wolinski A Alterson stated that the new antennas, although located upon an existing tower, could create more of a visual obstruction than a new tower. A. Alterson stated that he wants to see the entire plan for the City rather than this 'hit -by -hit' approach. H. Friedman and S. Nagar agreed. M. Mylott disagreed and stated that the Committee should evaluate this proposal on its own merits; the knowledge, or lack thereof, of future locations of VoiceStream WCFs has no bearing on whether or not this location is appropriate for a WCF A Berkowsky agreed. C. Argentar stated that future locations depend upon many ever - changing factors; changes to the factors change the entire plan. S. Nagar stated that VoiceStream must know where it plans to place WCFs. C. Argentar stated that, if he shared such a plan with the Committee, he could not commit to it A Alterson stated that the Zoning Ordinance gives wireless communication providers a 'very, very fair shake' by exempting them as a non -municipal SUMMARY OF FINDitil's SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 16, 2000 Pape 4 of 9 essential public service, except that they must receive approval frcra roes Committee A. Alterson stated that he does not see why VaceStream cazriot present a plan illustrating its target areas. S. Nagar and J Wolinski agreed. J. Wotinsfo asked C. Argentar what is the monthly payment to Cellular Curie to use their tower? C. Argentar responded: I cannot release that information. Committee aooroved the motion (6-41 to Grant nreliminary site elan and appearance review aoprovaI. H. Friedman abstains,.. The site plan, elevations, site photographs, and company description have been placed within the Sde Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-011). SPAARC 00-010 709 Main Street Preliminary and Final Renovate fagade for retail sales establishment (Guitarworks). Mr. Terry Straker (owner) and Ms. vegan Cawley (owner) presented Building Permit Application *00-089, including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, and a plat of survey and site photographs to renovate the fagade of the building for a proposed retail sales establishment (Guitarworks) at 709 Main Street. S. Lufkin stated that this applicant is participating in the City's Facade Rebate Program. T. Straker stated that he currently rents the space at 739 Main Street, but he has purchased 709 Main Street. T. Straker stated that the former use was the Main Jr. Dept. Store. T. Straker stated that the front fagade is in poor condition; he plans to remove 'everything from below the awning'. T, Straker stated that he would construct an 18-inch brick knee wall. T. Straker stated that the new brick would match the existing brick; sections of brick wittun the upper portion of the Facade would be washed such that all the brick matches. T. Straker stated that the new doors would be recessed 3% to 4 feet C. Smith asked u applicants. did you try to save the existing base? T. Straker responded: yes. T. Straker stated that they would try to save pieces of the original base at the comers of the windows. C. Smith asked the applicants: of what material would the mullions be made? T. Straker responded: aluminum. C. Ruiz stated that the color of the mullions would resemble copper that has not petinaed. C. Smith stated that she always recommends installing safety glass. C. Smith stated that a Committee review and approval would not include review and approval of the awning or signage; those items would require a separate permit. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aDDroved the motion (12-01 to grant oreliminary and final site otan and appearance review approval. 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 00-010). SUMMARY OF FINCINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARA14CE REVIEW CONVAMEE February r& 20M Pne5d9 SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicano Avenue Prelimhury Demolish building and construct 11-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retest and 21 dwelling ur*s within upper floors). Mr. Michael Lee (owner), Mr. Jim Torvik (architect), and Mr. Neil Kenig (traffic c_,onsuftant) preseraed a Zoning Analysis Application #00-77-ZA, including a site plan, floor plans, ar d elevations, a letter fr= the owner, an alley survey, a traffic study, and a letter from an elevator consumant to demolish the evs" building and construct an 11-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and 21 dwelling units wlthm the upper floors) at 6 ..:.hicago Avenue. J. Torvik stated that the alley survey was derived from a base map provided by the City; his office digitized this map and marked the existing conditions within the alley. J. Torvik stated that the City TraftSc Engineer provided alley counts to the applicant's traffic consultant to produce the traffic study. J Tarv* stated that the applicant sought and has provided the opinion of an elevator consultant_ J. Torvik stated that the revised Zoning Analysis shows "no conflicts' J. Torvik stated that they dimensioned the interior of the vehicle elevator; the interior clearance would be 9 feet 9 inches whereas a Evanston parking space must only be 8 feet 6 inches wide. J. Torvik stated that the clearance to V* ground -floor parking would be 11 feet wide. J. Torvik stated they added an accessible parking space. J. Torvik stated that they would screen the loading berth. J. Torvik stated that they have made no changes to the upper floor plans or the elevations. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you accommodated the scissors stair separation issue? J. Torvik responded -.yes. R. Dahal stated that the City conducted traffic counts within the alley. R. Dahal stated that, between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., 38 cars per hour used the alley, and 30 percent of that traffic was 'cut through'. R. Dahal stated that, between 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., 38 cars per hour used the alley, and 40 percent of that traffic was "cut through". J. Wolinski asked R. Dahal: is this amount of traffic "a lor? R. Dahal responded: not really, this amount of traffic equals one car every 1'A minutes. R. Dahal stated that the peak periods were 4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. where 13 cars used the alley; six and four cars 'cut through', respec:....y. C. Smith asked R. Dahal: what about truck traffic? R. Dahal responded. delivery trucks sat within the alley in the morning, mostly toward the north end; however, another vehicle could pass by the stationary trucks. R. Dahal stated that some cars temporarily parked within the alley, but another vehicle could pass by the stationary car; also, some cars entered the south end of the alley just to turn around. M. Mylott asked R. Dahal: given the existing conditions. would the additional traffic from the proposed development create a problem within the alley? R. Dahal responded: no, based upon the vehicle elevator one -minute cycle time. J. Wolinski stated that, if the southeast comer of Main Street and Chicago Avenue develops. the impact to the alley could be significant. J. Wolinski stated that the City must consider the total cumulative effect C. Smith stated that she is not so much concerned about the number of vehicles associated with the proposed development, more so queuing within the alley N. Kenig stated that probably 100 parking spaces are served along this alley, however, during the peak hour (between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), only 14 vehicles sought a parking space while seven vehicles left a parking space. N. Kenig stated that only five vehicles during the peak hour would seek a parking space within the proposed development via the vehicle elevator. N. Kenig stated that one vehicle every six minutes to this development would not impact the area; while some vehicles may come right after the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 16, 2000 Page 6 of 9 another, ad five vehicles would not come to the development at once. N. Ken>g stated that a s+e=d vehicle might have to wait one minute, but he believes any person waiting for the vehr Je elevator wavld stop such nat others could pass. N. Kenig stated that developments like this do not generate the -.YM of traffic found in suburban locations: typically, 30 percent of the persons living at a development of ns type would use public transportation. J. Wohnska stated that he appreciates the applicant's efforts to address the site planning issues, hcm e%w, he cannot support this project because 'it packs too much into a small space'. J Wolinski stated raR it was unfortunate that the applicant could not create a land bank arrangement with the adjacent E`czty owner, however, as proposed, this project is too tall and too dense. J. Wolinsla moboned to deny site plan and appearance review approval. R Walczak seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he 'sympathizes' with J. Wolinski, and he 'symparaxes' with the owner. A. Alterson stated that he still has 'a problem' with the velvde elevator, all elevators always need to be serviced. A. Alterson stated that if the one vehicle elevator 'is down', even for routine service, no one can get in or out. M. Lee stated that that issue is one of marketing. A. Alterson disagreed and stated that, if no one wants to occupy the building, the City is left with a vacant building. M. Lee disagreed and stated that the building would never be vacant at the worst case, the price would depreciate to a point at which persons would occupy it regardless of the access. C. Smith stated that she shares the concerns of A. Alterson. C. Smith stated that, with regard to density, the project has zoning approval; it is an attractive building, given the setback. Committee aooroved the motion f8-21 to deny site Dian and appearance review aooroval. R. Dahal and M. Mylott cast dissenting votes. A. Alterson abstained. M. Lee asked the Committee: what is the appeal process? J. Wolinski responded: you should address a letter stating your appeal to Roger Crum, City Manager. M. Lee asked the committee: have we addressed your concerns about queuing? C. Smith responded: I am still concemed. D. Marino agreed. M. Mylott responded: I am satisfied, based upon the opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer. M. Lee stated that he hoped the Committee appreciated that he was 'trying to make the best of a really undevelopable site'. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, letter from the owner, alley survey, traffic study, and letter from an elevator consultant have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee fokW for this case (SPAARC 00-004). SUMMARY OF F94DWSGS SITE PLAIT AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWiiEE February I& 20M Page 7 of 9 SPAARC 00-012 845 Chicago Avenue Cow Construct 12-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and msidenbal within the upper floors). Mr. James Fox (attorney) and Mr. John Madsen (architect) presented a site plan, elevation, plat of sLr etiy. and site photographs to construct an 8-story, mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and residential wifin the upper floors) at 846 Chicago Avenue. Mr. Gregory Hughes (representative of management comps v was available to answer questions. J_ Fox stated that the property owner acquired this property through foreclosure J. Fox stated that Ike property owner has several holdings along Chicago Avenue. J. Fox stated that this project is only for T* southeast comer „f Main Street and Chicago Avenue, commonly known as 'The Main'; the propemy owner believes tha[, given the uncertainty within the Cia District, he should at least start the project at T* comer (zoned B3) because this property is a 'principal income property'. J. Fox stated that they are early in the planning process; their approach is to raze the site. J. Fox stases that the proposal includes: • ground -floor retail; • 240 parking spaces across four levcis of parking, vehicular access is via the alley; and • 76 dwelling units (condominiums) within eight stories sitting on top of the parking levels, access is at Main Street. J. Fox stated that they have provided a maximum of parking because 'that's what they heard'. J. Madsen stated that each residential floor would be approximately 10,000 square feet with eight dwelling units per floor, however, the floor plans have not yet been developed. C. Smith asked the applicants: are the parking spaces for public use? J Fox responded: the owner would be receptive to that idea. A. Berkowsky asked the applicants- would the parking levels be open or closed? J. Fox responded: we are not sure yet. M. Mylott asked fr,A applicants: what is the feasibility of saving the fa;ade? J. Fox responded: it is possible. H. Fheafnan asked C. Ruiz: is this building a landmark? C. Ruiz responded: no. J. Madsen asked the Committee: from where would you prefer access to the parking levels come -- the street or the alley? C. Smith responded: you should work with Tiatfic Engineering on that question. S. Najar stated that the applicant should conduct a traffic study of immediate area, evaluating the existing and potential developments. R. Dahal stated that a development of this size would impact signalization C. Smith stated that parking is also critical. M. Mylott stated that the applicant must balance the benefit of providing more parking spaces with the resulting impacts to traffic. J Fox stated that they would retain Neil Kenig of Kenig Lindgren O'Hara and Aboona (KLOA) to study the traffic and parking. C. Smith stated that the building would be very massive, especially if it is built on the lot line. C. Smith stated that the applicants may want to consider a variation to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow them to move the building off the lot line somewhat. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 16, 2000 Page a of 9 V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 16, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A Alterson, P. D'Agostino, A. Berkowsky (for K. KeW), R. Dahal, C. Smith, D. Marino, M. MylM S. Najar, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: D. Jennings. Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present: Others Present: Commencement H. Friedman. B. Fahistrom, S. Guderley, J. Larson, S. Lutlkin..J. Minear. M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. Alderman Melissa Wynne, Ms. Niki Hiltwein, Alice Muslin, Alen Sproul. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-056 920 Pitner Avenue Fined Construct enclosed loading area for light manufacturing use (Devontry Workshop, Inc.) Mr. Josef Birgmann (property owner) presented Building Permit Application #99-197, including a site plan, floor plan, and elevation, and a photograph of the dust collector, site photographs, and building material samples to construct an enclosed loading area for the light manufacturing use (Devontry Workshop, Inc.) boated at 920 Pitner Avenue. J. Birgmann stateo that the addition would be constructed of cedar siding over wood studs. J. Birgmann stated that the roof material would be clear, corrugated fiberglass. J. Birgmann stated that part of the enclosure would noose the dust collection device C. Smith asked J. Birgmann: is the dust collection device now within the shop? J. Birgmann responded: yes, and it is extremely quiet C. Smith asked J. Birgmann: why did you not choose to construct the enclosure out of masonry? J. Birgmann responded: cost and the enclosure does not have to be fireproof. J. Wolinski motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. SUMMARY OFFi CIIGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COIWI ME February M 200D a page I Ciro Discussion: A. Alterson asked Jt Begmann: can a vehicle still enter the building at Mel` i►ear? J. Birgmann responded: yes. A. Atterson stated he would Bice to see more details given to the encimure because it faces nesidenbat uses: on the other hand. the enclosure is dew grid much like a privacy f>ri found along the back of many residential uses. C. Smith asked J. Birgmann. would you paint the enck*ure? J. BirgWmw responded: no, it would weather. Committee approved the motion L to nrant f+nal site can an¢ aopearance review avDroval. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Com1nifte titer for this case (SPAARC 99-156). SPAARC 97-0065 Church Stmet PLa,7-a Revision to Final, Modify approved storefront for retail goods establishment (Urban Ouffrtters). Mr. Tom White (developer) and Mr. Aaron Richter (architect for Urban Outfitters) presented a War plan and elevations to modify the approved storefront for a proposed retail goods establishment (Uluton Outfitters) within Church Street Plaza. Mr. Greg Hakanen (developer) was available to answer questi=s. T. White stated that the changes would occur on the Church Street side of the building. T. White started that the columns and their cladding would not change. T. White stated that Urban Outfitters proposes lo: • raise the spandrel into the precast band, but Arthur Hill Company has not approved that change, • change the base from a darker split face block to precast concrete; • change the spacing of the mullions; • change the mullions from aluminum to stainless steel; • change the tinted glass to single -pane Gear glass; and • install 'signature cracked -glass' sidelights, transom, and double doors. A. Richter stated that Urban Outfitters wishes to create transparency between the street and the stanr. H. Friedman stated that it would be helpful to have the building material palette that was approved urith the original des,k,.. evaluate these changes. C. Smith asked the applicants: do the color elevations represent the proposed color of the buddueg materials? A. Richter stated that the color elevation is 'very diagrammatic'. C. Smith stated that she has the same 'philosophical concerns' with this proposal as she did with the Wolfgang Puck proposal - specifically how much should the individual tenants change the storefnXVIs? C. Smith stated that it is disconcerting to make too many changes to the storefronts. C. Smith stated tlhat she is not too opposed to the change to the mullions; in fact, it would be 'great' if the entire building world SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Sr1E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 16, 2M Page 2 of 13 e x be changed from aluminum mullions to stainless steel mullions. C. Smith sated she has :, about the change to the base of the bui- ing, but she is unclear about the differences H. Friedman stated that the original design had integrity, and changing the mullions 'rubs away' that integrity. H. Friedman stated that the only reason that the applicant proposes to change me stw*f tit is to be noticed as a single tenant; this building was designed as a single building, not a shopping mail- H. Friedman stated that evaluating changes within a downtown requires discipline D. Marino staled that tins area is an entertainment district as well, and it requires some character. M. Mylott stated that it is very important to keep the spacing of the mullions_ M. Mylott go t -J lhat he would support the change to type of glass; however, he would not support the encroachmerst of the spandrel into the precast hand. the change to the base, or the change to the mullions. A. Aiter3W agreed. R. Walczak stated that Gear glass conforms more to Crime Preventon Through Environnwntal Design (CPTED) objectives. M. Mylott stated that he does not have a problem with the cracked-gia5s entrance. C. Smith and J. Aiello agreed. C. Smith stated that the entrance is tW appropriate ldar to express individuality. A. Richter asked the Committee: would you support the change to the maaerial of the mullions? A Akerson responded: customers' inability to perceive the change in materials does not warrant the additional cost. M. Mylott agreed. H. Friedman stated that it would be helpful to see material samples of Ole original and n rnooSed mullions_ C. Smith stated that the materials do 'read differentty'. J. Aiello stated that the applcant could install stainless steel mullions around the entrance. C. Srru h started that she would want to compare the material samples before she supported any change to the material of the mullions. J. Aiello asked C. Smith: has signage been submitted for review? C. Smith responded: no. T_ White stated that the signage proposed above the door would be included within the Unified Business Center Sign Plan application. J. Aiello stated that she is curious to see whether each tenant will want tfveir own identity or whether the signs will be truly unified. C. Smith stated that, if the uniformity of the buiding is maintained, the signage could express individuality. A Richter stated that the signs on the plar>rt "W"* illustrate the location of signage. M. Mylott motioned to table the item such that the applicant may explom the suggestions of the Committee. S. Nagar seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Akerson asked M. Mylott: would you consider an amendment to the motion, approving the change from tinted glass to clear glass. M. Mylott responded: no, the motion, backed by the Committee discussion, provides enough direction to the applicant. C. Smith stated that the applicant should explore changing the material of all the mullions along Church Street from aluminum to stainless steel. T. White stated that they would review that suggestion. CommiW aaoru,-vo the motion 112-01 to table the item such that the a licant may exrs(cxe the suggestions of the Committee. The floor plan and elevations have been planed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065). SUMMARY OF F11WONGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COAMARTEE February 16, 2000 Pyre 3 of 9 X SPAARC 00.011 2631 Oakton Street Pn1W ff install antennas on existing monopole for wireless eommunvcabon facility (Vc+oeStream) Mr. Chad Argentar (VoiceStream) presented a site plan. elevations, she p*f0tographs. and .r... Vw f description to install antennas for a wireless communicabon facility (WCF) (%ImceStream) on rle existing monopole located at 2531 Oakton Street C. Argentar stated that VoiceStream s 'in the process of beginning to µ�,ae service" to Me Chrra►ga metropolitan area. C. Argentar stated that VoiceStream uses Global Systems im Mobile Commcjnir-�s (GSM) technology — a standard used worldwide C Argentar stated that VacesStrearn is the 70 carrier to enterthe Chicago market, allowing Viem the opportunity to locate upon ern;bnS towers C. Argentar stated VoiceStream would Ike to place antennas upon the 120-ftm Cellular One trswer. t M VoiceStrearrl antennas would be at 90 feet. C Argentar stated that this arrari ernent would be a revenue source for Cellular One, and it would avoid having to construct a second tower J. Wolinski asked C. Argentar will you be seeking sites within Skokie? C A.-gentar responded- we wrlll pmbabty have a site within every community. A. Attemon asked C Argentar what is the typical dis� between sites? C. Argentar responded: ii the world was flat, if communities had no zoning and if no one built tall structures, the service radii would be approximately two to frve miles C Argentar stated that, more realisticafly, the service radii are one to two miles. A AlCerv.>n asked C Argentar in which other comn.L..ities do you have WCFs7 C Argentar responded, Niles. Gtkncoe, and Winvft J. Wolinski stated that the City should get a fee for applications of this type, he does not want the City to become 'a dumping ground' for WCFs M. Mylott asked C. Argentar how many sites do you have targeted for Evanston? C. Argentar responded: it depends upon many factors. such as the height of approved sites, the ability to negotiate leases, and whether or not the City finds the proposed sites desirable: any chatlge, to any of these factors completely changes the system C. Argentar stated that VoioeStream would need 'a couple more' within Evanston. D. Marino stated co -location is a good idea, Evanston does not want more towers M. Mylottagreed. D_ Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he "sympathizes' with J Wolinsk A Alterson stated that the new antennas, although located upon an existing tower, could create more of a visual obstruction than a new tower. A Alterson stated that he wants to see the entire plan for the City rather than this 'hit -by -hit' approach. H. Friedman and S. Nagar agreed M. Mylott disagreed and stated that the Committee should evaluate this proposal on its own merits. the knowledge, or lack thereof, of future locations of VcaceStream WCFs has no bearing on whether or not this location is appropriate fct a WCF. A Berkowsky agreed C Argentar stated that future locations depend upon marry ever - changing factors, changes to the factors change the entre plan. S. Nagar stated that VoiceStream must know where it plans to place MFs. C. ArgeoAar stated that, if he shared such a plan with the Committee. he could not commit to it A Alterson stated that the Zoning Ordinance gives mreless communication providers a -very, very fair shake" by exempting thern as a non-mwicipal SUWrMRY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RMEW 00#AM7M February 16. 2000 Page < at g JL essential public service, except that they n%M receive approval ftottr aft Committee. A Alterson stated that he does not see Why VoiceStream cannot present a plan illustrating its target areas. S. Nagac and J. Wolinski agreed. J. Wolinski asked C. Argentar what is the montt lly payment to Cellular One to use their tower? C. Argentar responded: I cannot release that information. Committee approved Me motion (6-4) to grant oreliminary site plan and appearance review aoorovak. H. Friedman abstained. The site plan, elevations. site photographs, and company description have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 0"11). SPAARC 00-010 709 Mein Street Prrelitminary and Final Renovate farrade for retail sales establishment (Guitarwoeks) Mr. Terry Straker (owner) and Ms. Megan Cawley (owner) presented Building Permit Application #00-089. including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, and a plat of survey and site photographs to renovate the facade of the building for a proposed retail sales establishment (GuitasworM) at 709 Main Street. S. Lufkin stated that this applicant is participating in the City's Facade Renate Program T. Straker stated that he currently rents the space at 739 Main Street, but he has purchased 709 Main Street, T. Straker stated that the former use was the Main Jr. Dept. Store. T Straker stated that the front fagade is in poor condition; he plans to remove 'everything from below the awning'. T. Straker stated that he would construct an 1i3 inch brick knee wall. T. Straker stated that the new brick would match the existing brick; sections of brick within the upper portion of the fagade would be washed such that all the brick matches. T. Straker stated that the new doors would be recessed 3% to 4 feet C. Smith asked the applicants: did you try to save the existing base? T. Straker responded: yes. T. Straker stated that they would try to save pieces of the original base at the tuners of the windows. C. Smith asked the applicants: of what material would the mullions be made? T. Straker responded: aluminum. C. Ruiz stated that the color of the mullions would resemble copper that has not petinaed. C. Smith stated that sne a4vays recommends installing safety glass. C. Smith stated that a Committee review and approval would not include review and approval of the awning or signage, those dems would require a separate permit C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A. ARerson seconded the motion. Committee annroved the motion (12-0) to grant preliminary and final site Plan and 000earance review aoproval. The site plan, fle--; ^fans, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs gave been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-010), SUMMARY OF FRUXNW SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWME February 1& 2000 eo Page 5 d 9 i SPAARC 00-0" 817 Chicano Avenue Pr+elirninary Demolish building •and construct d i-story mixed -use burrding (ground -floor retail and 21 dwelhry units within upper floors). Mr. Michael Lee (owner), Mr. Jim Torvik (architect), and Mr. Neil Kenig (traffic consultant) presented a Zoning Analysis Application #00-77-ZA, including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, a letter from the owner, an alley survey, a traffic study, and a letter from an elevator consultant to demolish the exe&V building and construct an 11-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and 21 dwelling units witKi n the upper floors) at 817 Chicago Avenue. J. Torvik stated that the alley survey was derived from a base map provided by the City; his office digitized this map and marked the existing conditions within the alley. J. Torvik stated that the City Traffic Engineer provided alley counts to the applicant's traffic consultant to produce the traffic study. J. Torvik stated that the applicant sought and has provided the opinion of an elevator consultant J. Torvik stated that the revised Zoning Analysis shows 'no conflicts?' J. Torvik stated that they dimensioned the interior of the vehicle elevator, the interior clearance would be 9 feet 9 inches whereas a Evanston parking space must only be 8 feet 6 inches wide. J. Torvik stated that the clearance to the ground -floor parking would be 11 feet wide. J. Torvik stated they added an accessible parking space. J. Torvik stated that they would screen the loading berth. J. Torvik stated that they have made no changes to the upper floor plans or the elevations. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you accommodated the scissors stair separation issue? J. Torvik responded: yes. , R. Dahal stated that the City conducted traffic counts within the alley R. Dahal stated that, between 7 a.m, and 9 a.m., 38 cars per hour used the alley, and 30 percent of that traffic was 'cut through'. R. Dahal stated that, between 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., 38 cars per hour used the alley. and 40 percent of that traflric was 'cut through'. J. Wolinski asked R. Dahal: is this amount of traffic 'a k)C? R. Dahal responded: not really, this amount of traffic equals one car every 1'fh minutes. R. Dahal stated that the peak periods were 4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. where 13 cars used the alley; six and four cars `cut through', respectively. C. Smith asked R. Dahal: what about truck traffic? R. Dahal responded: delivery trucks sat witftin the alley in the morning, mostly toward the north end; however, another vehicle could pass by the stationary trucks. R. Dahal stated that some cars temporarily parked within the alley, but another vehicle could pass by the stationary car; also, some cars entered the south end of the alley just to turn around. M. Mylott asked R. Dahal: given the existing conditions, would the additional traffic from the proposed development create a problem within the alley? R. Dahal responded: no, based upon the vehicle elevator one -minute cycle time. J. Wolinski stated that, if the southeast comer of Main Street and Chicago Avenue develops, the impact to the alley could be significant. J. Wolinski stated that the City must consider the total cumulative effect. C. Smith stated that she is not so much concemed about the number of vehicles associated with the proposed development, more so queuing within the alley. N. Kenig stated that probably 100 parking spaces are served along this alley; however, during the peak hour (between 5:o0 P.M. and 6:00 p.m.), only 14 vehicles sought a parking space while seven vehicles left a parking spat c N. Kenig stated that only five vehicles during the peak hour would seek a parking space within the proposed development via the vehicle elevator. N. Kenig stated that one vehicle every six minutes to this development would not impact the area; while some vehicles may come right after the SUMMARY OF FiNANNGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMME February %. 2000 Page 6 or 9 ] rl another, all five vehicles would not come to the development at once. N. Kenig stated that a second vehicle might have to wait one minute, but he bell any person waiting for the vehicle elevator wou stop such that others could pass. N. Kenig stated that developments like this do not generate the W of traffic found in suau, oan locations: typically, 30 percent of the persons living at a development of tniis type would use public transportation. J. Wolinski stated that he appreciates the applicant efforts to address the site planning issues; how*W. he cannot support this project because 'it packs tap much into a small space'. I Wolinski stated tt it was unfortunate that the applicant could not create a land bank arrangement with the adjacent property owner. however, as proposed, this project is too tall and too dense. .� r Jl�I NIGH —8-101df' motioned to deny site plan and appearance review approval. R. Walczak seconded ttre motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he 'sympathizes' with J. Wolinski, and he 'sympan-mae with the owner. A. Aitersoi stated that he still has 'a problem' with the ve&A: e elevator, all elevators always need to be serviced. A. Alterson stated that„ I the one vehicle elevator 'is down', even for routine service, no one can get in cGr out M. Lee stated that that issue is one of marketing A. Alterson disagreed and stated that, if no one wants to occupy the building, the City is left with a vacant building. M. Lee disagreed and stated that the building would never be vacant: at the worst case, the price would depreciate to a point at which persons world occupy it regardless of the access. C. Smith stated that she shares the concerns of A Alterson. C. Smith started that, with regard to density, the project has zoning approval, it is an attractive ' building, given the setback. Committee aoaroved the motion f8-21 to denv site clan and ammarance review aooroval. R. Dahai and M. Mylott cast dissenting votes. A. Alterson abstained. M. Lee asked the Committee: what is the appeal process? J. Wolinski responded: you should address a letter stating your appeal to Roger Crum, City Manager. M. Lee asked the Committee: have we addressed your concerns about queuing? C. Smith responded: am still concerned. D. Marino agreed. M. Mylott responded: 1 am satisfied, based upon the opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer. M. Lee stated that he hoped the Committee appreciated that he was 'trying to make the best of a reaffy undevelopable site'. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, letter from the owner, alley survey, traffic study, and letter from an elevator consultant have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folldw for this case (SPAARC 00-004). SUMMARY OF FiN00M SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMIMI 7 X Feb"O 16, 2WD e Pape 7 d 9 ki SPAARC 00-012 845 Chicago Avenue C Construct 12-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and residential within the upper floors). Mr. James Fox (a.'_..iey) and Mr. John Madsen (architect) presented a site plan, elevation, plat of survey. and site photographs to construct an &story, mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and residentiall within the upper floors) at 845 Chicago Avenue. Mr. Gregory Hughes (representative of management company) was available to answer questions. J. Fox stated that the property owner acquired this property through foreclosure. J. Fox stated fluid the property owner has several holdings along Chicago Avenue. J. Fox stated that this project is only liar 121e southeast comer of Main Street and Chicago Avenue, commonly known as 'The Main`; the property owner believes that, given the uncertainty within the C1a District, he should at least start the project ad the comer (zoned B3) because this property is a "principal income property'. J. Fox stated that they are early in the planning process; their approach is to raze the site. J. Fox sUded that the proposal includes: • ground -floor retail. 240 parking spaces across four levels of parking, vehicular access is via the alley; and 76 dwelling units (condominiums) within eight stories sitting on top of the parking levels, access is at Main Street. J. Fox stated that they have provided a maximum of parking because "that's what they heard'. J. Madsen state- ' ..:at each residential floor would be approximately 10,000 square feet with eW4 dwelling units per floor, however, the floor plans have not yet been developed. C. Smith asked the applicants: are the parking spaces for public use? J. Fox responded: the owner would be receptive to that idea. A. Berkowsky asked the applicants: would the parking levels be open or dosed? J. Fox responded: we are not sure yet. M. Mylott asked the applicants: what is the feasibility of saving the facade? J. Fox responded: it is possible. H. Friedman asked C. Ruiz: is this building a landmark? C. Ruiz responded: no. J. Madsen asked the Committee: from where would you prefer access to the parking levels come — the street or the alley? C. Smith responded: you should work with Traffic Engineering on that question a Najar stated that the applicant should conduct a traffic study of immediate area, evaluating the existing and potential developments. R. Dahal stated that a development of this size would impact sgnaLz Ow. C. Smith stated that parking is also critical. M. Mylott stated that the applicant must balance the berie tot providing more parking spaces with the resulting impacts to traffic. J. Fox stated that they would non Neil Kenig of Kenig Lindgren O'Hara and Aboona (KLOA) to study the traffic and parking. C. Smith stated that the building would be very massive, especially if it is built on the lot line. C. Smith stated that the applicants may want to consider a variation to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow them to move the building off the lot line somewhaL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SIZE MAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 16, 2000 page a of 9 dO .w. C. Smith stated that persons from the audience have requested an opportunity to speak J Wolosld motioned to allow persons within the audience to ccmment on this case. S Najar seconded the rnobom Committee aooroved the motion r11-01 to allow persons within the audienctto comment on this caM. Aid. Wynne stated that the fagade of the existw#g building 'sets the architectural tone for the comae. she advocates that t► a ^•operty owner save it. Aid. Wynne stated that she is concerned about the traffic within the area. A_ Atterson stated that Chicago Avenue has a number of buildings that he 'holds dear', but this building is not one of them; it is more important that the architeczune in its entirety relate to the site. J. Madsen stated they are considering another concept that reuses the fapade. J. Madsen stated MW the tower would be kept away from the corner. J. Madsen stated that the tower would be buck. J. Madsen stated that they would restore the existing fagade and bring the existing storefront spaces up to code. J. Madsen stated that the Tudor building at the back of the property would be removed. J. Madsen started that the ultimate location of the parking garage depends upon how the property within the C1a District located immediately to the south of the subject property may develop. J. Fox stated that. givers the pending 'reductions' to the Cia District, developing that property may not be feasible. C. Smith stated that she encourages the applicant to retain the existing terra cotta facade and to keep the tower away from the comer and Chicago Avenue. J Fox stated that they would evaluate that suggestion. A. Atterson stated that the City wants the best possible development, and the property owner is 'misguided' if he is only looking at what can be built now. J. Fox stated that they would require staff input to determine what is feasible. A. Alterson stated that. if the applicant is encouraged to develop all the parcels at one time, a planned development 'may be the way to go', but he is 'biased against them generally'. J. Wolinski moboi..-d to table this item. A. Atterson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved tfle motion (11-0) to table this item. The site plan, elevation, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this rase (SPAARC 00-012). Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Minear Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FIIORIGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CO1 M ITrEE Febri:ary 15. 2000 Page g d g t WPP9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 9, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. Agostino, R. Dahal, _B. FahKlr=, Igor C. Smith). D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Najar.p R. Waiil?ik (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Pre4�-!!+: Others Present: Commencement J. Aiello, D. Jennings, K. Kelly. None. H. Friedman. S. Guderley, J. Larson, S. Lufkin, J. Minear. M. Robinson. C. Ruiz, R. Schur. ZGTI - M. Mylott motioned to appoint A Akerson as acting chair. D. Marino seconded the motion. C. C.. aproved the motion (7-01 to appoint A. Afterson as acting chair. A Aiterson (acting chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99.122 1935 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Demolish existing structure and construct 4-story, 8 unit, muWamily residential building (condomeatem). Mr. Kevin Barker (architect) presented Building Permit Application #00-046. including a site plan. fbor plans, and elevations, and a plat of survey, building material samples, and site and area photograpft to demolish the existing structure and construct a 4-story, 8-unit residential building (condominiums) a: 1935 Sherman Avenue. K Barker stated that the building would have five levels, including the basement the top four floors would have two dwelling units per level_ K Barker stated that the site would be improved with ten cF street parking spaces. K Barker state, .,o, une original proposal included standard -size brick on the front of the buildiN and split -face block on the sides and rear of the building. K Barker stated that the proposed materals are now jumbo brick on all sides of the building with limestone accents, limestone window treatrmmts, SUMMARY OF FOADW41GS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C051INF TEE Febnnry t 2WO a Page 3 d 11 7C � limestone at the base at the front of the building, and limestone at the parapets. K Barker stated that the brick Is a *cool burnt umber• color. K Barker stated that the building would be fully sprinkkwed in accordance wi6l ^,' J. Wolinski asked K. Barker how high is the building immediately to the south of the subject pmpeRy"? K Barker responded: four stories. A. Altersor asked K Barker how big are the dwelling units and how much do they cost? K Barker 'nCsponded: each unit would include a living room, den, two bedrooms. and combined kitchen and dating room. M. Mylott stated that the Evanston Review tilted the dwelling units as starting at $360,000. J. Wolinski asked A. Alterson: does the project require zoning relief? A Alterson responded. no. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance rernew approval J_ Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that the building looks 'very instrtzmonar because of the facade and brick size: the building looks like a dormitory K Barker disagreed. and stated that the exterior treatments follow design pram; es of 1920s Evanston apartment or courtyard buildings. A. Alterson stated that gabled 4-story buildings are not typical of the 1920s J. Wolinski and D Marino disagreed B. Fahistrorn stated that the assessment of the period is accurate, except that the size of brick works against that character C. Ruiz stated that the applicant should More how the windowpanes are divided to capture the 1920s or 1930s character, the proposed windows are more reminiscent of the 1950s or 1960s J. Wolinski stated that he was 'not thrilled' with jumbo brick but he recognized the cost considerations; he prefers standard -size brick. R_ Fahistrom stated that the applicant could use standard -size brick on the front of the building and jumbo brick on the sides and rear of the building. K Barker stated that that suggestion could produce problems aligning the brick courses; however the standard -size brick could stop at the significant changes within the elevations, such as the chimney. K. Barker stated that they might be able to use standard -size brick within the protruding elements of the front elevation and jumbo brick at all other locations, he wall investigate options. K. Barker stated that the change to jumbo brink was a middle ground between the original proposal and all standard -size brick. J. Wolinski stated that this building could set tr-e standard for further development within this immediate area. A. Alterson asked K. Barker how far would the protruding elements within the front elevation protrude? K. Barker responded approximately 2 feet A. Alterson stated that he would like to see more detailing on the sides of the building. P. D'Agostino stated that the applicant has not provided a landscape plan — an element necessary for final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski stated that the landscape plan should include the existing and/or proposed parkway trees S. Najar stated the applicant must provide on -site water detention. D. Marino stated that the applicant should contact the Engineering Department before returning for final site plan and appearance review. SLWMARY OF FWUNG5 SRE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW commmr!FE February 9, 2000 Pape 2 of 11 X A. Alterson stated that the applicant must present photometrics for " sibe plan and appearance review. A. Alterson stated that the applicant should address waste pickup dung final site plan and appearance review. D. Marino amended the motion as such: grant preliminary site prat"+ and appearance review approval, with the understanding that standard -sire brx* will be used on the front of the building and jumbo b&-k will be used on the sides and rear of the building. J. Wolinski amended the second to be consistent vA h the amended motion. Committee aooroved the motion f8-11 tc, orant nreliminary site Man and apoearance review aoonwal!, with the understandinn that standard -size brick will be used on the fnorrt 4 the b�.'!Iming and himbo brick will be used can the sides and rear of the buildinq. A. Alterson cast the dissenting vote. 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 folder for this case (SPAARC 99-122) SPAARC 00-006 1325 Brummel Street Prellminary and Final Permit retention of third dwelling unit within basement of two-famiy dwelling, requiring major variations. Mr. Alan Melsky (architect) presented an Application for Major Variations (ZBA 00-05-V(F)), including a floor plan and site photographs, to permit the retention of a third dwelling unit within the basement of the two-family dwelli --1 -ated at 1325 Brummel Street. A Melsky stated that he became the agent for the property owner after the work creating the third dwelling unit within the basement was complete. A, Melsky stated that the work did not include modifications to the exterior of the building. A Melsky stated the owners of the building have been living in the basement dwelling unit since they purchased the property — this summer. J. Wolinski motioned to deny preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that the property owners are asking the City to legitimize an illegal dwelling unit. A. Melsky stated that the property owners passed two City of Evanston electrical inspections, which they thought meant they had permission for the dwelling unit A. Melsky stated that a Commonwealth Edison employee told the property owners that they would need additional permission, especially from zoning, for the dwelling unit A. Melsky stated that the property owners wilfingly contacted the City to inform them of this dwelling unit; the City had no knowledge of this dwelling unit being a problem from a zoning perspective until the property owners contacted them and raised the issue. A. Melsky stated that the property owners are immigrants A Alterson asked A. Melsky: from what countries are "the Tuckers'? A Melsky responded. Sierra Leon and Haiti. J Wolinski stated that this case is another example of a 'rash of illegal basement units that the City must stop'. J. Wolinski stated that these dwelling units are fire SUMMARY of FVAXNGS ,,c , srrE ter, AND APPEARANCE RWIEW co�EF Fatin y 9, 2000 e Pne3d1I hazards, and he hopes that the Zoning Board of Appeals agrees that these dwelling units are 'a bad idea' A Alterson asked A. Melsky: does the property have off-street parking? A Melsky responded no A. Atterson stated that this area is 'very heavily parked up', and it does not need an additional dwelling unit. D_ Marino stated that, according to the photographs, very little of the basement dwelling unit is above grade. A Melsky stated ilia basement has a 7 soot i3 inch ceiling height. M. Mylott stated that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Corrun€ w cannot dictate land use; if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the vadat ons, this Committee cannot tell the property owners that they cannot have the third dwelling unit. B. Fahlstrom asked A Melsky: do you know how much work was compkled within the basement before the current prop" owners took title to the property? A Melsky responded. no J. Wolinski stated that, if the Zoning Board of Appeals approves the variations, he will require that the property owners remove everything from within the basement and 'start over, including subinift g plans for permit and scheduling routine inspections by a code officer. J. Wolinski stated that the City has no way to determine whether or not the basement was built to City code, and he is not going to have a code officer 'waste t me trying to figure it our, J. Wolinski stated that the City has no way to determine whether or not the contractor was a licensed contractor either. A. Alterson asked A Melsky: are you a licensed architect? A. Melsky responded: yes. A. Melsky stated that he has informed the property owners that, if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the variations, they would be required to submit drawings to ensure that the work completed met the City code. J. Wolinski asked A. Melsky: are you a broker? A Melsky responded: no; for purposes of this application, i am the agent of the property owner. B. Fahistrom stated that, if the building is converted from a two - flat to a three -fiat, the applicant must comply with BOCA rather than CABO; BOCA is more complex, and it may require that the building be sprinklered. M. Mylott stated that the Committee might want to consider tabling this case, because the question is really of land use A. Alterson stated that the case does involve site plan issues, such as traffic, parking, and garbage collection. M. Mylott stated that the applicant may be able to address those issues if the land use is approved. J. Wolinski stated that he wants this Committee to express to the Zoning Board of Appeals that approving this case is a "bad precedent'. M. Mylott stated that the item is scheduled for the February 15, 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting; however, due to a current 'backlog' of cases, it may not actually be heard on that date Committee aoaroved the motion f7-0l to denv oreliminary and final site Alan and aooearance review approval. M. Mylott abstained The site photographs have been placed within the Site plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-006). SLWAARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 0. 2000 Pace i of 11 z X SPAARC 00-010 1890 Maple Avenue ConoWtt thstaff 15-ton refrigerating and heating unit along west side of office building Mr. Gregory Goss (architect) presented an existing and proposed site plan, aR sheet, and site photographs to install a 15-ton refrigerating and heating unit (RHU) along the west side of the ottkx building locate- -. Maple Avenue. G. Goss stated that Nanovations Technologies, Inc. (NTI) requires a RHU for a new 1,500 square foot dean room. G. Goss stated that the RHU would be located along the west side of the building. G. Gars stated that a screen wall would conceal the RHU on three sides. G. Goss stated that the screen waR exams on the north side; the north wall would be extended, and the west and south sides would be constructed, using the same brick as the existing screen wall. G. Goss stated that the RHU is 26 feet kx)g, 9 feet wide, and 41A feet high; the screen wail is 10 feet high. G. Goss stated that the ducts for the RHU would also be below the screen wall; these would be approximately 9 feet above grade, entering the bwlding above an existing door. G. Goss stated that he would leave a 10-foot space within the south side of the screen wall to permit loading. B. Fahistrom stated that the applicant should provide a section, showing that the RHU and items related to the RHU will not be visible. D. Marino asked G. Goss: who is employing you? G. Goss responded. the Shaw Company hired me; Nanovations Technologies, Inc. is a client of the Shaw Company. G. Goss stated that the Shaw Company desires the screening and sound abatement measures. D. Marino stated that the parcels to the west and the south of this building are being considered for other office buildings; their construction would close out the quadrant, as envisioned by the Master Plan a Design Guidelines for the Northwestern University/Evanston Research Park. D. Marino asked G. Goss., would this proposal conflict with the quadrant as envisioned? G. Goss responded,. I am not sure. A. Aherson state' " * = applicant should address this issue. A. Alterson stated that he would like to see the applicant add landscaping to reduce the mass of the screen wall. G. Goss stated that the screen wall would not impact parking. M. Mylott stated that the layout of the screen wall should be planned such that it would screen the dumpsters. G. Goss stated that he would communicate that request to the Shaw Company and tenant. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval, subject to addressing the questions related to the quadrant, landscaping, and screening the dumpsters. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee pporoved motion (9-0) to arant concept approval. subject to addressing_ the atiCstioar related to the ouadrant. landscaoinq. and screenina the dumosters. The existing and proposed site plan, cut sheet, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-010), SULOAARY of FnrDMS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C06/4rT[EE Febtuwy 9. 21OW Paps 5 of 11 X SPAARC 00-008 603 Main Street f Preliminary and +Final Install temporary dnve-thru facifrty at finarrual institution (Evanston GrestBank). Mr Kraus Koch (architect) and Mr. Bill Srrxth (Evanston Great8ank) presented a site plan, plat of survey. and site and area photographs to install a temporary drive-thru facility at the financial institution (Evwistari GreatBank) located at 603 Main Street. S. Smith stated that the equipment is already in place for the temporary driv"ru facility, Evanston GreatBank had a drive-thru facility at this location approximately 10 years ago. S. Smith stated thad the tourer drrve-thru facility was dosed whet? the bank built a drive-thru facility at the northeast corner of Main Street and Chicago Avenue (515 Main Street); the new development at 515 Main Street would Include a drive-thru facility 8 Smith stated that the drive-thru facility would include two lanes and fine teller. B Smith stated that the facility woUd be painted, signage would be added, and the fixtures would be installed A. Alterson stated that this application was approved by the City Manager's office in November or December 19", subject to approval by the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee A. Altr_wn stated that the temporary use would expire in November 2001. D. Marino asked the applicants, would the drive-thru facility operate In the same manner as it did approximately 10 years ago? B Smith responded: yes. B. Smith stated that a vehicle would only enter from Chicago Avenue and exit to Main Str> M via that alley, limited to right -turn only. R. Dahal asked the applicants where would you post directional signs? K. Koch responded: the signs would be mounted to the west wall of the building along with a stop sign. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: does that corner have a 'blind spot'? B. Smith responded: yes, but we would include a flashing tight and hom operating on a photoelectric beam R Dahal stated that the horn must include a tum-off switch for City use. R. Dahal stated that, depending upon how the traffic flows, the City may prohibit left-hand turns to the drive-thru facility from Chicago Avenue. R. Walczak asked the applicants would the ATM be available 24 hours per day? K. Koch responded: yes. R. Walczak asked the applicants: what type of illumination would be available within the alley? K. Koch responded- two wall pack lights are mounted to the building. R. Walczak stated that having extensive illumination is critical-, given the location, the lights would not impact residences. A. Alterson asked the applicants, how tong would the temporary drive-thru facility be in operation? B. Smith responded approximately 16 months. hopefully shorter. A. Alterson asked the applicants: when would you like to open the temporary drive-thru facility? B. Smith responded: the first week of March_ A. Alterson asked the applicants: is the alley private? B. Smith responded: yes. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. myte seconded the motion Discussion R Dahal asked the applicants how would garbage trucks retrieve the garbage from the alley? B Smith responded: the trucks back into the alley and pick up the garbage. B. Smdh stated that they have discussed scheduling `pick ups' for early morning to avoid traffic. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND /+"CE REVIEW COMMITTEE February B. 2000 Page 6 Of 11 re,4 9 R. Walczak stated that he is concerned that a veWe within the alley would be under rKTAW visibility. R. Wak=ak stated that the applicant shotAd ;install security cameras within the alley, at least to record activity. R. Walczak stated that the applicant could have one camera mounted at the south end of the building, shooting north: this camera would also deter inappropriate behwcr M. Mylott stated that the applicant could also erect signs within the alley not:ityirtg persons that the area is under survei(lance. D. Marino and A. Aftnon disagreed. 8 Fahtstrom stated that all signage is reviewed under a separate permit. exoept directional signage. B. Smith started that they need to further review their signage needs. D. Marino amended the motion as such: to grant preliminary and fnail sft pion and appearance review approval, provided the applicant 1) maintains entwainced fighting within the alley; 2) installs a security camera at the southwest corner of the building, shooting north; and 3) discontinues the temporary use by the end of November 2001. M. Mylott amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee aooroved the motion (8-0) to grant oreliminary and final site olan and apoearance review aooroval. orovided the aooiicant- 11 maintains enhanced liiahtina within the atlev: 21 installs a security camera at the southwest ramer of the buildino shooting north: and 3) discontinues the temoorary use by the end of November 2001 The site plan, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-008). SPAARC 98-0143 1805 Howard Street Final Review signage for type 2 restaurant (Cousins Subs), installed without Committee review and approval as required by speuw use. Mr. Tony Bauerafriend (sign contractor) presented site photographs to review signage, Instaffed without Committee review and approval as required by the grant of special use, for the type 2 restaurant (Cousins Subs) located at 1805 Howard Street M. Mylott stated that the property owner was to receive Committee review and approval for any signage erected upon this property, the property owner caused to installed the wall sign without this review and approval. T. Bauerafriend stated that they received a permit to install the sign. M. Mylott stated that the new sign is a 'dramatic improvement- over the previous conditions. M. Mylott asked T. Bauerafriend: is the sign illuminated? T. Bauerafriend responded: yes, and the background to the sign is not white. M. Mylott motioned to approve the signage as satisfying the condition of zoning approval. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee aDoroved the motion (6-01 to aoorove the sianaoe as natisfvina the condition of zoning aooroval. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee faider for this case (SPAARC 98-0143). SUMMARY OF FWOD+Gs SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CDW(TTEE February 2,2000 eo page 7dil SPAARC 99-110 655 Howard Street Recommendation to Sign Board lnsW canopy signage and replace free-standing sign at automobile service station (Marathon). B. Fahistrom presented Sign Ordinance Variation Application #OD-04 to install canopy signage and replace a free-standing sign at the automobile service station (Marathon) located at 555 Howard Street. B. Fahlstrom stated that: • the height of the canopy signage would be 18 feet, whereas the Sign Ordinance limits the height to 15 feet 6 incite,, • the i(lu Tfinated canopy signage has a white background, whereas the Sign Ordinance prohibits white backgrounds for idfurninate signs; • Me proposed 15 foot 6 inch free-standing sign would be 7 feet from the east lot line and 5 feet from the Howard Street lot line, whereas the Sign Ordinance states that the height of a sign 3 feet or more from a lot line may not exceed the distance between the sign and said lot line, and • the proposed free-standing sign would be within 20 feet of a circulation tare, whereas the Sign Ordinance prohibits this location. A Aiterson asked B. Fahistrom: would the free-standing sign have to be removed if the variations are not granted? B. Fahistrom responded: i believe so, by 2003. M. Mytott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve all variations, provided the free-standing sign contains no changeable copy, except gas prices. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that the free-standing sign is not necessary, especially considering the canopy signage. B. Fahistrom agreed. Committee failed to aoorove the motion (3-31 to recommend that the Sian Review and Anneals Board approve all vane..,:.... orovided the Free-standina sign contains no changeable coov. except oas prices. A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, and B. Fahistrom cast dissenting votes. A Alterson motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the vanatoons for the free-standing sign. P. D'Agosbno seconded the motion. Committee failed to aoorove the motion (3-31 to recommend that the Sian Review and Anneals Board denv the variations for the free-standina sian. R Dahal, M. Mytott, and R. Walczak cast dissenting votes. A. Alterson stated that the words upon the canopy sign are clutter; the glue stripe should be extended to the other end of the canopy on all sides. R. Fahlstrom agreed. A Alterson motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the variations for the canopy signage, provided the word "Marathon' is removed and the blue stripe is extended to the other end of the canopy on all sides. R. Fahlstrom seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion 16- 0) to recommend that the Sian Review and ADoeals Board aoorove the variations for the'canoov sionaoe, orovided the word 'Marathon' is removed and the blue stripe is extended to the other end of the canoov on all sides. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN ANDAPPEARA14CE REVIEW COMMITTEE February % 2000 pope 8 or 11 F-A III. Mylott amboned to reconsider the following motion: to recommend that the Sign Review and 13 a deny the variations for the free-standing sign. A. Akerson seconded the mourn. Comimktee aporoved the motion (6-0) to reconsider the foikrM motion: to recgornend that the Sion Review and Aooeals Board deny the variations for the free-standing sign. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the variations for tthe free-standing sign. A. Akerson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-0 to recommend that the Sion Review and Appeals Board deny the variations for the free-standina lion. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance ftwlew Committee fold_ _`:s case (SPAARC 99-100). SPAARC 98-0034 1910 Dempster Street Recommendation to Sion Board lnatall illuminated wall signs for new grocery store (Dorninick's). B. Fahistrom presented Sign Ordinance Variation Application #00-05 to Install Illuminated wall signs for the new grocery store (Dominick's) located at 1910 Dempster Street B. Fahistrom stated that: • the height of the 'Dominick's' sign would be 28 feet 9 inches, the height of the 'Food' and Trug' signs would be 21 feet 6 inches, and the height of the "Bank One' sign would be 18 feet whereas the Sign Ordinance limits the height to 15 feet 6 inches; • the'Dominick's' sign would be 213 square feet, whereas the Sign Ordinance limits the amount of any one sign to less than or equal to 200 square feet; and • the signage for this building must conform to the previously approved Unified Business Center Sign Plan. A Alterson stated that he has no problems with the 'Bank One" sign; however, he is not certain the 'Food' and 'Cr,., are necessary. M. Mylott asked B. Fahistrom: are the signs channel letters? B. Fahistrom responded: the plans use language that would lead one to think so, but it is not explicit. P. D'Agostino motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the variations, provided: 1) the 'Dominick's' sign is less than or equal to 200 square feet, and 2) the applicants use channel letters, not box signs. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aaoroved the motion (6-0) to recommend that the Sion Review and Aoaeals Board aoorove the variations. orovided: 11 the 'Dominick's' sign is less than or equal to 200 square feet. and 2) the applicants use channel lettem. not box signs. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0034). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COWM+U"M t=ehtuary 9.2000 Page 9 or I 1 Ei SPAARC 00-009 417-421 Custer Avenue Recommendation to Sign Soard lnstail temporary non-Uluminated free-standing teat estate sign. B. Fahistrorn presented Sign Ordinance Varia>yon Application #00-06 to install a temporary non - illuminated tree -standing real estate sign at 417-421 Custer Avenue. B. Fahistrom stated that: • the sign would be located within a residential zoning district, whereas the Sign Ordinance does not permit signs within residential districts; and • the sign . • . 13in too many items of information per side, whereas the Sign Ordinance limits the number of items of information to 7 per side of a sign. M. Mylod stated that he has long supported temporary real estate signs. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the variations, provided the sign is removed within 12 months or once the last unit Is sold, whichever comes first P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Atterson asked B. Fahlstrom: is the sign within the right-of-way? B. Fahistrom responded: no. A. Attemon stated that the applicant could return to the Committee and request an extension. Committee approved the motion (6-01 to recommend that the Sian Review and Aooeals Board avorove the variations. orovided the sion is removed within 12 months or once the last unit is sold, whichever comes first. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committeefolder for this case (SPAARC 00-009). SPAARC 99-' '7^ 81b Reba Place Recommendation to Sian Board Install a temporary non -illuminated free-standing real estate sign. B. Fahistrom presented Sign Ordinance Variation Application SOG-07 to install a temporary nowt - illuminated free-standing real estate sign at 815 Reba Place. B. Fahistrom stated that: • the sign would be located within a residential zorung district, whereas the Sign Ordinance does not permit signs within residential districts; and • the sign would contain too many items of inforrnation per side, whereas the Sign Ordinance limits the number of items of information to 7 per side of a sign. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SttE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrTTEE February 9. 2000 Page 10 or 11 M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the varmhons, provided the sign is removed within 12 months or once the last unit is sold, whichever causes fErsL P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aovroved the rn ' n ", Sion Review and Appeals Board approve the 44.;e.4;...�, provided the sign is removed within 12 mrrill or once the tact unit is sold, whichever Comes first The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been ptaced within the Site Plan and Appearance (Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-123). Summary of Findings J. Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the January 19, 2000; January 25, 2000; and February 2, 2000 meetings. R. Walczak seconded the motion. 0) to aaDrove L.- '-...,.mary of Fndinas from the January 19. 2000: January 2¢,_��QO . and F 7, 2000 meetinas. Adloumment The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Mkww Recording Secretary SUIJaAARY OF F OMPS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CCM*TrEE Feb mwj 9. 20DO Pane I of 11 El SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 2, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: R. Dahal, S. Franz (for P. D'Agostino), D. Jennings, K. Kelly. M. Mylott, S. Najar, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present Others Present Commencement J. Aiello, A. Alterson, D. Marino. None. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, S. Guderley, S. Lufkin, R. Schur. Alderman Melissa Wynne: Ms. Niki Hittwein. M. Mylott stated that he would act as Zoning Administrator for matters of a quorum. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-033 1508 Elmwood Avenue Convert building to multi -/amity duelling (seven condominiums). Mr. Charles Wilson and Mr. Aaron Wilson (developers) presented Building Permit Application 35. including a site plan, floor plans, and elevations, and building material samples and models to convert a vacant building to a multi -family residential building (seven condominiums) located at 1508 E nwood Avenue. A. Wilson stated that they are considering a metal altemative for the rear volume; regardless of the material, it would be painted pebna green to relate to the back porches of the 3- to 4-story apartmient buildings west of the subject property. A. Wilson stated that the rear volume would have a modified (rubberoid) roof. A. Wilson stated that the tower would have a corrugated Gavalume finish (aJumiri= over zinc over steel) roof with Durrock walls. A. Wilson stated that the gabled portion of the roof of the tower would be while the flat portion would have a modified roof. A. Wilson stated that the front volume would be Reba blue metal, relating to the slightly reddish brick of the existing 3-fiat at 9W Grove Street, C. Wilson stated that the roof of the front volume may be the same metal as the sides. if it can be bent; if it cannot, it would be a modified roof. SUMMARY of FOdDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW C011iffiffrrE E eoeiof 6 � M. Mylott asked the applicants: when will you decide if you are using Dryvit or metal for the rear volume? A. Wilson responud' o. within a couple weeks; we are talking to installers. C Smith stated that she would prefer that the applicants try to maintain the integrity of the other materials t:y not using Dry%4 C. Smith stated that Dryvit'reflects on the community as a less qualitative material'. A Wilson stated that they are looking at similar windows to the Swedish H-gpe windows used within the 900 Grove Street project; these windows are wood with a painted metal exter*r. C. Smith staged U%W the windows within the 900 Grove Street project are very crisp looking; she hopes that the appbmft can maintain that attention to detail. C. Wilson stated that they would float the translucent fiberglass screen within the frame at the front df the building. C. Wilson asked the Committee: do you have a preferred distance within the frame the¢ ttte screen should be? C. Smith responded: while H. Friedman made that suggestion, i doubt he waW recommend a specific distance K. Kelly asked the applicants: would the project be sprinklered? C. Wilson responded: only the lower— K. Kelly asked the applicants: would the entire project be under the address'1508 Elmwood AwentW? k Wilson responded: yes. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. S. Najar seconded the motion. Committee a9Rfoved the motion f7-1) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0071 17" Darren A.venbile Final Raze single-family residence and erect addition to religious institution (Bethel AME Church). Mr. Dan Sih (architect) and Ms. Susan Sih presented Building Permit Application #00-M, including a site plan, floor plan, and elevation, and a landscape plan and site and area photographs to raze a single- farnily residence and construct an addition to a religious institution (Bethel AME Church) at 1744 Darrow Avenue. Rev. Walter Bauldrick (Bethel AME Church) was available to answer questions. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: is the house that you propose to demolish occupied? S. Sih responded: it has not been occupied 'for a long time'. C. Smith stated that a revision to a previous preliminary site plan and appearance review approval was granted on May 18, 1999. C Smith stated that, during the May 1999 review, the applicant was told to address landscaping and lighting, building materials would not be required if they match the existing conditions. S. Sih stated that the existing brick is discontinued, but the mason will match it as close as possible. C. Smith stated that brick can be dyed. D. Sih stated that the existing brick has a vertical striation that might not be matched. C. Smith asked the applicants: do you intend to match the existing brick as close as possible? D Sih responded: yes. M. Mylott asked the applicants have you made any changes to those plans reviewed in May 1999? i?. Sih responded: no. M. Mylott stated that the landscaping shown at the northwest comer of the site is within the aisle for the 90-degree parking spaces. M. Mylott stated that, to meet the intent of the special use ordinance, the applicant may have to provide some landscaping within the right-of-way, requiring a permit from the SUMMARY OF FINDiNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REViEW COMMITTEE February 2, 2000 Page 2 of 6 X Engineering Department and the Division of Parks and Forestry, or provide a hedge row akxV the parking area- M. Mytott stated that in accordance with the special use ordinance. the applicant must provide a landscape maintenance plan. D. Sih asked M. Mylott can the person in charge of maintenance be a church member? M. Mylott responded: yes, provided the individual is identified within the plan. C. Smith asked the applicants: are you proposing exterior lighting? S. Sih responded. yes, we are proposing spot lights on the front, along the alley, and near two doors. C. Smith stated than; Ov fights cannot project light out they can only illuminate the immediate area. C. Smith stated that the applicants must provide a cut sheet about the lighting before the Building Division would issue the building permit M. Mytott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to: 1) review and approval of the Landscape plan by the Division of Parks and Forestry, and 2) review and approval of the lighting by the Engineering Department and the Building Division. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aporovesi the motion -Q to grant final site olan and appearance review aooroval subec3 to; review and aooroval of the landscape plan by the Division of Parks and Forestry_ anq 2l review an4 approval of the li h ina by the Engineering Department and the Buiktina Division - The few plan and elevation have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Corr tee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0071). SPAARC 00-004 817 Chicaao Avenue Preliminary Demolish buildin; `_ . rd construct 11-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and 21 dwelling units within upper floors). Mr. Michael Lee (developer) and Mr. Jim Torvik (architect) presented Zoning Analysis Application a00-52- ZA, including a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and plat of survey, to construct an 11-story mbced-use building (ground -floor retail and 21 dwelling units within the upper floors) at 817 Chicago Avenue. J. Torvik stated that they received a revised zoning analysis; it cited several minor issues that Can be easily resolved. J. Torvik stated that the current plan includes 21 condominiums with 21 parking spaces. J. Ton* stated that the current proposal is for a 107-foot high building, 40 feet of which are exempt from the Zoning Ordinance's definition of building height J. Torvik stated that the accessible parking space is now at the ground floor. J. Torvik stated that the revised plan Includes a loading berth with 14 feet vertical clearance and screening along the south and alley sides. J. Torvik stated that a portion of the second floor would be raised to provide the necessary height for the loading berth; while this configuration eliminates two parking spaces from the second floor, the building still includes sufficient parking to meet the Zoning Ordinance. J. Torvik stated that the revised plan includes gates at the front lot line along the side yards. C. Smith stated that the ga' t - must be setback such that they may swing out without encroaching upon the right- of-way. SUMMARY OF FLINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CoWNTTEE a F.brwl 2, 2noo Pa�p 3 d 8 J. Torvik stated that the scissors stairs are acceptable, provided that they are separated. a Fahbtrarn stated that the applicant should review the remoteness standard of the City code to ensure it is met J. Torvik stated that they would resolve that design issue. M. Lee stated that vehicle elevator is a freight elevator customized to handle vehicles; a large number of companies make the control devices for customized freight elevators. R. Dahal asked the applicants: how much clearance would you provide inside the cabin? M. Lee responded: the width Is custnrnimd C. Smith stated that the City requires that parking spaces be at least 8 feet 6 inches wide; that distar>toe should be the minimum clearance for the vehicle elevator. C. Smith asked the applicants: could a person open the vehicle doors inside the vehicle elevator? M. Lee responded: yes. C. Smith asked the applicants: how would a person exit the vehicle elevator in the event of an emergency? M. Lee responded: a person could exit out the top of the elevator, as they would in a passenger elevator. M. Lea stated that the vehicle elevator would include tire channels, much like those used in car washes. J. Wo inski asked the applicants: what is the practicality of the vehicle elevator at peak times? J. Torvik responded: persons may have to take turns. M. Lee stated that only 17 vehicles would use the vehicle elevator (those parking within the parking spaces on floors 2 through 4); it is 'pretty unlikeW that all 17 vehicles would use the elevator at once. M. Lee stated that the vehicle trips would also be split north and south. M. Lee stated that each owner would have a remote control device: each can be pre-progranmied in a variety of ways. M. Lee stated that each remote control would know to what floor to take the vehicle. j. Wolinski asked the applicants: do you believe that a person buying a luxury condominium would want this type of parking arrangement? M. Lee responded: yes, a vehicle elevator would be allnWOve because: 1, queuing would not bean issue as 'there will be no more than a couple cars'; 2. the vehicle elevator does not have the vertigo associated with curved parking ramps; 3. it is'high-tech , and 4, 4 moves persons from the outside to a 'warm, secure environment'. R. Dahal asked the applicants: what is the cycle time of the vehicle elevator? M. Lee responded: approximately 22 seconds, based upon approximately 18 seconds for the lift and approximately 4 or 5 seconds for the doors. M. Lee stated that the cycle time can be reduced if a person calls the vehicle elevator 'ahead of time' using his or her remote control. R. Walczak asked the applicants: how much stacking would occur within the alley? M. Lee stated that R. Dahal determined that the building would generate 10 vehicle trips per peak hour. R. Walczak asked R. Dahal: would that amount of trips have much impact upon the alley? R. Dahal responded: 'depending upon the cycle time of the vehicle elevator, it should be OK'. R. Dahal stated that turning movements coming in and out of the vehicle elevator could be a concern. M. Lee stated that they could recess the vehicle elevator somewhat to provide wider radii. C. Smith stated that she would like to entertain a motion to consider comments from the audience. J. Wohnski motioned to consider comments from the audience. R. Dahal seconded the motion. aaaroved the motion (8-01 to consider comments from the audience Aid. Wynne stated that queuing is very important, because this alley is one of the most heavily used alleys east of Chicago Avenue. Md. Wynne stated that any queuing should not be dismissed, because any waiting will cause problems. Aid. Wynne stated that the Committee should consider the foMowirtg questions: What happens if the vehicle elevator malfunctions? How long would a malfunction take to fix? What does a res,,. I .*, do if he or she cannot get a vehicle out? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 2. 2000 {�►'? Page 4 ors o N. Hiltwein stated that trucks currently block the alley. leaving little if no room for passing C. Smith stated that queuing is a concern of hers, and she is not yet confident in the vehicle elevator. J. Torvik stated that the alley is ZO feet wide and improved. M. Lee stated that he reduced the density from 35 to 21 dwelling units, reducing the number of vehicles, and the price of these dwelling units WOW attract persons wno are 'less likely to use their vehicles during historically peak hours' S. Najar stated that a circulation diagram of the alley would be helpful, detailing from where vehicles associated with 617 Chicago Avenue would come and go. C. Smith agreed, and stated that the diagram should also include the kacation of structures along both sides of the alley. M. Lee asked the Committee: would a ramp to the parking area ease concerns over queuing? D. Jennings responded: yes. K Kelly asked the applicants: can you use underground parking? M. Lee responded: underground parking is impractical at this site. J. Torvik stated that the vehicle elevator would include a signal, notifying a driver that they must wait M. Lee stated that the signal could notify the driver to wait further back, such that the least number of people are inconvenienced. J. Torvik stated that waiting in any alley is not uncommon, and it is not a 'terrible inconvenience to wait a minute or two'. C. Smith stated that, if the Committee approves this project as submitted, the Committee is endorsing queuing within the alley. M. Lee stated that he believes that the neighbors would prefer the number of residential trips he is proposing versus the number of truck trips associated with a nonresidential development, such as a restaurant. J. Torvik stated that he would like to assume 'that everyone using the alley would try to get along'. Aki. Wynne stated that the number of parking spaces proposed within the building is not adequate. Ald. Wynne stated that the building at 811 Chicago Avenue generates 1.33 vehicles per dwelling unit. Aid. Wynne stated that excess vehicles would have to be absorbed by the neighborhood. Aki. Wynne stated that the Zoning u..omittee of the Plan Commission will recommend to the Plan Commission that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to raise the parking requirements to 1.25 parking spaces per studio or 1 bedroom unit, 1.50 parking spaces for each 2 bedroom unit, and 2.00 parking spaces for each 3 bedroom and larger unit C. Smith motioned to table this item. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Discussion: R. Dahal stated that the applicant may want to conduct a peak hour traffic study of the alley. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: have you made any attempts to create a "land bank' with adjacent property owners? M. Lee responded: that is not likely to happen because the adjacent property owners are 'a little bit afraid' of such an arrangement - Committee anoroved the motion 110-01 to table this item. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-004). SUMMARY OF FINVOW SITE PLAN AM APPEARANCE R)=vtm COMWrTEE February 2, =0 Page 5 or 6 Summary of Findinps J. Wolinski nx ioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the January 12, 2000 meeting. R. Oahaal seconded the motion. Committee aaoroved the motion 110-01 to aomme the Summary of Findinas 14lorn the January 12.2000 meeting. Adioummipnt ` The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. t pedfuliy sutxn' , i Marc Mylott, AICP Committee Secretary 0 SUM A" OF FINDMS MM PLAN AND AP;:—'.;-,.ACS PzAe N OOmw7EE Fdru" 2. 2000 Papa S d s o SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 26, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present J. Aiello, A. Atterson, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahat D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. VVW=k (for L. Black). Members Absent Design Professional Present Design Professional Absent: Other Staff Present Others Present: Commencement K. Kelly, S. Najar, J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. None. S. Lufkin, J. Minear, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. None. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 00-005 820 Church Street Preliminary Convert existing loading dock to office space for financial institution (First Bank and Trust of Evanston). Mr. Ken Behles (architect) and Mr. Howard Kain {principal at First Bank and 'Foist of Evanston) presented Building Permit Application #00-031, including a site plan, fbor plan, elevations. rendering, and plat of survey, and site photographs to convert a loading dock to office space for the financial institution (First Bank and Trust of Evanston) located at 820 Church Street. K Behles stated that they are proposing minimal interior remodeling to the lobby and `back room space'. K Behles stated that they would like to replace the roll -up door at the loading dock with a smalW door; the remaining area would be filled with brick. K. Behles stated that the area was unheated; once remodeled, it would be heated. K. Behles stated that this project would not expand the footprint of the building. K. Behles stated the roll -up door was installed in 1994; it was an open dock prior to that project. M. Mylott asked the applicants: would the infill brick be painted to match the existing brick? K Behles responded: yes. ' C. Smith asked the applicants: would you install a new floor slab? K Behles responded: yes. SUMARY OF F*AXN s SM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE January 21L 2000 PapId5 39 H. Friedman ask - the applicants: does the building need the loading dock? H. Kain responded not really. K. Behles responded: the new door would serve the loading needs of the b0dirS which is rrbstly office furniture. A Alterson asked the applicants: could a truck still back to the door? K files responded: trucks do not back to the door now: bollards prohibit trucks from backing all the way to the dock K Behles stated that a delivery person would unk)W the supplies from the truck to a dolly and wheel the dolly to the loading dock. K. Behles stated that an area in front of the existing door is supposed to remain open; however, that area does not meet the Zoning Ordinance size requirements for a loading dock J. Aiello asked A Alterson: how many loading berths does the Zoning Ordinance require for this use? A Alterson responded: two. A Alterson stated that the Zoning Officer noted that the property is credited with one loading berth and 12 parking spaces. A. Alterson stated he wants to review the rodent to which the property is or is not improved with a loading berth; the property may have more parking spaces and no loading berths. A Alterson stated that, to the extent that the applicant may need a variation, the Zoning Board of Appeals would want input from the Site Plan and Appearance Revew Committee_ J. Aiello stated that the City is in the process of reviewing all the traffic within the alley wrth a traffic consultant (KLOA); this proposal should be considered with the traffic consultant's work. A Akerson stated the loading could be off site and shared with another office. R. Dahal asked the applicants: what size truck delivers to First Bank and Trust of Evanston? K Behles responded: small trucks. H. Kain stated larger trucks double-park along Church Street H. Kain staW that many times trucks cannot get to the back door because trucks from Osco block the alley. C_ Smith stated that, even as an office, the building needs some loading area. A Alterson stated that the Committee should determine whether or not an internal berth is necessary - at least a place at which a truck can park while making deliveries. D. Marino agreed. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Division. A Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Aiello stated that First Bank and Trust of Evanston approached the City with concerns about traffic; now, they are eliminating an area for deliveries. A Alterson stated that he shares the concems of J. Aiello. J. Aiello asked C. Snuth will you amend the motion to include review by the traffic consultant such feat a greater problem is not created? C. Smith responded: I will withdraw the motion. A Alterson witt,drew the second. K Behles stated that they are not changing the site conditions. H. Kain stated that a truck could not get to the loading dock now. K Behles stated that a truck could only back 8 feet. A Akerson motioned to table this item. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion- J. Aiello stinted that she is meeting with the traffic consultant on Monday, Jarlvary 31, 2000. M. Mylott asked the applicants: could the site have developed as such - the original bank included 12 parking spaces along Benson Avenue, then someone saw 'extra space' along the alley and striped parking spaces there? K. Behles responded: yes. Committee voted to approve the motion (10-0) table this item. The site plan, floor plan, elevations, rendering, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 00-005). SUIWMRY OF FINDINGS SrM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Janwry 28, 2000 Page2d5 SPAARC 99-033 1508 Elmwood Avenue Final Convert building ro rnula4anidy dwelling (7 condominiums). Mr. Charies Wilson and Mr. Aaron Wilson (developers) presented Building Permit Application #00-035. including a site plan. floor plans, and elevations, and a model to convert a vacant building to a multi -family residential building (seven condominiums) located at 1508 Elmwood Avenue A. Wilson stated that the current building would have seven condominiums arxi seven parking spaces. A Wilson stated they would keep the same 'architectural language' as the builDmg at 900 Grove Street. A. Wilson stated that the building materialz would include standing seam and ccrrugated metal roofs. Dryvit, and concrete board. C. Smith asked the applicants: why Dryvit rather than stu=? A. Wilson responded: for financial reasons C. Wilson stated that finding someone to install stucco is 'almost impossible' and 'very expensive'. A. Wilson stated that they would use metal rather than swr= from Dryvit to stucco. A. Wilson stated that they are using the same windows and doors as the building at 900 Grove Street. A. Wilson stated that they have asked the City to vacate the first 96 feet of the alley along the north side of the subject property; the proposed concrete pavers for the courtyard would extend within the vacated portion of the alley. A. Wilson stated that the alley would be fenced at both ends M. Mylott stated that the applicants should consider a 'No Outlet' sign. D. Jennings stated that that sign is not necessary; the gates would be visible. C Smith stated that the proposal is an improvement to the alley. M. Mylott asked the applicants. would you include windows along the south side of the building? A Wilson responded: we would use glass block; we moved some bedrooms and provided mechanical ventilation in other areas. A. Wilson stated that they would remove the existing red awning A. Wilson stated that only the address would be on a translucent material supported upon a lightweight tubular frame. C. Smith stated that numbers on the translucent material makes the element an awning; any more lettering would make the element a sign. C. Ruiz stated that the element does not protect anything. We an awning should; the proposed awning makes the existing structure less important A Wilson stated that he would work with the City on an acceptable awning; however, he wants to make a statement. A Wilson stated that he does not believe the proposed awning takes away from the building's integrity. J. Aiello asked the applicants: how much of the fagade does the awning occupy? A. Wilson responded: 32 percent H. Friedman asked the applicants: how big is the frame? A. Wilson responded. 16 feet by 16 feet C. Wilson stated that the frame projects through the inside of the building. such that the building has an 'insidelouts)de vocabulary'. C. Ruiz stated that, with that explanation, the aw=g 'begins to make more sense'. H Friedman stated that the translucent material should be supported within the frame, rather than wrapped around the frame; looking through the frame would help 'ease the situation'. D. Jennings asked the applicants: are the walls are vertical? A Wilson responded: yes. D. Marino motioned final site plan and appearance review approval. Motion fated for lack of a second. J. Aiello motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of the building materials by C. Smith and H. Friedman. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that she would like to see the building material samples. C. ' Smith stated that the Building Division would not be ready to issue a building permit before next week SUAWRY OF fUdXNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW Co14011i71M January 26, 2OW e Pap 3 d 5 k� J. Aiello withdrew the motion. A Alterson withdrew the second_ J. Aiello motioned to table this item. A Alterson seconded the motion. r Discussion: C. Smith asked the applicants: what type of outdoor lighting are you proposing? A. Wilson responded: jelly jar lights. C. Smith asked the applicants: would you have fights along the alley? A. Wilson responded: if the alley is vacated. C. Smith asked the applicants: does the site have any opportunities tG landscaping? A Wilson responded: the site includes an Ash tree in front. 0. Jennings asked the Cornmidee: would not vacating the alley affect Me Colrimfttee decision? C. Smith responded: no, but vacating the alley wouM entrance the site. A Wilson stated that they would install an automatic swim gate along the north lot line if the alley were not vacated. C. Smith stated that the quality of construction at the building at 900 Grove Street is 'very good'. H. Friedman asked the applicants: do you have a drawing that shows this building and the building at 900 Grove Street? A Wilson responded: i will bring a model. C. Wilson stated that they might not have the awning material for next week. Committee aaoroved the motion (10-01 to table this item. SPAARC 99-167 1700 Central Street Preliminary and Final Construct awning projecting into right-of-way for proposed type t restaurant (Trattoria Truft). Ms, Ana Wolfe (architect) presented Building Permit Application #00-043, including a floor plan and elevation, and site and area photographs to construct an awning that projects into the right-of-way for a proposed type I restaurant (Trattoria Trullie) at 1700 Central Street. Mr. Lenny Rago (tenant) was available to answer questions. C. Smith stated that Committee granted concept approval on January 5, 2000. M. Mylott asked the applicants: has anything changed since the Committee granted concept approval? A Wolfe responded no. A Wolfe stated that she wanted to ask the Committee how it felt about replacing the metal storefront windows with wood windows. C. Ruiz stated that he believes that changing the windows would be appropriate C Smith agreed. C. Smith stated that, should the applicant vacate the premises, the metal storefront windows should be returned; otherwise, the building would 'suffer from La Madeline syndrome' A. Atterson stated that enforcing such a condition would be difficult. A. Wolfe stated that the lease requires that the building be returned to its original condition if the tenant vacates the premises. J. Aiello asked the applicants: do you have a long-term lease? A Wolfe responded: yes. A. Wolfe stated the proposed awning protrudes a 'fraction of the distance' of the Evanston Theatre marquee A Wolfe stated the proposed awning only projects 2 feet 6 inches into the right-of-way. A Wolfe stated that Mc� bottom of the proposed awning would be lower than the marquee. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January26. 2000 Pape 4 of 5 C. Smith stated that the door must swing in. or the frame must be recessed such that a door swinging out does not swing into the nght-of-way M. Mylott asked the applicants will anything colored blue on the front fapde be covered? A. Wolfe responded: yes t v# the fapde stops about 1 rich from the sidewalk. H. Friedman stated that Dryvit would not last that close to the sidewalk. given stnoveliing and traffic; stucco would not be appropriate at that location either J Aiello stated that the applicant should consider some other material at the base. C. Smith asked the applicants: will the fapde treattrnent -turn the comer'? A Wolfe responded: only for a small portion, perhaps to the first joint C. SmiM stated that wrapping the facade treatment to the foist joint makes sense J Aiello agreed. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant 1) extends the facade treatment to the northern -most joint along the east side of the budding, and 2) consider a different material at the base of the facade treatment: the motion includes permissions to replace the metal storefront windows with wood windows D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: A Alterson stated that he is hesitant to accept this type of proposal; however, whether he likes it or not it is a dear design concept, not a corporate program. C. Smith stated that she has a problem with changing the exterior of the building. C Smith stated that the applicant must amend the permit drawings. Committee approved the motion (8-21 to grant pmliminary and final site plan and appearance review soprova, yrovided thetit a an 1) extends the a treatment to the northern -most joint atona the east side of the building. and 21 Cpnsider a different material at the base of the facade treatment the motion includes oermissign to reolare the metal storefront windows with wood windows. C. Smith and H. Friedman cast dissenting votes. The floor plan and elevation have been placed wdhin the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-167). Summary of Findinas C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the January 5, 2000 meeting. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee annioved the motion (9-01 to aDDrove the Summary of Fsndinos from the January 5. 2000 meeting. Adiounnment The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo 2ea Minear Recording Secretary SUMMARY of FINDINGS SRE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrn EE Jammy 28, 20D0 Pne5d5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 24, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present k Afterson, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino. H. Friedman, J. Kim, C. Ruiz C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 10:30 a.m. SPAARC 98-0122 Bindina ADvearance 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 Committee last met to talk about this topic on December 6, 1999, H. Friedman stated that some Committee members have rightly expressed concern about the definition of "compabbility'. H. Friedman stated that this definition could be interpreted such that the proposed design rrwst look like what is next to it or what is across the street that was not the intent. H. Friedman stated tot must encourage 'fresh, new designs' in Evanston M. Mylott stated that, while he fully agrees, he hopes that the Committee is not going to focus on design guidelines today. H. Friedman stated that the definition needs to be developed properly. M. Mylott stated that he would like the Committee to "wrap up' its discussion in a relatively short manner so it may be passed to the Plan Commission. M. Mylott stated that the last action the Committee took was to recommend that 1) appearance review be a separate review from site plan review; 2) the current Site Plan and Appeara ve Review Committee continue to conduct site plan review in the same fashion as it does today; 3) the City form a separate commission charged with administering binding appearance review, and 4) the separate commission be comprised of primarily design professionals who reside or who own or work for a firm located within the City as appointed by the Mayor. M. Mylott states u,a, , ie thought the Committee decided that discussing design guidelines was too broad a task to begin without knowledge as to whether or not the City would like to pursue binding appearance review. C. Smith stated that the Committee should discuss the possibility that binding appearance review is based on a set of design guidelines that will be reviewed and developed in a public manner. M. Mylott stated that SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (GRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMWiir-E January 24.2= Page f d 5 )tI the Committee must emphasize that design guidelines would not be style onentec rat«+er the} AWC stress design principals that apply to arry style. C. Smith agreed. S. Nagar stated that se ctr owsign ge ocWiresneed to be available to ­nlicants prior to a Committee meeting J. Wolinski stated that cities like Evanston and Chicago have had great architecture mrowhout the yearn but this Committee is not happy with a large number of the projects it sees today : Wa�inski stated —== he wonders if cost has become a bigger issue to applicants, or whether or not studers are as talented as x'iey once were. C. Smith stated that boar issues 'play into it'. H. Friedman stated that "'ie cilents are dif5e w, as well. H. Friedman stated that dierns used to build buildings that reflected Vie character of the orgarz_=on, they were not built to be as cheap as possible. H Friedman stated that these der is demander cad architects, good materials, and good contractors. A Alterson agreed, and stated r.at roast corporatsccs are making 'Petsmart-type decisions someone who will never see this building is decdog: fiat the building lies to look like nothing'. C. Smith stated that Petsmart primarily depends upon its sign for business C Snith stated that McDonald's has been willing to give up the golden arches and mansard roofs to adapt Z re community in which they reside. they realized there was a problem, and they fixed it. C. Smith stated twat 2* clients for the Shand Morahan building and the McDougal Littell building were very much concemed w= �.eair image; however, 1880 Oak Street was completely speculative, to be done 'simple and cheap'. C Sr,agh stated that the Committee must have the ability to push applicants further, while thp? City should not re.sr lade style, it should certainly encourage designs that use the 'basic building blocks', 5ucii as proportion, mass, ar d materials' C Smith stated that tree goal should be to encourage better architecture C. Smith stated that the City and Committee must commit to educating people ax*ut Evanston's heritage. C. Smith stated that the City has a Preservation Ordinance; the Committee can use this ordinance ttQd recognizes and protects certain aspects of the City's heritage as a precedent C. Smith stated that M. Mylott arranged to have developers who have worked or are oong work in Evanston speak to the SuLK., „,ottee of the Plan Commission C Smith stated that these devebpers offered eieir input about appearance review; the reoccurring concern was time. M. Mylott stated twat the developers were concerned that changing the way in which the City 'did business" was going to affect Flour ability to get projects approved in a timely manner. M. Mylott stated that the developers were concerned goat, d appearance review was charged to a separate board that met at the most twice a month, it would be di`fiicutt to have revisions reviewed quickly; a separate board could delay a project at least two weeks, if not more M Mylott stated that the developers liked the flexibility of working with this Committee; they liked the wags in which ideas were discussed Freely back and forth. M. Mylott stated that the developers liked the con.&s ency of this Committee. C. Smith stated that the developers noted that they have problems in other communc'_es when new members are brought on, M. Mylott stated that the developers felt that staff understood the ,terretated systems of a project. C Smith stated that the developers noted that the Committee did a good Jct of focusing on the key problems or issues of each protect J. Wolinski stated that the developers thought that the system in place now was 'fine; It is a great system, and Evanston is a great place to work'. 141. Myiott stated that the developers did not necessarily oppose binding appearance review, provided they would continue to get thru the process in a timely manner and the standards upon which decisions were Trade were grounded in something they knew and understood ahead of time. M. Mylott stated that the developers thought that tars Committee was the appropriate body to administer binding appearance review. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that decisions of a body charged with binding appearance review be based upon clearly articulated, illustrated and adopted design principals that do not imp-mge upon an apphcorits ability to express an architectural style A. Alterson seconded the motion Discussion: H. Friedman stated that he preferred 'expression' to 'style'. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN! AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 24. 2000 Page 2 of 5 X A Afterson asked M. Mylott: what do you mean t, y 'illustrated'? K Mylott resporx*d: from my research and experience with other municipalities. words alone cannot capture what the courts have mandated M. Vylatt stated that wt:aeever words are used must be backed by illustrations A. Afterson stated that he is concerned that if a design is not illustrated, it is forbidden M. Myfott stated tisartA Alterson is referring to style; a design principal applies to any style. A Arwrson asked the Committee: are there only a number of finite design principals, and we would list them all? C. Smith responded: they would ever most things. C. Smith staled lucid the illustrations would be purely diagramonatirr A Afterson stated that the Cornmiree should write the design guidelines such that someone who is not at this table can understand them, much like a glossary of idea's. A Alterson stated that Me design guidelines should not provide a list of designs to replicate, otherwise designers will replicate them. M. Mylott stated that that is not the intent of the motion M. Mylott stated that 'articulated' alone may be encompassing enough. H_ Friedman stated that he liked including the adjective 'quality" before 'design'; however, someone may ask, 'What do you mean by quality't'. A. Alterson stated Mat, by qualrty, he would like it to mean that someone hats thought about the design and has a reason for it. M. Mylott stated that one cannot use the term 'quality and assume that everyone will know what it means. C. Smith stated that she would like to remove 'illustrated" and leave 'adopted". M. Mylott stated that the Committee has design guidelines, but they have never been adopted; granted, they need much work. M. Mylott stated that he is hoping to have the City Council endorse the Committee's revised or new design guidelines through adoption. J. Wolinski stated that M. Mylott has put together a welt -structured motion. H. Friedman stated that perhaps 'promote' should be reptarced by 'permit. C. Smith stated that 'promote" implies encouragement. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that 'permit' implies authorization to proceed. A Afterson stated that perhaps the motion should be: the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee recommends that the criteria for approving appearance be based on dearly articulate design principals. J. Wolinski stated that '... that permit and promote Evanston's heritage' could be added to the end of that suggestion. C. Smith stated that that addition requires the City to establish Evanston's character. A Alterson stated that he does not want a body charges mth administering binding appearance review to limit itself to only being able to approve buildings that enhance the architectural character; many buildings will not enhance the architectural character A. Alterson stated that binding appearance review should prevent buildings that damage the architectural character. M. Mylott amended the motion as such, the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee recommends that the decisions of a body charged with binding appearance review be based upon clearly articulated design principals that promote architectural expression. A. Alterson withdrew his second J. Wolinski seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SrrE PLAN AND APPEA ANCE REVIEW COMM[TTEE January 24, 20W Page 3 at 5 Ph, H. Friedman stated that the recommendation talcs a necessary adjective in !front of 'architectural expression'. Committee aoDroved the motion f6-11 that the Site Plan and Acimaramce Review Committee recommends that the decisions of a bodv charred with binding appearance review be based upon clearty articulated design princiDals that or,...:...a architectural expression. H. Friedman cast the dissenting vote. C. Ruiz stated that, when this issue is presented to the City CouncW. it should Include comparisons &mZrating why the City needs appearance review, without specific examples as to " appearance review is necessary, the Council may not decide to support it C. Ruiz stated that the presentation should 'include a statement as to whom the regulations impact and to what extent C. Smith agreed, and stated that she is somewhat leery about being too specific, because these issues are delicate. C. Ruiz stated that the specific examples are the point, without them the case is lost A. Alterson agreed. A. Alterson stated that perhaps commentary would be another way to make the guidelines clear. C. Smith stated that BOCA has commentary, which is very useful for her and her staff. C. Smith stated that knowing the intent enables the administrator to apply the code more efficiently. C. Ruiz stated that the City has a housing planner that is dedicated and focused to providing affordable housing; binding appearance review may create a conflict with those goals H Friedman stated that the City has seen very little affordable housing, rather it is very expensive multi -(amity housing. C. Smith stated that the reason she was disturbed about the Oryvrt at the proposed Hilton Gardens was that the dollars for design were the first to be compromised; a project involves thousands of financial decisions, and the quality of other less important elements can be reduced. C Smith stated that 'we' will always be fighting this issue, and 'we' would need to stick to our design guidelines. C Ruiz stated that he has received numerous calls from architects who are surprised that the City does not have adopted design guidelines. C. Ruiz stated that requiring compliance with design guidelines would probably not be difficult because many developers alrea, .—pect it H. Friedman asked M. Mylott how has the subcommittee of the Plan Commission (BARC) addressed design guidelines? M. Mylott responded: they have not gotten that tar. C Smith stated that BARC is still in fact- finding mode. A. Alterson stated that he would like the Committee to consider two policy statements that would aid in the creation of design guidelines: (t) repetitious corporate design is not sufficient grounds to establish an economic need to build in a certain manner, and (2) the City encourages design which advertises the individuality, distinctiveness. and functionality of the structure's user(s). M. Mylott stated that he does not see these as points that aid the creation of the design guidelines, rather they are design guidelines themselves. C. Smith and S. Nagar agreed A Alterson stated that, with the first point, he means that applicants' statements that, 'This is the way my store looks across the country, this is the way we have to build our buildings: or, all our racks must be against the far wraU. because that is the way the distribution system is inside the building.' are not good enough reasons for a building to look the way it does. A Alterson stated that the second point encourages applicants to propose buildings that reflect the end user or how the building would be used. J. Wolinski stated that, according to the second point, the Committee should approve the modifications proposed by Wolfgang Puck. C. Smith stated that the second point is problematic. A. Alterson motioned that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee recommends that repetitious corporate design is not sufficient grounds to establish an economic need to build in a certain manner. M. Mylott seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (DRAFT) SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 24, 2000 Page 4 of 5 S►PARC 98-0122 Binding Appearance Review Discussion Rescibedule January 17 1999 special meeUng o1 the Site Plan and Ap me ante Review Conxr>dtee lb discuss hindirg appearance review. M. Myfott stated that next special Committee meeting to discuss bang appearance review was sdx4uled for January 17, 2000 — a City holiday. C. Smith asked Committee. does anyone have a problem with January 24, 20007 J. Wolinskl responded: only if the meeting starts before 10 a.m. C. Smith stated that the nott special Committee meeting regarding binding appearance review would be January 24, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. at Room 2404, Summary of Findinas J. Wolrreski stated that he was listed as neither present nor absent for the C4xxrnber 29. 19N Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meeting; he was absent. C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the December 8, 1999 and the December 29. 1999 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meetings, provided J_ Wofinski is listed as `absenr within the December 29, 1999 Summary of Findings. R. Dahal seconded the motion. Committee approved the rr 2tion (13-01 t. g approve the Summary of Findings from the December B. 1999 and the Decamber 29, 1999 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee meetings. orovided J. Woranki is listed as "absent" within the December 29. 1999 Summary of Findings. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo Ann Minear Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FPCOM SITE PIJW AND APPl:J PALACE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 5, 2000 e� Paw 9 of 9 Discussion: J. Wolinski motioned to table this item. S. Levine seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-11 to table this item A. Alterson cast the dissenting vote H. Friedman stated that he could support the earlier approved motion of the Committee if the word 1ndiividuraf' were added in front of the words 'archdecturat expression' M. Mylott sued that he has no proibiems with tlhiis suggestion. M. Mylott motioned to reconsider the following mctron the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee recommends that the decisions of a body charged with binding appearance review be based upon cleary articulated design principals that promote architectural expression C Smith seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion (7-0) to reconsider the follllowina motion the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee recommends that the decisions of a body charged with bindina aopearance review be based upon clearly articulated design DnnciDals that oromote architectural expression. W Mylott motioned that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Commrtee recommends that the decisions of a body charged with binding appearance review to based upon c(eady articulated design principals that promote individual architectural expression C. Smith seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (7-01 that the Site Plan and Annenrance Review Committee recommends that the decisions of a bodv charged with bindina appearance review be based upon c_.leart►+ articulated design orincipals that Dromote individual architectural expression. Summary of Findinas J. Wolinski stated that, within the last line of the second full paragraph on page 2, 'fee" should be 'feet. J. Wolinski stated that the second "he" within the first Cure of the Fifth paragraph on page 3 should be clarified; he is not certain 'he' refers to D. Jennings or the applicant. M. Mylott stated that, according to the notes prepared from the tape recording, 'he' refers to D. Jennings. J. Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the December 6, 1999 Committee meeting, provided: (1)'fee' Is changed to "feel' within the last rrne of the second full paragraph on page 2, and (2)'(D. Jennings)' is added after the second 'he' within the first line of the fifth paragraph on page 3. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee aDoroved the motion (7-0) to aDorove the Summary of Findinas from the December 6. 1999 Committee meeting. arovided "fee' is chanced to 'feel' wrthrn the last line of the second full Daraoraah on oaae 2, and (2) '(D. Jenninasl' is added after the second 'he' within the first line of the fifth oaraaranh on aaae 3. A. Alterson abstained Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. coning manner SUMMARY OF FIND{NGS (DRAFT) SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMLUTTEE January 24. 2000 Page 5 d 5 X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 19, 2000 Room 2404 Members Pro•^^+: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, A. Borkowski (for K Kelly), R. Dahal, D. Jennings, S. Levine (for P. UAgostboo), D. Marino, M. Mylott, S. Najar, C. Smith, R. Wakaak (for L Black). Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Design Professional Absent Other Staff Present: Others Present Commencement J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. None. R. Fahlstrom, S. Guderley, S. Lufkin, J. Minear. M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. Alderman Wynne. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. I SPAARC 99-023 1430 Chicano Avenue Revision to Final Install mechanical penthouse for muJti-family residential building (9 condominiums). Mr. George Ardelean (developer) and Mr. Mike Realmuto (architect) presented a roof plan and elevations to install a new mechanical penthouse for the multi -family residential building (9 condominiums) boated at 1430 Chicago Avenue. M. Realmuto stated they would like to construct an 8-foot high mechanical penthouse on the roof of We existing building; the room would include the water heater, space into which the condominium owner could move the HVAC unit, and stairs to the rooftop deck. M. Realmuto stated that the penthouse would be constructed of Dryvit over metal studs, providing a 2-hour fire rating; the color would be similar to the existing brick. M. Realmuto stated that the new penthouse would be behind the existing penthouse; the new penthouse is barely visible in pure elevation. M. Realmuto stated that the existing penthouse is approximately 12 feet high. M. Realmuto stated that the new penthouse would not be visible from the street in front of the building; the only direction from which it may be visible is the north. A- Atterson stated that it would be visible from the west as well. G. Ardeiean stated that the existing penthouse is visible from the west SUMMARY OF FRADOM SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CCUWTTEE January 12. 2OW Page 1 d 5 x C. Smith asked the applicants: would the rooftop deck have a railing? M. Realmuto responded: yes, a 42-inch metal raihng painted black with pickets every 4 inches. H. Friedman stated that the plans say 'wood railing'. M. Realmuto stated that the plans are incorrect: the railing would be metal. C. Smith stated that the ragings for the rooftop deck would be 'fairly visible'. M. Realmuto disagreed, and stated that, because the railing would be painted black, it would 'alrnost disappear'. M. Mylott stated that the sight angles to the street are fairly sharp, and the railings are setback from the edge of the building. G. Ardelean stated that the railing is setback 6 feet from the front of the building and 4 feet on the sides. C. Smith asked the applicants: does the building have a parapet? M. Realmuto responded: a previous owner had remov" ►t. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals empowered the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee with binding authority regarding the appearance of this project M. Mylott stated that the cap to the new penthouse should be similar to the cap of the existing penthouse. C. Smith stated that the new cap should be simple with no ornamentation and no contrast. A. Alterson motioned to approve the revisions to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval, D. Marino seconded the motion, Discussion: C. Smith asked A Alterson; would you amend your motion to include a minimum distance that the railing must be from the sides of the building? A. Afterson responded: yes. A. Afterson amended the motion as such: approve the revisions to the previous Final site plan and appearance review approval, provided no rooftop deck railing is within 4 feet of the edges of the building. D. Marino amended his second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee aaoroved the oration (11-01 to aoorove the revisions to the orevious final site olan and appearance review aoaroval. orovided no rooftop deck railing is within 4 feet of the edges of the building. R. Walczak abstained. The roof plan and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this ca..-',: PAARC 99-023). SPAARC 00-003 630 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Consider application for special use to allow type 2 restaurant (Jamba Juice). The applicant did not attend the meeting. J. Aiello asked A Alterson: what is Jamba Juice? A. Alterson responded: Jamba Juice is a revival of the juice gars from the 1960's and 1970's. A Alterson stated that Jamba Juice would serve fruits, vegetables. and salads. A Alterson stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has recommended that the City Council approve the special use. A Alterson stated that the applicant does not have a 'clear idea' as to the exterior treatment; the treatment may be signage only. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMIITEE January 19, 2000 Page 2 of 6 e X SPAARC 0040104 817 Chicaw Avenue Preliminary Demolish building and construct 11-story mixed -use building (ground -boor retail and 21 dwelling unify within upper floors.) Mr. Michael Lee (developer) and Mr. Jim Torvik (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations and plat of survey to construct an 11-story mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and 21 dwelling units within the upper Boom) at 817 Chicago Avenue C. Smith asked the applicants do you have control of the property? M. Lee responded: yes, I own it C. Smith asked the aNpircants: why is a 'For Sale' s.qn still attached to the building? M. Lee responded: the real estate agent asked him to keep it up because it generated telephone calls. C. Smith stated that the 'For Sate' sign must be removed if the building is not for sale. J. Torvik stated that the parcel is 53 feet wide and approximately 182 feet deep. J. Torvik stated that the 11-story building would indude ground -floor retail and parking; additional requirod parking within the second, third, and fourth floors. and seven floors of dwelling units. J. Torvik stated the residential floors would contain three dwelling units each, 21 dwelling units total; the dwelling units would be condominiums. J Torvik stated that the building includes 21 parking spaces; 75 percent of the ground floor would be for parking. J. Torvik stated that access to the parking would be provided via an automobile elevator located along the alley side J. Torvik stated the building would include one loading berth located along the alley. J Torvik stated that the height of the building to the top would be 107 feet; 40 feet of this height is exempt from the zoning definition of height due to parking. J. Torvik stated that the front elevation would include a brick veneer at the parking floor levels; the top floors would be glass and painted concrete. J Torvik stated that the side and rear elevations would be glass and painted concrete. A. Alterson asked the applicants: is the building concrete bock? J. Torvik responded: no. it would be concrete frame C Ruiz asked the applicants: have you explored other elevations? J. Torvik responded: this elevation is the first. M. Lee stated that they are 'very open to other elevations'. C. Smith stated that the proportions are quite nice in relationship to the adjacent buildings. H. Friedman stated that the proposed 'step back' is very important M. Lee stated that he wants to build .something that would look good' and would be a 'final statement on the street'. M. Mylott asked the applicants: how above the adjacent buildings is the first floor of residences? M Lee responded: approximately 15 feet. C. Smith asked the applicants; what are the side setbacks along the residential portion of the building? J. Torvik responded: 5 feet. R Fahlstrom stated that the building would have to be fully spnnktered. C. Smith asked the applicants. can you provide an overview of the use of vehicle elevators? M. Lee responded: they are much more popular along the East Coast, in Europe, and in Japan. H. Friedman stated that many buildings used to include vehlde elevators. J Aiello stated that she believes that the building at 1110 Lake Shore Drive has a vehicle elevator. M. Lee stated that the vehicle elevator would include wheel stops, much like a car wash. J. Torvik stated that the user operates the vehicle elevator C Smith asked the applicants: would the vehicle elevator meet the City code requirements? J. Torvik responded. I am sure that it will, but I have not reviewed those requirements. A Alterson asked the applicants: where would cars queue? J. Torvik responded: within the alley. A. Alterson asked the applicants what would a user do if the vehicle elevator were out of SUMMARY OF FINIXNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMMEE January 19.2= Pape 3 of 5 X service? M. Lee responded: the condominium association may have to offer compensation to the'WWO it for the time the elevator is out of service, such as for taxi fare D. Jennings stated that he is more concerned about cycle times and whether or not the traffic generated by the building would back up within the alley. M. Lee stated that the cycle time is approximately 30 seconds. M. Lee stated that they decreased the number of dwelling units from 28 to 21 and increased the dwelling unit size to reduce the number of vehicles associated with the building. R. Dahal asked the applicants: how would a user know if the elevator were in use? M_ Lee responded a tight signal system, probably giving preference to existing vehicles over entering vehicles M. Lee stated that the syVem would include a coded remote control, much like a garage door opener. D. Jennings stated that he would prefer preference be given to cars waiting within the alley. D. Jennings stated that this building would generate appmxim=rely 10 vehicle trips during the peak hour. Ald. Wynne stated that this alley is `one of the busiest alleys in the 3r 1 Ward', and queuing is very important D. Jennings stated that the applicant could provide space for queuing on site if the vehicle elevator *as moved within the building M. Lee stated that the concerns about the vehicle elevator are concerns of marketing — would this type of system affect sales. A. Alterson stated that he is not an expert on the 'buyer/Wier psychology% but he believes that a vehicle elevator is 'a very hard selr. A. Alterson stated that this system would encourage persons who only needed to park for a short time to 'circle the neighborhood' trying to find an on -street parking space before they would use the vehicle elevator to park within the garage. D. Jennings stated that, with a variation, the applicant could provide 90-degree parking spaces; this configuration would also eliminate a floor. M. Lee stated that he does not want to 'go through' the zoning relief process. C. Ruiz stated that two vehicle elevators may ensure that congestion within the alley does not occur. A Berkowsky stated that the applicant should investigate that option. A_ Alterson stated that he would feel more comfortable with two vehicle elevators, the building would become a burden upon the City if it were an undesirable place to live. R. Fahlstrom stated that space designed for accessible parking must be on the First floor. R. Fahistrom stated that he is not certain that the scissors stairs meet City code. C. Smith asked the applicants: have you conducted code research? J. Torvik responded. we are not that far along yet. M. Lee stated the ouilding to the north, having 100 feet of frontage, is encumbered by 20 leases, ranging from 12-20 years out, buying out the leases would as expensive as the building. C. Smith stated that the: building would have to comply with the City codes relating to high rises. D. Jennings asked the applicants: is the garage heated? J. Torvik responded: yes, and it is mechanically ventilated and sprinklered. C. Ruiz asked the applicants: how do propose to keep unauthorized persons from passing between the buildings? M. Lee responded: we would most likely use security gates. R. Walczak stated that he would like to see the proposed gates as well as illumination, especially along the alley. R. Schur asked the applicants: what is the proposed size of dwelling units and their price? M. Lee responded: between 1300 to 1700 square feet at $165 to $180 per square foot. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrM PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMI I I January 19, 2000 Page 4 of 5 � A Berkowsky asked the applicants: how does someone enter the ben'lding fnxn the alley on foce? J. Torvik responded: those types of details have not been worked out D. Jennings stated that the loading berth only has an 8- or 9-foot clearance: 14 feet is required. Aid. Wynne stated that the applicant should add more parking spaces, otherwise the marketability mould be reduced. Aid. Wynne stated that the Neighborhood Committee of the Plan Commission studied Chicago Avenue and recommended that the parking requirements be increased, Aid. Wynne stated that the building at 811 Chicago Avenue has 1.23 vehicles per dwelling unit: the Citywide rate is 1.33 ve?*Ies per dwelling unit. Akl. Wynne stated that no street parking is available: the developer is 'at ground zero for a parking problem'. M. Lee stated that he is sympathetic to the parking problem; an earlier design included more parking spaces, but, because the parking spaces were not required parking spaces, the exemption from height and floor area did not apply. C. Smith asked the applicants: where would you provide the refuse collection system? J. Torvik responded: that item has not yet been developed. C. Smith stated that she believes that the Committee is not confident with the vehicle elevator at this time, and the scissors stairs must be addressed. D. Marino motioned to table this item. A. Berkowsky seconded the motion. Discussion: A Alterson stated that the applicant would require a new zoning analysis. A. Alterson stated the Committee should deny the proposal. Committee anmroved the motion f 10-11 to table this item. A. Alterson cast the dissenting vote. 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 00-004). Adioumment The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jd Ann Minear Recording Secretary SULWARY OF FMOOGS SrTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RE%nEW CO"iT'TEE January 19.2000 a page s d 5 it SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 12, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: A. ATterson, P. D'Agostino. R. Crum, R. Dahat, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Myiott, S. Najar. C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L Black), and J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello. Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent: Other Staff Present: S. Lufldn, J. Minear, M. Robinson. and C. Ruiz. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and Megan the meeting at 3:02 p.m. SPAARC 97 0065 Church Street Plaza Revision to Final Modify approved storefront for type 2 restaurant (Wolfgang Puck's). Mr. John Naltand (Sojorquez & Anderson) and Mr. Steve Magnie (Wolfgang Puck's) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevation, rendering, and photographs of other Wolfgang Puck Cafes to modify the approved storefront for a type 2 restaurant (Wolfgang Puck Caf6) within Church Street Plaza, Mr. Tom White and Mr. Ron Serliard (Arthur Hill Corporation) were available to answer questions. J. Naltand stated that the Wolfgang Puck concept includes a fine dining and a casual caf6 alternative — the location wthin Church Street Plaza would be a Wolfgang Puck Cafe. J. Naltand stated that the cuisine is Italian. J. Naltand stated that the design would 'activate the streetsmpe'. J. Naltand stated that the patio would be the main emphasis of the restaurant, even though 4 would not be available year-round. J. Naltand stated that the storefront is designed to express the individuality of the restaurant via colors and materials. J. Naltand stated that the base, precast band at the first floor, and canopies would remain. J. Naltand stated that the windows would remain at 'roughly the same locations' as originally approved. J. Naltand stated that the exterior watts would be colored plaster. H. Friedman asked the applicants: do you intend to use Dryvit? J. Naltand responded: no. J. Naltand stated that the entrance and three of the five columns along the plaza would be dad with a broken -tile pattern, the entrance would contain the trademark of Wolfgang Puck Cafes. 5uMMARY OF F*XXNGS SITE PUN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMW TEE Janwry 12.2D00 Page t cis it J. Naltand stated that the railings, tables, urntrelhas, and movable planting pots would be removed Arm Ow sidewalk cafts during the winter. C. Smith asked the applicants: are you aware that storage of such iterris S'saQ be at your expense? J. NaRand responded- yes. C. Smith asked the applicants- are you aware mait such items shall not be stored within the plaza? S. Magnie responded: yes. A. Alterson asked the applicants: would the railings be within the property J Nattand responded: yes. S. Magnie stated that the railings are necessary to 'seal off the lease area'. J. Naltand stated that they would install one s;gn above the door and one blade sign. J. Nattand staWJ that they would instal .: ,ch phrases' above the columns and two signs reading 'Wolfgang Puck' betwem the columns. J. Naltand stated that they would costa banners of various colors and images with no ietlenrg along the second floor of the plaza elevation; these banners would be part of the sign package J. Wolinslo asked the applicants: would the banners remain year-round? T. White responded: yes. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: would the banners be all-weather banners? T White responded: yes. S. Magnie stated ttai they hope to have a 30-foot by 30-foot graphic w= words along the rear of the building as wet C. SmAh s3a�ed that signage is a 'whole other review'; all signage would fall under the purview of a Unified Business Center Sign Plan. A. Atterson asked the applicants: how 'removable` is the facade if this restaurant is not a viable enterprise? S. Magnie responded: it is removable. A. Alterson asked the applicants: can the treatment to thie er Vane be reused? S. Magnie responded: it could be reused, but like any other remodeling for a new tenant, the treatment would probably be removed. M. My*U asked the applicants: do you propose to install Me brick underneath the plaster such that the facade may be restored to its original intent d the use is no lodger viable? T. White responded: no, but the brick could be installed later. H. Friedman asked the applicants: who is the adjacent retail use? T. White responded: Urban Cks frftM and they will see the design for this restaurant in the 'not too distant future`. H. Friedman asked the appicants: is Barry Elbasani aware that the plan is to 'chop up the ground floor with idle elements'? T. White responded: he does not feel that the proposal is 'chopped up', rather it is 'important to have a vibrancy brought out by the individuality of tenants'. H. Friedman stated that this proposal is not what Barry Elbasani 'sold us C. Smith stated that, even though the building had some differentiation, it was held together architecturally; she is concerned -1, gut piecemeal proposals to this building. C. Smith stated that this corner is a dotlanrt tot comer with much glass; people going by will know It is a Wolfgang Puck Caf@ without the proposed facade treatment. C. Smith stated that she has no problem with the plaza, especially the banners, and could We with the treatment at the entrance; however, the fagade and column treatments produce a "chaotic -looking resutt from an architectural perspective'. C. Smith sued that the architects could do so much wdh simply the plaza. the comer, the glass, the banners, and signage. M. Mylott stated that the building has not even been but yet', and the City is beino asked to accept a proposal to change the facade H Friedman stated that me design had an integrity that would be aestroyed by this proposal_ D. Manno asked the Committee: has the Committee reviewed this proposal previously? C. Smith responded: no. A. Alterson asked the applicants what is the design trying to accomplish? J. Naltand stated that they were trying to put their own stamp on the area; they need to let people know who they are, especially when people drive by at 30 miles per hour. A Aiterson asked the apolicants: how many other Wolfgang Puck Cafts are there? J. Naltand responded: 15, although this restaurant is the first in northeast Illinois. J. Wolmski asked the applicants: are the 15 restaurants mostly 'stand alone' restaurants or are they part of a complex? S. Magnie responded: most are within existing areas. including Disney World. A. Alterson stated that the City does not want to took like Disney World. A. Altiarson stated that restaurants throughout the country do not remodel entire facades. C. Smith stated that she does not believe that the applicants must go to the hmVMs they propose to accomplish then objectives, 'espeaally on the prominent comer of one of the most prorfent buildings being built in the City in a long time' J Nattand stated that it is common for a tenant to modifry the SUMMITRY OF FINDINGS Sr E PLAN AND APP9:4RANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE j�'C� January 12.2000 il'j�f7 Page 2 of 5 x iAedor of his or her space within a defined area. M. Mylo t stated that the proposal is acceptable tL fti a defined area such as a malt; this building is within an outdoor urban environment. C. Ruiz stated that this proposal reminds h= of another drastic change within the downtown -- La Madek**, C. Ruiz stated that the Committee should learn from that lesson D. Marino stated that the Committee sr uld consider that retailers need flexibility: a retai% cannot rely on signage alone. J. Naltand stated that they could reduce the facade treatment and 'concentrate their efforts' at the entrance. S. Magnie stated that, from *tat he understands to be Committee members concerns, they 'cannot touch' the brick, spandrel glass, or columns. H. Friedman asked the applicants: is the Arti`jr Hill Company 'realty willing to screw it up this way"? T. VVhAe responded: we do not consider the proposal b `screw it up', our project in Denver had much variety from unit to uni. C. Smith stated that that is the reason she does not care for that project; this project had a urAfying element. S. Magnie stated that they and the Arthur Hill Company are 'on the same page'. D. Marino stated eaCrh tenant would have similar issues D. Marino stated that the developer did show a rendering to City Council with this type of atmosphere. D Mario stated that he does not have a problem with the entrance or the proposal for the spandrel glass. D. Marm stated that the Committee should give more flexibility to the applicant to rework the proposal. T. While stated that they want to work out a compromise. C. Sm.'th stated that this proposal is 'beyond tweaking' J Naltand stated that, as a designer, he would agree that this proposal is more than `tweaking'. J. Wolinski stated that he takes issues vedh the argument that the entire facade must be altered for the sake of marketing; the Wolfgang Puck Cafe does not need the excess, and the City does not need a mall or Disney World approach. J. Wolinski stated that the area is pedestrian oriented, and pedestrians will not miss the restaurant_ J. Wolinski stated that the applicant should return to what was originally approved; tenant identity can be accomplished with signage. D. Marino stated that contemporary retail goes beyond the'typical facade to express excitement'. C. Smith asked the applicants: what window treatment are you proposing? J. Naltand responded. storefront windows with green trim. D. Marino stated that that treatment is 'an improvement'. C. Smith disagreed. M. Mylott motioned to table this item. J Wohnski seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated the Committee is pleased that the Wolfgang Puck CaM is coming to Evanston; however, the design should be less invasive. D. Marino stated that, even though the matter was tabled, the Committee hopes the applicant will return. J. Naltand stated that they would return `in a couple of weeks'. D. Marino asked the applicants: how large is the space you wish to rent? J. Naltand responded: the restaurant is 8,000 square feet and the patio is 1,400 square feet. C. Smith stated that any gas works should be included within the Application for Building Permit Committee approved the motion (10-1) to table this Item. D. Jennings cast the dissenting vote. The site plan, floor plan, elevation, rendenng. and photographs of other Wolfgang Puck Cafes have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0065). SUMMARY of FVC)W= �f�. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RE%AEW i�7TEE /(`'T January t2. 20DD Page 3 015 x SPAARC 99-137 1633 Chicano Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Install two illuminated, non -conforming wall signs at retail services establishment (Ottrce 1&z PDO). C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-01) to install two .illuminated, non- conforming wall signs at the retail services establishment (Office Max PDG) located at 1633 Chicago Avenue. C. Smith stated that the proposed sign is too high; the watt sign would be 16 feet 6 inches to V* top, and the 'PDQ' sign would be 21 feet 6 inches to the top. C. Smith stated that she does not ntnk the 'PDQ' iS necessary. H. Friedman agreed. M, Mytott stated that the Committee approved this verson previously. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the application. R. Daunt seconded the motion. Committee denied the motion (3-7) to recommend that the Stan Re%i!!w and ADrA% s Board aoorove the aaolication. M. Mylott stated that actions like these 'make the Committee look bad'. M. Mylott stated that the appbcaM worked with the Committee over several meetings to develop its sign package; this Sign Ordinance Variation Application contains the exact elevation that the Committee previously approved as satisNy ng a condition of approval for Dave's Italian Ktchen. M. Myiott stated that the Committee gave the applcant drec on that they could safety invest resources In the production of the documents necessary to secure peer 4& M. Mylott stated that the Committee did not like the placement or usage of 'PDQ'; however, the applicant agreed to reduce the size of the wall sign, eliminate plans to place a metal backdrop over the granite fagade, eliminate the window signage, and eliminate the signage immediately over the entrance. M. Myiw stated that the location of the 'PDQ` contained the logo of a previous tenant. D. Marino motioned to reconsider the previous action. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (10-0) to reconsider the Drevious action, M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the appka n_ R. Dahal seconded the motion. Committee arwroved the motion (641 to recommend that the Sian Review and ADoea4 Board aoorove the aoalication. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-137). SPAARC 98-0137 1235 Dodne Avenue Recommendation to Sian Board Install illuminated, non -conforming wall sign at Spex Car Wash. C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-02) to install an illuminated, non- conforming wall sign at Spex Car Wash, boated at 1235 Dodge Avenue. C. Smith stated that the applicant proposes to remove the existing sign and install 6 foot 8 uicfi red channel letters. C. Smith stated that the Sign Ordinance requires that the sign face a public way, the sign faces an alley that is not considered a public way. M. Mylott stated that, when the Spex Car Wash came before the Committee previously, the Committee found no hardship; the Committee told the applicant to reevaluate his or her situation after the building to the north was completed. C. Smith stated that the Sign Review and Appeals Board agreed. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 12, 2000 Page 4 of 5 z V J. Wolinski motioned to recommend ttiat the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordir2nce Variation Application. provided the appticant remove the existing sign and the new SW is roughly the same height as the existing sign, also. ts•,e Commmee recommends mat sign identify'SPEX' as the tenam D. Marino seconded the motion. Cornmm" approved the motion (t 0-01 to recommend . the Sian Review and Deals Board acorove the aSgn Ordinance Variation Anoficabor. provided the want remove re existing sign and the new sign is rawhhr the same height as the existing 5igr also the Comrnifte recommends that sjgn identitv'SPEX' as the tenant The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed wrthm the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 98-0137) SPAARC 994 2 1935 Sherman Avenue Recommendation tin Sin Board Install a temporary, non-i(luminated, freestanding real estate sign for new multi -!army residential bum (condominiums). C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (SRAB 00-03) to insW a temporary, norl- illuminated, freestanding real estate sign for a new mutti-family residential building (condominiums) kx:OA d at 1935 Sherman Avenue. D. Marino motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application for 1 year or unbt such time that all the dwelling units are sold, whichever comes first D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the mgWn ("I to recommend that the $ion Review and Aotreals Board aoonve the Sian Ordinance Variation Application for 1 year or until such_! me that all Ole dwelfino units are sold_ whichever comes first. J. Wolinski abstained. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-122), Summary of Findings C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings from the December 15, 19M meeting. R. Walczak seconded the motiZn. Committee approved the motion (9-01 to aDorove the Summary of Findings from the December 15. 1999 meebnq. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. pectfully submitted. L� o Ann Minear Recording Secretary SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMrrrEE January 12. 2000 Page 5 d 5 V. SUMMARY OF FINDMGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 5, 2000 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Altersorr.. R. Crum, P. D'Agostino, R. Dahal, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mytott, S. Nagar, C. Smith, R. Walczak Qbr L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professionals Present: H. Friedman. Design Professionals Absent Other Staff Present: Other Attendees Present: Commencement B. Fahlstrom, S. Guderfey, S. Lufkin, J. Minear, . M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. Melissa Wynne, 3r4 Ward Alderman; Marty Stem, U.S. Equities. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and the meeting carnmenced at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 99-167 1700 Central Street Conceot Construct awning projecting into nghtof way for proposed type I resftrxant (Trattoria Trullie). Ms. Ma S. Wolfe (architect) and Mr. Lenny Rago (tenant) preserved a floor plan, elevations, model, site photographs, and photographs of similar architecture to constrict an awning pnu ecting Into the right-of-%W for a proposed type 1 restaurant (Trattoria Trullie) at 1700 Central Street_ A Wolfe stated that 'TrullW is the name of a type of architecture used extensively in southern Italy. A Wolfe stated the property owner would not permit modifications to the blue glazed brick, including painting; the awning would be hung from and anchored to the parapet such that it mould be removed. A Wolfe stated that most of the awning would be along the Central Street fagade; howe eer, the awning would "tum the comer. A Wolfe stated that the awning would be constructed of Dryvit and split cedar shingles. A Wolfe stated that Dryvit is much tighter than stucco; the awning would not be able to tang from the parapet if the material was stucco due to the extra weight J. Wolinski asked the applicants: wCzat is the condition of the parapet? A Wolfe responded: it is in good shape; a structural engineer has already reviewed its condition. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Sr7E PLAN NO APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE .January 5. Z000 Pale 1 of 9 .e C. Smith staffed the plans accurately replicate that part of Italy, and it r3 one way to idenbty the building as an Italian runt_ C. Smith stated that it is unfortunate that the blue bridle cannot be painted, espec any around the comer. M_ Mydott agreed. M. Mylott stated that, whether or not a Committee member Wes this proposal, the awning could be nuTsoved should the restaurant fail. A. Wolfe stated that that is the reason the property owner would not permit modifications to the exterior of the building. H. Friedman stated that this proposal reminds him of La Madeline. B. Fahistrom stated that this proposal reminds him of Planet Hollywood. A. Alterson stated that he has a hard time imagining what this proposal would look like, despite the drawings. D. Jennings asked the applicants: how far would the awning project into the right-of-way? A Wolfe responded: 2 feet 8 inches. D. Jennings asked the applicants: would water run off the awning onto the street? A Wolfe responded: yes, like any other type of canopy. A Wolfe stated that the tenant is proposing no changes to the roof. C. Smith stated that she would prefer an awning. A Alterson asked the applicants: is the restaurant a sit-down restaurant? L. Rago responded: yes. M. Mylott asked the applicants: are you proposing signage in addition to this awning? A- Wolfe responded: she envisions an arched sign over the doorway. D. Jennings asked the applicants: are the cone -shaped elements partially flat with a flare at the bottom?, A Wolfe responded: yes, and only the false chimneys would extend above the parapeL J. Wolinski motioned to grant concept approval. J. Aiello seconded the motion Discussion: H. Friedman stated allowing restaurants to have facades like this one Is bad precedent. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that the awning is nothing more than a marketing device. A. Wolfe stated that she could install an awning as of right — an object that Is equally easily removed. D. Marino stated that the building is 'dismal and deteriorating'. A. Wolfe stated that the building was built in the 1930s. M. Mylott stated that he is struggling with this proposal because it is removable; however, if the restaurant were successful, the awning would remain. C. Smith stated that the applicant must return to the Committee for preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. CQmmlttee aooroved the motion 7( 5) to orant concept api oval. The floor plan, elevations, site photographs, and photographs of similar architecture have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-167). SUMMARY OF FWDO" SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMA TTEE Jarwary ,g o00 Pop 2 e $PAAAC 99-073 1421 Sherman Avenue Revision to Final Construct 6-story mixed -use bur7ding (ground floor office and 23 dwelling units within upper floors). Mr. Tom Roszak presented Application for Building Permit #99-1189, including a site plan. floor plans, elevations, landscape plan, and photometric plan, to construct a 6-story mixed -use building with groundfioor office and 23 dwelling units within the upper floors at 1421 Sherman Avenue. T. Roszak stated that he altered the west elevation by changing the storefront windows to include an aw+ung- type window along the top, the color of which would match the frames above (bright yetlow); the bodorn frame would be anodized aluminum. T. Roszak stated that he included a subtle brick reveal within the parapet M. Mylott stated the revisions are 'much better. C. Smith stated that the changes are an improvement. T. Roszak stated that he would install spandrel glass above the doors. H. Friedman stated that the windows above the doors shown on the last plan look better than the current proposal; even if the glass must be spandrel, he liked the idea of carrying the frames from the sidelights up through the transom. C. Smith stated that she would prefer to have the mechanicals behind the transom setback from the glass such that the glass could be clear. T. Roszak stated that he would make the requested change, unless a mechanical reason prohibited it C. Smith asked T. Roszak: how did you address the rear door swinging into the loading berth? T. Roszak responded: the door swings over a heavy-duty sidewalk grate, adjacent to the loading berth. C. Smith stated that a person could get the heel of a shoe stuck in such a grate. T. Roszak stated that such a grate was permitted at 1415 Sherman Avenue. D. Marino motioned to approve the revision to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Aiello asked T. Roszak: would you extend the downtown pavement pattern to this site? T. Roszak responded: I would use the same pattern as that used at 1415 Sherman Avenue. P. D'Agastino stated that he does not believe that this property Is within the special service district. M. Robinson agreed. C. Smith stated that the applicant must receive a license agreement from the City Engineer, permitting planting within the right-of-way. M. Mylott stated that the information submitted for the license agreement should include information about the landscaping. C. Smith asked T Roszak: would you include recessed lighting at the entrance? T. Roszak responded: yes. D. Jennings stated that Commonwealth Edison sent him the district regulations for the setbacks of power lines from buildings. D. Jennings stated that the applicant would probably conform to those regulations if the power }fines were located along the east side of the alley. Committeaporoved the motion (12-0) to approve the revision to the nrevious final site Dian and aaaearance review aaaroval. A copy of the site plan, floor plans, elevations, landscape plan, and photometric plan have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-073) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMr1TEft January 5. 2000 Pape 3 of 9 SPAARC 00-001 1560 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Fkal Reconfigure entrance to office building (One Rotary Can". Ms. Lida Chryniwsky (project manager) and Ms. Dawn Ruth (architect) presented Application for EtJAcisig Permit #99-1193, Including existing and proposed floor plans and site photographs, to reconfguim fie entrance to the office building (One Rotary Center) located at 1560 Sherman Avenue, Mr, Ben Waikw aas available to answer questions. L. ChrynWsky stated that they propose to reconfigure the existing two revolving doors and one set of c4ta, late doors on the east side of the building; the existing configurabw forces pedestrians to travel amurnd tte security desk to reach the building directory. L. Chryniwsky stated that they propose to switch the bcad n of the set of double doors and the northem-most revolving door L. Chryniwsky stated that they would also upgrade the hardware. L. Chryniwsky stated that a second set of double doors is located on the souths+de of the building. J. Aiello stated that the double doors should be accessible. C. Smith stated that neither the City nor 4,a" requires that improvement. J. Wolinski stated that such a requirement could come from this Committe. C. Smith stated that the push button for an automatic opener could be placed on an adjacent column. C. Smith stated that the revolving doors must meet the current collapsing requirement of the City Code. C. Smith motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant installs an automatic door opener for accessibility. J. Aiello seconded the motion. Comrndeg aaaroved the motion 112-0) to arant oreliminary and final site otan and appearance review aooroval. orevided the applicant installs an automatic door opener for accessibility. The existing and proposed floor plans and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC OD-001). SPAARC 99-075 905 Chicago Avenue F'matl Construct 9-story mixed -use development (ground4bor financrat insfittution, second -floor parking, and residential within the upper floors). Mr. Bill Warman (architect) presented Application for Building Permit #99-1982-BP, induding a site plan, f.= plans, elevations, and landscape plan, a rendering, and building material samples for a 9-story mixed -else development with a ground -floor financial institution (Evanston GreatBank) and ground -floor retail. second - floor parking, and residential within the upper floors at 905 Chicago Avenue, Mr. Warren Barr (Legacy Development Group) and Mr. Bill Smith (Evanston GreatBank) were available to answer questions. W. Warman stated that changed the color of the brick from blond to a light red; they found that the accents 'washed out' with the blond brick. C. Smith stated that the blonde trick tent itseff better to the area. W. Warman stated that they would recess the corner at Main Street and Chicago Avenue to create more space; the sidewalk at that location is approximately 8 feet wide along Chicago Avenue and dpproxim20* 13 feet wide along Main Street. C. Smith stated that the width at the comer would be reduced Ills approximately 6 feet given the door swing. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SrrE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE �C+ January S, 2000 Page 4 of 9 J( D. Jermings asked the applicants: are you proposing changes to the alley? W. Warman responded: me ahoy is brick pavers. and they would leave it as is W. Barr stated that they would fix any problems wMin Me alley that they create. A. Alterson stated that vehicles within the sta :king space for the drive -through faculty block other veers from leaving the adjacent parking spaces. W Smith stated that the stacking had been approved easfwr, D. Jennings stated that the plan to accommodate stacking was acceptable. A. Akerson stated that parking spaces must be at least 8% feet wide. 0. Jenrungs agreed, and sU"d that the City does permit column encroachment W. Warman stated that the parking spaces would be reseed. J. Aiello asked the applicants: how many parking spaces are you providing? W. Warman responded: 68 parking spaces for 63 dwelling units and 17 parking spaces for the nonresidential uses as requsced bf the Zoning Ordinance. J. Aiello stated that the development includes five extra parking spaces. C. Smith stated that the radius of the ramp from the second floor of parking might still be too sharp. W. Warman stated that he had "worked that out with the City'. D. Jennings stated that he had not m-ewed #hat radius. S. Nagar slated that he had not reviewed that radius W. Warman stated that they plan to add trees along Chicago Avenue, replace the bushes along "nor:h lot line, and install trees within planters on the parking deck. W. Warman stated that they would replace any existing trees that do not survive following construction. W. Warman stated that garbage collection is internal. W. Warman stated that they would install bushes and a 5-fool high, wrought iron fence around tt a 3WIDot high transformers. C. Smith asked the applicants: are you proposing exterior lighting? W. Warman responded: they +could have wall -mounted lights at the residential entrance as well as along Chicago Avenue. C. Smith asked the applicants- would the light source be visible? W. Warman responded: no. C. Smith stated that signage and awnings are not included within this review. C. Smith stated that the applicant should set the standards for these features, rather than leaving such decisions up to individual tenants, such that the applicant does not 'lose control and get something he does not like.' H. Friedman stated that the entrance is 'totally inappropriate; it is puny for such a massive burldng'. A Alterson stated that he agrees that the entrance could use some *oomph'. W. Warman stated that fie could add sidelights: the bottom of the sidelights would match the bottom of the other wuzdows_ H. Friedman stated that that would help. C. Smith stated that she thought that the applicant would work more to integrate the comer treatment with the building. W. Warman stated that the designs they developed did not appear to relate to the building, rather they appeared 'tacked on", and they did not want the comer to be overpowering — the building is a residential building as well. H. Friedman stated that Alderman Wynne should see the revised drawings before the Committee Motes_ M. Mylott disagreed and stated that the Committee has the information it requires to render a decision M. Myiott motioned to grant final site plan review approval, subject to review and approval by the E ,yr g Department of the parking and loading, including but not limited to size and circulation. D. Marino seceded the motion. Committee aoDroved the motion 112-01 arant final site Dtan review aooroval. subject to review and 12drovat by the Enajneerinq Department pf the Darkina and ioadi inclu inn t�strt not limits! tee size and circulation H. Friedman abstained. SUMMARY of FiINDNW SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COI16111101iFiEE Jantary 5, 2OW it Iae s d 9 M. Myiott stated that the openings within the parking level of the Main Street elevation should better retatle to the fenestration of the upper floors: the base does not read so distinctly that its openings can not r to anything else. C. Smith agreed, and stated that the cornice is not strong enough M Myiott asked the applicants. are the openings within the parking level of the Main Street elevation working arzund co%xrzis? W. Warman responded: they may be in one instance W. Warman stated that he would to ak at that suggestion. W. Warman stated that he could de-emphasize the openings by re0aang the surround anx3nd each opening with trick trim. B. Fahlstrorn stated that that portion of the budding has no set rhyllun, amerng the surround may not be enough C. Smith asked the applicants: would the lights within the parking levels be arranged such that the soume would not be visible from the street? W Warman responded: yes. J. Aiello asked the apptcants_ are the openings within the parking level of the Main Street elevation configured such that headlights would not be visible from the street? W. Warman responded: yes M. Mylott motioned to grant final appearance review approval, subject to the Changes agreed to by the architect Including adding sidelights at the comer entrance and reviewing the configuration of the openings within the parking level of the Main Street elevation. J. Aiello seconded the moticci. Discussion: C. Smith asked the applicants: what size of brick would you use? W. Warman responded: utility. C. Smith asked the applicants: could the brick size at the pedestrian level be reduced? W. Warman responded: the building has so much glass at that level that the brick size would not be pertinent C. Smith stated that the vase is a third color, lighter than the material used at the comer entrance. Alderman Wynne asked the Committee: does this building comply with the build -to - lot -line requirement. A. Alterson responded: yes, the Zoning Division found that it substantially complies with that requirement. Alderman Wynne asked the applicants: have you discussed the issue of additional parking with the community group? B. Smith responded. the developer could not cover the cost of any additional parking. B. Smith stated that he would share the cost figures with the neighbors, but the project must still move forward. D. Jennings asked M. Mylott does the motion include a recommendation as to the color of the brick? M. Mylott responded: no. W. Warman stated that the detailing was lost with the blonde brick. H Friedman stated that the building does not contain that much detailing. C. Smith stated that the color scheme could be reversed — a blonde brick with dark accents. W. Barr stated that they considered that approach, but it looked 'hoakie'. H. Friedman stated that the blonde brick would reduce the scale and apparent weight of the building. W. Warman stated that the color selected is a light red W. Barr stated that a focus group preferred a dark red brick, but they did not want the massive look resulting from the dark red. C. Smith stated that she believes that the developers' marketing edge would have been the blonde brick. Committee aooroved the motion 01-2) to arant final appearance review aaoroval subiect to the chanaet agreed to by the architect includinq adding sidelights at the comer entrance and reviewing the confiauration of the ooeninas within the narkina level of the Main Street elevation H Friedman and C. Smith cast dfssenting votes. The sits plan, floor plans, elevations, and landscape plans have been placed wrdhin the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 99-075). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAY AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMRTEE JanwrY 5. 2000 Papa 9 d g VO� SPAARC 00-002 Lot Z within the Research Park Conc+eot Demolish existing improvements and construct b-story mixed -use Woding (ground -floor retail and cffce and office within upper floors. McDougal Litfelo Ms. Alice Rebechini (developer), Mr. Robert Sunda (architect), and Mr Fernando Araujo (architect) pressed a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and plat of survey to construct a 6-Wory mixed -use buckling with ground - floor retail and office and office within the upper floors (McDougal Littell) upon Lot 1 within the Research Park - Mr. Thomas Deming and Ms. Anne Ruffell (McDougal Littell) were available to answer questions. A Rebechini stated that the plan is to redevelop the entire lot; they intend to include access easemerds on all sides of the building. A Rebechini stated that the plans are a collator wn between McDougal Litter, fire City, and the Arthur Hill Company; the Arthur Hill Company would handle the retail aspect of the develo� A Rebechini stated that the goal is to begin construction in July 2000 A Rebechini stated that the 6-story structure would contain approximate y 190,000 square feet of office and include underground parking. A. Rebechini stated that retail would front Church Street. A. Rebechini stated that the plans presented to the Committee are already one step behind the most -recent conversations with the Arthur Hill Company; however, the concept remains the same. R. Bunda stated that the McDougal Littell entrance faces south R. Bunda stated that the site plan includes a plaza located at the south end of the site. R. Bunda stated that the site plan maintains the connection between Church Street and the plaza; at the narrowest, the width of this passage is approximately 16 feet. R. Sunda stated that he believes pedestrian circulation along the west side of the site can be maintained, despite the accessible ramp proposed by Metra. R. Sunda stated that the site plan respects the CTA entrance. R. Bunda stated the parking ramp is centrally located to have the least impact on pedestrian circulation C. Smith stated that having the entire focus of the central area be a parking ramp is unfortunate. R. Sunda stated that landscaping would soften the area; the ramp would not be otnrusive when a person was at grade because they plan to include a low wall, J. Aiello stated that the City considered a ramp along the east lot line, but recognized that the central location improved pedestrian circulation F. Araujo stated that the proposed configuration allows vehicles to drop off passengers at the door of the binding. C. Smith stated that perhaps the applicant could construct lattice over the ramp. M "a stated that pemaps the applicant could construct precast concrete structures containing landscaping around the ramp, much like the designs used to screen the downtown Seattle highways; the vertical nature of such structures would hide the fact that a ramp even exists from three sides C Smith stated that this area of the site plan rs dearly important. C. Smith asked the applicants. what type of paving material do you propose wrthrn the plaza? A. Rebechini responded: that item will be worked out with the City via the redevelopment agreement R. Sunda stated that the floor plan was used to design the exterior. R Bunda stated that the west half of the building would have a softer horizontal, curved expression, and the east half would a harder, precast concrete form: the central element would serve as a transition between the two halves R Bunda stated that the east half would have punched openings within the precast concrete for the windows C. Smith asked the applicants- did you consider using spandrel glass within the curve of the western farade7 R Sunda responded: precast concrete permits a true curve whereas glass never achNeves a true curve. C Smith stated that spandrel glass might not be a true curve, but it would be faceted A. Rebechini stated that the curve of the west facade implies a sweeping path. C. Smith stated that the curve Is too subtle; the applicants should consider constructing a model. R. Bunda stated that the precast concrete wnthin the curve also unifies the building. C. Smith stated that the opportunity to change materials seems to be the best approach to accomplish the design intent S. Fahlstrom agreed, and stated that the intent of having two facades does not SUMMARY OF FIND04S SiTE PLAN AND &PPEARANCE REVIEW COFAMMEE .January 5, "'L10i0 Page 7 at 9 read well. S. Fahlstrom stated that the articulation of the windows within the curve is 'dull' and reserrA*m 'storefront systems of the 1970s'. the applicant should consider strlxcbxal gfazing or flushed glazing b pnNide a'smooth and sleek took'. C. Smith agreed, and stated that the bcelding tacks a 'tech kook' that the design seems to be intending. A Alterson stated that the building bolts like many 1970s or 196Q5 buildings VQ1 are being demolished today. 8. Fahistrom stated that perhaps the mass of the divisions of the punched openings within the east elevation could be increased to give a true sense of a wall. R. 8unda stated that to do so compromises natural light H. Friedman stated that this proposal is a goad example of an OWP&P buftng of the 1970s. A Akerson stated that he realizes that the penthouse is not included within the calculation of building height: however, from certain vantage points, it is visible A Alterson stated that the penthouse is almost the most prominent feature of the building. A Rebechvn stated that they have not yet decided upon the bulking materials for the penthouse, however, the penthouse would never be vie- r in true elevation, and it would not be visible from Church Street. D. Jennings stated that a person would not see the entire building until they were several hundred feet away ghven the surrounding development M. Mylott stated that the depth of shadow shown above the ground -floor retail implies an arcade. J. Aidto stated that the Arthur Hill Company does not want an arcade. R. 8unda stated that that area could be a sign band. A. Aiterson stated that he is not certain how well an arcade world work A. Rebech6 stated that tttey might consider canopies. M. Mylott stated that he is not certain a canopy is an appropriate fixture on a building of this type, especially fabric canopies. the applicant should consider something permanent that appears to have been designed with the building. H. Friedman asked the applicants; did you consider providing a bridge between the two train stations? A. Rebechini responded. it is not being considered, especially given the timing of this project. A. Rebechini stated that second f1wr retail space does not have a strong market J. Aiepo stated that the City wants people on the street, and a bridge would become a security issue. C. Smith stated that, despite the convenience to commuters, she agrees that pedestrians should be at street level. A Rebechini stated that 'the design reflects expressed desires of the tenant and a target budget that would permit that tenant to remain in the City'. A. Rebechini stated that multiple goals must be considered, and some of the Committee's comments run counter to those goals. M. Mylott motioned to grant concept approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion Discussion: C. Ruiz stated that he would encourage the architect to emphasize the curve of the western fa;ade with more glass and less precast concrete. more glass would main a stronger statement Committee aDo►oved the motion (12-11 to grant concept aDDroval. A Alterson cast the dissenting vote. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and rendenng have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPARC 00-002). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE►+ January 5, 2000 i/"11 Paps a of 9 CITY OF EVANSTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZONINo DIVISION TO: MEMBERS, SITE PLAN & APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: ARTFIUR ALTERSON, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: NEIGHBOR'S LETTER: B17 CHICAGO DATE: _ 3f?.9V00 - One of.the neighbors to 817 Chicago, the Coronet. brought this in and asked t> wwe"dmWbute lb SPSARC members prior to today's meeting. Thank you. I )c � NAME ADDRESS 7.1 ' r v A. AMA it Baft&g for yards s y ft& %NdP CappnclL tYr he1�a d Ct• comb mmrlt® tAiidlrp flJd ar* gpvw ha la Chicav s fart plerttfa R•bXtYaofSl-- s a C*Y Collard :low city 11 M 9 .ored d do lau awalk-p a ME" fis'at auO t v& d nat[rlrtf (Xder to a dtaera; !slaw e[tarr wvm thm r1 he4 tT hr (rattle bkarmd to Qta Wild WA M &A If a ally a now ally amd oCtrrt most lhjaar 9 it* ray la in s"I" a balance tfafforarl brtrmw* nflAury no as VW Prowirrw thetr 6�' T of We Thars tormiar aw hndfr d butmints Is Gth cina reel if Oftill MAJW•s elfsrs Ilnbb and hacasxa, Q.r.kprrl Wn aiLblT form t]t.d a rarr to ¢t alomll Ow s»ipltr*••• At crw pats+. Mhaw's djatbn4* as sailm luke VM'" fac.•l t w tta w b >Y1K •hart NRWy'Qa >t! 1a11rW am m oom as AU" alrlale t1Y41h dramas and rrylactti< Owns ■ rrh tar Ls Lrfn P...• 1 AIAr•rn,rn [ir-.arm 5'-•',C {her'+ <" �. JEY i•! '; [r'•# `Arvid 8Jr!?n flatMus nsr+ t: art:,-•xrrf d<.�� I<r.rt rq u.�' Ili -. CtS Limits r,•,,,..1,.... r.- `.mulan 'tt, v.ans,^I• - ltur m rralltl th.. f'. + it' fifer! Ia fat m,nr ddflr'it and r,•t just h- I raul, It. M11— all crrak t" I.- t plant td",.e rn. h.•nlra a" r dnmrnlumi. rEtch adl crrarly ra the d,nmtrt tanndhc[innrl maktncpar1L=sr.frrAltllcujf Ir cnntt all w C*a a4tol-rhan cmq I leryAtts Mho' r;Twalli an huill uftnpRuL•rrtmt:a Ihernn.i, minlum.orr. ts.e a sell[ mr .rtnahlytta_tr•.re aalk attrx lnr MLk tYa • •wL wa11a raN . trot, hn rf-Y:r trot rme b1h it ' If l A r Imr - • I' o:A r.,.f1 In .ha .uhnrh• '.xi f l.rtt IL1€ dfr••f,f of fhlrafrn s Ir'arr•rrnr rf pL+r. tllnaandl—t-9'rr/rl andlet- .uhnrt,.€ are nn I^[ a errr7hl. + I Im, M uh I; Su nV inr ..•r'ui� •.:I,Sanr Mx t h, h• 1,:j:1 r,Y• 1 r: !,-xi I .a.' the amr as eh• "-"r rt,Nrrr .111. In.r1,+111 t-•••r:nw'h. ruM td ta. 110-4 s. nv rr, 0"Hal. rh.Irat 1••f 111111h, m ss a L"'-A A1d. alNi• r thm Inlet Wil fro a n104. h •l, uu rnnl.dr t!ndrr the o—PILm .hr.h was app;at«I hs I-. rnucifil s Lfntna Commlllr, arA• ,V,rs•d b1 atA1 to Htrhanl u ail•l th, helaht ff Iwjldlnc. In •n eh•nsuH netahlx'r h, turf+ w Ith P i and p '. tun Inc e1,1114 1. Ill: r..0 r•sr►ctivrlt• All and 1:f„[ it+LisslarwnIt drslanrrl w P'. an rnd w lurldrt billldlna. ow -s rt-Iaht•tth-di. Ilk, Fast 1,ljlta, rrf a. 1110 a. V, ir+'1 Th—mmt Lich nw rapt...!.! a r laaalt I A- ,' ltrtwu M-1-ul ..lchmc th• ;••!'v 11 E%-r. ill 'het t'r— n:r :rz Hy IIn, I I.w. fir IAc...tr, mha Yfr lhr'f ,pl fl- -r„ pn-fits f•. •4af A.,rintarr I It— tntlly s . •ea 11 . j:h •Qult.tlrnl f ".L,1•r>,: Aamaa� It s nt:f ylat use ,ra now nmd minlnm. ni,a•r :nrr thalr 1w It}: j­. shier-r v-9 th. [hr•r lfnry sralr,d ttrr+t.!fl►l, As tjlurr. rrHlt. ha.+ y,•rtr'L' , A the fail Ihln bulldlrn t. Door rhr "k and111rnr c•.. .La•7r.. r,,trWr, hark hard tar it-. y rr, atr.trt .r. far un 1h.:7 . ^, •t.a! tint h., a lanl. ar. IIk. ;•>r:•r tort.=•. Thal An7r•',•. ;•.• ^nrlr t.uu. roe ' ,.f kl ern .ru.. tr•a•-nt hlracr hnmr• and a...1. as rh- r h.n- fir I:e-=• I •rs o- yr to l l"• a.t.a rtr rin . a !. t In.19"If" ant hart of tv-o1:rt a tt,nmLnl 11 \nlhuta n .;' t� s•+rr trmly thandi Lipp.ar:.•,t Cr"n trwr. Lr s t111 . h,t• (rA rv'.rr a a 1a17rr Aar.lnhnnl •ta"•••^•t piantlnc thousmds M :ran arnund the I It' rhr nf:n) n rs•r I -I ,n rlal., ••r his plannlrli a want! Hill w hn pt, mta.r lha: 1,-': hrlaht hm Hs arr slmit. -w t••c:nnner d . mitt rnmynM•r.a.• rrylprrur.a r thr rtli s ru-• % e d W.' aonlnt urdmanco 4 fl,r hats Iret l.!t_ a, rhuL11mc puhhclf fohat :1.1_-.�^• a - :h, nfCinL fnt C[.'r ^,t : ^• �>*I1 mandate in Uaa mu Z !u: a , lr: alrr'a At Tcr'rrc: cart roe a-ep+ an ! flask deck r� wca:', "t^t rlrfr'd marl c(t�r an, }w..-- ;!er rust of tsar Amar And •},r ■fora ?cI •Aat {nd is `.t * - and 11 !turd wr_-. a +t..ttua" 0ca»hl am anal •a,'^�•! ...... _ -� I tfw Mal• to .r.,►: I. -a -s r• al.L wl aprnr II;,;-1 :r AAl"q+ clNar11ACS* ra[•+ a-t,j :+c t. a. part :Y Ow h,.'Irt tA^r. jp•'. l ai,flrn from al r-r,-r••.... thr COT MIN r•,hc Mt, t • .11r, P•rcettrW ar •r. , t6, . s.., .A th, r" Flormra ..• e _ .J — [:au t4-k a lry¢rra e-l'. M'v r:1 r.l' IHtaf T`w r 1•++erw' ; e,uk3 Iraaslaer t1:er pse -i t,wl- ;_silty et%allonab Scar rru:•r,.:. •.r> s. btu l- slat irrw.: A •..:. • .w ,l. t he ttl:lkhm a^ r hair the dixTr u..r, t: h. 'r x • hrn lame O"t t .lw taw u., j.•rif tf ,,r r•'• :r.[ - -=rya Hut the p *r drw :t _w r x •- n: 'r• t ho tnealler yr,a ""I, Ir aSC.I I,.r r'w u!; Is M rlwsd to . arcs r'u• f • +/� Hfettr Of [EI he;{�' r•i-�f-r<• such Asa tol t-. ast •e t.'.;, reRulatrd trot rrvr-:e! •�r•-• t .�uh as AshhnS amt o.rvn A,•-..ws Thom. tfarf c-Le st.;I r«a•r rtmilf. prob I•:rs .r.: ram., - IChbnrtna [atlas Inn; LS7". T`..t murals}=, wh/ r. surf-., ra• occurred is N:.: i a •, tt. � :nl+ tt. rtprctr.: ,,, Horton s:. •�:. [M full CHT ..era" ur•.+e:tfx rai•'ttrd e„ .,t, h at mitt& rfyT rv•r . u- Its I.swys7 tz• • • t anA tic• t[se a :.r. •-.. .1 7. �•• •rtrs calf fosse R!N :r. •r.. r.av 'hat rrGujrtea r;a�r. ,•.a:� ,-.neraalt M ll/fo L7 PfYre}--arA mat• ••r::.r•+!�t 1•.s a3: r'Sa ry •- anllh t.'.a Ml^ tea • •' ••ra-Is h, nt Cc di +• . ,.•. aLv dnrl rnm;.ar.• iota fox tltrl .Ya rtrr : ^ rf and Ia.-lef) rf „r '!tr: • . a.•'^-h[r r a) to i'rt Ur ;r.t this ec no", or, t. tuflama r..',=•!. r^• r out f•r th. nerr 'Al m l arl1gd u, is •r -r: s C , ''oar . *h, if t[ari. a w!•e to ^,rt111 .;II mthv hw'� rL.^ ra:•. • .hair 5'ijuM arM• . ..'nSr f,rralku.i .,rr••!'h-l- —71 Lk•a tatter -1- A !loco- /.:- • . sir 7nta � f ar