Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1998SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 7, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Marino, M. Mylott, B. Fahistrom, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, D. Jennings, J. Glus, K. Kelly, C. Smith. H. Friedman. C. Ruiz. A. Alterson (acting chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:10 p.m. SPAARC 96-0100 936-940 Hinman Avenue Final Construct 15-car parking area for The Hinman. Mr, Charles Clarke presented working drawings for a 15-car parking area for The Hinman (condominiums) at 936-940 Hinman Avenue. C. Clarke stated that the plans were originally approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals for 14 parking spaces; however, upon construction, they realized they could fit a 15th parking space. C. Clarke stated that the working drawings depict the 15th parking space too far west; contrary to the working drawings, the parking space is not within the backing area of the parking space immediately southwest. A. Alterson stated C. Clarke must provide the Zoning Division with a correct site plan. C. Clarke stated that, for the preliminary approval, the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee requested exterior lighting, two new trees, and a fence along the south side and west side of the parking area; the trees and fence have not yet been added. M. Mylott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the two trees are planted and the fence is erected as requested during preliminary approval. L. Black seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Ruiz asked C Clarke if the proposed fence type is the same as that submitted to the Preservation Commission. C. Clarke responded yes; the fence is a 6-foot wood hoard -on -board. Committee ar rroved the motion (8-0) to arant final site clan and aog-earance review aoQMval. orovided the two trees are planted and the fence is erected as reauested duriQgareliminary approval. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 7. 1998 Page 1 of 4 SPAARC 98-0004 1900 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Erect roof -mounted antennas and 9' x 17' building on top of Prfmm Towers for Nextel. Mr. Michael Stem presented working drawings (including elevations) for 6 roof -mounted antennas and a 9-foot by 17-foot equipment building for Nextel on top of F, imm Towers at 1900 Sherman Avenue. M. Stem stated that the antennas will be mounted to the existing penthouse; future plans will include 3 more antennas. M. Stern stated the new equipment building will be attached to the existing penthouse. M. Stem stated that the antennas and equipment building will be painted to match the existing penthouse. M. Mylott asked M. Stern if the antennas will extend above the rooftine of the existing penthouse. M. Stem responded yes, by approximately 2 feet. J. Wolinski asked M. Stern to define the service area for this site. M. Stern responded two to three miles for a user within a building and four to five miles for a user within a car; Nextel currently has a site in Winnetka and is pursuing sites in Wilmette and Glencoe. A. Alterson asked M. Stern of what material will the equipment building be made. M. Stern responded a material similar to that used for the existing penthouse. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance approval, provided the antennas and equipment building are painted to match the existing penthouse. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman asked M. Stern if the existing penthouse and equipment building will have any perimeter security. M. Stern responded no, because the antennas are approximately 13 feet above the top of the principal building. Committee approved the motion (7-0) to grant Dreliminaiv and final site plan and aft�earance review approval. provided the antennas and equipment buildincLa painted to match the_existindpenthouse. SPAARC 97-0087 1615 Hinman Avenue Preliminary Parking and landscaping improvements adjacent to Mather Home. Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 98-0001 640 Lincoln Street Recommendation to Sign Board Variation to replace free-standing sign (erected without permit) at Roycemore School. B Fahlstrom presented an application for variation to the Sign Board, containing a site plan and elevation, for a free-standing sign for Roycemore School at 640 Lincoln Street. B Fahlstrom stated the sign is located at the corner of Lincoln Street and Orrington Avenue and 86 inches high; also, the work was conducted without a permit. B. Fahlstrom stated that the sign requires relief from the Sign Code Board because it has 16 "items of information"; the Sign Code permits 7 items. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 7, 1998 Page 2 or 4 J. Wolinski motioned to recommend that the Sign Board approve the application for variation, provided the applicant pays a $200 stipend to the City. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion; C. Ruiz stated that these plans must be reviewed by the Preservation Commission because this property is an Evanston landmark and on the National Register. H. Friedman stated that, according to the plans, the erected sign is a replacement sign, and it is smaller than the original sign. C. Ruiz stated that, if the sign Is a replacement, he may be able to perform the review administratively. J. Wolinski amended the motion as such: recommend that the Sign Board approve the application for variation, provided (1) the Preservation Commission or staff grants a Certificate of Appropriateness, (2) the applicant incorporates any changes requested by the Preservation Commission or staff in the grant of the Certificate of Appropriateness, (3) and the applicant pays a $200 stipend to the City. P. D'Agostino amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Gait ittm ee approved the motion (9-0 to recommend that the Sian Board approve the ap 1p ication for vgliation. provided f 11 the Preservation Commission or staff arants a Certificate of Aopropriateness. (2) the applicant incorporates anv changes requested by the Preservation Commission or steff in the arant of the Certificate of Appropriateness.131 and the applicant pgvs a 5200 stiend to the Citv. A copy of the application for variation has been placed within the Committee folder for this case. SPAARC 98-0002 2942 Central Street Recommendation to the Sign Board Variation to reface free-standing sign (work conducted without permit) for Northshore Security. B. Fahlstrom presented an application for variation to the Sign Board, containing an elevation and photograph, of a refaced, existing nonconforming, free-standing sign for Northshore Security at 2942 Central Street. B. Fahlstrom stated that, once the applicant removes the existing sign face, it loses all grandfalhered status; also, the work was conducted without a permit. B. Fahlstrom stated the sign requires relief from the Sign Code because: (1) the sign is 16 feet high, whereas 15 feet 6 inches is permitted; (2) the sign is only 4 feet from Hurd Avenue and 9 feet from Central Street, whereas 16 feet from each lot line is required for a 16-foot high sign, and (3) any building with a free-standing sign must be setback from the right-of-way at least 30 feet. B. Fahlstrom stated that, while no survey was provided, the building is not 30 feet from the right-of-way. J. Wolinski motioned to (1) recommend that the Sign Board deny the application for variation, (2) require that the applicant remove the existing sign and pole, and (3) require that any new sign conform with the Sign Code. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion f9-01 to recommend that the Sian Boar(j denv the application for variation, f21 require that the applicant remove the existina sion and ogle, and (3) quire that anv new sian conform with the Sian Code, A copy of the application for variation has been placed within the Committee folder for this case. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 7, 1998 Page 3 of 4 SPAARC 98-0003 1968 Dempster Street Recommendation to Sign Board Variation for wall sign for HolWood Video. B. Fahlstrorn presented an application for variation to the Sign Board, containing north, east, and west elevations, for a wall sign for Hollywood Video at 1968 Dempster Street; also, the Sign Board must review the sign package against the previously approved unified sign plan for the property. B. Fahlstrom stated that the sign requires relief from the Sign Board because any wall sign must relate to frontage along a public street. B. Fahlstrom stated the three wall signs are illuminated. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that (1) the Sign Board deny the west (alley) wall sign, (2) the two remaining wall signs conform with the size requirements of the unified sign plan for the property, and (3) no portion of the building be painted. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated that the plans show that the applicant is proposing a Dryvit raceway behind the signs. B. Fahlstrom stated that placing Dryvit over the brick facade changes the appearance of the building. M. Mylott withdrew the motion. D. Marino withdrew the second. D. Marino motioned to table this item, and recommend that the Sign Board take no action because (1) the application appears to alter the existing facade, and (2) the Committee requires more information from the applicant before it can make an informed recommendation. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee aR_nroved the motion (&Lto table this item and recommend that the Sion Board take no action because f 1l the aoelication appears to alter the existing facade. and (2] the Committee requires more information from the applicant before it can make an informed recommendation. J. Wolinski abstained. A copy of the application for variation has been placed within the Committee folder for this case. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of December 17, 1997, provided "Mr. Ellen Galland" is changed to "Ms Ellen Galland" on page 1 H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (9-W to approve the Summary of FindinaUf December 17. 1997. provided "Mr. Ellen Galland" is changed to " s. Ellen Galland" on page 1. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at a 20 p. m. ctfully submitted, Marc Steven Mylott, zoning Pla e SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 7, 1998 Page 4 of 4 January 12,1998 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 14, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: P. D'Agostino, J. Glus, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. C. Ruiz, C. Wonders. C. Smith {chair} determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:20 p.m. SPAARC 97-0047 600 Foster Street Revision to Final Revision to location of Transportation Center for Northwestern University. Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 98-0006 1928 Darrow Avenue Preliminary Construct rear addition to St. Andrews Episcopal Church. Mr. Fred Polito presented a site plan, elevations, and a color rendering for interior renovations and a rear addition to St. Andrews Episcopal Church at 1928 Darrow Avenue. Reverend Ikenye was available to answer questions, F. Polito stated that the proposal did not include any renovations to the sanctuary (upper level), except the entry stairs; the current stairs (which are very steep over a short run) will be stretched out over a longer run. F Polito stated that the rear one-story addition is at the same level as the lower level, which is somewhat below grade. F. Polito stated the proposal includes moving the "founders' hall' west into the new 1,600 to 1,700 square foot area, and creating classrooms and an office meeting area and renovating the kitchen and bathrooms in the original area; the new "founders' hall" or multi -purpose room will be used for banquets, meetings, parties, plays, and/or light childrens' activities (but it is not a gymnasium). F. Polito stated that the ceiling will be high and kept open. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 14. 1998 Page 1 of 5 F. Polito stated that, from the outside, the addition will mimic the roof pitch, brick, and window style of the existing church. F. Polito stated that he is aware the proposal does not conform with the Zoning Ordinance in the following ways: (1) where a 15-foot side yard is required, the proposal only provides approximately 8 feet (the addition is 1 foot further from the side lot line than the principal church); and (2) where a 30-foot rear yard Is required, the proposal only provides approximately 20 feet. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Officer noted in his Zoning Analysis that the expansion will require a new special use; this issue should be clarified with the Zoning Administrator. M. Mylott stated that the Church is currently legal nonconforming as to parking; no off-street parking is provided. M. Mylott stated that this proposal generates no parking requirement, because the parking requirement for a religious institution is based on the number of seats in the sanctuary; however, if the proposal requires a special use, Zoning Board of Appeals members may note that the Church is proposing an addition where off-street parking could be provided. Reverend Ikenye stated the Church has an agreement with the City to park on the street on Sundays, and the Church notifies the City in anticipation of a non -Sunday event well before that event. F. Polito stated the rear yard is not large enough to provide all the required off- street parking, and rear parking would conflict with the front entrance to the Church. M. Mylottt asked Reverend Ikenye what was the average service attendance. Reverend Ikenye responded between 125 to 145 people. J. Wolinski stated that the amount of off-street parking that could be provided would be negligible compared to the number of attendees. C. Smith asked D. Jennings if anyone has complained to the Traffic Department about the parking situation at the Church. D. Jennings responded no, and stated he did not believe that the rear yard was practical for off-street parking. D. Jennings stated that normally the street has one-sided parking only, but the street has two-sided parking on Sundays. J. Wolinski asked F. Polito if the Church is handicap accessible. F. Polito responded yes, to a degree; a mechanical elevator is available inside the sanctuary to travel between the sanctuary and lower level. C. Smith stated F. Polito should review the State accessibility requirements to ensure those requirements are met. F. Polito stated that, given the demographics of the congregation, one element of this program is to ensure the Church is accessible to all areas. F. Polito stated one option is for an improved one -person elevator; a second option is for a ramp. C. Smith asked F. Polito if that program element is part of these plans. F. Polito responded yes. C. Smith stated F. Polito should show accessibility provisions on the plans as they may affect the exterior appearance. J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, subject to (1) approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and/or City Council, and (2) conformance with all other City and State regulations. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee gg ved the motion to orant orelimin= site plan and appearance review approval, subiect to t1 ] approval by the zoning Qoard of Appeals and/or City Sguncil. and (2) conformance with all other City and State regulations. Plans for this proposal have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0006). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 14, 1998 Page 2 of 5 SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Concept Erect mixed -use building {ground -floor retail and ATM and upper -floor residential). Mr. Chris Thomas (architect), Mr. Ron Fleckman (Cyrus Homes, Inc.), and Mr. Walter Kihiu (Cyrus Homes, Inc.) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and color rendering for a mixed -use building at 2953 Central Street, C. Thomas stated the proposal includes: approximately 9,000 square feet of ground -floor retail and 3 stories of residential (27 to 29 dwelling units) abive the ground -floor retail. 2. two single -lane drive-thru ATMs at the east end, replacing three drive-thru ATMs currently located approximately in the middle of the site. Entrance only to the ATMs is via Central Park Avenue; exit only from the ATMs is via Central Street. 3. 51 parking spaces accessed from Central Park Avenue (20 uncovered parking spaces located on a downward ramp to the lower level, and 31 covered parking spaces located within the lower level). C. Smith stated that the Zoning Analysis cites the following deficiencies: The two new drive-thru ATMs will require a special use permit. 2. The height at the center of the building exceeds that permitted. The building is setback from the front lot line approximately 18 inches, whereas the B2 Business District requires buildings to be built to the front or street side lot line. 4. Two loading berths are required for the retail, whereas one is provided. No loading berth is provided for the residential use, whereas one is provided. 5. The two required handicap parking spaces need to be accessible to the general public. C. Thomas asked M. Mylott if the loading berths can be shared. M. Mylott responded that he was not sure if that was permitted or not, and he will investigate an answer to that question. D. Jennings stated that, because the building must be built to the lot line, cars exiting the ATMs will have poor visibility to the east; the applicants should consider using some form of visual warning device or mirror. Committee members discussed the potential hazards of poor visibility in this area, especially given the amount of pedestrian traffic R. Fleckman agreed, and stated this issue will need to be addressed. C. Smith stated that the east elevation has a nice treatment, while the west elevation has only small "punches" in the facade; because the west elevation will be the more prominent of the two, it should be at least as well designed as the east elevation C. Thomas staled he can "dress it up". H. Friedman asked C. Thomas what are the proposed materials. C. Thomas responded brick, cast stone, aluminum -clad wood windows, and stucco or EIFS with wood trim. C. Smith asked C. Thomas if the entrance was cast stone. C. Thomas responded yes. C. Smith asked C. Thomas what is the proposed roof material. C. Thomas responded a three-dimensional shingle with heavy relief. SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMVITTEE January 14, 1998 Page 3 of 5 J. Wolinski asked the applicants what was intended for signage. W. Kihiu responded that signage will be provided for the ATMs, and other signage will be small and tasteful; because Cyrus Homes, Inc. anticipates occupying some or all of the retail space, they desire a quality appearance. C. Thomas stated some signage could be placed on the awnings. M. Mylott asked R. Fleckman and W. Kihiu if they had discussed this proposal with the ward alderman. R. Fleckman responded yes. M. Mylott asked R. Fleckman to describe the alderman's response. R. Fleckman responded "mixed". R. Fleckman stated Cyrus homes, Inc. recognizes that they will have to conduct some form of neighborhood process. C. Smith asked C. Thomas what are the plans for exterior fighting, especially for the parking. C. Thomas responded that that item has not yet been considered. C. Smith stated C. Thomas should work with J. Tonkinson on an acceptable photometric plan. J. Tonkinson stated all lights must be focused down. W. Kihiu stated the plans could build light wells into the concrete walls along the uncovered parking areas. D. Marino asked C. Thomas the depths of the sloped uncovered parking area. C. Thomas responded at grade at the west end and 8 feet at the east end; the plans include a 6-foot fence along the northern property line. M. Mylott stated that C. Thomas may be able to install an 8-foot fence, because the property is adjacent to a residential zoning district; C. Thomas should review the fence regulations to see if this option is applicable. C. Smith stated that driving along a fence on the north and a guard rail and drop-off an the south could create an uncomfortable driving experience. D. Jennings stated the applicants may consider asking the neighbors to the north if they can build the fence on the neighbors' property. C. Ruiz asked C. Smith if the requirement for a unified sign package is applicable to this proposal. C. Smith responded no, because the requirement is only for buildings with four or more businesses. M. Mylott stated the applicants may wish to work out signage details now, because the issue may come up at the public hearing for the special use. C. Smith stated the applicants should work with A. Alterson on clarifying questionable zoning issues. D. Jennings motioned to grant concept approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aooroyed the motion 18-01 to orant conceot aoarovai. SPAARC 97-0072 1815 Brown Avenue Final Erect child residential care home for Anixter Center, Mr. Fritz Biederman (architect) presented revised elevations for a new child residential care home for Anixter Center located at 1815 Brown Avenue. Mr. Paul Finnell was available to answer questions. F. Biederman stated that the revisions suggested at the last Committee meeting was cost prohibitive; therefore, Anixter Center would like to return to the original design concept F Biederman stated that the following changes have been made Windows (white) have been reintroduced to facades where they had been eliminated. 2. The front facade is a medium -value (color) aluminum siding where it had been masonry. A fiat -roofed canopy has been added over a recessed entry. The canopy will have a recessed light. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 14, 1998 Page 4 of 5 4. Along the front and part of the side facades, a reinforced fiberglass cornice and a cement board (spackled and painted dark) base have been added. 5. As suggested by H. Friedman, windows now separate the "2 units" instead of the chimney. 6. Wide wood trim has been added around the windows. 7. The scallops will be white. 8. The pitch trim and window trim will be an accent color. C. Smith stated F. Biederman should split (at the roof eaves) the gutter that runs down the center windows. H. Friedman agreed. F. Biederman stated he would make that change. C. Ruiz stated F. Biederman should add vertical trim boards to the rear elevation, between the third and fourth windows from each side. F, Biederman stated that lights will be located between each window. C. Ruiz stated these lights could be framed with trim and centered within the trim board. F. Biederman stated he would make that change. H. Friedman stated that the proposed cornice is inconsistent with the design. C. Smith agreed. F. Biederman stated he would change the cornice to flat cornice pieces and use square comer posts on the entry like those on the porte-co-there. M. Mylott asked F. Biederman what was the proposed design of the rear yard fence. F. Biederman responded a wood fence mounted to a metal channel assembly, the fence will took like a wood fence from the alley. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to (1) the changes agreed to by the architect, and (2) review and approval of the landscape plan by P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-0) to grant final site plan and appearance rey' "proval. subiect to (1) the changes agreed to by the architect. and (21 review and apuroval of the land§roe plaD by P. D'Aaostinq. Approval of Summary of Findings J Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of January 7, 1998. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee aoproyed the motion (7-0) to approve the Summary of Findings of January 7. 1998, Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. ctfully submitted Marc Steven Mylatt, Zoning P n r January 16, 1998 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 14, 1998 Page 5 of 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 21, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, K. Kelly, J. Glus. Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: C. Ruiz. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0007 3207 Central Street Subdivide one lot of record into two lots of record. Concept Ms, Rhea Davis Bobinsky (property owner) presented an existing plat of survey, a proposed plat of survey, and site and area photographs to subdivide 3207 Central Street into two lots. R. Davis Bobinsky stated that the 80-foot wide lot has an existing three -flat on the east side; the proposal is to create 2 40-foot wide lots and construct a two -flat on the new lot. A. Alterson stated the proposal has several zoning deficiencies: (1) the existing three -flat requires a 50-Foot lot width, and the proposal would provide 40 feet; (2) the existing three -flat requires a lot area of 7,500 square feet, and the proposal would provide 4,800 square feel, (3) the proposed two -flat requires a lot area of 5,000 square feet, and the proposal would provide 4,800 square feet. M. Mylotl asked R. Davis Bobinsky if she intended to apply for variations from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). R. Davis Bobinsky responded yes. J. Wolinski asked A. Alterson If the proposed subdivision renders the parking deficient. A. Alterson responded yes, and stated that the three -flat requires 4 parking spaces, and the proposal would only provide 2 (within the garage) A Alterson stated that the two -flat would require 3 parking spaces D Jennings stated 4 parking spaces could be provided for the three -flat if the garage was demolished, 4 spaces (at 8 5 feet each) would require 34 feet of width and permit 3-foot setbacks on each side D. Marino asked R. Davis Bobinsky If the pine tree on the west side of the existing lot would be preserved. R. Davis Bobinsky responded she would like to preserve that tree. D Jennings stated that proposing a 45-foot wide lot for the three -flat and a 35-foot wide lot for the two -flat would make the lot more conform with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 21. 1998 Page t of 2 D. Marino stated that he felt that a proposal of this type represented positive economic development. C. Smith stated that she could support this proposal, but R. Davis Bobinsky must first get approval from the ZBA. J. Tonkinson motioned as such: the Committee cannot recommend approval of the subdivision until such time that the ZBA grants the required variations. J, Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated he does not believe the Committee should take any action at this time, because an increase in density is a policy decision only within the purview of the ZBA; if the ZBA determines that the greater density is appropriate by granting the variations, then the Committee should review the site plan and appearance of the resulting building. C. Smith and J. Tonkinson disagreed. C. Smith stated that the subdivision is the project the Committee is reviewing. M. Mylott stated that the Committee should review this project because of the variations only, not the subdivision; if this project required no zoning relief and otherwise conformed to all City codes, a discretionary approval process (the Committee) has no part of an administerial approval process (subdivision). J. Tonkinson disagreed. C. Ruiz asked the Committee if the Committee will review the building resulting from this proposal. J. Tonkinson responded yes, because of the variations. C. Smith stated R. Davis Bobinsky may wish to prepare a schematic site plan and elevations to demonstrate how the building will work within the context and rhythm of the neighborhood. A. Alterson agreed, and stated the site plan would be especially beneficial to explaining how the parking requirement will be satisfied. Committee denied the following motion 12-61: the Committee cannot recommend aooroval of the subdivisi_m until such time that the ZBA grants the real fired variations. M. Mylott abstained. D. Marino motioned to encourage the applicant to return with the proposed development, given the Committee believes the subdivision is appropriate for the site and proposed use. L. Black seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-1) to encourage the ap Ip icant to return with the proposed development, given the Committee believes the subdivision is aooropriate for the site and proposed use. M. Mylott abstained. Approval of Summary of Findings J Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of January 14, 1998. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee aparoved the motion f9-01 to approve the Summary gf Findings of January 14. 199Q, Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3 45 p m ctfully submitted, TAA**'4.. Marc Steven Mylott, Ze SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 21 1998 Page 2 of 2 January 22,1998 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, C. Ruiz. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m, SPAARC 97-0047 600 Foster Street Revision to Final Revision to location of Transportation Center for Northwestern University. Mr. Ron Nayler (Northwestern University) and Mr. Lee Johler (Northwestern University) presented a site plan and color elevations for a revised location to the Transportation Center for Northwestern University at 600 Foster. Mr. Charlie Friedlander (DLK Architecture) was present to answer questions. R. Nayler stated that, on 1/26198, the City Council acted on the 2 special use petitions: (1) City Council granted the special use for the classrooms, provided that, among other things, the building is constructed on the corner; and (2) City Council denied the special use :Ir the parking area. J. Wolinski informed the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee ("Committee") of the Planning R Development Committee deliberations of 1i12198 and 1126198 and the City Council deliberations of 1126/98. C. Smith asked R. Nayler what will be the use of the lower level of the building if it is built on the "green space" as presented. R. Nayler responded the space will be unfinished and used for storage. A. Alterson asked R Nayler to review for the Committee the surrounding structures i3ndior uses. R. Nayler responded that the structures and/or uses on the consolidated lot are as such: The first structure/use south of the parking lot at the southwest corner of Foster Street and Sheridan Road is a former residence, now containing the Department of Religion. The structure/use south of the Department of Religion is a former residence, now containing the Transportation Center. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 29, 1999 Pop 1of10 3. The use south of the existing Transportation Center is a parking area. 4. The next 3 structures/uses south of the parking area are former residences, now containing administration and the Department of Liberal Arts and Sciences. 5. The structure/use located south of the "green space" is the Foster Walker Dormitory. 6. The structuresluses located east of Foster Walker are recreation facilities for Foster Walker, including basketball and volleyball courts. A. Alterson asked R. Nayler what Northwestern has planned for the future use of the building, now containing the Transportation Center. R. Nayler responded that Northwestern University has not yet committed to a specific user, however, the use will probably be administrative (staff offices). R. Nayler stated that, whatever use occupies that building, it will conform with the Zoning Ordinance. R. Nayler stated that, whatever use occupies that building, it will cause no greater impact than the current use. A. Alterson disagreed, and stated that the impacts associated with the new use will be additional impacts, because the current users of the Transportation Center will still be on -site. A. Alterson asked R. Nayler to describe for the Committee the structures and/or uses surrounding the consolidated lot. R. Nayler responded as such: 1. The structure/use at 1915 Orrington Avenue is a single-family residence. 2. The structureluse south of the residence at 1915 Orrington Avenue is Searle; occupants provide student health services. 3. The structure/use on the north side of Foster and east of the alley is the site for Hillel; currently, it contains a vacant residence. The structure/use to the east of Hillel is a parking area and Bloomquist gymnasium. 5. The structures/uses to the east of Bloomquist are former residences, now containing various administrative offices. J. Wolinski asked R. Nayler if the elevations will change, given the proposed change in location. R. Nayler responded no, and stated that the building has always been designed to front on Foster Street, A. Alterson asked R. Nayler if he had prepared an elevation depicting a parking area in front of the new building. R. Nayler responded no, and stated that the color elevation is still accurate. C. Smith asked L. Johler if wood shakes would be used on the west elevation. L. Johler responded no, and stated that that material would probably be an architectural shingle. H Friedman asked R Nayler if he had considered moving the building directly south from its proposed revised location R Nayler responded that the proposed revised location provides a greater setback from Foster Street than that amount required by the Zoning Ordinance; however, having the building located close to Foster Street is important because visitors must be able to easily find it, and it provides an easy drop off for visitors arriving via taxi. H. Friedman stated that moving the building to the south would preserve the intent of the "green space" and reduce the bulk of building. R. Nayler stated that the building has been designed within the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. J. Wolinski asked A. Alterson if the T2 Transitional Campus District had a build -to -lot -line requirement. A. Alterson responded no. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28, 1998 Page 2 of 10 A. Alterson asked L. Johler if the various arches on Foster Street could be changed to better relate to each other. L. Johler stated that they have been changed from the previous elevation; some view the variety as a positive design element of the building. A. Alterson stated that the Committee must consider that the proposed change Is not simply a revised location for the new building; rather, the change also includes retaining 25 parking spaces that would have otherwise been eliminated. A. Alterson stated he believed that this increased intensity is contrary to the policy of the Transitional Campus districts as established by the City Council. R. Nayler disagreed, and stated the use and intensity is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. M. Mylott asked R. Nayler what was his philosophy when he designed the alternative plans for the parking area in conjunction with the special use application. R. Nayler responded to reduce the number of parking spaces to only that amount currently on -site and locate those spaces as far as possible from the residence located immediately west of the "green space". M. Mylott stated that he believed one of the neighbors' problems was that the various alternative parking plans destroyed the character and functionality of the "green space", even though some "green space" was retained; the area would simply no longer function as a "common lawn" or "town square". M. Mylott stated he has prepared 5 alternatives that allow Northwestern University to retain various amounts of parking while maintaining the character of the "green space"; the significant change within each alternative centers an loading existing underutilized aisles with parking spaces. M. Mylott stated that, according to Northwestern University's special use application, the existing parking count is 68 parking spaces; according to his calculations, the "green space" is approximately 0.65 acres. M. Mylott presented 5 alternative site and parking plans to the Committee, and stated: Alternative A shifts the existing western north/south aisle approximately 20 feet to the east to provide approximately 20 parking spaces on the west side of the aisle. Of the 5 alternatives, this alternative is probably the most difficult to implement, because it will require the City to vacate the alley to Northwestern University and Northwestern University to provide an access easement for any garage that may be accessary to the residence located immediately west of the "green space". Also, some landscaping will have to be provided along the western side of the new parking spaces to reduce glare from headlights. This alternative reduces the "green space" by approximately 0.10 acres and provides 61 parking spaces. Alternative B loads parking spaces on both sides of the southern east/west aisle. The number of parking spaces gained allows for the 2 parking spaces closest to Foster Street to be removed from the east and west north/south parking areas, providing additional "green space" for open lawn or vegetation. This alternative reduces the "green space" by approximately 0.15 acres and provides 68 parking spaces. Alternative C uses the same concept as Alternative B; however, this alternative recognizes that the resulting southern east/west parking area was rather large. This alternative maintains the 2 parking spaces closest to Foster Street in the east and west north/south parking areas and provides "green fingers" to break up the southern east/west parking area; these "fingers" can be used for pedestrian crossings to the "green space" or as planters for vegetation This alternative reduces the "green space" by approximately 0.16 acres and provides 68 parking spaces. 4. Alternative D uses the same concept as Alternative C; however, this alternative recognizes that Northwestern University may have to provide an 18- to 20-foot fire lane on the north side of Foster Walker. This alternative reduces the "green space" by approximately 0.19 acres and provides 68 parking spaces. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28, 1998 Page 3 of 10 Alternative E provides the maximum amount of parking along the southern east/west aisle, maintains the current amount of parking spaces within the east and west north/south parking areas, and makes no provision for a fire lane. This alternative reduces the "green space" by 0.17 acres and provides 76 parking spaces. A. Alterson stated that it is very important to note that the 5 alternatives presented by M. Mylott are not City recommendations; rather, these sketches simply illustrate that alternative arrangements may be available. M. Mylott agreed. R. Nayler stated that he has always maintained that Northwestern University would consider other altematives to the arrangement of parking; yet, this occasion is the first time he has seen these alternatives. R. Nayler stated that he would consider any of these alternative if they proved acceptable to the neighbors and the City Council could reconsider the special use application. J. Wolinski stated the City Council could possibly suspend the rules and reconsider the special use application; however, such action would require a unanimous vote of the Alderman. R. Nayler stated these concepts may require some minor adjustments to provide for a drop-off and loading area for the residences of Foster Walker. R. Nayler str'ed that the City requested that Northwestern University agree to preserving the "green space" in perpetuity. R. Nayler stated that Northwestern University "cannot tie the hands of future administrations"; however, Northwestern University would accept preserving the "green space" as a condition to both special uses, A. Alterson stated that the City Council did not necessarily reject the idea of maintaining some parking; in fact, he recalled a considerable amount of support for some parking. C. Smith asked persons within the audience if anyone would like to address the Committee regarding this case. Three persons informed the Committee of their concerns. C. Smith stated she would like to review the criteria for site plan and appearance review approval. A. Alterson stated that, as Committee members consider these criteria, also consider the following sentence from the Site Plan and Appearance Review Ordinance: Beyond the specific improvements to the site itself, site plan and appearance review should help reduce adverse impact, promote harmony of development with its surroundings and maintain property values (Sec. 4-17-1-1 SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE, (D) OBJECTIVE). C. Smith stated she would like to start with Criterion C, as she believed Criteria A and B would require the most time for discussion. C. Smith read Criterion C (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (C) LANDSCAPING). A. Alterson stated that the proposed revised location, by maintaining the parking area at the southwest corner of Foster Street and Sheridan Road, retains a disturbance in the harmony of the Sheridan Road streetscape; this disturbance was created by Northwestern University when it demolished the residence formerly located at said corner. A. Alterson stated that, by eliminating the "green space" and maintaining the gap in building rhythm along Sheridan road, Northwestern University has failed to make a logical transition to adjoining development, screen incompatible uses, or minimize the visual impact of parking. L. Johler stated the plans include landscaping R Nayler stated the existing parking areas have existing landscaping. A. Alterson stated that Northwestern University has not considered all the options, some of which would befter balance the objectives of this and other criteria C. Smith read Criterion D (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (D) GRAPHICS AND SIGNAGE). L. Johler stated that the building will have a 2-post, nonilluminated, free-standing, brown, wood sign, typical of the other signs located on the campus; the sign will be within the property lines, probably near the northeast corner of the building. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28. 1999 Page 4 of 10 C. Smith read Criterion E (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (E) CIRCULATION). R. Naylor stated Northwestern University is proposing no additional curb cuts. C. Smith read Criterion F (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (F) PARKING AREAS AND LOTS). D. Jennings stated the parking areas are existing; therefore, this criterion does not apply, C. Smith read Criterion G (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (G) OPEN SPACE). C. Ruiz stated he believes the proposal does not meet this criterion, because it creates "private" open space; if the building was moved to the south from its proposed revised location, the open space would again be "public". L. Black stated that, if the building was setback further from Foster Street, it would be less imposing. C. Smith stated the building built at Foster Street maximizes the remaining open space behind it. A. Alterson stated that the optimum alternative to providing the most open space is to slide the building back to the corner, the Committee must consider that such an arrangement is an option when evaluating the proposed revised location. M. Mylott agreed. C. Smith read Criterion H (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (H) SITE ILLUMINATION). R. Nayler stated Northwestern University will use the existing light poles and proposes no additional site lighting. C. Smith read Criterion I (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (1) PRESERVATION). C. Smith stated this criterion does not apply. C. Smith read Criterion J (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (J) COMPLETENESS). A. Alterson stated that the presentation did not include some minor items; however, these items would not have added any additional insight to the proposal. C. Smith read Criterion K (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (K) COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER APPLICABLE CODES). A. Alterson stated that he had not completed the Zoning Analysis on the proposed revised location due to a computer failure; however, he may need the Northwestern University to provide (1) the floor areas of all buildings on the consolidated lot, and (2) the dormitory occupancy rate. A. Alterson stated he will be reviewing the parking counts provided within Northwestern University's application against what is required. C. Smith read Criterion A (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (A) BUILDING AND STRUCTURE LOCATION). A. Alterson stated this criterion is established for similar reasons as to why the City requires conformance with the Zoning Ordinance; site plan review should not be considered separate from a zoning review, especially where the City ordinances link zoning review to site plan review by requiring site plan approval before zoning certification, A. Alterson stated that, due to the existing structures and uses on the consolidated lot, the proposed intensity of the use of the property is excessive for efficient internal use; further, for the same reasons, the intensity is not compatible with the pattern of adjacent development. A. Alterson stated that the proposed building, when situated at the corner, met this criterion; however, the Committee's affirmative response to that criterion included a reduction in parking spaces. A. Alterson stated that the current proposal is simply too great an intensity, given the delicacy of this neighborhood which serves as the transitional buffer between the University District located east of Sheridan Road and the residential district immediately west of the proposed revised location. A. Alterson stated that various proposals for reestablishing any amount of parking was reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning & Development Committee, and the City Council, and each body concluded that such intensity neither is compatible with the development on adjacent property nor allows the effective use of property in a district intended to accommodated low and moderately intensive university uses. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 20, 1998 Page 5 of 10 C. Smith asked A. Alterson if he would have the same sentiments toward this criterion if the building was originally proposed in the location proposed by Northwestern University today. A. Alterson responded that, with proper reflection upon the City ordinances, yes. L. Black stated that, even though the proposed revised location meets the setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance, the "... purpose of site plan and appearance review is to go beyond the basic zoning requirements and to deal with the site details on which zoning and other codes are silent... " (Sec. 4-17-1, STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, (B) ADDRESS DETAILS NOT COVERED). L. Black stated that the building in its proposed revised location is not acceptable, because it is not a transition; the building located on the comer is acceptable. A. Alterson stated that the "green space" appears to have been established when Foster Walker was constructed, serving as the front yard for approximately 625 residents. A. Alterson stated that an effective use of the property must balance the operational, recreational, and parking needs of the occupants of the property; eliminating 113 of a 2/3-acre "green space" severely hampers its ability to provide a recreational function. D, Jennings asked A. Alterson if the construction of Foster Walker was conditioned upon retaining the "green space". A. Alterson stated that nothing forces Northwestern University to maintain that land as "green space", except possibly the City's Site Plan and Appearance Review Ordinance. C. Smith asked R. Nayler how far was the western side of the building, in its proposed revised location, from the residence located immediately west of the "green space". R. Nayler responded 64 feet. C. Smith asked the Committee if the residence located immediately west of the "green space" could be built in that location today. M. Mylott responded that the Zoning Ordinance only requires a 5-foot setback from the alley; that yard is classified as an interior side yard, not a street side yard. C. Smith read Criterion B (Sec. 4-17-6 EVALUATION CRITERIA, (B) BUILDING DESIGN AND APPEARANCE). C. Smith stated she appreciated the attempt by the architect to design a building that respected the residential character; the building is very handsome. C. Smith stated that she did not believe that the shift from the corner to the proposed revised location mandated a change in appearance. M. Mylott stated that, while that he agreed that the building is very well designed, he believes it was still designed to be located at the corner. H. Friedman asked that the motions for site plan and appearance be split into 2 motions. J. Wolinski asked persons within the audience, specifically those persons who consider themselves neighbors of this property, if they would be willing to consider one of the 5 "parking in the green space" alternatives presented by M. Mylott, or are they simply against any modification to the "green space". One person stated that he may consider an alternative; however, given the "late hour" of the information; he could not say for certain at this time. A second person stated that she would not support Alternative A. C. Smith asked A. Alterson what would the Zoning Division require to approve one of the alternatives. A. Alterson stated that staff was exploring options that would allow the City Council to reconsider the special use application; however, if the special use application cannot be reconsidered, Northwestern University would have to submit a new special use application. C Smith informed the Committee that their action serves as a recommendation to the City Manager. J. Wolinski stated that appeals are heard by the Planning S Development Committee. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28, 1998 Page 8 of 10 A. Alterson motioned to deny the revision to the site plan. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committ22 approved the motion (8-2) to denv the revision to the site plan. J. Tonkinson abstained. L. Black motioned to deny the revision to appearance. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee denied the motion (2-91 to deny1he revision to appearance. H. Friedman motioned to approve the revision to appearance. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Commift approved the motion (9-2) to approve the reY12ion to appearance. The alternative plans presented by M. Mylott have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0047). SPAARC 98-0008 1910 Greenwood Street Concept One-story addition to existing automobile repair facility (AutoSam). Ms. Carla Imon-Pedtke presented a site plan, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs for a one-story addition to an existing automobile repair and painting facility (AutoBam) located at 1910 Greenwood Street. C. Imon-Pedtke stated the addition is a Miracle Truss building attached to the south comer of an existing brick building. M. Mylott asked C. Imon-Pedtke if the building was comparable to a pole barn. C. Imon-Pedtke responded yes. A. Alterson stated the Zoning Division has completed a Zoning Analysis, and the project has no outstanding deficiencies. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant concept approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion, M. Mylott asked C. Imon-Pedtke what the color of the addition will be. C. Imon- Pedtke responded she was not sure. M. Mylott stated he believes the addition should be painted to approximate the color of the existing brick building. C. Smith asked C. Imon-Pedtke if any landscaping will be provided. C. Imon-Pedtke responded that the site offers little opportunity for landscaping. C. Smith stated the plat of survey shows unpaved areas to the east of the existing driveway. C. Smith stated C. Imon-Pedtke should address the color of the building and the landscaping before preliminary and final site plan and appearance review may be granted. Committee approved the motion (10-0) to grant concept aogrgyal. Plans and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0008). M. Mylott asked C. Imon-Pedtke if she would send a copy of the brochure that describes the Miracle Truss pole barn so it may be placed within the Committee file. C. Imon-Pedtke responded yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28. 1098 Page 7 of 10 SPAARC 98-0009 1712 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Facade Improvement for Alley Gallery. Mr. Chris Molloy presented an elevation and site photographs for a proposed facade improvement for Alley Gallery located at 1712 Sherman Avenue (rear), C. Molloy stated the building was originally built as a 3-bay garage; overtime, 2 bays have been removed. C. Molloy stated he would like to remove the last bay (overhead garage door) and install 1 double door and 1 wide pedestrian door. C. Molloy stated the proposed materials will closely match the existing materials; however, the 2 new doors may not match the existing doors exactly, because they were purchased from a building slated for demolition (and later demolished) and no more doors from that building are available. C. Smith stated C. Molloy must meet Illinois accessibility codes; she would be happy to work with C. Malloy on ensuring the slope was up -to -code. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott asked D. Marino to amend his motion to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D, Marino amended his motion as such: grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motiqIL_(10-0) to grant ro eiiminary and finite elan and appearance review a1212EQval. SPAARC 98-0010 640 Pitner Avenue Preliminary and Final Fence improvement for A -Suburban Auto Wracking. Ms. Lisa Lyon presented a site plan, site photographs, and fence materials for fence improvements for A - Suburban Auto Wrecking located 640 Pitner Avenue. L. Lyon stated the fence will be chain link with double -diagonal slats; the slats are colored "warm grey". L. Lyon stated the fence is proposed to be 8 feet high; however, she thought the fence may need to be 10 feet high at the north end to ensure equipment is screened. L. Lyon stated the existing fence is a corrugated metal, ranging in height from approximately 6 feet 6 inches to 11 feet. A. Alterson stated that this proposal is approvable by the Zoning Division as a replacement in -kind. J. Tonkinson asked L. Lyon if the neighbors like the proposal. L. Lyon responded yes. P. D'Agost►no motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, including permitting the north section of the fence (south to the first building) to be 10 feet high. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee aZproved the motion (99-- ,1 to orant preliminary and final site Dian and appearance review approval. including permittina the north section of fence (south to the firstbuildinal to be 10 feet high. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28, 1998 Page 8 of 10 SPAARC 98-0011 640 Hartrey Avenue Preliminary and Final Fence and landscaping improvements for City stand pipe. Ms. Lisa Lyon presented a site plan, site photographs, fence materials, and color rendering (concept #1 only) for fence and landscaping improvements for 640 Hartrey Avenue. L. Lyon stated the fence will be chain link with double -diagonal slats; the slats are colored "forest green". L. Lyon stated the fence is proposed to be 8 feet high. L. Lyon stated the existing fence is a chain link metal. A. Alterson stated that this proposal Is approvable by the Zoning Division as a replacement in -kind. J. Tonkinson asked L. Lyon if the neighbors like the proposal. L. Lyon responded yes. P. D'Agostino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-0) to grant oreliminary and final site 121an and appearance review apy ova . 1997 Site Plan and Appearance Review Annual Report Communication Consideration of 1997 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Report. M. Mylott stated that he has prepared a list of all cases appearing on the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee agenda in 1997, sorted by address and appearance date and including the project description and results. M. Mylott stated he would like to forward this first "annual report" to the City alderman if a Committee member would so move. J. Tonkinson motioned to forward the 1997 Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee Annual Report to the City alderman as a communication. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee gooroved the mom (10-0) to forward the 1997 Site Plan and Appearance Review Commitfgg,Annual Rpnnrt to the: City qlderrnan as a communicaliQn. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of January 21, 1998. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee approved the mp ion 00 j to approve the Summary of Findings of January 21. 1998. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28, 1998 Page got 10 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m, A s ctfully submitted, Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE January 28, 1998 Page 10 of 10 . .. ...w ,.f.#.,,;.a,,..a.......�.s.u:a�w.,.:x�.,�e.�.��... a Buis>va aw,wxa•,# �Kca�GsN, ..3t Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 4, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement A. Alterson, L. Black, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, P. D' C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum exi Approval of Sum J. Tonkinson motioned to motion. Discussion: , K. Kelly, D. Marino. Findings of January 28, 1998. D. Jennings seconded the Alterso that he would like the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee mittee) to reconsider its previous decision not to have the Committee ecretary include public comments in the Summary of Findings (SOF), because SOF are often used by other City boards and commissions during their ecis' aking process. A. Alterson stated that, for example, Zoning Board of s (ZBA) members informed him that they were not able to determine whether not neighbors' comments influenced the Committee's decision regarding Evanston Hospital; ZBA members stated that this deficiency affects their ability to evaluate the proposal. J. Tonkinson stated that this Committee does not hold public hearings and should only be seeking the input of the applicant presenting his/her proposal. C. Smith stated that the Committee currently has a sub -committee evaluating this and other topics, and she is confident this group will provide the Committee with a recommendation. L. Black stated that the last sentence of the paragraph starting 'L. Black stated ..." (page 6) should be changed to "L. Black stated that, just because the building on the comer may be acceptable, does not mean that it is acceptable when moved to the "green space", because no visual transition is provided." SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 4, 1998 Page 1 of 3 J. Tonkinson amended his motion as such: approve the Summary of Findings of January 28, 1998, provided (1) on page 6, within the paragraph starting "J. Wolinski asked ...", that the first three sentences be struck; and (2) on page 6, within the paragraph starting "L. Black stated ...", that the last sentence be changed to "L. Black stated that, just because the building on the corner may be acceptable, does not mean that it is acceptable when moved to the "green space% because no visual transition is provided." D. Jennings amended his motion to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motion f6-21 to aoprove the Summaro of Findin_ 1999. arovided (1 ] on page 6. within the oaragraDh startino "J. Wolinski asked ...". tha (2) on oaae 6. within the oaragranh startina "L. Black stated Pntqnc(e be changed to "L. Black stated that. iust because the building on the corneoo v b ble. doe an that it ir, acceptable when moved to the "green space". because no yrsual tr SPAARC 98-0012 2813 Park Place �MC4«1- . Preliminary and Final Major variation to permit 2-story rear addition and sidaba� indo ^ g!e-family residence. y: Mr. Thomas Flanagan (property owner) and Mr. Din Jeff rii jtyct) presented a plat of survey, site plan, elevations, and site photographs for a 2-story rear addition and, sde bay window for a single-family residence located at 2813 Park Place; the proposal requires major variations. r , T. Flanagan stated that the addition will provide more room for his growing family within a residence built in 1921, D. Jeffers stated that tllie residence &.rrentVc"oriteins 3 bedrooms and 1 %: bathrooms; the addition will permit 4 bedrooms and 2% `, rooms:. T'Fianagan stated the rear addition is approximately 17 feet deep stern and aligns with the wee o the eklift�esidence. T. Flanagan stated that the bay window projects approximately 1 foot from theIrall; h�o�ttier, it will be located underneath, and project no further than, an existing second -floor wa! prof U.N.D. Yeffers stated that the bay window will permit enough room to comfortably place a table within the dErtftroom; currently, all chairs must be completely "pushed in" to allow people to move around the table. T;p nagan stated that this proposal requires major variations, because the residence is located too close to the lot line, according to today's Zoning Ordinance; at the closest point, the residence is 2.3'feet from the Western lot line. C Smith stated that theinriridows within the addition and bay window will not comply with the Building Code, because they are less ttian 3 feet from the lot line. D. Jeffers stated that T. Flanagan intends to apply for a variation from the Property Services Board, provided the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the yard variations. M. Mylott asked D. Jeffers if the building materials of the addition will match those of the existing building. D. Jeffers responded yes, and stated that the first floor will be wood siding, and the second floor will be stucco. L. Black asked if the addition would have a basement. D. Jeffers responded yes, and stated the basement entrance will be moved from the west side of the residence to the south side of the residence. C Smith asked T Flanagan if he had discussed these plans with the property owner to the west. T. Flanagan responded yes, and stated that he has not heard any objections. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Glus seconded the motion. Committee voted to approve the motion (8-01 to orant preliminary and final site plan and apoearance review ap r va SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 4, 1998 Page 2 of 3 SPAARC 98-0008 1910 Greenwood Street Preliminary and Final One-story addition to existing automobile repair facility (AutoBam). Ms. Carla Imon-Pedtke presented a revised site plan (that added landscaping) for a one-story addition to an existing automobile repair and painting facility (AutoBam) located at 1910 Greenwood Street. C. Smith read the Summary of Finding from January 28, 1998, regarding this case. C. Imon-Pedtke stated that the addition will have 29-gauge sheet metaJ skinjke color is rust brown. C. Imon-Pedtke stated that she investigated opportunities t unpaved land is available beside the chain link fence locato Pa Pedtke stated she is proposing 4 arbor vitae (evergreen) irEhis J. Tonkinson stated the landscaping should be removed, disagreed, and stated he would like to improve the property L. Black stated that the southern most comer, where a safety standpoint. C. imon-Pedtke stated that IN a 1'/2- to 2-foot strip of priferty line. C. Imon- it will note maintained, D. Jennings Uce. A. Alterson and M. Mylott agreed. misting building, is vulnerable from a chain link fence. C. Smith asked C. lmon-Pedtke what was th ratio iMe bhe overhead doors on the eastern and southern sides of the addition, since that are s no hicul ngress or egress. C. Imon-Pedtke responded that the doors were "left over" from a pre .. s job;nd, with no air conditioning, the extra openings would provide additional ventilation Aunng the er. `' stated that, if the building will be used for painting automobiles, the City will require it to with' er strict ventilation requirements of the Mechanical Code. C. Imon-Pedtke s t6t she proceeded that far with the design. J. Tonkinson motioned to gran, ary oral site plan and appearance review approval, provided P. D'Agostino reviews and a ves cape plan M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committep approved the motion (8-0) to oWr prelimi ite elan and-A02orance review approval, provided P. D'Agostino reviews Plans depicting the folder for this case Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. s ctfully submitted,WI5&4 Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning scape plan. been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee 1). Febmry Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 4, 1998 Pape 3 of 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 11, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson4J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, J. Glus Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum exi SPAARC 98-0013 2Z.42 Greedt&v R Exterior modifications for Marino. ng at 3:05 p.m. Preliminary and Final Mr. Ramon Roman and Mr n pT�sented Floor plans, elevations, and site photographs for new windows and doors fora and car PEX) located at 2212 Green Bay Road. C. Smith stated this rk was start ' without a permit, and the applicants were informed that permits were required before co ing. R. Ro an stated the new windows and doors are installed; the overhead door along Green Bay R lass- C. Smith stated R. Rorrrars must meet State accessibility requirements; R. Roman must provide 32 inches of clear ingress/egress and a level entry. R. Roman stated he only replaced an existing door. C. Smith stated that that action triggers the State accessibility requirements. R. Roman stated he has 2 overhead doors with ramps that have access to the office. C. Smith stated R. Roman may send a letter to the State explaining the situation; only the State can approve such an alternative. L. Black stated she is concerned with the visibility for cars exiting to Green Bay Road. R. Roman stated he has tested the area, and on -coming traffic is visible. M. Mylott stated that the site plan indicates approximately 10 feet is available between the door and the curb. D. Jennings stated that distance -is acceptable. C. Smith stated that the awnings shown on the drawings are separate issues from this review. J. Roman stated that they are no longer proposing awnings. C. Smith asked R. Roman if the sign erected without a permit has been removed. R. Roman responded that he has contacted Rainbow Sign Company and informed them of this requirement; they have not yet removed SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 11, 1998 Page 1 of 2 the sign. J. Wolinski stated he does not want any "sandwich boards" enacted In conjunction with this business, because they will Impede visibility. J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. L. Black seconded the motion. Committee voted to aoorove the mod on (9-0) to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0014 2650 Ridge Avenue Installation of roof -top chiller units at Evanston Hospital. Mr. Tim Vander Molen, Mr. Roger Johnson, and Mr. Daniel "before -and -after* site photographs, and a noise study to r� located at 2650 Ridge Avenue. J. Wolinski asked T. Vander Molen if the new units are responded that the new units do not change the noise le new units is that they have intermittent fans; in other wgd on the load. T, Vander Molen stated that the curre stated that City Code does not permit sound to eed J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary atonal seconded the motion. Committee approvWthe n Preliminary and Final working drawings, Evanston Hospital the existing units. T. Vander Molen Olen stated that the benefit of the ary its amount of work, depending her 100 percent on or off. C. Smith property line. id appearance review approval. M. Mylott to grant orefiminary and final site plan and A copy of the "before -ands top hs and the noise study has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review CdR1N1§Lfold8Q1W case (SPAARC 98-0014). Approval of Summary of Fi J. Tonkinson motio to approve Summary of Findings of February 4, 1998, provided the list of present Committee membe ender o Include J. Glus. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee agW2Jftd emotion f - Summary of Fildinas of February 4. 1998. provided the list of present Committee members-im'amended to include J. Glus, Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m, s tfully submitted Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning er SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 11, 1998 Page 2 of 2 Felbiruaty'16,.1$9B Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, S. Franz (for P. D'Agostino), D. Jennings, K. Kelly, M. Mylott,QSmith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, J. GI Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: C. Ruiz. Commencement AF INWAbf C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum exi �te' 1—gan th meeting at 3:05 p.m. 1a9 Approval of Summarnof�Findi J. Tonkinson motioned to appriTie umrrnaFindings of February 11, 1998. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aporoveitth - Drove the Summary of Findings of February 11. 1998. SPAARC 98-0017� 526 Gres wood Street Concept Demolish existing bufldf g-and erect new 8-unit condominium building. �-� :mow Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 97-0106 625 Madison Street Preliminary and Final Facade improvement. Mr David Janzen (owner) and Ms. Ellen Galland (architect) presented working drawings for a facade improvement to the building located at 625 Madison Street. C. Smith asked D. Janzen about the knee wall, in reference to the concept approval granted by the Committee. D. Janzen responded the knee walls will be precast concrete. M. Mylott asked A. Alterson if the Zoning Officer noted any outstanding issues. A. Alterson responded no. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITrEE February 18, 1998 Page 1 of 6 C. Smith asked D. Janzen what color would the windows be. D. Janzen responded forest green. J. Wolinski asked D. Janzen if this building would remain on the tax rolls. D. Janzen responded yes. IC Kelly asked D. Janzen the size of the building. D. Janzen responded they are only proposing to build out a portion of the building at this time (first phase), because the owners are unsure of future programming for the second phase; the entire building is approximately 6,000 sq.ft. M. Mylott asked D. Janzen what were the anticipated uses in the first phase. D. Janzen responded that Suite A may contain an attorney, Suite B may contain a bookstore, and Suite C and D may contain a clinical psychologist. 95 D. Jennings asked if the facade improvement was to be phased in a faK `.ar to the interior, E. Galland responded no, and stated that the entire facade will be improveadurin�r build out of the first phase. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appedew approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. �k �>� ' Discussion; C. Ruiz asked E. Galland to expl`. est treatment of windows. E. Galland responded that all proposed wizldo ithin punches created by existing windows. D. Janzen stated that the parapets wi neea to be rebuilt, but the brick facade will .w, predominantly only require cleaning, -"',`, K. Kelly asked D. Janz- n if 6e building has a basement. D. Janzen responded the building has a partial basement, and they anticipate using that area for storage. K. Kel�,stated.thakihe baseriierittiuill have to be sprinkled; however, such a system may-b'b.able to"be attached to the domestic system. L. Bladf smed that.shifs concerned with the infill windows on the north elevation. E. Gaflariif.AiW' that any infill windows on the north elevation will have security bars ,.placed over.the'm--,the west elevation will use glass block. K. Kelly asked E. Galland if the building has a rear exit. E. Galland responded yes, and stated that the rear exist is located at the north end of the hallway. =mow C. Smith stated that all gates must have hardware that allows exiting without -addressing the locking mechanism, such as a push bar. C. Ruiz asked E. Galland if she had considered rehabilitating the existing entry doors. E. Galland responded that all the wood is in very poor condition. C. Smith stated that the rehabilitated doors would not meet accessibility and egress requirements. C. Ruiz asked E. Galland if she would consider using the doors on the interior. E. Galland responded she will consider that option. Committee aooroved the motion (9-0) to arant Dreliminary anCfinal site Dian and aDnarance review apt. A copy of the working drawings have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0106). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 Page 2 of 6 SPAARC 98.0016 120 Asbury Avenue Preliminary and Final One-story addition for Gill's Drive-in. Mr. Benjamin Newberg (contractor) presented a site plan, elevation, and site photographs for a 1-story addition to Bill's Drive-in located at 120 Asbury Avenue. B. Newberg stated that the addition is 6 feet by 23 feet and loc ited on the south side of the existing structure; the proposed material is concrete block painted to match the existing painted common brick. B. Newberg stated that the addition will extend the cooling line and provide storage space,*istying concerns expressed by the Health Department. B. Newberg stated that the Zoning Divisiorhegfrlres the addition be built to the w �x�► front lot line; he is proposing an alternative that extends the southern wall.wr&f, and fascia to the front lot line, creating a recessed entryway. '' r r - k .� _ .01 L. Black stated she is concerned with the safety of the recessed alternatiVe.Alterson stated that B. Newberg would satisfy the Zoning Ordinance requirement (build-. front lot line)` y extending only a canopy to the front lot line. +� v; h� .j! 1' • r C. Smith stated she would prefer to see glazed block on-tfitouth•arti� east sides of the addition, matching the glazed block on the east and % of the south side"of.theexisting.6uilding; part of the character of this building is this detail. A, Alterson stated he is concerned with t I� ,maintenance of painted concrete block. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and fnal site plan and appearance review approval, provided (1) the canopy is extended to the front lot line to satisfy'the Zoning Ordinance requirement; (2) the fascia of the canopy matches the existing fascia; and,(3) the -south and east walls of the addition are glazed block, matching the existing glazed block. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: B. Ne�, stated that the glazed block will approximate the existing glazed block; he is coricerrted that, because of weathering, an exact match may not be possible. Committee af}groved the motion (8-2Ugrant preliminary and final site Dlan and appearance review aporovat, provided t1) the canoov is extended to the front lot fine to satistv the Zonina Ordinance requirement: (2.) the Fascia gj_4f1p canopy matches the existing fascia. and ) the south and east walls of the addition are alaw dock. matchiiia the existingglazed block. A copy of the site plan, elevation, original alternative entryway configuration, and site photos have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0016). SPAARC 96-0082 629 Foster Street Final Student meeting hall (Mlle!). Mr. Rick Katz (JFMC Fac Corporation) presented a revised site plan and elevations for the proposed student meeting hall for Hillel located at 629 Foster Street. Mr. Rick Strusiner (architect) and Mr. Philip Padawer (JFMC Fac Corporation) were available for questions. R. Katz stated that the disapproved south elevation (front) showed 2 columns under the sign panel; the revised plans include double doors with narrow side lights, curved to reflect the curve on the second -story windows. C. Ruiz asked R. Katz if the sign panel is limestone. R. Katz responded yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 Page 3 of 6 R. Katz stated that the disapproved east elevation included EIFS under the gables; the revised plans change that material to brick. R. Katz stated that the east side of the entryway will either be divided -light windows or glass block. H, Friedman stated that R. Katz should avoid glass block; that material is used in no other location on the building. C. Ruiz asked R. Katz the purpose of the southern room shown on the second floor of the east elevation. R. Katz responded a multi -purpose room. R. Katz stated that the disapproved north elevation removed the two center gables; the revised plans reintroduce those features, even thought the ceiling will be flat. C. Smith asked if brick will be used under these gables. R. Katz responded yes. R. Katz stated that the disapproved west elevation removed the norther .6 'plows and 1 southern window; the revised plans reintroduce those features. C. Ruiz asked�R. S r if the southern portion of this elevation could use the smaller windows to better balance the Wade. J, sh finer, responded that that wall area is programmed for book shelves. R. Katz stated that the limestone Ilntels and sills have been retumed to aft wind" except the 6 2-foot by 2- foot windows on the west elevations. V""r` R. Katz stated that the low garden wall was removed,mm the iron : rd; however, the neighbors have approved of the landscaping, and that plan was approvddfro,dtfting the 18}s Committee review. R. Katz stated that the dumpsters have been moved from the center of'the beak y id to along the east lot line, and the air conditioner condensers are now where the dumpsters were'*i> at y proposed. R. Katz stated that the "U- shaped" fence enclosing the air conditioner condensers has been rotated 180 degrees, such that the "U" is upside down. t J. Wolinski asked R. Katz if JFMC has funding to'6uild.the project as presented. R. Katz responded yes. J. Wolinski motioned to grant revised final &'Ite plan and final appearance review approval, in accordance with the plans dated 2/17/98. H. Frie6664sec6ne motion. Committef,'poroved the motion (1Q-0) to grant LQvised final site plan and final aQ.g�#ce review approval. in accordance with the Qtans dated 2117/98. SPAARC 97-0103 1415 Sherman Avenue Preliminary Six -story mixed -use building with 2 ground -floor offices and 29 condominiums on upper floors Mr. Tom Roszak (developer) presented a site plan, elevations, floor plans, isometric view, and site photos for a 6-story mixed use building, with 2 ground -floor offices and 29 condominiums on the upper floors. Mr. Don Wallin (architect) and Ms. Karol Omori (architect) were available to answer questions. C. Smith asked T. Roszak what were the proposed building materials. T. Roszak responded all brick (reddish color) with limestone or renaissance stone details. T. Roszak stated that the basement and first floor will be poured -in -place concrete, and the upper floors will be exterior block and brick around a light -gauge metal frame C. Smith stated that T. Roszak will have to provide underpinning to the adjacent properties. T. Roszak stated that he will provide whatever is necessary. C. Smith stated T. Roszak may need easement agreements for the lot -line footings. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 Page 4 of 6 M. Mylott asked T. Roszak the anticipated construction schedule. T. Roszak responded that the current tenants will be out by the beginning of June; following a June or July closing, he will schedule demolition. T. Roszak stated he would like to break ground In July of this year, and seek occupancy In August 1999. C. Smith stated that, because the proposed building is less than 10 feet from the interior lot lines, T. Roszak will have to address the Building Code regarding fire -rated walls and unprotected openings. M. Mylott asked T. Roszak the anticipated cost of dwelling units. T. Roszak responded from $112,000 for a 1-bedroom unit to $290,000 for a 3-bedroom unit. C. Ruiz stated T. Roszak should consider moving the existing limes a ound to a location within the building, possibly within the lobby of the condominiums. L. Blaask oszak when the existing building was built. T. Roszak responded during the early 1900s. 4`' H. Friedman stated T. Roszak should consider moving the;e�trance for the �Inium to the north side of the west facade to provide more direct access to the staiMaLlevators fo a condominiums. C. Smith stated T. Roszak must provide an egress to the= `mimeside. C. Smith stated the Building Code does not permit ladder iI'k�stairs: C. Smith asked T. Roszak where the access ible'parking spacewjll'ee provided. T. Roszak responded that 4 standard parking spaces will be converted•fo 2 accessible parking spaces. A. Alterson stated he was concerned that the location may not meet the State accessibility code, because the accessible spaces will be within a closed or gated garage. J. Wolipslu stated R,Roszak should work with C. Smith and A. Alterson to provide the correct amount-of,accessibl* arking spaces in the correct location. L. Black stated she is concerned th safely,within the parking area; proper precautions must be provided, such as cameras. r C. Ruiz asked T. Roszak what matdilal;wduld the windows be. T. Roszak responded aluminum or vinyl. D. Jennings stated that'parking for the construction workers will be a problem; for a listing of the limited number of available locations. T. Roszak should contact him H. Friedman stated T. Roszak should take extra precautions in his roof -top patio design to guard against water damage to, and ensure sound buffers are provided for, the dwelling units below. J. Tonkinson stated T. Roszak will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit. J. Wolinski stated that T. Roszak should contact the ward alderman as a matter of courtesy. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee aaproved the motion (10-0) to grant oreliminary site plan and aooearance review approval. A copy of the site plan, elevations, floor plans, isometric view, and site photos have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0103). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 Page 5 of 6 SPAARC 97-0019 2822 Central Street New front entrance for commercial building. Final Mr. Rick Johnstone presented working drawings for a new entrance to an existing 1-story commercial building located at 2822 Central Street, R. Johnstone stated the front facade will be maintained, Including tuck -pointing the brick. R. Johnstone stated the windows will be replaced with thermopane windows, and the overhead door will be removed and replaced with a new recessed entryway. D. Jennings motioned to grant final site plan and appearances le al. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. �f Discussion: H. Friedman asked R. Johnstone plans are'd for a single user. R. Johnstone responded yes. K. Kelly stated R. Johnstone Would a sprinkler requirements for this building. ,� L. Black stated she was condemed� tffthe depth of the recessed entryway, because of safety. I—Alack asked `D "V ennings to amend his motion to have the doors brought forwler4enou4h sucli,that they did not extend into the right-of-way. D. Jennings amended his motion,'as such: grant final site plan and appearance review approvalapWvided the entrance doors are moved north as much as possible, suchl at lh! _. s do riot extend into the right-of-way when open. J. Tonkinson amended his to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motion (44)KJo ara4f final site Dlan and appearance review aonroval. provided the mince doors are moved rid th as Mks possible. such that the doors do not extend into the riaht-of-wa when open. ­'_ A copy of the working drawings havel been placed within the Site plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0019). Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. L submitted Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 Page 6 of 6 Felbruary, 211998 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 25, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum SPAARC 98-0017 Demolish vacant gas station Applicant canceled appgarance. SPAARC 97-01.0 Erect 1-story J. Glus. H. Friedman. C. Ruiz, R. S island b 4an i 905 Chicago Avenue meeting at 3:05 p.m. Preliminary containing 2 financiai Institutions and 9 retad use. (GreatBank Evanston), Final Mr. Klaus Koch (architect) presented working drawings (for foundation only), a landscape plan, and building material samples for a 1-story financial institution for GreatBank Evanston located at 905 Chicago Avenue. Mr. Bill Smith (GreatBank Evanston) was available to answer questions. A. Alterson asked B. Smith if he would provide the Committee with the status of the two development concepts for this site. B. Smith responded yes, and stated that GreatBank Evanston still prefers to build the mixed -use building; the-wildcard" is the ability of GreatBank Evanston to renew the lease at the current location. B. Smith stated that the new lease would be a 2-year lease with options. B. Smith stated GreatBank expects to sign this lease tomorrow; however, if that signing fails, it will have no options but to proceed with the 1-story building. C. Smith read the Summary of Findings from December 3, 1997, regarding this case. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 25, 1998 Page 1 of 4 K. Koch stated that the revisions to the plans include: Incorporating the stairs on the east side of the building inside the building. The floor plan in the immediate area required some minor changes; however, the majority of the floor plan has not changed. 2. Changing the upper portion of the building from an EIFS system to caststone. 3. Adding decorative wall sconces to the facades. The sconces are V-shaped with white trim; the glass is translucent. The majority of light shines up along the walls, with s e shinning onto the ground. GreatBank Evanston anticipates using metal halite bulbs. A 4. Closely matching the brick color with that color used'on tM%e. the outheast comer of Chicago Avenue and Main Street.' ti rs J. Tonkinson stated that the City Code states that the light sourtcannot K. Koch stated that the light source will be very diffuse given the translucent glass. 679' stated she did not have a problem with the proposed sconces, given the overall lighting of the area. K. Koch stated that the building will have a mix of rus ' nd Wsh limestone -color caststone for the base course and around the fenestration; the e06n9f Xe,�8p level of the facade will be smooth limestone -color caststone. H. Friedman asked'K. Koch wFtatsfze of caststone will be used. K. Koch responded 1-foot by 2-foot blocks, and stated thit the blocks vv#r a applied in a running bond. K. Koch stated that, because the cornice will be caststone also; he would like'to substitute the original concave cornice with a rectangular cornice; the concave cornice Wan ineffii&ent use of stone because of the curves. K. Koch stated that the cornice will be limestone -color as well, not an accent color. K. Koch stated that the windows wall have white, mullions, and the glass will be somewhat tinted with a low reflectivity. H. Friedman stated, hat'V ted r'eflWive glass is unfortunate, because no other buildings in the area use this type of glass. ,C=Smiiti'agreed. -t.'. Black stated she prefers this glass over clear glass, because it prevents persons from 'Easing" the jriiihor from a distance. K. Koch stated that the current GreatBank Evanston has this type'of glass, only Oh a bronze tint. K. Koch stated that one alternative would be to remove the reflectance. C. Smith stated that eliminating the reflectance is acceptable. A C. Smith asked K. Koch where he planned to locate the signage. K. Koch responded that the signage will be above and near the entrance; the GreatBank Evanston logo will be above the doors, and the bank name will be spelled out with blue back -lit letters on the west and south facade. C. Smith stated that the logo over the door is not permissible by -right, because it is too high; the maximum height of any sign is 15 feet 6 inches. C. Smith stated that the architect should consider signage carefully, because this area is pedestrian in nature, not automobile oriented. H. Friedman agreed. C. Smith asked K. Koch if the trash enclosure is a mix of caststone and brick. K. Koch responded yes. M. Mylott stated that the trash enclosure cannot be taller than 6 feet. K. Koch stated he will reduce the height to 6 feet. H. Friedman stated that the trash enclosure, located on the south lot line, will "look awful". C. Smith stated some low- to mid -level landscaping could be installed in front of the trash enclosure to provide a better transition to the sidewalk. M. Mylott agreed. C Smith stated a second alternative is to move the trash enclosure to the northeast corner of the site. K. Koch stated they will move the trash enclosure to the northeast corner of the site. C. Smith stated that the resulting area along the south lot line should be used for additional landscaping. D. Jennings stated that when determining the exact location for the trash enclosure, ensure that adequate sight distance is provided to the alley. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 25, 1998 Page 2 of 4 K Koch stated that 4 existing trees located on the lot lines will need to be removed so the building may be built to the lot line. K Koch stated that the landscaped island in the middle of the west lot line will remain, and the landscaped island on the east side of the south lot line will remain. M. Friedman asked D. Jennings if the parking spaces along the east lot line could take direct access to the alley; this modification would enable the applicant to remove the tum-around along the south lot line and provide a greater area for landscaping. D. Jennings responded yes. K. Koch stated they cannot remove that turn -around, because it also provides the area for a required loading berth. J. Tonkinson stated that K. Koch should check the status of the Metropolita Water Reclamation District Permit. C. Smith stated that the foundation permit cannot be released til application number has been assigned. K. Koch stated he will investigate the status of the plic D. Jennings motioned to grant final site plan and appearan review pp avid ` the trash enclosure 9 � is moved to the northeast comer of the site, and inctudingnngular� black seconded the motion. negn Discussion: A. Alterson stated that, while in fagbr MEMO posal, he hopes it is never built; he believes the property is'dIth f a m sive use. K. Koch stated that, becaubuftling permit application is for foundation I.only, he will make the revit69 `rags submitted for building permit on the remainder of the buildfng. Committee approved the motion f 12-01 to Cantfin n n arance review approval. provided the trash enclosure is moved VAp no yy L- rn r'" s te. and including the rectangular cornice. SPAARC 97-0105 2430 Sim,' SOW'Street Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA f TEM: view single houses per condition of ZBA variation. Mr. Victor Freise resented working drawings for foundation only), including a site Ian floor plans,and P g 9( Y?. g P elevations, for a single-family residence located at 2430 Simpson Street. V. Freise also presented photographs and ptafs-of-survey for the 3 residences and lots to the west of 2430 Simpson Street, demonstrating that lie'ias_inb the setback conditions imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Mr. Irving Turner was available to answer questions. A. Alterson stated that the ZBA required this project receive site plan and appearance review approval before any building permits may be approved-, this requirement was attached as a condition of a grant of variation to the minimum lot size requirements of the R1 Single-family Residential District that, in turn, permitted the applicant to subdivide the lot into two lots. V. Freise stated the principal building is 30.91 feet from the front lot line and meets the side yard setback requirements of the R1 district; the front porch and associated steps are permitted -yard obstructions in the front yard. V. Freise stated the pre-fab foundation will have 10-inch walls and sit on a 6- to 8-inch bed of rock, providing excellent drainage. V. Freise stated that the cost of a pre-fab foundation is comparable to a traditional foundation. SUMMARY OF FINDiNGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 25, 1998 Page 3 of 4 M. Mylott asked V. Frelse if the pine tree located in the front yard will remain. V. Freise responded yes, and stated that the oak tree has been removed. C. Smith asked V. Freise of what material will the siding be made. V. Freise responded wood, and stated that the chimney may be stucco if costs prove too high. J. Tonkinson asked V. Freise if he will maintain the existing grades. V. Freise responded yes. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-01 to qrant preliabnary and final site lalan and appearance review approval, A copy of the working drawings have been placed within the P folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0105). Communication Recommendation of the Legislative Sub -committee to public participation. A4 The Committee discussed the memorandum This memorandum included the Sub -commie public participation. J. Aiello motioned to table J. Tonkinson seconded tl participation. pendina an Approval of Summary of Fi Committee document, addressing WSub-committee dated February 18, 1998. ation on how the Committee should conduct pending an opinion from the Law Department. J. Tonkinson motioned+to approve t1�erSummary of Findingsof February 18, 1998. J. Walinski seconded the motion. Committee�a© roved thp�motion (11-01 to approve the Summary of Findings of Ee rua 18. 1998. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE February 25, 1998 Page 4 of 4 . _ ., bAarch 2,1998 Date Successful introduction of Three Sectored Susanrmf&gpole heCps create a famiCy of conceafinents. Stealth's Three Sectored Su- san"' flagpole introduced in our previous newsletter. has been extremely well re- ceived. Flagpoles have been shipped to Colorado. Texas. Massachusetts. Missouri and Oklahoma. The first, a 70 foot unit. was in Denver on October 15th without a glitch. (Center picture above.) A video tape show- ing the installation is avail- able. This success story fos- tered the idea to make some simple modifications to the pole and create a "family" of 'Renee Sectored Susans. The family consists of a light pole. a flagpole and a banner pole. (Shown above from left to right.) These modifica- tions add little to the selhug price with no effect on the delivery. Stealth will stock the flagpole in 6 sizes. Total heights of 50', 60', 70', 80'. Stealth Network Technologies, Inc. 3270 A Associate Drive North Charleston, South Carolina 29418 40' and 100' will be avail- able for shipping in three weeks upon receipt of a purchase order. Quanti- ties of each size and design will vary. Please contact Stealth for further informa- tion. WEB PAGE: http:\\www. stesithsite.com • Office 800-75543589 o Fax 803-207-0207 STEALTH'S HIDDEN AGENVA ,Fourth carter 1997 SteaCth CanceaCment 'Winner This site is located outside of San Diego. Located within the concealment is a complete three sector array for a PCS carrier. Even more impressive than how the site looks is the details that went into the design. Shingles were made from StealthSkini?4 products to optimize transmission. In addition. the span between vertical support members is up to 20 feet. For additional photos showing detailed structural members, please contact your local sales associate. Stealth to offer conceaCment retrofit services to wireless carriers In response to increased demand throughout the United States, Stealth now offers retrofit services for existing concealment systems which fail to meet Rf approvaI. As wireless carriers continue to use fiberglass panels with poor support designs. many of these conceal- ment's create an unacceptable amount of transmission and/or re- flection loss (see Rf tests). Once these sites arc installed and the an- tennas turned on. RF engineers real- ize that the configurations will not work. As part of our service. Stealth Stealth now offers retrofit services for existing concealment systems which fail to meet Rf approval. As wireless carriers continue to use fiberglass panels with poor support designs. many of these conceal- ment's create an unacceptable - amount of transmission and/or re- flection loss (see Rf tes(s). Once these sites are installed and the an- tennas turned on. RF engineers real- ize that the configurations will not work, As part of our service. Stealth will visit the site and determine what changes are necessary (i.e an- 2 PCS `97 & CTIA `98 Stealth recently show- cased the Three Sec- tored SusanTm at the PCS '97 show in Dal- las. This new product manifested a few double -takes from passers-by. All the comments received were very positive. You can see the same exhibit in Atlanta at CTIA `98 which will take place February 23 - 25. Visit Stealth at Booth #7167. A 20 minute videotape show- ing the installation of a 70' Three Sectored SusanTm flag- pole is available at no cost. This video was shot at an installation in Denver. The unit has antennas at the top and middle sections. This tape is helpful to contractors, engineers and to those indi- viduals who design founda- tions. For a copy, please call 800-755-0689 ext. 23. ,5 IEALTH $ HIDDEN AGENDA From & back page No .... it's not the tree... it's a chimney] Stealth fabricated a 100% RF transparent non-functioning chim- ney concealing three dual polarized antennas. The new StealthSkinr*A V chimney was installed on the highest roof peak of the building and had to match the 15 existing chimneys. Architectural elements of the chimney simulated a Queen Anne Style and the exterior finish matched the exist- ing stucco surface of the other chimneys. The fin- ished chimney was de- livered to the customer within five weeks of re- ceipt of the purchase or- der. Jun Mitchell Western R.S.M 3091 46 Cowley Way San Diego. CA 92117 P: 619-276-0916 F 619-276-1730 Ferengeone@aol.com CeCCular SiCo ConceaCment CompCeted A non-functioning farm silo was built in early October. The silo is made of three components. The bottom 92 feet is concrete, the middle 8 foot section is made from StealthSkin"' V RF transparent ra- dius panels and the top is an 8' Piberdome. The silo has a typical three sector antenna layout behind the StealthSkinTW V panels. The ability to bend the panels is what makes this such a clean installa- tion. The BTS unit is located inside the silo, which saved the customer money on purchasing an additional shelter, and a ladder runs internally for easy access to the antennas. The foundation consisted of ap- proximately 140 yards of concrete. After refusals from both the city and local citizens to allow a typical monopole or lattice tower to be built, the carrier proposed this cre- ative concealment This applica- tion allows for co -location as well. SteaCth RegionaCSaCes Nanagers Jerry Hayek Pacific R.S.M. 1544 Red Hill North Dr Upland, CA 91786 P:909-946-9461 F: 909-946-9461 JerryHayek@aol.com Vancouver BC H: David £d%%ards Central R.S.M. 3270 Arrowhead Ave. #205 Independence. MO 64057 P:816-795-8933 F: 816-795-1109 rde@ unidial.com Northeast R.S.M. 2826 Pickwick Drive Columbus, OH 43221 P:614-488-4829 F: 614-488-4839 Kclappme@aol.com Ken Wedholm Southeast R.S.M. 3270-A Associate Drive N. Charleston. SC 29418 P: 803-207-8000 ext. 15 F:803-207-0207 kwedhoirn@awod.com N a _ Pi. Fr W. r a. A 1 e Stealth Network Technologies. Inc. Pe W 3270-A Associate Drive N. Charleston, SC 29418 RETURN SERVICE REGUESTEa .&enDev Dept .798 WHERE'S 7>E 5TMTHSrrET""? Can you locate the Stealth conceal- ment in this photo? Answer on page three. �TF M LYFN6. Network Technologies, Inc. 1-800.755-0689 www.stealthsU.com Stealth has the ability to form its concealment materials into various shapes and sizes. If you have a unique application, please contact your regional sales manager or Stealth at 800-755-0689. ME 2 Please visit us in Atlanta for CTIA '98 at booth #7167 r SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 4,1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, J. Glus, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C., Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Walinski. Members Absent: P. D'Agostino. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: J. Edwards, L 0[y1qjNLRuiz, R. Schur. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum exisLed-and 40g�arn th i meeting at 3:05 p.m. 98- 015 52GiGreelr )L Street} I Concept SPAARC 0 t p 'S Demolish existing buildings and erodt.8-unit Condominium. Mr. Doug Pasma (architect) presented a plat of survey. site plan, and floor plans for a 8-unit condominium located at 526 Greenwood Street, McGeorge Valdez (architect) and Mr. Sean Barry (property owner) were available to answer questions. D. Pasma stated that proposal also includes 1327 Chicago Avenue; the resulting site plan is a reversed "L'. D. Pasma stated the new 3-story building will front Greenwood Street. and 1327 Chicago Avenue will be used to provide required off-street parking. D. Pasma stated that both parcels contain residential structures, and this plan requires demolishing both structures. 0. Pasma stated that he is aware that both parcels are within the Lakeshore Historic District, and 526 Greenwood Street is a landmark. K. Kelly asked C. Ruiz why 536 Greenwood Street is a landmark. C. Ruiz responded that the building is architecturally significant, and it was built before 1894. C. Ruiz stated that this building is also significant at the State -level. C Ruiz stated that the State identified this building during a State -sponsored survey in 1972; the City adopted the recommendations of that survey in 1975. J. Tonkinson asked C. Ruiz what he thought about demolishing the structure. C. Ruiz responded that he did not see how the applicant would meet the standards for demolition. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 4, 1998 Page 1 of 4 r .. :•wig, t. ' A. Alterson asked S. Barry if he was aware of the preservation status of these parcels when they were purchased. S. Barry responded that he was aware that these parcels were within the Lakeshore Historic District; however, he was not aware that 526 Greenwood was a landmark. D. Pasma stated that he has not requested an official Zoning Analysis; however, given his preliminary conversations with A. Alterson and Mr. Martin Travis, he believes the project conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. C. Smith stated that, because the proposed building is so close to the lot line, the number of openings will be limited; the applicant should review the BOCA section on exterior wall ratings and openings. D. Jennings stated D. Prima should consider flipping the proposed aisle s�lfid parking spaces so that the aisle g pR g P P, F#id 9 P aligns with the existing alley. J. Tonkinson stated D. Pasma•ishould'ansure adequate sight distances are provided. M. Mylott motioned to table concept review, until such time` a Preservat�60mmission has acted on an application for demolition. J. Tonkinson seconded the Discussion: C. Ruiz stated that the next avai le Pr n Commission meeting is April 3, 1998, and a complete ap% s piict be mined at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting. Committee aoproved the motion t10-01 to table conceot review. until such time that the Preservation Commission has -acted on an application for demoliti,4n, Approval of Summary of Findings, J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of February 25, 1998. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee aonrbved thejr otion (10-0) to aoorove the Summary of Findings of February 25, 1998• SPAARC 98-0018 1859-1875 Maple Avenue Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM.- Plat of Consolidation and Plats of Subdivision far 30 townhouses. Mr. Fidel Lopez presented a plat of consolidation, titled "Broadacre Subdivision", and a preliminary plat of subdivision, depicting the subdivision of 30 townhouses and common area(s) from that consolidation. F. Lopez also presented the site plan. F. Lopez stated that, on the preliminary plat of subdivision, the solid lines are at ground level and the dashed lines are at deck level. F Lopez stated that the remainder is common area, with one exception: while the preliminary plat shows Common walkways between the individual lots at the deck level, those walkways will be incorporated into the individual lots F Lopez stated that units at the south end do not touch the ground, and the units at the northeast corner do not have yards J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the "Broadacre Subdivision" and the plat of subdivision, pending review by Engineering and all City signatures. D. Marino seconded the motion. Cgmmittee aaoroved the motion (9-1) to grant oreliminary and final site olan and SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE FLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 4, 1998 Page 2 of 4 appgarance review aaoroval for the "Broadacre Subdiylsion" and the plat gf subdivision. pending review Engineering and all C4 signalures. H. Friedman and L. Black abstained. A copy of the "Broadacre Subdivision" and the preliminary plat of subdivision has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0018). SPAARC 98-0017 1826 Dempster Street Preliminary Demolish vacant gas station and erect i-story building containing 2 financiat iriMitutions and 1 retail use. Mr. Bill Kokalias (architect) presented preliminary working drawirigs andlke and area photographs for a 1- story building containing 2 financial institutions and 1 retail use located'at"1826 Greenwood Street. B. Kokalias stated that building will be approximately 3,600 tt ; divided amongs 8r sers; the space labeled No. 3 will be a Currency Exchange, the space labeled No. 2 financing company (pay-day loans), and the space labeled No. 1 will be retail. ,ter , J. Aiello asked A. Alterson how the Zoning Division defir>�s-�s -day t ompanies. A. Alterson responded that he is not yet certain. M. Myiott stated that the pin iri�Zonin nalysis has classified this use as a financial institution, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance's def)nition of financial institution. B. Kokalias stated that the pay-day loan companies are licensed via a "Consumer Installment Loan License" with the State of Illinois Department of Financial Institutions, and presented a copy of a license used for a facility located at 801'/x North Pulaski Avenue in Chicago.- D. Marino read the text of the Consumer installment Loan License to the Committee. L. Black asked B. Kokalias what assurances does the pay-day loan company have against stolen checks. B. Kokalias responded that the company has a checklist and applicants are required to have a valid driver's license, a second form of identification, and a bill from the current residence. D. Marino asked B. Kokalias if the subject property only included the gas station property. B. Kokalias responded yes. B. Kokalias stated that the building will be split -face concrete block and brick with limestone accents and marble medallions; the Voot canopy will be Dryvit B Kokalias asked the Committee if he could use painted concrete block on the alley facade. C. Smith responded that final decision regarding building materials was his, and stated that she believed a reasonable compromise was using painted concrete block on the alley facade and changing the canopy from Dryvit to masonry C. Smith stated that such a small building would be improved by decreasing the number of materials; obviously, she would prefer to see more masonry than Dryvit. B. Kokalias stated that a masonry canopy would require a greater amount of support, structurally. C. Smith stated that B. Kokalias could use fabric awnings. J Wolinski asked 8 Kokalias if the building will have burglar screens B Kokalias responded no, and stated that the building will use metal cages J. Wolinski asked B. Kokalias if the environmental analysis has been completed. B. Kokalias responded that his clients intend to clean the site; they have completed core sampling, and the preliminary indication is that the first few feet of soil contain Benzine. B. Kokalias stated that this material may be eliminated by scraping away the contaminated soil and burning it at the proper facility. B. Kokalias stated that parking area is situated SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 4, 1998 Page 3 of 4 over the trouble spots. J. Wolinsk€ asked B. Kokalias If the property has any underground storage tanks remaining. B. Kokallas responded no. C. Smith stated that B. Kokallas cannot reuse the existing pole for a free-standing sign. D. Jennings asked B. Kokallas to confirm the number of parking spaces, because the plans number 12 parking spaces whereas only 11 are depicted. B. Kokalias responded that 11 are provided. D. Jennings stated that the sidewalk on the north side of the building may be increased by 2 feet, because the City permits a 2-foot overhang for parking spaces. A. Alterson motioned to table this item. D. Marino seconded the Discussion: A. Alterson stated he would like to mar ed land pe plan. M. Myiott stated that 8. Kokalias should revi the la w' D'Agostino before the next meeting. JUL Ir C. Smith stated the B. Kokalias s%kanop. the number of building materials, and customer protection can be ic awnings. B. Kokalias stated that he will change the facade t ing the split -face concrete block "accents", but still maintain Kokalias statedthat his clients do not like to use fabric awnings d�[erretired maintenance. C. Smith stated she.would like to see the anticipated signage plan. D. Marino stated tt' aft B. Kokalias will need an exterior lighting plan for final approval. M;'&Ott stafeil�B. Kokallasyhould get the exterior lighting plan to J. Tonk€nson tiefanezf "eting. J. Tonkinson stated that the fixtures must have a sharp cut=ofre..t ie f.with a h6dzon'tal lens; he will need the catalog cuts for his review. J._.Woifnsk stated B. Kokalias should invite the prospective owner to the next meeting, ;+ C. Smith asked B. Kokalias if roof -top units will be visible from the street. B. Kokalias responded no. a�. Committee aooroved the motion (11.1) to table thi§ item. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 4, 1998 Page 4 of 4 "'ew '�?p '*"*� V77-K"d A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 18, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tpnkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: L. Black, J. GI Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: C. Ruiz. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum Approval of Summawf Fin J. Tonkinson motioned to motion. Committee aDDrn SPAARC 98-00219632 Chum Type 1 Restaurant Grota). _ter' Applicant did not a at 3:05 p.m. of Findings of March 11, 1998. D. Jennings seconded the taDDrove the Summ ry of Find Iag of Mal h 11. 19H. Preliminary and Final SPAARC 98-0024 1620 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Special use to permit Type 2 Restaurant (Peet's Coffee & Tea). Mr. Douglas Pfeiffer (architect) presented a site plan, elevation, building photographs, and a signage plan for build -out by Peet's Coffee & Tea at 1620 Chicago Avenue: the tenant requires a special use permit for a Type 2 Restaurant. Mr. Jason Kilroy (architect) was available to answer questions. D. Pfeiffer stated the store is approximately 2,000 sq.ft., and approximately 850 sq.ft. will be seating area. D. Pfeiffer slated that no exterior alterations will be made, except 2 new signs. D, Pfeiffer stated that the Chicago Avenue sign is approximately 84 sq.ft. --'/z the amount permitted by the Sign Ordinance. D. Pfeiffer stated that this sign is an illuminated box sign, 8 inches from the brick wall. M. Mylott asked what portion will SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 18, 1996 Page 1 of 3 I be illuminated. D, Pfeiffer responded only the letters. C. Smith stated that it is unfortunate that Peet's Coffee & Tea chose a box sign that is less design oriented, especially when the logo itself is so attractive. A. Alterson agreed. C. Ruiz stated D. Pfeiffer could use channelized letters without the wood backing and put more logos on the windows. M. Mylott agreed, and stated D. Pfeiffer could even put the logo in an arrangement with the channelized letters. D. Pfeiffer stated that the ragged wood appearance of the box sign is a corporate identity. J. Aiello stated the ragged wood concept could be used in the windows or inside the store, D. Pfeiffer stated that the second sign is a logo placed on the north window. C. Smith stated that signs perpendicular to public ways are not permitted; she will investigate more how this applies since the land to the north is part of the same property, J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-2) to ara review• SPAARC 98-0023 927 Noyes Street IV Interior alteration for Noyes Cultural Arts Center. C. Smith presented the working drawings for an 927 Noyes Street. J. Tonkinson asked C. Smith if any work d t: C. Ruiz stated that the a 'ant h lied Commission. ¢p�„�, J. Tonkinson seconded Preliminary and Final Noyes Cultural Arts Center located at the outside. C. Smith responded no. of Appropriateness from the Preservation J. Tonkinson motioned to grary`"a�dfinal site plan and appearance review approval, subject to grant of a Certificate of Appropri from the Preservation Commission. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aQtygved the m -01 to grgnt ❑reliminary and final site plan and appearanre review ggoroval. subiect to quint of a Certifiofe of ADorooriateness from the Prearvation Commission. SPAARC 98-0022_V11.4Z,Judson Avenue Preliminary and Final Variations to permit construction of front porch for single-family residence (within Lakeshore Historic District). M. Mylott presented elevations and a plat of survey for a front porch for a single-family residence located at 1142 Judson Avenue; the proposal requires variations from the front and street side yard obstruction requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. J. Wolinski asked M. Mylott what was the amount of obstruction permitted versus requested. M. Mylott responded that, with a 50-foot front yard setback requirement, the applicants are permitted 5.0 feet of encroachment whereas 8.0 feet is requested; with a 15-foot street side yard setback requirement, the applicants are permitted 1.5 feet of encroachment whereas 8.8 feet is requested. C. Ruiz stated that the application has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Preservation Commission. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 18, 1998 Page 2 of 3 J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Alello seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (9-11 to grant preliminary and final site Alan and appearance review approval. Adjoumment The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. ctfuily Marc Stever SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE RMEW COMMITTEE March 18, 1998 Page 3 of 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 25, '1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum Approval of Summar*of Fin J. Tonkinson motioned to motion. Committee anol Black abstained. J. Aiello, J. Glus,A). H. Friedman. C. Ruiz. ng at 3:05 p.m. Findings of March 18, 1998. P. D'Agostino seconded the .a2nmvP the Summary of Finding of MaMh 18, 1998. L. SPAARC 98-0021f 632 Church Street Preliminary and Final Exterior alterations l staurant p e_ to Grota . Mr. Scott Musak (architect) presented working drawings for exterior alterations for a Type 1 Restaurant (La Grota) located at 632 Church Street. S. Musak stated that the revisions include straightening the angled glass windows on the east and west sides of the retail space. S. Musak stated that all building materials will match the existing building materials. S. Musak stated that the user will retain the stone kneewall and stone facade above the windows; the new windows will have an anodized aluminum frame. C. Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the proposal as submitted. J. Tonkinson asked if the door is recessed enough, such that it will not open onto the right-of-way. S. Musak responded yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 25, 1998 Page 1 of 3 J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. CommittQp_anoroyed the motion (8-0) to granj oreliminilEy and final site plan and appearance review approval. A copy of the floor plans from the working drawings has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98.0021). SPAARC 98-0025 501 Davis Street Preliminary and Final Exterior alteration for Type i Restaurant (Davis Street Fish Market). Mr. Kevin Barker (architect) presented working drawings, b Ing ph and w' dow illustrations for exterior alterations by the Davis Street Fish Market locate t 501 vis K. Barker stated that the Davis Street Fish Market is expan the west. arker stated that his client would like to remove the existing windows and install opera (as shown in the window illustrations) within the same openings. C. Ruiz asked K. Barker why use operable windo r re nded that the resulting open feeling works with the character of the new oyster ba - H. F N ed K. Barker if screens will be used, especially to keep bugs out. K. Barker respond_ ' that /lie ten es not anticipate using screens. C. Smith stated K. Barker should review this proposal... h the Aealth.bepartment. H. Friedman agreed. M. Mylott asked K. Barker if the mullionwof a new/ 's will match the color of the existing windows. K. Barker responded yes. L. Black asked K. Barker what me will be used. K. Barker responded either a top or bottom pin or a sliding bar. w A. Alterson asked K. B#6r what type I nrng will be used. K. Barker responded that the tenant is working with the owner to change the existing;a ning over the expansion area to match that of the existing awnings over the Davis StreetFish Market. A. Alterson motienlMo grant -preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, including a strong recommend a6661thatti'1e tenant and/or architect work with the building owner to change the awnings on the entire building such that they all match. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott asked A. Alterson to amend his motion to require that all nonconforming canopies will be brought into conformance. A. Alterson responded no. C. Ruiz stated that the proposal is a draconian change to the facade, given the limited usability of the windows. A. Alterson stated that the proposal will give a lot of life to this location. C Ruiz stated that he agrees with the concept, but disagrees with how it is implemented. Qommittge approved the motion (8-1) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. including a strong recommendation that the tenant and/or architect work with the building owner to chanaq )he awning$ on the entire buildino such that them all match. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEAF . SCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 25. 1998 Page 2 of 3 A copy of the site plan, floor plan, and elevation from the working drawings; the building photographs; and window illustrations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0025)_ SPAARC 95-0097 1700 Sherman Avenue Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe Sidewalk cafe for Saint Louis Bread Company. Mr. Todd Reaska (general manager) presented an application, dinnerwar ¢and site photographs for a sidewalk cafe for Saint Louis Bread Company (SLBC) located at 170zian Avenue. T. Reaska stated that, contrary to the site plan, SLBC is not the building (Church Street). D. Marino asked if anything is different from the sidewalk except SLBC may add stone planters. J. Tonkinson a'. proposed. T. Reaska responded yes. D. Marino asked if year. T. Reaska responded no, except SLBC is world D. Marino asked the Committee if anyone had re Tonkinson, L. Black, and C. Smith responded n " seatinAn the south side of last year. T. Reaska responded no, ne planters will be within the space roblems with the arrangement last for to reduce the number of bees. egarding SLBC's sidewalk cafe. J. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements -At established the Type II Restaurant Sidewalk Cafe Review rtiply w0h all r form; T. Reaska responded that SLBC will coeq irements, and SLBC will request the waiver to permit disposable beverages con tainers.,?Specific liy--,'P Reaska stated SLBC will mop and clean the sidewalks, and use tensile bar 'ers anerMv�able ri �o °n fences to delineate the sidewalk cafe. C. Smith stated T. Reaska - br g the,nces within the store when the stare closes. T. Reaska stated that the iron fences ma to the• �Iding owner, but he will check with that person. A. Alterson asked T. Reaska if loiteriAg,is a problem. T. Reaska responded that loitering is not a major problem, and SLBC , i4place a sign outside that requires users of the sidewalk cafe to purchase a product from the SLBC; if users do not intend to make such a purchase, they will be asked to leave. D. Marino motionediio-'fecorpmend that the City Council approve the application for sidewalk cafe of SLBC, provided the sidewalk°Cafe-is'{or the Sherman Avenue sidewalk only J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Qommittee approved the motion (10-01 to recommend that the Citv Council acorove the application for sidewalk cafe of SAC. provided the sidewalk cafe is for the Sherman Avenue sidewalk onlv. Ad,iournment The meeting adjourned at 3 50 p m. ft F- s ctfully submitte , Marc Steven Mylott. Zonin ner 1040ch, 31i Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE March 25, 1998 Paga 3 of 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 1, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson,,J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, fi . BlacknJ. C411W. Marino. H. Friedman. C. Ruiz, R. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed slid began thting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 95-0063 22Q1 FostaiMireet44J0W Concept Addition to church (Friends till t Cwdl' of Evanston). Mr. Erik Eriksson (architect} ite plan, floor plan, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs for an addition to the Friendship Ba hurch of Evanston located at 2201 Foster Street. Mr. Herman Walker and ReverendI ie Webb vJ)B available to answer questions. E. Eriksson stated that the addition41l1 contain a new sanctuary with the same number of seats as the existing sanctuary; the origi`aL'! anctua_9p<ivill be converted to pastor's office and meeting and fellowship halls. E. Eriksson stated that ba3as+3rrient will be expanded also. E. Eriksson stated the comer tower on the existing church will be removed; -indications are that it was a later addition, and it is beginning to pull away from the principal structure. E. Eriksson stated that the plans require demolishing the residence (rental 2-flat) to the west of the church; it is owned by the Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston. A. Alterson asked if the two building have been treated separately. Z. Webb responded yes. A. Alterson stated that the proposal will require a new special use permit. A. Alterson stated that moving the seating triggers the requirement to provide parking; this relief may be considered via the special use process. C. Smith asked E. Eriksson how he would make the Church accessible. E. Eriksson responded either with a lift or an elevator. C. Smith stated that the basement will require accessibility; for a full story (including the basement), the accessibility code requires an elevator. C. Smith stated that, if the Church wanted to only install a lift, E. Eriksson will have to petition the State. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 1. 1998 Pape 1 of 6 J. Wolinski asked Z. Webb if the existing residence is on the tax rolls. Z. Webb responded yes. J. Wolinski stated that removing property from the tax rolls will be one item to which the City Council pays special attention. J. Tonkinson stated that this project will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit and a plat of consolidation. A. Alterson asked D. Jennings if the proposed backing from the accessible parking space conforms to the accessibility code. D. Jennings responded that he did not believe that having a tum-around for an accessible space in a small parking lot was a problem. D. Jennings asked E. Eriksson y"where the front door was in relation to the accessible parking space. E. Eriksson responded thatAe u t would travel around the east side of the building, along a sidewalk, to the front of the building,,%D. J "stated that the accessible space should be as close to the door as passible; spaces 1 and 2;stiould b r rted to thepaccessible parking space. E. Erikson stated that this configuration will reduce.the number attofftree parking spaces from 6 ,." to 5, but he will make the change. r •,� .�, ,,,,,y C. Smith stated she would like to see more development of twb"tions before deciding on preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. C. Smith asked E.•Eriksso*Fgan ad determined building materials. E. Eriksson responded no. C. Smith stated E. Edksson will -have tone the capacity of the link between the new and existing roofs, especially in terms of a snoWki li , H. asked if the existing truces are hidden. E. Eriksson responded yes. A. Alterson stated'.that.he.fourid the simplicity of the original building appealing. E. Eriksson stated that the elevation is incorrect;.he wants the doors on the east side of the building, as shown in the floor plans, such that the front elevation is symmetrical. J. Wolinski motioned to grant revised concept appiovai (from that granted August 30, 1995). D. Marino seconded the motion. Comrttittee aborotreld the rrlotion (10-0) to arant revised concept approval (from that granted Aug t 30, 11, A copy of the site plan, floor pten,elevation;= plat of survey has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Commi#fee'faidenbrthisrcase (SPAARC 95-0063). SPAARC 96-011T 1619 Hinlman Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct penthouse addition. Mr, Bennett Johnson (architect) presented working drawings and a site photograph for a penthouse addition at 1519 Hinman Avenue. B. Johnson stated that his client wishes to replace an existing plastic solarium with a permanent structure. C. Smith asked A. Alterson if the Zoning Division noted any deficiencies. A. Alterson responded no. A. Alterson asked B. Johnson if the penthouse was visible from the street. B. Jo"son responded no. J. Wolinski asked B. Johnson what he anticipated the noise levels from the mechanicals would be. B. Johnson replied minimal, the radiant floor system and gas -fired boiler were selected because they are best suited to minimize noise. M. Mylott asked B. Johnson from what materials would the penthouse be constructed. B. Johnson replied white aluminum trim, and the angled glass would have a slight reflectivity. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Aptil 1, 1998 Page 2 of 6 D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved_the motion (1Q-0) to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review apaEgM. A copy of the working drawings and site photograph has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 96-0117). SPAARC 9"005 2953 Central Street Revision to Concept OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Erect mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and ATM and upper -floor residential). Mr. Ron Fleckman and Mr. Walter Kihm presented revised plans for a mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and ATM and upper -floor residential) at 2953 Central Street. R. Fleckman stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has acted on their petition for 2 variations (build -to lot line and number of loading berths) and 1 special use (drive-thru), but still requires 2 votes before it may act on 1 special use (use exceeding 20,000 square feet). R. Fleckman stated that, based on the neighbors sentiment that the building was too high, they have decided to pursue a fiat -roof building rather than a pitched -roof building. R. Fleckman stated that, based on the economics of the site, they could not simply knock out a floor, however, some loft space (approximately 1,000 square feet) was eliminated by switching to a fiat -roof concept. R. Fleckman stated that the building is now 45 feet to the top of the flat roof, whereas the original concept was 57 feet to the top of the peak. M. Mylott asked R. Fleckman if the pitched roof conformed with the height requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. R. Fleckman responded yes. A. Alterson stated that the ZBA has not seen the revised elevations. R. Fleckman asked the Committee its opinion on switching the locations of the loading berth and the accessible parking spaces, such that the loading berth door can be removed. D. Jennings stated that the loading berth works best as an integral component of the building; by switching locations, the function Is almost eliminated. M. Mylott stated that the door could be redesigned. A. Alterson stated that the proposed uses are not uses that generate a high need for a formalized loading berth. D. Jennings disagreed, and stated that the first floor is retail. R. Fleckman stated that no changes were made to the site plan. C. Smith stated that it is unfortunate that the roof was simply eliminated from a design that was well-balanced and proportionate; she recommends redesigning the building, because the result of eliminating the roof Is a mixture of design elements that have no relationship to each other. H. Friedman agreed. C. Ruiz agreed, and stated that, if the applicants want to have a flat -roof building, design a flat roof building; do not settle for simply eliminating the roof from a pitched -roof building. M. Mylott agreed, and stated that he believed the Committee is not opposed to a flat -roof building as long as it is designed as a flat -roof building. A. Alterson stated that he has no objections to the revision. H Friedman motioned to deny the revised concept for appearance. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee avproved the motion (2:1] to deny the revirLed concept for appearance. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 1, 1998 Page 3 of 6 SPAARC 98-OO17 1826 Dempster Street Preliminary and Final Demolish vacant gas station and erect i-story building containing 2 financial institutions and l retail use. Mr. Bill Kokalias (architect) presented working drawings for a 1-story building containing 2 financial institutions and 1 retail use located at 1826 Dempster Street. Mr. Joe Wolfberg and Mr. Bob Wolfberg were available to answer questions. C. Smith stated that a preliminary review of this proposal was tabled on March 4, 1998. C. Smith asked B. Wolfberg if burglar screens will be installed. B. Wolfberg responded no, and stated that no screens, bars, or mesh will be installed over, within, or behind the windows; windows will be typical non - tinted glass. C. Smith asked B. Kokalias if the roof -top units will be visible.' B Koka si ponded,no. B. Kokalias stated that all split -face block was removed from the. building' ftintire north and west, and a portion of the south, elevations will be standard -size redo brick. B. K09-alias stated that the EIFS cantilever will be beige. B. Kokalias stated that the east, agd t#ie'r6mainder of the south, elevations will be painted concrete block; the paint color will match the EIFS color. i A.'*%Jterson stated that the entire south elevation should be brick. C. Smith stated that the brickst>•E kl be eictsndii l to the first door. D. Marino stated that the brick should be extended equi-distant to the Ifinestoiie�facade of the carwash to the south. M. Mylott agreed. D. Jennings asked B. Kokalias what was the width of the sidewalk immediately north of the building. B. Kokalias responded 3 feet. D. Jennings stated thfs`width should be increased to 5 feet because the City permits 2 feet of overhang to.count wilhin,the parking'space dimensions. B. Kokalias stated he would make this change. �'' � ��-� B. Kokalias stated that some i6ii bs originallysfiown on the landscape plan have been eliminated to provide clear sight. M. Mylott stated tha provkied the sKrubs do not exceed 30 inches, they will not impede visibility. D. Jennings agreed. P. D'Agostino stat�hat shrubs should be provided in all parking islands and around the parking lot, except within that isfand clearest the northwest corner of the proposed building and under trees; the shrubs startlr g at the souttivWst corner of the proposed building should be extended north to the southern edge of the window. B. Kokalias stated that the street trees along Dodge Avenue will be Summit Ash, consistent with the City of Evanston Street Tree Master Plan, and planted on center within the available pervious surface. J. Wolinski asked B. Wolfberg about anticipated signage. B. Wolfberg stated they anticipate using channelized letters on the building and installing a pole sign. C. Smith stated that installing a pole sign would be unfortunate. J. Wolfberg stated that a pole sign is necessary, because the building is setback so far from Dempster Street. C. Smith stated that signage is a separate permit, and a pole sign will require a variation. M. Mylott stated that any exterior lighting must have a horizontal cut-off. K Kelly asked what B. Wolfberg what were the names of the 3 proposed userr, B. Wolfberg responded Currency Exchange, Community Loan Corporation, and a third unidentified retail tenant. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review, provided that (1) brick is extended along the southern elevation to the east side of the western -most door; (2) the width of the sidewalk is increased to 5 feet; and (3) the landscaping is revised in accordance with the suggestions of the Committee. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Apn1 1. 1998 Page 4 of 6 Discussion: A. Alterson asked D. Jennings to amend his motion to include requiring a landscape maintenance agreement, to ensure any plant material that dies Is reinstalled by the property owner. D. Jennings responded no. M. Mylott asked P. D'Agostino If the City would require reinstallation without a landscape maintenance agreement. P. D'Agostino responded yes. C. Smith stated B. Kokalias will need a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Permit. elevation to Qf the Commift. with the sugaestions SPAARC 93-0082 2500 Ridge Avenue ' Condition of Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM: landscape Plan for redesigned pa ing a Mr. James Murray presented a landscape plan for a� ,..parking area at 2500 Ridge Avenue. C. Smith stated that review and approval of the landscape plan byjha�*mj}ifee was a condition of final approval by the Committee granted December 17, 1997. J. Murray stated that, in most cases, the liarldscape material presented exceeds the size required by the Al planned development ordinapce. r11 D. Marino motioned to approve Ian Ian as satisfying the condition of the previous final approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the mo Discussion: J.:Murra A. Alterson whether or not the landscape plan will need to be - recorded.. son stated that he will check. '4 P. D'Agostlnno stated that plant material installation should occur before June 15th and afterSeptember 15th of the respective calendar year. Committee aoaroved46gmotian f8-01 to aoorove the landscape plan as satisfyino the condition of the urevious final agl2royal. A copy of the landscape plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 93-0082). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 1, 1998 Page 5 of 8 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 1. 1998 Page 6 of a • SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 8, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: D. Jennings, A. Keinson (for J. Glus), K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, A. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: B. Fahlstrom, Commencement J. Wolinski (acting chair) determined a q Approval of SummaWf Fin M. Mylott motioned to motion, Committee ac , P. D'Agostino, C. Smith. the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Findings of March 25, 1998. H. Friedman seconded the approve the Summary of Finding of March 25, 1998. H. Friedman motioned; Wbpprove-tits, S(hnmary of Findings of April 1, 1998. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion-' K. Kelly stated D. Marino was present. H. Friedman amended his motion as such: Na rovethe Summary of Findings of April 1, 1998, provided D. Marino is listed T. _u "`8rT10j1g "Members Present". D- Jennings amended his motion to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee aooroved the motion (8-0) to aDorove the Summary of Finding of April 1. 1998. provided D. Marro is listed among "Members Present". SPAARC 98-0027 1415 Sherman Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Sign variations for temporary banner and temporary free-standing sign for new mixed -use building. B. Fahlstrom presented an application for sign variation to permit a temporary banner and temporary free- standing sign for a new mixed -use building to be located at 1415 Sherman Avenue. B. Fahlstrom stated that the applicant requests the following variations to permit the following: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMM,, t-rF1 April c;, V Page 1 .d 1. Approximately 20 items of Information on a free-standing sign, whereas 7 are permitted. 2. A 15-foot free-standing sign 5 feet from the property line, whereas a free-standing sign may only be as high as its distance to the lot line when that distance exceeds 3 feet. 3. Maintain the free-standing sign for up to 12 months and the banner for approximately 2% months, whereas 30 days are permitted. 4. A banner sign whose highest point is 21'% feet above grade, whereas 15'/= feet is permitted. 5. A 64-square foot free-standing sign and 180-square foot bann w eas temporary signs may not exceed 32 square feet for each exposed face (64 sq a fe �,+� J. Wolinski stated that the free-standing sign is well-desig d, ber`'se es birds -eye -view of the proposed construction; however, the size of banner soul re diced. D. agreed. J. Tonkinson stated that he did not believe the banner was necessary. F3. no disagree . w D. Jennings motioned to recommend that the Sign Revi an is Board approve the application as submitted, provided the banner sign does not exceed,!. qup@ e• r face. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aDDroved the motion (7-21 to-��l,,646L / h - i n Review and Appeals Board =rove the apDlication as submitted. provided (hey banns tli8il&99 not exceed 90 souare feet Der face. A copy of the staff report for the application- for sigry variation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for uils'case'(SPAAR� 98-0027), SPAARC 98-0028 2261:Oak40eet.� Recommendation to Sign Board Sign variations for 2 waif signs ar,. y `� - B. Fahtstrom presented.an applicatiofi d - ign variation to permit 2 wall signs for Petsmart located at 2201 Oakton Street. B. Fahlstram stated teal; the applicant requests the following variations to permit the following: 1. A wall sign on.the south facade whose highest point is 32% feet above grade, whereas 15'/2 feet Is permitted. 2. A wall sign on the south facade whose area is 473 square feet, whereas 200 square feet is permitted. A wall sign on the west facade that is not parallel to a public thoroughfare, whereas, by definition, a wall sign must be parallel to a public thoroughfare. D. Marino stated that the wall sign on the west facade is a legitimate request, given the amount of traffic coming from the west. J Tonkinson stated he has no problem with the request for the wall sign on the west facade, because he believes this request is inconsistent with the intent of requiring wall signs be parallel to a public thoroughfare. J. Wolinski stated that he remembers telling representatives of Petsmart to prepare non -corporate signage; he would prefer linear lettering, rather than lettering following a curved path. M. Mylott read the Summary of SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 8, 1998 Page 2 of 3 r Findings from September 10, 1997, regarding 2201 Oakton Street. D. Jennings stated that this proposal is no worse than permitting a backwards "R' within the'Toys R Us" sign at the Evanston Plaza. H. Friedman stated that the wall sign on the south facade is simply too large. J. Tonkinson agreed. J. Wolinskl stated he would rather see the signage appear on a free-standing sign near Oakton Street, rather than as large wall signs. J. Tonkinson motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the application as submitted, and advise the applicant to resubmit given the Committee's prio;r current direction. K. Kelly seconded the motion. 1 Discussion: C. Ruiz stated he is most M. Mylott stated that he does not because the architectural "featun size of the sign is proportional to should have discouraged this "fo did not intend it to be a grand4 the background for a large lowered. M. Mylott state at h! appears as if it has b n "s " exactly the oppositefr_ . Ma no D. Marino 16aut tffiil@!Wf the walitsigns. a btem w of the south wall sign, auth facaddlWo large; unfortunately, the 1111r". M. Mylott stated that the Committee ing so large, because the applicant ;tu nt, the applicant Intended it to be J d that the 15-inch letters should be em with the west wall sign, because it Wsmall space. C. Ruiz stated he felt Oview and Appeals Board should consider other 3arding this application. C. Ruiz stated that Sign Id only consider signs in this shopping center, Committee approved the rnol end that the Sian Review and Anneals Board deny the application as submitted. a e a licant to resubTLaiven the Committee's prior and current directioniniq A copy of the staff ort for the application for sign variation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Revie mmittei folder for this case (SPAARC 9M028). a "'+may✓' Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning . :< . Apr1l 13,1998 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 8. 1998 Page 3 of 3 f SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 15,1998 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: A. Aiterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson` J. Aiello, L. 81acI,A,J. CJW. Kelly, J. Wolinski. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: L. Lyon, C. Ru�chur, C. Wonders. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existelg—nd began theTWting at 3:90 p.m. SPAARC 98-0034 1X0 Dem _ r Strom` Concept Demolition and constructia gro within Evanston Plaza. Mr. Mike Conter (Balcor) pr la plat of survey, and aerial photograph for a new grocery store within Evanston Plaza I ated at pster Street. Mr. Fred Bemheim (architect) was available to answer questions. M. Conter stated th - e project_ involve: 1. demolishin T1T�ei Fredder's (and former Silo), the current Toy's R Us, and a portion of the current Office 9iSt. The Office Depot is currently 40,000 sq.ft.; it will be reduced to 27,000 sq.ft. 2. building a new 65,000 sq.ft. grocery store. 3. reducing the overall Floor area of the shopping center from approximately 220,000 sq.ft. to approximately 206,000 sq.ft. The project will neither change Frank's Nursery nor the other retail space arranged within the north/south portion of the L-shaped shopping center. Also, the project will not affect the former Pizza Hut building or the current Kids R Us. 4, maintaining approximately 938 parking spaces. The applicant proposes reorienting one middle raw of parking spaces. 5. increasing the width of the drive at Dodge Avenue to increase vehicular efficiency. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 15. 1998 Page 1 of 5 6. adding landscape enhancements to the interior of the parking lot, and "cleaning up' the perimeter landscaping. The applicant has retained a landscape architect. M. Conter stated that entire parcel is under common ownership, except that different persons own the land and building of the former Fredder's (and former Silo) and the land and building of the Toys R Us. C. Smith asked M. Conter what where the plans for unifying the shopping center. M. Canter responded that the grocery store will be constructed of masonry (over -sized brick) and stucco (E1FS). C. Smith asked M. Conter if he had any long-term plans for changes to the other facades. M. Conter responded that such plans include painting the sign bands, but no plans to the masonry, because it is in g condition. C. Smith stated that the signage has no organization. M. Conter stated that the pylons' s e north and east ends of the shopping center will be redone. C. Smith asked M. Canter how the grocery store will relate ?herearaf . Conter responded that the southern industrial neighbor has built to his/her nort to e, exce area of gravel parking. C. Smith asked M. Canter if preliminary elevations have eloped. M. Conter responded no. H. Friedman stated that the architect should be aware that he, s tr the corporate imposition of design on Evanston. C. Smith stated that this new building should set and for the other buildings in the shopping center when they too are revamped, and that stet Ad shoo a high. M. Conter agreed. C. Smith stated that the architect should be aware that too mlkli ElF.3V �col�r`aged; however, an EIFS sign band may be considered if necessary. C. Smith stated that the size orffij brick is critical, and jumbo -sized brick is discouraged; even though this shopping center is on the corner of two major roads, the overall area is still a neighborhood, and standard size brick will promote the pedestrian scale. C. Smith stated that the building should not overlook Dodge Avenue and the residential,, Paracter immediately across the street. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Boar'd;of Appei114ill be considering an application for major variation for 12 new townhouses at the comer f,06dge Avent �cld CrainStreet, so a design that respects this neighborhood is essential. F. Bernheim stAcg- elAill comineni`�ate these concerns to the corporation, but he cannot promise anything. M. Mylott asked M. Conter what is his t1113 ne. M. Conter responded that they would like to provide a clean pad for construction by ffie end of this yea( A. Alterson asked M. Conter what will the relationship be between the grocery store and;Balcor. M. Cghter responded that it will be controlled by an REA, A. Alterson asked M. Conter if he would provide him with a copy of that agreement. M. Conter responded yes. M. Mylott asked M. Canter where Toys R Us will go M Conter responded that Toys R Us is exploring its options; in the short term, they will move to a space within the north/south portion of the L-shaped shopping center. H. Friedman asked M. Conter what are the plans for the Kids R Us. M. Conter responded that Balcor's plans are limited by an existing lease. C. Ruiz asked what will happen to the former Pizza Hut building. M. Canter responded that that lease is in effect for another 10 years; it maybe that Pizza Hut comes back, or it becomes worthwhile for Pizza Hut to sublease the space. C. Ruiz stated that he is glad to hear that the landscaping will be improved; however, the key to its success will be providing islands large enough to ensure the plant material can survive. A. Alterson stated that, due to the zoning of this parcel, the Committee has extra -ordinary purview over the front -yard setback and landscaping. D. Jennings motioned to grant concept approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to arant concept aoproval. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 15, 1998 Page 2 of 5 SPAARC 9"084 711 Church Street Sidewalk cafe for Bruegger's Bagels Bakery. Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe Ms. Suzannah Azizy presented an application and dinnerware for a sidewalk cafe for Bruegger's Bagels Bakery (BBB) located at 711 Church Street. D, Marino asked S. Azizy if anything is different from the sidewalk cafe operated last year. S. Azizy responded no. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established in the Ty taurant Sidewalk Cafe Review form; S. Azizy responded that BBB will comply with all requires, will request a waiver to permit disposable beverage containers. A. Alterson asked S. Azizy how BBB deals with loitering. SftipfespondeaNW13 requires users of the sidewalk cafe to purchase a product from BBB; if loitering 844Ws a problem, she calls the police. J. Tonkinson motioned to recommend that the City CounciMppro plication for sidewalk cafe of BBB. D. Jennings seconded the motion. gommittee a i mmend that the Ci Council approve the application for -sidewalk cafe of BBB. `.:M E SPAARC 9"029 1942 Maple Avdnhe �f j Preliminary and Final Major variation to convert i�arcovere4r1in t4 retail space. Mr. James Murray (attorrn seng plans, a plat of survey, and site photographs for the conversion of a parking spac ta1942 Maple Avenue. J. Murray stated that wor was sta out a building permit, and the permit cannot be granted until the City Council grants t% ajor varia " . Murray stated that the parking space was unusable because persons parking on-st eet would al ys block the driveway. M. Mylott asked J. Wray. how big is the space. J. Murray responded 240 square feet. 14.w F� J Tonkinson stated tl i "tre driveway is no longer is use, the curb must be replaced. A. Alterson asked J. Murray what material will be used underneath the window. J. Murray responded that he thought the material would be an aluminum panel. C. Smith stated that the plans depict brick. C. Smith stated that the glass windows should be extended down to, or close to, the ground; this modification would better reflect a retail use. C. Ruiz agreed, and stated that, just because the addition is small, the Committee should try to improve the site as much as possible. J. Murray stated that that modification may be a security issue. _ J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (U- I to arant preliminary and final site plan and appearance view. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 15, 1998 Page 3 of 5 SPAARC 98.0033 2049 Ridge Avenue Preliminary and Final Accessible ramp, chiller unit and elevator shaft expansion for The Cradle. Mr. Scott Beebe (architect) presented working drawings for an accessible ramp, chiller unit, and elevator shaft expansion for The Cradle located at 2049 Ridge Avenue. Mr. Bobby Heinz (contractor) and Mr. Brad White were available to answer questions. J. Murray stated that work was started without a building permit; and the permit cannot be granted until the City Council grants the major variation. J. Murray stated that the p king ce was unusable because persons parking on -street would always block the driveway. _ C. Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission has appro the electrical room located on the east side (rear) of the buildi C. F to restore windows where possible and replace any wind S. Beebe stated that the existing retaining wall on the accessible ramp will replace the sidewalk. 2 windows of an cant has agreed where the lot will be maintained, and the S. Beebe stated that, when the building was built, ays rovi for a future elevator, however, that shaft is too small to meet today's building code of B that the existing elevator shaft will be increased in size by approximately 1/3. M. MylOtt as d S. a if all new materials will match existing materials. S. Beebe responded yes. �' J. Tonkinson asked S. Beebe if The Cr plans a the existing parking. S. Beebe responded that future plans may include did' �lishi@-, e � sidence, a south to provide parking, but that proposal Is not part of this application. S.= stafe he Cradle owns the residence to the south. J. Tonkinson motioned to gra --' Jry nal site plan and appearance review approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. ! a,= ittee- yed the motion (7-0) to grant nrellminary and final site plan and appe rance review ayo&al. �' � a1 ;7 SPAARC 98-00321. 1501 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final Renovate alley stairs aRaymond Park Apartments, Mr. Jonathan Fischel (architect) presented working drawings and site photographs to renovate the alley stairs for Raymond Park Apartments located at 1501 Hinman Avenue, Mr. Iry Negren (condominium association) was available to answer questions. J. Fischel stated that the railing will be 1 %-inch steel with new pickets rather than the existing chainlink. C Ruiz stated that this building is a landmark and will require Preservation Commission review. M. Mylott asked I. Negren how is the roof at the top of the stairs used. I. Negren responded for deliveries and trash removal. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 15, 1998 Page 4 of 5 Discussion: A. Alterson asked J. Fischel why the application does not Include moving the air conditioner unit. J. Fischel responded that the unit is not part of this project. 1. Negren stated that the condominium association will be seeking someone to simply move the air conditioner unit to the roof. C. Smith stated that the condominium association will need a separate permit, showing the support for the unit, the weight of the unit, and that the unit is 10 feet from any lot line. •IIIIN-: .••p y I I 1: 11• a 1 • •[sl • - I111- • • .1 __1• .••-_C! - _�•�• SPAARC 98-0030 1730 Sherman Avenue Special use to permit pool/billiard hall (no exterior change M. Mylott presented the special use application, including a located at 1730 Sherman Avenue. M. Mylott stated that the application includes no exterior d C. Smith stated that she thought this proposal w as C. Smith stated that the applicant will need to plans are a change of use. J. Tonkinson motioned to rant preli and= seconded the motion. d the4 appearance review a Preliminary and Final and4lWn, for a poollbilliard hall review specific plans, because the plan and appearance review. P. D'Agostino -01 to grant preliminary and final , ite o� Ian and A copy of the Staff Report ing-11Wd of Appeals has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Co ee this case (SPAARC 98-0030). Approval of Surftary of Findings J. Tonkinson motion eKthe the Summary of Findings of April 8, 1998. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approvemotion f8-0i to approve the Summary of Finding of Agril A. 1998. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. ly submitted, APti121, �988ti Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Plannf 1 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 15. 1998 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF EVANSTON Community Development Department Zoning Division To: Members, Site Plan and Appearar.e Review Committee From: Marc Mylott, Zoning Planner Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 Re: Bicycle Parking 1 have assembled the following information for your consideration. This packet contains: 1. Cambridge, Mass. Bicycle Parking Requirements; 2. Santa Cruz, Ca. Bicycle Parking Ordinance; 3. Denver, Co. Bicycle Parking Rules and Regulations; 4. Iowa City, Iowa Ordinance requiring bicycle parking; 5. Portland, Ore. Bicycle Parking Facilities Guidelines; 6. Comparison of bicycle parking ordinance in 9 cities; and 7. "Quantifying Bicycling Benefits for Achieving Transportation Demand Management Goals", from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Also, I have copies of the San Francisco Bicycle Parking Plan (28 pages) and Wisconsin Bicycle Planning Guidance (47 pages). Due to their length, they are not included in this packet; however, I would be happy to let you borrow or copy them on your own. Enjoyl CC: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 22,1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, J. Glus, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Man , M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. A, / Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum SPAARC 98-0006 Revision to mixed -use Mr, Ron Fleckman (CrduDDer-fl Hom presented a revised sitn and floor retail and ATM A. Alterson and R. for zoning relief (2 H. Friedman. L. Lyon, C. r. meeting at 3:00 p.m. Revision to Concept and ATM and upper -floor residential). WalteWalter Kihm (Cyrus Homes), and Mr. Chris Thomas (architect) r south, and east elevations for a mixed -use building (ground- sidential) located at 2953 Central Street. ated the Committee on the status of the project, regarding the application 2 special uses). R. Fleckman stated that the revisions include eliminating the fourth floor; as a result, the second and third floors extend north to approximately the south side of the ATM access aisle (along the north lot line), overhanging the original footprint. R. Fleckman stated that they added a 60-foot deep internal courtyard for the second- and third -floor dwelling units. C. Thomas stated that the base is cast stone and the upper floors are brick; the entire residential entrance is cast stone and includes a raised parapet. C. Thomas stated that the north elevation depicts a 5-foot high masonry wall along the north lot line. H Friedman asked C. Thomas what was the clear height within the parking garage. -C. Thomas responded 14 feet. M. Mylott asked C. Thomas what are the rear yard setbacks. C. Thomas responded that the parking will be greater than 10 feet from the north lot line (rear) where a 10-foot setback is required, and the building will be at least 15 feet from the north lot line (rear) where a 15-foot setback is required. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Apri122, 1998 Page 1 of 5 C. Smith asked C. Thomas if they plan to provide signage for the ATM. C. Thomas responded yes. H. Friedman asked C. Thomas where will the ATM signage be located. C. Thomas responded probably on the east and west facades, because the south elevation is an exit only. J. Aiello stated that she Is concerned with an over -abundance of signs; however, they may need a `Co Not Enter' sign. J. Aiello asked A. Alterson if the screening along the north line had to be solid. A. Alterson responded no, and stated that the ZBA recommended that the applicant work with the neighbors to select a desirable screening device. L. Black stated that a 6-foot high masonry wall is not safe, and it needs some opacity. L. Black stated that she prefers wrought iron fences. W. Kihm stated that the screening could be a 3-foot masonry wall with a wrought Iron top. C. Smith and M. Mylott agreed. A. Alterson asked C. Thomas to describe the differences in de .ry fr original plan to the current plan. C. Thomas responded that the original plan consisted of 65, ross 27 dwe g units; the current plan consists of 63,648 gross sq,ft. and 24 dwelling units. hom t co ercial space has not changed, and the parking configuration and count have n a d. C. Smith stated that the commercial spaces may or may njqERLsecond ingresslegress, depending on their final design. C. Smith asked C. Thomas how someone backs out ace xV and 18. C. Thomas responded that the entrance to the residential parking is behind th , sp � sed; that area would provide adequate turn -around distance. ; L. Black asked R. Fleckman how security the commercial parking spaces (on the s( a security door. L. Black sated that,sh, residential door is reces "� My excellent place in which so could having a corner. W. Kihm sta wi be safer than previous desi On the parking a ea will be addressed. R. Fleckman stated that are open t�tthe residential parking spaces are restricted via conce bout creating "dead zones", especially where the eed. A stated that the recessed garage door provides an Thomas stated that they could slant the wall, rather than ilding covering the commercial parking area, this area will racing area can be more intensively lit without imposing on the neighbors. y L. Black asked if the A Ms could be moved closer to the street. C. Thomas stated that the traffic engineers recommend that thel-A Ms remain where they are, such that the 2 lanes can converge to 1 before entering Central Street. W. Kid ,stated ti<hat the eastern elevation is open to provide visibility to the ATMs. J. Aiello asked W. Kihm if this`pro�eCJS'first to combine ATMs and dwelling units. W. Kihm responded no. C. Smith stated that she is still bothered by the exit from the ATMs to Central Street. M. Mylott asked C. Thomas what was the slope of the commercial parking area. C. Thomas responded 5 percent. C. Smith asked C. Thomas if the second and third Floors were flush. C. Thomas responded yes. C. Smith stated that she thought the railing treatment of the raised parapet introduced too many styles. A. Alterson asked C. Thomas if the rooftop will have mechanicals. C. Thomas responded yes. M. Mylott asked W. Kihm if the mechanicals will be seen. W. Kihm responded no. M. Mylott asked C. Thomas if he could introduce a recessed shape within the ground floor of the residential entrance -- that shape being similar to the windows above. M. Mylott stated that the residential entrance is very distinct from the rest of the ground -floor design, and it almost appears barren and uninviting. C. Thomas SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 22, 1998 Page 2 of 5 responded that the distinction is intentional. C. Smith stated she does not have a problem with having distinctions within the facade, and that this treatment reflects the character of Central Street C. Ruiz asked C. Thomas why did he propose false windows on the north elevation (west side). C. Thomas responded that that was designed in that manner for two reasons: (1) to provide interior spaces for shelving or other programming that requires a solid wall, and (2) to provide the neighbors with privacy. L. Black stated that having extra "eyes on the alley" would make for a safer alley. D. Marino motioned to grant approval of the revision to the site plan concept. A. Alterson seconded the motion. 16 Discussion: A. Alterson stated that the purpose of kin licant to make this presentation to the Committee was to provide City %nView of the revised proposal, such that City Council w d hav eg about any major concerns on the part of Committe a rs beuncil approved the revised plans as part of the speci A. Alterson asked D. Marino to aWni:171111111hiLn to include a recommendation that the applicant convene a "safe er nd ng the applicant, neighbors, and L. Black. D. Marino respo d st that, while he certainly appreciated the concerns expressed by' . B ' plan and elevations are the result of a great amount of nego�ation , th ghbors; the neighbors have been very specific that they wan separation all privacy. A. Alterson wi d w his s d�and stated that he is concerned about 3 critical %same pA aislei,1�te} TM aisle, and the alley. L. Black stated that the `" hLonly for concept, and the plans can still be revised to alleviate hos ns. D. Jennings stated that the current site plan has the egar�afety as the original site plan. . Mylotts _ . _ ._ the motion, to grant aQgroval of the revision to the site alan_conceat. D. Jennings motiorMb.grant-approval of the revision to the appearance concept. J. Alello seconded the motion. Committee royed.the motion (-Z) to grant gproval of the revisign to the appearance ggnceot. SPAARC 96-0112 1859-1875 Maple Avenue Conference Re -review of final site plan for Ivy Court Townhouses. Mr. Fidel Lopez and Mr. Francis Freeman (Broadacre) presented a parking plan for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) property abutting the east property line of the subject property. F. Lopez stated that they would like Committee's response to the Fire Department's request for a curb cut at 90 degrees to Elgin Road. F. Lopez stated that the site plan would require cutting Into an approximately 7-inch retaining wall. K. Kelly stated that the curb cut would ensure that the Fire Department had unobstructed access to all sides of the property to decrease response time. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 22, 1998 Pape 3 of 5 J. Aiello asked D, Jennings if the turning movements would be right -in and right -out only. D. Jennings responded yes, if the City does not remove the median within Elgin Road. J. Tonkinson stated that Public Works does not want the curb cut In that location, because it will create a cut - through traffic situation. J. Tonkinson stated that the retaining wall could be removed, and the parking area regraded, such that an emergency vehicle could simply Jump the curb if necessary. L. Black agreed. A. Alterson stated that the curb cut could be provided and the drive signed as a Fire Lane. C. Smith stated that, at a minimum, the City could request an emergency access easement from the CTA. J. Tonkinson stated that no curb cut can be granted without permission fromjpe property owner. M. Mylott stated that he believed the issue was whether or not the City wantedW cut; he doubted that the CTA would not allow the curb cut if they agree to a lease. 'A J. Tonkinson stated that the City should not hold final action by a third party (CTA). M. Mylott agreed. C. sprinklers in the dwelling units because, among other to all sides of the property. D. Marino stated that he the process has been delayed somewhat due to per Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Sur motion. Committee agoroved the motion Black abstained. iA' SPAARC 97-0047 1 OFF -AGENDA ITEM: office(s) forNorthwe, of i a itsed on an uncertain at the did not have to install e Depa anticipated having access access will still be provided; however, the CTA. if April 15, 1998. P. D'Agostino seconded the the Summary of Finding of April 15. 199$. L. Road, et al. Revision to Preliminary south of Foster Walker Dormitory and west of Graduate Studies A. Alterson presented a revised landscaping plan for a 48-space parking area south of Foster Walker Dormitory and wesC6FGraduate-Studies office(s) for Northwestern University located at 1902-1914 Sheridan Road, et. al. 'i A. Alterson stated that the purpose of presenting this information to the Committee was to provide the City Council with a review of the revised proposal, such that City Council would have the benefit of knowing about any major concerns on the part of Committee members before the City Council approved the revised plans as part of the special use. L. Black stated that she was concemed with the number of trees, and that the trees were arranged such that they created a solid screen that reduced natural surveillance. L. Black stated that 3 trees are not necessary. P. D'Agostino agreed. J. Wolinski stated that the landscaping arrangement reflects the desires of the neighbors; this plan is the result of lengthy negotiations between Northwestern University and the neighbors. M. Mylott stated that the screening only consists of 3 trees. M. Mylott stated that the area in which the trees are proposed is somewhat residential, and the City would not be concerned if a home owner wanted to plant 3 trees in a similar arrangement. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 22, 1998 Page 4 of 5 M. Mylott motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous preliminary site plan and appearance review approval (landscaping only). J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Qmmft2 aRproved thgk_motion (0) to grant approval of the revision to the areyious preliminary site plan and appearance review approval (landscape only). SPAARC 91-0074 2201 Howard Street Parking area within Evanston Center. A. Alterson stated that Alderman Rainey expressed concern patterns within the Evanston Center. A D. Jennings stated that any plans to use islands to control not removed. Adloumment The meeting adjoumed at 4:55 Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Conference resulting from traffic parking was Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 22, 1998 Pape 5 of 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 29, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, M. Mylott,QSmith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Glus, D. Ma Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum SPAARC 98-0037 Convert vacant Mr. Stephen Yas (, a plat of survey, a Cream Factory) to S. Yas stated that 1. 7 2-level C. Bush, C. Rift; nd r, C. Wonders. at 3:05 p.m. Ice Cream Factory) to 7 offices. Preliminary and M7shfant"d neweber (developer) presented working drawings (50 percent), r photoo convert a vacant manufacturing building (former Peacock Ice at 214 Avenue. udes: 2. An internal pedestrian street on the north side, varying in width from 7 to 20 feet and including portions open to the sky. 3. Using the existing masonry openings along Ashland Avenue for the main entrance, an entrance to the first unit, and 2 windows. The main entrance will consist of a transparent doorway with square wire mesh surrounding the doorway. The doorway will be equipped with an intercom. 4. Moving 4 12-inch long, 6-inch diameter lights from the interior to the front elevation (east). 5. A corrugated -metal and stained -wood facade along the south side of the pedestrian street. 6. Screening all rooftop mechanicals. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMIRTEE Apri129, 1998 Page t of 6 S. Yas stated they have not had a formal zoning review, but have had conversations with the Zoning Division. J. Leineweber stated that the permit drawings will be for an office use; however, he intends to apply for a special use permit to convert the offices into livetwork spaces. L. Black stated she is concerned that the pedestrian street is not safe, because if someone drops Into the pedestrian street from the open ceiling, the narrowness of the pedestrian street minimizes the chance that that person may be seen from Ashland Avenue. C. Smith stated that grates could be placed over the openings to maintain the natural light, but prevent entrance via the roof. J. Aiello stated that this courtyard is no different than any other courtyard, especially, ones into which person can simply walk. A Alterson stated that those courtyards tend to be wider, providing better natural surveillance.eSmith stated that concerns about safety are heightened given this neighborhood. L. Black aske fhe would meet with her to discuss additional safety concerns. S. Yas responded yes. A, A. Alterson asked S. Yas how he was going to treat the choosing between a double set of doors or a gate. L. BI, A. Alterson stated that the 12-inch long lights should not J. Tonkinson stated that the proposal will require a Me D. Jennings asked A. Alterson what the parkin equ responded that the Zoning Division will not requ' any proposal does not expand the building. D. Jennings asked A. Alterson if these u it ad to that only within the residerrdistric ngle- lye. re nded that they were at an ate is preferred. the right-of-way. itan 'qqclamation District permit. is development will be. A. Alterson ng for this development, because the lic street. A. Alterson responded no, and stated hed dwelling units have to front a public street. J. Aiello motioned to grant omqmw si d appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee a0prove otic) to arant preliminary si"lan and appearance review approval. A copy of the working'$rewings (507foretil t) and plat of survey has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review mmittee foldis case (SPAARC 98-0037). SPAARC 9R-003860O-Custer Avenue Concept Minimal exterior alterations for business addition (Custer Street Fair within Metra Station), Mr. Sam Sample (architect), Mr. Don Cherco (Custer Street Fair), and Mr. John Sastal (Custer Street Fair) presented a floor plan and section for minimal exterior alterations for a business addition for the Custer Street Fair at the Metra Station located at 600 Custer Avenue. M. Mylott asked S. Sample if the floor plan labeled "First Floor Plan" is more accurately described as "Track Level". S. Sample responded yes. S. Sample stated that windows are currently boarded within the "Existing Waiting Room" and "Former Baggage Room", and they would like to replace them with the same type of steel double -hung windows used by Metra within the "Metra Waiting Doom and Facilities". S. Sample stated that they would like to replace a wood door with the same type of steel and glass door used by Metra within the "Metre Waiting Room and Facilities" (not shown on plan). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 29. 1998 Page 2 of 6 L. Black stated that the windows should be treated with a film to keep the glass from shattering if broken. M. Mylott asked S. Sample to bring site photographs for the next review of this project. S. Sample responded yes. C. Smith stated S. Sample should bring specifications for the windows and door, they will be needed for the permit application. C. Smith asked S. Sample what the new space will be used for, S. Sample stated one use could be a meeting or conference room, C. Smith stated that, depending on how the space Is used, the renovation could require 2 plumbing fixtures. J. Tonkinson stated Custer Street Fair must have permission fromAthoCted wner to do this work. A. Alterson stated that this work could require ADA compli tha a architect should investigate whether or not compliance will be required, an f requI b ddressed. L. Black motioned to grant concept approval. P. D'Agostina��ed the Motion (11-01 to grant conce)approval. W SPAARC 98-0035 1501 Sherman Aven Exterior alterations to hotel (Holiday inn). Concept Mr. Dave Smiley (general manager) and M ' Tracy Ghen a-hitect) presented west and south elevations, a site plan, and a sketch of a canopy for r alte he Holiday Inn located at 1501 Sherman Avenue. T. Chen stated that the p clu 1. Replacing a green a a p nent canopy. 2. Providing acc ibility. 3. Replacing t glazed brick. ith a base course of rock and EIFS above the base course. 4. Incorporating�►� garag into the facade with columns, and Improving the interior lighting. J. Wolinski stated that compliance with the ADA requirements is crucial to this proposal. T. Chen stated that an accessible ramp on the Sherman Avenue side would require cutting into parking spaces; another option is to construct a 48-foot long ramp on the Lake Street side. J. Tonkinson stated that the ramp cannot come on to the sidewalk. C. Smith agreed. L. Black disagreed, and stated that having an entrance on that street would be desirable from a safety perspective, because it adds activity to the street. J. Tonkinson stated that T. Chen should explore other options and present them to the Committee. C. Smith agreed, and stated that even restaurant space could be sacrificed. D. Smiley stated they would look at reducing the size of the restaurant, if that is what is required to provide accessibility. H. Friedman stated that the ramp could enter the Sherman Avenue side at 90 degrees to Sherman Avenue. T. Chen stated that such a configuration may require a small lift, but he would investigate it. J. Aiello stated that T. Chen should not rule out a Lake Street configuration. D. Jennings stated that, if the Lake Street option is developed, Holiday Inn must do something with the appearance of and smells emanating from the garbage/compactor area. C. Bush stated that the Health Department received a complaint about the Holiday Inn garbagelcompactor area Just today. C. Smith stated that, because of the pedestrian nature of this area and the prominent corner, she could not support all the EIFS at the base level; the architect should explore limestone, granite, brick, metal panels, etc. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April29, 1998 Page 3 of 6 H. Friedman agreed, and stated that to construct massive columns like those proposed out of EIFS is "ludicrous". C. Smith stated that she could accept EIFS on the tower portion, because it Is removed from the pedestrian scale. J. Wolinski motioned to table this item. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (j 1-01 to table_this item. A copy of the elevations of the west and south facades, a site plan, and a sketch of a canopy has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0035). SPAARC 97-0039 1115-1133 Maple Avenue OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Replace porch in -kind for 1129 Ma) Mr. Peter Lewis presented working drawings to replace dwelling units at 1129 Maple Avenue. P. Lewis stated th; Is 1125 Maple Avenue, the correct address is 1129 Mapk M. Mylott asked P. Lewis if the new porch was material as the existing. P. Lewis responded ye J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary naljCe pl; seconded the motion. Committee anQrov the .ftionI SPAARC 97-0039 11 OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Mr. Peter Lewis sta porches in -kind for M. Mylott asked P. as the existing. P ue Preliminary and Final units). rch (reajin-kind for the multi -family the permit plans indicate the address the same fashion and of the same appearance review approval. H. Friedman Preliminary and Final for 1119 and 1123 Maple Avenue (multi -family dwelling units). association at 1115-1133 Maple Avenue plans to replace the wood ing units located at 1119 and 1123 Maple Avenue, ew porches will be constructed in the same fashion and of the same material nded yes. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion f11-01 to grant preliminary and final site plan and ap earance review approval. SPAARC 98-0041 2650 Ridge Avenue Preliminary and Final Replace boiler, erect temporary boiler on trailer surrounded by temporary fence (Evanston Hospital). Mr. Tim Vander Molen (Evanston Hospital) and Mr. Daniel Becker presented a site plan (on a plat of survey) and a siting study (manipulated photograph) for a temporary boiler for Evanston Hospital located at 2650 Ridge Avenue. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE April 29, 1998 Page 4 of 6 T. Vander Molen stated that the temporary bolter Is completely enclosed within a temporary trailer, and the temporary trailer is surrounded by a temporary fence. J. Tonkinson asked T. Vander Molen how long will the trailer be on -site. T. Vander Molen responded approximately 12 weeks, and stated that the boiler will be on stand-by for the majority of time; the boiler will run constant for only one day (a 12 hour period). J. Wolinski asked what the noise level will be. T. Vander Molen responded that the only noise should be stack noise, and Only during the time that the boiler is running. J. Aiello asked if the advertising must be placed on the trailer. T. Evanston Hospital's decision; the trailer belongs to the ownegh A. Alterson stated that this use is a temporary use, requiri J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion appearance review approval. SPAARC 9M042 2650 Ridge Avon OFF -AGENDA ITEM: 2 smoking shelters Mr. Tim Vander Molen (Eva ton H Evanston Hospital Iocate50 responded that that was not v boiler. office. approval. J. Tonkinson Preliminary and Final Hospital). and specifications for 2 smoking shelters for T. Vander Molen stated one ill b f the Burch Building, within abelow-grade courtyard, and the second shelter will be no arki rage, near the bicycle racks; both shelters will be 8 feet by 12 feet, and certain sides e s ill have smoked glass to reduce visibility into the shelters. J. Tonkinson motione o grant preli ary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the moti Committee poroved the motion (9-Q1 to grant orelfminary and final site plan and gppe rance review, A copy of the site plfii_ d Ipecifications has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0042). Approval of Summary of Findings L. Black motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of April 22, 1998. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee ap roved the motion t9-01 to agprove the Summary of_Find ina f April 22. 1998. SPAARC 98-0040 630 Sherman Avenue Replace concrete patio (multi -family dwelling units). Applicant did not attend. Preliminary and Final SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMRTEE AP0129, 1999 Page 5 of 6 SPAARC 98-0039 2230 Main Street Erect one-story addition (Wart( Manufacturing Company). Concept Mr. David Forte (architect) presented a site plan, elevations, plat of survey, and site photographs for a one- story addifion to the rear of Ward Manufacturing Company located at 2230 Main Street. D. Forte stated that the addition is for storage and will not Increase the number of employees. D. Forte stated that the addition is approximately 5,000 sq.fL and will match the height and mattrials of the existing building. D. Forte stated that the addition will connect to the existiebuildingn 8 t high segment A Aiterson stated he is curious as to how the existing builut a planned unit development,the addition does not require a planned unit development buildi A. Alterson stated that this addition will need a variation to the rear yard se the architect has proposed that the addition be built at the rear lot line (sofo is required. C. Smith stated that the existing building has yet to receiv roof and unpaved parking area. D. Forte stated that the rabf h a basecoat down. A11111011L C. Smith stated that the addition is planned that she would like the connecting segment n J. Tonkinson motioned to grant concept Adjournment The meeting adjourned S-IpW.50 I, Marc Steven Mylott, zoning SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Apri129, 1998 Page 6 of 6 :ate of occupancy, due to a leaky rrected, and the parking area has :nt is a nice feature. L. Slack stated to ensure persons cannot hide there. seconded the motion. Committee approved Date r• I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 6, 9 998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Aiterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. My(ott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, J. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: C. 'Ruiz. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum SPAARC 98-0040St Replace concrete patio in - Mr. Albert Grueborlews ' for a multi -family dwe ga meeting at 3:05 p.m. Preliminary and Final ,n) presented working drawings to replace a concrete patio in -kind Avenue. M. Mylott asked ueborlew if the new patio is in the exact location as the existing patio. A. Grueborlewski res M. Mylott motioned to Iant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-0) to -grant rellminary and final site Ulan and prance reviewj2RrQyW. A copy of the site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0040). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 8, 1 goo Page t of 4 SPAARC 98-0047 1902-1914 Sheridan Road, et. al. Final 48-space parking area south of Foster Walker Dormitory and west of Graduate Studies ofirce(s) for Northwestern University. Mr. Andrew McGonigle presented a site plan and landscape plan for a 48-space parking area south of Foster Walker Dormitory and west of Graduate Studies office(s) for Northwestern University located at 1902-1914 Sheridan Road, et. al. Mr. Ron Naylor was available to answer questions. A. McGonigle stated that the landscape plan has been amended to m that two additional evergreens be located north of the Searle Bui concerned that this area is going to be an area of safety con R: Searle Building is well lit. C. Smith stated that Northwestern IV_ rsii some relief. D. Jennings asked P. D'Agostino if the ev reen LI D'Agostino responded yes. L. Black stated that the "3-7 ruleltwaaAsi is recommended. J. Tonkinson stated that Northwestem University will requ J. Wolinski motioned to grant final site plan and motion. Committee approved the motion f9-2j_j A copy of the landscape plan and Ordinan Review Committee folder for this case (S Approval of Summa _ in J. Tonkinson motioned to motion, the ition of Ordinance 49-0-98 Black stated that she is still stated that the north side of the the 1 scaping to provide d as they matured. P. .mp between 3 and 7 feet — Water Reclamation District Permit ew proval. P. D'Agostino seconded the and appearance review approypl. placed within the Site Plan and Appearance of Findings of April 29, 1998. P. D'Agostino seconded the Discussion: K. Kelly asked M. Mylott to investigate whether or not the case at 600 Custer Street 4, was actu4 at 600 Main Street. M. Mylott responded yes. Qnmittee aoprove hffR sb0Wr 01-01 to approve the Summary of Findina of April 29._M. SPAARC 97-0019 2822 Central Street Revision to Final Adding 3 windows on west side of commercial building. C. Smith presented revised working drawings for a commercial building located at 2822 Central Street. C Smith stated that the revision is the addition of fire -rated 3 windows on the west side of the building; this revision was mandated by the Fire Department, A. Alterson motioned to approve the revision to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Commit ee approved the motion f10-Q to approve the revision to the previous final site plan and aopearance review ap roval. L. Black abstained. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 8. 1998 Page 2 of 4 r' SPAARC 97-00" 1700 (block of) Central Street Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Streetscape improvements along the south side of 1700 block of Central Street D. Marino presented a site plan and elevation for streetscape improvements along the south side of the 1700 block of Central Street. D. Marino stated that this proposal is one of the applications for neighborhood improvement before the Economic Development Committee (EDC), and it includes planters and landscaping. D. Marino stated that the owner of the building may also initiate facade improvements. D. Marino stated that Panino's applied for a sidewalk cafe a s the Zonin Division, Muse the restaurant was too close to an R1 district. D. Marino stat a an C may, for an amendment to the City Code, regarding the distancing requirement for dews fe . s stated he liked the concept of the sidewalk cafe; however, the applicant ma problem adjacent light pole. C. Smith stated she liked the concept of the sidewalk cafe. C. Smith asked D. Marino if this block will have banners. J. Tonkinson stated D. Marino may have to get because the State may have jurisdiction in thi jurisdiction. _ I SPAARC 98-0043 2QIQ1-2007. W&P.1' Erect one-story addition {i i & yes. RbI for the streetscape improvements, n stated he will confirm the matter of Preliminary and Final Mr. Ben White (Senvenuti ndT. Mark Lehnmann (Benvenuti & Stein, Inc.) presented a site plan, elevations, plat urvey, photographs for aone-story addition to the rear of Ward Manufacturing CompaE located at2_2WMain Street. B. White stated that _r addition is fo7 storage; items currently stored in the front yard will be able to be placed out of sight; also, d 's collecting in the corner. B. White stated tha"?R64MVItion will be 12-inch concrete block, painted Modac grey; the entire building is scheduled to be painted Modac grey. A. Alterson stated that the addition encroaches within the rear and side yard setback of the 12 district; the applicant will require variations from the Zoning Board of Appeals. M. Mylott asked B. White what were the surrounding land uses. B. White responded that a parking lot abuts the property to the west, and the back of the Toys R' Us building is approximately 100 feet to the north, across asphalt paving. B. White asked the Committee who handled abandoned cars parked along the Brown Avenue right-of-way; he was told by the Police Department that removing those cars, and the costs associated therewith, were his responsibility. B. White stated he has paid to have 2 cars removed. J. Tonkinson responded that that area is City responsibility and the Police Department are responsible for towing cars from that area. J. Tonkinson stated that the City plans to vacate that land eventually. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Mays, 1998 Page 3 of 4 M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final approval, subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Discussion: L. Black stated that special care for the rear door is necessary. B. White stated that that door will have an overhead light. K. Kelly asked B. White if the door could be moved to the western side of the addition. B. White responded no, and stated that new door aligns with an existing door. • 11 11 1 :�a • p - 1 a 11 • • 1 1 i • • C• 1 • F ll 1 1 • 1 1 • • P • -�tl • • [• �1 11 A copy of the site plan and plat of survey has been placed Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0043). J Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 6. 1998 Pays 4 of 4 Plan and Appearance Review Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, J. Glusj. T Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: M. Charley, L. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a q SPAARC 96-0074 1W Sidewalk Cafe for Type 2 Mr. David Hull presented Sherman Avenue. A D. Hull stated that thOidewalk cafe at 105 p.m. mendation for Sidewalk Cafe erware for a sidewalk cafe for Starbucks located at 1724 in the same manner as the sidewalk cafe operated last year. C. Smith read the s%everage afe.LrBquirements as established in the Type II Restaurant Sidewalk Cafe Review form; D. Hull responucks will comply with all requirements, and Starbucks will request the waiver to permit disposablcontainers. J. Wolinski asked J. Aiello if the City Manager's Office received any complaints about the sidewalk cafe operated last year. J. Aiello responded no. A. Alterson asked D. Hull how Starbucks deals with loitering. D. Hull responded that a shift manager will inform such persons that the sidewalk cafe is for use by Starbucks customers only. D. Jennings motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the application for sidewalk cafe of the Starbucks located at 1724 Sherman Avenue. K Kelly seconded the notion. Committee approved the motion f 11-0) to recommend that the City Council approve the application for sidewalk cafe of the Starbucks located at 1724 Sherman Avenue. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13, 1908 Page 1 of 8 04 SPAARC 96-0073 528 Dempster Street Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Sidewalk Cafe for Type 2 Restaurant (Starbucks). Mr. David Hull presented dinnerware for a sidewalk cafe for Starbucks located at 1724 Sherman Avenue. D. Hull stated that he has submitted this application to the City Manager's Office. J. Aiello stated that she will Inquire about the status of the application. D. Hull stated that this sidewalk cafe will function in the same manner C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established form; D. Hull responded that Starbucks will comply with all req to permit disposable beverage containers. J. Wolinski asked J. Aiello if the City Manager's Office operated last year. J. Aiello responded no. A. Alterson asked D. Hull how Starbucks deals with inform such persons that the sidewalk cafe is for us. D. Jennings motioned to recommend that the Starbucks located at 528 Dempster Street, p Kelly seconded the motion. Committee bpi sidewalk cafe conforms IC Ik cafe operated last year. Sidewalk Cafe Review ul it request the waiver about the sidewalk cafe rsponded that a shift manager will mers only. I ape the application for sidewalk cafe of the e rik cafe conforms with all other City codes. K. Ztfon (11-01 to recommend that the City Council (s located at 528 Dempster Street. providgd the SPAARC 98-0036 81- u StW Preliminary r, Addition to rear of restaurant (Olive . ry ain). Mr. Ahmed Saleh piented working drawings for an addition to the rear of the Olive Mountain restaurant located at 814 ChuhJijbtreet. A. Saleh stated that the=k cation on which the proposed addition will sit is covered with gravel; currently, employees use it for parking. A. Saleh staled that, following construction of the addition, the remaining portion of the lot would be paved and contain a dumpster and a grease dumpster, any remaining area could be used for employee parking. C. Smith stated that she would like to see a site plan for this area. A. Saleh stated that this addition is part 1 of a 2-phase plan; phase 2 includes moving the kitchen to the addition. C. Smith stated that A. Saleh should show the layout for the new kitchen equipment. K. Kelly asked A. Saleh what is the amount of seating with the current configuration, and what will be the amount of seating with the addition. A. Saleh responded that the current seating is approximately 65 people, the addition will increase that amount by approximately 25 to 30 people. K. Kelly stated that a second exit will be necessary. A. Saleh stated that a second exit is provided. C. Smith asked A. Saleh if he could bring photographs of the site for his final review. A. Saleh responded yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13, 1998 Page 2 of 8 C. Smith stated A. Saleh will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Permit; he should talk with J. Tonkinson about the permit process. C. Smith stated that A. Saleh may be required to provide 1 accessible parking space. C. Smith stated that A. Saleh should investigate, and report back to the Committee regarding, the closest on -street accessible parking space, because that space may be more reasonably located than an accessible parking space in the rear. L. Black stated that the plans show steps at the rear of the addition; A. Saleh would have to provide a ramp if the accessible parking space is located at the rear of the addition. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review appr al. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-0 to orant orelimin i Ian and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0035 1501 Sherman Avenue Exterior alterations to hotel (Holiday Inn). Mr. Tracy Chen (architect) presented a site plan, east alterations to the Holiday Inn hotel located at 1501 S was available to answer questions. .� T. Chen stated that, after exploring other feasible solution. T. Chen stated that the e a planter is provided in front of the ram e Street. L. Black, J. Ale llo,_arlCkM, Myf T. Chen stated that exterior of:thl b, to approximately 15 feet in e stated that he is working orgthe m all of the tower. C. 5 ith stated st believes the base should be entirely s, placing , vin11 also Concept and site photographs for exterior . David Smiley (general manager) accessible ramp on Lake Street is the only a stair case to create a restaurant entrance; stated he liked having an entrance on Lake changed to a limestone veneer (or other natural material) umns and canopy (except cap) will be limestone. T. Chen cap, and E1FS will be used for the remainder of the base and .rued with mixing materials on the base of the building; she T. Chen stated that,, Whereas eactrwindow currently has 1 air conditioner grill (located in 1 of the 3 bottom window panels), a grill Q11 be eitended to cover all 3 bottom window panels. T. Chen stated that the 3 top window panels will be're_pjj6Wwilh insulated panels to improve energy efficiency. C. Smith stated that the floor -to -ceiling window is a desirable feature of this building, and she recommends leaving the glass alone entirely. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that the floor -to -ceiling windows are a strength of this building that should not be compromised. M. Mylott stated that, if energy efficiency is a concern, replace the glass with a higher efficiency window. T. Chen stated that a large portion of heat loss is through the frame. A. Alterson stated that new insulated panels are not going to improve the efficiency of the frame. J. Aiello asked T. Chen if the 3-panel grill is recommended solely to hide the air conditioning unit. T. Chen responded yes. J. Aiello asked T. Chen what is the color of the grill. T Chen responded that the color can be any color. C. Smith stated that T. Chen should attempt to accentuate the rhythm of the single grills rather -than wrap the building in rows of grills; money saved by not adding grills can be used elsewhere. J. Aiello asked T. Chen if Holiday Inn was planning a sign for the canopy. T. Chen responded that such signage is not currently planned. C. Smith recommended that T. Chen incorporate signage now such that the signage does not appear to be an after -thought; such planning will help the applicant if any sign variations are necessary. C. Smith stated that the wall -mounted directional sign located at the east end of south wall is not permitted by -right, and the Sign Review and Appeals Board does not look favorably toward such applications. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13, 1998 Pape 3 of 8 T. Chen asked if the sign could be placed on the east wall in the southeast comer. C. Smith responded not by -right, and stated all signs must be parallel to a public street. L. Black asked if the openings to the garage will be blocked by the accessible ramp. T. Chen responded no. K. Kelly asked T. Chen how much clear width will be provided along the Lake Street sidewalk with the new ramplentrance. T. Chen responded that the sidewalk is approximately 13 to 15 feet wide now, and the ramp is approximately 5 to 6 feet wide. C. Smith stated that T. Chen will need accurate measurements for a lease agreement, and he must provide 5 feet of clear width for a wheelchair. M. Mylott motioned to grant concept approval, provided the architect in ti the design issues mentioned by the Committee. J. Aiello seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that, while he aS te e H ' yInn to improve the facades, the concept as presen a that h "buy into", especially proposing to cover the windows EIFS on th se. C. Smith agreed, and stated that she can support the cherman Avenue and the new entrance on Lake Street. Committee anoroved the motion (U1 to arant conceDtia� ; orovid- the architect investigate the design Issues mentioned by the Committee. JAPI 777-:w1w A of the site Ian and east and south elm ions as bee laced within the Site Plan and Appearance copy s p n p pp Review Committee folder for this case (SP.. C 9 0035),y SPAARC 98-0045 I-ONFa Chum" eat Preliminary Construct 49-space parking rceWing (Shand Morahand). Mr. Nick Haritos (genera! contractor) and.Mf. Ken Kleinfer (agent) presented a site plan and plat of survey for a 49-space parking a �' for the Shaid'Morahand office building located at 1007 Church Street. N. Haritos stated that a parking: area would be located on the north side of the building; the plans include a 5-foot wide landscape 'roe r and 2 new curb cuts to Oak Avenue. J. Aiello stated that a permit will be required for each curb cti•= .Aiello asked if any on -street metered parking spaces would be removed. N. Haritos responded that he believed they encroached into 1. D. Jennings stated that Traffic Engineering is planning to convert that side of Oak Avenue to angled parking; the applicant should ensure adequate sight distance is provided. C. Smith stated that the proposal will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Permit. C. Smith stated N. Haritos must provide the Committee with a photometric plan; that plan may be sent to J. Tonkinson for initial review _ K. Kleinfer stated that the new parking spaces are a component of a pending lease with a new medical tenant (for approximately 6,800 sq.ft.). K. Kleinfer stated that the new tenant would be responsible controlling access to the parking area; he believes the tenant wilt employ an automatic gate. M. Mylott asked K. Kleinfer if the Zoning Officer was aware that the new tenant was a medical office. K. Kleinfer responded that he was not sure. M. Mylott stated that K. Kleinfer should have his Zoning Analysis SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13, 1998 Page 4 of 8 modified to reflect the specific nature of the new tenant. A. Alterson stated that, according to his "thumbnail count", the parking area still has a surplus of parking spaces. A. Alterson stated that losing the green space is unfortunate. K. Kleinfer stated that no existing trees will be removed. J. Aiello stated that she would like to see the landscaping along the railroad right-of-way enhanced. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, subject to landscape plan review and approval. J. Aiello seconded the motion. Discussion: K. Kelly asked K. Kleinfer if the new parking area would be en after hours. K. Kleinfer responded that he is not sure; he will have to cl a se and the tenant's hours of operation. A. Alterson stated that the prop I is accept if the parking will be available to anyone after hours. M. Mylott to ed. Ir M. Mylott stated that N. Hadtos should review. • t• 71 • _1 .•• • A copy of the site plan has been placed within the case (SPAARC 98-0045). d SPAARC 98-0050 625 Mad Consideration of Unified C. Smith presented an appli Plan for Reba Place Fella Jp to C. Smith stated that components of J. Aiello motioned seconded the mt P. D'Agostino for his nce Review Committee folder for this Recommendation to Sign Board Plan (Reba Place Fellowship). !Giew and Appeals Board for a Unified Business Center Sign Madison Street. n plan conform to the Sign Ordinance, i the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the application. D, Marino aoproved the motion (11-0) to recommend that the Sign Review and A copy of the application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0050). SPAARC 98-0046 1034 Chicago Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Consideration of free-standing sign (Auto9arn), r C. Smith presented an application to the Sign Review and Appeals Board for a sign plan to permit a free- standing sign for the AutoBarn located at 1034 Chicago Avenue. C. Smith stated that the free-standing sign conforms to the Sign Ordinance. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13, 1998 Paga 5 of B M. Mylott asked C. Smith if the sign was Illuminated. C. Smith responded that the sign has Interior illumination. J. Aiello stated that the sign is not clear as to what types of automobiles the AutoBam is offering — Is the sign stating the AutoBam has Audi and pre -driven cars, or is the sign stating that the AutoBam has Audi and pre. driven Audi. J. Aiello motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the application, and note that the Committee was concerned about the clarity of the sign. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion UL- to recommend that the Sian Review and Aggeals MaLd approve the application. and note that the Committee was concerned about the clarity of the s A copy of the application has been placed within the Site this case (SPAARC 98-0046). SPAARC 98-0049 936 Chicago Avenue Consideration to permit free-standing sign (Doc AN C. Smith presented an application to the Sign Rev for Doc Ables Auto Clinic located at 936 Chicago A� _revC. Smith stated that the sign is too large (44 ft, pk feet high proposed whereasA feet high i rmitted.V of a circulation lane. C. Smith stated that the sig against a white background. J. Aiello motioned to recommend Committee suggests ce oving the Jennings seconded I,,.' motion. Cc and AaDeals Board 4 h odic kgrina the sign. and re)ersin Review Rom mittee folder for ommendation to Sign Board for a variation for a fee -standing sign lereas 12 sq.ft. is permitted), is too high (17.5 4 feet from property line), and is within 20 feet against a dark background, rather than dark letters thekrSign Review and Appeals Board deny the application, and the 300` ear advertisement, lowering the sign, and reversing the colors. D. mmittee aooroved the motion (j tQ) to recommend that the Sion Review ition. and the Committee sum sts removina the Goodvear advertisement, e colorq. A copy of the application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0049). SPAARC 98-0047 501 Davis Street Recommendation to Sign Board Consideration to recover canopy and existing nonconforming awnings. C. Smith presented an application to the Sign Review and Appeals Board for recovering a canopy and nonconforming awnings for Davis Street Fishmarket located at 501 Davis Street. C. Smith stated that the awnings are 40 inches from the face of the building (whereas 36 inches is permitted) and have wording other than the name, logo, etc. C. Smith stated that the existing canopy and awnings are grey; the new color is green. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13. 1998 Page 6 of 8 J. Afello motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the application. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (1,1-0) to nscommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the application. A copy of the application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0047). SPAARC 98-0048 2929 Central Street Recommendation to Sign Board Consideration to reface a nonconforming free -standing sign and -a nongftpTlng wall sign (Coldwell Banker). C. Smith presented an application to the Sign Review and AVpeals 01111111111koface Vfonconforming free- standing sign and a nonconforming wall sign for Caldwell lUnker to rai Street. C. Smith stated that the free-standing sign is too high (18 f e 15.5 feet 7s permitted), too close to the property line (when within 3 feet of the property line, the si only 3 feet high), and within 20 feet of a circulation lane. C. Smith stated that the parking lot (have g no buildings) is only permitted 1 free- standing sign; a second sign also exists. M. Mytott motioned to recommend that the Sign the west wall sign is removed. D, Marino sect recommend that the Sion Review,, and 8ppC0 removed. A copy of the application this case (SPAARC 98-t SPAARC 98-0051 OFF -AGENDA ITEft :Extent of Committee review. iBoard approve the application, provided ommittee approved the motion (11-0) to opligation. r{ vided the west wall sign is and Appearance Review Committee folder for Conference D. Jennings stated th` . is reviewing staff proposals for streetscape improvements that Include new planters and other elemen ings asked the Committee if these proposals should be reviewed by the Committee. D. Marir arCaponded that the Planning Division intends to bring these proposal to the Committee. SPAARC 91-0074 2201 Howard Street Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Parking area within Evanston Center. A. Atterson stated that this discussion relates to the previously mentioned (April 29, 1998) unsafe nature of the parking area for Evanston Center located at 2201 Howard Street. J. Wolinski stated that Alderman Rainey has asked staff if the Committee approved what was built, because she is concerned about the safety; she contends that only 7 to 8 islands are provided whereas the drawings depict 17. A. Alterson stated that Alderman Rainey also contends that the second entrance from Howard Street (heading west) aligns with a row of parking spaces rather than an aisle. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13, 1998 Page 7 of 8 D. Jennings stated that this parking area has more accidents than any other in the City. M. Mylott stated that the only way to eliminate the cut -across traffic is to provide a physical barrier, he has seen ropes with visual markers (such as yellow balls) work very well for shopping centers in Lake County. P. D'Agostino asked the Committee if the City could force the owners to Install such devices. D. Jennings responded no. D. Marino stated that an aisle could be placed across the longest rows. D. Jennings stated that he doubted that the owners would be willing to run an aisle through the parking spaces because that would reduce the number of parking spaces. C. Smith stated that the first step is to find out what was drawings. M. Mylott stated that he will see if the Committe Approval of Summary of Findings D. Marino motioned to approve the Summary of Findings she will look up the permit has a j#e plan within It. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that ther the heading SPAARC 98-0043 on page 3 should readJW ti & Stein, Inc. located at 2001-2007 Greenleaf Street." r of Ward Manufacturing Company located at 2230 M D. arino am the d1bgX such: approve the Summary of Findings of May 8, pr at tHgWparagraph under the heading SPAARC 98-0043 on p ea the rear of Benvenuti & Stein, Inc, located at 2001-2007 Gr tre than "... to the rear of Ward Manufacturing Company loc 0 M eet.". D. Jennings amended the second to be consistent e m tion. motion f 10- rove the Summary of Finding of Mav 6. 1996. �ovlded that the e headin A ARC 98-Q043 on page 3 reads',, . to the rear gf Benyenuil 6 Stein. 7 GreeR r ." rather than -. to the rear of Ward_Mgnufacturino C'nffW= Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Pla SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 13, 1998 Pape 8 of 8 Date T. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 27, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, J. Glus, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino. H. Friedman. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0052 2201 Payne Street Preliminary and Final Addition to single-family residence (review was condition of zoning relief). Mr. Mark Van De Hey presented a site plan, elevations, floor plan, rendering, site photographs, and a letter from his architect (describing the proposed building materials) for a 1-story addition to a 2-story single-family residence. A. Alterson stated that approval by the Committee for site plan and appearance review was required as a condition of a grant of minor variation to the front yard setback standard. M. Van De Hey stated that the residence is located at the northwest corner of Payne Street and Hartrey Avenue. M. Van De Hey stated that the proposed addition will approximately replace an existing enclosed patio located on the Payne Street side of the residence; the proposed addition will extend toward Payne Street approximately 3 feet more than the existing patio, and the addition will be approximately as wide as the residence (offset slightly at each end). H. Friedman asked M. Van De Hey if Hartrey Avenue is more accurately described as the front yard. M. Van De Hey responded yes, and stated that, to the contrary, the residence has a Payne Street address. C. Smith asked M. Van De Hey what was the reason for the offset. M. Van De Hey responded architec mat, and stated that, if the addition would be constructed of brick, the addition would not be offset; however, ihi: exiting brick on the residence is old, making it very difficult to match. J. Wolinski asked M. Van De Hey for what purpose would the proposed addition be used. M. Van De Hey responded a family room. SUMMARY OF FINDIF s17E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMI May' Pago . H. Friedman asked M. Van De Hey if the existing patio had a roof -top deck. M. Van De Hey responded no, and stated they will be cutting a door in the second floor where a window currently exists for access to the new roof -top deck. L. Black asked A. Alterson to what degree was the grant of variation. A. Alterson responded that the front yard was reduced from 25.5 feet to 17.6 feet. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Wolinski asked A. Alterson if any notified persons opposed the application. A. Alterson responded no. Committee aggro y the motion (8-01 to_arant nrelimina(M and fi11a1 site plan and gR arance revlew aooroval. A copy of the site plan, elevations, floor plan, rendering, site photographs, and letter from the architect (describing the proposed building materials) has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 9M052). SPAARC 98-0056 1720 Central Street Preliminary Wellness center. Zoning Division canceled appearance; application erroneously placed on agenda. SPAARC 9"053 912 Custer Avenue Final Warehouse addition for Dard Products, Inc. Mr. Steve Botes (architect) and Anthony Lamantia presented working drawings for a warehouse addition for Dard Products, Inc. located at 912 Custer Avenue, C. Smith read the Summary of Findings from August 8, 1997, regarding this case. S. Bates stated that the loading area has been modified such that a truck can fully enter the facility. S. Botes stated that the building materials of the proposed addition will match the existing building materials. M. Mylott stated that, contrary to the drawings, the existing building has a parapet, such that the proposed addition will match the height of the existing building. C. Smith stated that the owner (or agent) must apply for a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit before a full building permit may be issued; however, an application number will be sufficient information to receive a building permit for foundation only. A. Alterson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Tonkinson asked S. Botes if any of the driveways depicted are new, requiring new curb cuts. S. Bates responded yes. J. Tonkinson stated that the owner (or his agent) must apply for a permit for each curb cut. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 27. 1998 v► Page 2 of 4 J. Tonkinson stated that D. Jennings should review the parking arrangement. J. Tonkinson asked S. Botes if they would sign a petition to pave the alley. S. Botes responded that he could not speak for the owners, but would communicate the question to the owners. A. Alterson amended the motion as such: grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of the parking arrangement by the City Traffic Engineer. M. Mylott amended his second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to grant final site plan and appearanroyal, subject to review and approval of the parking arrangement by the City Traffic Ea—' SPAARC 96-0019 1745 Sherman Avenue Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Sidewalk Cafe for Type 2 Restaurant (Einstein Brothers Bagels). Ms. Laura Fishwild presented an application for sidewalk cafe for Einstein Brothers Bagels located at 1745 Sherman Avenue. L. Fishwild stated that this sidewalk cafe will function in the same manner as the sidewalk cafe operated last year, tables and chairs will be placed along Clark Street only. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established In the Type II Restaurant Sidewalk Cafe Review form; L. Fishwild responded that Einstein Brothers Bagels will comply with all requirements, and Einstein Brothers Bagels will request the waiver to permit disposable beverage containers. C. Smith asked the Committee if any members received complaints about the sidewalk cafe operated last year. No Committee members responded. A. Alterson asked L. Fishwild how Einstein Brothers Bagels deals with loitering. L. Fishwild responded that signs are posted that the tables and chairs are for Einstein Brothers Bagels' customers only, and a'fronter" Is stationed outside to bus tables, remove litter, and prevent loitering. J. Glus motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the application for sidewalk cafe of Einstein Brothers Bagels. L. Black seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to recommend that Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of May 20.1998. L. Blaek seconded the motion. Committee aR rr� oved the motion (7-01_ to gporove the Summary of Finding of May 20. 1998. M. Mylott abstained. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 27, 109h Page 3 04 Adjournment The meeting adjoumed at 3:35 p.m. submitted, Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Planned SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 27, 1998 Pape 4 of 4 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE May 20, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, J. Wolinski, J. Tonkinson, P. D'Agostino, H. FreidmanjD. Marino, L. Black, C. Smith Members Absent: J. Aiello, M. Mylott, K. Kelly, J. Glus, D. Jennings Other Staff Present: R. Schur, L. Lyon Commencement A. Alterson determined a quorum and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 98-0023 927 Noyes Street Prdhninary_andFlnal Proposal for air conditioner unit in rear of building. Preservation approved the proposal. There are no zoning issues. Question arose as to objection of the neighbors to the west and the fact there is no real public alley. Answer was negative and stated that Facilities Management recommended the location of the unit. The unit is 3' 9" by 3' 2-5116" and 3-112 feet tall. Regarding the noise issue; it was stated that the unit has one condenser fan and is no larger than a residential unit. The placement will be more than 10 feet from the property line. The Committee moved and seconded to unanimously approve the proposal. 52AAABr. 2 -0054 747 Ridge Avenue 11005-1015 Madison) Preliminary_ Proposal for exterior changes to 1950's, 24 unit or 3-8 unit buildings. The applicant submitted required awning information. The Committee was shown photos of the project. It was noted that the air conditioner unit holes are already in place, although the permit hsas not been issued. The units are heated using fan coil units. it was determine.,; o l modifying the fan coil units to also do the air-conditioning would not be practical si, �►, instance. The Committee noted that it was unfortunate to have the brick punched for tl.'l units, although Mr. Alterson stated this was better than having window units throughput the building. The applicant showed site plan, canopy {awning} drawings, elevation drawings and P. D'Agostino reviewed the landscape plan. The awnings will be 3 dark green, translucent vinyl with steel frames. The Committee unanimously app, proposal for the thru-wall air -conditioner units.. SPAARC 98-0038 600 Culler Avenue Applicant cancelled. Summary of Findinas of Minutes_of-May 13. 1998 The Committee moved and seconded approval, subject to the following changes: Linda Black stated that the second page, second line: 1501 Sherman Avenue, shnl. "Linda Black requested to keep as many opening as possible in the garage, since some will be closed by the ramp." Also, the third paragraph reads..."will need accurate measurement for a lease agreement... should read -.license agreement...." It should also be stated that J. Tonkinson disagrees with this because the ramp should not be on the right-of-way. Hecomrmendations to Sign Board J. Wolinski stated that the Committee is never made aware of the results of the Sign Board items which had come to the Committee for review, but the results should be communicated. C. Smith gave the summary of the Sign Board findings from the May 14, 1998 meeting and they may be reviewed in the minutes of the Sign Board Meeting in Carolyn Smith's office. Off -agenda Item- Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance Arthur Alterson presented a discussion for the information of the Committee regarding the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance. Regarding Starbucks at 524 Dempster, the Committee technically approved the request at the SPARC meeting but zoning denied the request due to the 200 foot distance issue near residences. Much discussion ensued regarding the distance requirement near residential district and that City Council should be final authority. More discussion was had regarding the suggestion to drop the distance requirement of the Ordinance. The Committee then moved and seconded, with one opposition by J. Tonkinson to keep the 200 foot requirement near residences, exception being by the approval of City Council. Submitted by ,. Jo nn Minear, Division Secretary 4r- Date M SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 3, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, J. Glus, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. M. Robinson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0057 1 655 Foster Street Concept Monopole for PCS antenna (Sprint) at Fleetwood Jourdain. Bob Stapleton (Site Acquisition Consultants) and Jerry Fisher presented working drawings (including a site plan and an equipment -area plan and elevation) and site and area photographs for a monopole for a PCS antenna for Sprint, located at the Fleetwood Jourdain baseball field at 1655 Foster Street. Charles and Ed Stapleton were available to answer questions. B. Stapleton stated that this site is the fourth Sprint PCS site within the City; Sprint has PCS facilities at two City standpipes and one PCS facility on top of the multi -family building located at 816 Hinman Avenue. B. Stapleton stated that this proposal includes removing an existing light standard and replacing that standard with the monopole; the lights would be remounted to the monopole. B. Stapleton stated that the PCS facility would also include a 20-foot by 30-foot equipment area, housing radio and telephone equipment and other utility connections; all utilities would be underground. B. Stapleton stated that the equipment area would be enclosed by a 7-foot wood fence covered with ivy, which surrounds a chainlink fence. J. Fisher stated that, contrary to the plans, the monopole does not have to be within the fenced equipment area. C. Smith asked B. Stapleton. what is the height of the monopole? B. Stapleton responded approximately 83 feet. D. Marino asked P. D'Agostino: what is the height of the existing light standard? P. D'Agostino responded approximately 60 feet, including the base. A. Alterson asked B. Stapleton: does the equipment area include a shed? B. Stapleton responded no, and stated that all equipment is maintained within individual cabinets raised on platforms. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 3, 1999 Page 1 of 7 In 1k M. Mylott stated that the plans depict barbed wire on top of the chainlink fence. J. Fisher stated that the barbed wire Is not a requirement of Sprint; they will Install or not install the barbed wire at the direction of the City. J. Fisher stated that, if the barbed wire remains, the wood fence will prevent if from being seen. A. Alterson asked J. Fisher, does any equipment pose an electrical or other hazard to anyone gaining access to the equipment area? J. Fisher responded no, and stated that the desire to keep persons out is to protect the approximately $250,000 worth of equipment. A. Alterson asked B. Stapleton: is vehicular access to the site required once construction is completed? B. Stapleton responded no, and stated that all maintenance, even to the antenna mounted to monopole, will be conducted by a technician without bringing a vehicle on City property. B. Stapleton stated that the monopole will not have climbing rungs; technicians have personal climbing devices using safety lines. J. Tonkinson stated that Sprint should be aware that electrical union 109 conducts outside electrical work, and electrical union 134 conducts interior work. M. Robinson asked J. Fisher what happens if foul balls are hit into the equipment area? J. Fisher stated that Sprint will investigate placing a sloped net over the equipment area; however, the height must permit adequate headroom within the equipment area. D. Marino asked B. Stapleton: why did Sprint chose this site? B. Stapleton responded that this site fills a hole in the Sprint PCS system. B. Stapleton stated that Sprint had discussed with Northwestern University placing a panel antenna on the completed Ryan Field for approximately 6 months; however, due to "access nightmares" with an earlier carrier, Northwestern University was not interested in adding a second carrier. B. Stapleton stated that Northwestern University was also not willing to provide Sprint with a long enough term within the lease agreement to justify the up -front installation costs. J. Wolinski asked B. Stapleton: were the concerns of area neighbors an issue considered by Northwestern University in the decision not to permit the panel antenna? B. Stapleton responded that neighborhood concerns were never mentioned to him. M. Mylott asked B. Stapleton: if the antenna was placed on Ryan Field, would the monopole be necessary at Fleetwood Jourdain? B. Stapleton responded no. B. Stapleton stated that Fleetwood Jourdain was mentioned as a possible site during discussions about using the Ecology Center as a site. D. Marino asked A. Alterson: does the City have any other monopoles this close to single-family homes? A. Alterson responded not to his knowledge. C. Smith asked P, D'Agostino. is any other location at Fleetwood Jourdain feasible? P. D'Agostino responded no, and stated no other location works from a Parks Department perspective. M. Mylott stated that he is having trouble determining where the equipment area will be located; Sprint should provide a site plan that includes more reference points for future Committee consideration. D. Marino motioned to deny the concept plan. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he is not ready to vote to deny this application, but he requires more information. A. Alterson stated that Sprint should address the following: Approximately 2 years ago, the Committee denied an application for a monopole at the comer of Green Bay Road and Central Street, because of neighborhood opposition. Why should a monopole be located in a public park within the 5th Ward if a monopole was not appropriate along Central Street? This Committee is charged with ameliorating possible negative secondary impacts from such a facility, and Sprint must show more sensitivity to incorporating this facility into the exiting fabric of the park. Could the equipment area be underground? Can the facility, or even the monopole, take design "clues" from the recently completed Faith Temple? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 3, 1998 Page 2 of 7 W a 2. Sprint should sponsor a program at Fleetwood Jourdain to provide benefits back to the neighbors immediately 'saddled with the burden" of this monopole; Sprint should provide $1,250 per month for such a program(s), paid as a lump sum annually during the length of the lease agreement. 3. What are the possibilities of co -location on this monopole? 4. Who is responsible for removing all items associated with this facility at the conclusion of its useful life? 5. Are Sprint's insurance provisions adequate to cover any incident(s) that could occur at the facility? 6. Sprint should repaint the base of all the light poles at Fleetwood Jourdain. B. Stapleton stated that the preliminary rent being discussed with the City is $1,400 per month, and the monopole will permit co -location. M. Mylott asked B. Stapleton: how much would Sprint receive in rent from another carrier if another carrier co - located on Sprint's monopole? B. Stapleton responded that a number of site -specific factors are included in that calculation. M. Mylott asked B. Stapleton: how much does Sprint pay to co -locate at other facilities? B. Stapleton responded that Sprint pays approximately $1,000 to co -locate on Ameritech's monopole in Wilmette. A. Alterson asked B. Stapleton: would the arrangement at Fleetwood Jourdain find Sprint owning the monopole and charging rent to other carriers? B. Stapleton responded yes, and stated that the City would have to negotiate a land lease with the other carriers as they cannot use Sprint's equipment area. P. D'Agostino stated that all the parties involved in the lease agreement to date, including Alderman Kent, have stipulated that any income received from this lease agreement goes to Fleetwood Jourdain. A. Alterson stated that the amount of rent being discussed for this monopole sounds very similar to that amount charged for panel antennas on standpipes, and a monopole creates a greater land use impact that must be offset in some fashion. J. Tonkinson asked B. Stapleton: what is the diameter of the base of the monopole? B. Stapleton responded approximately 5 feet. J. Tonkinson asked P. D'Agosbno: what is the diameter of the base of the existing light standard? P. D'Agosbno responded approximately 10 to 12 inches. C. Smith asked B. Stapleton: does this antenna complete the network? B. Stapleton responded no. Qommittee denied the motion (2 j to deny the concept plan. A. Alterson motioned to table this item. M Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-21 to table this itggt. A copy of the working drawings and site and area photographs has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0057). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMn-rEE June 3, 1998 Page 3 of 7 Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Handout regarding lease agreements with cellular and PCS providers. M. Mylott distributed a copy of Renting Municipal Property. A Cellular and PCS Telecommunicaitons Lease Primer to each present Committee member. SPAARC 98-0035 1501 Sherman Avenue Revision to Concept Exterior alterations to hotel (Holiday Inn). Mr. Tracy Chen (architect) presented a site plan, first -floor floor plan, color south and west elevations, and photographs of remodeled hotels, showing grills along the entire length of the bottom of window units, for exterior alterations to the Holiday Inn hotel located at 1501 Sherman Avenue. T. Chen stated that the revisions attempt to preserve more of the existing building, by: 1. Placing grills along the bottom 3 panels of each window unit, but keeping the upper 3 panels of each window unit as glass. 2. Removing a vertical grill from the tower, and installing a triangular piece of tinted vision glass. The glass will be illuminated from the inside. 3. Removing the 4-inch face brick, and installing storefront window systems and concrete block to mimic the existing ribbed cast -in -place concrete. Some windows may open, depending on the function of the associated interior space. 4. Installing a sloped, see -through canopy with metal (possibly copper) cladding. 5. Cladding the columns in metal (possibly copper). 6. Removing the 90-degree comer (at Sherman Avenue and Lake Street), and installing a curved glass feature for a coffee shop or deli. C. Smith asked T. Chen will the grill be infront of, or replace, the existing glass? T. Chen responded that that detail has not yet been resolved. C. Smith stated that she would not like to see the light source from the vision glass feature on the tower. T. Chen stated that those details have not yet been resolved. D. Marino motioned to approve the revision to the concept. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Tonkinson stated that the property owner or his/her agent must provide the following information before Engineering can make a recommendation on the license agreement for the Lake Street entrance: all grades (existing and final) and an exact legal description, prepared by a surveyor. C. Smith stated T. Chen should work with J. Tonkinson and D. Jennings on this next step. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 3. 1998 Page 4 of 7 .J J. Tonkinson stated that the vision glass feature on the tower may encroach on the right-of-way, provided it conforms to the Building Code. H. Friedman stated that he liked the storefront window system; however, the existing brick should remain as it does not conflict with the rest of the building. T. Chen stated that that modification is acceptable, and it would work nicely with the copper cladding. C. Smith stated that the sign on the south elevation will probably require a variation from the Sign Review and Appeals Board, D. Jennings asked T. Chen: what are the plans for the dumpster? T. Chen responded that it will be covered with an overhead door. C. Smith stated that T. Chen should review the ventilation requirements of the Building Code. M. Mylott stated that he appreciated Holiday Inn's willingness to revise the plans to accomodate Committee concerns. H. Friedman agreed, and stated that the plans are a vast improvement. C. Smith agreed. Committee approved the motion f8-0j to approve the revi§ion to the concept. A copy of the south and west elevations has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0035). SPAARC 98-0058 1458 Sherman Avenue Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Application for Sidewalk Cafe (Old Orleans). Mr. Chales Murray presented an application and dishware for a sidewalk cafe for Old Orleans located at 1458 Sherman Avenue. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established in the Type II Restaurant Sidewalk Cafe Review form; C. Murray responded that Old Orleans will comply with all requirements, and Old Orleans will not request the waiver to permit disposable beverage containers. C. Murray stated that persons ordering 'to go' cannot use the sidewalk cafe. A. Alterson asked C. Murray: how does Old Orleans deal with loitering? C. Murray responded that a representative of Old Orleans will monitor the area and ask non -customers to leave. A. Alterson stated that Old Orleans is only "marginally" a Type 2 Restaurant; the majority of business is conducted as a Type 1 Restaurant, but Tommy Nevins' lease prohibited a Type 1 Restaurant at 1458 Sherman Avenue. A. Alterson motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the application far sidewalk cafe of Old Orleans. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee apgroyed the motion l8-0l to recommend that the City Council approve the application for sidewalk cafe of Old Orleans, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 3, 1996 Page 5 of 7 SPAARC 91-0074 2201 Howard Street Revision to Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Parking area within Evanston Center. A. Alterson stated that he, J. Wolinski, D. Jennings, Alderperson Ann Rainey, Mr. James Kartheiser (TBS Development Services Group), Mr. Forrest Russell (Target), Mr. William Grieve (Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc.), Mr. Robert Brown (American Stores Properties, Inc.), and Mr. Donald G. Aylward (Jewel Osco) met at 2201 Howard Street to discuss safety concerns with the layout of the parking area. D. Jennings stated that his records show approximately 1 accident occurs at this address per week. D. Jennings stated that the appropriate parties have agreed to install (1) curbed landscaped medians along approximately every third or fourth row, (2) curbed landscaped islands where painted 'islands' exist (approximately 8), and (3) 2 curbed landscaped islands (each approximately 3 parking spaces large) where the 2 eastern most entrances turn into the parking area. D. Jennings stated that the landscaped medians will include a slight berm, and all plant material will be chosen in accordance with existing plant material. J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the revision to the preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: P. D'Agostino stated that the landscaped medians should be 4 feet wide. D. Jennings stated that he told the appropriate parties that the medians should be 4 feet wide, and they should contact P. D'Agostino to receive a recommendation on salt - tolerant plants. A. Alterson stated that he would like to applaud Alderman Rainey for bringing together the necessary players to solve a dangerous situation. Committee approved the motion f8-0) to approve the revision to the oreliminary and -final site plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0055 Recommendation to City Council OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance. A. Alterson stated that Alderperson Wynne has requested that Staff consider modifying the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance to (1) create a mechanism, similar to that required of a Type 2 Restaurant, by which specified uses could have a sidewalk cafe within 200 feet of residential property, and (2) add additional types of uses that may have a sidewalk cafe. A. Alterson distributed a draft version of an ordinance accomplishing the above - stated objective. J. Tonkinson motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion.tMl to recommend that the City Council approve the Zgposed_amendment to the Sid@walk Cafe Ordinance. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 3, 1998 Page 6 or 7 Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Information regarding bicycle parking requirements. A. Alterson stated that he attended a bicycle presentation by CATS last Friday, and he would like to remind the Committee that the Zoning Ordinance gives the Committee purview over determining bicycle parking requirements in certain instances. C. Smith stated that Committee members should attempt to Incorporate this consideration, as well as linking bicycle paths, during their day-to-day duties, A. Alterson stated that he will be preparing packets of information from this conference for Committee members. Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Handout regarding crime and the physical environment. M. Mylott distributed a copy of Physical Environment and Crime, prepared by the National Institute of Justice, to each present Committee member. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of May 27, 1998. J. Wolinsk seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (8-01 to annrove the Summarv_of Finding of May 27, 1998. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning dune �r 89d. Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 3, 1998 Pape 7 of 7 r a SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 10, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, K. Kelly, J. Glus, D. Jennings. H. Friedman. M. Robinson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings A. Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June 3, 1998. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: P. D'Agostino stated that the last sentence of the fourth paragraph for SPAARC 98- 0057 (1655 Foster Street, page 1) should read, "P. D'Agostino responded approximately 50 feet, plus the height of the standard.". A. Alterson modified his motion as such: approve the Summary of Findings of June 3, 1998, provided the last sentence of the fourth paragraph for SPAARC 98-0057 (1655 Foster Street, page 1) reads, T. D'Agostino responded approximately 50 feet, plus the height of the standard.". J. Tonkinson amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee api2mved the motion (7-0} to-aaarove the Summary of Findipgsof June 3.1998. provided the last sentence of the fourth Daraoraoh for SPAARC 98-0057 f 1655 Foster StreeLj age 11 reads. T. Q'6aQslino responded anoroximatelyJ0 feet. DIUS the heiaht of the standarC. L. Black abstained. SPAARC 98-0060 Howard Street Preliminary and Final Landscaping and beautification for Howard Street corridor. Lisa Lyon presented a site plan, landscaping plan, and corridor photographs for landscaping and beautification of the Howard Street corridor. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 10. 1998 Page 1 of 3 L. Lyon stated that this project implements the proposal approved by the Economic Development Committee and City Council for the Neighborhood Business District Improvement Program. L. Lyon stated that the proposal includes parkway planters, storefront planters, banners, and window coverings for vacant storefronts; the Immediate presentation is for the parkway planters and storefront planters. L. Lyon stated that the parkway planters will be located at the Elmwood Avenue and Clyde Avenue intersections with Howard Street, encompass an area approximately 6 feet by 10 feet, and be delineated by 4-inch by 4-inch timber edging, approximately 4 inches above grade. L. Lyon stated that these areas will be maintained by a volunteer group of the Howard Street Redevelopment Committee, overseen by the Community Development Department. J. Tonkinson stated that a planting permit will be required. J. Tonkinson asked L. Lyon: who is responsible for the parkway planters? L. Lyon responded the Community Development Department. J. Wolinski agreed. L. Lyon stated that the storefront planters are available to merchants upon reservation. J. Tonkinson asked L. Lyon: who will apply for the necessary permits, if the planter is within the right-of-way? L. Lyon responded that she will act as the liaison for the merchants. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review, subject to receipt of the necessary permits. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion f8-11 to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. subiect to receipt of the necessa permits. A copy of the site plan and landscaping plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0060). SPAARC 98-0059 2426 Simpson Street Preliminary and Final Review single-family house per condition of variation. Mr. Vic Freise presented working drawings for a proposed single-family residence located at 2426 Simpson Street. A. Alterson stated that this proposal has received a variation from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and mandatory Committee review of the site plan and appearance was a condition of that grant. V. Freise stated that this plan is similar to the plan of the new house at 2430 Simpson Street, except that the front elevations are slightly different and this plan will have a porte-co-chere. A. Alterson asked V. Freise: does the property have a garage? V. Freise responded yes, and stated that the garage is detached and located at the rear of the property. H. Friedman asked V. Freise: is the siding vinyl? V. Freise responded no, and stated that the siding is wood. J. Tonkinson stated that V. Freise will require a driveway permit. V. Freise stated he has received a driveway permit. C. Smith asked V. Freise: how does the height of this house compare with the house at 2430 Simpson Street? V. Freise responded that this house is approximately 6 inches lower, mostly because this property slopes down from the property at 2430 Simpson Street, M. Mylott asked V. Freise: do the proposed setbacks conform with the requirements of the ZBA grant of variation? V. Freise responded yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 10. 1998 Page 2 of 3 e r C. Smith stated that the rear skylights are awkward. V. Fmise stated that the skylights are arranged as such to provide a usable area on the 3rd ttoor. C. Smith asked V. Frelse: will the window treatment be as indicated on the plans? V. Freise responded that he is not sure at this time. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee agprove the motion_(M) to grant nrellminary and final site plan and appearance review_ approval. A copy of the working drawings has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0059). Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. y submitted, .. 11101111� , ". I ]..[..,I I Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Juno 10, 19W Page 3 of 3 06 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 17, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, J. Glus, H. Hickey (for D. Jennings), K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 97-0035 12014205 Dodge Avenue Revision to Final Dodge Avenue elevation and landscaping plan for 12 town houses on vacant lot. Mr. Martin Sass (architect) and Mr. Bob Horner (property owner) presented a Dodge Avenue elevation and a landscaping plan for 12 town houses located at 1201-1205 Dodge Avenue. A. Alterson presented the Zoning Board of Appeals conditions of grant of variation for 1201-1205 Dodge Avenue, and stated that the proposed revisions attempt to satisfy some these conditions. C. Smith stated that, due to the absence of D. Jennings and P D'Agostino, she would like to concentrate this Committee review on the condition regarding the Dodge Avenue elevation; the developer should work with D. Jennings and P. D'Agostino on satisfying the respective traffic, parking, and landscaping conditions. M. Mylott stated that he liked the landscaping plan. M. Mylott asked M. Sass: how high is the Dodge Avenue berm? M. Sass responded: between 2 and 3 feet; the final height will depend on site excavation. C. Smith stated that the berm will contribute to the calculations required for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit application. B. Horner stated that the landscape architect must add some parkway trees to the landscaping plan C. Smith stated that she recommends the architect use recessed lights under each porch. D. Marino motioned to approve the revision to the final approval, subject to review and approval of the landscaping plan by P. D'Agostino, and review and approval of the parking and traffic by D. Jennings. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee armroved the motion (7-0) to approve the revision to the fMgi SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 17, 1998 Page 1 of 7 sk _-A1� • _1 ,- _ 1 �� �'1l• .!� c •.l� ���� Acopy of )he site plan and landscaping plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0035). SPAARC 98-0019 1825 Central Street Preliminary 7 attached single-family dwellings. Mr. Ryan Nestor presented a site plan, floor plans, and elevations for 7 attached single-family dwelling units located at 1825 Central Street. R. Nestor stated that the property is currently zoned 82; the project will require a rezoning to R5 as well as variations for setbacks and lot coverage. R. Nestor stated that the plans reviewed against the Zoning Ordinance show a fence that is no longer proposed. R. Nestor stated that the elevations have been altered to provide a better presence along Broadway Avenue, and all vehicular access is to Poplar Avenue; the roof decks are private spaces for the respective units. C. Smith asked R. Nestor: will the buildings be sprinkled? R. Nestor responded: yes. D. Marino asked R. Nestor: what building materials will be used? R, Nestor responded: the base course will be ground -face concrete block of varying heights; the remaining facade will be brick and wood siding. C. Smith asked R. Nestor: what size brick will you use? R. Nestor responded: standard size. R. Nestor stated that the brick may include 2 to 3 similar -toned colors. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor: will the property owner immediately north, also zoned B2, be joining the petition to rezone? R. Nestor responded: not at this time; however, the developer is working with that person and intends to involve the ward alderman in the discussion. A. Alterson stated that he recommends the developer start talking with all neighbors about the project before the rezoning and variation process. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor: what are the intentions for the Broadway Avenue, Poplar Avenue, and Central Street comer? R. Nestor responded: the developer is still considering the best way to address that important corner; he is considering something civic -minded but must also consider liability. C. Smith asked the Committee: is anyone concerned about the number of driveways interrupting the sidewalk? D. Marino responded: generally yes; however, in this specific instance, given the location, no. H. Hickey responded: no, the traffic volumes will be low. H. Hickey stated that any landscaping in the right-of-way must be kept low. H. Hickey asked R. Nestor: how do you intend to treat the sidewalk along the driveways? R. Nestor responded: use a different material for the driveway, such that the sidewalk is presented as one continuous and separate element. C. Ruiz stated that the architect should consider using gables along all the roofs to better capture the character of row houses. C. Ruiz stated the architect should be leery of using too many colors of brick, and the colors must be compatible. M. Mylott stated that the architect may consider using the different shades of brick on different units to further the row house character. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 17. 1998 a► Page 2 of 7 C. Smith stated that she discourages the use of any concrete block, because this material was never intended to be a finish material; the architect should consider limestone a more appropriate building material for a building in such a prominent location. D. Marino agreed. H. Hickey asked R. Nestor, what is the distance from the north lot line to the southern most driveway? R. Nestor responded: approximately 135 feet. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor: to what street is the house to the north oriented? R. Nestor responded: Poplar Avenue. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J. Glus seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-0) tg grant oreliminaap( site plan and appearance review aooroval. A copy of the site plan, floor plans, and elevations has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0019). SPAARC 98-0057 1655 Foster Street Preliminary and Final Sprint antenna at Fleetwood Jourdain. Mr. Robert Stapleton presented a site plan, elevation, and photograph of the Fleetwood Jourdain Center for a Sprint antenna at the Fleetwood Jourdain Center located at 1655 Foster Street. Mr. Charles Stapleton, Mr. Edmund Stapleton, and Ms. Deborah 6arett (Sprint) were available to answer questions. R. Stapleton staled that the plans have been revised such that: 1. The equipment would be moved to the top of the Fleetwood Jourdain Center, enclosed on all sides by a slated chainlink fence. The color of the slats would match the existing brick. Access to the equipment would be via a ladder with a lockable anti -climbing device; access to the building is not required. 2. The monopole would replace the light standard immediately north of the building, Sprint will use the smallest monopole (diameter) as possible. 3. All utility lines between the equipment and the monopole would be underneath the service road. 4. Sprint will have all the light standards sandblasted and repainted by a contractor of the City's choice. R. Stapleton stated that their structural engineer has confirmed 2 load -bearing walls are available to support the weight of the equipment — approximately 6,600 pounds. R. Stapleton stated that the rent being discussed is $1.400 per month, with a 4 percent annual escalator, over a 25-year agreement. M. Mylott asked R. Stapleton: does fencing surround the monopole? R. Stapleton responded: no. C. Smith asked R. Stapleton: is the height of the monopole still approximately 83 feet? R. Stapleton responded: yes. A. Alterson asked R. Stapleton: how much taller than the existing light standard will the monopole be? R. Stapleton responded: approximately 25 feet. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 17, 1998 Page 3 of 7 M. Mylott asked R. Stapleton: to what diameter has the monopole been reduced? R. Stapleton responded: between 36 to 40 inches, decreasing as the height increases. R. Stapleton stated that Sprint must conduct a soil test to confirm the final diameter of the monopole and size of the foundation. M. Mylott stated that he had visited the site, and a slated chainlink enclosure would be visually distracting. M. Mylott stated that the architect should consider a device that appeared more intentional rather than an after thought, such as a brick enclosure. R. Stapleton stated that the weight would exceed the amount the walls can support. C. Smith disagreed, and stated that such a configuration could work. A. Alterson stated that he too would like to see an enclosure that better matched the existing building. C. Smith stated that, as an alternative to brick, a metal penthouse would more reflect the building's character than a chainlink enclosure. R. Stapleton stated that Sprint liked having open-air enclosures. C. Smith stated that Sprint needs to devise a more architecturally sympathetic solution. M. Mylott agreed. A. Alterson asked R. Stapleton: can Sprint locate the equipment in the existing air conditioning enclosure? R. Stapleton responded: no, that location does not provide sufficient room and is too far from the power supply and antenna. C. Smith asked R. Stapleton: what happens if Sprint abandons the facility within 25 years or at the end of the lease? R. Stapleton responded: Sprint removes all cables, equipment, and antennas and cuts and caps the monopole to match the height of the other park light standards. C. Smith stated that the cuts to the roof, required to install the support beams, may void the roof warranty; the City may require Sprint to guarantee the roof against leaks stemming from installation of its equipment. R. Stapleton stated that Sprint would work with the Parks Department roofing contractor to ensure everything is reflashed and resealed; also, the insurance requirements established via the lease agreement would contain sufficient language to cover such an incident. A. Alterson asked R. Stapleton: does Sprint have any problems with colocation? R. Stapleton responded: not in theory; however, the thinner the Committee requests the monopole to be, the fewer additional vendors may colocate thereon. H. Hickey asked R. Stapleton: how small (diameter) could the monopole be at the base, if no other vendors colocated on it? R. Stapleton responded: approximately 24 inches. C. Smith stated that she would like to include the following condition with any approval: any future vendors proposing to colocate on the Sprint monopole, or any changes to the Sprint configuration as approved, must first receive Committee approval. A. Alterson asked R. Stapleton: who would receive the revenue from a vendor that the City permitted to colocate on the Sprint monopole? R. Stapleton responded: the City would receive whatever revenue it negotiated via a lease for an area in which the necessary equipment would be stored (as Sprint has an exclusive lease for its equipment area), and Sprint would receive whatever revenue it negotiated via a lease for space on the monopole. A. Alterson stated that, while the Telecommunications Act of 1996 generally requires municipalities to assist vendors in establishing their networks, it does not require municipalities to assist vendors in being in the business of renting space on their monopoles; in fact, such action is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance, especially the Open Space District. A. Alterson stated that he has a problem with a vendor profiting from a monopole on public property, and all revenues generated from this monopole should go to the City. R. Stapleton stated that some colocation agreements are non -revenue based; two vendors may simply agree to colocate on each others monopole A. Alterson asked R. Stapleton: what is Sprint's response to contributing $1,500 a month, in addition to rent, to sponsor an event or program at the Fleetwood Jourdain Center? R. Stapleton responded: he cannot say that Sprint would do that; it could become cost prohibitive. A. Alterson asked R. Stapleton: what is the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS !C" SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE `/h' June 17. 1998 a Page 4 of 7 distance between antenna sites? R. Stapleton responded: approximately 1 % miles. A. Alterson stated that he finds it hard to believe that $1,500 a month would be cost prohibitive to a company that was spending approximately $250,000 for hardware alone, per site, every I % miles. J. Glus motioned to grant preliminary approval, subject to additional discussion between Sprint and the Parks Department regarding colocation and program sponsorship. K. Kelly seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he cannot support the motion, because this review is the only review of this proposal before the lease proceeds to City Council for approval; this application should not move until all issues are resolved. A. Alterson stated that he would like to remind the Committee that it denied an application for a monopole to be located on the north side of the City within the past 2 years; he does not want the neighborhoods of the 5th Ward to be considered a dumping ground for whatever uses the north side of Evanston does not want. J. Glus stated that he does not believe the subject of program sponsorship is appropriate for the Committee. Committee failed to aporave the motion (3-3) tQ grant.nreliminary approval, subiect to additional discussion between Sprint and the Parks Department regardina colocation and progrAm sponsorship. A. Alterson motioned to table this item. M. Mylotit seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith asked R. Stapleton: when did Sprint want to start construction? R. Stapleton stated that Sprint wants to have its network on-line by October 15, 1998. M. Mylott asked R. Stapleton: did you inform the Committee during your last appearance that Sprint required 2 more sites within Evanston? R. Stapleton responded: no, this site is the last site Sprint requires within Evanston. R. Stapleton asked the Committee: is the request for program sponsorship the first "impact fee" it has ever required? A. Alterson responded: this monopole is only the second such proposal the Committee had reviewed in his experience. C. Smith responded: the Committee also recommends fees to the Sign Review and Appeals Board. R. Stapleton stated that the average monthly rent paid by cellular or PCS providers within the Chicagoland region is $850 per month. Sprint is paying $1,000 and S1,100 per month for the facilities on the City standpipes. A. Alterson stated that Evanston has higher land values and rents than the average figures for the Chicagoland region. Committee approved the motion (fi-Q) to table this item. A copy of the site plan, elevation, and photograph of the Fleetwood Jourdain Center has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98=0057). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 17, 1998 Page 5 of 7 SPAARC 97-0051 1454 Elmwood Avenue Concept Remodel building and reconfigure parking area for Police and Fins Stations. Mr. Frank Kassen (Facilities Management), Mr. Gordon Crabtree (architect), Ms. Brenda Bush -Moline (architect), and Mr. Elliott Dudnik (architect) presented a site plan to remodel the buildings containing, and reconfigure the parking area for, the Police and Fire Stations located at 1454 Elmwood Avenue. G. Crabtree stated that the scope of work includes: Converting the Fire Department's truck bays to office space, and remodeling the south facade. 2. Remodeling the second floor office space for the Police Department. 3. Razing the training tower, and erecting a screen wall for the emergency generator and trash. 4. Filling an undeveloped L-shaped area at the rear of the buildings with one story plus a basement. 5. Restriping the parking area to provide accessible parking spaces as close to the accessible entrance(s) as possible. G. Crabtree stated that he calculated the required parking as if the building was constructed new; the Zoning Ordinance would require 124 parking spaces, including 5 accessible parking spaces. G. Crabtree stated that the Fire Department and Police Department are serviced by 129 parking spaces in the immediate area, plus additional parking in the basement. A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Ordinance exempts this proposal from zoning review because it is a municipal building. C. Smith asked the applicants: where do visitors park? E. Dudnik responded: 30-minute parking spaces are available on the west side of Elmwood Avenue. F. Kassen stated that he was told by the Traffic Engineer that 90-degree parking spaces on the south side of both buildings (north side of Lake Street) was unacceptable. C. Smith stated F. Kassen should work with D. Jennings to determine if accessible parking spaces can be provided on the west side of Elmwood Avenue, C. Smith stated that the Committee can provide more feedback on the remodeling once it has sketches to review. C. Smith stated that whatever is proposed should be done with compatible materials and in the same style as the building. C. Ruiz stated the architects should try to maximize the existing openings as a historical perspective. C. Smith stated that the architects may have an opportunity to provide landscaping along Lake Street. A. Alterson asked F Kassen: does the facility have bicycle parking? F Kassen responded: at one time; the bicycle rack can be put back. A. Alterson asked J. Glus: does this development trigger the requirement for public art? J. Glus responded: no. M. Mylott motioned to table this item. J. Glus seconded the motion. Com ittee aoaroved the motion { to table this item. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 17, 1998 a► Page 6 of 7 SPAARC 98-0045 1007 Church Street Construct 49-space parking area for office building (Shand Morahand). Final Mr. Nick Haritos presented working drawings (including a landscaping plan) for a 49-space parking area for the Shand Morahand office building located at 1007 Church Street. A. Alterson asked N. Haritos: was the office building constructed as part of a PUD? N. Haritos responded: he did not believe so. A. Alterson stated that such a land use control could affect what can be done on this green space. M. Mylott stated that P. D'Agostino has reviewed the landscaping plan and offers the following comments: 6. The height of the shrubs along Oak Street must be maintained at 36 inches, especially the Peking Cotoneaster. 7. Relocation of the street trees requires that the landscape architect submit a permit to his office. S. The landscape architect must submit a detail of the new planting pits for the new street trees. 9. The applicant is responsible for installing sidewalk where planting pits are removed. M. Mylott stated that, after visiting the site, he believes retaining walls will be necessary along the east side of the parking area, given the significant grade change; he is concerned that the existing trees, shown to be preserved, will not survive if the grade of the embankment is altered to meet the grade of the parking area at a common curb. M. Mylott asked N. Haritos: what material will you use for the retaining walls? N. Haritos responded: concrete. C. Smith stated that N. Haritos should use limestone or flagstone. N. Haritos stated he would use limestone or flagstone for any retaining walls. M. Mylott motioned to grant final approval, provided (1) P. D'Agostino reviews a grading plan and associated tree protection measures; (2) the applicant replace in -kind any existing trees, shown to be preserved on the landscape plan, that die within 2 years of issuance of the final certificate of occupancy; and (3) the applicant switch the entrance and exits, such that traffic enters on the south side of the parking area and exits on the north side of the parking area. J. Glus seconded the motion. Qgmmittee aonroved the motLgn to arant final ageprovided (1) P D'Aaostino reviews a aradina clan and associated tree orotection measures: ( ) the aooticant replace in -kind anv existing trees. shown to be oreserved on the landscape clan. that die within Z vears of issuance of the final certificate of occupancv: and Q the applicant switch the entrance and exits, 5Ach that traffic enters on the south side of the narking area and exits on the north side of the oarkinq area. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5 20 p.m 1 R 4ectfully submi d Marc Steven Mylott, Zoni P nner 4uno22,199g Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 17, 1998 Page 7 of 7 r- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 24, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present; Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement A. Alterson, L. Black, J. Glus, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, C. Ruiz. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 98-0061 Dempster Street Preliminary Landscaping and directional signage for Dempster Street corridor. Ms. Constance Fisher (Dempster Street Merchants) presented a site plan, associated descriptions, planter specifications, and area photographs for landscaping and directional signage for the Dempster Street Merchants. C. Fisher stated that the main goal of this project is beautification and neighborhood unification; the proposal includes planters throughout the business district and welcome and directional signs. C. Fisher stated that she is aware that the City needs to review specific proposals for planters in the right-of-way: in some instances, the planters may be on private property. C. Fisher stated that the planters will be approximately 36 inches high; however, some planters may contain poles with signs. C. Smith stated that C. Fisher should begin working with her and D. Jennings; the Sign Ordinance does not cover this specific proposal. C Fisher stated that the planters at the "El* tracks already exist. C Fisher stated that the planter specifications are only examples of the Dempster Street Merchants' intent; they are still considering options C Fisher stated that some signage may be placed on prvate property, but she and the respective merchant(s) must consider the hi -nits that such a decision may impose on the respective merchant(s). D Marino asked C Fisher what Is the time frame for this project? C Fisher responded: as soon as possible. SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 24, 1998 Page 1 of 5 M. Mylott asked C. Fisher: is this proposal only for welcome and directional signs, or do you intend to prepare a cohesive sign plan for the merchants' store signs? C. Fisher responded: the proposal is only for welcome and directional signs, C. Smith stated that the Dempster Street Merchants should consider the newsstand arrangement within Downtown (Clark Street and Sherman Avenue) as one way to reduce the visual clutter of heterogenous newsstands. L. Slack stated that the design approach should not provide an opportunity for someone to hide behind the arrangement. C. Smith stated that she supports this initiative. J. Wolinski motioned to grant concept approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion t9-O) to orant concept aaoroval. A copy of the site plan, associated descriptions, and planter specifications has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0061), SPAARC 98-0062 2122 Sheridan Road Concept 2-story addition for faculty offices and book storage at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. Mr. Richard Monastera (architect), Mr. Jim Louthen (architect), and Mr. Tom Ennis (engineer) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, landscaping plan, plat of survey, and site and area photographs for an addition to the Seabury-Western Theological Seminary located at 2122 Sheridan Road, R. Monastera stated that the 30-foot by 50-foot addition will join 2 landmarks -- Wheeler Hall and Junkin. R. Monastera stated that the addition is 2 stories high plus a basement: the basement will contain book storage; the first floor will contain a reception area, copy room, and offices; and the second floor will contain offices. R. Monastera stated that the addition will contain an elevator, making the 2 buildings accessible from the north and south sides; the north side will have a gradually sloping sidewalk, and the south side will have a ramp. J. Wolinski asked R. Monastera will the addition match the existing exterior? R Monastera responded: yes, consisting of rusticated stone walls. a slate roof, and copper gutters and leaders C Smith asked R. Monastera: what kind of windows will you use? R. Monastera responded that has not yet been determined; the intent is to use steel sash to match the existing windows C Smith stated that. given the functional need, the design was handled quite well J Wolinski agreed M. Mylott asked R. Monastera has this proposal been before the Preservation Commission? R. Monastera responded. yes, the Commission approved the proposal, subject to resolution of the window details. R Monastera stated that 13 parking spaces are being removed from the location at which the addition would be built (within the vacated alle/} however. by providing additional spaces at other locations on the campus, and reconfiguring other areas to provide accessible parking spaces. the total parking count remains the same. R Monastera stated that. to provide additional parking spaces near the southeast corner of the site, an existing playground area will be relocated to the north. R Monastera stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires 17 parking spaces. and the proposal includes 53 parking spaces A Alterson stated that the proposal has a number of unresolved zoning issues: the greatest concern is locating parking spaces for nonresidential uses within the backyards of residentially zoned (131) property. A. Alterson stated that the question regarding the parking relates to a question regarding the division of the SUMMARY FINDINGSOF ANAPPEA SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 24. 1998 Page 2 of 5 property into zoning lots -- clearly the land Is under the control of one land use, but Is the land one or more zoning lots? A. Alterson stated that he has not yet reached a decision on the division of the property Into one or more zoning lots; if the residentially zoned property is one or more zoning lots, separate from the land east of the alley, he is not sure how the City can permit the parking spaces on the west side of the alley, L. Black stated that, from a safety perspective, parking spaces on residential property used by nonresidential neighbors decreases ownership and territorialization of the residential area. R. Monastera stated that they would erect a fence between the parking spaces and the residential property. J. Wolinski stated that he would like to see this project proceed without reducing the number of on -site parking spaces, because cars are currently parked in areas not designed for parking; also, he hopes that Seabury- Western will address the numerous garages that require maintenance. A. Alterson asked R, Monastera: does this proposal include removing the temporary barrier from the vacated alley near Garrett Place? R. Monastera responded: yes. J. Tonkinson stated that the drop-off on the north side of the addition is not a given due to the pedestrian crossing; Public Works and D. Jennings will further review the proposal. A. Alterson stated that the loading berth is partially in the public alley. R. Monastera stated the he does not believe that the loading berth is required by the Zoning Ordinance. A. Alterson asked R. Monastera: have you contacted the ward alderman? R. Monastera responded: yes, the alderman was sent a letter stating the proposal may require some form of zoning relief and asking if he had any input; they have not heard a response from the alderman. J. Tonkinson stated that this proposal will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit. J. Wolinski asked R. Monastera: is Seabury-Western affiliated with Northwestern University? R. Monastera responded: no. J. Wolinski motioned to grant concept approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to orant concept aQ12roval, A copy of the site plan, floor plans, elevations, landscaping plan. and plat of survey has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0062). SPAARC 98-0063 1025 Asbury Avenue Preliminary and Final Variation to interior side yard setback requirement to permit 2-story addition to 2-story single-family residence. M Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 98-15-V(F)) for a variation to the interior side yard setback requirement to permit a 2-story addition to a 2-story single-family residence located at 1025 Asbury Avenue C Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission has reviewed this proposal as an alteration to a non- contributing structure, It conforms to the standards for alterations J. Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. L. Black seconded the motion. Committee aporoved the motion LQ-9) to grant preliminary and fingl site plan and aDDearance review aooroval. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 24, 1998 Page 3 of 5 SPAARC 98-0064 1616 Forest Place Preliminary and Final Variations to dormer requirements to permit remodeling of single-family residence. M. Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation (ZBA 98-14-V(F)) for variations to the requirements regulating the extent and location of front dormers; said variations are necessary to permit remodeling of the third floor of the existing single-family residence located at 1616 Forest Place. C. Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved this proposal, subject to conditions improving the dimensions of the dormers. J. Tonkinson stated that he objects to the Preservation Commission dictating size requirements on dormers. J. Glus motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. L. Black seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion f6-11 to grant areliminary and final Bite plan and appgara ce review apr�val. H. Friedman abstained. SPAARC 98-0057 1655 Foster Street Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Sprint antenna at Fleetwood Jourdain. Mr. Robert Stapleton presented a site plan and elevations for a Sprint antenna at the Fleetwood Jourdain Center located at 1655 Foster Street. Mr. Charles Stapleton, Mr. Edmund Stapleton, Mr. Jim Meyers (Sprint), and Mr. Larry Dietnik (Scientech) were available to answer questions. R. Stapleton stated that the plans have been revised such that the equipment would be enclosed by fiberglass, molded and painted to match the existing brick; the top would be capped. C Smith stated that, if real brick does not work structurally, do not use fiberglass brick; instead, use an aluminum penthouse. H. Friedman agreed. M. Mylott asked R. Stapleton: how far back is the enclosure from the north side of the first story of the building? R. Stapleton responded the north side of the enclosure begins at approximately the half -way point between the north sides of the first story and the second story. R Stapleton stated that the enclosure is approximately 14 feet by 12 feet and will abut the north side of the second story. M. Mylott stated that he believes the enclosure is setback far enough that no one m(I be close enough to tell that the brick was not real, and the fiberglass brick was acceptable to him. M. Mylott asked R. Stapleton is the enclosure still open to the top? R. Stapleton responded: yes. R. Stapleton stated that their structural engineer has confirmed 3 load -bearing walls are available to support the weight of the equipment L Dietnik stated that this pro)ect will require no roof penetrations, except for the electrical connection at the west side of the roof H Friedman asked R Stapleton can employees bring their own ladder, such that the wall -attached ladder is not necessary? R. Stapleton responded no, some employees operate out of sedans R. Stapleton stated that they could move the ladder to the east side and install a walkway on the roof J Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided (1) the enclosure is aluminum. (2) C Smith review and approve the design of the enclosure. (3) the ladder is relocated to the east side of the first floor of the building, and (4) Spnnt paints. or causes to be painted, all park SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 24. 1996 �► Page 4 of 5 light standards; and subject to the negotiated monthly rent of the lease agreement. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that the Committee should recall that, approximately 2 years ago, it denied an application for a monopole at a fire dealer located at the comer of Green Bay Road and Central Street. A. Alterson stated that he believes that a public park is less than an appropriate location for a quasi -industrial use, such as a monopole. Committee approved the motion (6-3) to arant crelimip3ry and final site plan and appearance review approval. provided (1i the enclosure is aluminum. (2) C. Smith -review and approve the dampri of the enclosure, (3) the Jq"gr is relocated to the east side of the first floor of the building. and (4) , orint paints. or causes to be painted, all park light standards: and subject to the neaotiat mnnthiv rent of the lease agreement. A copy of the site plan and elevation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0057). Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June 17, 1998. H.1=riedman seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (5-01 to approve the Summary of Findings of June 17, 1998, L. Black and J. Wolinski abstained. C. Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June 10, 1998. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-0) to approve the SgMMpry of Findings of June 10. 19H. L. Black abstained. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. ttfully submitt d, Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning I nner Jtaae 29� Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE June 24, 1998 Page 5 of 5 A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 1, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Glus, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Marino. H. Friedman. C. Bush. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0036 814 Church Street Final Rear addition to restaurant (Olive Mountain). Mr. Ahmed Safeh (owner) and Mr. Don Wallin (architect) presented the original working drawings, sketches of kitchen components found underneath the hoods, and site and area photographs for a rear addition to the Olive Mountain restaurant located at 814 Church Street. C. Smith read the May 13, 1998 Summary of Findings, regarding this case. J. Wolinski stated that he believes it is inappropriate to ask someone to use an accessible parking space located at the rear of this building. J. Tonkinson agreed. A. Safeh stated that an accessible parking space is located at the comer of Sherman Avenue and Church Street. C. Smith asked Committee members: do you think that an accessible parking space located at Sherman Avenue and Church Street is too far from the restaurant? D. Jennings responded: that distance is within'/2 block. J. Wolinski and J. Tonkinson responded: that distance is reasonable. D. Jennings stated that a second accessible parking space is located at the northeast comer of Benson Avenue and Church Street; if these accessible parking spaces are counted toward meeting the accessibility requirement, the owner should include a note on the working drawings so stating and referring to both on -street accessible parking spaces. C Smith stated that, to count these on -street accessible parking spaces toward meeting the accessibility requirement, the front entrance must be accessible. C. Smith stated that the rear entrance may also need to be accessible, requiring a ramp rather than stairs. J. Wolinski stated that the owner should be responsible for ensuring the pathway between the on -street accessible parking space and the front entrance is always clear, especially during inclement weather. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 1, 1998 Page 1 of 3 J. Tonkinson stated that A. Saleh will have to pave and drain the remaining area of the lot; a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit is required. A. Saleh asked Committee members: can I cover the entire lot with building? M. Mylott responded: no, the Zoning Ordinance requires you to provide 1 parking space. C. Smith stated that the Committee must review a site plan, showing the location of the dumpster(s), parking space(s), etc. C. Bush stated that any trash enclosure must be a smooth, cleanable, impervious surface. C. Smith stated that the working drawings should include specifications and all phases of the project. J. Tonkinson motioned to table this item. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that, to submit any changes, the applicant may find the permit application and associated drawings at the Zoning Division. CoMMinp,e approved the motion (8-0) to table this itep. The site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0036), SPAARC 98-0065 2504 Green Bay Road Preliminary and Final Construct 2-car detached garage (Stuart Rodgers Photo Studio). Mr. Scott Rodgers presented working drawings and site photographs for a 2-car detached garage for Stuart Rodgers Photo Studio located at 2504 Green Bay Road. S. Rodgers stated that the plans only include erecting the new garage; all blacktop is existing. J. Tonkinson stated that S. Rodgers should put a note on the plans that states, "Grade to remain the same.". C. Smith stated that the north garage wall must be a 1-hour garage wall. C. Smith stated that the fascia should be noncombustible C. Smith stated that the roof should be gabled, such that the peak is perpendicular to the north lot line; this configuration will reduce the chance that run off will reach the adjacent property. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review, provided (1) the plans are noted, "Grade to remain the same. (2) the north garage wall is a 1-hour garage wall; (3) the fascia is noncombustible; and (4) the roof is gabled, running perpendicular to the north property tine. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion M Mylott stated that, to submit any changes, the applicant may find the permit application and associated drawings at the Zoning Division Committee aooroved the motion (8-01 to grant vrelimingry and final site Dian and appearance review. provided (1) the clans are noted. "Grade to remain the same": { -the north garaoe wall is a 1-hour garage wall: (3) the fascia is noncombustible. and (41 the roof is aabled. running Deroendicular to the north orocefty tin . The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0065). SUMMARY FINDINGS SITETE PLAN PLAN AN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 1. of 3 Page 2 of 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 8, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus. H. Friedman. R. Fahlstrom, S. Lufkin, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, C. Wonders. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0054 747 Ridge Avenue Revision to Preliminary Remove windows on multi -family residential building. Mr. Steve Guerrant (representing owner) presented a floor plan and site photographs of a multi -family residential building located at 747 Ridge Avenue to which windows have been removed. C. Smith stated that this work has already been completed, and it was not part of the work described on the Application for Building Permit C. Smith read the Summary of Findings for May 20, 1998, regarding this case. S. Guerrant stated that the owner has caused to have removed several bathroom and bedroom windows; bedroom windows were only removed from Y, of the total number of dwelling units, and 2 other bedroom windows remain in those units. S. Guerrant stated that the windows were removed because (1) they were "tired" aluminum -frame, single -pane windows; (2) tenants complained the windows were drafty; and (3) the windows created poor interior layouts. S. Guerrant stated that, because they could not duplicate the brick, the replacement material is a taupe -colored vinyl siding S Guerrant stated that many views of the building are obscured by existing mature trees. C. Smith asked S. Guerrant: were some windows on the building replaced? S. Guerrant responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that he does not "buy" the argument that the bedroom windows contributed to a poor interior layout, because the windows that were removed were narrow and located high on the walls, providing ample wall space for furniture. S. Guerrant stated that the fan coil heating units are located on the opposite walls, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Juty 8. 1998 Page 1 of 9 )} J. Tonkinson stated that A. Saleh will have to pave and drain the remaining area of the lot; a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit is required. A. Saleh asked Committee members: can I cover the entire lot with building? M. Mylott responded: no, the Zoning Ordinance requires you to provide 1 parking space. C. Smith stated that the Committee must review a site plan, showing the location of the dumpster(s), parking space(s), etc. C. Bush stated that any trash enclosure must be a smooth, cleanable, impervious surface. C. Smith stated that the working drawings should include specifications and all phases of the project. J. Tonkinson motioned to table this item. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that, to submit any changes, the applicant may find the permit application and associated drawings at the Zoning Division. Committee aooroved the motion (8-01 t4_tabte this item.. The site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder far this case (SPAARC 98-0036). SPAARC 98-0065 2504 Green Bay Road Preliminary and Final Construct 2-car detached garage (Stuart Rodgers Photo Studio). Mr. Scott Rodgers presented working drawings and site photographs for a 2-car detached garage for Stuart Rodgers Photo Studio located at 2504 Green Bay Road. S. Rodgers stated that the plans only include erecting the new garage; all blacktop is existing. J. Tonkinson stated that S. Rodgers should put a note on the plans that states, "Grade to remain the same.". C. Smith stated that the north garage wall must be a 1-hour garage wall. C. Smith stated that the fascia should be noncombustible. C. Smith stated that the roof should be gabled, such that the peak is perpendicular to the north lot line; this configuration will reduce the chance that run off will reach the adjacent property. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review, provided (1) the plans are noted, "Grade to remain the same.": (2) the north garage wall is a 1-hour garage wall; (3) the fascia is noncombustible; and (4) the roof is gabled, running perpendicular to the north property line. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion. M Mylott stated that, to submit any changes, the applicant may find the permit application and associated drawings at the Zoning Division. Committee a r v the motion (8-0) to arant orefiminary and final site plan and appearance review. crovidlqQ 1 lans are noted. "Grade to remain the same `tJZ) the north aaraae wall is a 1-hour aarace wall: (3) -lbs fascia is noncombustible. and (4) the roof is cabled running Deroendicular to the north Drooertv line. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0065). SUMMARY FINDINGS AN APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 1. 1998 Page 2 of 3 Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of June 24, 1998. M. Friedman seconded the motion. . K Kelly abstained. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. s tfully submitte ' 35, .....,.-...rr.,{., },,,.0 ..<..{,,..,c�. <.... }xa..• u u..v...-.;... ..u.`xfsi:tSk }....7Tn:.....:. �:2:a+�/fS1r:Se Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning I ner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 1, 1998 Page 3 of 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 8, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus. H. Friedman. R. Fahlstrom, S. Lufkin, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, C. Wonders. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0054 747 Ridge Avenue Revision to Preliminary Remove windows on multi -family residential building. Mr. Steve Guerrant (representing owner) presented a floor plan and site photographs of a multi -family residential building located at 747 Ridge Avenue to which windows have been removed. C. Smith stated that this work has already been completed, and it was not part of the work described on the Application for Building Permit. C. Smith read the Summary of Findings for May 20, 199B, regarding this case. S. Guerrant stated that the owner has caused to have removed several bathroom and bedroom windows; bedroom windows were only removed from % of the total number of dwelling units, and 2 other bedroom windows remain in those units. S. Guerrant stated that the windows were removed because (1) they were 'tired" aluminum -frame, single -pane windows; (2) tenants complained the windows were drafty; and (3) the windows created poor interior layouts. S. Guerrant stated that, because they could not duplicate the brick, the replacement material is a taupe -colored vinyl siding. S. Guerrant stated that many views of the building are obscured by existing mature trees. C. Smith asked S. Guerrant: were some windows on the building replaced? S. Guerrant responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that he does not "buy" the argument that the bedroom windows contributed to a poor interior layout, because the windows that were removed were narrow and located high on the walls, providing ample wall space for furniture. S. Guerrant stated that the fan coil heating units are located on the opposite walls, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 8, 1998 Page 1 of 9 forcing the bed to be located under the drafty windows. C. Smith stated that windows are available that solve the concerns about comfort and energy conservation. A. Alterson asked S. Guerrant: is this building rental? S. Guerrant responded: yes. J. Wolinski asked S. Guerrant, has the owner installed, or caused to be Installed, mechanical ventilation within the bathrooms? S. Guerrant responded: yes. L. Black stated that removing the windows reduces the amount of natural surveillance provided to the building and surrounding properties. C. Smith stated that, from a rescue and ventilation perspective, the Fire Department appreciates more windows. C. Smith stated that removing the windows is an unappealing treatment of this building, and it is "terribly unfortunate" that this work was not presented as part of the original review. C. Smith stated that she cannot support this solution, and the windows should be replaced. J. Tonkinson and A. Alterson agreed. A. Alterson stated that this appearance does not support the notion of quality rental housing; it appears as if the building has been boarded up. C. Smith stated she may be able to accept the removal of the bathroom windows; however, the removal of the bathroom and bedroom windows overwhelms the building. M. Mylott asked C. Smith: will the Building Division levy a fine against the property owner for conducting, or permitting to be conducted, work without a building permit? C. Smith responded: yes. J. Wolinski stated that this offense is the second instance in which work was conducted without, or beyond the scope of, a building permit. J. Wolinski motioned to deny the revision to the previous preliminary approval. L. Black seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion 01-0) to denv the revision to the orevioua nreliminary ap royal. SPAARC 98-0066 908-916 Noyes Street Preliminary and Final Facade renovations. Mr. Nathan Kipnis presented elevations, material samples, information on materials, and site photographs for a facade restoration of 908-916 Noyes Street. L. Lyon stated that 908-916 Noyes Street is a participant in the Evanston Storefront Program. N. Kipnis stated that the renovations include: 1. repairing the limestone. 2, replacing (to match existing) the ribbed transom windows. 1 replacing the light fixtures. 4. replacing the tiled entries. 5. repairing and painting the woodwork on the second and third floor. SUMMARY FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AN July 9, 1998 Page 2 o19 6, painting a mural on a boarded up window, and highlighting that mural with angled lights. 7. installing temporary planters that are heavy enough such that they will not easily move. 8. possibly repairing the stucco (depending on budget). 9. possibly tuck pointing the brick (depending on budget). C. Smith stated that the signage will be reviewed under the Sign Ordinance. M. Mylott stated that he believes gold lettering with black trim is a more appropriate sign material than neon. N, Kipnis stated that neon was selected because the property owner did not want to limit possible tenants. C. Smith stated that the proposal is excellent, and she wanted to compliment the architect on his handling of the project. C. Smith stated that the goose -neck lights may not be an option to light the mural, because lights cannot overhang onto someone else's property without their permission. D. Jennings stated that the CTA owns the property, and the City leases the property from them. C. Smith asked N. Kipnis: does the proposal include any work to the roof? N. Kipnis responded: no, the roof was recently repaired. H. Friedman asked N. Kipnis: does this proposal relocate the exhaust louvers? N. Kipnis responded: yes, once the renovation is complete, exhaust will no longer be through the front of the building; the louvers will be replaced with ribbed transom glass. J. Wolinski stated that this renovation is but one example of the excellent work coming from L. Lyon, Neighborhood Planner of the Planning Division, L. Lyon stated that C. Ruiz played a key role in this project as well. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion 01-M to grant orefiminary and final aooroval. The elevations, information on materials, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0066). SPAARC 98-0034 1910 Dempster Street Preliminary Demolition and construction of new grocery store within Evanston Plaza (Dominick's). Mr. Mike Canter (representing Evanston Plaza), Mr, Fred Bernheim (architect), and Ms. Sharon Bessey (landscape architect) presented a site plan, floor plan, landscape plan, north and east elevations, graphic depicting pylon signs, and material samples for a new grocery store (Dominick's) within Evanston Plaza, Mr. Nick Patera (landscape architect) was available to answer questions. M. Canter stated that the new grocery store will be approximately 65,000 sq.ft.; the north/south portion of the shopping center will be largely unaffected. J. Wolinski asked M. Canter: is the footprint approximately the same as the existing footprint? M. Canter responded: yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 8.1998 Page 3of9 64 J. Wolinski asked M. Conter is the entire store a "fresh" store? M. Conter responded: yes. J. Wolinski asked M. Canker does this proposal include the Pizza Hut? M. Conter responded: no, but the new grocery store may make the site more viable. M. Conter stated that the east/west access aisle immediately north of the grocery store will be widened from 24 feet to 32 feet. J. Tonkinson asked M. Canter will you also widen the driveway? M. Conter responded: yes. J. Tonkinson stated that widening the driveway will require a driveway permit. D. Jennings stated that the project engineer and/or architect should also consider Improving the radius width. M. Conter stated that the design avoids creating a blank wall along Dodge Avenue and limits the amount of Dryvit to the sign band; the principle material is split face block. L. Black stated that the comer of Dempster Street and Dodge Avenue is a concern, because the Kids R' Us building has turned its back to the street. L. Black stated that she would hate to see that type of approach continue along Dodge Avenue, and more windows would help alleviate her concerns. A. Alterson stated that he would like to see "excitement and visibility" along Dodge Avenue. C. Smith stated that the windows on the Dodge Avenue elevation are too high to accomplish Committee members objective; they need to be brought down and increased in number. F. Bernheim stated that he will work on the northeast corner and the Dodge Avenue elevation. K. Kelly asked F. Bernheim: how far back are the overhead doors from Dodge Avenue? F. Bemheim responded: 140 feet. C. Smith asked F. Bernheim: what is the scale of the proposed block? F. Bemheim responded: jumbo block. C. Smith stated that she is comfortable with the scale of the material. C. Smith stated that the entry is not centered underneath the central sign band; the sign band implies symmetry, but the plan is not symmetrical, creating confusion. H. Friedman agreed. M. Mylott agreed and stated that the lay person will walk toward the center of the sign band, expecting to find the entrance undemeath that location. F. Bemheim stated that he will look at ways to bring more attention to the entrance. C. Smith stated that the west end of the north elevation is different than the east end. C. Ruiz agreed and stated that the sides are unbalanced -- from west to east, the elevation starts with a light approach (much glass), the middle consists of a large sign, and the east side is a heavy blank wall. C. Ruiz stated that the ends may be balanced with spandrell windows on the east side. R. Fahlstrom stated that he read the east side of the north elevation as a dead space, possibly for storage. F. Bernheim stated that that area is for the frozen foods. H. Friedman stated that the glass on the east side of the north elevation is over designed; if the sign is the focus, simplify the elements that now detract from that focus. C. Smith stated that it would be nice if the fresh produce could be relocated to the northeastern corner. A. Alterson agreed. F. Bernheim stated that he appreciated that suggestion, but, due to safety, traffic, and customer comfort, those sections are not interchangeable. F Bernheim stated that design of the elevations is somewhat limited in that Dominick's does not display its merchandise through windows. H. Friedman asked F. Bernheim: what purpose does the door, located east of the eastern edge of the sign bared, sere? F. Bernheim responded: that door is principally for exiting. SUMMARY FINDINGS AN APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 9, 1998 Page 4 019 H. Friedman stated that the 2 free-standing walls used to screen the cart storage area provide an area In which persons could hide. M. Conter stated that they will consider reducing the free-standing walls to 36 Inches or designing a fence -like structure that provides a high degree of visibility, C. Smith stated that the standing -seam bronze canopy may be a somewhat dated element. C. Ruiz agreed. C. Ruiz stated that, while the masonry is a good material, the number of colors may be excessive; the architect should consider reducing the number of colors from 4 to 3. C. Smith stated that she is not bothered by the number of colors. K. Kelly stated that he is comfortable with the north elevation; however, he is concerned with the Dodge Avenue elevation. D. Marino agreed. S. Bessey stated that the landscape plan proposes: 1. Retaining the street landscaping predominantly as Is, with some additions; they are proposing adding a 4- to 6-foot hedge behind the existing landscaping to further screen the parking area. 2. installing a more tolerant ground cover within certain areas underneath the trees. 3. Installing 4 new landscaping islands within the north/south parking aisles, including trees consistent with the existing species. 4. Relocating 6 landscaping islands further west, and installing new trees and shrubs. C. Smith stated that L. Black would be concerned with the 4- to 6-foot hedge. M. Mylott stated that the hedge should not exceed 36 inches. N. Patera stated that they would probably just remove the hedge. C. Smith stated that she supports landscaping islands to break up parking lots. C. Smith asked S. Bessey: are the landscaping islands curbed? S. Bessey responded: yes. M. Mylott asked N. Patera: what protection measures will be employed to protect the existing landscaping immediately east of the east wall of the new building? N. Patera responded: fencing, but they may find that they need the area for construction staging; in that case, the landscape plan calls for replacing the existing density and species following completion of construction. C. Smith asked M, Canter. will any work be performed to the tamps and/or standards? M. Conter responded: some standards will be reworked, but the lighting will mostly remain the same. C. Smith stated that the sign will need to be reviewed by the Sign Review and Appeals Board. A. Alterson asked M. Conter: does the sign use the existing poles? M. Conter responded: yes. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary site plan approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Dom ittee gporoved the motion (10-01 t0 Qrant oreliminary site olan approval. M. Mylott motioned to table appearance review for this case. Motion to table appearance review for this caU failed for lack of sect. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary appearance review approval, subject to reworking the Dodge Avenue elevation in a manner consistent with the Committee discussion. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Juty 8, 1998 Page 5 of 9 • Il al M . • • • y 1 : Il • • 1 W • - r- 1 lei• • • • . • i� 1 1: m•••: -1 _L74117.1r.l NAM 111' •1 •Illl 1 • •1 The elevations, landscape plan, and graphic depicting the pylon signs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0034). SPAARC 98-0067 2035 Ridge Avenue Preliminary Raze detached single-family dwelling and enlarge off-street parking area (The Cradle). Mr. Jim Murray presented a site plan, conceptual landscape plan, and plat of survey to raze a detached single- family dwelling unit and enlarge the off-street parking area for The Cradle located at 2035 Ridge Avenue. Ms. Julie Tye (The Cradle) and Ms. Ewa Weir (The Cradle) were available to answer questions. J. Murray stated the parking area would: 1. contain 17 parking spaces, improving security and convenience to personnel and clients. 2. include a retaining wall (due to the existing grade) with 6-foot wrought iron fence for additional security. 3. include 6 light standards. The standards have not yet been designed, but will be in keeping with the character of The Cradle. 4. include access to the front and rear of The Cradle. 5. include landscaping. 6. retain site stormwater J. Murray stated that the single-family house has no architectural or historical significance; it is currently used for counseling and storage. D. Jennings asked J. Murray: is the module width of the parking area 60 feet? J. Murray responded: yes. D. Jennings asked J. Murray: where are cars parked now? J. Murray responded: in tandem behind The Cradle and the single-family residence. J. Murray stated that the plans also include a 6-foot wrought iron fence in the northwest corner of the site, creating a safe area in which staff may bring the children. h Friedman asked J Murray- could you reduce the number of parking spaces to provide an outdoor area on the south side of the building? J Murray responded no, because all the parking spaces are necessary, and the play area at the proposed location has the additional safety features of a door immediately at the building and being highly visible by additional staff. C Smith stated that she is concerned with this portion of the fence; she does not believe it provides staff with what they want. C. Smith asked J. Murray: is an area available behind the building in which an outdoor space could be created? J. Murray responded: no, that area is stilt used to store refuse and receive deliveries and other services. A. Alterson asked J. Tye: how old are the children in the care of The Cradle? J. Tye responded. the average age of the children is 6 months to 1 year. A. Alterson stated that he does not understand what the fence provides; the children are not mobile. J. Murray SUMMARY of FINDINGS APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 9, of98 eo Page 6 of 9 stated that the fence reduces staff anxiety by reducing the opportunity to be approached, A. Alterson stated that he is concerned that such a barricade would foster sentiment by third parties that the area is unsafe, and this specific aspect of the proposal should be reviewed as any other request for a fence within the front yard of a residential property. J. Tonkinson stated that this comer has been very quiet for the last 30 years, and he does not believe The Cradle should introduce an element that will draw attention to activities that may be more appropriate and secure inside the building. J. Tonkinson stated that the staff can always take the children to City parks. M. Mylott stated that he appreciates what The Cradle is trying to accomplish, and, if the respective decision -making bodies determine that a fence in this location is appropriate, then The Cradle can accomplish the same objective (providing a boundary) with a much lower fence -- closer to 4 feet high. A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Division has determined this use is a long-term care facility, and the proposal is an expansion of a special use. A. Alterson stated that eliminating the residential structure to increase the institutional character of this comer is "very unfortunate"; this area is residential and this proposal does not further that goal. J. Murray stated that this proposal services the residents by adding parking and increasing the security (via lighting) of the grounds. C. Smith stated that she does not believe this proposal is out of character or scale with the area, because Northwestern University has 2 or 3 parking lots in the area. C. Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission will review the fence for The Cradle, and possibly the parking area. A. Alterson asked C. Ruiz: will the Preservation Commission review the demolition? C. Ruiz responded: the lots are not currently consolidated; if the 2 lots are consolidated prior to demolition, the Preservation Commission will have review over the demolition. A. Alterson stated that The Cradle will have additional scrutiny in 1 of 2 ways — if the lots are considered 1 lot, then the Preservation Commission will review the demolition; if the lots are considered 2 lots, then the Zoning Board of Appeals will review the proposal as an expansion of a special use. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson asked D. Jennings: can The Cradle lease parking spaces within the parking area behind the Civic Center? D. Jennings responded: no parking spaces are available. A. Alterson stated that he suspected many parking spaces within the Civic Center parking area are being used by patrons of Northwestern University. A. Alterson stated that he suspects that the parking demand of The Cradle is actually much less than that depicted by the proposal. J. Tye stated that that is not true; The Cradle does have repeat visitors. A. Alterson stated that he is hearing that residentially zoned property may not be well -suited for what The Cradle hopes to accomplish. D. Jennings stated that putting the parking next to the use makes sense. Committee aoaroved the mo i n - I to arant oreliminanr site clan and agoearan�e review apgroval, The site plan and conceptual landscape plan have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0067). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Juty 8. 1 go$ Page 7 of 9 SPAARC 97-0091 740 Custer Avenue Final New door for Reba Place Day Nursery. Ms. Ellen Galland presented working drawings for a new door and vestibule for the Reba Place Day Nursery located at 740 Custer Avenue. S. Lufkin was available to answer questions. S, Lufkin stated that this proposal is being funded through the Community Development Block Grant Program. E. Galland stated that the vestibule now provides 7 feet between the 2 doors. E. Galland stated that the proposal includes a lighted bulletin board. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to avant final site plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0068 617A Grove Street Recommendation to Sign Board Proposed wall signs for The Music Center of the North Shore. C. Smith presented an Application to the Sign Review and Appeals Board for 2 wall signs for The Music Center of the North Shore located at 617A Grove Street, C. Smith stated that the first wall sign is located along Grove Street, and the second wall sign is located within the alley. C. Smith stated that the proposed wall signs do not conform to the Sign Ordinance in the following manner: (1) the signs do not face a recognized public thoroughfare; (2) the signs are not coterminous with the use to which the signs refer; and (3) the signs contain more than 7 items of information, C. Smith stated that the use and signs would encourage more alley traffic; however, the floor area already exists. P. D'Agostino and D. Jennings agreed. J. Tonkinson stated that The Music Center of the North Shore must change its address; this address is not acceptable. D. Jennings motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board grant the Application for Sign Variations. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion &11 to recommend the Sian Review and Apoeals Board grant the Application for Sion Variationg. J. Tonkinson abstained. A copy of the Application to the Sign Review and Appeals Board has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0068). Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of July 1, 1998. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to approve the Summary gf Findings of July 1. 19,$. SITE ARYPLAN AN FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4e,§L' July 9. 1998 Page 8 of 9 Adjournment The meeting adjoumed at 5:15 p.m. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 8, 1998 Page 9 of 9 t% SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 15, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, J. Glus, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, K. Kelly, J. Tonkinson. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: R. Fahlstrom, L. Lyon, C. Wonders. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Preliminary Mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and ATM and upper -floor residential). Mr. Chris Thomas presented working drawings for a mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and ATM and upper -floor residential) located at 2953 Central Street Mr. Ron Fleckman and Mr. Walter Kihm were available to answer questions. C. Thomas stated that the revisions to the plans, following concept approval, include: 1 Moving the overhead door within the underground parking area forward (north), eliminating a previously concealed area. 2. Changing the barrier along the north alley to a 42-inch wrought iron fence. 3. Creating a round element on the west elevation, concealing the furnace room. C. Thomas stated that the building will be constructed of limestone, masonry, and a cast stone cornice; EIFS will be used within the recessed area of the south elevation and on the second and third levels of the north elevation C Thomas stated that the EIFS on the south elevation will be the same buff color as the cornice. C Smith asked C. Thomas: why have you chosen EIFS as a building material? C. Thomas responded: for structural reasons. C. Smith stated that plaster is certainly viable, and it is "unfortunate" to Use EIFS on this caliber of a project. A. Alterson asked C. Thomas: what is the additional cost to do stucco? C. Thomas responded: materials and installation. R. Fleckman stated that the majority of additional cost between EIFS and stucco is installation, especially on a building this size. R. Fleckman stated that the aesthetics of the building will change as well, because the stucco must be divided. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 15. 1998 Page 1 of 7 r► C. Smith asked C. Thomas: are all railings wrought iron, including the balconies? C. Thomas responded: yes. C. Thomas stated that moving the overhead door has created one parking space that Is concealed, however they will Install a safety mirror. D. Jennings stated that the developer should install a garage door over that parking space. C. Thomas stated that he will make that change. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he would like to see the EIFS eliminated. R. Fleckman stated that, due to the areas at which the EIFS is proposed, persons will not be able to tell the difference between EIFS and plaster or stucco from the ground. Committee faifgd to aoorove the motion (4-41togrant oreliminary site elan and appearance review approval. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary site plan review approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to grant oreliminary site 9JW review approval. H. Friedman motioned to grant preliminary appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee failed to aoorove the motion_(4-4) to grant Dreliminary appearance review ;2 pp royal. J. Wolinski motioned to table preliminary appearance review to allow the applicant to review the Committee comments on this matter. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee aDQMved the motion_(8-01 to table preliminary appearance review at2i4yjaLLo allow the apolicant to review the Committee comments on this Matte . SPAARC 98-0069 1010 Church Street (SW Corner of Church/Maple) Preliminary 10-story mixed -use building (80 condominiums, 19,000 sq.ft. retail). Mr. Chris Thomas presented a site plan, floor plans, and sketch for a 10-story mixed -use building located at 1010 Church Street (SW Corner of Church Street and Maple Avenue), Mr, Ron Fleckman and Mr. Walter Kihm were available to answer questions. C Thomas stated that the plans include 1. 80 condominiums and approximately 19.000 sq.ft. of retail (ground floor). Each unit has a recessed balcony The roof of the third floor is a roof -top terrace. 2. 2 levels of parking (second and third floors) with 134 parking spaces (80 residential and 54 commercial). The base is designed to read as a "very tall base". 3 Cast stone (or stone) and masonry building materials C. Thomas stated that the absolute height of the building is approximately 102 feet, and the building height (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance) is 82 feet, because the second and third floors are excluded from the calculation. C. Smith stated that she does not "subscribe" to the parking exemption of the Zoning Ordinance. D. Jennings stated that the City has found that multi -family dwelling units within Evanston generate approximately 11/3 parked tars. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 15. 1998 Page 2 of 7 C. Smith stated that she would like to compliment the architect; she thought the building was 'nicely handled" with the "tripartite design`, and she liked how the comer was handled. H. Friedman stated that he thought the massing and scale were "unfortunate". D. Marino asked R. Fleckman: how does this height compare with the Shand Morahand buIIding7 R. Fleckman responded: they are the same size. M. Mylott asked C. Thomas: have you filed an Application for Zoning Analysis7 C. Thomas responded: no. M. Mylott asked R. Fleckman: do you Intend to build this building "by -right"? R. Fleckman responded: yes. D. Jennings asked C. Thomas: are the parking floors flat with 2-way ramps? C. Thomas responded: yes. D. Jennings asked C. Thomas: would it be better to have the driveway take immediate access to Maple Avenue, rather than from the alley? C. Thomas responded: he will investigate that configuration, and also look at moving the access west along the alley. H. Friedman asked C. Thomas: what is the length along Maple Avenue? C. Thomas responded: approximately 200 feet. J. Wolinski asked W. Kihm: are the dwelling units upper -end? W. Kihm responded: they would be priced similar or less than the dwelling units proposed at 2953 Central Street. C. Smith asked R. Fleckman: do you control the land? R. Fleckman responded: the property is under contract. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-11 to arant concegLap2rrlyal. SPAARC 98-0054 747 Ridge Avenue Revision to Preliminary Remove windows on multi -family residential building. Mr. Steve Guerrant (representing owner) presented a sample of a window -type panel and frame for a multi- family residential building located at 747 Ridge Avenue to which windows have been removed. C. Smith read the Summary of Findings for July 8, 1998, regarding this case. S. Guerrant stated that the owner still believes the "transom -type' windows should be removed. S. Guerrant stated that the owner would like to install a window -type plexiglass panel, with masonite panel behind it, at the locations where the windows were removed. S. Guerrant stated that the aluminum frame can be copper -colored to match the brick, or it can be aluminum -colored to match the remaining window frames. S. Guerrant stated that the plexiglass is preferred for easier maintenance. M. Mylott asked S. Guerrant. noting that some windows have been replaced with white vinyl -clad windows, what is the owner's intent regarding the remaining aluminum -colored, aluminum -framed windows? S. Guerrant responded: they will remain. A. Alterson stated that that action makes him curious about the future intention of the property owner, because those windows appear barely operable. C. Smith stated that, if she had to consider an alternative that did not replace the windows, she would recommend spandrel) glass; she is concerned about moisture forming behind the glass against a masonite panel. S. Guerrant stated that the manufacturer recommended this assembly as more window -like. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Juy 15, 1998 Page 3 of 7 A. Alterson stated that, following a site visit, he feels more strongly that the windows should be replaced, especially along the alley and parking lot. M. Mylott agreed. C. Smith stated that, upon hearing these issues regarding safety, she could only support replacing the windows. J. Wolinski motioned to deny the revision to the previous preliminary approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to deny_the revision to the previous nreliMinary ap roval. SPAARC 98-0070 1832 Church Street Preliminary and Final Reopen picture windows for retail establishment (dollar store). Mr. Don Schein (property owner) and Mr. Avraxm Axigpa presented a plat of survey and site photographs to reopen picture windows for a retail establishment (dollar store). D. Schein stated that he has a potential retail tenant; this tenant is a dollar store. D. Marino asked D. Schein: how long is the proposed lease? D. Schein responded: 3 to 5 years, with an option to buy. A. Axigpa illustrated (on the site photographs) the extent to which new windows will be installed. A. Axigpa stated that the windows will have a bronze aluminum frame. C. Smith asked A. Axigpa: is the glass clear? A. Axigpa responded; yes. H. Friedman asked A. Axigpa: what material was used to replace the original windows? A. Axigpa responded: brick. J. Glus asked A. Axigpa: will the windows "wrap around the comer' to the door? A. Axigpa responded: yes. J. Wolinski asked D. Schein: will you have burglar bars for these windows? D. Schein responded: no. C. Smith stated that she recommended the owner use a tempered laminated glass for security. D. Schein stated that he will make that modification. J. Glus asked A. Axigpa: will you replace the door? A. Axigpa responded: no. C. Smith asked D. Schein: do you propose any additional work beyond what is described on the photographs? D. Schein responded: not at this time. D. Schein stated that future plans include paving the parking area and adding awnings. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion! A. Alterson stated that, white he supports a retailer in this location, he is concerned with how the rest of the building will appear; he is afraid that, when approached in this manner, that the end result will appear as a collection of castoffs. A. Alterson stated that he would feel more confident if all the glass was replaced, rather than only the portion illustrated on the site photographs. C. Smith stated that signage and awnings require a separate permit. Sommittee approved the motion (Q-11 to arant Dreliminary and final site Dian and appearance review approval, J. Wolinski abstained. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 99-0070). SITE ARYPLAN AN FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 15, 1995 Page 4 of 7 SPAARC 98-0071 1744 Darrow Avenue Preliminary Raze single-family residence and erect addition to religious Institution. Mr. Daniel Sib (architect) and Ms. Susan D. Sih (architect) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and site photographs for an addition to the Bethel AME Church located at 1744 Darrow Avenue. Reverend Walter Bauldrick and Mr. Geroge Austin were available to answer questions. D. Sih staled the plans address the church's need for more meeting space; they have reworked the original plans upon being notified that they incorrectly determined what yard was "front" and what yard was "street side'. A. Alterson stated that, because the proposal will require zoning relief, the applicant should determine which program best meets their needs. J. Wolinski asked D. Sih: what is currently on the site of the addition? D. Sih responded: a single-family residence. J. Wolinski asked D. Sih: what will happen to the existing single-family residence? D. Sih responded: it will be demolished. J. Wolinski asked W. Bauldrick: is the residence on the tax rolls? W. Bauldrick responded: the building has been owned by the church for approximately 2 years, and the property was taken off the tax rolls approximately 1 year ago. J. Wolinski asked W. Bauldrick: how long has the church been at this location? W. Bauldrick responded: the church was built in 1941, but it was destroyed by fire in 1975; at that time, it was rebuilt on the same foundation. W. Bauldrick stated that the church completed a major renovation during 1993. D. Sih stated that the building materials and windows of the addition will match the existing building materials and windows. D. Sih stated that the plans will include a new utility room, because the current air conditioner equipment cannot handle the addition. H. Friedman stated that the architect should look at removing the existing air conditioner and other equipment from the roof. D. Sih stated he will consider that suggestion. D. Marino asked D. Sih: how many parking spaces are on site now? D. Sih responded: 6. D. Sih stated that the church has a no -fee parking arrangement with Evanston Township High School. A. Alterson stated that no new parking will be required, because the addition does not increase the seating of the sanctuary; however, any existing parking removed must be replaced. J. Wolinski asked A. Alterson: if the City requires parking that cannot be provided on site, can that parking be provided at the high school? A. Alterson responded. yes. C. Smith asked W. Bauldrick: does the building have an elevator or an elevette? W. Bauldrick responded: elevator. C. Smith stated that the elevator must go to the second floor of the addition if the floor is to be occupied. D. Sih stated that they may lower the roof line of the addition, rather than upgrade the elevator. A. Alterson stated that he is concerned that the reality of the parking demand be met, and that the site plan does not create a situation in which it appears as if a parking lot has been located in the front yard. D. Marino motioned to table this item. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion &) to table this i(gm. The revised site plan and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0071). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE e$e July 15. 1998 Page 5 of 7 SPAARC 97-0023 2289 Howard Street Final New bank within Evanston Center (World Savings Bank). A. Alterson stated that this proposal has already received preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval; however, the special use ordinance included a condition that the Committee review the landscaping and traffic. A. Alterson stated that the Committee has already reviewed and approved the landscaping; the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) asked for Committee consideration of the traffic on 2 account.5; (1) they were concerned with how the proposal would relate to traffic within the parking lot, and (2) should signage be provided at the drive-thru exit? A. Alterson stated that Evanston Center has agreed to improve the parking area such that the ZBA's first concern will be addressed (see SPAARC Case No. 91-0074, approved by the Committee June 3, 1998). D. Jennings stated that no signage is necessary at the drive-thru exit. A. Alterson motioned to accept the Committee review as satisfying the Zoning Board of Appeals' condition, provided the Committee review and approve, and Evanston Center install, or cause to be installed, the parking area improvements (SPAARC Case No. 91-0074, approved by the Committee June 3, 1998) prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy permit for World Savings Bank. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Walinski asked A. Alterson: would you amend the motion, such that the Committee may release World Savings Bank from the condition regarding issuing the final certificate of occupancy upon review? A. Alterson responded: yes. A. Alterson amended the motion as such: accept the Committee review as satisfying the Zoning Board of Appeals' condition, provided the Committee review and approve, and Evanston Center install, or cause to be installed, the parking area improvements (SPAARC Case No. 91-0074, approved by the Committee June 3, 1998) prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy permit for World Savings Bank; World Savings Bank may be releaseo from this condition, such that the final certificate of occupancy may be issued, subject to review by the Committee. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to accept the Committee review as satisfvina the Zoninq Board of 4&peals' condition, provided the Committee review and approve, and Evanston Center install. or cause to be ingalled. the Darkina area improvements (SPAARC Case No 91-0074,Voroved by the Committee June 3. 19981 prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancv permit for World Savinas Bank: World Savinal rank may be released from this condition. such that the final certificate of occupancv may be issued. subject ;o review by the Committee. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of July 8, 199B. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to approve the Summary of i"indin.gs of July 8 199a. SUMMARY OF AN APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 15, 1998 Page 6 of 7 Adjournment The meeting adjoumed at 5:00 p.m. e Marc SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 16, 1998 Page 7 of 7 IF SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 22, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, L. Black, J. Glus, D. Marino, J. Tonkinson. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, C. Wonders. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:20 p.m. SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Preliminary OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Temporary ATM for First Chicago Bank. D. Jennings presented a site plan for a temporary ATM for First Chicago Bank located at 2953 Central Street. D. Jennings stated that Dave Olson of WB Olson (contractor) and Ron Fleckman (developer) discussed locating an ATM along the north lot line, near the west comer of the subject property. D. Jennings stated that D. Olson stated that First Chicago has stated that It must have at least one ATM available to customers during construction of the proposed mixed -use building. D. Jennings stated that customers would access the ATM from Central Park Avenue, conduct business on the subject property, and exit east via the alley. A. Alterson asked D. Jennings: can the ATM be moved to any other location? D. Jennings responded: not on this site. D. Jennings stated that the City is not responsible for honoring First Chicago Bank's requirement(s). D. Jennings stated that pedestrian traffic will not be interrupted, because the construction fence will extend west to the lot line: pedestrians will use the sidewalk on the west side of Central Park Avenue. D. Jennings stated that the ATM would be somewhat hidden. C. Smith stated that the City may have to evaluate a request for a temporary sign. C. Smith stated that she is concerned with stacking on Central Park Avenue. D. Jennings asked Committee members: would you be concerned about stacking if the developer provided stacking for 3 cars on -site (1 car at the ATM and 2 cars waiting)? C. Smith responded: no. A. Alterson responded: no. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 22, 1998 Page 1 of 7 C. Smith stated that she would recommend that, when the permanent locations are made available with an aggressive phasing plan, the City would encourage the developer to move the ATM to its permanent location as soon as possible. SPAARC 98-0027 1415 Sherman Avenue Final Six -story mixed -use building with 2 ground -floor offices and 29 condominiums on upper floors. Mr. Tom Roszak (developer) and Mr. Don Wallin (architect) presented working drawings (including a landscape plan), a plat of survey, a rending, and building material samples for a mixed -use building (2 ground - floor offices and 29 condominiums on upper floors) located at 1415 Sherman Avenue. Ms. Karol S. Omon (architect) was available to answer questions. C. Smith stated that the developer has submitted a building permit for foundation only. D. Wallin stated that they anticipate submitting for full permit within 1 week. T. Roszak stated that the elements of the plans include: White, vinyl, casement windows with fixed windows below. 2. Red (clay -colored), utility -sized (4-inch by 12-inch) brick, except the first floor of the west elevation will be 4-inch by 12-inch renaissance stone. The west elevation may include engravings within the renaissance stone. 3. Renaissance stone details (accent bands, etc.) and limestone sills. 4. White -painted steel railings. 5. White -painted spandrells at the floor levels of the west elevation of the penthouse, with glass above. C. Smith stated that she liked the larger windows. C. Smith stated that the 1 to 2 bands of brick located between the renaissance -stone bands and limestone sills may appear awkward, and perhaps the renaissance -stone band should be 1 to 2 courses higher such that the 2 features are incorporated. T. Roszak stated that they will look at that point. C. Smith stated that the brick is a very flat brick with no variation. T. Roszak stated that the "inspiration" is Spanish -colonial style; the clay -colored brick, which does have some variation, is intended to support that style. C. Smith stated that the utility -size brick may diminish the intended style, and that is unfortunate; she would recommend a standard -size brick. C. Ruiz agreed. H. Friedman asked T. Roszak: given the representation on the plans, are you using a different brick in the recessed areas? T. Roszak responded: no. C. Smith stated that the developer may want to use larger renaissance stone within the base to support the concept of a strong base for the building. M. Mylott stated that the developer could use standard -size brick on the upper levels to accomplish the same objective. C. Smith stated that standard -size brick shows care and attention to the residents, rather than an industrial quality. C. Ruiz stated that the attention to quality is communicated at the pedestrian level as well. C. Ruiz stated that a good compromise may be to use standard -size brick on the west'h of the building (that portion fronting Sherman Avenue). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 22, 1998 a► Page 2 of 7 C. Smith stated that the rendering illustrates a distinct reveal between the courses of the renaissance -stone base that the working drawings do not illustrate. T. Roszak stated that the depiction within the rendering is the desired look. D. Wallin stated that he is still developing that detail. T. Roszak stated that the landscape plan calls for planting 3 Skyline Honeylocust along Sherman Avenue. P. D'Agostino stated that the City attempts to maintain 35 feet between street trees, and that distance Is not provided. P. D'Agostino stated that room may be available on the north end. C. Smith asked P. D'Agostino: what about using smaller flowering trees? P. D'Agostino responded: low perennial plantings within the parkway may be the best alternative. C. Smith asked T. Roszak: how are the existing street trees going to be protected? T. Roszak stated that the canopies of the street trees are not at the lot line. C. Smith asked T. Roszak: how high is the hedge along the north lot line? T. Roszak responded: A to 6 feet. P. D'Agostino asked T. Roszak: why is the Froebeil Spirea labeled a ground cover? T. Roszak responded: that label is incorrect. C. Smith asked T. Roszak: would you be willing to work with P. D'Agostino to finalize the landscape plan. T. Roszak responded: yes. M. Mylott asked T. Roszak: are you proposing landscaping on the roof -top terrace? T. Roszak responded: yes, but it is not shown on the plan as the area is private. M. Mylott stated that he would like P. D'Agostino to review the landscaping of the roof -top terrace when he works with the developer, because the terrace provides a passive recreation area (or a sense of relief) for a high -density residential development. T. Roszak stated he would provide the landscaping plan for the roof -top terrace to P. D'Agostino for his review. T. Roszak stated that the photometric plan illustrates the "throw" of the lights conservatively. C. Smith stated that the photometric plan must include foot-candle levels, and City code restricts the foot-candle level at the property line to 1. C. Smith stated that T. Roszak may send the photometric plan directly to J. Tonkinson for review and approval. C. Smith stated that all fixtures must be shielded. C. Smith asked T. Roszak: for how long will the lights be on? T. Roszak responded: a photovoltaic cell turns the lights on at dusk, and leaves them on all night. C. Smith stated that the sidewalk along the north lot line could use at least 2 more lights, and the stairway on the south lot line could use 1 more light, to discourage loitering. T. Roszak stated he will review a photometric plan with foot-candle levels with that objective in mind. D. Jennings motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of (1) the landscape plan by P. D'Agostino, and (2) the photometric plan by J. Tonkinson. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated that he would like to compliment the architect; the massing and fenestration have been handled very well. A. Alterson stated that he would like to see the developer use the smaller brick. M. Mylott asked T. Roszak: how do you control access to the parking garage? T. Roszak responded: radio transmitters will provide remote access to the garage. Committee aooroved the motion (7-Q) to arant final site Qlan and apoarance review_ aoDroval. s N!Zct to reyiew and aoDroval of 11) the landscape Dlan by P. D'Aaostino and Q-1 a Dhotometric olan by J_ TonkinsQp. The working drawings (including landscape plan), plat of survey, and rending have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0027). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 22, 1998 Page 3 of 7 SPAARC 98-0072 1704 Central Street Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe Application for Sidewalk Cafe (Panino's Italian Restaurant). Mr. Tulio Castilla presented an Application for Sidewalk Cafe for Panino's Italian Restaurant located at 1704 Central Street. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established in the "Sidewalk Cafe Regulation Checklist". T. Castilla responded that Panino's Italian Restaurant will comply with all requirements, except Panino's Italian Restaurant will request the waiver to permit disposable beverage containers. T. Castilla stated that Panino's Italian Restaurant will use planters to delineate the sidewalk cafe. M. Mylott asked T. Castilla: do plan to deploy 5 chairs and 15 seats, as shown on the site plan? T. Castilla responded: no, Panino's Italian Restaurant will deploy 4 chairs and 12 seats. A. Alterson read the "Procedure & Notice Requirements for an Application for Sidewalk Cafe ... within 200 feet of a Residentially Zoned District'. A. Alterson asked T. Castilla: do you understand the notification requirements? T. Castilla responded: yes. A. Alterson motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the Application for Sidewalk Cafe of Panino's Italian Restaurant. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aanroved the motion (7-0) to LQWmmend that the ON Council approve the A lop ication for Sidewalk Cafe of Panino's Italian Restaur�. The Sidewalk Cafe Regulation Checklist has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0072). SPAARC 98-0074 1640 Chicago Avenue Recommendation for Sidewalk Cafe Application for Sidewalk Cafe (Whole Foods Market). Mr. Mitch Touluki presented an Application for Sidewalk Cafe for Whole Foods Market located at 1640 Chicago Avenue. C. Smith read the sidewalk cafe requirements as established in the "Sidewalk Cafe Regulation Checklist". M. Touluki responded that Whole Foods Market will comply with all requirements, except Whole Foods Market will request the waiver to permit disposable beverage containers. M. Touluki stated that Whole Foods Market will use tensile barricades or ropes to delineate the sidewalk cafe. A. Alterson read the "Procedure & Notice Requirements for an Application for Sidewalk Cafe ... within 200 feet of a Residentially Zoned District". A. Alterson asked M. Touluki: do you understand the notification requirements? M. Touluki responded: yes A. Alterson motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the Application for Sidewalk Cafe of Whole Foods Market. P D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-1) to recommend that the City, Council approve the Application for Sidewalk Cafe of Whole Foods Market. The Sidewalk Cafe Regulation Checklist has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0074). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AN July 22. 1998 Page 4 of 7 SPAARC 88-0013 11014137 Chicago Avenue Preliminary Remodel existing building for food store establishment (The People's Market). Mr. Tom Rose presented working drawings (including a parking lot plan), a plat of survey, a rendering, and site photographs for a food store establishment (The People's Market) located at 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue. T. Rose stated that The People's Market is a "Sam's Club" for organic foods; The People's Market will be a separate company from Wild Oats, although employees of Wild Oats will staff The People's Market, A. Alterson asked T. Rose: do patrons require a membership? T. Rose responded: no. C. Smith asked T. Rose: are you maintaining the existing structure as is? T. Rose responded: yes, The People's Market plans to include the existing carport within the floor plan by removing the ramps. M. Mylott asked T. Rose: do you plan to keep the existing windows along the east elevation? T. Rose responded: yes. C. Smith asked T. Rose: will you be keeping the EIFS? T. Rose responded: yes, although it may need to be recovered. C. Smith stated that she would like to see the former Chrysler emblems removed. T. Rose stated that those emblems will be removed. C. Smith stated that building material samples will be required for final site plan and appearance review approval. T. Rose stated that the north elevation and the north portion of the east elevation will have garage doors that can be opened to provide an "open air market". C. Smith stated that the sign structure on top of the existing building must be removed. T. Rose stated that that item may not be controlled by The People's Market/ Wild Oats, but he will communicate the Committee concern to the landlord. H. Friedman asked T. Rose: is the pagoda on the north elevation part of the corporate identity? T. Rose responded: no. A. Alterson stated that the pagodas are not functional. H. Friedman stated that the pagodas do not blend the building with the neighborhood. C. Smith stated that she does not mind some entrance feature in that area. H. Friedman stated that one alternative would be to change the roof type in that area. M. Mylott asked T. Rose: can you provide the Committee with pictures of Wild Oats' Hinsdale facility? T. Rose responded: the building is not complete, but renderings are available. M. Mylott stated that a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit will be required. T. Rose stated that that application has been submitted. D. Jennings stated that, based on prior conversations regarding the parking lot, he thought the access to the alley at the northeast corner was going to be closed, and the access to the alley in the middle of the east lot line was going to be restricted to trucks only. T. Rose stated that the northeast access to the alley would be closed, but he is not sure how to restrict the second access to trucks only. M. Mylott asked T. Rose: how often do deliveries occur. requiring the use of the alley? T Rose responded: not often, most deliveries are from smaller trucks. T Rose stated that he has promised the ward alderman that small trucks will use Chicago Avenue to access the site. T. Rose stated that he will work with the architect on some options for restricting alley access to trucks only. _ T. Rose stated that he promised the neighbors that he would put up a fence along the east lot line. C. Smith stated that a fence would create safety concerns, because any natural surveillance of the alley would be eliminated: she would rather see landscaping. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that, given the existing privacy fences and garages along the east side of the alley, a fence along the west side of the alley will create an SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 22, 1998 Page 5 of 7 unsafe canyon; a hedge would be preferred. P. D'Agostino stated that a wrought iron fence could be installed. M. Mylott stated that a wrought iron fence could be installed on top of a 36-inch masonry wall. A. Alterson stated that well -designed landscaping will do more to reduce sound than a fence. M. Mylott stated that he believes that a privacy fence along the north lot line is appropriate, because that boundary immediately abuts those residences' back yards. D. Jennings stated that the developer should Install both landscaping and a fence along the north lot line. A. Alterson stated that T. Rose should contact the neighbors to the north to discuss a fence and landscaping arrangement. M. Mylott stated that, if any fences are to be installed, T. Rose should provide the Committee with a depiction of that fence. M. Mylott stated that he preferred a privacy fence with some degree of relief to it, such that the fence does not resemble a wall. M. Mylott stated that he would like to see canopy trees installed within the middle landscape island; in fact, canopy trees could be installed along the east landscape island with a hedge surrounding the trees. T. Rose stated that canopy trees within the eastern landscape islands may interfere with truck traffic. D. Jennings stated that such interference will not be likely, because the alley is 20 feet wide. T. Rose stated that the landscaping plan will be a low -maintenance design. C. Smith stated that The People's MarketWild Oats will be required to keep the parking area clean of litter and other debris. C. Smith stated that T. Rose should work with P. D'Agostino on the landscaping plan, the landscaping plan is not required until final site plan and appearance review. C. Smith stated that the sign on the north facade is not permitted by -right; such signs would only be permitted on the west and south facades. A. Alterson motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, provided: (1) the alley access at the northeast corner of the site is eliminated; (2) the applicant provides the Committee with a solution(s) such that the alley access along the middle of the east lot line is restricted to truck access only; (3) the applicant reconsider using functionless pagodas along the north facade; (4) the applicant remove the former Chrysler emblems from all facades; (5) the applicant remove, or cause to be removed, the sign structure from the roof; and (6) the applicant discuss a fence along the north lot line with all property owners abutting the north lot line of the subject property. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (7-0) to arant oreliminary site plan and appearance review approval. provided: (1) the alley access at the northeast corner of the site is eliminated: (2) the aoolicant provides the Committee with a solution(* such that the allev access alono the middle of the east lot line is rut led to truck access only: (3) the applicant reconsider usina functionless Qagodas al no the north facade, (4) the an�litrant remove the former Chnr alff emblems from all facades: he ap licant remove, or cause to be removed, the sion structure from the roof; and (6) the applicant discuss a fence alona the north lot line with all aroaerty owners abutlino the north lot line gf the subject orooertv. The parking lot plan, rendering, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0073). SPAARC 96-0073 528 Dempster Street Application for Sidewalk Cafe (Starbucks Coffee Company). Applicant did not attend, Recommedation for Sidewalk Cafe SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 22, 1998 Page 6 of 7 4#e SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and ATM and upper -floor msidendal). Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 98-0054 747 Ridge Avenue Remove windows on multi -family residential building. Applicant canceled appearance. Approval of Summary of Findings Prellminary and Final Revision to Preliminary D. Jennings motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of July 15, 1998. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-0) to aoDrove the Summaly DI Findings. of July 't5. 1998, Adjournment The meeting adjoumed at 5:10 p.m. PI ctfully subml. ie Marc Steven Mylott, Zoni canner Date a SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 22. 1998 Page 7 of 7 I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 29, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, J. Edwards (for K. Kelly), D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus, D. Jennings, J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. M. Charley, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, S. Steen. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0036 814 Church Street Final Rear addition to restaurant (Olive Mountain). Mr. Ahmed Saleh (owner) and Mr. Don Wallin (architect) presented a site plan and future kitchen plans for a rear addition to the Olive Mountain restaurant located at 814 Church Street, D. Wallin stated that, following discussions with the owner, they felt the best approach to providing an accessible parking space was to provide the parking space at the rear of the building; they will provide a ramp Within the restaurant, from the door to a direct hallway to the dining area. D. Wallin stated that the site plan provides an area for 2 standard dumpsters and 1 grease dumpster, a 4-foot long, 6-foot high concrete block wall will keep the dumpsters from "migrating" into the alley. D. Wallin stated that the site plan illustrates the proposed location of the catch basin D. Wallin stated that the first phase of the plans will include "roughing in" the plumbing, and finishing the freezer, cooler, and storage space. D. Wallin stated that the addition will be painted concrete block. J Tonkinson stated that the applicant will require an Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) Permit. D Wallin stated that the owner has a civil engineer working on that application at this time. C. Smith stated that the concrete block wall only needs to be 4 feet high, especially if its only purpose is to keep the dumpsters in place. L. Black agreed C. Smith stated that the wall will require either a post or an "L" configuration to keep it from falling over. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 29, 1998 Page 1 of 6 C. Smith stated that the owner must provide a sign at the accessible parking space, citing a $100 fine for violation. C. Smith stated that the owner should stripe the exit way to keep it open. C, Smith asked D. Wallin: will the interior ramp meet the Illinois accessibility code? D. Wallin responded: yes, the difference in height across the run is only about 14 inches. M. Mylott stated that the new site plan will need to be reviewed by the Zoning Division. C. Smith stated that the electrical service must be relocated. C. Smith stated that the roof drainage must be connected to the underground drainage, and should be considered part of the MWRD Permit Application. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (9-0) to grant Final siJ2 Dan and appearance review agoroval. The site plan and future kitchen plans have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0036). SPAARC 98-0076 1860 Maple Avenue 4-story once building (Research Park, Parcel 6). Preliminary Ms. Alice Rebechini (developer) and Mr. Devon Patterson (architect) presented an area plan, a site plan, elevations, renderings, building material samples, and a plat of survey for a new 4-story office building (Research Park, Parcel 6) located at 1860 Maple Avenue. A. Rebechini stated that the plans include: Approximately 87,000 sq.ft. of office space. Some space could be research or laboratory, depending on prospective tenant needs. A 2-story arcade (along Maple Avenue) with a 1-story lobby. 3. Brick elevations to blend with the buildings to the north and west. They are investigating 2 options for elevations -- a punched -window alternative and ribbon -window alternative; the final decision will depend on tenant needs and pricing. 4. Blackish green mullions and tinted glass. If affordable, the windows will have a low E coating. 5. Precast base and accent pieces. 6. A pedestrian entrance along Maple Avenue, and a underground parking garage entrance along University Place. The underground parking configuration is subject to change; however, the parking count will be between 35 and 40 spaces Some spaces may be smaller than the Zoning Ordinance requires, but those spaces would not be counted toward meeting the parking requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The remainder of the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement will be met through a parking agreement with the City. A. Rebechini stated that, at this point, they were leaning toward the ribbon -window alternative. SUMMARY FINDINGS AN 51FE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 29 1998 a Page 2 of 6 A. Rebechini stated that they were working with Mr. Ron Kysiak on the landscaping plan to attempt to create a design that conformed with the intent of the surrounding buildings. D. Marino asked A. Rebechini: will Mesirow Stein own the building? A. Rebechini responded: the building will be owned under a limited liability corporation, A. Alterson stated that, whether or not the underground parking conforms to the standards Zoning Ordinance, the City Traffic Engineer will review the configuration to ensure it is functional. C. Smith stated that the punched -window alternative resembled a 1920s or 1930s warehouse, and that this design is proportionately appropriate; however, the ribbon -window approach is 'odd -looking and disconcerting", because the punched -window approach was simply modified to accept ribbon -windows. C. Smith stated that she does not mind ribbon -windows; however, the building requires additional attention, such as more contemporary details, rather than simply changing the type of window. D. Patterson stated that he thought the ribbon -window alternative had a stronger feel. H. Friedman stated that the University Place elevation and the north elevation of the ribbon -window alternative were appropriate; however, the Maple Avenue elevation required more attention. H. Friedman stated that the area above the second story within the arcade appeared awkward. C. Smith stated that she liked the recessed entrance. H. Friedman stated that the ribbon -windows alternative may require more attention to the entrance. C. Smith stated that she liked the surround of the recessed openings. A. Rebechini asked the Committee: are there any objections and/or concerns with the punched -window alternative? C. Smith responded: no. C. Smith asked A. Rebechini: what size brick will you use? A. Rebechini responded: the proposed brick is utility size (4 inches by 12 inches): however, at this point, it is too early to talk specifics about the brick. C. Smith stated that she liked the color and texture of that brick presented, especially the iron spots; however, the size of the brick is equally important. C. Smith stated that, in a design that has some historical links, large- scale brick does not work, and she recommends a standard size brick. A. Rebechini stated that they will review the brick size. C. Smith asked A. Rebechini: will the loading dock handle tractor trailers? A. Rebechini responded: no, but the loading dock does meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement. C. Smith asked: how will the loading dock be controlled? A. Rebechini responded: with a recessed dark -colored rolling door. C Smith asked A. Rebechini: where will the dumpsters be stored? A. Rebechini responded: within the building, near the loading dock. H. Friedman asked A. Rebechini: where will you be placing the air conditioner equipment? A. Rebechini responded: on the roof. H Friedman asked A Rebechini: will you be screening the air conditioner equipment? A. Rebechini responded: no. C. Smith stated that she feels very strongly that the air conditioner equipment must be screened, and she would have serious reservations about supporting a design that did not screen this equipment. A. Rebechini stated that they will review screening devices. A Rebechini stated that they are reviewing whether or not the buildings to the north and west are using a portion of the subject property to provide access for loading and/or other services (trash removal). C Smith stated that, if access must be provided for the buildings to the north and west, the associated services are better located within an interior service courtyard; this arrangement could be rather unobtrusive, especially with well -planned landscaping J Tonkinson disagreed, and stated that services should be provided from University Place, because such a role was its original intent. J. Tonkinson stated that the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 29, 1996 Page 3 of 6 proposed garage door will be closed most of the time, and he does not see any offense to such a design on a street that is not well traveled. J. Tonkinson stated that the bigger issue is access for the buildings to the north and west; the developer may have to provide a driveway for these properties. H. Friedman stated that the City Council adopted the Research Park Master Plan in 1989, and that document describes the function each road was to assume. J. Tonkinson stated that some parcels were required to dedicate additional right- of-way. C. Smith asked A. Rebechini: do you have control of the subject property? A. Rebechini responded: no. A. Rebechini stated that they are working on their third draft of the purchase agreement. A. Alterson motioned to table this item. Motion to table this item failed for lack of second L. Black motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, subject to (1) reviewing adjustments to the facades of the ribbon -window alternative consistent with Committee comments; (2) considering standard -size brick; (3) locating the HVAC equipment on the roof, and providing screening for that equipment; (4) resolving the issue of access for the buildings to the north and west; (5) reconfiguring the basement parking to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer; (6) entering into a parking agreement with the City to satisfy the parking requirement of the Zoning Ordinance; and (7) compliance with the Research Park Master Plan. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that, if approved, the next review by the Committee should be considered a "Revision to Preliminary" review, rather than "Final" review. Committee aDDroved the motion (7-1) to arant oreliminary site plan and a22garance review_ approval. subject to i 1) reviewina adiustments to the facades of the ribbon -window alternative consistent with Commitir& pomments: (Z) considerina standard -size brick: QHogatinci the HVAC eauioment on the roof. and providing screening for that eauioment: f4) resolvinq the issue of access for the buildinas to the north and west: (51 reconfiguring the basement Darkina to the satisfaction of the Citv Traffic Engineer: (6) entering into p Qarking pgreement with the City to satisfv the oarkina_Muirement of the Zonino Ordinance: and (7)SomDliance wijh the Research Park Master Plan The site plan, elevations, and plat of survey has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0076). SPAARC 98-0082 1801 Maple Avenue Preliminary and Final Reconfigure wireless communication facility (PrrmeCo Personal Communications) on roof of Biff Lab. Ms. Jennifer Churchwell (PrrmeCo Personal Communications) presented working drawings (including a roof- top plan) to reconfigure the wireless communication facility (WCF) for PrimeCo Personal Communications located at 1801 Maple Avenue J Churchwell stated that the original WCF was designed for 9 panel antennas. however, only 6 were installed. J Churchwell stated that PrrmeCo proposes to 1 Remove the original 6 panel antennas and install 9 new panel antennas. The existing panel antennas are, and the new panel antennas will be, mounted to pipe mounts, attached to the existing penthouse. The new panel antennas are approximately the same width and depth (5% inches wide by 2y: inches deep), but are 6 inches longer. The new panel antennas will project no higher than the existing panel antennas. they will hang 6 inches lower SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 29 1998 �► Page 4 of 6 2. Paint the new panel antennas white -- the same as the existing panel antennas. 3. Remove the existing equipment cabinets and install new equipment cabinets. The new equipment cabinets are 3 feet lower than the existing cabinets (measured from the rooftop). C. Smith asked J. Churchwell: do the existing panel antennas extend above the penthouse? J. Churchwell responded: yes. C. Smith asked J. Churchwell: can the new panel antennas be lowered, such that they do not extend above the penthouse? J. Churchwell responded: no, because the height is designed based on an existing coverage area. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and Final site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-0) to grant preliminary and final sit alan and aopearance review g2prgYal. The working drawings (including roof -top plan) has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0082), SPAARC 98-0077 1710 Orrington Avenue Preliminary and Final Remodel canopy. Mr. William Gera and Mr. Nick Tywan presented working drawings, a rendering, a plat of survey, site photographs, and an awning material sample to remodel the canopy of the Omni Orrington Hotel located at 1710 Orrington Avenue. W. Gera stated that the canopy is in "major disrepair"; however, the concerns are cosmetic, not structural. W. Gera stated that the project includes: 1. Ensuring that the drainage system works. 2. Replacing the white canvas awning with a forest green canvas awning. The Omni logo will be pink, and the letters and stripes will be white. 3. Repairing and repainting (white) the wood columns. 4. Replacing 14 lights with-9 recessed lights. 5. Installing exterior drywall on the ceiling of the canopy. W. Gera stated that the awning will not have the scallops portrayed within the rendering; the additional cost was prohibitive. J Tonkinson stated that the project requires a Street Obstruction Bond and a Public Works permit. J Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. L. Black seconded the motion. Discussion. M. Mylott stated that, while he appreciated the Hotel's desires to repair an existing canopy, he believes this time is an opportunity to reduce the size of the canopy; it is SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 29, 1998 Page 5 of 6 simply too large for this building, drawing attention away from the building itself and serving as excessive advertising. The working drawings, rendering, plat of survey, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 9M077). SPAARC 98-0075 2020 Greenwood Street Repair to existing loading docks. Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and ATM and upper -floor residential). Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 98-0054 747 Ridge Avenue Remove windows on multi -family residential building. Applicant canceled appearance. Approval of Summary of Findings Preliminary and Final Preliminary and Final Revision to Preliminary J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of July 22, 1998, P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee agoroved the motion(]'-01 to aporove the Summary gf Findings of July 22, 1998. L. Black abstained. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. ectfully submi Marc Steven Mylotl SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE July 29, 1999 Page 6 of 6 �►�,9�ist a,� rasa. Date 10 .. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 5, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, L. Black, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus, J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:10 p.m. SPAARC 98-0075 2707 Ashland Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct addition to Byron S. Coon Student Sports Center Building (Northwestern University). Mr, Jim Koolish (Northwestern University) and Mr. Paul Devylder (architect) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, landscape plan, plat of survey, site photographs, and a model for an addition to the Byron S. Coon Student Sports Center Building (Northwestern University) located at 2707 Ashland Avenue. P. Devylder stated that the 1-story addition: expands the athletes' weight room (Byron S. Coon Student Sports Center Building) by approximately 7,000 sq.tt. The addition is slightly higher than this portion of the existing building. The addition provides a 1-story portion to the west side of the 2-story John C. Nicolet Football Center, aligning with the west side of Trienens Hall (located immediately north of the John C. Nicolet Football Center). is a "glass facade". The glass is clear with a low E, nonreflective coating. The other building material is precast concrete. P Devylder stated that the inflll proposed to the eastern entrance is no longer within the work program. L. Black stated that this work would improve the security of a potentially unsafe area, and Northwestern University should strongly consider adding this element back to the work program. D Jennings asked P. Devylder: does the area have visibility from the street? P Devylder responded: no. P. Devylder stated that the proposed landscaping plan continues the design of the existing landscaping along Trienens Hall. P. D'Agostino stated that the landscape plan is acceptable. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE eoAugust S, 1998 Page 1 of 6 •. K. Kelly asked J. Koolish: what changes are you making to the driveway? J. Koolish responded: the configuration of the driveway is not changing, but it is being moved 5 feet to the south. C. Smith stated that the proposal presents a nice architectural solution to the existing mix of buildings, and, at night, the addition will cast light onto an otherwise dark exterior area. J. Torikinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. L. Black seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott asked P. Devylder are the site plan and floor plan presented the same as those reviewed by the Zoning Division? P. Devylder responded: yes. Committee approved the motion (9-0) to grant prefiminary and final site elan and ap eearange review an royal. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, landscape plan, and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0075). SPAARC 98-0077 3200 Grant Street Preliminary and Final Wireless Communication Facility (AT&T) at Presbyterian Homes. Mr. Jim Leahy presented working drawings (including a site plan), a plat of survey, and site photographs for a wireless communication facility (WCF) for AT&T located at the Presbyterian homes, 3200 Grant Street. Mr. Jay Fisher was available to answer questions. J. Leahy stated that this WCF represents AT&T's commitment to utilizing existing tall structures; 5 of the 6 facilities in the City are, or will be, located on existing structures. J. Leahy stated that this WCF will: 1. Consist of 6 panel antennas, mounted to the existing smokestack. The antennas will be painted to match the existing brick of the smokestack. 2. Include a 10-foot by 16-foot equipment shed at the base of the smokestack. The shed will be screened by existing buildings on 3 sides and by mature landscaping on the fourth side. The equipment shed will be constructed of molded fiberglass; the fiberglass will be molded and painted to match the surrounding brick buildings. The equipment shed will be unmanned, requiring no ingresslegress to the shed. A. Alterson asked J. Fisher: will the antennas extend above the smokestack? J. Fisher responded: no. J. Fisher responded that the antennas are only 2 feet long. J Fisher stated that the smokestack has existing aviation lights. C Smith stated that she is comfortable leaving the landscaping up to the property owners. H Friedman asked J. Fisher will the molded fiberglass extend over the anchor foundation? J. Fisher responded: yes. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the mot!4D_(9.0) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review anDroval SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 6, 1998 4#� Page 2 of 6 The working drawings (including site plan) and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0077). SPAARC 98-0054 747 Ridge Avenue Preliminary and Final Remove windows on multi -family residential building. Mr. Steve Guerrant (representing owner) and Mr. Jim Murray (attorney) presented interior and site photographs, building material samples, and a sight -tine diagram for a mufti -family resldential building located at 747 Ridge Avenue to which windows have been removed. J. Murray stated that, regarding the concern about safety to the alley, even if windows were reinstalled, a tall person would have difficulty viewing out them because of their height from the floor. S. Guerrant stated that they propose to either. 1. Leave the windows closed and install motion sensors and lights along the east alley; or 2, Install vinyl, fixed, thermopane windows to manufacturer's specifications. The windows would require , an additional 1 inch of trim around the edges of the windows. S. Guerrant stated that they would prefer to keep the bathroom windows closed, because they pose an interior and exterior maintenance problem; the required ventilation is provided mechanically. S. Guerrant stated that, if required, they would install common brick where vinyl siding currently covers the bathroom openings. A. Alterson asked S. Guerrant: what material would you use on the "finished -brick" sides of the building? S. Guerrant responded: they propose keeping the vinyl siding. S. Guerrant stated that, as recommended by the Building Division, they would take the ventilation out the former bathroom windows to avoid an additional masonry cut; this vent resembles an approximately 6-Inch dryer vent. L. Black stated that no one will see the motion sensor and lights activate, and she recommends that the windows be reinstalled on all sides, providing the perception that persons within the building can see the surroundings. D. Jennings and A. Alterson agreed. A. Alterson stated that he believes the windows should be reinstalled, such that the building does not look cheapened. C. Smith agreed. L. Black agreed, and stated that the building appears boarded up, compromising the safety of the surrounding residents. C. Smith stated that she could live with keeping the bathroom windows closed; the finished product would not be so overwhelming. M. Mylott motioned to grant a revision to the previous preliminary site plan and appearance review approval and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the property owner installs the presented windows In all instances in which bedroom windows were previously removed; the bathroom windows previously removed may remain closed and covered as is, provided ventilation is provided via these existing openings. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he cannot support retaining the vinyl siding because it cheapens the building and impacts land values. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 6. 1999 Page 3 of 6 D. Marino asked S. Guerrant: how many bathroom windows were closed? S. Guerrant responded: 16. S. Guerrant stated that only 8 will have exterior vents, A. Alterson asked S. Guerrant: what is the remaining "life" of the existing windows that were not replaced? S. Guerrant responded: those windows are in excellent condition, but they are not thermopane. A. Alterson asked: do these windows have storm windows? S. Guerrant responded: no, but they have exterior screens. A. Alterson asked: how is the building heated? S. Guerrant responded: via hot water through a fan coil. C. Smith asked S. Guerrant: will the new windows be of the same manufacturer and thickness as the previously installed new windows? S. Guerrant responded: yes. C. Smith stated that she recommends using tan frame on the finished side of the building and white frame on the common brick side of the building. M. Mylott agreed. QQmmittee approved the motion (6-01 to grant a rgylsion to the previous preliminary site plan and agg2arance review approval and final site elan and appearance review_aporoval. Drovided the ptopedy owner installs the presented windows in all instances in which bedroom windows were creviously removed: the bathrog_m windows previously removed may remain closed and covered�s is. Drovided ventilation is provided via these existing 4 e2 ninnas. The sight -line diagram has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0054). SPAARC 98-0075 2020 Greenwood Street Preliminary and Final Repair loading docks (Luslro Plastics Company). Mr. Joe Staff (general contractor) and Mr. Larry Reiss (engineer) presented working drawings and site photographs to repair the loading docks for Lustro Plastics Company located at 2020 Greenwood Street. L. Reiss stated that the proposal repairs, or where repair is not feasible replaces, the top 6 feet of masonry, capstone, and bollards for 3 loading docks. M. Mylott asked L. Reiss: are you changing the number or dimensions of the loading dock? L. Reiss responded: no. L. Reiss stated that they are proposing no change to the grade or doors. A. Alterson asked L. Reiss: is this project more accurately described as a restoration, rather than as a change? L. Reiss responded -.yes. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion committee aoDroved the motion (10-0) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review aDprovaj. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0075). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AN August 6, 1998 a► Page 4 of 6 SPAARC 98-0079 1821 Asbury Avenue Preliminary and Final Major variations for additions to single-family residences. M. Mylott presented the Application for Major Variation for additions to a single-family residence located at 1821 Asbury Avenue. M. Mylott stated that the additions require a variation to the rear yard setback and lot coverage requirements of the R1 Single-family Residential District, C. Smith asked M. Mylott: have any neighbors voiced objections to the proposal? M. Mylott responded: not to this point in time. C. Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved the proposal. M, Mylott stated that the applicants have asked to include bulkhead doors along the rear lot line; the zoning Division has no concerns with this modification as the stairs are accessory. C. Ruiz stated that M. Mylott should forward this modification to him for review. J. Tonkinson stated that the Application for Building Permit will require grading plans. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. L. Black seconded the motion. Committee approved the mq�jgjn (10-0) to grant preliminary and float site plan and appearanraval. SPAARC 98-0078 1117 Harvard Terrace Preliminary and Final Major variation for garage for single-family residence. M. Mylott presented the Application for Major Variation for a carport and 1-car garage for a single-family residence located at 1117 Harvard Terrace, M. Mylott stated that the accessory structure requires a variation to the lot coverage requirements of the R2 Single-family Residential District. D Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion 11{1-01 to orant preliminary and final site plan and =earance review aggroval. Approval of Summary of Findings J Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of July 29. 1998. P. D'Agostlno seconded the motion. Committee aporoved the motion (10-0) to approve the SumM ry of Findings of July 29, 1998. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE a► August 8, 1998 Page 5 of 6 Adloumment The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. SUMMARY FINDINGS SITE PLANAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 6, 1998 Pape 8 of 6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 12, '1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, L. Black, J. Glus, D. Marino, Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: M. {Charley, B. Fahlstrom, L. -Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, C. Wonders. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:10 p.m. SPAARC 98-0080 2722 Green Bay Road Concept Convert vacant grocery store to retail sales establishment (Office Depot). Mr. Tom Ryckman (architect) presented an existing and proposed site plan, a Green Bay Road elevation, and a plat of survey to convert a vacant grocery store to a retail sales establishment (Office Depot), located at 2722 Green Bay Road, T. Ryckman stated that Office Depot proposes: 1. renovating the interior, including retaining the existing entrance, escalator (to provide access to the deck parking area), and elevator (for supplies). Restrooms will be accessible. 2. restriping the existing parking area, and providing better illumination for the at -grade parking. 3 retaining one existing loading dock, and eliminating the second existing loading dock. Deliveries will be made via the alley. 4 installing an at -grade trash compactor 5, removing the existing canopy from the Green Bay Road facade and installing a framework of mirrored panels and an EIFS system, including colored, recessed banding. This framework projects approximately 2 to 6 inches from the building face. The existing masonry will be retained. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Division has not conducted a Zoning Analysis on this proposal. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 12. 1998 Page 1 of a C. Smith stated that the Illinois Accessibility Code may apply, depending on the amount invested In the building and the extent of the renovations. C. Smith stated that the parking layout must be reviewed by the Committee and the Zoning Division, and all items should be dimensioned. C. Smith stated that accessible parking spaces must be provided. J. Wolinski asked T. Ryckman: is the spray -on fire -proofing still falling from underneath the parking deck? T. Ryckman responded: Office Depot plans to repair and replace that item as necessary to maintain the continuity of the fire -proofing. H. Friedman asked T. Ryckman: has Office Depot tested for asbestos? T. Ryckman responded: such tests are part of Office Depot's standard purchase or lease procedure. T. Ryckman stated that he will check with Office Depot to see if such a test had been conducted. C. Smith asked T. Ryckman: where will Office Depot store compacted bundles? T. Ryckman responded: the trash compactor is self -storing; when the existing compactor is full, it will be removed, and a new compactor will be installed. C. Smith asked T. Ryckman: is Office Depot proposing changes to the lighting for the deck parking? T. Ryckman responded: no. T. Ryckman stated that Office Depot planned to use wall packets at the loading area. , C. Smith stated that no light may spill" to adjacent properties. J. Tonkinson stated that horizontal lenses are required. T. Ryckman stated that an alternative to wall packets would be lights installed on the overhang. C. Smith that Office Depot must provide a photometric plan; this plan may be forwarded to J. Tonkinson for his review. J. Tonkinson stated that his office can provide the requirements in writing. C. Smith staled that she recommends using an aluminum panel within the color banding rather than EIFS; this modification would interrupt a rather long expanse of EIFS. A. Alterson stated that the amount of EIFS is quite extensive. T. Ryckman staled that the renovations must hide where the existing canopy once was attached; underneath that area is concrete block. T. Ryckman stated that he will review that recommendation with the EIFS manufacturer. C. Smith stated that the top of the projecting framework should be the recessed banding rather than changing to a different material. C. Smith asked T. Ryckman: have you prepared the Jenks Street elevation? T. Ryckman responded: that elevation will not change. C. Smith stated that she would like to see how it will relate to the east elevation. A. Alterson stated that T. Ryckman should consider providing bicycle parking. C Smith stated that T. Ryckman should work with the Zoning Division on that item. C. Smith stated that signage is a separate permit; the Sign Ordinance is available from the City Clerk, T. Ryckman stated that he believed the sign was no higher than 15 feet 6 inches. J Wolinski motioned to grant concept review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Discussion C. Smith stated that the Committee can conduct preliminary and final site plan and appearance review at one meeting, however, the Committee requires building material samples, a photometric plan, and a landscaping plan for final review. Committee aooroved the motion f8-01 to arant conceot review aaaroval. The existing and proposed site plan, Green Bay Road elevation, and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0080). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 12, 1998 Page 2 of 8 el SPAARC 98-0086 1007 Church Street Preliminary and Final New exterior entrance at Shand Morahan (Evanston Northwestem Healthcare). Mr. Mark Balasi (architect) presented a site plan, a floor plan, and site and building before -and -after photographs for a new entrance for Evanston Northwestern Healthcare at Shand Morahan, located at 1007 Church Street. Ms. Julie Ford (Evanston Northwestern Healthcare) and Ms. Paula Alexander (Evanston Northwestern Healthcare) were available to answer questions. M. Balasi stated that the plans include: 1. providing a private entrance for Evanston Northwestern Healthcare. The stainless steel door would match the existing lobby doors. 2. providing a new HVAC unit and louvers. The HVAC unit would be located at the rear, adjacent to existing HVAC equipment. A 1-inch condenser pipe would follow the approximate path of existing pipes. The condenser pipe will be wrapped with foam rubber. C. Smith asked M. Balasi: why is this door necessary, given the existing lobby? M. Balasi stated that the clinic desired a private entrance. J. Ford stated that the clinic will be open after the other offices within the building. C. Smith stated that the lobby is open after those offices close. J. Ford stated that the private entrance affords the clinic better control over the space from a safety standpoint. C. Smith stated that the lobby has a security guard, and 2 entrances are more at -risk from a safety perspective than 1. C. Smith stated that she is concerned with cutting a door in one of the nicest office building in Evanston, especially when the door detracts from the original intent of the design and does not appear critical to the operation of the clinic. H. Friedman and A. Alterson agreed. J. Wolinski tabled this item to allow the building owner to address why this door is necessary. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the location of the HVAC equipment is unfortunate. A. Alterson stated that he would like the applicants to consider other locations that are less obtrusive. Committee anoroved the motion (8-01 to table this item to allow the build'+nq owner to address why this doQ1 is necessary. The site plan, the floor plan, and site and building before -and -after photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0086). SPAARC 98-0034 1910 Dempster Street Revision to Preliminary Demolition and construction of new grocery store within Evanston Plaza (Dominick's). Mr. Michael Conter (representing Evanston Plaza) and Mr. Fred Bemheim (architect) presented revised north and east (with existing landscaping overlay) elevations and building material samples for a new grocery store (Dominick's) within Evanston Plaza, located at 1910 Dempster Street. Mr. Paul Varnailis (Dominick's) was available to answer questions. SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 12, 1998 Page 3 of 8 F. Bernheim stated that the revisions include: 1, eliminating the split face block, except for the base, and using jumbo brick. EIFS will only be used on the sign panel. 2. eliminating the metal roof, and using shingles. M. Mylott stated that the landscape architect indicated that the existing landscaping located immediately east of the building may have to be removed if a staging area for construction was needed. M. Mylott asked F. Bernheim: are you stating that the existing landscaping located immediately east of the building will be preserved? F. Bemheim responded: yes. A. Alterson stated that lie and his wife visited the new Dominick's in Melrose Park, and, unprompted, his wife stated that the layout was "funny". P. Vamaitis stated that, once customers use the store once, they will know the appropriate location for entering and exiting. M. Mylott asked P. Vamaitis: why would you confuse the customer even once? P. Vamaitis responded: having a central entrance on a store this size makes managing pedestrian traffic difficult. C. Smith asked P. Vamaitis: could you "flip" the layout of the store? P. Vamaitis responded: no, because the current layout moves pedestrian traffic as far away from the Dodge Avenue intersection as possible; this configuration also provides stacking space for vehicles waiting to access Dodge Avenue. A. Alterson stated that the current layout will draw people "deeper" into the shopping center. C. Smith stated that, while she appreciated reducing the amount of EIFS and increasing the amount of brick, she does not see a strong enough link to the rest of the shopping center. C. Smith stated that even the rendering does not depict a building to the east, where an Office Depot is proposed; it is important to see Dominick's in this context. F. Bernheim stated that he has provided a break between the Dominick's and the Office Depot such that the Dominick's would be distinct. C. Smith stated that the building can be distinct from the other "buildings" within the shopping center while still appearing to be part of the shopping center, simply increasing the amount of brick and changing the roof material does not accomplish that objective. C. Smith stated that she thought the metal roof worked better with the rest of the shopping center, M. Mylott and M. Conter agreed. P. Varaitis stated that Dominick's is not committed to one roof material over the Other. M. Conter stated that the building does work within the rest of the shopping center; however, he is not sure Dominick's wants to mimic the existing shopping center, because this building is new, and the shopping center was built at a different time. M. Canter stated that the colors will be complimentary. A. Alterson stated that perhaps the rest of the shopping center will soon be redeveloped. C. Smith stated that L. Black would be concerned that the division between the Dominick's and Office Depot creates an unsafe area. P. Vamaitis stated that the expected annual volume of this Dominick's is between 30 and 35 million dollars. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous preliminary approval. K. Kelly seconded the motion. Discussion H Friedman stated that the building still suffers from the same problems as mentioned earlier; the elevations are still "all off'. J. Tonkinson stated that he has not received the photometric plarr. C. Smith stated that she is concerned with the division between the Dominick's and Office Depot. F Bernheim stated that this recess is approximately 8 feet; he will reduce it to approximately 2 feet. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 12. 1998 Page 4 or 8 M. Mylott asked M. Conter: Is the rest of the shopping center constructed of jumbo brick? M. Conter responded: yes. The revised north and east (with existing landscaping overlay) elevations and building material samples have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0034). SPAARC 98-0019 1825 Central Street 7 affached single-family dwellings. Revision to Preliminary Mr. Ryan Nestor (agent for the contract purchaser and architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, and elevations for revisions to 7 attached single-family dwelling units located at 1825 Central Street. R. Nestor stated that he has been working with neighbors, and the following revisions respond to their concerns: The overall height of each cluster (5-units and 2-units) has been reduced. Previously, both clusters had buildings with heights of approximately 45 feet. Now, the 2-unit cluster is approximately 28 feet, and the 5-unit cluster is approximately 36 feet. Previously, the 5-unit cluster was a mix of 3- and 4-story townhouses, and the 2-unit cluster was 4- story townhouses. Now, the 5-unit cluster more closely resembles 3 stories, and the 2-unit cluster more closely resembles 2% stories. The heights were reduced by reconfiguring the arrangement of the dwelling units, reducing the floor - to -floor heights, sinking the first floor, and changing from a gable roof to a flat roof. 4. The 2-unit cluster was moved south, such that the variation to the interior side yard setback requirement is no longer required. That building is 5 feet from the north lot line. 5. The garages fronting Poplar Avenue have been recessed approximately 5 feet, under a colonnade. This configuration reduces the visual impact on Poplar Avenue and provides additional sight distance to vehicles backing from the garages, reducing the pedestrian -vehicle conflict. 6. The driveway to the 2-unit garages has been reconfigured, such that the users of these garages must make a 3-point turn, improving the visibility of exiting vehicles. Also, 2 guest parking spaces have been provided. C. Smith asked R. Nestor. what was the neighbors' reaction to these revisions? R. Nestor responded: much more favorable. R. Nestor stated that the building materials include A preform or natural stone veneer at the base, not concrete block. 2. 2 different hues of standard size brick. 3. Limestone or blue stone caps and accent bands. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 12, 1998 Page 5 of 8 4. Wood siding on the upper floors. C. Smith asked R. Nestor. will the colonnade have recessed lights over the garage doors? R. Nestor responded; yes. C. Smith asked R. Nestor are you proposing lights on the exterior of the building? R. Nestor responded: yes. C. Smith stated that she would recommend removing those lights and using recessed can lights (under the entrance awnings) and bollard lights (along the walkways) instead. R. Nestor stated he will remove the lights from the exterior of the building. R. Nestor stated that the developer has agreed to include in the condominium association by-laws that no refuse collection devices (such as garbage cans) may be stored underneath the colonnade. C. Smith asked R. Nestor. are the pedestrian doors also sunk? R. Nestor responded: yes. C. Smith stated that she would recommend performing that grade change on the interior, such that the door was at grade. D. Jennings stated that entering and exiting the northern 2 garages on the 2-unit cluster is nearly Impossible; the City requires 24 feet of backing distance. C. Smith stated that R. Nestor should work with D. Jennings on an alternate configuration, because it would be unfortunate to have to eliminate 1 of the garages. C. Smith stated that she would not use wood siding on the upper floors. J. Wolinski stated that he believed the density is too much for this site. A. Alterson stated that he thinks the building is nice -looking; however, he is not sure if it fits on this property, and that may be because it is too dense. A. Alterson stated that he would like to see something that celebrated the site's unique shape, perhaps using the southern -most angle. C. Smith asked R. Nestor: what are your plans for the corner? R. Nestor responded: they plan to work with the neighbors to design landscaping and/or other elements, possibly identifying with the train station; however, other issues were more critical, and they were unable to get to the corner. C. Smith stated that she liked the original design because it had more rhythm; now, the building just looks massive. H. Friedman agreed, and stated that the previous design was much better. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor. could you return to a gabled roof to better reflect residential character? R. Nestor responded: yes. H. Friedman stated that the gables on the 2-unit cluster building are "trite" and should be reworked. A. Alterson stated that he is still disturbed by the garage doors fronting on Poplar Avenue, because this street establishes the front yard for the neighbors to the north. J. Wolinski motioned to deny the revision to the previous preliminary approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion Committee -approved the motion (7.1) to denv the revision to the previous preliminary approval. M Mylott stated that he has a problem first approving a massive building, but denying a revision that reduces that mass C Smith stated that her concerns related to the 2-unit cluster garages and the design of the massing R Nestor asked the Committee: could you accept a design that worked within the revised massing and configuration? C. Smith stated that she could, provided the Committee concerns about parking and the elevations were addressed. H. Friedman, D. Jennings, and M. Mylott agreed. A. Alterson stated that he FINDINGS SITE ARYPLAN AN 517E PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 12, 1998 Page 6 of 8 would still be troubled by the 5-unit cluster garages on Poplar Avenue. C. Smith stated that she is not concerned with that arrangement, given the Metra parking across the street. The revised site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0019). SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Preliminary and Final Mixed -use building (ground -floor retail and ATM and upper -floor residential). Mr. Chris Thomas (architect) and Mr. Ron Fleckman (developer) presented a south elevation and building material samples for a mixed -use building located at 2953 Central Street. M. Mylott stated that, when last reviewed, this project received preliminary site plan approval, but preliminary appearance review was tabled to allow the developer to explore the cost difference between EIFS and stucco. C. Thomas stated that the cost increases 20 percent when stucco is used rather than EIFS, C. Thomas stated that the base is cast stone or grey stone, and the upper levels are brick and EIFS. C. Thomas stated that the developer's first choice is standard size brick; however, at this point, they cannot promise that size will be used. C. Thomas stated that, within the 5-foot deep baiconies, the brick wraps around the comers 1 foot. C. Thomas stated that the cap stone is cast stone or grey stone, except within the recesses (balconies), M. Mylott stated that, since the developer has elected not to install stucco, the developer should pass that savings onto using a size brick that is neither jumbo nor utility. A. Alterson stated that that compromise is an excellent idea. C. Smith stated that the proposed materials are "quite a contrast'. C. Smith asked C. Thomas: what color mortar will be used? C. Thomas responded: a natural color, similar to the cast stone. H. Friedman asked C. Thomas: are the joints within the base to be constructed as shown? C. Thomas responded: yes. C. Smith asked C. Thomas: what color windows will be used? C. Thomas responded: the window color has not yet been selected; however, it will be coordinated with the color of the railings. R. Fleckman stated that they were leaning toward a buff -color, aluminum -clad window; the doors would match the windows. C. Thomas stated that the awning is a fabric awning. C. Thomas stated that the exterior lights are Bega, white frames with frosted globes. C. Smith stated that a photometric plan is required. C. Smith stated that the planting of street trees should be coordinated with P. D'Agostino. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary appearance review approval and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided (1) J. Tonkinson review and approve the photometric plan, (2) P. D'Agostino review and approve the landscaping plan, and (3) the developer use a size brick that is neither jumbo nor utility size. Committee aporoved the motion (L-Q) to grant Dreliminary aQgarance review aaoroval and final site plan and apoearance review aDoroval. Drovided (1) J. Tonkinson review and approve the Dhotometrtc Dlan. (2) P. D'Aaostino review and aggrove the landscapino plan. and (3) the developer use a size brick'th;Lis neither. Jumbo nor utilitv size. H. Friedman abstained. The south elevation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0005). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE a August 12, 1998 Page 7 of 8 SPAARC 98-0029 1942 Maple Avenue Final Reconsideration of final approval of 1-story retail space per condition of Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. James Murray presented working drawings (including east elevation) for a 1-story retail space located at 1942 Maple Avenue, J. Murray stated the improvements have already been completed; the issue is whether to paint the T1111 Inch plywood plywood to match the anodized aluminum frame or leave the plywood natural. A. Alterson asked J. Murray. was signage review a condition of the ZBA approval? J. Murray responded: not to my recollection. J. Murray stated that the signage will most likely be painted on the inside of the window. C. Smith stated that the entire site appears "chaotic". C. Smith asked J. Murray, can the applicant install a window to the ground2 J. Murray responded: no, because the user needs some degree of privacy for a desk. C. Smith asked J. Murray: can the applicant install Spandrell glass. J. Murray stated that maintaining any form of glass that close to the ground is a serious consideration. C. Smith stated that should would prefer a full window (to the ground). A. Alterson agreed. A. Alterson motioned to deny the reconsideration of final appearance review approval, as conditioned by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion failed for lack of sacond. D. Jennings motioned to approve the reconsideration of final appearance review approval, as conditioned by the Zoning Board of Appeals. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee woroved the motion (4-2) to approve the reconsideration of final appearance review approval. as conditioned by the Zoning Board of Aooeals. J. Wolinski abstained. The working drawings (including east elevation) have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0075). Call for Special Meeting and Adjournment The Committee announced a special meeting to be conducted on August 13, 1998 at 10 a.m. within Room 2404 of the Evanston Civic Center; the purpose of the special meeting is to continue the agenda of August 12, 1998. The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Zan SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 12, 1998 eo Page 8 or 8 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 13, 1998 Room 3705 Members Present: Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. J. Aiello, L. Black, J. Gluts, K. Kelly, D. Marino, J. Tonkinson. L. Lyon. C. Smith stated that this meeting was a special meeting of the Committee, announced prior to the adjournment of the regularly scheduled meeting of August 12. 1998; the purpose of this meeting is to continue the agenda of the August 12, 1998 meeting. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 10:05 a.m, M. Mylott stated that he has posted a sign on Room 2404, announcing the change to Room 3705. SPAARC 98-0066 912 Noyes Street Recommendation to Sign Board Unirred Business Center Sign Plan. C. Smith presented an Application for Unified Business Center Sign Plan for 912 Noyes Street. C. Smith stated that the Sign Plan is for 2 businesses at this time, although 4 businesses are possible. C. Smith stated that the Sign Plan limits the businesses to neon windows signs with 6-inch letters. C. Smith stated that the proposal conforms to the Sign Ordinance. L. Lyon stated that the property owner is participating in the Evanston Storefront Program; submitting a Sign Plan was a requirement of that program. A. Alterson motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Unified Business Center Sign Plan, provided that individual permits for signs are reviewed by the Evanston Store7ront Program coordinator. J_ Tonkinson seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 13, 1998 Page 1 of 4 Discussion: C. Smith stated that she does not believe that the conditional approval is necessary, because the Sign Plan restricts for what the applicant can apply to that outlined in the Sign Plan. • it It l r • • • l o tl • • 1 • • It 11 ' 1 • 1 - 1 = • 1 ! e l • w • • - _ • ._ • • • • 1 1 I'• - 1 1 •1 " _I • • • • 1. 1• • _ •'Ill • •1 • . 1: 1 •1 �126M_ •• _.tl •• • 1. • A copy of the Application for Unified Business Sign Plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0066). SPAARC 98-0083 1716 Central Street Recommendation to Sign Board Reface existing wall sign (Loews Theaters). C. Smith presented an Application for Sign Variation for 1716 Central Street. C. Smith stated that the property owner would like to reface an existing nonconforming sign; the Sign Ordinance limits the height of wall signs to 15 feet 6 inches whereas the existing sign is approximately 25 feet high. C. Smith stated that the sign is, and will continue to be, illuminated; the sign consists of white letters on a red background. D. Jennings motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Application for Sign Variation. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-01 to recommend that the Sian Review -and Arpeals Board approve the Application for Sign Variation. A copy of the Application for Sign Variation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0083). SPAARC 98-0084 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Install 2 wall signs (The People's Market). C. Smith presented an Application for Sign Variation for 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue. C. Smith stated that the tenant would like to install 2 illuminated wall signs. C. Smith stated that the wall signs exceed the permitted height (26 feet whereas 15 feet 6 inches is permitted); the wall signs exceed the permitted area (one wall sign is 245 sq.ft. and the second wall sign is approximately 248 sq.ft. whereas each wall sign may not exceed 200 sq ft.), and one wall sign Is not parallel with the public thoroughfare rather it is mounted to the north facade, facing the parking lot C. Smith stated that the tenant will not be installing a free-standing sign. A. Alterson stated that, while he has no objections to the requested variations, the appearance and style of the proposed signs is "deplorable". SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 13. 1998 Page 2 of 4 M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Application for Sign Variation. J. Wollnski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-1) to recommend that the Sign-QtvlgN i1nd Appeals Board aoprove the 9 I�tion for Sign Variation. A copy of the Application for Sign Variation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0084). SPAARC 98-0085 1141-1143 Hinman Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Install temporary free-standing sign and 2 temporary banners (The Hamilton Club, also 418-425 Hamilton Street). C. Smith presented an Application for Sign Variation for 1141-1143 Hinman Avenue (and 418-425 Hamilton Street). C. Smith stated that the property owner would like to erect a temporary free-standing, non -illuminated sign and 2 temporary banners. C. Smith stated that proposal does not conform to the Sign Ordinance In the following ways: 1. Each sign has more than 7 items of information. 2. The height of a free-standing sign set back from a street more than 3 feet may not exceed the distance between the sign and any lot line; the free-standing sign will be approximately 10 feet high and set back from Hinman Avenue 4 feet. 3. Temporary signs shall only be maintained for 30 days; the applicant has asked the Sign Board to determine the maximum period. 4. No signs shall be permitted on residentially zoned property; the property is zoned R1 Single-family Residential. C. Smith stated that the proposal does not indicate the location of the 2 temporary banners. C. Smith stated that she has received many complaints about the proposal. J. Wolinski motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Application for Sign Variation. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee aQpmved the motion (7-0) to recommend that the "n_Review and Appeals Board denv the Application for Sign Variation. A copy of the Application for Sign Variation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0085). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 13, 199a Page 3 of 4 Approval of Summary of findings A. Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of findings of August 5, 1998. J. Ton kinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion 17-01_to a�ve the Summary of Findings of August 5. 1998. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. SUMMARYFINDINGS AN APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 13, 1998 e041 Page 4 of 4 \NvA�"OT - -P SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 26, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement L. Black, J. Glus, C. Smith. B. Fahlstrom, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. A. Alterson (acting chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0088 2345 Sheridan Road Preliminary and Final Erect 4X -story series of dormitories (Northwestern University). Zoning Division determined that application is exempt from Site Plan and Appearance Review Ordinance. SPAARC 98-0095 1737 Sherman Avenge Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM. Expand and coordinate storefronts of SBX Student Book Exchange. Mr. David Devos presented working drawings, site photographs, and an awning material sample to expand and coordinate the storefronts of the SBX Student Book Exchange located at 1737 Sherman Avenue, D. Devos stated that SBX Student Book Exchange is expanding south into the former Bressler's Ice Cream and Gingis stores; SBX Student Book Exchange would like to replace these and other storefronts such that they are consistent. D. Devos stated that SBX Student Book Exchange will comprise 6 storefronts. D. Devos stated that each storefront will be divided by vertical mullions into 3 segments; a horizontal mullion near the top of the bay will further divide these segments J. Aiello asked D. Devos: how many doors will SBX Student Book Exchange have? D. Devos responded: 2, reduced from 6. J. Aiello asked D. Devos: if SBX Student Book Exchange closes, can the storefronts be recreated? D. Devos responded: yes. C. Ruiz asked D Devos: are the masonry piers remaining? D. Devos responded: yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 26, 1998 Page 1 of a J. Aiello asked C. Rutz: does the building or property have landmark status? C. Ruiz responded: no. C. Ruiz stated that the building owner was working with the Evanston Storefront Program coordinator at one time; however, that contact was several months ago. D. Devos stated that SBX Student Book Exchange plans to remove the vinyl awning and replace it with a cloth awning; the new awning will span each storefront and have exterior illumination. D. Devos stated that the existing awning is a nonconforming awning, because light passes through the entire awning; the Sign Ordinance only permits light to pass through the graphic portion of the awning. A. Alterson asked D. Devos: what is the purpose of the awning? D. Devos responded: advertising. A. Alterson stated that, while awnings are reviewed under the Sign Ordinance, he does not consider the awning exempt from Committee review. M. Mylott agreed. J. Aiello stated that she is interested in reducing the amount of awning and creating a more attractive freeze band (stone course between the window tops and first course of brick); perhaps the awning should focus on the entrance, covering only 2 of the storefronts. M. Mylott agreed. A. Alterson stated that he would. much rather see a design scheme that celebrated the building, rather than covering the entire length of the building with an awning. J. Aiello stated that the City may consider providing assistance via its Storefront Program if an amount of the freeze band was reintroduced. J. Aiello asked D. Devos: is the building owner assisting with this project? D. Devos responded: the building owner has granted permission to make improvements, and he has provided the SBX Student Book Exchange with information about the Evanston Storefront Program. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the door and window improvements only, provided the applicant must present the plans for the awning to the Committee for review and approval; the Committee recommends that the applicant work with the Evanston Storefront Program coordinator. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Wolinski stated that he believes that awnings are not within the purview of the Committee. M. Mylott disagreed. J. Aiello asked M. Mylott: will you amend your motion to include a City pledge to "turn around the project as quick as possible". M. Mylott responded: yes. M. Mylott amended his motion as such: grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the door and window improvements only, provided the applicant must present the plans for the awning to the Committee for review and approval; the Committee recommends that the applicant work with the Evanston Storefront Program coordinator, and the City pledges to review the project as quick as possible. D. Marino amended his second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee aooroved the motion (9-Q) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review ap roval for the door and window improvements oniv. orovided the applicant musLpresent the plans for the awnirygiQ the Committee for review and approval; the Committee recommends that the applicant work with the Evan Storefront Program coordinator, and the Cittpledoes to review the project as quick as possible. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0095). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 26, 1998 Page 2 of 8 SPAARC 98-0039 2230 Main Street Preliminary and Final Enact 1-story addition (Ward Manufacturing Company). Mr. David Forte (architect) presented working drawings, site photographs, and building material samples for a 1-story addition to Ward Manufacturing Company located at 2230 Main Street. A. Alterson stated that this proposal has received a variation from the zoning Board of Appeals. D. Forte stated that the addition is designed exactly like the existing building; the red brick will extend from the ground to 16 feet high, the Kalwall will extend from 16 feet to 20 feet high, and the eave is fiberglass - insulated steel panels. C. Ruiz asked D. Forte: will the colors of the addition match the colors of the existing building? D. Forte responded: yes. J. Aiello stated that she is pleased that the company has remained in Evanston; however, she would like to see some signage and landscaping at Main Street. D. Forte stated that the owner is planning to erect a sign, and the drawings are in progress; however, he can only communicate the Committee's wishes to the owner. J. Aiello stated that the owner has still not received a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the existing building. D. Forte stated that the owner will seek that permit following construction of the addition, as a final course must be applied to the parking surface, and construction equipment would damage the result of that work. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to the following conditions: (1) the City shall not issue a building permit for the addition until such time that the Committee review and approve an entrance sign plan and entrance landscaping plan; and (2) the City shall issue Final Certificate of Occupancy Permits for the existing building and addition at one time. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Forte stated that he has submitted an application for building permit for the foundation for the addition. J. Aiello stated that issuing a building permit for foundation only did not violate the intent of the motion. J. Wolinski stated that the City will not issue any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Permits for the addition. J. Tonkinson amended the motion as such: grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to the following conditions: (1) the City shall not issue a building permit for the addition until such time that the Committee review and approve an entrance sign plan and entrance landscaping plan, except that the City may issue a building permit for foundation only prior to such action; (2) the City shall issue Final Certificate of Occupancy Permits for the existing building and addition at one time; and (3) the City shall not issue Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Permits for the addition. D. Jennings amended his second to be consistent with the amended motion committee approved the motion Q-01 to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review aooroval, subiect to the f to to ing conditions (1) the Citesshall not issue a buildinq permit for the addition until such time that the Committee review and approve an enlranre $iqn plan and entrance la;ndscp ng clan, except that the may issue a buildinq permit for foundation only prior to such action; (2) the City shall issue Final Certificate gf Occupancv Permits for the existing buildinq and addition at one time; and (31 the City shall not is*,g 19MDorary Certificate of Occupancv Permits for the addition. The working drawings and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0039). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE a August 26, 1998 Page 3 of a SPAARC 98-0019 1825 Central Street Revision to Preliminary Construct 7 attached single-family dwelling units. Mr. Ryan Nestor (agent for the contract purchaser and architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, and elevations for revisions to 7 attached single-family dwelling units located at 1825 Central Street. R. Nestor stated that the plans have been revised in the following manner: 1. Previously, the units were split into a 5-unit and 2-unit cluster. Now, the units are all attached. 2. Gable roofs have been reintroduced on 5 units. Unit nos. 4 and 7 have flat roofs. All units conform to the Plan Commission's recommendation to limit the height to 35 feet. The garage for unit no. 1 (that portion of the unit parallel to the north lot fine) has a flat roof and is only 1 story. 3. The site plan provides a 15-foot yard along Broadway Avenue, immediately across from the single- family residences. In this manner, the distance between the townhouses and the curb line on the west side of Broadway Avenue approximates the distance between the single-family residences and the curb line on the east side of Broadway Avenue. The 0-foot setback along Broadway Avenue, immediately across from the nonresidential uses, remains. 4. The number of garage doors fronting Poplar Avenue has been reduced from 10 (2 doors for 5 units) to 6 (2 doors for 3 units). All garages will be recessed approximately 5 feet, under a colonnade. Unit nos. 1 and 2 share backing space, and unit nos. 3 and 4 share backing space. This revision returns 2 to 3 on -street parking spaces to Poplar Avenue. J. Wolinski stated that he was glad to see the gable roofs return M. Mylott stated the he liked the revisions, because the new configuration works with the unique shape of the parcel; previous versions appeared as if a standard product was being forced on an atypical piece of land. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor: do you intend to provide usable roofs? R. Nestor responded: somewhat, the hatched areas on the site plan are usable terraces. R. Nestor stated that he is not sure whether or not unit no. 4 will have a usable terrace as shown. M. Mylott slated that he thought that the base of the Poplar Avenue facade of unit no. 4 should not mimic the garages to the south (shown as curved); this location would be a good opportunity to have a strong end piece to the Poplar Avenue presentation. R. Nestor stated that the base material is not recessed 5 feet, rather only 4 inches, except where a sight triangle must be provided immediately adjacent to the northern -most garage. M. Mylott stated that the top of this course should come straight across rather than curved as shown. C. Ruiz agreed. C Ruiz stated that the shed -roof entrances require additional attention, because the entrances to the units are important. M. Mylott asked R Nestor is the shed -roof material the same material as that used on the gable roofs. R. Nestor responded no, the shed -roof material is the same as that found along the terraces. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion Discussion: J. Wolinski asked R. Nestor: have you presented the revised plans to the neighbors? R. Nestor responded: the plans have been discussed with Mr. Robert Crews of 2615 SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 26, 1998 Page 4 of 8 Poplar Avenue and Ms. Mary Therese Staub of 2627 Broadway Avenue. J. Wolinski asked A. Alterson: as acting chairperson, would you allow these neighbors to express their reaction to the revised plans? A. Pherson responded: yes. R. Crews stated that he was concerned about the height of unit no. 1, and he wondered if this roof could be Rat rather than gabled. M. Mylott stated that he Is not concerned about the height in this location, because the predominant elevation along the north lot line is 1-story: the 4-story portion angles back in both directions. R. Nestor stated that the previous mix of fiat roofs and gable roofs has not changed, and he cannot put gable roofs on unit nos. 4 and 7. J. Aiello stated that the plans show a proposed 1-story addition to 2615 Poplar Avenue. J. Aiello asked R. Crews: do you plan to erect an addition, and for what purpose will that addition be used? R. Crews responded: yes, the addition will contain an entrance to the residence and a garage. R. Crews stated that he was concerned about the amount of pavement used for the common driveways of unit nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. M. Mylott asked R. Nestor. do you Intend to use the area within the western corner as guest parking. R. Nestor responded: that area will not be reserved for guest parking, but actual practice may find that guests park in that location. J. Aiello asked R. Nestor. are you proposing a fence between this property and 2615 Poplar Avenue? R. Nestor responded: no. R. Nestor stated that, after talking with R. Crews, he will propose natural screening. M. Staub stated that, of all the drawings she has seen, this version is "the best drawing [she has] ever seen". M. Staub stated the she appreciated that the northern units were moved back from Broadway Avenue. M. Staub stated that she is still concerned about the density; however, if the site is to have 7 units, this version is the best configuration. J. Aiello asked R. Nestor: why have you chosen 7 units? R. Nestor respondeo: economic viability. R. Nestor stated that the proposed density is permitted within the R5 General Residential District. R. Nestor stated that, according to his calculations, he has reduced the amount of lot coverage by 100 sq.ft. R. Nestor stated that 53 percent was requested originally whereas 45 percent is permitted; the revised lot coverage is between 51 and 52 percent. A. Alterson stated that the site plan has come a long way; he would like to see a south elevation. (;Qmmittee ap rare ved the motion f9-Wo orant approval of the revision to the previous nraliminary site plan and�a12 earance review aogLQyal. The revised site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0019). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE a► August 26, 1998 Page 5 of 8 SPAARC 98-0071 1744 Darrow Avenue Preliminary Raze single-family residence and erect addition to religious institution (Bethel AME Church). Mr. Daniel Sih (architect) and Ms. Susan D. Sih (architect) presented a site plan, floor plans, elevations, and site photographs for an addition to the Bethel AME Church located at 1744 Darrow Avenue. Reverend Walter Bauldrick and Mr. George Austin were available to answer questions. S. Sih Stated that the building will be constructed of the same brick and windows as that found on the existing building. B, Fahlstrom stated that the drawings depict a running bond, whereas the pictures show a common bond; the drawings should be modified to ensure this match. S. Sih stated that the pitch of the proposed gable matches that of the existing gables. D. Sih stated that the plans have been revised such that the roof is lower, because the upper floor has been converted to storage only. M. Mylott asked: was the revision due to the accessibility requirement? D. Sih responded: yes. D. Sih stated that the site plan includes 8 parking spaces, whereas the area now contains approximately 6 parking spaces. J. Tonkinson stated that D. Sih should check the west lot line shown on the plat against the west lot shown on the site plan; the two lines do not appear to be in the same location. D. Jennings agreed. J. Tonkinson stated that driveway permits and drainage permits will be required. M. Mylott asked S. Sih: have you submitted the revised plans for zoning analysis? S. Sih responded: yes. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary approval. J. Aiello seconded. Committee approved the motion (9-0) to ora toreliminary approval. The site plan, floor plans, elevations, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0071), SPAARC 98-0089 2516 Green Bay Road Preliminary and Final Exterior renovations for Gina's mast Pizzeria Mr. Bill Bronner (owner) and Ms. Janet Mailer (architect) presented a site plan, working drawings, and site photographs for exterior renovations for Gino's East Pizzeria located at 2516 Green Bay Road, A. Alterson stated that the use is permitted under a previous special use. B Bronner stated that the restaurant will have 24 seats inside J Mailer stated that the existing double doors will be replaced with 1 door M. Mylott asked J. Mailer: why not use base brick work, like that used at all other windows, rather than extend the glass to the ground? J. Mailer responded: that was a design decision to make the entrance more open. J. Mailer stated that Kinko's has a similar entrance. SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 26, 1996 Page 6 of 8 A. Atterson asked B. Bronner are you proposing Dryvit anywhere on the exterior? 8. Bronner responded: no. B. Bronner stated that he has acquired his sign permit. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-Q) to grant Dreliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, The site plan, elevations, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0089). Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of August 19, 1998. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Ruiz stated that he would like the last sentence of the 4th full paragraph on page 4 to read, "C. Ruiz stated that, while he appreciated the landscaping, he is sorry that it is covering up so nice a building.". J. Tonkinson amended his motion as such: approve the Summary of Findings of August 19, 1998, provided the last sentence of the 4th full paragraph on page 4 reads, "C. Ruiz stated that, while he appreciated the landscaping, he is sorry that it is covering up so nice a building.". D. Jennings amended his second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to approve the Summary of Findings of August 19, 1998. provided the last sentence of the 4th full Daraoraoh on Dane 4 reads. 'C. Ruiz stated that. while he appreciated the landscaping. he is sgM that it is covering uD so nice a building.". SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Temporary ATM for First Chicago Bank. D. Jennings stated that he had met with the contractor, and he will move ahead with the plans to install the temporary ATM and stacking space for 2 cars. Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Role of Committee regarding appearance review. Based on the proposed development at 1880 Oak Street. the Committee discussed the extent to which it can mandate certain building materials. Similarly, the Committee discussed whether or not a complete prohibition of specific building materials was a good idea. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 26, 1998 Page 7 of 8 The Committee discussed mandatory appearance review. Also, the Committee discussed the idea that, whether or not appearance review is mandatory, applicants must have a clear understanding of what is and/or Is not acceptable. The Committee discussed the status of the City of Evanston Appearance Review and Design Guidelines. A. Alterson stated that, to the best of his knowledge, that document was never adopted by the City Council. M. Mylott stated that that document is being reviewed as a critical component of the work conducted by the legislative Subcommittee. J. Aiello stated that the Committee should return to using a form on which it checked off the items over which it had purview. M. Mylott stated that he plans to add a report module to the Committee's computerized tracking system such that applicants have a written record of what was determined. D. Jennings motioned to always split Committee motions -- the first motion regarding site plan review, the second motion regarding appearance review. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he is not in favor of this approach, because he believes the Committee is obligated to get the best possible design. J. Tonkinson stated that he believes the approach endorsed by A. Alterson exceeds the Committee's authority. D. Marino stated that he is concerned about making such a blanket policy. D. Jennings stated that, if no such policy is enacted, he feels obligated to inform each applicant prior to their presentation that comments regarding appearance are recommendations only. M. Mylott stated that he understands D. Jennings' concerns. M. Mylott stated that the Committee's Legislative Subcommittee has put many hours into just this discussion, and he is sorry that he has not yet been able to synthesize that discussion into a document that the Committee can discuss. M. Mylott stated that he will make this issue a priority. Committee approved the motion 0-2) to always split CommiMe motions -- the first motion regarding site plan review. and the second motion regarding appearance review. K. Kelly abstained. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 26. 1998 Page 8 of 8 puguat431, �8gg'n Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 19, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, J. Aiello (for P. D'Agostino), A. Alterson, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement L. Black, J. Glus, K. Kelly, D. Marino, C. Smith. H. Friedman. B. Fahistrom, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, A. Alterson (acting chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:10 p.m. SPAARC 98-0086 1007 Church Street Preliminary and Final New exterior entrance at Shand Morahan (Evanston Northwestern Healthcare). Mr. Mark Balasi (architect) presented a site plan, a floor plan, and site and building before -and -after photographs for a new entrance for Evanston Northwestern Healthcare (ENH) at Shand Morahan, located at 1007 Church Street. Ms. Julie Ford, (ENH), Mr. Larry Hearn (building owner), and Mr. Ken Kleiner (building manager) were available to answer questions. M. Balasi stated that ENH desires the separate entrance because they want to: ensure privacy ENH does not want persons seeking confidential treatment to have to sign a lobby register that is visible to the public. provide a secure entrance after other building users close. The 1 security guard is not always positioned at the lobby entrance; that person is required to regularly walk the building. 3. avoid excessive pedestrian traffic using 1 lobby entrance. J. Aiello asked J Ford; is ENH proposing a specialty clinic? J. Ford responded: the clinic is for internal medicine. M. Balasi stated that the proposed door is not a hindrance to the building, because it is setback along Oak Street; the door is only visible to users accessing the proposed clinic from the new parking area. M. Balasi stated that their design makes the door as inconspicuous as possible, while matching the design of the lobby doors. J. Wolinski stated that, if you make the door too inconspicuous, no one will know its available; people SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 19. 1998 Page 1 of a will go to the lobby doors. M. Balasi stated that the door will have vinyl letters, and the clinic staff will direct people to the new door when they schedule appointments. J. Wolinski asked K. Kleiner will you remove the door should the medical office leave? K Weiner responded: yes. H. Friedman stated that he is concerned about setting a precedent at this building that ground -floor users may have separate entrances. L. Heam stated that this user is a major long-term tenant, and this action will not set such a precedent. L. Heam stated that they will return the building to its current configuration should the space no longer be used by a medical office; the only instance in which it may be desirable to have this entrance remain would be if the space was converted to retail, but he does not foresee that conversion. A. Alterson asked M. Balasi: have you proposed an alternative arrangement to the air conditioner location? M. Balasi responded: we have brought additional photographs of that area, demonstrating the current configuration and the how the area is located within the background of the site. K. Kleiner stated that the building has budgeted money to paint the existing air conditioners green next year; also, the area will be blocked by parked cars. M. Mylott asked M. Balasi: will the new air conditioner be painted green? M. Balasi responded: yes. B. Fahlstrom stated that this solution is a "clumsy engineering solution", and the area should be screened. K. Kleiner stated that they could provide landscaping on the north side of the air conditioners and install planter boxes between the air conditioners and the fence (east side). D. Jennings stated that 2 parking spaces could be removed, such that ample area is available to provide screening in front of the fence; as proposed, the parking spaces do not work very well, because car doors cannot open against the fence. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and Final approval, provided: (1) screening in the form of additional landscaping is provided on the north side of the air conditioners; (2) the 2 parking spaces located to the east of the air conditioners are removed, and screening in the form of additional landscaping is provided; (3) the revised landscape plan is reviewed and approved by P. D'Agostino; (4) the revised parking configuration is reviewed and approved by D. Jennings; and (5) the door is removed, and the building is returned to its current configuration, if the space ceases to be used as a medical office: however, the building owner may retain the proposed door for a user other than a medical office subject to Committee review and approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Tonkinson stated that, if this user will be seeking a separate address, they must apply through his office. H. Friedman asked M. Balasi: did you talk to the original architect about your proposed changes? M. Balasi responded: no. H. Friedman stated that discussing the plans with the original architect is generally a courtesy. M. Balasi stated that he would be happy to inform the original architect of the plans. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to arant oreliminary and final approval, provided: (1) screening ilk form of additional landsca ipng is provided on the north side of the air conditioners: (2) the 2 oarking Spaces located to the east of the air conditioners are removed. and screenina in the form of additional landscaping is proyided: (3) the revised landscape clan is reviewed and approved by P. D'Aaostino: (4) the revised oarkiQg �nftauration is reviewed and @2proved by D. Jennings. and (5) the door is removed. and the buildinqj� returned to its current conrauration, if the space ceasQ5 o be used as a medical office. however. the buildinq owner may retain the proposed door for a user other than a medical office subiect to Committee review and approval The site plan, the floor plan, and site and building before -and -after photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0066). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 19, 1998 Page 2 of 8 SPAARC 97-0059 2650 Ridge Avenue Revision to Preliminary Demolish existing and erect new parking structure and erect new lobby addition at Evanston Hospital. Mr. Walt Eckenhoff (architect) presented (1) an aerial photograph, a site plan, and east, south, and west elevations for the plan set last approved the Committee (preliminary) and the plan set approved by the City Council via the special use ordinance, and (2) an aerial photograph showing the existing site; the plan sets are for a new parking structure and lobby addition at Evanston Hospital, located at 2650 Ridge Avenue. Mr. David Urschel (architect) and Mr. Tim Vander Molen (Evanston Northwestern Healthcare) were available to answer questions. W. Eckenhoff stated that the new plans: 1. Eliminate exiting on to Ridge Avenue. The plans call for widening Girard Avenue and signal improvements at the Girard Avenue/Central Street and Ridge Avenue/Central Street intersections. 2. Refine the presentation of the parking garage to Ridge Avenue. The building has been moved back to reduce the apparent bulk. The towers have been articulated, and a copper top has been added. The tinted glass is accented by limestone banding (above) and patterned window glass (below). 3. Reduce the amount of light from the lobby by adding internal blinds (to be closed when the lights are on), shortening the skylight, and eliminating a clear story of glass. The fabric blinds are motorized, operating along tracks. 4. Include additional berming along Ridge Avenue. The lawn has been bermed to hide part of the garage. The southern exit From the garage and the lobby drop-off have also been bermed. The lawn is predominantly flat; the return to grade adjacent to the garage is handled via terraces. 8. Provide glass towers on the south elevation for security. & Provide glass towers on the west elevation for security. Also, the plans reduce the amount of brick to increase visibility. 7. Relocate the oxygen farms to the truck dock. M. Mylott asked W. Eckenhoff: will the garage exits near Ridge Avenue be signed, stating no exit to Ridge Avenue? W. Eckenhoff responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that he liked the flat lawn and terraces along Ridge Avenue. M. Mylott asked W. Eckenhoff: will security be a concern along the terraces. W. Eckenhoff responded: no, because the area will be well lit, and it is open from the lobby and Central Street. A. Alterson asked W Eckenhoff: was relocating the oxygen farm part of the original proposal? W. Eckenhoff responded- no; however, this move is being driven by construction logistics. W. Eckenhoff stated that other construction logistics include establishing the temporary bridge support, a temporary telecommunications line, a temporary sewer, and a temporary lobby. J. Wolinski asked W. Eckenhoff: what is your construction schedule? W. Eckenhoff stated that they would like to begin addressing the construction logistics this month, and begin demolition in January. W. Eckenhoff stated that the remaining construction has been reduced from 3 phases to 2 phases, decreasing the construction period from 48 months to 33 months. W. Eckenhoff stated that phase 1 will include building % SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE a August 19. 1998 Page 3 or 8 of the garage and the lobby, and phase 2 Includes building the balance of the garage; this phasing permits staging to occur off of Girard Avenue, rather than Ridge Avenue. J. Wolinski asked W. Eckenhoff: who will be the contact person for the construction? W. Eckenhoff responded: Tim Vander Molen. J. Wolinski asked T. Vander Molen: will the former Whole Foods site be ready for use as temporary hospital parking, given the proposed demolition and construction schedule? T. Vander Molen responded: yes. J. Wolinski asked T, Vander Molen: will delays to the preparation of the former Whole Foods site delay demolition of the parking garage? T. Vander Molen responded: yes. J. Wolinski asked T. Vander Molen: will 1000 Central be available for parking this football season? T. Vander Molen responded: yes, but it will not be available for the next football season. H. Friedman asked W. Eckenhoff: is the ventilation system for the garage mechanical? W. Eckenhoff responded: yes, the system will be located in the basement. H. Friedman asked W. Eckenhoff: what is the length of the tunnel between the garage and the hospital? W. Eckenhoff responded: approximately 250 feet. W. Eckenhoff stated that that area also Includes temporary parking for the ER. H. Friedman stated that the design looks much better, and he hopes that the architect is pleased with the modifications. H. Friedman stated that he is not sure about the dormers on the garage; they look "a little ridiculous". W. Eckenhoff stated that the original design had twice as many; however, these dormers are designed to provide light to, and break up the length within, the corridor below, especially when the corridor is used as an exhibit hall. C. Ruiz stated that he is sorry that the landscaping is covering up so nice a building, H. Friedman disagreed. J. Wolinski motioned to grant approval of the revisions to the previous preliminary approval. M. Mylott seconded. Committee approved the motion (&0) to grant approval of the revisions to the previous preliminary approval, The (1) aerial photograph, site plan, and east, south, and west elevations for the plan set last approved the Committee (preliminary) and the plan set approved by the City Council via the special use ordinance, and (2) the aerial photograph showing the existing site have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0059). SPAARC 98-0087 1880 Oak Avenue Concept Construct 3-story office building (Parcel 1, Research Park). Mr. Walt Eckenhoff (architect) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and a rendering for a 3-story office building on Parcel 1 of the Research Park, or 1880 Oak Avenue. Mr, Steve Kardel (developer), Mr. Joe Kroft (construction consultant), and Mr. Ron Kysiak were available to answer questions. W Eckenhoff stated that this site previously contained Ward Manufacturing. W Eckenhoff stated that the proposal includes a 3-story office building, with 50,000 sq.h, and no basement; other specifics include: 1. A T-shaped floor plan to provide maximum flexibility to tenants. Each tenant is equidistant from the core elements. Each floor could have between 1 and 6 tenants. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 19. 1998 Page 4 of 8 2. A refined concrete masonry unit (CMU) exterior, lending to the "high-tech look'. The CMU will consist of different colors and different coursings. 3. A barrel-vaulted roof, with exposed steel and wood truces on the interior. 4. Operable windows, installed from the inside such that they are recessed within the facade. The windows will be accented with precast lintels. 5. Air conditioner equipment on the flat roof between the 2 vaults, such that the equipment Is partially hidden. B. Aligning with, and maintaining the approximate width of, the building at 1890 Maple Avenue. 7. Providing an entrance and small parking area similar to the incubator building located to the south. 8. Providing a back parking and loading area. The dumpsters will be screened with a wall. J. Aiello asked W. Eckenhoff: will you require a curb cut along Oak Street? W. Eckenhoff responded: yes. J. Aiello asked W. Eckenhoff: will the building have an entrance along Emerson Street? W. Eckenhoff responded; no. J. Aiello stated that the City has considered vacating the east/west alley between Railroad Avenue and Oak Avenue; the City will work with the property owners on the north and south sides of the alley on this issue. A. Alterson asked J. Aiello: why would the City vacate an alley? J. Aiello responded: because the property goes back on the tax rolls, and the alley is improved and jointly maintained by the new property owner(s). J. Tonkinson stated that keeping the alley in City control makes no sense. J. Tonkinson stated that the property owner should be aware of concerns expressed by the church located at Oak Avenue and Emerson Street, regarding a traffic signal at that intersection. J. Aiello stated that she has had preliminary discussions with Reverend Wade about a traffic signal, and he may be more receptive if the City could avoid placing the signal right in front of the church. W. Eckenhoff asked the Committee: is a 7-foot easement along Emerson Street required? J. Tonkinson responded: a 7-foot dedication along Emerson Street is required. J. Tonkinson stated that this additional right- of-way is to be used for sidewalks and to create a more open feeling, W. Eckenhoff stated that the building meets all required setbacks, even along the north lot line after the dedication. W. Eckenhoff stated that this building will attempt to capture tenants requiring between 4,000 and 10,000 sq.ft. of space; this building fills a current void in the Evanston office supply that is desirable for users who have outgrown the incubator building but are too small for the current office space offered in other Evanston buildings. W Eckenhoff stated that they have presented the building to the Research Park Board, and they have approved it. R Kysiak stated that this plan seems to make sense, and it will be a very welcome addition to the Research Park. R. Kysiak stated that Shaw is no longer building the types of building currently within the Research Park because the rents are unobtainable. J. Aiello asked S. Kardel: what amount -do you anticipate charging for rent? S. Kardel responded: under 25 dollars per sq.ft. R. Kysiak stated that the Shaw buildings are charging between 27 and 29 dollars per sq.ft, for rent, and the incubator is charging between 21 and 22 dollars per sq.ft. for rent. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 19, 1998 Page 5 of 8 H. Friedman stated that this building will be the only non -brick building within the Research Park, and he urges the Committee not to approve of it. H. Friedman stated that Evanston does not deserve these 'cheap' buildings. M. Mylott stated that he was excited about the design, until he heard that the material was CMU; the design, resembling an old manufacturing building, seems to call for brick. W. Eckenhoff stated that the different material works with the intent of the building, serving as an appropriately modem example of aesthetics. C. Ruiz stated that that statement could be a short -coming. J. Aiello stated that the 2 Shaw buildings are very similar; some diversity could be interesting. H. Friedman stated that, while the interior Is high-tech, the exterior is certainly not. H. Friedman stated that he hopes C. Smith will have an opportunity to express her concerns. W. Eckenhoff stated that C. Smith already has expressed her concerns to him. J. Aiello asked W. Eckenhoff: where are examples of the use of CMU? W. Eckenhoff presented photographs of the State Street Unicorn Thermal Building (Chicago), a 2-block aesthetic and security wall for Commonwealth Edison, and the west elevation for the Orchestra Hall in downtown Chicago. H. Friedman stated that the elevation of Orchestra Hall is a back wall. D. Jennings asked W. Eckenhoff: are the 2 colors of CMU presented within the picture of Orchestra Hall the colors you propose for this building? W. Eckenhoff responded: yes. J. Aiello asked W. Eckenhoff if he could organize a tour of these and other similarly constructed buildings? W. Eckenhoff responded: yes. A. Alterson stated that W. Eckenhoff should work with M. Mylott on the coordination of that event. C. Ruiz stated that he has not seen a successful application of CMU; perhaps a compromise would be a design that included CMU and brick. W. Eckenhoff stated that he knows of no example in Evanston where CMU has been well -used. W. Eckenhoff stated that, when used correctly, CMU is "as good as anything else"; it is very smooth, has nice colors, produces tight joints, and is more refined. B. Fahlstrom stated that, when installed well, CMU can be very nice; but, even like brick, he has seen some very poor efforts. C. Ruiz stated that brick ages much more gracefully than CMU. W. Eckenhoff stated that statement is "tough to argue with". C. Ruiz stated that the roofline along the north elevation needs more articulation. W. Eckenhoff stated that they are using a dark coursing of CMU to appear like a reveal. B. Fahlstrom stated that, while one issue is that of materials, a second issue is also how the materials are handled. B. Fahlstrom stated that he would like to see an actual reveal along the roofline and the windows recessed. M. Mylott agreed. A. Alterson stated that he is more sensitive to reducing the "flatness" of the north elevation than the actual material, especially since this elevation is the public face. M. Mylott asked W. Eckenhoff: is CMU the same size as typical concrete block? W. Eckenhoff responded: yes. M. Mylott asked J. Krofl: what is the prig difference between CMU, utility -size brick, and standard -size brick. J. Kroft responded: CMU is approximately 5 to 6 dollars per sq.ft. cheaper than utility -size brick, and CMU is approximately 10 dollars per sq.ft. cheaper than standard size brick. J. Krofl stated that CMU costs approximately 15 dollars per sq.ft. J. Wolinski asked W. Eckenhoff: what do you project as the construction cost for this building? W. Eckenhoff responded: approximately 3.3 million dollars. M. Mylott stated that, since he has been on the Committee, no amount of visibility of air conditioning equipment is acceptable; in fact, the Committee informed the architect of the proposed building at 1860 Maple Avenue that their air conditioning equipment must be screened. M. Mylott stated that he hopes the Committee continues that stance, and that the architect should screen this air conditioning equipment. D Jennings asked W Eckenhoff: when would you like to start construction? W. Eckenhoff responded: by the third week of October. J. Aiello asked the Committee: does concept approval include materials. H. Friedman responded: no. J Aiello motioned to grant concept approval. J. WolinEki seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 19. 1998 Page 6 of 8 Discussion: J. Aiello stated that she strongly recommends that the Committee see actual examples of this material. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0087). SPAARC 95-0003 2201-2203 Foster Street Preliminary Addition to church (Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston). Mr. Eric Eriksson presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and building material samples for an addition to the Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston, located at 2201-2203 Foster Street. E. Eriksson stated that accessibility will be provided via a %: lift, % elevator, this provision was approved by the State. E. Eriksson stated that the building will be constructed of split -face concrete block. E. Eriksson stated that the existing building is white -painted brick: he may try to apply a skin, but that will require sandblasting the brick. E. Eriksson stated that the addition rises at 2 locations, approximately the same height as the existing tower (to be removed). E. Eriksson stated that the rise proposed in the approximate location of the existing tower will have a flat roof behind it and cuts within the facade, reminiscent of a bell tower. E. Eriksson stated the cuts will be back lit. B. Fahlstrom asked E. Eriksson: will the truces be articulated inside? E. Eriksson responded: yes. M. Mylott asked E. Eriksson: have you thought of adding an additional window to the west side of the south elevation, because the are between that point and the eastern windows appears somewhat stark? E. Eriksson responded: yes. H. Friedman stated that he thought the facade should remain as is. H. Friedman asked E. Eriksson: how will drainage be handled? E. Eriksson responded: with over -sized gutters. D. Jennings asked E. Eriksson: will the glass be clear? E. Eriksson responded: there has been discussion about stained glass. J. Aiello stated that she is concerned about the blank west facade facing residences. E. Eriksson stated that the facade is only blank when viewed straight on, and such a view will be rare. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that a photometric plan and a landscape plan are required for final site plan and appearance review. B. Fahlstrom stated that the architect should consider additional articulation on the west facade, such as banding, recesses, etc. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE a August 19, 1998 Page 7 of 8 w A. Alterson stated that he is concerned about water on the roof. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 95-0003). Approval of Summary of Findings M. Mylott motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of August 12,1998 and August 13, 1998. A Alterson seconded the motion. Committee anoroved the motion (5-O) to approve the Summary of Findings of Augug 12, 1998 and August 13. 1998. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Marc Steven Mylott, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE August 19, 1998 Page 9'of 8 Date 0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, J. Glus, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement L. Black. H. Friedman. S. Hunter, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:00 p.m. SPAARC 98-0092 1421 Sherman Avenue Concept Demolish building (Kaehler Luggage) and build 6-story mixed -use building. Mr. Doug Pasma (architect) presented a site plan and floor plans for a 6-story mixed -use building at 1421 Sherman Avenue. D. Pasma stated that the owners of Kaehler Luggage are considering increasing the retail floor area: part of that consideration includes reviewing a complete tear down of the existing store and the common brick buildings at the rear of the property and constructing a 6-story mixed -use building, D. Pasma stated that the proposed building includes: 4,750 sq.ft. of ground -floor retail for Kaehler Luggage. The current retail floor area is approximately 3,200 sq.ft., spread across many levels. Kaehler Luggage would occupy a temporary location until the project was completed. 18 dwelling units. A residential lobby is provided on the north side of the building. The existing building contains between 1 and 2 dwelling units. I Above -grade parking for 4 cars (including 1 accessible parking space), and below:grade parking for 23 cars. Both parking areas are accessed via the alley. M. Mylott stated that the ziggurat setback requirement of the Downtown districts is applicable at this location. M. Mylott stated that D. Pasma should review Section 6-11-14 of the Zoning Ordinance. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2. 1998 Pape 1 of 8 C. Smith asked D. Pasma: have you considered a construction type? D. Pasma responded: no. D. Pasma stated that they have not yet developed elevations. J. Mlinski asked D. Pasma: will you propose a masonry exterior? D. Pasma responded: yes. H. Friedman asked D. Pasma: have you reviewed the plans for the new mixed -use building immediately south of the subject property? D. Pasma responded: I have seen the sales literature. H. Friedman stated that D. Pasma should develop something compatible with that proposal. D. Pasma stated that he can see no reason why his group would propose something incompatible with that building. D. Pasma asked the Committee: can basement parking extend under the setbacks required by the Zoning Ordinance. A. Alterson responded: yes. C. Smith stated D. Pasma should review exterior wall ratings. D. Pasma stated that the developer is The Argent Group. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant concept approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee apgroved the Motion (11-0) to grant copGPgt approval. The site plan and floor plans have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0092). SPAARC 98-0093 2401 Brummel Street Preliminary and Final Replace exterior windows (Shure Brothers Incorporated). Mr. Don Kepous presented a site plan, floor plans, elevation, plat of survey, and aerial photograph to replace exterior windows at Shure Brothers Incorporated, located at 2401 Brummel Street. D. Kepous stated that the site contains 2 buildings. D. Kepous stated that the new windows are located along the western elevation of the western building: these windows will match the windows within the eastern building. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott asked D. Kepous: is replacing the windows the only exterior change proposed? D. Kepous responded: yes. Committee annroved the motionjjUl to orant Dreliminanr and final site plan and appearance review approval. The site plan, floor plans, elevation, plat of survey, and aerial photograph have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0093). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2, 1998 a. Page 2 or 8 SPAARC 98-0091 1909 Livingston Street Preliminary and Final Variation to single-family residence to erect bay window. M. Mylott presented the Application for Major Variation to construct a bay window for a single-family residence located at 1909 Livingston Street. M. Mylott stated the bay window is a permitted yard obstruction, and it requires a variation to the maximum depth of encroachment into a required yard and a variation to the maximum depth of a bay window. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (12-0) to avant orelimjw and final site,. plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0066 1454 Elmwood Avenue Preliminary Renovate Police/Fire Headquarters and reconfigure parking area. Mr. Jay Carow, (architect) presented a site plan, floor plan, elevations (2 options), landscape plan, and site and area photographs to renovate the Police/Fire Headquarters (1454 Elmwood Avenue) and reconfigure the parking area. Ms. Brenda Bush -Moline, Mr. Gordon Crabtree, Mr. Elliot Dudnik, Mr. Anil Khatichate, and Mr. Frank Kassen were available to answer questions. J. Carow stated that the existing bays are being removed such that the building may be converted to the Fire Department Headquarters. J. Carow stated that the plans also include a sally port (an enclosed garage used to drop-off prisoners) on the north side of the Police Headquarters. J. Carow stated that the plans include: Replacing the second -floor windows. The existing windows are operable; the new windows will be fixed, except the lower portion is an awning window. The replacement windows will match the windows on the rest of the building. Replacing 5 of the 6 bay doors with windows. While larger, the first -floor windows will be the same proportion as the second -floor windows The size of the openings will not change; matching brick with a limestone base and sill will frame the windows within the existing openings. 3. Providing a new entrance within the third bay from the east. The entrance will include a canopy; the canopy design will be 1 of 2 options. Option A is a 6-foot cantilevered canopy, consistent with the 1949 facade. The canopy could be limestone or metal painted to match the surrounding limestone. The canopy is coffered, covered with a frosted plexiglass dome. Signage is provided on the masonry above. Option B is a contemporary design, contrasting with the 1949 facade. This canopy is greater than 6 feet deep. Signage is provided on the glass transom C. Smith stated that the glazing of the new windows should match the glazing of the existing windows; changing glazing would be unfortunate S. Hunter stated that he liked Option B, because of its futuristic appearance, and it provides a cover for smokers. F. Kassen stated that he did not like Option 8, because (1) he was not sure it fit the style of the building, (2) he was concerned about water collecting against the building, and (3) the posts present obstacles. J Carow, stated that the design can be such that water against the building will not be a concern. C. Smith stated that Option 8 appears "tacked on".because it is not enough of a contemporary expression. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2, 1998 Page 3 of 8 H. Friedman asked J. Carow: have you considered further recessing the doors and providing additional lighting to eliminate the need for a canopy? J. Carow responded: yes, but the canopy calls attention to the entrance. C. Smith stated that she would like to compliment the architects on the exterior changes; however, she is not convinced a canopy is necessary. J. Glus agreed. J. Carow stated that another problem is that the entrance is offset. C. Ruiz stated that a recessed entrance with no canopy can be articulated with a limestone surround. J. Aiello stated that the problem is that this entrance is trying to compete with the Police Headquarters entrance, and no design will give the "drama" of that entrance. J. Aiello stated that she thought the 2 entrances should be combined through the Police Headquarters entrance. C. Smith asked the applicants: will the plexiglass of Option A be visible? B. Bush -Moline responded: no. C. Smith stated that a laminated glass with a ceramic frit rather than plexiglass will greatly improve the quality. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval for Option A with additional recess, provided MBE requirements are included in the construction specifications. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee-22oroved the motion (70-0] to arant oreliminary site Dian and appearance review appal for Option A with additional recess. provided MBE reau_irements are included in the construction specifications. H. Friedman and K. Kelly abstained. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the sally port. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the overhead door should match the existing overhead door to the east. D. Jennings asked the applicants: how many parking spaces are eliminated? E. Dudnik responded: 2. Committee approved the motion (=- I to arant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review a1212=al for the sally po. The revised site plan, floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0019). SPAARC 98-0073 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue Final Remodel existing building for food store establishment (The People's Market), Mr. Jalal Mizani (architect) presented the original and new site plans, landscape plan, and site and alley photographs for a proposed food store establishment (The People's Market) at 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue. Mr. Pat Gilliland (Wild Oats), Mr. Tom Rose (Wild Oats), and Mr. Mer Saudana (architect) were available to answer questions. J Wolinski stated that the ward alderperson. the City Manger, representatives of Wild Oats. himself, A. Alterson, and D. Jennings recently met at the site, at that time, Wild Oats agreed to construct a fence along the east lot line, eliminating access to the alley. J Wolinski stated that, if the fence solution proved unworkable, the issue could be revisited after several months time. J. Mizani stated that he respectfully disagrees with the requirement to construct an 8-foot fence along the east lot line, because the fence jeopardizes deliveries and creates an unsafe situation in the alley as natural surveillance is eliminated. J Mizani stated that an 8-foot fence is blocking no one's view of the parking area, SUMMARY AN FINDINGS I�' SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE '`ff�' September z. 1998 Page 4 of 8 because the houses are set so far back from the rear lot line and the alley is lined with privacy fences and garage doors. C. Smith stated that this Committee did not require an $-foot fence. J. Aiello asked J. Wolinski: will the fence open? J. Wolinski responded: no. A. Alterson stated that part of the fear was stacking trucks in the alley, J. Aiello asked D. Jennings: can large trucks access the loading dock via Chicago Avenue? D. Jennings responded: the applicants may have to shave off some landscaping islands. C. Smith stated that she is aware that!_. Black was unhappy about creating a "no mans land". C. Smith stated that she is also concerned about the safety, specifically introducing trucks to the parking area; such an arrangement creates a danger that this Committee is supposed to prevent. D. Jennings stated that the fence only affects the largest trucks; the applicant has stated that such trucks only visit the site approximately a times per week, and that amount is an acceptable level of risk. P. Gilliland stated that the trucks are affiliated with Wild Oats such that they have some degree of control over delivery time as well. A. Alterson stated that he would like to table this issue until next week, permitting a fuller discussion; however, he does not think that tabling this issue should prevent issuing a building permit for interior work. J. Wolinski asked C. Smith: how much longer before the Building Division is ready to issue a permit? C. Smith responded: the soonest would be 1 week to 10 days. J. Mizani stated that, regarding the Other Committee comments, the applicants have agreed to remove the pagodas and Chrysler symbols. J. Mizani stated that Mr. Terry Upton has verbally agreed to removing the roof -top billboard structure. M. Mylott asked the applicants: what type of response did you receive from the neighbors to the north regarding a fence? P. Gilliland responded: those neighbors want an 8-foot fence. J. Mizani stated that they believe they can use landscaping to minimize the impacts, rather than a fence. A. Alterson stated that fencing along the north lot line can be reviewed next week as well. J, Tonkinson stated that he has not yet reviewed a photometric plan. P. Gilliland stated that they have completed the photometric plan and will provide a copy for review. P. D'Agostino stated that the landscape plan is acceptable. J. Mizani stated that, regarding building materials, the plans are to continue the existing Dryvit. H. Friedman stated that the Dryvit is already failing off in some places. J. Mizani stated that they are aware that repairs will be required in some places. J. Mizani stated that they will use ground -face block behind the painted steel posts. J. Mizani stated that the pitched roof will be a sand -colored standing seam roof. J. Wolinski motioned to table this item; however, tabling this item shall not restrict the City from issuing a building permit for interior work only. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Discussion: A Alterson asked the applicants have you provided bicycle parking? P. Gilliland responded: we will look at providing bicycle parking. Committee approved the motion (1?-0) to table this item: however. tablino this item shall nofrestrict the City from issuing a buildina permit for interior work onto. The landscape plan and site and alley photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0073). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SiTE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2, 1998 Page 5 of 8 SPAARC 98-0096 1603 Orrington Avenue Preliminary and Final Replace 13th-floor windows with air exchange louvers (NBD Bank Building). Mr. David Brannigan and Mr. Mike Kelly presented working drawings and site photographs to replace 13th- floor windows with air exchange louvers at the NBD Bank Building, located at 1603 Orrington Avenue, D. Brannigan stated that the louvers are necessary for a new, 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week, computer software tenant; this tenant requires after hours air cooling. D. Brannigan stated that the 2 louvers are 54 inches long by 18 inches high. J. Aiello asked D. Brannigan: is this the first of many such requests? D. Brannigan responded: we do not want such requests to be a pattern. C. Smith stated that this proposal is a "terrible solution" for a prominent elevation. H. Friedman stated that this proposal "destroys the integrity of the building". J. Wolinski agreed. D. Brannigan stated that other options include using outside air; using the building system (which is prohibitively expensive); or using domestic water for condenser water. C. Smith stated that she preferred the domestic water solution. J. Tonkinson stated that that option may not be permissible. C. Smith stated that she can see no reason why that that option would not work. J. Aiello motioned to table this item to permit the applicants to investigate the feasibility of alternative arrangements. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicants will need to provide piping drawings. C. Smith stated that she saw no reason to why the City could not release building permits for the interior work. J. Aiello amended her motion as such: table this item to permit the applicants to investigate the feasibility of alternative arrangements; if the investigation proves that the domestic water solution is feasible, the application no longer requires Committee approval, but, if the investigation proves that the domestic water solution is not feasible. the application must be reviewed by the Committee (attendance by the applicant not required) H Friedman amended the second to be consistent with the amended motion. Committee approved the motion (11-0) to table this item to permit the applicants to investigate the feasibility of alternative arranaementl: if the inveltpation oroves that the domestic water solution is feasible. the 2pDlication no lonaer requires Committee aooraval. but. if the investioation proves that the domestic water solution is not feasible. the application must be reviewej by the Committee (attendance by the applicant not rCouired). SITE ARYPLAN AN FINDINGS APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMIVIiTTEE September 2. 1998 �► Page 6 of a SPAARC 98-0087 1880 Oak Avenue Construct 3-story office building (Parcel 1, Research Park). Preliminary Mr. Walt Eckenhoff (architect) presented a site plan, revised elevations, and building material samples for a 3-story office building, located at 1880 Oak Street. Mr. Steve Kardel (developer), Mr. Peter Lauberts, Mr. Joe Krof1(construction consultant), and Mr. Scott Springs were available to answer questions. W. Eckenhoff stated that the revised elevations consist of 4 primary colors of CMU: the dominant color is red, the secondary color is a greenish -grey, the accent color is grey, and the base course consists of split -face limestone -colored CMU, a darker limestone -colored CMU, and a lighter limestone -colored CMU. W. Eckenhoff stated that the mortar will be standard grey; however, they can darken the mortar to a darker grey to darken the overall appearance of the building. W. Eckenhoff stated that they have devised 3 alternative elevations to the north facade (labeled 1, 2, and 3 on plans within folder). W. Eckenhoff stated that the finish to the CMU leaves a slight sheen. M. Mylott asked if that surface provided graffiti protection? W. Eckenhoff responded: while the finish may make it easy to wash off graffiti, it is not a true protection. C. Smith asked W. Eckenhoff: are you proposing a stacked bond? W. Eckenhoff responded: no, we are proposing a running bond, J. Aiello asked W. Eckenhoff. can you include limestone with the CMU? W. Eckenhoff responded: the base cannot be limestone with CMU above for structural reasons. H. Friedman asked W. Eckenhoff: what material are you proposing for the lintels? W. Eckenhoff responded: precast concrete. C. Smith stated that she does not have a problem with the material; in fact, she likes the stripes. M. Mylott stated that he too had no problem with the material; however, he thought the stripes were unnecessary. M. Mylott stated that the stripes are certainly not a representation of the material; most materials can be arranged to provide striping in some form or another. M. Mylott stated that he liked the divided Emerson Street facade (alternative 2), because it broke up a rather long facade into workable sections. C. Ruiz stated that he liked how the architect handled the Emerson Street roof (alternative 2). C. Smith stated that she liked the change of color (alternatives 1 and 3), because it helps to breaks up the mass. C. Smith stated that she would recommend adding the greenish -grey CMU to the middle 2 sections of the divided facade (alternative 2). H. Friedman stated that, if the facade will have greenish -grey CMU in the middle 2 sections, the center division should be removed. C. Smith asked the Committees do members have concerns about the use of CMU? H. Friedman responded: I would rather see brick. A. Alterson responded: my mother and I looked at area examples of the use of CMU, and, while I have some concerns about the durability of the material, my mother said such things are not worth fighting over. W. Eckenhoff stated that he would like to reiterate the Committee suggestion: use the Emerson Street facade that provides a downspout every 30 feet (alternative 2), place stripes along the vaulted roof, aligning with the downspouts (alternative 2); use the greenish -grey CMU within the center 2 sections (alternative 1), but remove the center downspout. C. Smith asked W. Eckenhoff: are the windows recessed? W. Eckenhoff responded: yes. C. Smith asked W. Eckenhoff: because of the need to cut the CMU, why would you use this material under the curving roof? W. Eckenhoff responded: the CMU would have to be cut if the roof was gabled. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2, 1998 Pape 7 of 8 J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott asked W. Eckenhoff: how will you be screening the air conditioning equipment? W. Eckenhoff responded: we will use an aluminum -panel screen on the east and west elevations. The site plan and revised elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0087). SPAARC 98-0090 1144 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Variation to single-family residence to replace dormer. M. Mylott presented the Application for Major Variation to replace a dormer for a single-family residence located at 1144 Sherman Avenue. M. Mylott stated the existing dormer is located too close to the lot line; the applicant wishes to replace the gabled -roof dormer with a shed -roof dormer. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (12-0) to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Aiello motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of August 26, 1998. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion 00-0) to approve the SUmmaLyof Find nas of August 26. 1998. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. • Septeml5er 6,1998 Date SUMMARY AN FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN D APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2, 1998 Page 8 of 8 Preservation odernism 7 r ' �;.:, fir_ COIUMbUS, a small* in southern kidlana, puts contemporary archlteCturd' to the ultimake test: forging a tom unity from /. a collection of ildings. V by Robert Campb photography by Cheryl ngar UL: AMs,a' rO" "ING s t{cttVd to he ddi'ee,nt whin you seethe big hdlb><ynlr,n the mtrnu,a 5Lu'mdrr ling -uth toward Columbus. Ind.. t'mm Indunap<dn. where relit plane UnJcd- The billboard bUtcs `J0RIVIU`%il NFbaR, Ftl(1, It RE F RI I cvlPU II MILI } 011M) Later. when vvu turn 44I-m w brad min C:ulambw. nw find vnur- seWpaamg beneath the arch of A red bridge. a bridge As hnlJ and bright as the Bare m A 7rn temple. 5'ou learn thn arch was designed by Jean Muller, A Swim engineer headquartered in Pun. The Wks in Columbus a] it "the front door" Columbus. tsi clear, ,s a nuwn that pays attrrimm to Anhr tneure. In rho tin rsf It.000-nn m„rc pntp4 than lam Fenwas Park in my hometown of Batson —and in as surrounding Bartholomew Csunrv, there lie at teat (,o budJings, plus a few parli and me numcnn. designed by nattimaldr or mmrnr I nally kn—n anhnecls. Fin any (an of anhuertum, the null call is impressive- El,d and Eno Saannen. [.M [tt, Kc,,in %.1m. Ces t N14. Charles Gwathmev, Mary Werx. E dwarJ liarabre Hanes. Roben .kXI Stern. bmr Nmeu.Uda (,iur- gnU. Rihanl Meier, 1h,tm Slavne. the firm of Haniv Holz. man Plciffm and tranv more 7hcn % a prune b,r Colombo. rrhxutnn %nth archon uare file river than 4o lean nr,w. A Kral hus,ne,sman. f Iran %WIrr, and his Fortune i--pan.. Cum- mins E.ngtne. have [akin it upon themrlves to rmpn»r the town s anhnmtum. Cummnt and uthrt Miller interests nut only build buildinp them,cl%ei I K, AN, help idol the .0mects for alrnou III the nrw puh1w huiWincn in own .And It 6— puhhr nudd,ngs. rhr, I,ay fi,r ar,h,tr,t, tin ulJ clpcu,r, I rc C I have been erns hnr to amwcr a,iuple,4 ,lu ,- tvrms Ahnhw,der adn,-hir,i,rnthr,m[a,t4All 50 that ...,,]led V-4 drugd I, Culumhu, a „altered —old', ta,r of sril rrgudmg of r min• to t lit do the b.dd.ng. a,ld up us „nnething rr-mR ,After w—Jrnng the own lac mu Jan and talk- talk ,ng I,,t, of lot, M ple then and li,m I ,artu illtwa ,rim lm,un+ hnr,vr,. ,he- l:,dumbm archnnrurr pn,}um ha, teen an m, rr,dd,lc 1>,.,n ru the utv and m .�,unn komi d ehc m , re-_ o s iz.—g ,, rile naor ,hap u,h, n �� rr..,�e ,he- in,rn AT, „Hall nn. n from J- I:nr trlrha,r,�r „+,rha.nvt It„ ,w„Ill, did we ,he- I I„f,dan Inn and ,n d—el .no nest nc� lit...an ,rate d ,on,e &,Ant— I„ ,u,, ,mtrad. At des, ulumhw Inn at frith and I ranll,n urecn 11nahls the world, Ur4-nr kx+lanJ.l,rraltaa, the ,m, fill, an Hane« Iy.. R.,mbur Ronal hud.h n,; dui w y ,aei;,nalh the ur, hall Ir a le-,, ,r In Irom rho .coati of r,rmh,nl; }iwll pc,d,ah11 FeTLll, no. it 'he .no„n ,emote. —,mml tmtn J,rmn l'nhk,nY,rr +olio,. ,rnnn. f'.,L,ndne hr Rotam0�r/l .e.n�m6urrn� rvhr—,q din m.r�,eryrr err K,,uuo 1 .k d.e . Nhtrcr Ntrt.asmm�g an+•un rive . erne au •.eri......• Ile me bin ab u almau rot otprnng a m anhunt wh Columbus a meaning 4and Bien. a laclia A uni Lit eoune. nr Ldv: v,w w, J. Irwin ! dthr ulh, .in. WW M Fnani;14 bm time on p it , Jidler ra in A nugial l,onnancvi i nmble lIg 'VGe:c m he un. lie Fngnre F,alu ..art an,hurc7 cum krxuw , pnweu 'shn trots from I, nh Junngt t p h P cure n d thing n k and a b out.+ p 11 ukntln, pr. Intl I he" I hill, rh, ,,,al I,te ha He admm r', "JLe,c g lair, m,k.nuhlc � Ixr aFle'a,r the- ani le. high (wl- ( mtrdStalt the hell is J. Irwin S1dlti Fir trpher egtu6k. "That's a gun- tion I often ark mvxlf." Miller. I leained from Ihit idd ankle. hnwJcs being a mitrcr busineuman, tra.h Greek and "till. plays a Siradirarius. wit the Ent layman e,rr cletred prc,clent of the National C.uunul of Chunhet. and hrlped ocgancre tiu Augme 1961 Slanh on Washington at whkh Martin Luther King Jr. delrveced hit'I haye a dream' spmh He rally about the Audenuh wav In which the anhnntum program began. 'At Yale antund or) to ;he only thing we were Interested in was anhi Cri Yak wit buchd,ng it% traditional u -Algm but wit: undrrgraduam knew About the rn.lern anfit. tntum in Europe. I'd folkn.ed the It9ta.ampentutn lit; a new rnlittav building] in Chaugn, where I'M Saannrn, the Fiends anhiuct. finuhe d second with a modem dctign I wit a fin of that. So a few vrars Later. when nor fanuW wit mrohed in Ihiikl- ing Fine Chnutan Cliunh here. I wanted him. IIeJ ,rams m the United States to head Cranhnxok Srhr.d near Drinio .%I font he mcd that a+ the son uFa I-uthcran, he d,dn I Jo,hur,hn be Use they'd Lwsume tau FamN. I went to ,ar him and n,ld him oun was atongrrgatwn of umpk normal rigns and a rkh inner life, It's been card chat Frank 1. wd Wrighi to a alwr intrt- vreweai Fur the lull, but he wasn't. Saannein .aid. You F, oil rout mother I'll do the building' Ai fine people ho eel At the dntgn-'Nadir Unit tvct Act a thur.h char I x ka like a, hur,h' " Iliac way the finr .Mdler n ,.hrment In arth"ernarrr art.and Win - 11w pmgram a+ is nait u.l t, began I%rear Urn, whrn Ranhr4oniew Cuunn rraliaed it wiirikl harr lit buM an ekmrnw,.".4 a srar for the hale -hint errter. n.,n. The first. uii 1-ill SUbir. way terrible t he .hoof lxaard then dame to Cummins Engine fctundi. r.rn for help 11 a lu." .m mWested l lace 1i—, and the ,ornpac v ur.ke rntr his fir- \Luse dn,owd au a Km.rh.4franrn`h.,. d {tn'hn'Yr .f..d t.unl wrm In (.ummini to, ahoom rim ch i.i and ,hr ahhunn,re pniKam. wht,h n,dx,lr rite pl.u:ncd. was cinder w -Tic fine ream o1 ,ho,rfe of o o. tan I Irwin \filler. -were lkxehlas I latiell, the cd,r.jr of airs iwemnal fvr.•rr. I',cim ikrlu—lo dean „I rhr m anhilrtsu,e .haul it %it T and Ism Wnnen Iiel, .tn I. who was pt„ haN, In, hest fared ' d 0'er nmr. the pnVnm be, amr. oxfil',nl. Imo o. roll pain icrtosmal New 5h,k I'ar a,,horti IUi iah It,, mrmhrn the ph-,, angn:g noc ola, 1L-i[l %1,11,, war , , I !"re " nuke a mill„>n 1`^ 1, 1.l, .I 1+ or , L„,!. hrJ... .. - r, - Chf 1 Cdunalwn really like? Fmi of all, among all %lido btuldmgs. only a few gtrahhv u irtnarkahlr work. ul anhne,rure The hrtt is poll fain }aanneni Frnr ( hinrian Chunh No anhtnt 11poLc with IaJtd to Erse o lint plat. Firic Chrn- run v, cnoderni m at,t%6nt h,gxat in m ordrr and r aunutr,n. hold in it% rhapn and spars. but toll in mu.h wnh ihr,rifn Iratlawn. Motograpin Jan I do Jose r It, the mag„ of its pet- Imth, hdan.ed rri urinnirerical anhuecrum. rIF > llv in the maan unttuary Nut their, mute thin the unuuarvr. Firtt Christian till% a whole Ic� block- Wings .untatmng otlitn. daastaxtm., and a da..arr.enirr bun,h out from the unrtu- ary In frantic cicgant,oumandt One of tone winhti it partkularhv tuctrssful: Aalied a story abiwei the ground, its a bridge that allows the lawn in fL bconth it in the modern martinet. while indt.on m wrnilon air illumined with . tithfa,ing glaa% L'alimunatelt. its net. nun her to ring the preieminon alarm. A mimtirr wnh a gnnsmg wngreganon plant to dauhlr the width of this wing, thus Jntnn Ing thole elr ptir tarndnn. and -wane still -fill th_ open spas beneath wnh new gumrru,Ieun. ,,Most puddings only hecame morr mietntwg as thangr latrn up ewer tame, but a few are so pertnt,nu dent mess with them. Fint Chits. tun it uric And sm,c the.hunh,rwns a parking lot a.nxs the arm. wh, M to ripand on thir,rhl urrr his i ."ling the career part or the nrighhonlmns it mull nrwns? loci char how vim grnrrnr uammunin Ale' N,lublr the Ierond iron% rrrruikAhk dn,gn nisi AN hnntucr: of the tand.:aprd gatdcm an,und I Irwin \filler+own house in a pleasant nc,ghlxarfhnxl A mdt• or to Irmh of dow ntow n. T he honne­ nc of . ry few fir frm saannen. well known for 0L.16 itlp,itt near Wj%kingron and mane orhet build. ry - I I zr-.. ,<r Ni, •nc�r Ilan Stldtl AJn or %erm.mr who hat dri ci a Ira 111 work in Church is odernism I Its best. Le R,nhe Iun,wn die pfnnsr Ihr u„ lot m,uu{u darer , -a a. d,"'T' mg a bearish,,roan hr.u, H,xhr ,6.. mr rifle d,1il;rn .e. oral( Lulun,hu, iuuld,r g. h,n J., xnrda an a,.,;I Ihid gn .alb a,kusg hum to rugger arc anhuct r 1 . a parlr. I'll, err„ hald,ng "I nn rr knew ..h,. du thr, J ,41 1. n:J I I—, I— I hi- .fin made the final iclnnnn ' he uni N.a nrn+xre, n,Ix.nld let nosed, Lnn der pn,e•un Ra,rnth ,beer ru,urred a moues rn,d, aI (-unrnI,-, led h, , xU,,,{drn whodiought ihe,oripan. .h..,k1,jr lexert uni J,. iielerd.a,ul Ins an goons work., And ,nu hear u.a it ,,y, m %fir n,w<, all.o deem,ahim hr%fill rnmgn+nw e.crehmg Kit 1,-1, mir.n diwinim n in a ,.rectal , fionl of lxihik iplin n d Fnuugh ab,u I the pis c++ IXi re hcrr u, iu,rk U hat. t at ..e......... 1 ( .,himhu., , a our m t,,prnc-n,r, alai ,,pen tiu rhr pubh, Among ,,her wmnrn are 11,r Rrp.6L, build",g ty-J, h,me.rf Ibe rnwn, nrwrpafet and uni „t rhr m,nt elrgam modern g{a bo,n e,er sun. %rd- ho rhr late (-lo,ago ar,hirru \faun I �,?d,nwli. and I en, vannen t Irwin L'nu,n Rank and Iru,t � erala., ,err lulling at add,non by Kees 'V �h<rc'x',II\I+11V Ira, hn.>;li,r the .u,rig" aa. III" a[.,.hd a nunh rJt•arrd .iuu.h. \orrh I ha+rile. till', ,Iur., ,i o I..c r .okra ., nrka a.td.n„nr d,r l,irum \trmural;n the 11:omp-n JR. -,I lb„,.,m.hne ,fie .mid yw as uon. Inns ..,Idle [term home hnng n u ro ,ran arse! \fill pa, r leak. Ip kh, had �'an t'alkrr,hurt;h. al.a ul rrla,.,l. plcarand, jri,d large park neat d,.o ut d„w•u„wn ihr park ,ur, hrllv,l inch h, ganth pa,thnn, drugs rd h. unln sees,, err nil `ian Fran.ix o, uidadrng an „P+r r. rerun 111,.11 That, a mnialga ,null nit Ihr error vlJut. -al ar. hnd,rurr ui a In gene era alrhnugh ,n tanne,r. lannw,t1, euod,und „ drianr `.r 0"', , fleet, for the I+nil III — ,hod .lime in In. ,,.slide,un­.u, h a, rhr tart that I „Iun'MofillIuntp- ,u,u+l ihr larder. o! a hI or y ..I anh'I.n I'dre .han,r In ji SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement L. Black, J. Glus, K. Kelly, J. Tonkinson. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, R. Schur. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:15 p.m. SPAARC 98-0096 2201 Howard Street Revision to Preliminary and Final Improve parking area within Evanston Center (install curbed islands with landscaping). Mr. Jim Kartheiser and Mr. Curt Yost (Director of Construction) presented a site plan and landscaping plan for parking area improvements for the Evanston Center, located at 2201 Howard Street. J. Kartheiser stated that the plans include installing 5 curbed north/south islands, 8 curbed end islands, and 2 curbed planter bed islands, the curbed end islands are located in all locations at the south end of north/south parking isles where no curbed islands currently exist. J. Kartheiser stated that the only difference between these plans and those approved in conjunction with the World Savings Bank process is that the north/south islands have approximately 3-foot cuts to permit drainage. C. Smith stated that the minimum width should be 36 inches to ensure accessibility. A. Alterson asked J. Kartheiser. will the end islands contain landscaping? J. Kartheiser responded: yes, the proposed landscaping will match the existing landscaping. M. Mylott asked J. Kartheiser. does the landscaping include a mix of canopy trees and understory trees? J. Kartheiser responded: yes. P. D'Agostino stated that the landscaping plan is acceptable. J Aiello stated that she would like the applicant to clean up and possibly add to the landscaping outside the wall. J. Kartheiser stated that he would review the existing conditions against the approved landscaping plan. M. Mylott asked J. Kartheiser: when do you plan to begin these improvements? J. Kartheiser responded: we will go out to bid within the next few days, and hope to have the project completed by mid -October. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9.1998 Page t of 9 d. Jennings motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous preliminary and final approval, provided the applicant replant that plant material within the shopping center which has died, J. Aiello seconded the motion. Committee aoproved the motion to grant acig_rov i of tg_ hg revision to the previous nreliminagr and final approval, provided the applicant replant that plant material within the shopping center which has died. SPAARC 98-0073 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue Final, Remodel existing building for food store establishment (The People's Market). Mr. Jalal Mizani (architect) and Mr. Pat Gilliland (Wild Oats) presented the new site plan, landscape plan, and site and alley photographs for a proposed food store establishment (The People's Market) at 1101.1137 Chicago Avenue, J. Wolinski presented a memo from the City Manager to the Committee (dated September 9, 1998). C. Smith reviewed the September 2, 1998 Syrnmary of Findings, regarding this case. Ms. Melissa Wynne (3rd Ward Alderman) stated that, following conversations with neighbors in the immediate area, she would like to prohibit alley access to the parking area, because the alley would tum into a street otherwise. M. Wynne stated that she wants to ensure that trucks do not stack in the alley; the plans she has heard from Wild Oats representatives do not sound as if this store will have enough control over the trucks to prevent such stacking. M. Wynne stated that she met with L. Black to discuss issues of safety; they discussed that, when the site had a 23-foot high wall (the back of the former building), the neighbors never had feelings of being within a "canyon" and, in fact, felt much safer. M. Wynne stated that she discussed with L. Black that she and the neighbors do not want the alley to be visible from Chicago Avenue; alley visibility makes it inviting. M. Wynne stated that she discussed with L. Black that, when the site was improved with the former building, the alley did not have graffiti problems; now, the area has graffiti problems. M. Wynne stated that she discussed with L. Black that the neighbors are willing to accept the possibility that graffiti problems may increase. M. Wynne stated that she discussed with L. Black that a subsidiary issue is the amount of homeless persons within the alley; when the site was improved with the former building, very few homeless persons frequented the alley, because they did not know it was there. M. Wynne stated that she believes a fence is an appropriate buffer between residential and nonresidential property. M. Wynne stated that L. Black suggested a board -on -board fence, because such a fence provides the appearance that one can see through it while providing opacity J Wolinski stated that he would like to remind Committee members that they are acting as the designee of the City Manager, and the City Manager can overrule the Committee. J. Wolinski stated that the memo from the City Manager (earlier distributed) expresses the City Manager's concerns. C Smith stated that she is concerned about large trucks maneuvering within the parking area; this configuration creates a potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. M. Wynne stated that the most dangerous aspect was backing, and that concern exists with either approach. C. Smith stated that the overlap of conflict between vehicle and pedestrian is minimized if trucks enter the parking area from the alley. M. Wynne stated that Wild Oats has stated that the number of large trucks is between 2 and 4. J Mizani stated that the number of large trucks visiting the site is flexible; the number could be 2, it could be 6. J Mizani stated that the issue is practicality and safety to the public. J. Mizani stated that he is concerned about southbound trucks turning from Chicago Avenue into the parking area, traveling through the east/west driveway immediately north of the building P Gilliland stated that they have such a configuration at other stores, however, with smaller trucks are also navigating the site, the configuration is simply not preferred. D. Jennings stated that he sees no problem with trucks turning from Chicago Avenue, because the traffic control SUMMARY AN APPEAR INDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9. 1998 Page 2 of 9 light at Greenleaf Street will provide the necessary gaps In traffic for trucks to make the turn. J. Aiello asked P. Gilliland: how many small trucks will frequent the site weekly? P. Gilliland responded: the total number of trucks will be approximately 30, J. Aiello asked P. Gilliland: how are these trucks scheduled such that their delivers do not block parking? P. Gilliland responded: we rely on the truck drivers` goal to avoid peak times. M. Mylott asked P. Gilliland: do you Impose any specific restrictions? P. Gilliland responded: trucks can not be parked in the parking area overnight; other restrictions may be worked out as needed. A. Alterson stated that making deliveries more difficult produces a more efficient delivery system, because truck drivers will deliver at earlier hours; if the alley is available, Wild Oats will have no incentive to 'police" the drivers, and trucks will sit in the alley. D. Jennings stated that it is reasonable to leave the burden of creating an efficient delivery system on the developer and the market. M. Wynne stated that she is concerned about the conflicting number of weekly deliveries; a continuous fence eliminates all headaches. M. Wynne stated that she agrees with A. Alterson: if deliveries must come from Chicago Avenue, Wild Oats will work harder to make the process more efficient. M. Wynne stated that if, after a period of time, the configuration is unworkable, the City can revisit the issue. H. Friedman asked M. Wynne: what if the fence is moved further west onto the site, providing area on the subject property in which a truck(s) could park? M. Wynne responded: that solution does not prohibit many trucks from stacking within the alley. J. Mizani stated that an 8-foot fence will create a dark alley; Wild Oats is not asking for the fence, they do not recommend the fence, and they do want to be liable for events resulting from constructing the fence. J. Aiello stated that all property owners with property immediately adjacent to an alley face these concerns, especially those who have buildings abutting the alley. J. Aiello asked J. Mizani: how many doors exit from the building to the alley? J. Mizani responded: 1 emergency door. A. Alterson stated that, while the open-air market concept for the north side of the store is very, very nice, without a fence along the alley, the market will provide meals to homeless persons who will simply duck back into the alley. J. Mizani stated that, if a continuous barricade is desirable, he recommends using landscaping to accomplish the objective. M. Mylott asked J. Mizani: how does installing a fence along the east and north lot lines affect the landscape plan? J. Mizani responded: the fence would be installed east and north of the described plant material. J. Wolinski motioned to grant final site plan review approval, provided an 8-foot board -on -board fence is installed, starting at the northeast corner of the existing building, running along the east and north lot lines, and ending at the northwest corner of the lot. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion. J. Wolinski stated that any applicant is allowed to seek a revision to an approved site plan at any time. A. Alterson asked M. Wynne: do the neighbors along the north lot line want a fence? M. Wynne responded: they had one before. M. Mylott stated that, last week, the applicants stated that the neighbors want a fence along the north lot line. M. Mylott stated that he appreciates what a continuous blockade accomplishes in terms of solving problems with trucks; however, he is not convinced that eliminating visibility to the alley will decrease certain antisocial activities, which may be a result of other social forces. M. Mylott stated that he cannot support -a site plan that promotes antisocial activities, even though the neighbors are willing to accept the possibility that such activities may increase. M. Mylott stated that he believes the continuous blockade should be a wrought iron fence and landscaping. A. Alterson agreed. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9, 1999 Page 3 of 9 C. Smith stated that she cannot support a site plan that promotes dangerous traffic movements; the potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians is too great, even If the potential Is a near miss. C. Smith stated that she would rather see a rolling fence. A. Alterson disagreed. P. Gilliland stated that he would be willing to Install all curbing, except where truck access to the alley could be provided, and schedule a demonstration of the resulting truck movements. Committee approved the motion (6-3) to grant final site plan review aporoval. pro ided an 8-foot board -on- board fencg Is installed, starling at the northeast corner of the existiag building.rnning alga the east and north lot Zings. and ending at the northwe2=mer of the I.M. J. Mizani stated that they will remove the pagodas; the building materials include ground -face block, painted steel posts, and repairs to the existing Dryvit where needed. J. Mizani stated that decorative artwork will be applied at various places on the building. H. Friedman asked the applicants: what are you doing with the existing doors on Greenleaf Street? P. Gilliland responded: they are being blocked to match the existing Dryvit. P. Gilliland stated that transom windows are also proposed to provide an amount of natural light; however, dairy cases are proposed in this location. C. Smith stated that spandrel) glass with a ceramic backing makes more sense in this location. P. Gilliland stated that they will make that change. H. Friedman asked the applicants: why are you closing the comer entrance (Chicago Avenue and Greenleaf Street)? P. Gilliland responded: we do not want customers confusing that comer for the entrance. P. Gilliland stated that they will use Dryvit to close the southwest comer. A. Alterson stated that he recalled that this building received a particularly poor application of Dryvit. C. Smith stated that the base is a particular problem. H. Friedman agreed. J. Mizani stated that the idea is to match the existing material; the only way to provide an even appearance is to remove all the Dryvit at the base. P. Gilliland stated that they will consider a lathe and plaster. M. Mylott motioned to grant final appearance review approval, subject to installing Spandrell glass along the south elevation and review and approval of the base material by C. Smith, P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: B. Fahistrom asked P. Gilliland if the exterior duct work was removed. P. Gilliland responded: yes; if it is shown on the plans, then you have an old set of plans. Committee aoproved the motion (6-0) Jo grantfinal siooearance review aooroval. subject to installing ,SaR ndrell glass along -the south elevation and review and approval of the base material by C. SIB, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9, 1998 a► Page 4 of 9 SPAARC 98-0096 1040 Central Street Preliminary and Final Build garagelstorage shed at Peter Jens Golf Course. Mr. Dennis Dokey presented a City of Evanston Garage Appllcation form (including site plan) for a garage/storage shed for the Peter Jans Golf Course, located at 1040 Central Street. C. Smith stated that the Building Division is unsure as to which garage the applicant intends to construct, given that the plans are stock plans, describing many different garages. D. Dokey stated that they plan to construct a 26-foot by 28-foot structure with a 16-foot garage door on the north side and a 9-foot garage door on the east side. D. Dokey stated that the siding is vinyl, and the shingles are asphalt. D. Dokey stated that the structure will contain equipment and chemicals for the golf course. A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Ordinance mandates that the Committee review those applications receiving municipal exemption to minimize potential advDrse impacts. W. Friedman stated that structure will probably not be seen from Central Street. P. D'Agostino stated that the structure may permit the golf course to Glean up the adjacent area. M. Mylott asked D. Dokey: have you received permission from the City to construct this structure on City property? D. Dokey responded: no. C. Smith stated that J. Tonkinson would have purview over this Issue. C. Smith stated that J. Tonkinson may ask for a more detailed site plan and/or a plat of survey. P. D'Agostino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval by J. Tonkinson. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. subject to review and approva{ by J. Tonkinson. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0096). SPAARC 98-0097 1212 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Resurface and restripe existing parking area, erect 3-foot concrete wall in rear yard (Duxler Tire). Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 98-0034 1910 Dempster Street Final Demolition and construction of new grocery store within Evanston Plaza (Dominick's), Mr Michael Conter (representing Evanston Plaza) and Mr Lawrence Kahn (architect) presented a revised north elevation, a north elevation including Office Depot, and area photographs for a new grocery store (Dominick's) within Evanston Plaza, located at 1910 Dempster Street. M Conter stated that the revision includes changing the awning root material from asphalt shingles to a standing seam roof and eliminating the recess between Dominick's and Office Depot, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9, 199a Page 5 of 9 M. Mylott asked the applicants: does the proposed brick match the brick within the existing shopping center? M. Canter responded: yes. M. Mylott asked the applicants: does the proposed color of the standing seam roof match the standing seam roofs within the existing shopping center? M. Canter responded: no, the proposed roof is darker. C. Smith stated that it is appropriate to try to match the color of the existing standing seam roofs. M. Mylott asked the applicants: is the sign band the only location in which Dryvit is used? L. Kahn responded: yes. D. Marino motioned to grant final site plan review approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith asked the applicants: has J. Tonkinson reviewed the photometric plan? M. Canter responded: J. Tonkinson has the plan, but we have not heard any comments. Committee approved the motion (7-01 to grant final site plan review approval. A. Atterson asked the applicants: have you provided bicycle parking? M. Canter responded: we will look at areas in which bicycle parking can be provided. D. Jennings stated that adding bicycle parking Is definitely worth considering. D. Marino stated that reviewing the provision of bicycle parking can be combined with other discussions the City is having with the applicant. C. Smith stated that, regarding appearance review, she appreciated that the applicants displayed some efforts to address Committee concerns; however, she does not personally feel that this building is the best that it could be. D. Marino asked M. Conter when new tenants enter the shopping center, will the facade change? M. Canter responded: that depends on the tenant needs. M. Canter stated that the current plans Include maintenance and repairs to the facade and sign bands, and possibly upgrades relating to color. M. Mylott asked the applicants: will you change the color of Dominick's standing seam roof to match, or match as closely as possible, the existing standing seam roofs within the shopping center? M. Canter responded: yes. C. Smith stated that signage requires a separate application. D. Marino motioned to grant final appearance review approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee agoroved the motion (4-3) to grant final appearance review approval. The revised north elevation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0034). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9. 1998 Page 6 of 9 SPAARC 98-0098 1501 Central Street Preliminary and Final Wireless communications facility (AT&n at Ryan Field. Mr. Jim Leahy and Mr. Jay Fisher presented working drawings and an 'after" photograph for a wireless communication facility for AT&T at Ryan Field, 1501 Central Street. J. Leahy stated that this facility replaces the facility at 2601 Central Street; that facility proved too short after installation. J. Leahy stated that this facility includes 2 sets of panel antennas mounted to the 2 outside truces and 1 set of antennas mounted to the press box roof. J. Fisher stated that the antennas mounted to the truces will be painted to match the truces, and the antennas mounted to the press box roof will be painted natural grey. M. Mylott asked the applicants: do the antennas mounted to the truces extend above the truces? J. Fisher responded: no. C. Smith asked: how high above the press box roof are the antennas mounted to the press box roof? J. Fisher responded: approximately 2% feet. J. Fisher stated that the existing speakers are approximately 4 feet above the press box roof. A. Alterson stated that he would like the antennas mounted to the press box roof to line up with the existing pipe -mounted lights to reduce the amount of visual clutter. C. Smith agreed. A. Alterson asked the applicants: does your contract with Northwestern University prohibit other providers from locating wireless communication facilities at Ryan Field? J. Leahy responded: no, provided the other provider(s) does not interfere with AT&T's facility. D. Marino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the applicant attempt to align the antennas mounted to the press box roof with the existing pipe -mounted lights; if this provision cannot be accomplished, the applicant must return to the Committee for further review and approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion t7-01 to grant nre.liminary_and final site olan and appearance review aoDroval. Drovided the apolicant attempt to align the antennas mounted to the cress box roof with the existing viDe-mounted liah1j: if this orovision cannot be accomplished, the gpplicant must return to the Committee for further review and approval. The working drawings and "after" photograph have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0098). SPAARC 98-0094 1215 Grant Street Preliminary and Final Variation to single-family residence to expand first floor and construct second -story addition over entire First floor. Mr Aurel Salomon (property owner) presented an Application for Major Variation (including a site plan, floor plans, and site photographs) to expand the first floor, and construct a second -story addition over the entire first floor, of a single-family residence, located at 1215 Grant Street. M Mylott stated that this application is scheduled for consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for September 15, 1998. A. Salomon stated that the lot is 40 feet wide, and the existing setback is approximately 2 feet 8 inches whereas 5 feet is required. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9, 1998 Page 7 of 9 M. Mylott stated that the plans contain a discrepancy; the site plan shows a'notch' within the northwest comer of the residence, while the west elevation does not depict this 'notch". M. Mylott asked A. Salomon: which drawing, the site plan or the west elevation, accurately depicts your plans? A. Salomon responded: the west elevation is correct, because they originally thought they would have to provide a setback for a door, but such a provision is not necessary. C. Smith asked A. Salomon: of what material will the house be constructed? A. Salomon responded: stucco. M. Mylott asked A. Salomon: how do you plan to proceed with this construction — will you simply add the addition to the east of the existing structure, or will you tear down a significant portion of the existing residence? A. Salomon responded: the plans are to demolish the majority of the residence, leaving the exterior west wall and some interior support walls in the immediate vicinity of the exterior west wall. A. Alterson asked A. Salomon: why not demolish the entire structure? A. Salomon responded: because the existing foundation provides a full basement; the area in which the footprint would be expanded (north and east) will only have a crawispace. A. Salomon stated that keeping the existing foundation saves approximately $50,000. C. Smith stated that she is certainly sympathetic to efforts to save money; however, this approach seems to be a way to preserve do existing nonconforming setback, and the house is basically a new house. C. Smith stated that she does not have a problem with keeping a wall or tearing it down; at the same time, she does have a problem with rebuilding something this close to the lot line. M. Mylott stated that the plans provide an 8-foot 4-inch setback on the east side. A. Salomon stated that the residence located on the lot immediately to the east is built close to its west lot line. H. Friedman stated that this approach is a perfectly legitimate way to rebuild a house. A. Alterson asked A. Salomon: have you ever lived in the house? A. Salomon responded: no, they just bought the house 1 year ago. A. Salomon stated that they plan to reside within the residence following completion of the construction. M. Mylott asked A. Salomon: I have heard that house is being listed for sale; if correct, why would you list the house for sale if you plan to live in it? A. Salomon responded: my wife is in real estate so it costs nothing to list the house; it is listed at an exceptionally high price to better determine the value of the house, and help in the financing of the house. D. Jennings asked the Committee: what is the Committee's role on applications of this nature? M. Mylott responded: projects requiring variations, even for single-family residences, must have preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval like any new nonresidential building. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Division prefers to get such applications to the Committee before the ZBA, because he believes the ZBA appreciates the Committee's comments. P D'Agostino motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicant will not be permitted to have openings (windows) within the west wall due to its proximity to the west lot line. M. Mylott asked C. Smith: may the existing openings in the west wall remain if the wall is preserved? C. Smith responded: yes, but no new openings will be permitted without a variation from the Property Services Board C Smith stated that the west wall will need to have a 1- hour fire rating Committeq,,anoroved the motion (4-2LtQ grant Dreliminary and Final site Dlan and aDDearanee review approval. The site plan and floor plans have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0094) SUMMARY FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9, 1998 Page 8 of 9 SPAARC 97-0035 1851-1873 Crain Street (1201-1205 Dodge Avenue) Final Construct 12 town houses on a vacant tot. Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 98-0095 2748 Green Bay Road Communication OFF -AGENDA ITEM; Reconfigure Jenks Street curb to improve delivery system (Dominick's), D. Jennings stated that a neighbor has asked him about the feasibility of providing an inset along the north side of Jenks Street, west of Green Bay Road, to provide a parking area for delivery trucks for the Dominick's located at 2748 Green Bay Road. D. Jennings stated that this neighbor travels southbound within the alley behind Dominick's; the delivery trucks parking along Jenks Street limit visibility, making turns on to Jenks Street difficult. - D. Jennings stated that he would like Committee members feedback, regarding whether or not this project is worth proposing to the Ward Alderman. H. Friedman stated that the inset sounds good. C. Smith stated that she can provide D. Jennings with a site plan and/or floor plan such that he can sketch out a proposal. M. Mylott asked D. Jennings: is this street signed "No Parking" at this location? D. Jennings responded: yes. B. Fahistrom stated that the Committee should review the floor plans and Building Code to ensure that this inset is not promoting deliveries through an inappropriate opening and/or location. Approval of Summary of Findings A. Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of September 2, 1998, including the following changes: (1) "at the site" within the second line of the second paragraph of SPAARC 98-0073 should read "within the Aldermanic Library"; and (2) "while 1 have some concerns" within the third line of the seventh paragraph of SPAARC 98-0087 should read "while my mother had some concerns". M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion f§_Q) to approve the Summary of Findings of September 2. 1998, including the following changes: (11 "at the site" within the second line of the second oaraaranh of SPAARC 98-0073 should read "within the Aldermanic Librarv-. and (21 "while I have some concerns" within the third line of the seventh paragraph of SPAARC 98-0087 should read "while my mother had some concemq:. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5 25 p.m. ly submitte September96,898 Marc Steven Mylott, Zonin Ia er Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 9, 1998 Pape 9 of 9 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 16, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus, K. Kelly, D. Marino, J. Tonkinson. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, M. Robinson, R. Schur. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 97-0035 1851-1873 Crain Street Final Construct 12 town houses on a vacant lot (also 1201-1205 Dodge Avenue). Mr. Mike Sullivan (general contractor) and Mr. Martin Sass (architect) presented working drawings, a landscape plan, a rendering, and building material samples for 12 town houses, located at 1851-1873 Crain Street, M. Mylott stated that he is not sure why the Committee granted approval to a "Revision to Final" on June 17, 1998, because he shows no record of a previous final approval; at that time, the Committee did review and approve several Zoning Board of Appeals' (ZBA) conditions M. Mylott stated that today's review is for final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Sullivan stated that the brick is Marseilles Brick, Valour 611, wire cut. M. Sullivan stated that the windows are white -colored vinyl and include snap -in dividers. M. Sullivan stated that the siding is cream -colored vinyl, the trim is white -colored vinyl, and the scallops are white -colored vinyl. M. Sullivan stated that he is trying to avoid using wood, due to additional maintenance. M. Sullivan stated that the roof color is bamwood, matching the brick. C. Smith stated that the roof color should be a more complimentary color to the brick, rather than trying to match the brick. perhaps a brown or taupe color M Sullivan stated that they will consider that recommendation J. Wolinski asked the applicants: how soon would you like to begin construction? M, Sullivan responded: as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the month. M. Sullivan stated that they would like to have tenants occupying the units within 8 months. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September Is, 1998 Page 1 of 5 f• A. Alterson reviewed the conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approval. M. Sullivan stated that he was not aware of the conditions of the ZBA approval. M. Mylott gave M. Sullivan a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals approval letter. P. D'Agostino stated that he needs to review the Street Tree Master Plan to see what species are required along Crain Street. P. D'Agostino asked the applicants: have you confirmed the location of existing trees within the right-of-way? M. Sullivan responded: no. P. D'Agostino asked the applicants: how far out will the construction fence go? M. Sullivan responded: to the sidewalk, except the fence will jog in to protect the existing tree shown on the landscape plan. P. D'Agostino asked M. Sullivan: do you know what type of tree that is? M. Sullivan responded: no. C. Smith stated that the applicants should work with P. D'Agostino on these issues. A. Alterson stated that the ZBA conditions must be satisfied before the Zoning Division can approve an application for building permit. D. Jennings stated that, regarding the ZBA condition about traffic, he met with the developer, and they discussed that the trip generation from this development is minimal. D. Jennings stated that he and the developer also discussed, but never reached an agreement about, the developer paying for speed bumps within the alley if the neighbors successfully petition the City for such devices. D. Jennings stated that he plans to prepare a final report on these issues. H. Friedman staled that the landscape plan does not depict access to the attached maintenance shed. P. D'Agostino stated that the shed will be surrounded by evergreen trees. M Mylott stated that M. Sullivan should show some form of access to shed on the landscape plan. M. Mylott stated that he appreciates the amount of landscaping that the developer has proposed, and he would feel comfortable conditioning an approval on review and approval of the details by P. D'Agostino. R. Walczak stated that the landscaping should be designed such that it does not provide too much concealment. C. Smith stated that the Fire Department will require addresses on the front and rear of the buildings. C. Smith stated that she recommends placing the front addresses right above the doors to the units. C. Smith stated that addresses are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, J. Tonkinson. M. Mylott stated that each unit should have its own street address, because that helps foster a sense of ownership. C. Smith agreed. C. Smith stated that she is concerned that visitors will not know the addresses of the northern set of units. A. Alterson agreed. D. Jennings stated that the Committee has recognized that the addresses of the northern units, as well as the location of those addresses, is an issue, and a solution can be worked out later, for example, the City has allowed minimal directional signage within the parkway. M. Mylott asked the applicants- will this development have any permanent signage, similar to a subdivision signs? M Sullivan responded- no M Sullivan stated that they will seek a temporary sign announcing the sale of units. C Smith stated that M. Sullivan should contact the Building Division for a temporary sign permit. R. Walczak stated that the parking area should be well lit. M Sass stated that each unit has a light in back, and the exterior lighting for the entire development will be controlled by either a timer or an electric eye. H. Friedman stated that some lighting should be provided along the north sidewalk. C Smith agreed. M. Sass stated that they were considering adding lights to shine up and within each canopy tree located within the front yards of the units M Sass stated that they could place a light post at each intersection of the common sidewalk and the sidewalk leading to the units M Mylott stated that. while he appreciates how the proposed tree illumination appears, that that direction of light is not appropriate, given the residential neighbor immediately to the north M. Mylott stated that light posts may pose similar concerns. C. Smith stated that the lights must illuminate the ground M. Sass stated that they could provide bollards at each intersection of the common sidewalk and the sidewalk leading to the units. C Smith stated that that proposal would be acceptable at a minimum: M. Sass should submit a photometric plan and the fixture cuts to ensure adequate lighting is provided. C Smith asked the applicants- what type of lighting is proposed at the front doors? M. Sass responded' recessed cans. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMf7l'EE September 16. 1998 a Page 2 of 5 M. Mylott motioned to grant final site plan approval, subject to (1) modifying the landscape plan in accordance With the Committee discussion, (2) review and approval of the landscape plan by P. D'Agostino, (3) modifying the exterior lighting in accordance with the Committee discussion, (4) review and approval of the photometric plan by J. Tonkinson, and (5) working with J. Tonkinson to devise an addressing solution that addresses Committee concerns. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith asked the applicants: what is proposed within each area between the garages? M. Sass responded: a tree, a condenser, and a garbage area, Committee approved the motion (8-0)_LQgrant final site Dian aogroval. subject to modifvina the landscape an in accordance with the Committee discussion, (2) review and aDoroval of the landsggoe plan by P. D'Agostino, (3) modifying the exterior liahtina in accord�nce with the Committee discussi 4) review and Approval of the Dhotometric plan by J. Tonkinson, and (�) workina with J. Tonkinson to devise an addressina solution that addresses Committee concerns. C. Smith asked M. Sullivan: can you use true divided lights, rather than snap -in dividers? M. Sullivan responded: no, because true divided lights are too expensive. C. Smith asked the applicants: can you place the snap -in dividers on the outside? M. Sass responded: yes. C. Smith stated that she would like to reiterate her recommendation that the roof color be more complimentary to the brick, such as a brown or taupe, rather than match it. D. Jennings motioned to grant final appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee poDroved the motion CU- 1 to arant final appearance review approval. The landscape plan and a copy of the rendering has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 97-0035). SPAARC 98-0100 1003-1005 Hinman Avenue Concept Improve parking area at multi -family condominium. Ms. Ann Taylor and Mr. Dan Kowrel presented a site plan and plat of survey for a parking area improvement for the 8 condominiums located at 1003-1005 Hinman Avenue. A Taylor stated that the parking area is crushed stone with an asphalt driveway and a gravel driveway. A. Taylor stated that their insurance agency cited the parking area as a hazardous condition. C. Smith stated that she is pleased to see provisions for landscaping. A. Taylor stated that their plans are to improve an existing hedge; the fence located along the north lot line will remain. C Smith stated that D Jennings can review the parking configuration and P D'Agostino can review the landscaping plan C Smith stated that this development will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) permit, that permit requires plans prepared by a Civil engineer. C Smith stated that J. Tonkinson facilitates that permit, and the Building Division can not issue a permit until the MWRD permit is granted. C. Smith stated that the applicants may wish to start the MWRD permit process as soon as possible, as approval can be time consuming. C. Smith asked the applicants: are you proposing security lighting? D. Kowrel responded: 2-way spot lights are provided, mounted to the building, and City illumination is provided at the alley. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE b► September 16, 1998 Page 3 of 5 A. A. Alterson asked A. Taylor are the parking spaces currently assigned? A. Taylor responded: the area is used for parking spaces, but not striped. A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that parking within a residential district be within 30 feet of the rear lot line, and a setback may be required. A. Alterson stated that he may be able to review this project as an improvement to existing parking. C. Smith stated that the City would want to encourage this type of project. A. Alterson stated that he recommends the applicants submit an application for zoning analysis. D. Jennings stated that some of the parking spaces and aisles may not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. A. Taylor asked the Committee: can they pave the area, but not stripe it? C. Smith responded: striping the area is part of the requirements. A. Alterson stated that the applicants should contact C. Ruiz, because this building may be within the historic district. P. D'Agosbno asked the applicants: what type of tree are you trying to preserve? A. Taylor responded: elm. P. D'Agostino stated that, if the plans are to asphalt around the tree where the ground is currently crushed gravel, the tree will probably die within 3 years. A. Taylor asked P. D'Agostino: how far out would the asphalt have to stop if the tree was to survive? P. D'Agostino responded: at least as far as the drip zone. P. D'Agostino stated that, as much as he hates to say it, if the applicants plan to asphalt around the tree, they may be better served by removing the tree. H. Friedman motioned to grant concept approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicants will need to provide a more -developed site plan and landscape plan for preliminary and final review. Committee approved the motion (7-0) to orant concept ap ra oval. The site plan and plat of survey has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0100). SPAARC 98-0101 815 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Exterior renovation and new rear stair case for Type i Restaurant (Campagnola Restaurant). C. Smith presented working drawings for an exterior renovation and new rear stair case for a Type 1 Restaurant (Campagnola Restaurant) located at 815 Chicago Avenue. C. Smith stated that the exterior renovation is infilling a courtyard to provide an elevator, and the new rear stair case replaces an existing stair case. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-0) to nrant orelirrtinary and final site olan and a pearance review approval. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 16, 1998 Page 4 of 5 SPAARC 98-0097 1212 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Resurface and restripe existing parking area, erect 3-foot concrete watt in rear yarn (Duxler Tine). Mr. Gaston West presented a site plan and plat of survey to resurface and restripe an existing parking area and erect a 3-foot concrete wall for Duxler Tire, located at 1212 Chicago Avenue. C. Smith asked G. West: is the wall necessary to hold back the CTA embankment? G. West responded: yes. D. Jennings stated that the State will not permit accessible parking spaces to share aisles. D. Jennings stated that he prefers the aisle to be located on the right side of the parking space. C. Smith stated that the applicant may only need 1 accessible parking space. M. Mylott asked G. West: do you need to provide 3 accessible parking spaces? G. West responded: no. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the site plan is modified to include only 1 accessible parking space. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith asked P. D'Agostino: what plant material do you recommend the applicant install within the planting island located along the east lot line? P. D'Agostino responded: 5 Japanese box yews. G. West stated he will plant 5 Japanese box yews within the planting island located along the east lot line. C. Smith asked G. West: does the parking area have drainage? G. West responded: yes. Committee apgroved the motion (7-0) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review aggroval. provided the site plan is modified to include oniv 1 accessible parking space. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0097). Approval of Summary of Findings C Smith motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of September 9, 199a, P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion f7-01 to aQj rove the Summary of Findings ai September 9. 199Q. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4 20 p m g pIctfully submitted Marc Steven Mylott, Zo September 22, 1998 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 16. 1998 Page 5 of 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 23, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, L. Black, J. Glus, D. Jennings. H. Friedman. S. Lufkin. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 96-0105 2200 Main Street Concept Expand nursery (Baby Toddler Nursery), Ms. Ellen Galland (architect) presented a site plan, elevations, and site photographs for an addition to the Baby Toddler [nursery, located at 2200 Main Street. E. Galland stated that the project would relocate staff offices, such that the first floor could accommodate 16 "Head Start" children. E. Galland stated that the addition is upward only (no increase to the building footprint). E. Galland stated that the roof slopes away from the rear lot line to minimize impact to the residential neighbor. K. Kelly asked E. Galland: will the second floor be for staff only? E. Galland responded: mostly, but conferences or therapy sessions with children and parents may occur on the second floor. M. Mylott asked E. Galland: what is "Head Start"? E. Galland responded: a federally funded program for preschoolers. S. Lufkin stated that the Baby Toddler Nursery has submitted an application for CDBG funds for the addition. D. Marino motioned to grant concept approval P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: E. Galland asked A Alterson is the setback along the alley 5 feet or 15 feet? A. Alterson responded: 5 feet. A. Alterson asked E. Galland: what is the approximate Increase in floor area, resulting from the addition? E. Galland responded: approximately 25 percent, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 23. 1998 Page I of 3 certainly no more than 33 percent. A. Alterson stated that the project may require variations but will probably not require a new special use. A. Alterson asked E, Galland: does the Baby Toddler Nursery need parking from a practical perspective? E. Galland responded: yes, especially with 16 more children. E. Galland stated that the Baby Toddler Nursery is talking with Anixter about leasing additional parking. A. Alterson stated that the Baby Toddler Nursery should discuss leasing additional parking from Ward Manufacturing. C. Smith asked E. Galland: has the Baby Toddler Nursery discussed this project with the residential neighbor? E, Galland responded: no. C. Smith stated that she recommends the Baby Toddler Nursery discuss this project with the residential neighbor. M. Mylott asked E. Galland: will you please send copies of the site plan and elevations to me for the Committe records? E. Galland responded: yes. r1111 I Ica •r • r 1- i r • ' 1 r rC.l •1 -r rr • .,� SPAARC 98-0106 1919 Dempster Street Install decorative roof lighting at McDonald's, Preliminary and Final Mr. Lawrence Chyba (electrical contractor) presented a promotional sheet for the proposed roof lighting for McDonald's, located at 1919 Dempster Street. L. Chyba stated that the restaurant currently has roof lighting; the decorative roof beams have shielded lights, causing light to 'shoot out" from the sides of the beams, illuminating the roof. L. Chyba stated that the proposed roof lighting consists of internally illuminated, translucent roof beams, such that the entire beam is illuminated. L. Chyba stated that McDonald's would prefer yellow beams; white beams are the second choice. C. Smith stated that she considers this proposal advertising, as the restaurant's only intention with the proposed lighting is to call additional attention to the restaurant. A. Alterson stated that the entire building is a sign. L. Chyba stated that the lighting is to alleviate a safety concern; upon review of the "911 sheet", they found that the area has criminal activity C. Smith stated that, while the area may or may not have criminal activity, the proposed lighting will not impact safety within the area. C. Smith stated that she believes this issue should be decided by the Sign Review and Appeals Board, and she would not recommend that the Board approve the application. A. Alterson asked L. Chyba: would the lights be turned off when the restaurant is closed? L. Chyba responded: yes. A Alterson motioned to table this item, such that the applicant may provide day and night photographs of this building and other buildings ,n the immediate area, and to refer this item to the Sign Review and Appeals Board. J Wolinski seconded the motion Discussion: C Smith stated that the applicant should provide day and night photographs for the Sign Review and Appeals Board as well. SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 23, 1998 a► Page 2 of 3 A. Alterson stated that, by moving to table this Item, he does not necessarily think the proposal is a bad idea; however, he does not think that adding the lighting will sell 1 more hamburger than would a building without the lighting. L. Chyba stated that he has statistics to prove otherwise. H. Friedman stated that he does not think that adding the lights will make any difference to the building or area; the building is a bad building on a bad corner. J. Tonkinson agreed. C. Smith stated that this proposal will contribute to the existing visual clutter within the area. J. Woiinski stated that he would like to review the photographs to ensure that 1 restaurant does not stand out more than the others. L. Chyba stated that each restaurant wants to stand out from the others. A. Alterson asked L. Chyba: who are your contacts at McDonald's? L. Chyba responded: Mr. Ed Napore is the store manager, and Mr. Richard Dolan (847.619.6030) is the real estate manager. Committee approved the motion 15-311Q table this item, such that the applicant may provide day and night photographs of this building and other buildings in the immediate area. and to referthis item to the Sion Review and Appeals Board. The promotional sheet for the proposed roof lighting has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0106). Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of September 16, 1998. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to approve the Summary of Findings of September 16, JM. K. Kelly abstained. Ad,iournment The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. ectfully submitted. I 5eptelmber Z9 '1988 Marc Steven Mylott, Zoning la ner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 23, 1998 Page 3 of 3 h SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 23, 1 998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: J. Aiello, I_, Black, J. Glus, D. Jennings. Design Professional Present: H. Friedman. Other Staff Present: S. Lufkin. Commencement C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0105 2200 Main Street Concept Expand nursery (Baby Toddler Nursery). Ms. Ellen Galland (architect) presented a site plan, elevations, and site photographs for an addition to the Baby Toddler Nursery, located at 2200 Main Street. E. Galland stated that the project would relocate staff offices, such that the first floor could accommodate 16 "Head Start" children. E. Galland stated that the addition is upward only (no increase to the building footprint). E. Galland stated that the roof slopes away from the rear lot line to minimize impact to the residential neighbor. K. Kelly asked E. Galland. will the second floor be for staff only? E. Galland responded: mostly, but conferences or therapy sessions with children and parents may occur on the second floor. M, Mylott asked E. Galland: what is "Head Start"? E. Galland responded: a federally funded program for preschoolers. S. Lufkin stated that the Baby Toddler Nursery has submitted an application for CDBG funds for the addition. D Marino motioned to grant concept approval P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: E Galland asked A Alterson. is the setback along the alley 5 feet or 15 feet? A. Alterson responded 5 feet. A. Alterson asked E. Galland: what is the approximate increase in floor area, resulting from the addition? E. Galland responded: approximately 25 percent, SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 23, 1998 Page 1 of 3 certainly no more than 33 percent. A. Alterson stated that the project may require variations but will probably not require a new special use. A. Alterson asked E. Galland: does the Baby Toddler Nursery need parking from a practical perspective? E. Galland responded: yes, especially with 16 more children. E. Galland stated that the Baby Toddler Nursery is talking with Anixter about leasing additional parking. A. Alterson stated that the Baby Toddler Nursery should discuss leasing additional parking from Ward Manufacturing. C Smith asked E. Galland: has the Baby Toddler Nursery discussed this project with the residential neighbor? E. Galland responded: no. C. Smith stated that she recommends the Baby Toddler Nursery discuss this project with the residential neighbor. M. Mylott asked E. Galland: will you please send copies of the site plan and elevations to me for the Committe records? E. Galland responded: yes. 1 •tail 1-= -•• • •■ 1- • ■ • 1 • • • -• •■ ■ SPAARC 98-0106 1919 Dempster Street Install decorative roof lighting at McDonald's, Preliminary and Final Mr, Lawrence Chyba (electrical contractor) presented a promotional sheet for the proposed roof lighting for McDonald's. located at 1919 Dempster Street, L. Chyba stated that the restaurant currently has roof lighting; the decorative roof beams have shielded lights, causing light to "shoot out" from the sides of the beams, illuminating the roof. L. Chyba stated that the proposed roof lighting consists of internally illuminated, translucent roof beams, such that the entire beam is illuminated. L. Chyba stated that McDonald's would prefer yellow beams; white beams are the second choice. C Smith stated that she considers this proposal advertising, as the restaurant's only intention with the proposed lighting is to call additional attention to the restaurant. A. Alterson stated that the entire building is a sign. L. Chyba stated that the lighting is to alleviate a safety concern; upon review of the '911 sheet", they found that the area has criminal activity C Smith stated that, while the area may or may not have criminal activity, the proposed lighting will not impact safety within the area. C Smith stated that she believes this Issue should be decided by the Sign Review and Appeals Board, and she would not recommend that the Board approve the application. A. Alterson asked L Chyba would the lights be turned off when the restaurant is closed? L. Chyba responded:yes A. Alterson motioned to table this Item, such that the applicant may provide day and night photographs of this building and other buildings in the Immediate area, and to refer this Item to the Sign Review and Appeals Board. J Wolinski seconded the motion Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicant should provide day and night photographs for the Sign Review and Appeals Board as well. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE September 23. 1998 a Page 2 of 3 A. Alterson stated that, by moving to table this item, he does not necessarily think the proposal is a bad idea; however, he does not think that adding the lighting will sell 1 more hamburger than would a building without the lighting. L. Chyba stated that he has statistics to prove otherwise. H. Friedman stated that he does not think that adding the lights will make any difference to the building or area; the building is a bad building on a bad corner. J. Tonkinson agreed. C. Smith stated that this proposal will contribute to the existing visual clutter within the area. J. Wolinski stated that he would like to review the photographs to ensure that 1 restaurant does not stand out more than the others. L. Chyba stated that each restaurant wants to stand out from the others. A. Alterson asked L. Chyba: who are your contacts at McDonald's7 L. Chyba responded: Mr. Ed Napore is the store manager, and Mr. Richard Dolan (847.619.6030) is the real estate manager, Committee aooroved the motion (5-3) to table this item. such that the aaolicant may provide day and night chotogfaphs of this building an other buildings in the immediate area. and to refer this item to the J= Review and Apoeals Board. The promotional sheet for the proposed roof lighting has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0106), Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of September 16, 1998. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (8-01 to aoorove the allMMipry of Findings of September 16. M. K. Kelly abstained. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Dectfully submitter, f . � ,$eptertrbef Z9,1988. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoningplatner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE; September 23, 1998 Page 3 of 3 /8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 7, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, J. Glus, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J, Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, K. Kelly, J. Tonkinson. H. Friedman B. Fahlstrom, S. Lufkin, C. Ruiz. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0109 Custer Avenue (from Howard to Oakton) Concept Initiate corridor beautification project. Ms. Anna Boekstegen presented a chart depicting the proposed location of improvements, a catalog cut sheet of the proposed planter, and area photographs For a corridor beautification project along Custer Avenue, from Howard Street to Oakton Street. A. Boekstegen stated that she has conducted a survey of persons located along Custer Avenue, between Howard Street and Oakton Street A Boekstegen stated that the survey asked the respondent if he or she liked the idea of planters along Custer Street and whether or not they would help maintain them; she is encouraged by the positive responses. A. Boekstegen stated that the proposal is for 44 octagonal planters. 15 inches wide by 18 inches high. A. Boekstegen stated that she hopes this project will encourage better property maintenance. C Smith asked A Boekstegen have you discussed this proposal with the Public Works Department? A. Boekstegen respondedno C Smith stated Mat proposals within the right-of-way require approvals from D. Jennings and J. Tonkinson. C. Smith asked A. Boekstegen have you selected the plant materials? A. Boekstegen responded: no. C. Smith stated that A. Boekstegen should contact P. D'Agostino and Stephanie Levine, Staff Landscape Architect, for recommendations as to what plant materials work best. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 7, 1998 Page 1 Ora '• :P C Smith stated that A. Boekstegen should prepare a site plan. D. Jennings stated that he would provide L. Lyon with an accurate base map, acquired from the City's GIS. J Wolinski asked A. Boekstegen: who will maintain the planters? A. Boekstegen responded: maintenance is Intended to be a community project: this project could initiate the formation of a garden club. J Wolinski asked A. Boekstegen: do the planters have an anti -graffiti coating? A. Boekstegen responded: the material is stone or cement. J. Wolinski stated A. Boekstegen should check with the manufacturer to determine whether or not the planters have a protective, anti -graffiti coating. such a coating is desirable. J Wolinski motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to receipt of all necessary permits. R Walczak seconded the motion Committee aDDroved the motion (8-0) to grant Dreliminary and final site plan and appearance review aooroval. subiect to receipt of all necessary, permits. The chart depicting the proposed location of improvements, the catalog cut sheet of the proposed planter, and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0109). SPAARC 98.0102 2722 Green Bay Road Preliminary and Final Convert vacant grocery store to retail sales establishment (Office Depot). Mr Thomas Ryckman (Casco Corporation) and Mr Jack O'Conner (Novack Construction) presented working drawings (including a site plan), color elevations, a catalog cut sheet of the proposed bicycle rack, and a rendering of a prototype store to convert a vacant grocery store to a retail safes establishment (Office Depot) at 2722 Green Bay Road T Ryckman stated that the proposal is predominantly Interior remodeling: the exterior changes include constructing a new entry feature and infilling store -front windows with a brick that matches the existing brick as best as possible T Ryckman stated that the new entry feature extends out from the building the EIFS system extends approximately 6 inches from the existing face brick; the reflective, mirror-like surface extends approximately 7 inches from the brick. and the EIFS sign band and lettering extend approximately 9 Inches from the brick. T Ryckman stated that the proposal includes retaining the white glazing T Ryckman stated that he believes the proposed sign complies with the Sign Code T Ryckman stated that the north entrance will remain predominantly as is C Smith stated that she realizes Office Depot is working with an existing building, however, infilling the store- front windows is 'a step backwards" for this building, not 'a step forward" C Smith stated that this proposal further internalizes the store, if the windows are closed. given the location of the entrance, a customer has no way of knowing if the store is even open T Ryckman stated that the area behind the existing windows is for customer service. such as photocopying, and Office Depot places internal signage, as -well as products, along that wall. C Smith stated that she sees no reason why that signage cannot be handled in another manner, such as hanging it from the ceiling D Manno stated that he would like to see the store -front windows remain from a safety aspect. R. Walczak agreed D Marino stated that this side of Green Bay Road needs to better accommodate pedestrians, especially given the large number of pedestrians already in the area (commuters and those within home -based businesses), keeping the windows would allow Office Depot to SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 7. 1998 e Page 2 off 8 capture such impulse buyers. C. Smith stated that the windows not only advertise product, but available services. simply by making them visible. M. Mylott agreed. A. Alterson stated that the building should appear to customers as If they have an option to visiting Office Depot besides driving to it; he sees no negative impact to Office Depot's sales if the windows remain. C. Smith stated that she sees no reason why the floor plan cannot be modified such that no sales area is lost. T Ryckman stated that he is concerned that, if the windows remain, Office Depot will mount objects to them, defeating the purpose. C. Smith stated that such an action would be a problem, and the City will have to carefully review the plans to ensure that that will not occur. T Ryckman asked the Committee: what if 2 windows were open, and 3 windows were closed? C. Smith and A. Alterson responded: no. D. Jennings responded: I would consider opening 4 windows and closing 4 window. D. Marino responded: 4 open windows and 1 closed window would be acceptable. although I prefer all windows open. M. Mylott agreed. M. Mylott stated that, if the end window is closed, the proposed sign band should stop above the end window, such that the facade is balanced. C. Smith stated that the proposed sign band incorporates the existing white glazing that extends over the existing windows. M. Mylott stated that the sign band should not dominate the existing windows, and, if a balanced facade requires keeping all the windows open, he supports keeping all the windows open. H. Friedman stated that an alternative is to open smaller windows within the center of the existing openings, such that the wall area resulting from blocking the side windows and the center posts" is usable. C. Smith stated that she would consider such an alternative. T. Ryckman asked the Committee; can 36-inch to 48-inch cabinets be placed in front of these windowsl C. Smith responded: no, such a fixture takes away from the intent of providing the windows in the first place. T. Ryckman stated that this area of the stores tend to the be the most hectic, and it may prove slightly unsightly, C Smith stated that the windows would serve as an incentive for Office Depot to keep this area clean. J. Wolinski asked T. Ryckman: would Office Depot be inclined to cover the windows with temporary signage? T. Ryckman responded: I'm not sure. C. Smith stated that the Sign Code controls these situations. T. Ryckman stated that Office Depot is providing a 7-bike CycLoops bicycle rack underneath the parking deck, near the north entrance. C. Smith asked T. Ryckman: did you consider a framing material for the new entry feature other than EIFS? T. Ryckman responded: yes, but the EIFS manufacturer stated that aluminum on the EIFS is a problem due to the amount of flashing required. C. Smith stated that she was referring to a non-EIFS frame above the EIFS, such that penetration was not required. T Ryckman stated that the area on the colored elevation shown in red is recessed from the grey squares D Marino asked the applicantswill you fix the bottom of the parking deck? J. O'Conner responded: the proposal includes fixing the bottom of the parking deck and its fire -proofing T Ryckman stated that all asbestos has been, or will be, removed. C Smith asked the applicants what modifications are you making to the lighting? T Ryckman responded: retaining the lighting on the parking deck. and increasing the brightness of the lighting under the parking deck. T Ryckman stated that the proposal includes eliminating the parking from the roof of the building; the proposal will still provide more than the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. T. Ryckman stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires 69 parking spaces, and Office Depot will provide 83 parking spaces. D Jennings stated that Office Depot could sell parking spaces it does not need to Dominick's employees; the area has a real demand for parking. _ D Marino asked the applicants: what is the term of the lease? T. Ryckman responded: t do not have that information. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 7. 1998 Page 3 of 8 D Marino asked the applicants: when would Office Depot like to occupy the building? T. Ryckman responded: by the end of the year. J. Wolinski motioned to table this item. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion 01 to table this Item. The site plan and catalog cut sheet of the proposed bicycle rack have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0102). SPAARC 98-0039 2230 Main Street Condition(s) of Previous Approval Revision to elevations for 1-story addition (Ward Manufacturing Company). Mr. David Forte presented a revised floor plan and elevations for a 1-story addition for Ward Manufacturing Company, located at 2230 Main Street. C. Smith read the Summary of Findings of August 26, 1998, regarding this case. D. Forte stated that the revision modifies the appearance, eliminating the Kalwall and associated steel structure. D. Forte stated that the addition is now entirely brick with windows on the south elevation; the brick will match the existing brick. D. Forte stated that coping increases the height of the addition to match that of the existing building. D. Forte stated that the revision is required because the budget was much higher than what the owner wanted to spend; the addition was estimated to cost nearly as much as the original building, and the revisions will save approximately $100,000. D. Forte stated that the addition is now slightly closer to the rear lot line, because the eave was eliminated; this project received a variation from the Zoning Board of Appeals, reducing the required rear yard setback to 0 feet. C Smith stated that the addition now truly resembles a warehouse addition; the revision negates the "laudable architecture" of the existing light manufacturing building. D. Forte stated that the addition will hardly be visible. A. Alterson stated that the revisions are unfortunate: however. the community at large will be better served by a quality sign and landscaping at the front of the property H Friedman stated that maintaining the integrity of the building is important. D Marino motioned to approve the revision to the previous preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, maintaining the conditions of said previous approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion. C Smith asked D Forte: do you understand the requirement of the previous approval, stating that the Committee must review a sign plan and landscaping plan before building permits may be issued? D Forte responded: yes. Committee approved the motion 7( 1L2prove the revision to the Drevious oreliminary and final site olan and ppoearance review approval, maintaininq the conditions of said orevious approval. H. Friedman abstained. The revised floor plan and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0039) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 40 October 7, 1998 a► Page 4 of A SPAARC 98-0100 1003-1005 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final Improve parking area at multi -family condominium. Ms. Ann Taylor and Mr. Dan Kowrel presented a revised site plan for a parking area improvement for the 9 condominiums located at 1003-1005 Hinman Avenue. C. Ruiz stated that this property is located within a historic district. and Preservation Commission approval is required. A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Analysis erroneously indicates that the subject property is neither a landmark nor located within a historic district. A. Taylor stated that the revised site plan is different than that reviewed by the Zoning Division. A. Taylor stated that they plan to located dumpsters within the area labeled "existing crushed stone unchanged". D. Kowrel stated that they would also like to parallel park along the north side; users would back out. M. Mylott stated that the site plan should be modified to show the location of the dumpsters and parallel parking spaces. D. Jennings stated that, given the existing width, the applicants should provide some extra space (width) along the north lot line to permit doors to swing open; the required parallel parking space width is 8 feet. D. Jennings asked the applicants: are you going to keep the existing tree until it dies? D. Kowrel responded: yes, because they do not want to encourage that area to be used as a through -way. A. Taylor stated that they may also add some landscaping around the tree. M. Mylott asked the Committee: should we consider requiring the applicants to plant a new tree if the existing tree dies? C. Smith responded: we should leave that issue to the property owners. D. Jennings agreed. M. Mylott stated that bollards would be a good method for preventing through traffic, especially if the tree dies. A. Alterson stated that this parking area is existing nonconforming; but it must be 3 feet off the alley C. Smith stated that the applicants must receive a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit. C. Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission will be most interested in landscaping. C. Ruiz asked the applicants: are you proposing new landscaping? A. Taylor responded: we will replace "scraggly" lilac bushes with new shrubs. Cr Ruiz stated that the applicants have approximately 1 week to submit an application for the next Preservation Commission meeting; C Ruiz gave the applicants an application. D Jennings stated that applicants have enough room for the front parking spaces and aisles as shown; the applicants may use a 2-foot overhang to provide the required parking space depth. D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (7-0) tq_orant Dreliminary site Dian and aoWrance review �r Y.al. The revised site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0100) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 7, 1998 Page 5 of 8 r SPAARC 98-0110 2401 Dempster Street Recommendation to Sign Board Reface existing gas station canopy and install free-standing sign (Clark Oil Company). C. Smith presented an Sign Ordinance Variation Application to reface the existing gas station canopy and install a free-standing sign for Clark Oil Company. located at 2401 Dempster Street. C Smith stated that the applicant requests 2 variations to height (the proposed free-standing sign is 15 feet 6 inches high whereas the maximum permitted height is 6 feet given the sign's proximity to lot lines, and the proposed canopy to be refaced is 16 feet 6 inches high whereas the maximum height of signage is 15 feet 6 inches) and 1 variation to location (the proposed sign is within 10 feet of a circulation lane whereas a 20-foot setback is required). C Smith stated that Clark Oil Company will remove 2 existing free-standing signs and install 1 new free- standing sign. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, provided the height of the new free-standing sign is no higher than the existing free- standing sign it will generally replace or 15 feet 6 inches, whichever is less. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committees aooroved the motion f7-01 to recommend that the Sion Review and Appeals Board aaorove the Sian Ordinance Variation Aocilication. Drovided the height of the new freq-staning Sian is no higher than the existing free-standing sign it will peneralty replace or 15 feet 6 inches. whichever iS less. A copy of the Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0110). SPAARC 98-0111 2410 Main Street Recommendation to Sign Board Install wall sign (Dollar Day Store). C Smith presented an Sign Ordinance Variation Application to install a wall sign for Dollar Day Store, located at 2410 Main Street. C. Smith stated that the applicant requests a variation to location (the proposed sign is not parallel to a public thoroughfare and. as such, not allowed as a wall sign). J Glus stated that he is concerned that the wall sign that is the subject of the variation application does not match the proposed wail sign permitted by -right. J Glus motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application, provided the both signs are complimentary in their design. H. Friedman seconded the motion Committee apvroved the motion f6-1) to recommend that the Sion Review and ADDeals Board a2Drove the Sion Ordinance Variation Application, Drovided the bqjq,5igns are complimentary in their design. A copy of the Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plalrand Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0111) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 7. 1998 a► Page 6 of 8 SPAARC 95-0097 1700 Sherman Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Modify existing Unified Business Center Sign Plan (Panera Bread. formerly St. Louis Bread Company). C. Smith presented a proposal to modify the existing Unified Business Center Sign Plan (UBSP) for Panera Bread, located at 1700 Sherman Avenue, C. Smith stated that the proposal does not meet the existing UBSP, because the awning signage is not a "Building Standard color of uniform green' canvas with white letters. C. Smith stated that this proposal also requires Preservation Commission approval. C. Smith stated the applicants must receive approval from both review bodies before the UBSP is amended. C. Ruiz stated that, in his opinion, the applicant is unlikely to receive approval from the Preservation Commission. H. Friedman stated that the other businesses within this building have complied with the UBSP, and he sees no reason why Panera Bread cannot. M. Mylott agreed. A. Alterson motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and appeals Board deny the proposal to amend the existing Unified Business Center Sign Plan. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-0119 recommend that the Sian Review and AogCals Board denv the progg al to amend the existinq Unified B in ss Center Sign Plan. A copy of the proposal has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 95-0097). SPAARC 98-0048 2929 Central Street Recommendation to Sign Board Consideration to reface a nonconforming free-standing sign (Coldwell Banker). C. Smith presented an Sign Ordinance Variation Application to reface a nonconforming free-standing sign for Coldwell Banker, located at 2929 Central Street. C. Smith stated that this proposal is similar to the proposal reviewed by the Committee on May 13, 1998, except that the south wall sign was approved and the west wall sign has been removed C Smith stated that the free-standing sign is too high (14 feet 2 inches where 3 feet is permitted) and located within 20 feet of a circulation lane. C. Smith stated that the parking lot (having no principle buildings) is only permitted 1 free-standing sign; a second sign also exists. C. Smith stated that the Sign Code permits directional signs for the parking lot by -right, however, the sign(s) could not include the words "Caldwell Banker" as the free-standing sign proposes. C Smith motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Ordinance Variation Application M Mylott seconded the motion Committee agDroved the motion (7-01 to recommend that the Sion Review and Appeals Board deny the Sian Ordinance Variation ADQlication. A copy of the Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0048). i� SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTED; "j�' October 7, 1998 Page 7 of 8 SPAARC 98-0056 1720 Central Street Preliminary and Final Interior remodeling and minor exterior modirications for proposed wellness center. Zoning Division canceled appearance, plans modified such that Committee review not required. Approval of Summary of Findings D. Jennings motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of October 7, 1998. J. Gius seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (7-01 to aQorove the Summ ry of Findings of Octoher 7. 1998. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Marc Steven Myfott, Zoni SUMMARY AN FINDINGS AN 517E PLAN D APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 7, 1998 �► Page 8 of 8 y0ctaber13,1998.:. Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 14, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, J. Glus, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, K. Kelly. H. Friedman B. Fahlstrom, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, C. Wonders. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:10 p.m. SPAARC 98-0102 2722 Green Bay Road Preliminary and Final Convert vacant grocery store to retail sales establishment (Office Depot). Mr. Thomas Ryckman (Casco Corporation) presented a revised east elevation to convert a vacant grocery store to a retail sales establishment (Office Depot) at 2722 Green Bay Road. T Ryckman stated that this elevation has been changed, such that the store -front glass will remain, rather than titling the openings with brick as originally proposed C Smith asked T Ryckman: is the glass existing? T. Ryckman responded: yes. C. Smith stated that she applauds the efforts of T. Ryckman and Office Depot for retaining this important feature C. Smith asked T. Ryckman: is the north entrance to remain as is? T. Ryckman responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Analysis has been revised to reflect the elimination of parking spaces from the roof of the building. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Officer has also reduced the amount of required parking spaces by subtracting square footage attributed to uses accessory to the principal use; the net result is that Office Depot is not reducing the number of parking spaces below the number of required parking spaces. J Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 14. 1998 Page 1 of a Discussion: J Wolinski stated that he would like Office Depot to consider retaining the parking an the roof of the building for use by employees of Dominick's. A. Alterson stated that Dominick's could retain a valet service, such that the cars may be parked around the roof -top fixtures. Mr. Martin Norkett stated that Dominick's cannot lease parking from Office Depot, because the property is controlled by a deed restriction prohibiting such an agreement. Committee approved the motion i -0) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review, approval. The revised east elevation has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0102). SPAARC 98-0100 1003-1005 Hinman Avenue Final Improve parking area at multi -family condominium. Ms. Ann Taylor and Mr. Dan Kowrel presented a revised site plan for a parking area improvement for the 8- unit condominium building Located at 1003-1005 Hinman Avenue. D. Kowrel stated that the plans include the proposed location of the dumpsters and 4 parking spaces within the rear parking area. M. Mylott asked the applicants: does this site plan provide a parking space for every occupant? A. Taylor responded: this plan eliminates 1 parking space. A. Taylor stated that the existing configuration provides 1 parking space for each of the 8 dwelling units. 4 extra parking spaces, and 1 parking space For a rental apartment; the proposed configuration only provides 12 parking spaces. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: for how long has the apartment been rented? A. Taylor responded: since the building was converted to condominiums: the continued rental of that unit was included within the condominium declaration. J. Wolinski asked the applicants: are the parking spaces sold with the units? D. Kowrel responded: the parking spaces are not assigned, rather they are allotted. C Smith asked the applicants do you plan to enclose the dumpsters? A. Taylor responded: the dumpsters will be placed on a pad. C. Smith stated that she is concerned that the dumpsters will migrate. A. Taylor stated that they could use wheel stops or bumpers to keep the dumpsters on the property. C. Smith asked the applicants. what type of landscaping are you proposing? A. Taylor responded: a 4-foot privet hedge, matching the hedge to the south, and grass as the ground cover. P. D'Agostino stated that the landscaping plan was acceptable, if the proposal is to match the existing conditions. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval, J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (10-0} to Qrant final site Dian and appearance review approval. The revised site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0100), - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 14, 1998 Page 2 of 8 SPAARC 98-0114 2520 Gross Point Road Concept Reconfigure existing and construct new parking spaces and gazebo on property to south (consolidation). Mr. Jim Murray (attorney) and Mr. Ray Schultz (Alden Estates) presented a site plan, a landscaping plan, and a plat of survey to construct 35 parking spaces and a gazebo on the property to the south of Alden Estates, located at 2520 Gross Point Road. J. Murray stated that Alden Estates is a long-term care facility, established approximately 8 to 9 years ago; Alden Estates has a contract to purchase the property located immediately south-southwest of Alden Estates. J. Murray stated that the prospective property contains 2 buildings (a vacant strip center and a building located at the rear of the property) and is predominantly covered with impervious surface. J. Murray stated that Alden Estates proposes to demolish the existing improvements on the prospective property, reconfigure a small portion of the existing parking area, and construct additional parking spaces and a gazebo on the prospective property; the proposal increases the number of parking spaces by 40, J. Murray stated that all curb cuts are existing. D. Jennings asked the applicants: will you retain the valet service? R. Schultz responded: we may. J. Tonkinson stated that no portion of the meandering sidewalk can be within the right-of-way. J Tonkinson stated that the right-of-way along Gross Point Road was obtained to provide a straight sidewalk, and it is the goal of the City to have a sidewalk on that side of the street. J. Tonkinson stated that Alden Estates must provide a straight sidewalk within the Gross Point Road right-of-way, along the entire length of their property. J Wolinski stated that this proposal is a'positive move' for this area; the strip center was not stable. C. Smith stated that the existing landscaping is very attractive, and she looks forward to the additional landscaping. M. Mylott asked J. Murray: under what use does the Zoning Ordinance classify Alden Estates? J. Murray responded: before the 1993 comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Alden Estates was classified as a retirement home; the State licenses Alden Estates as a long-term care facility. J. Murray stated that operation consists of 99 assisted and skilled beds. J. Murray stated that this proposal does not change the operation, rather it changes the ""externalities"" which support the operations. A. Alterson stated that the use is a nonconforming use, and the proposal is expanding that nonconforming use to a new parcel. A. Alterson stated that the applicant may need a map amendment, encompassing both properties (or the entire consolidated parcel). M. Mytott stated that the applicants may be able to consider the development on the prospective property as a parking lot. A Alterson stated a commercial parking lot is a special use in the C2 district. A. Alterson asked the applicants: Is Alden Estates a for -profit institution? R. Schultz responded: yes. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant concept approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved_ the motion to arant concept approval. The site plan, landscaping plan, and plat of survey have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0114) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 14, 1998 Page 3 of 8 SPAARC 98-0113 1026 Garnett Place Preliminary and Final Construct garage for multi -family residence. Mr Erik Eriksson (architect) presented a site plan and elevations for a 2-stary garage for the multi -family residence located at 1026 Garnett Place. E. Enksson stated that the property owner has received a minor variation, reducing the separation between the principal and accessory buildings from 10 feet to 9 feet. E. Eriksson stated that the garage has a gambrel roof, providing storage on the second floor. E. Eriksson stated that the garage will be covered with vinyl or aluminum siding. C Smith asked E. Erikssoni are the accessory structures located on the rear of the residence porches or exits? E. Eriksson responded: exits. C. Smith stated that the distance between the rear exits and the garage must be at least 3 feet; if the owner cannot provide that distance, he/she must provide 1-hour construction for the entire height of the wall. C Smith stated that she is concerned that area between the residence, rear exits, and the proposed garage will be unsafe. R. Walczak agreed, and stated that the owner should provide some form of security lighting. E Eriksson stated that he does not think that providing security lighting will be a problem, either on a timer or motion detector. D Jennings asked E Enksson. can you get to the storage area from the lower level of the garage? E. Eriksson responded: no. the storage area is only accessed via a landing from the second -floor rear exit. H Friedman asked E. Eriksson. with what is the rear yard improved currently? E. Eriksson responded: a concrete parking pad J Tonkinson asked E Eriksson: is access to garages via the alley? E Eriksson responded: yes. J. Tonkinson stated that the owner must remove the driveway and restore the parkway with sod. C Smith asked E. Eriksson. why does the owner want skylights for a storage area? E. Eriksson responded: to provide natural light. C Smith asked E Eriksson from where is the electrical service coming? E Eriksson responded: from the residence C Smith stated that E. Eriksson must confirm the location of the existing service, because the owner may have a clearance problem if the service is coming off a pole C Smith asked E Eriksson. will the storage area be heated? E Eriksson responded: no J Wolinski asked A. Alterson did the Zoning Division require a deed restriction on the use of the second floor of the garage, such that it may not be used as a dwelling unit? A Alterson responded yes C Smith stated that the building permit plans must label the second floor of the garage as 'storage only" C Smith stated that this proposal is less than desirable, especially along this alley _ J Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the driveway is removed and the parkway is restored with sod D Jennings seconded the motion. Committee 2oaroved the motion (6-3) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review apg►oval. provided the drivewav is removed and the oarkwav is restored with sod SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 14, 1998 Page 4 of 8 SPAARC 98-0057 1655 Foster Street Conference Consider construction concerns for Sprint antenna at Fleetwood Jourdain, Mr. Max Rubin (City of Evanston) and Mr. Frank Kassen (City of Evanston) presented concerns with the proposed construction of the Sprint antenna at Fleetwood Jourdain, located at 1655 Foster Street. Mr. Brian Barrett (Sprint) was available to answer questions M Rubin stated that he is concerned about hang acid batteries and possible spills therefrom, on the roof. M. Rubin stated that he is concerned that the proposed ladder with "anti -climbing device" will make it easier for persons to climb up to the roof; persons currently climb up to the roof without a device on which they can pull themselves up. F. Kassen stated that he is concerned that the clearance (16 inches) resulting from the proposed construction does not leave adequate height to perform maintenance on the roof below. F. Kassen stated that the National Roofing Contractors recommend a 48-inch clearance given the proposed area (12 feet wide by 14 feet deep). F Kassen stated that, while the facility was proposed for the top of the roof such that it would be aesthetic, the additional height required to provide clearance for maintenance would make the facility unaesthetic. F Kassen stated that the existing roof was installed in 1989, and it has a life expectancy of 20-years; the Sprint facility will increase the cost of reroofing C. Smith stated that the proposal was reviewed against the Site Plan and Appearance Review criteria. C. Smith stated that the original proposed location was on the ground, in plain view of the residences across the street: at some point in the review process, the location was moved to the top of the building. C. Smith stated that Committee approval by no means exempts an applicant from conformance with all other City codes. C. Smith stated that, if work is being performed that exceeds the scope of that work permitted, the City may rescind the permit. C. Smith asked M. Rubin and F. Kassen has the City signed the lease agreement? M. Rubin responded: yes. 8 Barrett stated that, upon hearing the concerns of Facilities Management, he questioned whether or not Sprint had followed the correct process, he believes they did 8 Barrett stated that Sprint would be happy to meet with Facilities Management to attempt to resolve any concerns that have arisen since the time that the lease agreement was signed and the building permit was issued B Barrett stated that Sprint's batteries are self-contained and "non-leakable" B Barrett stated that Sprint would be happy to work with Facilities Management on a means of access other than the ladder with the 'anti -climbing device". B. Barrett stated that Sprint does not have a problem with raising the platform somewhat, but that work must be reviewed by Sprint's construction engineers. C Smith asked B. Barrett if the roof is compromised by work performed by Sprint, is Sprint responsible for repairing the roof? B Barrett responded yes C Smith stated that Sprint should conscder walking pads to lessen the impact on the roof C. Smith stated that the issues that M Dubin and F Kassen raise are not considerations for the Committee. A. Alterson stated that, if significant changes to the site plan and/or elevations are necessary, the Committee should review such items J Tonkinson stated that Facilities Management and Sprint should review the lease agreement and, if necessary, amend it such that the roof may be maintained. C. Smith stated that she appreciated a representative of Sprint coming to this meeting. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 14. 1998 Page 5 of 8 SPAARC 98-0115 1735 Benson Avenue Preliminary and Final Exterior and interior remodeling of retail space for Type 1 Restaurant (The Stained Glass). Mr, Michael Weyna (owner), Dr. Alphonse Curatolo (architect), and Mr. Nathan Shelton (architect) presented working drawings for an exterior and interior remodeling of retail space for a Type 1 Restaurant (The Stained Glass) at 1735 Benson Avenue. C. Smith asked the applicant: what changes are you proposing to the exterior? N Shelton responded: adding ventilation in the rear of the building and through the roof. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to grant oreliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0116 1738 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Reconstruct front entrance canopy. Mr. Wayne Moky presented a site plan, elevations. and working drawings for a replacement canopy for Lakeview Terrace, located at 1738 Chicago Avenue. W. Moky stated that the proposal consists of 4 fluted concrete block columns, exposed cedar beams on the underside to support the roof structure, 2 different levels of roof, 2 skylights within the lower roof, i circular hole within the center of the higher roof to provide light to a planter below, and a copper flashing and Dryvit edge. W. Moky stated that the underside is exterior gypboard. W Moky stated that the fighting will consist of 12 recessed can lights; they may place a screen over the lights for protection. C. Smith stated that a flat metal siding with a kinar finish was more appropriate than Dryvit. M. Mylott asked W Moky- will you change the Dryvit to a flat metal siding of appropriate color? W Moky responded: yes. C Smith stated that W. Moky should consider using dunrock on the underside rather than exterior gypboard; the dunrock will last longer C Smith asked W Maky do the proposed planters replace the existing planters? W Moky responded: yes. J Tonkinson asked W. Moky: is this proposal located entirely within private property? W Moky responded: yes C Smith stated that the proposed signage should be reviewed against the Sign Ordinance before W. Moky orders the components of the sign (letters) C Smith asked W Moky are you changing the location of the entrance? W Moky respondedno J Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (8-0) to grant creliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. The site plan and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0116). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 14. 1998 a► Page 6 of 8 SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Revision to Final Revision to parking area for proposed mixed -use building. Mr. Ron Fleckman (developer) and Ms. Roseanne McGrath (architect) presented a revised parking plan for the proposed mixed -use budding at 2953 Central Street. Mr, Chris Thomas (architect) and Mr. Mark Cabrinha (architect) were available to answer questions. R. Fleckman stated that the revisions address some of the Committee's concerns about security and safety within the parking area as well as some budgetary issues. R. McGrath stated that the proposal moves the retail parking spaces from along the ramp to 2 smaller areas at grade: the residential parking spaces are still below grade, accessed via a steeper -sloped ramp that splits the 2 retail parking areas. R. McGrath stated that the at -grade parking provides more visibility, increasing security and safety. R. McGrath stated that the access to the retail and residential parking is from the ATM lane or the alley. R. McGrath stated that they have proposed 3 cuts in the fence, providing access to the alley for persons entering or existing the parking or for persons within the line for the ATMs who no longer wish to wait in line. J. Tonkinson asked the applicants: have you discussed this proposal with the neighbors? R. Fleckman responded: not yet. M. Mylott stated that J. Walinski and A. Alterson will have to review the changes to see if they are still consistent with the plans approved via the special use and variation process; the neighbors, Zoning Board of Appeals, and City Council were shown plans that had no traffic directly accessing the alley. J. Tonkinson stated that he is concerned that this revision puts traffic into an unimproved alley. J. Tonkinson stated that he would oppose this revision, unless the developer proposes a means to protect the alley, such as paving and draining it. J Tonkinson stated that he did not consider such a requirement before, because the alley would have been used as a service lane, now it would be used as a thoroughfare. H. Friedman stated that the proposal creates a possible conflict, where persons exiting the residential parking may turn left (the wrong way) into the one-way ATM lane, rather than turning left at the alley. D. Jennings stated that the revision does create more conflict points; however, the retail parking areas are safer. J Tonkinson motioned to table this consideration to allow further review by the Community Development and Public Works departments. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee aonroved the motion (9-0) to tabl,Q this consideration to allow further review by the Community Oevelooment and Public Works department*. The revised parking plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0005) SPAARC 98-0112 422 Davis Street Conference OFF-AGENOA ITEM Construct canopy and drop-off at Georgian D Jennings presented a site plan for a canopy and drop-off at the Georgian, located at 422 Davis Street. D. Jennings stated that Mr John Macsai mailed him the site plan, showing a canopy and drop off in front of the front door D Jennings stated that the Georgian already has a cut Into the parkway, used for temporary parking and loading. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 14. 1998 Page 7 of 8 D. Jennings stated that the proposal reverses the flow of the existing one-way traffic. such that the passenger door is closest to the entrance. D. Jennings stated that he does not really like the backward configuration; however, this proposal accommodates a special need. D. Jennings stated that the island will need some reconfiguration. B. Fahlstrom stated that the drop off must be accessible. J. Tonkinson stated that the applicant should have a sidewalk from the entrance to the public sidewalk. such that people do not have to walk within the drop off to get to the public sidewalk. D. Jennings stated that he will communicate the concerns expressed by the Committee to J. Macsai; he will inform J. Macsai that, if he would like to have a concept review by the Committee, he should provide a site plan that includes the entire width of the street and site and area photographs. A copy of the site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0112). Approval of Summary of Findings M. Mylott stated that the motion and approval within the "Approval of Summary of Findings" should be changed. such that the Committee approved the Summary of Findings of September 30. 1998 rather than the Summary of Findings of October 7, 1998. 0. Marino motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of October 7, 1998, as amended. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion f7-0 to aonrove the Summary of Findinas of October 7. 1998. as amendq¢. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. s 4ctfully submitted, Marc Steven Mylott, Zo SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMIT rEE October 14, 1998 �► Page 8 of 8 October 20, 1998 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 211, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, J. Glus, D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement P. D'Agostino, K. Kelly. H. Friedman. C. Ruiz. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Wolinski motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of October 14, 1998. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee aRRoved the motion (7-0) to aonrove the Summafy of Findings of October 14. 1998, J. Glus abstained. SPAARC 98-0062 2122 Sheridan Road Preliminary and Final Construct addition to Seabury-Western. Applicant did not attend. NNSPAARC 98-0117 632 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final Install larger window and interior remodeling (multi -family residential building), Mr. Sean Barry presented working drawings and site photographs for the 32-unit condominium building located at 632 Hinman Avenue S. Barry stated that the new window is widening an existing opening at the garden level; the window is necessary to meet the BOCA requirements for light and ventilation. S. Barry stated that interior walls will be SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 21, 1998 Page 1 or 5 removed such that the exterior walls of the building (with the new window) are the outer walls of the dwelling unit. C. Smith stated that this building is a landmark building; the applicant must submit an application to C. Ruiz for a Certificate of Appropriateness. J. Wolinski asked S. Barry: is this dwelling unit legally established? S. Barry responded: yes. J. Wolinski stated that, if the dwelling unit is legal, he questions how such a configuration was ever approved. C. Smith asked S. Barry: how long has this dwelling unit been in existence? S. Barry responded: as long as I've known, which is less than one year. C. Smith asked S. Barry: is the dwelling unit currently occupied? S. Barry responded: yes, but the occupants will be moving out by the end of October, per City inspectors orders. C. Smith asked S. Barry: for what use is the remainder of the basement? S. Barry responded: storage, mechanical, and laundry. A. Alterson stated that this dwelling unit may never have been legally established, making it an issue for zoning review. J. Tonkinson asked A. Alterson: could the dwelling unit be grandfathered? A. Alterson responded: yes, if the dwelling unit was originally legally established. C. Smith asked S. Barry: are the dwelling units in this building sprinkled? S. Barry responded: no. A. Alterson motioned to table this item, to allow the Zoning Division to determine whether or not the building is permitted to have 30 or 32 dwelling units. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-0) to table this item to allow the ina Division to determine whether or not the building Is permitted to have 30 or 32 dwelling units. SPAARC 98-0118 640 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final Install larger window and interior remodeling (multi -family residential building). Mr. Sean Barry presented working drawings and site photographs for the 32-unit condominium building located at 640 Hinman Avenue. A. Alterson motioned to table this item, to allow the Zoning Division to determine whether or not the building is permitted to have 30 or 32 dwelling units. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (10-01 to table this item to allow the Zonina Division tp determine whether or not the buildina is l2ermitted to have 30 or 32 dwellina units SPAARC 98-0005 2953 Central Street Revision to Final Revision to parking area for proposed mixed -use building. Mr Chris Thomas (architect) presented a revised parking plan for the proposed mixed -use building at 2953 Central Street Mr Walter Kihm (developer) was available to answer questions C Thomas stated that the revised parking plan differs from the plan presented on October 14, 1998 in the following ways The proposed means of access to the alley have been eliminated. The approach aisle to the ATMs has been widened, providing 2-way traffic. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 21. 1999 a► Page 2 of 5 3. The second Boor of the building cantilevers over the widened approach alsle. M. Mylott asked C. Thomas: are you proposing a garage door over the accessible parking space? C. Thomas responded: no. C. Smith asked C. Thomas: is the slope down to the residential parking area still workable? C. Thomas responded: yes. A. Alterson asked C. Thomas: in your opinion, do the revisions comply with those plans reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals and approved by the City Council? C. Thomas responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that he would agree with that assessment, except for one item: the original plans had on -site traffic flowing east and west; the revised plans have some traffic flowing north and south, creating an opportunity for headlights to disturb the residential neighbors to the north. M. Mylott stated that he recommends modifying the proposed wrought iron fence to include short segments of brick wall to knock down north -facing headlights. D. Jennings stated that the applicant is installing a 6-foot privacy fence along the south side of the property immediately north of the subject property; that fence should preclude any north -facing headlights from disturbing the northern residential neighbors. C. Smith asked C. Thomas: how high is the wrought iron fence? C. Thomas responded: 42 inches. H. Friedman asked C. Thomas: will users exiling the retail parking area be required to turn left? C. Thomas responded: yes, they will stripe the lanes as such. C. Smith asked C. Thomas: will the retail parking area and ramp to the residential parking area be illuminated? C. Thomas responded: yes. C. Smith asked C. Thomas: has the bank associated with the ATMs considered the location for ATM signage? C, Thomas responded: the signage may be on a column or overhang. C. Smith asked C. Thomas: do you understand that no signage may extend over the right-of-way? C. Thomas responded: yes. C. Smith stated that, given the discrete location of and access to the ATMs, she foresees an application for a sign variation to better promote the ATMs. C. Ruiz asked C. Thomas: will a bank be located on the lower level? C. Thomas responded: no, the user(s) will be retail. C. Smith asked the applicants: what precautions will you take to ensure visibility exiting the ATMs? W. Kihm responded: we were going to see what approaches work best on a trial basis. C. Smith stated that, regardless of the trial basis, the applicants should install mirrors, any other features would be in addition to the mirrors. J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the revision to the previous final approval. D Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Jennings stated that the revised ramp to the residential parking and the resulting location of the garage door may create a totally hidden area. C. Thomas stated that, unlike the original proposal, the area provides no place in which a person could hide: if a person is at the garage door, a driver will see that person from the top of the ramp C. Smith asked C Thomas what is the intended treatment along the retail parking spaces where a break is shown within the walls? C Thomas responded: openings within the masonry generally, but the specifics have not yet been decided. C. Smith asked C Thomas. will the base be curbed? C. Thomas responded: yes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTED: October 21, 1998 Page 3 of 5 The revised parking plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 98-0005). SPAARC 98-0119 1301 Central Street Preliminary and Final Install 4 new A/C condensing units (Evanston Northwestern Healthcare). Mr. Paul Schwab (architect) presented working drawings, a site plan, elevations, a landscape plan, site and area photographs, and a fence material sample for 4 new air conditioning (A/C) condensing units for Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, located at 1301 Central Street. Mr. Mike Vinci and Mr. Joe Hunt were available to answer questions. P. Schwab stated that the 4 new A/C condensing units will replace the 2 existing A/C condensing units (to be removed); the new units are necessary to handle the remodeled computer room which runs 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. P. Schwab stated that, of the 4 new units, 3 units will run continuously and 1 unit will be redundant. P. Schwab stated that the new units will rest on a 20-foot by 50-foot slab, surrounded by a 7%-foot screen. P. Schwab stated that the screen consists of ship -lap siding (red cedar) with lattice work; the fence will be painted to match the existing blonde brick building. P. Schwab stated that the new units are quiet -fine units; the factory specifications indicate the sound level is 65 decibels (dbs) at 5 feet. P. Schwab stated that they hired an acoustics consultant to conduct sound readings within the area; the consultant determined that the current ambient level is 51 dbs, and the screen and surrounding landscaping will reduce the ambient level to 41 dbs. P. Schwab stated that the views from Chancellor Street and Asbury Avenue will be obscured by "quite a lot" of existing landscaping. A. Aiterson asked the applicants: what happens at the site of the existing A/C units? P. Schwab responded: it will be relandscaped, possibly providing a siting area for employees. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval D Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith asked the applicants: have you considered placing the new A/C units on the roof? J Hunt responded: the weight of the new units was too great. P. Schwab responded also, the sound is better ameliorated with the units on the ground. H Friedman asked the applicants are you providing access to the fenced area? P. Schwab responded we have provided 2 doors on the north side of the fenced area. C Smith stated that she thought that the proposed landscaping would be opposite of that presented, she thought that the majority of the planting would be located on the north side of the screened area, rather than between the screened area and the existing building C Rutz stated that he would like to see a plan that included more landscaping on the north and east sides of the screen. P. Schwab stated that he can add evergreens to these sides such that "green" is provided year-round. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 21, 1998 �► Page 4 of 5 C. Ruiz stated that the design of the screen should work with the building, because this structure will have an Impact on the elevations of this building. P. Schwab stated that the structure is located behind the building. J. Tonkinson stated that, in most Instances. the broad side of this screen will not be seen; however, these concerns can be addressed through additional landscaping. H. Friedman stated that the design of the screen could be changed to emphasize its and the buildings "horizontality", rather than using the lattice. M. Mylott asked the applicants: why does the screen have to be 7% feet high? P. Schwab responded: the acoustics consultant stated that the barrier must be 4 feet higher than the units, which are 3 feet 4 inches high. A. Alterson stated that the barrier may exceed 8 feet, because it is a screen not a fence. Committee failed to ap2Epy the motion (1-7) to grant oreliminary an final site plan and appearance review J. Glus motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of a revised landscape plan by P. 'Agostino and review and approval of a revised screen design by C. Smith and C. Ruiz; revisions being in accordance" -with Committee discussion. A. Alterson seconded the motion. Committee aparoved the motion (8-0) to Grant oreliminary and final site plan and popearance review approval. subject to review and approval of a revised landscape plan by P. D'Agostiao_and Leyiew and approval of a revised screen design by C. Smith and C. R04: revisions being in accordance with Committee discussion. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. subm October 27, 1998 Marc Steven Mylott, ZoniA PI#nner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 21, 1995 Page 5 of 5 Is SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 28, 1998 Room 2401 Members Present: A. Alterson, J. Glus, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott. C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, H. Friedman. B. Fahistrom. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:10 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings D. Marino motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of October 21, 1998. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee agj roved the motion (7-0) to approve the Summery gf Fin grg of October 21. 1998. J. Glus abstained. SPAARC 95-0003 2201 Foster Street Construct addition to church (Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston) Final Mr. Eric Eriksson presented a site plan (including grading plan), floor plan, elevations, renderings, landscaping plan, lighting plan, and site and area photographs for an addition to the Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston, located at 2201-2203 Foster Street. M. Mylott asked E. Eriksson: hire you submitted an application for building permit? E Eriksson responded: yes M. Mylott asked E. Eriksson are the plans submitted with that application the same as those which you are presenting to the Committee? E Eriksson responded yes C. Smith asked E. Eriksson: how are you providing accessibility? E. Eriksson responded: via an elevator already approved by the State. E Eriksson stated that security lighting will be provided with flood lights, angled down, on a motion detector or timer. J. Tonkinson stated that E. Eriksson must provide a photometric plan and catalog cuts. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 28. 1998 Page 1 of 7 E. Eriksson stated that the parking area will be delimited by landscaping on the south and a 4-foot high, wood fence on the east. C.%mith stated that the landscape plan is 'a little light': she would like to see more plant material, especially given that the church is located in a residential area. E. Eriksson stated that he will discuss with his client adding landscape edging and a ground cover consisting of perennials at the front of the church. E. Eriksson stated that he will discuss with his client adding a second understory tree at the front of the church. C. Smith stated that she realizes that the church is programming with a limited budget; however, the church should develop a long-range landscape plan that can be implemented in phases. J. Tonkinson asked E. Eriksson: has D. Jennings reviewed the parking area? E. Eriksson responded: he has not met with D Jennings on a one-on-one basis to discuss the parking area. A. Alterson stated that D. Jennings was present during the preliminary review of this project. J. Tonkinson stated that E. Eriksson should meet with D. Jennings to discuss the parking layout. because the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit is based upon this layout. C. Smith agreed. C. Smith asked E. Eriksson what is the proposed building material? E. Eriksson responded: standard concrete block (8 Inches by 16 inches) painted beige with a limestone cap. C. Smith asked E. Eriksson: what is the color of the proposed mortar? E. Eriksson responded: the color has not yet been finalized; however, it will not be an extreme color C Smith asked E. Erikssonwill the color of the mortar match the painted color of the concrete block? E. Eriksson responded that is my intent at the moment; if it is not an exact match, the color will be similar. C Smith asked E. Eriksson what type of windows are you proposing? E. Eriksson responded: aluminum -clad wood windows. C. Smith asked E. Enksson: what color of window are you proposing? E. Eriksson responded: the color has not yet been determined. C. Smith asked E Eriksson: what type of glass are you proposing within the windows? E. Eriksson responded clear. A. Alterson motioned to table this Item. D Marino seconded the motion Discussions C Smith stated that E. Enksson should provide the Committee with building material samples and a more elaborate, phased landscape plan. C. Smith stated that E. Enksson should meet with D Jennings to discuss the parking area layout prior to the next review E Enksson asked the Committee. may I be placed on agenda for the next Committee meeting? M Mylott responded. yes, the Zoning Division will contact you with a specific time Committee aR ra oved the motion (9-0) to table this item. The grading plan, landscape plan, and lighting plan have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (SPAARC 95-0003). SPAARC 97-0034 1000 Grey Avenue Final Construct 1-story addition to connect 2 existing buildings (C. E. Niehofo. Mr. John Marcus (architect) presented working drawings for a 1-story addition that would connect 2 existing buildings located at 1000 Grey Avenue (also 2021 Lee Street). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 28. 1998 a Page 2 of 7 J. Marcus stated that the owner wishes to scale back the proposal for the connector building from that presented for preliminary review; also, the owner wishes to develop the site plan presented for preliminary review as finances allow J. Marcus stated that the Application for Building Permit proposes a smaller connector building, and it ices not include the parking and landscaping. J. Marcus stated that the owner has cleaned up and regraded the area proposed for parking. but plans to neither pave nor stripe it. J. Marcus stated that the connector building would be constructed of horizontal metal siding; the north and south sides of the building will each have 4, 4-foot by 7-foot, clear -glass windows. A. Alterson asked J. Marcus: what is the differences between the connector building now proposed versus that presented for preliminary review? J. Marcus responded: the original proposal was higher and wider. J. Marcus stated that the current proposal is a very functional solution, and the owner still plans to construct the original proposal; he is trying to encourage the owner to think of the current proposal as a temporary solution. C. Smith asked J. Marcus: does the owner have a idea of a time schedule whereby the building may be replaced and the parking and landscaping aoded? J. Marcus responded: no. J. Tonkinson asked J. Marcus: are you planning on replacing the water main located within the vacated nght-of-way based on the currently proposed footprint? J. Marcus responded: yes. J. Tonkinson stated that he cannot support this proposal, because, if and when the original connector building is constructed, it will cover the utilities that are replaced as part of the current proposal. C. Smith stated that J. Marcus should request that the owner address a letter to the City, describing his long-term plans and proposed phasing. J. Tonkinson agreed, and stated that the City will need to see each intended piece and have an understanding of when those pieces will be put in place. D. Marino agreed, and stated that one of the Items upon which the City Council and Economic Development Committee based their approval of the street vacation was the site plan presented for preliminary review; the City may want to see more elements implemented during phase 1. J. Tonkinson asked J. Marcus, where do persons park now? J Marcus responded: within the paved parking areas located to the south and east of the existing plant and within the gravel parking area located to the north of the expansion building. J. Tonkinson stated that he cannot support this project, unless the gravel area located to the north of the expansion building is paved, striped, and drained. J. Tonkinson stated that he needs to have a conversation with the owner. D. Marino stated that the original proposal shows the expansion building with multiple loading docks. D. Marino asked J. Marcus: are the loading docks on the expansion building existing? J. Marcus responded: 1 is existing. D. Marino motioned to table this Item. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Discussion C Smith stated that the owner, or his representative, should be present during the next review. C Smith stated that J. Marcus should provide a corrected elevation, building material samples, and site photographs for the next review. J Marcus asked the Committee: is it possible to receive a permit to pour the foundation prior to resolving these Issues? C Smith responded: no J. Tonkinson agreed, and stated that this project Involves too much unresolved underground work to release a foundation permit. Committee approved the motion f3Q1 to table this item. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 28, 1998 Page 3 of 7 SPAARC 98-0118 640 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final Install larger window and interior remodeling (multi -family residential building). Mr. Sean Barry presented working drawings and site photographs to install a larger window within a garden dwelling unit at 640 Hinman Avenue. S. Barry stated that the garden dwelling unit that is the subject of this Application for Building Permit is a legal dwelling unit (640 Hinman Avenue), S. Barry stated that the existing opening is 3 feet 8 inches, leading to a vestibule and a closet; the new window will be 6 feet wide and located within the exterior wall. M, Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, subject to review and approval of the window by the Building Division and receipt of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Preservation Commission or Preservation Coordinator. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee aggroved the motion (8-1) to grant oreliminary and final site olan and aoQgarance review approval. subiect to review arA approval of the window by the Buildino Division and receipt of a Certificate of AporoR tla eness from the Preservation Commission or Preservation CoordinqJQr. SPAARC 98-0117 632 Hinman Avenue Preliminary and Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Install larger window and interior remodeling (multi -family residential building). Mr. Sean Barry presented working drawings and site photographs to install a larger window within a garden dwelling unit at 632 Hinman Avenue. S. Barry stated that the garden dwelling unit that is the subject of this Application for Building Permit is an illegal dwelling unit (632 Hinman Avenue). S. Barry stated that this dwelling unit is being removed, and it will be reinspected by Inspector Hudson on the 1 st or 2nd of November. M Mylott motioned to deny preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (U) to denv ❑reliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. SPAARC 98-0124 1501 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Erect handicap ramp and new entrance way on south side of building (Holiday Inn). Applicant canceled appearance SPAARC 98-0067 2035 Ridge Avenue Consolidate lots (The Cradle). Preliminary and Final Mr Jim Murray (attorney) presented a Plat of Consolidation for The Cradle, located at 2035 Ridge Avenue. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 28. 1998 a► Page 4 of 7 J. Murray stated that 2 parcels will be consolidated into 1, and the residence will be demolished. J. Murray stated that a narrow portion of one of the parcels is located within the public alley. J. Tonkinson stated that this portion was condemned in 1928. according to the City Atlas. J. Tonkinson stated that, to clear up any uncertainties regarding the ownership and/or control of this segment, The Cradle may dedicate it to the City. J. Murray stated that he will suggest this recommendation to his clients. A. Alterson stated that consolidating the parcels places the resulting single property under the purview of the Preservation Commission. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the plat of consolidation only. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee approved the motiq_n f 10-01 to arank preliminary and final site plan and appearance review allpmval for the olat of consolidation only. SPAARC 98-0121 2421 Dempster Street Preliminary Construct 1-story addition to increase service bays from 3 to 5 at auto repair facility (Evanston Tire and Auto Service). Mr Ali Sajadi (architect) presented working drawings for a 1-story addition to the auto repair facility (Evanston Tire and Auto Service), located at 2421 Dempster Street. A. Sajadi stated that his client needed the addition because his existing space can no longer handle the amount of business, and the addition would be able to accommodate larger cars. A. Sajadi stated that, at the busiest time, the site contains from 10 to 15 cars; the owner's employees will charged with parking the cars on -site. A. Sajadi stated that the new sidewalk will be maintained, and the addition uses the existing curb cut. A. Sajadi stated that his client stated that any junk cars would be removed. A. Alterson stated that, according to the Zoning Analysis, the proposal does not provide enough off-street parking. C. Smith stated that the applicant should contact the Zoning Officer (Martin Travis) to review the zoning deficiencies. C. Smith stated that, given the proposed proximity to the north lot line, the applicant may have a lot line footing problem; B. Fahlstrom will provide the applicant with complete plan review comments within the next week. J Tonkinson stated that the plat of survey disagrees with the proposed site plan. J. Tonkinson stated that, given the skew of the property, if the existing building is 0.22 feet from the north lot line, then the addition must be much less than that amount, if not over the property line A. Alterson agreed. D Marino motioned to table this item. M Mylott seconded the motion Discussion: C Smith stated that the Committee may be able to consider preliminary and final approval during its next review, provided the applicant provides site photographs, building material samples, and a landscaping plan at the next review. M. Mylott stated that the applicant should acquire a Committee handout from the Zoning Division, describing the requirements for each submittal stage. Committee approved the motion 00-0) to table this item. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 28, 1998 Page 5 of 7 SPAARC 98-0123 2023 Maple Avenue Preliminary and Final Construct 2-story addition to rear of single-family residence, requiring variations to side yard setback requirements. M. Mylott presented an Application for Major Variation for a 2-story addition to the rear of a single-family residence, located at 2023 Maple Avenue. M. Mylott stated that the proposal requires interior side yard setback variations along the north and south sides of the subject property: the addition extends existing nonconforming characteristics of the structure. A. Alterson stated that the zoning Board of Appeals has already approved this application. C Smith asked A. Alterson. did neighbors express any comments or concerns? A. Alterson responded: no. A. Alterson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion f 10-01 to arant oreliminary and final site clan and appearance review aooroval. SPAARC 98-0120 1910 Dempster Street Preliminary and Final Remodel Office Depot within Evanston Plaza. D. Marino and J. Wolinski presented a site plan for the remodeling of Office Depot within Evanston Plaza, located at 1910 Dempster Street. D. Marino stated that the shopping center proposal is the same as that presented for the Committee review of Dominick's. C Smith asked D. Marino: was the recess between the Dominick's and Office Depot moved forward? D. Marino responded: yes. K. Kelly asked D. Marino: for what purpose is the space behind the recess? D. Marino responded: mechanicals and emergency generators C Smith asked D. Marino what building materials are proposed for the Office Depot? D. Marino responded: am not certain. however it was represented to me during a telephone conversation that the materials will be similar to those used for the new Dominick's C. Smith asked D Marino will the delivery route to Office Depot change as a result of the new DominicWs? D. Marino responded: I am not aware of any changes. C Smith stated that she is concerned that the loading area is being revised andlor moved C Smith stated that she is concerned about the out -dated signage at the periphery of the shopping center. M Mylott stated that the applicant for Dominick's stated that the signage will be refaced A. Alterson stated that he is concerned about a lack of bicycle parking. J Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan review approval. J. Wolinski seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion f10-01 to grant preliminary and final site plan review acoroval. j SUMMARY DFINDINGS k SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE C APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 28, 1998 a Page 6 of 7 SPAARC 98-0122 Communication Legislative Sub -committee announcement of amended SPAR Ordinance, amended SPAR Design Guidelines, and new Rules and Procedures. M. Mylott stated that, at the next Committee meeting, the Legislative Sub -committee will distribute copies of their proposals for an amended Site Plan and Appearance Review (SPAR) Ordinance, an amended SPAR Design Guidelines, and a new Rules and Procedures. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. 9 ectfully submitted, WAMS 4AA^ Marc Steven Mylott, Zo . Novarnbsr 2,1998 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE October 28. 1998 Page 7 of 7 it SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 4, 1998 Room 2403 Members Present: A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, M. Myiott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black), Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus, K. Kelly, D. Marino, J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. B. Fahlstrom, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. C Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 105 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of October 28, 1998. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion, _Committee aooroved the motion (5-Q) to aoorove the Summary of Findinos of October 28, 1998. H. Friedman abstained. SPAARC 98-0062 2122 Sheridan Road Construct addition to Seabury-Western. Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 98-0122 Preliminary and Final Communication Distribution by Legislative Sub -committee of amended SPAR Ordinance, amended SPAR Design Guidelines, and new Rules and procedures M Mylott distributed copies of the Legislative Sub -committee recommendation for an amended Site Plan and Appearance Review (SPAR) Ordinance, amended SPAR Design Guidelines, and new Rules and Procedures. M Mylott stated that the Legislative Sub -committee would like the Committee to conduct a special meeting to discuss the recommendations after a period of time such that everyone may review the material. C. Smith stated that she recommends the morning of December 4, 1998; Committee members should check their calendars and inform M. Mylott of any conflicts SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 4, 1998 Page 1 of 7 SPAARC 97-0047 600 Foster Street Revision to Final OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Move location of transformer for Transportation Center for Northwestern University. C. Smith presented a revised site and landscape plan to move the transformer for the Transportation Center (Northwestern University) located at 600 Foster Street. C. Smith stated that Mr. Lee Johler faxed the revised site and landscape plan to her. C. Smith stated that L. Johler proposes moving the transformer from the southwest corner of the proposed building to the northwest corner of the proposed building. J. Tonkinson asked C Smith: what are the dimensions of the transformers C. Smith responded: the transformer Is the same size as originally proposed: it is approximately 10 feet wide by 5 feet deep. J. Tonkinson asked C. Smith: how tall is the transformer? C. Smith responded: approximately 5 feet to 6 feet high, although I am not certain of that dimension. C. Smith stated that she does not have a problem with this revision, provided it is screened by landscaping. D. Jennings stated that the landscaping will only be 4 feet high, and it will not screen the top of the transformer. D. Jennings stated that the transformer Is less obtrusive at its original location. A. Alterson stated that this proposal will need to be reviewed by the Zoning Division, J. Tonkinson motioned to deny the revision to the previous approval. P D'Agostino seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated that he Is concerned about sound and its impacts on properties across the street (north). C Smith stated that the transformer does not emit sound. A. Alterson stated that he would rather hold the proposal than deny it. Committee aooroved the motion (5-2) to denv the revision to the previous approval. A copy of the revised site and landscape plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case 197-0047) SPAARC 97-0034 1000 Grey Avenue Final Construct 1-story addition to connect 2 existing buildings (C E. Niehaffj. Mr. George Buhrfeind (president) and Mr Richard Abrham (architect) presented working drawings, revised elevations, and site photographs for a 1-story addition that would connect 2 existing buildings located at 1000 Grey Avenue (also 2021 Lee Street) Mr James Orlando (vice-president of operations) and Mr. John Marcus (architect) were available to answer questions The applicants also presented a text and graphic description of the proposed phasing for the development of the C E NFehoff property R Abrham stated that phase 1 of the development plan includes cleaning the outside (tuck pointing and reroofing) and retrofitting the Inside of the building at 1000 Grey Avenue; regrading the parking area to the north of the building at 1000 Grey Avenue, and constructing the link between the 2 buildings. G. Buhfeind stated that, without the link building, the usefulness of the 1000 Grey Avenue building is "about 0". R. Abrham stated that phase 2 of the development plan includes paving the parking area to the north of the building at SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 4, 1998 a► Page 2 of 7 1000 Grey Avenue; cleaning and regrading the railroad right-of-way; and internal construction of a cafeteria and offices at 1000 Grey Avenue J Tonkinson asked G. Buhrfeind is the link building a permanent building? G. Buhrfeind responded: yes. D Jennings asked G Buhrfeind: now do the revised plans relate to the plans presented to the City to vacate Grey Avenue? G. Buhrfeind responded: the phases in totality equal the plans presented to the City, except the size and materials of the link building have changed A Alterson asked the applicants how may off-street narking spaces do you currently provide? J. Orlando responded: approximately 60 A. Alterson asked the applicants: is the parking area located to the north of the 1000 Grey Avenue building gravel? R Abrham responded: yes. J. Tonkinson asked the applicants: will anyone park within the gravel parking area? G. Buhrfeind responded: probably not; we are only approximately 15 to 20 employees above the number of available parking spaces. G. Buhrfeind stated that C. E. Niehoff is not hiring any additional employees as a result of this development plan. J Tonkinson asked the applicants: when do you plan to pave, stripe, and drain the gravel parking area? G. Buhrfeind responded: probably not until September of next year. based on an estimate of the business climate. J. Tonkinson stated that he could support the phasing plan, provided the applicants acquire their Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit for the gravel parking area: this acquisition is a guarantee that the parking area will be paved and drained, because the permit Is valid for only 1 year. J Tonkinson stated (hat the gravel parking area must remain closed. G. Buhrfeind stated that the gravel parking area will remain locked. A. Alterson stated that, for zoning purposes, the proposal is not increasing the characteristics that affect the required number of parking spaces. A. Alterson stated that the gravel parking area is arguable a legally existing parking area; however, he is not conceding that point. A. Alterson stated that he would like to see the gravel parking area paved, striped, and drained as soon as possible, such that extra vehicles do not have to park on the street. J. Tonkinson asked G. Buhrfeind do you own the railroad right-of-way located to the west of the 1000 Grey Avenue building? G. Buhrfeind responded, yes. J Tonkinson asked the applicants: do you plan to address the underground utilities during phase 1? R. Abrham responded: yes, we plan to replace approximately 40 feet of 21-inch sewer line and 6-inch water line with ductile steel pipe; an isolation valve will be placed at each end. R. Abrham stated that the width of the link building is approximately 16 feet. D Jennings asked the applicants do you still intend to configure the western parking area such that through traffic along Lee Street will be prohibited? G Buhrfeind responded yes, and the graphic of the proposed phasing is incorrect: we plan to curb the south end of the western parking area and the north side of Lee Street, creating a lawn between the two areas of pavement. D Jennings asked the applicants: during which phase will this construction occuO R Abrham responded: dunng phase 3 D Jennings asked the applicants: does your configuration permit a vehicle to travel southbound on Grey Avenue, navigate through the phase 2 and 3 parking areas, and exit on to Lee Street, or vice versa? G. Buhrfeind responded: yes, but the land use at the points of ingress and egress is industrial park, Lee Street will not be a through street. D. Jennings asked: when will the graphic depicting the proposed phasing be corrected? R. Abrham responded: tomorrow. 0 Jennings stated that he would like the applicant to provide him with a corrected version of the graphic depicting the proposed phasing J Tonkinson stated that he would like the applicant to provide him with a corrected version of the graphic depicting the proposed phasing D Jennings stated that he plans to remove the street lights and reroute the circuits R. Abrham stated that they plan to place an open conduit along side the sewer and water lines (underneath the link building) for potential future use D. Jennings stated that, while such a device is not necessary, if you do decide to install it, it should be constructed of galvanized steel. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 4. 1998 Page 3 of 7 D Jennings asked the applicants. how are proposing to finish the ends of the former street? R. Abrham responded: each segment of pavement will stop approximately 10 feet from the link building. C. Smith asked R Abrham: will these 'end oieces' be curbed? R. Abrham responded: yes. J. Tonkinson asked the applicants do you plan on retaining the curb cut along the western side of the south segment of the former street? R Abrham responded yes, that area may be used to facilitate 3-point turns. G Buhrfeind stated that the main dock will always be at that location, handling once -a -week traffic; the new docks at the 1000 Grey Avenue building will handle deliveries. B. Fahlstrom asked the applicants: during which phase will the landscaping be installed? G. Buhrfeind responded: during each phase, as the economics allow G. Buhrfeind stated that C. E. Niehoff has a vested Interest in creating an attractive site. C. Smith stated that the working drawings must be revised to depict what landscaping will eventually be Included within the area between the ends of the former street and the link building C. Smith stated that the applicants will require a demolition permit. R. Abrham asked C. Smith: can the demolition permit be part of the permit for foundation? C Smith responded: yes. R. Abrham stated that the link building will be constructed of white, horizontally ribbed, steel siding (prefinished) R. Abrham stated that the north and south face will have 4 windows each, and the north face will have a fire exit door R Abrham stated that the color of the window frames will match the siding. C. Smith asked R Abrham. does the site have any other examples of this material'? R. Abrham responded: no. C. Ruiz asked R. Abrham: what is the cost difference between the proposed material and masonry? R. Abrham responded the proposed material is approximately S6.50 per square foot installed, and masonry is approximately $15 00 per square foot installed: the cost of the foundation increases as well, R. Abrham stated that the original material was Kalwall, such that the building could be disassembled: the cost of Kalwall approaches that of masonry C Ruiz stated that he is disappointed that the building materials have changed. C. Ruiz stated that the changes run contrary to the contention that the applicants which to create an attractive site', however, he is sensitive to cost. C Smith asked the applicants are you proposing any exterior lighting? R. Abrham responded: yes, we plan to add to the existing wall -mounted lights illuminating the area between the 2 existing buildings such that the link building is illuminated J Tonkinson stated that the applicant must submit catalog cuts of the lights for his review and approval J Tonkinson motioned to grant final site plan approval for the link building only. provided (1) the applicants adhere to the phasing plan as presented to the Committee, (2) the applicants move toward acquiring a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit for the gravel parking area located to the north of the 1000 Grey Avenue building, (3) the gravel parking area located to the north of the 1000 Grey Avenue building is, or remains, closed until such time that it is paved, striped, and drained, (4) a landscaping plan is reviewed and approved by P D'Agostino D Jennings seconded the motion Discussion- C Smith stated that the applicants should work with D Jennings on the proper procedure for closing the street Committee approved the motion (e-01 to grant final site plan approval for the link building only, provided: (1) the aoolicants adhere to the phasing plan as presented to the Committee. (21 the g2plicaats move toward acauirino a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit for the gravel parkinq area located to the north of the 1000 Grev Avenue buildinq, Q) the qravel parkinq area located to the north of the 1000 Grey Avenue buil inq is. or remaing, closed until such time that it is paved. striped. and drained: (4) a landscaoin la n an is reviewed and approved by P D'Ao_Q5LinQ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 4. 1998 �► Page 4 of 7 J. Tonkinson motioned to grant Final appearance review approval for the link building only. H, Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that, while he would like the link building to be something architecturally significant, the proposal is very honest and functional; if it is appropriately landscaped, the site will be acceptable. M. Mylott and B. Fahlstrom agreed. C. Ruiz stated that he agrees with A. Alterson, but he had hoped that the link building would work better with the existing buildings. Committeg aooroved the motion (8-0) tQ grant final appearance review aooroval for the link building only, The revised elevations, site photographs, and text and graphic description of the proposed phasing for the master development have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (97-0034). SPAARC 95-0003 2201 Foster Street Final Construct addition to church (Friendship Baptist Church of Evanston). Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 98-0125 1719-1721 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Build out ground -Roof space for Type 11 Restaurant (Panda Express), requiring special use. Mr. Jeffrey Howard presented working drawings and site photographs to remodel existing ground -floor space for a Type Il Restaurant (Panda Express) at 1719-1721 Sherman Avenue. M. Mytott stated that this use is only classified as a Type tl Restaurant because the applicants wish to use disposable dishware and flatware C. Smith stated that she is encouraged by the amount of seating space. C. Smith stated that signage is not part of this review, and it requires a separate permit; however, the top of the sign may not exceed 15 feet 6 inches above grade. J Howard stated that Panda Express will reduce the signage such that it complies with the Sign Ordinance B Fahlstrom stated that the belt course of the building may be considered an architecturally significant element, and the Sign Ordinance prohibits an applicant from covering such a feature. C. Smith asked J. Howard: do the front doors swing out? J. Howard responded. yes. C. Smith stated that the doors can not swing into the right-of-way; however, the number of occupants and employees may require some doors to swing out. C. Smith stated that the J. Howard should have his architect contact her to discuss potential egress issues, relating to doors C Smith stated that the architect should provide a key plan, descnbtng where each exit goes C Smith stated that the applicant may need to create vestibules C. Smith stated that she liked the clean design J Howard stated that the design works with their store concept -- clean and inviting. H. Friedman asked J. Howard: what material are you proposing between the windows? J. Howard responded: painted brick; any existing wood siding will be removed. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 4, 1998 Page 5 of 7 C Smith asked J. Howard: what treatments are you proposing for the windows? J. Howard responded: tempered clear glass with dark -finished anodized aluminum frames. H. Friedman stated that he was sorry to see the windows divided into 2 vertical sections rather than 3 vertical sections. C. Smith stated that awnings are reviewed under the Sign Ordinance, and require a separate permit. C. Smith stated that the Sign Ordinance prohibits a totally illuminated awning and any advertisements, such as 'gourmet" or 'Chinese" C Smith stated that the application for permit must also include a material sample of the awning. C. Smith stated that she would like to see an awning in the middle of the store front. J. Howard stated that he will request his architect to review the entire store front, given Committee comments. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided the windows are divided into 3 vertical sections rather than 2 vertical sections. Discussion: C. Smith stated that the applicants should work with the property manager to create a uniform appearance across the store fronts, especially regarding the color of paint for the bricks. Committee approved the motion (8-01 to grantpreliminary and final•site olan and appearance review approval, orovid d the windows are divided into 3 vertical sections rather than 2 vertical sections. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0125). SPAARC 98-0120 1910 Dempster Street Remodel Office Depot within Evanston Plaza. Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 98-0039 2230 Main Street Sign plan for Ward Manufacturing Company Preliminary and Final Condition(s) of Previous Approval Mr. David Forte (architect) presented a site plan, elevations, and site photographs for a sign for Ward Manufacturing Company, located at 2230 Main Street. D. Forte stated that the area in which the sign may be placed is approximately 15 feet by 20 feet, given the detention structure. D. Forte stated that no plantings are shown due to the size of the sign and the limited area D Forte stated that the sign is 5 feet high (4-foot high sign raised 1-foot above the ground) D. Forte stated that the sign will be %i-inch thick chrome or stainless steel with laser -cut letters D Forte stated that the sign will be supported upon '/:-thick aluminum supports. D Forte stated that he would like to provide some illumination. but none is proposed at this time as running electricity to the sign is cost prohibitive. C Smith stated that the setback of a free-standing sign must equal its height; however, given the limited area, this proposal may meet the hardship criteria required for a sign variation. SUMMARY FINDINGS AN APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 4, 1998 a Page 6 of 7 C. Smith stated that the sign may need a skirt or a concrete base. H. Friedman disagreed, and stated that the architect is designing an element that reflects the product and/or service offered by the company: the proposed support system for the sign should not be changed. B. Fahlstrom agreed. C. Smith stated that a planting bed could be placed at the base of the sign. P. D'Agostino agreed, and stated that the applicant has several planting options available that would be noninvasive. P. D'Agostino stated that perennials will work better in this high -light area. B. Faristrom stated that the portion of the sign reading `2230 Ward" should be altered such that a visitor does not perceive the address as "Ward" street or avenue. C. Smith stated that "Ward" could be changed to "Main": or "Ward" could be moved above '2230", and "Main" could be added below "2230". M. Mylott motioned to approve the proposal as satisfying the condition of previous approval, provided (1) that portion of the sign reading `2230 Ward" is modified such that a visitor does not perceive the address as "Ward" street or avenue, and (2) the owner install, or cause to be installed, a planting bed of perennials in front of the sign. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion (6-0) to aoorove the Qr000sal as satisfying the condition of oreyious approval. provided (11 that portion of the sian reading "2230 Ykrd" is modiflelMch that a visitor dges not oerceive the address as "Ward" street or avenue, and (2) the owner install. or cause to be in;talled. a olantina bed of oerennialsin front of the sio. The site plan and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0039). SPAARC 98-0120 1930 Ridge Avenue Conference OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Exterior and interior moditications for temporary use (automobile storage) for construction at Evanston Hospital. A. Alterson stated that Evanston Hospital is establishing a temporary use for parking vehicles at the former Fresh Fields grocery store (1930 Ridge Avenue). A. Alterson asked Committee members: given the temporary nature of this proposal, should the Committee review it? C. Smith responded: yes. J. Tonkinson agreed. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. November Ili 1998 Marc Steven Mylott, Zonir§ Planner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 4, 1999 Page 7 of 7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 11, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: A. Alterson, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black). Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. M. Robinson. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0120 1930 Ridge Avenue Conference Convert vacant food store establishment (former Whole Foods) to temporary parking garage for Evanston Hospital, Mr. Tim Vander Molen presented working drawings and site photographs for exterior and interior modifications to the vacant food store establishment (formerly Whole Foods) located at 1930 Ridge Avenue. Mr. Gerald Potempa (architect), Mr Jose Ramirez (structural engineer), and Mr. Gordy Chadha (structural engineer) were available to answer questions. T Vander Molen stated that the building will be converted to a temporary parking garage for Evanston Hospital employees. T. Vander Molen stated that the building will be used as a temporary parking garage for 2 years; the Hospital's agreement with the property owner requires the Hospital to return the building to its condition at the time the agreement was executed. T. Vander Molen stated that only the existing parking areas and the first and second floors of the building will be used, not the roof of the building. T. Vander Molen stated that the garage will only be used by day -shift employees T Vander Molen stated that the Hospital will provide a safety officer during the hours the parking garage is open T Vander Molen stated that all the windows will be removed to provide necessary ventilation, some frames may remain, depending upon the type of window T Vander Molen stated that the buildin3 will require an exhaust fan at the first floor T Vander Molen stated that the Hospital proposes to use vinyl -coated chain link where windows are removed. C Smith stated that she does not like vinyl -coated chain link as a design solution, she prefers taut wire with turn buckles. M. Mylott stated that he does not have a problem with vinyl -coated chain link, provided the vinyl - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 11. 1998 Page 1 of 6 coating is forest green to match the painted portion of the building. T. Vander Molen stated that he is not sure that he agrees that taut wire with turn buckles is a better design solution. R. Walczak stated the he does not mind leaving the second floor openings uncovered. M. Mylott and C. Smith agreed. R. Walczak stated that the first floor must be secure. G. Potempa stated that a window cover resembling a wrought -iron fence may be more appropriate. C. Smith stated that she liked the idea of wrought -iron window covers for security. T. Vander Molen stated that the proposal will not require new curb cuts; ingress and egress to the building is provided at 2 locations -- at the loading docks and at the southwest corner of the building. T. Vander Molen stated that each entrance will have a gate. J. Tonkinson stated that an overhead door is more secure. R. Walczak agreed. G. Potempa stated that the gates could resemble the wrought -iron window coverings used within the first floor openings; each would have a padlock. J. Tonkinson stated that he cannot support a gate; the entrances should have a secure door. A. Alterson asked T. Vander Molen: have you reviewed the proposed traffic patterns with D. Jennings? T. Vander Molen responded: no. C. Smith stated that T. Vander Molen should schedule an appointment with D. Jennings to discuss this proposal. C. Smith stated that the building may have egress issues that need to be resolved. M. Mylott asked T. Vander Molen: are you proposing any changes to the exterior finish (painting)? T. Vander Molen responded: no. T. Vander Molen stated that the existing free-standing sign will be removed; however, the temporary use will require some form of new signage. T. Vander Molen stated that the Hospital will provide on -going maintenance to the parking area landscaping. C. Smith asked T. Vander Molen: does the Hospital have opportunities for new landscaping within the parking area at the northeast corner of the site? T. Vander Molen responded: no, the area is entirely paved now, and it will be delimited by striping and wheel stops, not curbs. J. Tonkinson stated that the parking area at the northeast comer of the site must be drained. J. Tonkinson asked T. Vander Molen: will the property remain on the tax rolls? T. Vander Molen responded: yes. C. Smith stated that the architect must provide north and west elevations. depicting how the existing conditions are treated T. Vander Molen stated that that information is portrayed on the mechanical drawings. M. Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval, provided: (1) the first -floor openings are covered with a wrought -iron security device similar to a segment of wrought -iron fence; (2) the gates at both entrances are designed in a manner similar to the security devices used for the first -floor openings, (3) the second -floor openings remain uncovered; (4) the free-standing sign is removed; (5) the traffic patterns are reviewed and approved by D Jennings. (6) the site drainage is reviewed and approved by J Tonkinson H Friedman seconded the motion Discussion H Friedman asked T Vander Molen how does this proposal keep headlights from shining across the street (east)? T Vander Molen responded: the parking garage will only be used by day -shift employees, however, during instances requiring the use of headlights, the first floor has an approximately 3-foot wall below the openings, and the second floor has an approximately 4-foot wall below the openings. SITESUMMARYPLAN AN FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 11, 1998 Page 2 of 6 C. Smith asked T. Vander Molen: are you proposing changing the lighting? T. Vander Molen responded: not to the exterior lighting; however, the Hospital is proposing downward -facing lights within the parking garage. T. Vander Molen stated that some lights will remain on after hours for security; however, those lights are located back from the exterior walls of the parking garage. C. Smith stated that the architect will need to amend the elevations consistent with the Committee direction. Qommittee approved the motion f6-1] to grant orelirninary and final site clan and appearance review aooroyal. provided: (1 ]the first -floor ooeninas are covered with a wrought -iron securitv device similar to a seament of wrought -iron fence: (2) the Gates at both entrances are designed in a manner similar to the security deviceA used for the first -floor openings: (31 the second -floor ooeninas remain uncovered;f44) the free-standing sign is removed: (5l the traffic Dq1terns are reviewed and aooroved by D. Jenninas: (6) the site drainage is reviewed and aooroved by J. Tonkinson.. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0120). SPAARC 98-0106 1919 Dempster Street Preliminary and Final Install decorative roof lighting at Type 11 Restaurant (McDonald's). Mr. Larry Chyba presented catalog cut sheets and day and night site and area photographs to install decorative roof lighting at a Type II Restaurant (McDonald's), located at 1919 Dempster Street. M. Mylott asked L. Chyba: would you say that the difference between the intensity of the existing and proposed roof lighting is minimal? L. Chyba responded: yes. L. Chyba stated that the restaurant owner has 3 choices for roof lighting: the first preference is the yellow, translucent roof beams (TransluxT"' Series): the second preference is the white, translucent roof beams (TransluxTm Series); and the third preference is the white metal halide system, mounted at the base of each roof beam (Roof-Liter1m) C Smith stated that, recently, the store manager was very cooperative in removing flags from the top of the roof; such flags violate the Sign Ordinance J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the yellow, translucent roof beam (Translux"A Series). R. Walczak seconded the motion. CQ_mmittee faile(Lto aoorove the motion (3-41 to avant Dreliminary and final site plan and appearance review aooroval for the vellow, translucent roof beams (TransluxT"' Series) M Mylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the white metal halide system. mounted at the base of each roof beam (Roof -liter'"'). S Levine seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-0) to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the white metal halide system. mounted at the base of each roof beam (Roof-Iiterlml. J. Tonkinson abstained. The catalog cut sheets and day and night site and area photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0106). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 11, 1998 Page 3 of 6 SPAARC 98-0126 2245 Oakton Street Concept Raise height of existing wireless communication facility antenna from 70 feet to 100 feet (Cellular One). Mr. Mike Crandall (Cellular One) and Mr. Paul Budziak (Cellular One) presented a site location map, a plat of survey, elevations, and site photographs to raise the height of an existing wireless communication facility antenna (Cellular One) located at 2245 Oakton Street. M. Crandall stated that this antenna was constructed at this site to fill a low signal area on the west side of Evanston in 1995; Cellular One believed they could fill this area with a 70-foot antenna. M. Crandall stated that, while service improved, Cellular One still receives complaints. M. Crandall stated that, to correct such problems, Cellular One first looks to existing sites rather than to constructing new antennas; therefore, Cellular One is proposing to raise the existing antenna from 70 feet to 100 feet. J. Tonkinson asked the applicants: how high are the Commonwealth Edison towers shown in the photographs? P, Budziak responded: at least 150 to 200 feet high. P. Budziak stated that 2 other wireless communication facility antennas are located in the immediate area. C. Smith stated that the other antennas are monopoles, while this structure reads very "solidly". J. Tonkinson stated this structure resembles an "oil derrick". J. Tonkinson asked the applicants: on which parcel on the plat of survey is the antenna located? M. Crandall responded: the 55-foot by 25-foot parcel. J. Tonkinson asked: is the parcel enclosed by a chain link fence? M. Crandall responded: yes. C. Smith stated that she has a problem adding 30 feet to the existing structure. M. Mylott stated that he cannot support a proposal to add 30 feet to the top of an already massive structure, especially now that technology permits such a less visually distracting structure; however, he could support a 100-foot monopole. C. Smith agreed. J. Tonkinson asked the applicants: what diameter pole would be necessary to achieve 100 feet in height? P. Budziak responded: approximately 3 +n 4 feet. H. Friedman stated that he does not think it is worth having Cellular One demolish an old tower to construct a new pole. M. Mylott motioned to deny the concept. R. Walczak seconded the motion. Committee ;roroved the motion (6-1) to denv the concept, The site location map and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0126) SPAARC 97-0047 600 Foster Street Revision to Final Move location of transformer for Transportation Center for Northwestern University. Mr Lee Johler (Northwestern University) presented the approved and a revised landscape plan to move a transformer for the Transportation Center (Northwestern University), located at 600 Foster Street. L Johler stated that Northwestern University would lake to move the transformer from the -southwest corner of the building to the northwest corner of the building, because the new location provides a better loading and trash receptacle area at the southwest corner and Northwestern University would receive a credit from their contractor L Johler stated that Northwestern University would provide 3 5-foot evergreens on the north side of the transformer for year-round screening SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 11. 1998 Page 4 of 6 C. Smith stated that the transformer would be at least 15 feet from the lot line; she does not have a problem with the proposal to move the transformer. J. Tonkinson stated that the transformer Is more appropriate at its original location. A. Alterson stated that, in principle, he agrees with J. Tonkinson; however, people walk between the buildings located on this block as often as they walk on the sidewalk along the periphery of the block. A. Alterson stated that the transformer will be equally visible in either location. M. Friedman asked L. Johler: why not place the transformer in an underground pit? L. Johler responded: Commonwealth Edison has a problem with that solution because of the potential for water to collect In the pit; also, Commonwealth Edison needs 3 feet of access on 3 sides and 8 feet of access on 1 side. A. Alterson asked L. Johler: what does the transformer took like? L. Johler responded: it is a typical green cabinet. M. Mylott asked L. Johler: how big is the cabinet? L. Johler responded: based on the best information available from Commonwealth Edison, the cabinet is approximately 5 feet high and 5 feet wide (eastlwest) by 6 feet deep (north/south). C. Smith stated that these size transformers emit little if no sound. L. Johler agreed. S. Levine stated that the shrubs located immediately north of the proposed 5-foot evergreens should be changed to Dwarf Korean Lilac to provide continuity. A. Alterson motioned to approve the revision to the final site plan and appearance review approval, provided: (1) the shrubs located immediately north of the proposed 5-foot evergreens are changed to Dwarf Korean Lilac, and (2) the proposal and associated landscaping are reviewed and approved by D. Jennings to ensure adequate sight distance is provided. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aonroved the motion &D IQ_porove the revision to the final site Dian and appearance review agDroval. Drovided: {1 }the shrubs located Lrhmediateiv north of the Q=sed 5-foot evergreens are changed to Dwarf Korean Lilac and (2) the proposal and associated landscaoin_a are reviewed and aooroved by D. Jenninas to ensure adequate sight distance is orovided. A copy of the approved and revised landscape plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (97-0047). SPAARC 98-0128 1330 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Replace roof -top alc unit in -kind and modify rear windows of existing office building (Douglas Hoerr Landscape Architecture). Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 96-0078 2510 Green Bay Road Recommendation to Sign Board Install 2 free-standing signs at Domicile Furniture C Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application (including site photographs) for 2 free-standing signs at 2510 Green Bay Road (Domicile Furniture) A. Alterson asked C. Smith is this proposal the same proposal reviewed by the Committee in July 1997? C. Smith responded: basically. yes. A SUMMARY OF FININGS a{� SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 11. 1998 Page 5 of 6 C. Smith stated that the applicant requires variations to the number of free-standing signs, the location of free. standing signs, the height of free-standing signs, and the illumination of signs. C. Smith stated that the applicant has neither provided an indication of where the parking area begins or ends nor striped the parking area as the Committee required. M. Mylott stated that this site does not warrant a free-standing sign; the applicant should consider a wall - mounted sign on the building. C. Smith stated that a the applicant has a wall -mounted sign; however, the photographs omit that portion of the building. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Ordinance Variation Application. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the, motion 17-01 to recommenq t}m the Sian Review and Appeals Board denv the Sian Ordinance Variation Application. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application (including site photographs) have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0039). Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of November 4, 1998. R. Walczak seconded the motion. 9'&mmittee aooroved the motion (7-0) to approve the Summary of Finqingl of November 4. 199& Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. November 17,1098 Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 11, 1998 er Page 6 of 6 t' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 18, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, P. D'Agostino, D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Glus. H. Friedman, B. Fahlstrom, S. Levine, L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0017 1826 Dempster Street Conference (No Action Requested) OFF -AGENDA ITEM: inform Committee of Illinois Department of Transportation decision regarding request for access to Dempster Street from subject property J. Tonkinson presented a letter from, and marked -up plans prepared by. the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), stating that MOT has denied a request for vehicular access to Dempster Street from the property commonly referred to as 1826 Dempster Street, because the associated drive cannot meet IDOT size and location requirements. Approval of Summary of Findings J Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of November 11, 1998. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motionl -0} to aoorove the Summary of Findincts of November 11. 1998, SPAARC 98-0132 Conference (No Action Requested) Discuss viability of November 25, 1998 Committee meeting. J Tonkinson motioned to cancel the November 25, 1998 Committee meeting. P. D'Agostino seconded the motion. Cgmmittee approved the motion (7-2) to cancel the November 25. 1998 Committee mgeng. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 18. 1998 Pagel of S SPAARC 98-0122 Conference (No Action Requested) Announce special Committee meeting date to discuss revisions to SPAR Ordinance. revisions to Design Guidelines, and new Rules and Procedures, C Smith stated that the Committee will conduct its special meeting to discuss revisions to the Site Plan and Appearance Review Ordinance, revisions to the Design Guidelines, and the new Rules and Procedures document an December 11. 1998, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m at Room 2403, SPAARC 98-0129 928-1002 Church Street Concept Remodel Davis Street Metra Station to provide accessibility. Mr. Clayton Weaver presented a site plan and site photographs to provide accessibility to the Davis Street Metra Station, located at 928-1002 Church Street. C. Weaver stated that Metra has determined that the project is most feasible via ramps -- a concept similar to that used at the Central Street Metra Station. C. Weaver stated that the plan includes an accessible ramp on the west and east sides of the embankment. C. Weaver stated that, on the west side, the approach will be at Church Street; Metra proposes removing the retaining wall and installing a ramp into the slope of a back -filled embankment. C. Smith stated that the design at Church Street should "open up' that corner as much as possible. C. Weaver stated that Metra will investigate moving the ramp further south, however, it cannot go further south than the existing tunnel. C. Weaver stated that the west side could be configured with one switch -back, such that the ground level of the ramp was at the tunnel entrance. C Smith stated that the tunnel will require improvement, especially lighting, to ensure that users feel safe. C. Weaver stated that Metra will review the condition of the tunnel. C Weaver stated that, on the east side, Metra is considering 2 alternatives: one north of the depot; one south of the depot, C. Smith asked C. Weaver: do these alternatives project into the plaza? C Weaver responded: yes J Aiello stated that Metra has been given a copy of the proposed redevelopment within the Research Park M. Mylott stated that he liked the southern alternative, because persons requiring accessible facilities can utilize the drop-off, out of Church Street traffic A Alterson stated that he would like to see how the alternatives relate to the proposed redevelopment. because he does not want people dropped -off far from the activity center C Weaver stated that all ramps are 5-feet wide C Weaver stated that Metra will probably heat the ramps J. Tonkinson asked C. Weaver: who will maintain the ramps? C. Weaver responded: possibly Metra, but that is not certain; maintenance is something that Metra will need to discuss in the future C Smith asked C Weaver who will maintain the landscaping? C Weaver responded possibly Metra, but that is not certain, maintenance is something that Metra will need to discuss in the future. C Weaver stated that Metra will ensure that the budding is not compromised as part of this project; the State Historic District informed Metra that the budding may be significant. C Weaver stated that Metra will need to perform building maintenance in the near future, such as tuck -pointing the brick. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 18, 1998 Page 2 of 8 J. Tonkinson motioned to grant concept approval to configure the west ramp with 1 switch -back, ending at the tunnel, and to locate the east ramp south of the depot, similar to Alternate No. 2. J. Aiello seconded the motion. Discussion: H. Friedman stated that he believes it is premature to consider such proposals until the site plan for the proposed redevelopment within the Research Park is finalized. J. Aiello stated that the site plan has been approved by the City Council. C. Smith stated that this issue also resolves a commuter issue, and the Committee review is only a concept review. H. Friedman stated that Metra should be congratulated for its work on the Central Street Metra Station. C Ruiz asked C. Weaver: do you plan to present these plans to the Preservation Commission? C. Weaver responded: yes. Committee approved the motion (9-1) to orant concept approval to configure the west ramp with 1 switch- back, ending at the tunnel. and to locate the east ramp gouth of the depot. similar to Alternate No, 2. The site plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0129). SPAARC 98-0131 355 Ridge Avenue Preliminary and Final Erect boiler stack on south side of parking garage for new laundry facility (St. Francis Hospital). Mr. Don Cullimore (St. Francis Hospital) and Mr. George Schorabora (St. Francis Hospital) presented working drawings (including a floor plan), a south elevation of the parking garage, and site and equipment photographs to erect a boiler stack on the south side of the parking garage for a new laundry facility at St. Francis Hospital, located at 355 Ridge Avenue D Cullimore stated that St Francis Hospital is converting approximately 13,000 sq.ft. of space within the basement of the parking garage (approximately the east '/2 of the basement) to a laundry facility; the facility requires a boiler stack on the south side. and 2 boiler vents on the east side, of the precast concrete parking garage. D. Cullimore stated that the baler stack will be stainless steel, clad with Dryvit G Schorabora stated that they are developing the elevation for the east side of the parking garage, depicting the vents. A. Alterson asked the applicants will laundry from outside facilities be brought to the Hospital? D. Cullimore responded: yes, the facility will handle the laundry from St. Francis Hospital and Our Lady of the Resurrection Hospital. D. Cullimore stated that the on -site laundry facility will save the Hospital approximately $500,000 annually, and it will generate 26 new employees A. Alterson stated that, to an extent, this facility can be considered an off -site laundry facility A. Alterson asked the applicants will the facility generate truck traffic? D Cullimore responded: trucks will deliver laundry to the facility at night, typically after midnight. D Cullimore stated that the trucks are 26-foot AMC trucks, holding 20 carts each J Tonkinson stated that the applicants will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit. G. Schorabora stated that that application was submitted November 10, 1998. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 18, 1998 Page 3 of 8 J. Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Ruiz stated that he would advise the applicants to consider precast concrete cladding for the boiler stack, because it is a very vertical element, and precast concrete does not present a hardship. D. Cullimore stated that weight and weather present concerns with precast concrete; if the concrete is too thin (to ensure the weight is not a problem), it may crack due freezing and thawing. G. Schorabora stated that the Hospital will do its best to match the Dryvit to the precast concrete parking garage, including aligning the joint lines. C. Smith stated that she appreciates the applicants concerns with precast concrete cladding, but she strongly encourages using precast concrete cladding, because Dryvit will never match exactly due to, among other things, the way the 2 materials weather. M. Mylott stated that he does not have a problem with Dryvit on the boiler stack, even if it does not match exactly, because the stack is located on a less -than -prominent elevation of a parking garage and the stack works within the rhythm of the parking garage columns. K. Kelly asked the applicants: is the stack insulated from the parking garage? D. Cullimore responded: yes. A. Alterson asked the applicants: have you spoke with the ward alderman regarding this proposal? D Cullimore responded: no. A. Alterson stated that he intends to vote against the proposal, because not enough consideration has been given to traffic impacts; he does not have a problem with laundry for St. Francis Hospital, but he questions receiving laundry from off -site locations. C. Smith stated that the proposal replaces out -bound laundry truck traffic with in -bound laundry truck traffic. Committee approved -the motion (9-11 to arant Dreliminary and final site clan and appearance review aooroval. The floor plan, south elevation of the parking garage, and site and equipment photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0131) SPAARC 98-0073 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue Revision to Final Reconsider window treatments along southern facade of food store establishment (The People's Market). Mr. Tom Rose (The People's Market) presented the approved working drawings and site photographs to reconsider the window treatments along the southern facade of The People's Market, located at 1101-1137 Chicago Avenue. T Rose stated that The People's Market would like to eliminate the middle window of the 3 windows located east of the emergency door on the south facade, the window would be filled with concrete block and covered with Dryvit, similar to the treatment applied to the eastern -most window of these 3 windows. T. Rose stated that The People's Market would like to eliminate the middle window, because a freezeris proposed to be located in front of it The People's Market has already moved 1 freezer such that the western -most window of these 3 windows may remain open SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 18. 1998 �► Page 4 of 8 C. Ruiz stated that the internal configuration of equipment does not justify eliminating the window. M. Mylott asked T. Rose: are all openings along the south facade, west of the emergency door, glass windows? T. Rose responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that he does not believe that closing this opening further compromises the relationship of the building to the street, especially since all openings west of the emergency door are glass. C. Smith agreed. H. Friedman asked T. Rose: how high is the shelf unit shown in front of the western -most window of the 3 windows located east of the emergency door? T. Rose responded: that shelf unit is a % shelf. T, Rose stated that the graffiti on the building will be removed tomorrow. J. Tonkinson motioned to grant approval of the revision to the previous final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: H Friedman asked T. Rose. will the base be continued across the revised window treatment? T. Rose responded: yes. _Committee anoroved the motion (8-OL t�Lorant anoroval of the revision to the orevious final site plan and appearance review aoproval. A. Alterson abstained. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0073). SPAARC 98-0128 1330 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Renovate exterior of existing office budding (Douglas Hoerr Landscaping Architecture). Mr. James Dalton (architect) presented working drawings (including a site plan and east and west elevations) and site photographs to renovate the exterior of an office building for Douglas Hoerr Landscaping Architecture, located at 1330 Sherman Avenue, J Dalton stated that the proposal includes: remodeling the south portion of the east facade to resemble the north portion of the east facade, including replacing the overhead door with storefront windows and replacing the steel pedestrian door with a glass door and transom. 2. removing the band of exterior lights and associated conduit from the east facade. The conduit will be moved inside, and wall -mounted lights will be attached to the facade. 3. erecting banners to project approximately from 18 inches from the second story of the east facade. adding a glass -block window to the west facade replacing a first -floor window within the west facade with a door and associated brick. 6 replacing the existing air-conditioning equipment on the roof top. New air-conditioning equipment must be placed in the approximate location as the existing equipment, because the required roof supports are only found at the existing location SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE eoNovember la, 199a Page 5 of 8 C. Smith stated that banners are not permitted by-nght: the applicant must receive a variation From the Sign Review and Appeals Board to erect such signage. C. Ruiz stated that the new glass -block window within the west facade should be combined with the existing glass -block window to the north. creating 1 large window; or, the new window should be spaced from the existing window a distance similar to that distance between windows within the east facade. C. Smith agreed. J. Tonkinson stated that the 2 driveways along Sherman Avenue must be removed, and the curbs must be replaced; this work will require a permit. H. Friedman motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motion f9-Ol to arant r liminary and final site olan and appearance review aDoroval. The site plan, east and west elevations, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0128). SPAARC 98-0130 425 Dempster Street Preliminary Addition to Chiaravalle Montessori School. Mr. Errol Jay Kirsch (architect) presented working drawings (including a site plan, floor plan, and elevations) and site photographs for renovations and an addition to the Chiaravalle Montessori School, located at 425 Dempster Street, E. J. Kirsch stated that the proposal includes 2 phases E. J. Kirsch stated that phase 1 includes: 1. Activating the fourth -floor space (currently storage). 10 recessed skylights will be added to the north side of the roof only The skylights will be screened with tiles, installed flush with the rest of the roof, reducing the amount of light through the skylights by 40 percent. 2 Replacing windows with factory -painted windows with real panes and muttons. The new windows are double hung. the top portion is fixed, and the bottom portion is operational. Some metal -gulled windows may be replaced with tempered glass windows 3 Installing fire prevention measures 4 Conducting exterior repairs. 5. Creating a sunken landscaped area for toddlers on the north side of the original building and the west side of the existing addition The landscaped area is approximately 4 feet below the surrounding grade 2 new doors are provided at the multi -purpose room, providing access to the landscaped area. Drainage requirements are being verified 6 Installing a new air-condiboning chilier (81/2 feet high, approximately 7%: feet wide by 14 feet deep). Landscaping and screening will be coordinated with P. D'Agostino, E. J. Kirsch stated the Application for Budding Permit is for phase 1 work, except the sunken landscaped area, associated doors, and new air-conditioning chiller SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 18, 1998 a► Page 6 of 8 E. J. Kirsch stated that phase 2 includes a new addition to the existing addition. E. J. Kirsch stated the he is investigating whether or not the project requires a new special use and/or variations. C. Ruiz stated that the building is not a landmark, but it is located within a historic district. C. Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission has reviewed everything, except phase 2. J. Tonkinson stated that the applicant will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Permit. H. Friedman stated that the recessed skylights may cause drainage problems. E. J. Kirsch stated that the skylights will have extensive copper flashing. H, Friedman stated that the plans show a door from the north side of the full-time toddler room to the landscaped area, whereas the north elevation depicts a window. E. J. Kirsch stated that the north elevation should depict a door. C Smith asked E. J. Kirsch: will you use only the existing opening? E. J. Kirsch responded: yes. H. Friedman stated that buildings such as these are not meant to be altered to this degree. C. Smith stated that she appreciates the concerns of H. Friedman; however, she compliments the Preservation Commission on devising a solution that balances the difficult task of making ari old building as functional as possible with minimum disruption. C. Smith stated that she is happy with the results. A. Alterson asked E. J. Kirsch: is the building leased from the City E. J. Kirsch responded: yes. P. D'Agostino stated that the City does not maintain the building. C. Smith stated that the applicant needs to discuss the proposal with Mr. Max Rubin at Facilities Management E. J. Kirsch stated that he has a response from M. Rubin. R. Walczak stated that unobtrusive exterior lighting should be provided for the school and park, especially at the sunken landscaped area. D. Jennings asked E. J. Kirsch: is the sunken landscaped area a "blind" area? E. J. Kirsch responded: if someone crouched down, that person could hide. P. D'Agostino stated that any exterior lighting will have to come from the building, because the park does not have electricity. E. J. Kirsch stated that he would be glad to investigate opportunities to provide better lighting for the area with the Parks Department. E J Kirsch stated that he had mentioned a vehicular drop-off before, and the response was negative. C. Smith stated that E. J. Kirsch should schedule a meeting with 0, Jennings to discuss the proposal; D. Jennings can report the results of that meeting to the Committee M. Mytott motioned to grant preliminary approval for phase 1 only, including the sunken landscaped area, associated doors, and air conditioning chiller, provided the applicant work with the Parks Department on solutions to providing security lighting. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee aooroved the motiQ (7-01 to grant oreliminarLaparoval for phase 1 oniv, inclu4Ln-9 the sunken land,Waoed area. associated doors. and air conditioning chiller. Drovided the applicant work with the Parks Department on solutions to i2roviding security liahtinq H Friedman abstained The site plan. floor plan, elevations, and site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0130). SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 18. 1998 Page 7 of 8 7 Adjournment The meeting adjoumed at 5:10 p.m. 911 souectfully submitted, f Marc Steven Mylott, Zor SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE November 18. 1998 Page 8 of .: Decelmber 'it,.199� 1*9 Date r, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS �>w fE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 2, 1998 Room 2403 Members Present: A. Alterson, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Jennings, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, R. Walczak (for L. Black), J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professionals Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement J. Aiello, J. Glus, K. Kelly. M. Robinson, C. Ruiz. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Approval of Summary of Findings J. Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of November 18, 1998. D. Marino seconded the motion. Committee agoroved the motion (7-0) to ano►ove the Summary of findings of November 18, 1998. A. Alterson abstained. SPAARC 98-0105 2200 Main Street Preliminary Construct second -story addition to existing child day care center (Baby Toddler Nursery). Ms Ellen Galland (architect) presented a plat of survey (with a site plan superimposed thereon), floor plans, elevations, and site and area photographs for a second -story addition to a child day care center (Baby Toddler Nursery), located at 2200 Main Street. E Galland stated that the addition is for new Aces, creating space for 5 additional staff E. Galland stated that A Alterson has ruled that the proposed construction requires a variation to the rear -yard setback, a variation to the number of parking spaces, and a special use E Galland stated that the proposed construction increases the parking requirement by 6 parking spaces, the site is already deficient -in terms of providing the required number of parking spaces M Mylott stated that the City Council will be the final authority on the setback variation, because variations typically final at the Zoning Board of Appeals become final at the City Council when other applications requiring City Council approval are involved. J Tonkinson stated that the alley width and west line of lot 1 and 2 are erroneously labeled on the plat of survey C Smith stated the applicant needs to provide an accurate plat of survey SUMMARY of FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 2, 1998 Page 1 of 4 J. Tonkinson stated that the parking aisle is located within the City right-of-way. A. Alterson stated that the Zoning Division will have to look into the permissibility of the locating the parking aisle within the right-of-way. C. Smith stated that the parking space labeled "1" cannot be accessed given the proposed curb. E. Galland stated that the applicants had hoped to reduce the curb. C. Smith stated the E. Galland should work with D. Jennings on configuring a workable parking area. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that the City must ensure that the number of parking spaces being credited toward the variation to the number of parking spaces is accurate. A. Alterson asked E. Galland: has the owner discussed negotiating a parking agreement with Ward Manufacturing? E. Galland responded: no. C. Smith stated that the addition blends very well with the existing building. C. Smith asked E. Galland: have you reviewed fire ratings, especially windows? E. Galland responded: the west wall of the addition is far enough back from the alley that windows are permitted, and no windows are proposed on the south wall of the addition. C. Ruiz stated that the brick on the west elevation should be as high as the north elevation. E. Galland stated that she will consider that recommendation; the decision will depend.upon budget and the ability to match the existing brick. C. Ruiz stated that the area around the west entrance near the playground should be painted to match the existing brick. E. Galland stated that she will consider that recommendation. A. Alterson stated that the concrete block wall is "atrocious". E. Galland stated that the photograph that A. Alterson is viewing is out-of-date; the owner recently added a trellis. J. Wolinski motioned to table this item. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (90) to table this item,. The plat of survey (with a site plan superimposed thereon), floor plans, and elevations have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0105). SPAARC 98-0133 1118 Florence Avenue Preliminary and Final Variations to the side -yard setback requirements to permit construction of a second -story addition to a single-family dwelling unit. M. Mylott presented an Application for Variation for variations to the side yard setback requirements to permit construction of a second -story addition to a single-family dwelling unit located at 1118 Florence Avenue. A. Alterson motioned to grant prelimrnary and final site plan and appearance review approval J Tonkinson seconded the motion Discussion M Mylott stated that the site plan rs incorrect, according to the plat of survey, the northwest corner of the house is approximately 2.60 feet from the north lot line, rather than 3 16 feet C Smith stated that the applicant will not be allowed to have windows on any part of the addition within 3 feet of the lot line. Committee approved the motion (9-0) to Grant weltminary and final site plan and af)oearance review aoorova�. J Wolinski abstained SUMMARY OF ANAPPEARANCE FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 4. 1998 �. Page 2 of 4 SPAARC 98-0135 2650 Ridge Avenue Preliminary and Final Inrill east end of hospital structure (Evanston Hospital). Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 98-0130 425 Dempster Street Conference (No Action Requested) OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Install circle drive for Chiaravalle Montessori School. D. Jennings stated that he met with Mr. Errol Jay Kirsch (architect) today, regarding installing a circle drive at Chiaravalle Montessori School, located at 425 Dempster Street. D. Jennings stated that he does not think a circle drive at this location is a good idea; therefore, the architect will no longer be proposing a circle drive. SPAARC 98-0136 313 Main Street Conference (No Action Requested) OFF -AGENDA ITEM: Consider revisions to parking areas at educational institution (Lincoln Public School). D. Jennings stated that he met with Alderperson Wynne and a parent from Lincoln Public School about revising the parking areas at Lincoln Public School, located at 313 Main Street. D. Jennings stated that the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) and the neighbors would like to eliminate the parking area at the southwest corner of Lee Street and Forest Avenue; this parking area provides approximately 30 parking spaces. D. Jennings stated that extra parking would be provided by enlarging the parking area north of the school (along Judson Avenue); an enlarged parking area could provide approximately 10 to 12 additional parking spaces. D. Jennings stated that the PTA would sell parking permits for the enlarged parking area for off -hour parking only -- 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. weekdays, all day Saturday and Sunday. D. Jennings stated that people currently park in the parking area after hours. D. Jennings stated that the revenue gained from the sale of parking permits would be used to purchase parking permits for teachers for the City parking lot located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Judson Avenue. J. Tonkinson asked D. Jennings: does Alderperson Wynne support this proposal? D Jennings responded: yes. C. Smith asked D Jennings. can the City provide free parking to the teachers at the Main Street and Judson Avenue parking lot? D Jennings responded; no, the City does not give away parking. A Alterson stated that, from a zoning perspective, he does not think that the proposal presents a use problem; It Is reasonable to assume that the parking area is still considered accessory to the school. A. Alterson stated that the applicants may have to provide setbacks for the enlarged parking area, depending upon the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance A Alterson asked J Tonkinson was the 30-space parking area legally established? J. Tonkinson responded: no, that parking area violates City Code J Tonkinson stated that, as it exists, the 30-space parking area does not require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) permit; however, one of the ways in which the parking area violates City Codes is that it does not provide drainage. J Tonkinson stated that, once the 30- space parking provided drainage to meet the City Code, it would be required to receive an MWRD permit. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 2, 1998 Page 3 of 4 D. Marino stated that he thought that the concept was a good idea, A. Alterson and C. Smith agreed. D. Marino stated that he Is concerned that the off -hour start time may conflict with services still provided by the school, such as child care (ending at 6:00 p.m.). A. Alterson agreed. D. Jennings stated that the parking spaces within the enlarged parking area do not affect pick-ups. M. Mylott stated that the parking spaces may be occupied by staff still working at the school. D. Marino asked D. Jennings: does such a program create a precedent for other schools? D. Jennings responded: while the questions has not been researched, I can think of no other similar situation. J. Tonkinson stated that the applicant should prepare plans that the Committee may review, D. Jennings stated that he will recommend that the applicant review the off -hour parking times and prepare plans such that other issues may be reviewed, such as setbacks, An aerial photograph and a photocopy of the Sidwell Map have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0136). Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p,m. s Marc Steven Mylott, Zopingl'lanner SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 4. 144a Page 4 of 4 t cembarF 4,19913 Date H SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson, J. Wolinski. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement L. Black, J. Glus. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, C. Wonders. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 3,05 p.m. SPAARC 98-0130 425 Dempster Street Final Remodel 4th floor (attic) of Chiaravalle Montessori School. Mr. Errol Jay Kirsch (architect) presented working drawings and a conceptual landscape plan to remodel the 4th floor of Chiaravalle Montessori School, located at 425 Dempster Street. E. J Kirsch stated that he had talked with P D'Agostino. regarding working with the Parks Department on providing security lighting. E. J 'Kirsch stated that P D'Agostino stated to him that the Parks Department budget is limited, and the applicant should provide security lighting for their area only. E. J. Kirsch stated that Chiaravalle Montessori School will provide mushroom lights and 4 lights mounted to 6- to 8-foot standards around the sunken landscaped area (location indicated on conceptual landscape plan). E. J. Kirsch stated that he would like to remove 2 spot lights and the associated conduit from the north side of the building. M. Mylott stated that E. J. Kirsch has submitted an Application for Building Permit that includes less work than that receiving preliminary Committee approval M. Mylott asked E. J Kirsch: what work is the subject of this Application for Building Permits E J Kirsch responded Phase 1, including (1) replacing the exterior windows of the Burnham building, (2) tuck -pointing and restoring the masonry, repairing the terra cotta, and repairing the roof and gutters, and (3) installing recessed skylights within the north side of the roof of the Burnham building. and (4) remodeling the 4th floor of the Burnham iuilding C Smith asked E. J. Kirsch: is the door to the sunken landscaped area included in the Application for Building Permit? E. J. Kirsch responded: no. M. Mylott asked S Levine does the proposed sunken landscape area and associated landscaping conflict with the Parks Department's plans for the immediate area? S. Levine responded: no, but these plans are conceptual; the Committee will need to review construction drawings, showing at least plant species and size. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1998 Page I of 10 N J. Tankinson motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval for Phase i work only. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Committee_aDaroved the motion (8-1] tQ,arant final site elan and aol2earance review approval for Phase 1 w ro k only. The conceptual landscape plan has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0130). SPAARC 98-0062 2122 Sheridan Road Preliminary and Final Construct addition to 5eabury-Western. Applicant canceled appearance SPAARC 97-0011 905 Chicago Avenue Revision to Concept Construct 10-story mixed -use development (ground -floor commercial and upper -floors residential). Mr Michael Gelick presented a plat of survey, a site plan, floor plans, a south elevation, a building section, and a rendering for a 10-story mixed -use development (ground -floor commercial and upper -floors residential) at 905 Chicago Avenue Mr. Ron Fleckman (developer), Mr. Walter Kihm (developer), Mr. Todd Kihm (developer), Mr Bill Smith. and Mr. Jim Zaring (Evanston Bank) were available to answer questions. B. Smith stated that Evanston Bank had decided to use Cyrus Homes as their developer. M Gelick stated that the proposal works within the confines of the B3 Business District. M. Gelick stated that the proposed 10-story building includes. 1. Ground -floor commercial Evanston Bank will occupy approximately 5,300 sq.ft. of space at the corner. A retail store will occupy approximately 3,700 sq ft. of space along Main Street. 2 7 floors of residential The current configuration produces 83 dwelling units at 9 dwelling units per floor The dwelling units will be a mix of 1-. 2-, and 3-bedroom units. If the mix shifts, the configuration could produce 70 dwelling units at 10 units per floor The Zoning Ordinance permits approximately 75 dwelling units. The dwelling units will sold as condominiums A ground -floor lobby will be provided between the Bank and the retail space (access at Main Street) 3. 2 floors of parking, located above the ground -floor commercial. The integrated parking structure will contain approximately 118 parking spaces, the Zoning Ordinance requires 93 parking spaces. The surplus parking may be reduced by approximately 5 parking spaces to accommodate residential lockers and air conditioning equipment for the commercial uses Vehicles access the parking structure via the alley; the ramp generally follows the north lot line The roof of the parking structure will be landscaped. no parking spaces will be available on the roof of the parking structure. The parking spaces for the dwelling units will be restricted via gates 4 2 10-foot wide by 35-foot long loading berths Vehicles access the loading berths from the alley. 5 3 automatic tellers and 1 ATM The traffic flow will be reversed from its current design, such that vehicles will access the stacking lanes for the drrve-though facilities via the alley and exit to Chicago Avenue The exit to Chicago Avenue will be restricted to a right turn only SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1998 Page 2 of 10 f • 6. Masonry construction. The base will be renaissance stone. The upper floors will be golden brown or light puff brick. similar to that used for the townhouses at Church Street and Ridge Avenue. The design provides a distinct base, middle, and top, like other buildings in the area. The floors associated with the parking structure will be a mix of brick and metal louvers to provide natural ventilation while reducing the light from vehicle head lights. The metal louvers will match the window - frame finish. 7 A special treatment at the Main Street -Chicago Avenue corner. The ground floor will have an entrance to the bank. Upper floors will be balconies. The rooftop will have a feature, possibly landscaping 8. Developing a sign program for the building J. Wolinskl asked the applicants: do you intend to make the surplus parking spaces available for area shoppers? W Kihm responded: yes, they plan to maximize the number of parking spaces for the neighborhood, because they recognize the existing relationship. J. Wolinski stated that this proposal must maintain a pedestrian -friendly environment. M. Gelick stated that the first floor facades will have glass up to approximately 15 feet high; contrary to the elevation, the south facade will not have ramp access. C. Smith stated that the 3 driveways along Chicago Avenue do not appear to be pedestrian friendly. M. Gelick stated that the current configuration is 20 feet wider. C Smith stated that the applicant should consider pulling back the drive-thru facilities (toward the alley) such that a combined exiting scheme may be provided. A. Alterson stated that he would be concerned about setting a 24-hour ATM back, towards the alley. M. Gelick stated that they plan to light the area very well. C Smith stated that the applicant should consider some form of pedestrian protection. such as a canopy; this feature reflects Evanston's climate while furthering a pedestrian -friendly environment. M. Gelick stated that he will consider canopies; however. he wants to provide street trees, and canopies may conflict, depending upon the width of the pedestrian way. M. Mylott asked M. Gelick: are you only proposing street trees along the Main Street pedestrian way, as the drawing indicates? M. Gelick responded, street trees could be added to the Chicago Avenue side, depending upon the width of the pedestrian way. B Smith stated that the corner use is a bank, and street trees along Chicago Avenue may compromise security M Mylott stated that street trees will not compromise an institution's ability to be secure M Mylott asked M. Gelick: how tall is the budding? M Gelick responded 85 feet as measured by the Zoning Ordinance; however, the building is actually 105 feet high plus a 3-foot parapet M Gelick stated that the Zoning Ordinance exempts the levels attributed to parking. M Mylott asked M. Gelick: how tall is the mechanical penthouse? M. Gelick responded approximately 16 feet; however, this feature is recessed approximately 75 feet from the Chicago Avenue and north lot lines M Mylott asked M Gelick: do you plan to provide roof -top recreational amenities for the residents? M. Gelick responded: no. C Smith stated that she appreciates that the mass of the budding maximizes the site's development potential; however, earlier concepts showed a stepped -back facade along Main Street. M Gelick stated that he took the cues for massing from the building at the southwest corner of Main Street and Hinman Avenue. C Ruiz stated that he is concerned about the segmented approach to handling the parking levels. M. Gelick stated that he did not want to show 2 levels of parking, and the design works with the base of the ground -floor commercial. C. Ruiz stated that the logic sounds reasonabte: however, the result appears 'a little heavy handed" C Ruiz stated that the architect should explore using the same material to hide the parking garage as that used for the ground -floor commercial. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTED: December 9, 1998 Page 3 of 10 D. Jennings stated that he and the applicants should revisit the configuration of the drive-thru facilities; while he believes that stacking within the alley is better, he is concerned about the success of a right -turn only from the drive-thru facilities. because persons leaving the drive-thru facilities will want to go north and south. M. Mylott asked D. Jennings: do you have any concerns with the access to the integrated parking garage coming from the alley? D. Jennings responded: no. H Friedman stated that he recognizes that this building is within the constraints of the Zoning Ordinance; however, he is concerned that this type of development will lead to environments like that found along Sheridan Road. C. Smith stated that she would like to compliment the developers on selecting a local architect. H. Friedman agreed. J Wolinski motioned to approve the revision to the previous concept approval. D Marino seconded the motion. Committee Noroved the motion (A-1) to aoorove the revision to the Drevious concept approval. SPAARC 98-0065 1454 Elmwood Avenue Final Construct addition to and renovate Evanston Fire/Police Headquarters Mr Jay Carow (architect) and Mr Gordon Grabtree (architect) presented working drawings to construct an addition to and renovate the Evanston Fire/Police Headquarters. located at 1454 Elmwood Avenue. Ms. Brenda Bush -Moline (architect) and Mr Frank Kassen (Facilities Management) was available to answer questions. J. Carow stated that the lake Street entrance has been recessed from the window wall, as deep as the existing stone. J. Carow stated that the canopy skylight is now glass, but the plans include an alternate for plastic. C. Smith stated that a plastic skylight will have a 'pillow look"; she would rather eliminate the canopy than install a plastic skylight. F. Kassen stated that the canopy is an alternate; he hopes that if the canopy is installed, it will be installed such that future problems are minimized, especially with regards to maintenance. J Carow stated that they wanted to install limestone on the canopy. but could not due to weight and budget; the canopy material is metal, prefmished to match the existing stone. J Carow stated that the landscaping includes 2 disease -resistant elm trees on each side of the entrance, within the right-of-way, a curbed planter with rose bushes. aligning with the entrance, and foundation plantings and shrubs along the building. J Carow stated that the trees were selected in accordance with the City Street Tree Master Plan G. Crabtree stated that the salley port is only 14 feet 10 75 inches from the Elmwood Avenue lot line, whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 15-foot setback. M Mylott stated that the proposed distance may be rounded to 15 feet G Crabtree stated that the penthouse is 49 feet above grade, whereas the Zoning Ordinance limits the height to 42 feet, the penthouse is 14 feet above the roof G Crabtree stated that portions of the existing building are higher than 42 feet C. Smith asked G Crabtree what material are you proposing for the penthouse? G. Crabtree responded: metal panels with horizontal striation SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1998 �r Page 4 of 10 v F. Kassen stated that the replacement windows will match the existing windows; the new windows will have no extra tinting. M. Mylott asked C. Smith are your concerns about the service doors on the Elmwood Avenue facade satisfied? C. Smith responded: yes. M. Mylott motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review, subject to review and approval of the landscape plan by P. D'Agostino or S. Levine. H. Friedman seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith asked M. Mylott: would you like to amend the motion to require a glass skylight within the canopy? [W, Mylott responded: no. r i rL�ixtee approved the motion (T-21 to grant final site plan and appearance review apnrovat, sul�j ce t to review gnd aooroval of the landscape olan by P D'Aaostino or S. Levine. SPAARC 95-0003 2201 Foster Street Construct addition to Friendship Baptist Church. Final Mr. Eric Eriksson (architect) presented a landscape plan. lighting specifications, and building material samples for an addition to the Friendship Baptist Church, located at 2201 Foster Street. E. Eriksson stated that the landscaping is concentrated along the south side, including 2 specimen trees; 4 6-foot arborvitaes and Japanese yews will provide a transition behind the specimen trees. E. Eriksson stated that the landscaping includes ground cover abutting the south and east sides of the addition. S. Levine stated that the landscaping is "not a particularly attractive solution the amount of material is "a little light", and the transitions are ineffective. C Smith stated that the Committee asked for a landscaping master plan, recognizing the financial constraints of the property owners; this request does not appear to have been explored. A. Alterson stated that he believes that the landscaping does not need to be overwhelming, because the property 'backs up" to a park; the site may not require large vertical plantings C. Smith stated that the neighborhood could benefit from some flower beds E. Eriksson stated that 2 lights for the parking area will be attached to the building; these lights will include a sharp cutoff E Eriksson stated that he will submit the catalog cuts to J Tonkinson M Mylott stated that J Tonkinson will provide E Enksson with written concerns, regarding the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit application E. Enksson stated that he has not yet met with D. Jennings to review the parking configuration. C. Smith stated that the State of Illinois will require an accessible route from the accessible parking space to the entrance. J Aiello motioned to table this item. pending review and approval of the landscape plan by S. Levine, review and approval of the parking configuration by D Jennings, and review and approval of thephotometric plan by J Tonkinson. J. Wolinski seconded the motion Discussion E. Eriksson stated that the addition will be constructed of a beige -colored, split -face concrete block; the block will not be painted. E. Eriksson stated that the mortar will SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1998 Page 5 or 10 match the color of the concrete block. E. Eriksson stated that the windows will be taupe -colored, clad aluminum. E Eriksson stated that he is trying to convince the property owner to reclad the existing building, possibly in Dryvit. C. Smith stated that the property owner could simply repaint the existing building. E. Eriksson stated that, at a minimum, the property owner will repaint the existing building to match the proposed concrete block. A. Alterson stated that the simplicity of the existing building is 'quite nice". Committee aooroved the motion (9-01 to table this item, gendina review and aRoroval of the landscapaplan by S. Levine. review and acoroval of the Darkina confauration by D Jenninos a do review and approval of the photometric clan by J Tonkinson. E. Eriksson asked the Committee. can the City issue a permit for foundation only? C. Smith responded: such a decision depends upon the sentiments of the Committee. A. Alterson motioned to allow the 8uilding Division to issue a FOUNDATION ONLY permit for the addition at 2201 Foster Street, pending review and approval of the Application for Permit by C. Smith and J. Tonkinson. J. Aiello seconded the motion. Discussion: M. Mylott stated that the building footprint may change if the parking configuration cannot work or an accessible route cannot be provided, J. Wolinski stated that any construction related to the approval of such a permit is taken at the risk of the applicant. Committee aooroved the motion (%-k to allow the Buildina Division to issue a FOUNDATION ONLY Dermit fQrlhe addition at 2201 Foster Street. pending review and aQDroval of the Aggli ation for Permit by C. Smith pnd J Tonkinson. The fighting specifications have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (95-0003). SPAARC 98-0134 1916 Dempster- Street Preliminary and Final Demolish portion of building to reduce size of Office Depot. Applicant canceled appearance. SPAARC 98-0087 1880 Oak Avenue Revision to Preliminary Construct 3-story office building (Scnbcor,Parcel 1, Research Park). Mr Walt Eckenhoff (architect) presented the original site plan and elevations and revised elevations (north, south, and west) for a 3-story office budding on Parcel 1 of the Research Park, or 1880.Qak Avenue, Mr. Steve Kardel (developer) and Mr. Joe Kron (construction engineer) were available to answer questions. W. Eckenhoff stated that the revisions are as such. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPrAfiANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1998 �► Page 6 of 10 the size of the windows has been increased from 3 feet wide by 6 feet high to 4 feet wide by 6 feet high. the spacing between the windows has been increased from 8 feet to 10 feet, and the number of windows has been reduced from 180 to 153. The spacing works better for internal partitioning. the round windows on the north elevation are now full-sized windows. the spacing of the vertical mullions within the glass facades has been increased: this revision is a cost -saving measure. the transformer was moved closer to the building; it will be screened by landscaping. a 20- to 25-space, gated, and roofed bike rack has been added. H. Friedman stated that the revisions to the building give it a more traditional approach. W. Eckenhoff stated that he would like to eliminate the dark -colored CMU underneath the vault of the roof and use continue the red or grey CMU to the top of the roof. C. Smith stated that she would like to see glass within that area: glass would celebrate the vault. H. Friedman disagreed. C. Smith asked W. Eckenhoff; is the refuse area enclosed? W. Eckenhoff responded: yes, it will be screened by a 7-foot CMU wall on the west and north sides. J. Aiello stated that plans to vacate the alley along the south lot line need to be resolved. C. Smith stated that this area would become a private driveway. D. Jennings asked W. Eckenhoff: do you need the northern curb cut on Oak Street? W. Eckenhoff responded: this configuation provides a passenger drop off at the main entrance. D. Jennings stated that the proposal is acceptable. M. Mylott stated that, If the extra pavement was eliminated, the applicant would have additional space to provide improved landscaping for the main entrance to the building. D. Jennings stated that the City is going to provide metered parking along Oak Street. D. Jennings motioned to approve the revisions to the previous preliminary approval. J. Aiello seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Ruiz asked the applicants: what type of windows are you proposing? W. Eckenhoff responded color -coated aluminum with tinted glass; we are still investigating whether or not the divisions will be within the glass. K_ Kelly asked the applicants. are the trees shown along the west lot line feasible, given the existing fence on the property to the west? W. Eckenhoff responded: probably not all of the trees, but some will work. H. Friedman asked W. Eckenhoff are you pleased with how the stair tower appears? W. Eckenhoff responded yes. Committee aooroved the motion 18-01 to aQgrove the revisions to the orevious oreliminanr epproyal. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1995 Page 7 of 10 SPAARC 98-0139 430 Asbury Avenue Concept Demolish Asbury Market and erect retail goods establishment (Osco). Applicant canceled appearance SPAARC 98-0116 1738 Chicago Avenue Revision to Final OFF -A GENDA 1 TEM; Consider alternate proposal for new entry canopy for multi -family residential building (Lakeview Terrace Condominiums). Mr Wayne Moky presented the working drawings for a new entry canopy for the multi -family residential building (Lakeview Terrace Condominiums) located at 1738 Chicago Avenue. W. Moky stated that the original plan provided an open circle within the canopy, under which a planter would be installed; the owner was concerned that elements would blow through the circle. W. Moky stated that the owner instructed him to install a plastic skylight over the circle; this alternate was included on the plans, but it was never discussed or reviewed by the Committee. C. Smith stated that this project has already received a building permit. W. Moky stated that the plastic skylight will extend ataove the canopy approximately 4 feet. H. Friedman asked W. Moky: what is the diameter of the circle? W Moky responded: approximately 4'/2 feet. C. Smith stated that she does not care for this solution: she would like the applicant to pursue a circular glass canopy. C. Smith stated that plastic can scratch and cloud: plastic does not age as well as glass. J. Aiello asked W. Moky: what is the cost difference between plastic and glass? W. Moky responded: I am not sure; however, the glass would have to be custom made. M. Mylott stated that, if a plastic canopy is undesirable and its a hardship to install glass, he would suggest simply removing the skylight. 0. Jennings stated that a plastic skylight may be more acceptable if it was 6t s visible M. Mylott agreed. M. Mylott asked W Moky: are you installing a Dryvit facia? W. Moky responded: I am not sure; the material will depend upon the weather C Smith stated that she is most in favor of a prefinished aluminum facia. M. Mylott motioned to approve the revision to the previous final approval, pending review and approval of the height of the skylight above the canopy by C Smith in accordance with Committee discussion. A. Alterson seconded the motion Committee aooroved the motion (8-1) to anorove the revision to the ❑revious final @porovai. oendina r view and aooroval of the hUi ht of the skvlioht above the canoov by C. Smith in Iccordance with Committee discussion SPAARC 98-0138 1201 Chicago Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Replace free-standing sign at Shell Oil Company C Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application to replace a free-standing sign at Shell Oil Company, located at 1201 Chicago Avenue C Smith stated that the sign would be too tall, given its proximity to the lot line, and the sign would be within 20 feet of a circulation lane SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AN SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1998 Page 8 or 10 C. Smith stated that this sign is replacing an existing free-standing sign. A. Alterson asked C. Smith: is the proposed sign smaller than the existing sign? C. Smith responded: yes. J. Aiello motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board approve the Sign Ordinance Variation Application. 0. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (6-11 to recommend that the Sion Review and Appeals Board approve the Sion Ordinance Variation Application, The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0138). SPAARC 98-0137 1253 Dodge Avenue Recommendation to Sign Board Install wall sign at Spex Car Wash C. Smith presented a Sign Ordinance Variation Application to install a wall sign at Spex Car Wash, located at 1253 Dodge Avenue, C. Smith stated that sign would not be parallel to the public thoroughfare. and the sign would extend above the wall to which it would be attached. C. Smith stated that the applicant is concerned that the new building at 1826 Dempster Street will block the view of an existing sign; the new sign will replace the existing sign. C Smith stated the sign projects from the face of the building at an angle. M. Mylott asked C. Smith: is the proposed sign illuminated? C. Smith responded: yes. M. Mylott stated that the building at 1826 Dempster Street is not completed. C Smith stated that she believes that the sign should not project above the roof A. Alterson stated that he believes this sign will add to the visual clutter of the area. M. Mylott motioned to recommend that the Sign Review and Appeals Board deny the Sign Ordinance Variation Application; the applicant may return after the building at 1826 Dempster Street is completed to allow the Committee to consider a hardship J Aiello seconded the motion Committee anoroved the motion 17-0) tD recommend that the Sion Review and Aooeals Board deny the Sian Ordinance Variation Aj? licg_ation; the g.2olicant may return after the building at 1826 Dempster Street is gomaleted to allow the Committee to consider a hardship. The Sign Ordinance Variation Application has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0137). SPAARC 98-0140 Conference (No Action Requested) Discuss moving December 16, 1998 Committee meeting to December 18, 1998. M Mylott motioned to move the December 16, 1998 Committee meeting to December 18, 1998, from 10 a.m. to 12 p m. C. Smith seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion to move the December 16. 190 meetino to December 18 1998. from 10 a m to 12 p.m SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1098 Page 9 of 10 SPAARC 98-0141 Conference (No Action Requested) Discuss viability of December 23. 1998 Committee meeting. M. Mylott stated that he is concerned the Committee will not have enough members present on December 23, 1998 to constitute a quorum. J. Aiello stated that the Committee should not cancel the December 23, 1998 meeting at this time, because canceling the meeting may create unnecessary delays for a development projects). C. Smith stated that, if a development project(s) must be reviewed on December 23, 1998, the Committee will do its best to produce enough members to constitute a quorum. M. Mylott stated that he will try to steer applicants toward the December 18, 1998 or December 30, 1998 meeting. Approval of Summary of Findings A. Alterson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of December 2, 1998, D. Jennings seconded the motion. Committee, a gr�_oved the motion_t6-01 to approve the Summary of Findings of December 2. 1998. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. pectfully submittdd,, Decembei.'t7. Marc Steven Mylott, Zoni g PI nner Date SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 9, 1998 a► Page 10 or 10 r SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18, 1998 Room 2404 Members Present: J. Aiello, A. Alterson, S. Levine (for P. D'Agostino), D. Jennings, K. Kelly, D. Marino, M. Mylott, C. Smith, J. Tonkinson. Members Absent: Design Professional Present: Other Staff Present: Commencement L. Black, J. Glus, J. Wolinski. H. Friedman. L. Lyon, M. Robinson, C. Ruiz, R, Schur. C. Smith (chair) determined a quorum existed and began the meeting at 10:05 a.m. C. Smith stated that this meeting replaces the canceled Committee meeting of December 16, 1998. SPAARC 98-0143 1805 Howard Street Preliminary Convert portion of existing building to Type 11 Restaurant (Cousins Subs). Mr, Ronald P. Sorce (architect) presented working drawings, a south elevation, and site and prototypical -store photographs to convert a portion of the existing 1-story building located at 1805 Howard Street to a Type II Restaurant (Cousins Subs) Mr. Matthew Lea (Cousins Subs) and Mr. Hasmukh Patel (property owner) were available to answer questions. R Sorce stated that the property owner would like to convert approximately I/. of the existing building to Cousins Subs. M. Mylott stated that this proposal requires a special use: the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to consider the matter on January 5, 1999 C. Smith asked R. Sorce: will you reconfigure the other'/: of the existing building? R. Sorce responded: yes; the 2 uses will not be separated by a partition. R. Sorce stated that other proposed improvements include repairing the existing canopy, restriping the parking area, and adding landscaping along Howard Street, R. Sorce stated that the parking area would include 14 typical parking spaces and 1 accessible parking space M Mylott stated that the subject property is zoned C 1 Commercial, giving the Committee extraordinary review over the setback of, and landscaping for, the parking area. S. Levine stated that the proposed landscaping is acceptable C. Smith asked R. Sorce: are the parking area improvements, including landscaping, a part of this project? R. Sorce responded: yes. J Aiello stated that she would like to see landscaped planters along the south -facing blank brick walls to soften the visual impact. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that such an i SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18, 1998 Page 1 of 10 addition would certainly Increase the attractiveness of the area. A. Alterson stated that he would like to see a written landscape maintenance plan submitted to the ZBA. C Smith asked the applicants: are the proposed hours of operation for the 2 uses the same? H. Patel responded, yes: both uses will be open from approximately 10 a.m. to approximately 10 p.m. M. Lea stated that Cousins Subs has errpioyees arrive at approximately 6 a m to begin baking bread; however, the store is not open at that time. C. Smith asked H. Patel: do you close the existing security gates at night? H. Patel responded: yes. C. Smith asked H. Patel: do you have an automated security system? H. Patel responded: yes C. Smith stated that she is concerned about the message that security gates send. A, Allerson agreed, and stated that the security gates have a distinct adverse impact. A. Alterson stated that reducing the extensive signage found on the windows of the cuilding would increase visibility into the store. especially for police. R. Sorce stated that the existing internal signage would be removed from the Cousins Subs side. C. Smith stated that the property owner cannot cover this much window; H. Patel should contact Mr. Karlton Mimms to determine what amount of signage is permitted. M. Lea stated that Cousins Subs is working with a consultant who is familiar with the Evanston Sign Code. A. Alterson stated that he would like to see more consistent signage M. Lea stated that Cousins Subs hopes to add signage to the existing pylon sign. M, Mylott asked M. Lea- if you receive the necessary approvals to add to the existing pylon sign, will you also mount a sign to the roof? M. Lea responded: no. A. Alterson asked the applicants what is the provision for garbage collection? M. Lea responded: the site has 2 dumpsters, located at the west side of the building H. Patel stated that collection for those dumpsters is scheduled 1 time per week. M. Lea stated that Cousins Subs provides a garbage receptacle at the front of their store, and a garbage receptacle is currently provided at the south side of the building. J. Aiello stated that this proposal creates a more intense food operation, and 1 garbage collection per week may not be sufficient. A. Alterson agreed, and stated that garbage collection is a siting issue, clearly under the purview of this Committee. A. Alterson asked M Lea- what is the minimum number of employees you expect to have on site at one time? M. Lea responded. between 4 and 5 M Lea stated that the restaurant will employ approximately 15 to 20 persons total A Alterson asked M Lea will you have sufficient staff to ensure that 1 employee is always delegated to police the grounds for litter? M Lea responded. yes A. Alterson asked the applicants: have you had problems with loitering, especially given the pay telephone? H. Patel responded: no. the pay telephone existed when the property was purchased, it is under contract until 2002 J Aiello stated that she does not believe loitering has ever been a problem at this site. A. Alterson asked the applicants for what use is the wall -mounted metal framing, west of the existing doors? H. Patel responded: at one time. that framing held advertisements C Smith stated that the advertising framing must be removed, as such advertising is not permitted. M Lea stated that a franchise area representative (FAR) inspects a new franchise 3 times per month during the first year of operation. following the first year inspections are reduced to 1 per month M Lea stated that the number of FAR inspections are furlher reduced over time. depending upon performance. C Smith stated that the proposed use and associated improvements could be a positive for the area. J Tonkinson stated that the applicant will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit, because the applicant is changing the use SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18, 1998 a► Page 2 of 10 D. Jennings motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval, provided: (1) the applicant or property owner removes the security gates. (2) the applicant or property owner adds landscaped planters in front of the south -facing brick walls; (3) the applicant or property owner removes the existing advertising framing from the western portion of the south -facing brick walls, and (4) the Health Department may require additional trasn collection per week, upon finding that the existing trash collection schedule does not accommodate the amount of trash generated on site. M. Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: J Aiello asked N1 Lea where are existing stores located, such that persons could visit this operation? M. Lea responded Naperville. Schaumberg. and Downtown Chicago. Committee anoroved the motion f9-01 to orant oreliminary sitj_Dlan and apDearance review aogroval. orovided: (1) the applicant or oroeertv owner removes the security gates: (2) the apolicant or QrgDertr owneE adds landscaoed olanters in front of the south-facino brick walls i 3) the aoplicant or orooerty owner removes the existina advertising framing from the western Dortion of the south-facino brick walls: and (4) the HeqM pgoartment may require additional trash collection Der wqgk upon finding that the existing trash collection .$chedule does not accommodate the amount of trash generated on site. The site photographs have been placed within the Site Plan and,Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0143). SPAARC 98-0142 1730 Sherman Avenue Preliminary and Final Modify exterior of 2-story mixed -used building for ground -floor Retail Services Establishment (Screenz Digital Universe). Mr Burt Andrews (architect) and Mr Randy Glein (President of Screenz Digital Universe) presented a site plan. east elevation, site photographs, and building material samples to modify the exterior of the 2-story mixed -use building located at 1730 Sherman Avenue to accommodate a ground -floor Retail Services Establishment (Screenz Digital Universe). B. Andrews stated that the applicant proposes to replace a pair of 30-inch doors (that do not comply with accessibility requirements) with 1 36-inch door and side light. B Andrews stated that the applicant is proposing 2 options to renovate the deteriorating sign band: option I replaces the 1-inch by 1-inch mosaic tile with a brick veneer to match the existing brick as best as possible; option 2 replaces the mosaic the with a glazed. ceramic We B Andrews stated that both options include a porcelain file band to match the terra cotta band as best as possible and concord grape fabric awnings J Aiello stated that the applicant should be aware that a bookstore across the street is preparing to install a significant amount of awning of a very similar color. R Glein stated that they choose the same awning installer as the bookstore, and the awning installer stated the bookstore did not choose the proposed color. R Glein stated that the proposed signage has been approved C Smith stated that she preferred the brick veneer. given the 2 options J Aiello agreed H. Friedman stated that the applicant should extend the renovations to the sign band across the entire facade, including the Dunkin' Donuts store front, even if Dunkin' Donuts puts back their existing awning. C. Smith agreed, and stated that such an extension would provide a more consistent situation, even if the brick does not match exactly. H Friedman stated that the applicant could chose a different brick color with such an extension. B. Andrews stated that the current proposal stops at the Dunkin' Donuts awning, already beyond the proposed SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18, 1998 Page 3 of 10 store front. R. Glein stated he will discuss extending the renovation across the entire facade with the building owner C. Ruiz stated that brick can be stained to provide a better match between existing and new brick. M. Nlylott motioned to grant preliminary and final site plan and appearance review approval for the brick veneer option (option 1), including a strong recommendation that the applicant discuss extending the brick veneer across the entire facade (including the Dunkin' Donuts store front) with the building owner. D. Jennings seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Smith asked the applicants: are you proposing signage on the awnings? R. Glein responded. no. C. Smith asked the applicants: how far out from the facade do the awnings extend? R. Glein responded: 18 inches. C. Smith stated that she recommends that the awnings extend 3 feet from the building. C. Ruiz stated that he recommends that the awnings extend 2 feet from the building. J. Aiello asked the applicants: does this use include accessory food service? R. Glein responded: yes. food and beverages are offered to encourage visitors to extend their visit. Committee approved the motion (9-0) to orant oreliminary and final site DI n and a oearance review aooroval f.Qr thp brick vpn(-er option otion 1) including a strono recommendation that the apDlicant discuss extending )he brick veneer acres the entire facade fincludino the Dunkin' Donuts store front) with the building owner. The site plan, east elevation, site photographs, and building material samples have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0142). SPAARC 98-0139 430 Asbury Avenue Preliminary Demolish Asbury Market and erect Retail Goods Establishment (Osco). Mr Lee Winter (developer). Mr Bruce Heitzinger (Osco), Mr Peter Theodore (architect), and Mr. Ben Bussman (civil engineer and landscape architect) presented a site plan, landscape plan (on site plan), color elevations, and site and area photographs to demolish the vacant building (Asbury Market) located at 430 Asbury Avenue and erect a Retail Goods Establishment. (OSCO) The applicants stated that the proposal includes 1 erecting a 1-story Cisco on the southern '/, of the subject property 2 erecting a fence along the approximately southern Y: of the western boundary (that portion not abutting condominiums). The southern boundary is improved with an existing fence. 3 providing a single -cane drive-thru facility for pharmacy business only along Asbury Avenue. 4 separating the loading docks (provided on west side of building) from the drive-lhru facility. 5 providing 43 parking spaces, 2 beyond that amount required by the Zoning Ordinance. 6. constructing a monument sign at the northwest corner of the site. 7 installing 2 rows of staggered trees along Asbury Avenue for screening. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18. 1998 a► Page 4 or 10 prohibiting the sale of alcohol on site. limiting the hours cf operation from approximately 9 a.m. to 10 p m. J. Aiello asked the applicants: how many large trucks Nill frequent this site daily? B. Heitzinger responded: 1 per day. P Theodore stated that the minimal amount of usage of the drive-thru facility will ensure no back-ups occur, B Heitzinger stated that r2 expects this drive-thru facility to handle 7 to 11 cars during its peak hour. D. Jennings stated that he dies not believe that southbound traffic on Asbury Avenue can make the turn into the drive-thru lane. J. Tonkinson agreed. J Aiello stated that she understood that the drive-thru facility was originally located on the Nest side of the building, and it was moved to the Asbury Avenue side to minimize ccnfl,ct with the neighbors however, no neighbors are adjacent to the west side of the building. D Jennings stated that the concern rray have been that the original configuration placed the loading dock on the south side of the building. A. Aaerson stated that he is troubled by the location of the drive-thru lane when he considers that the Intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to have the facade of the building relate to the respective street. P. Theodore stated that the drive-thru window helps breaks up the Asbury Avenue wall. J Aiello stated that the Asbury Avenue facade is still a very long blank wall. M Mylott stated that his concerns with this project go far beyond the location of the drive-thru facility. he is concerned that this proposal proliferates auto -oriented development in direct conflict with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the character of Evanston. M. Mylott stated that the Zoning Ordinance envisions a budding located at ►"e comer. fostering a pedestrian environment, with parking located on the south side of the building; this proposal encourages people to drive to Osco M. Mylott stated that the resistance to locating the building at the corner sterns from a desire to place a square. prototypical building on this site: with creative design, the building, parking, loading, and drive-thru facility can work, but the resulting Osco will be like no other M. Mylott stated that he realizes that the City can do nothing about the other corners at this intersection; however, it does not mean that the City should give up J Aiello stated that normally she would agree with those statements, but not in this mstance because of the proximity to residential, especially given the setback of the residential to the south L Winter stated that he is concerned that a building located at the corner will block the light to the condominiums to the west. M Mylott stated that the building as proposed may, but the building could be elongated or even have a Ziggurat setback on the west side. C Smith asked P Theodore: how high is the building? P Theodore responded 19 feet. J Aiello motioned to consider comments from residents A. Alterson seconded Committee agoroved the motion (10-0) to consider comments from residents Mr Doug Lash stated that one problem with putting the building at the corner is that that _crner has no on -street parking M Mylott stated that the parking would be provided on the south side of the budding C Ruiz stated that he would like to see the attention to the design of the building Increase. now, the building has no architectural merit. C Smith stated that she does not see the progressive concepts exhibited at the Jewel/Osco in Wilmette. the proposal is more reminiscent of the concepts employed at Howard/Hartrey, and those concepts are at least 6 years old J Aiello stated that this budding is a massive building for this site. P Theodore stated that the amount of square footage is necessary to make the project feasible P Theodore stated that the building is not a prototypical building. the all -masonry building has a definite base, shaft, and capital P Theodore stated that the west and south elevations will be colored. split -face block. C. Smith asked P Theodore. are you proposing jumbo bricks on the north and east elevations? P Theodore responded jumbo bricks would certainly be more economical: however, we can look at a different size. C. Smith stated that the brick must reflect a pedestrian scale C Smith stated that the Asbury Avenue facade must exhibit street life, especially at night J Aiello stated that the applicants should consider the single-family structures in the immediate area as design clues. this site is located in the middle of a neighborhood. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18. 199E Page 5 of 10 C. Smith asked the applicants will roof -top units be visible? P. Theodore responded: no, the parapets will be higher than the roof-tcp units S. Levine stated that the landscape plan requires more consistent spacing of trees within the parking area; also, the plan shows small gaps and inconsistent spacing of trees along the streets. S. Levine stated that the applicants have opportunities to provide additional trees H. Friedman stated that the amount of landscaping is very good: however, JewelJCsco has a very poor nistory of maintaining their landscaping. P. Theodore stated that they will include long-term maintenance programs, including hose couplers to prevent damage to plant material. P. Theodore stated that Osco could have a crew come once a week to trim trees, cut grass, etc. B. Heitzinger stated that Cisco will make a commitment to solve the problems at existing stores, A. Alterson stated that significant landscaping and maintenance of that landscaping is important; however, those components along are not enough to "carry the site'. A. Alterson stated that the building needs improvement. 0. Lash stated that the landscaping islands appear scmewhat small. 0. Jennings stated that he does not understand the markings on the loading dock. P. Theodore stated that he will superimpose IDOT templates on the plans to show that they will work. D. Jennings asked P. Theodore: how many loading docks are you required to provided? P. Theodore responded: the Zoning Ordinance requires 2 loading docks, and we are proposing 1. P. Theodore stated that the applicants will seek a variation to the number of required loading docks. D Lash stated that he is concerned that students will cut through the parking area. J. Aiello stated that that situation is not the responsibilp of Cisco. C. Smith stated that the fence will help deter cut through traffic. M. Mylott motioned to table this item. Motion failed for lack of a second. J. Tonkinson motioned to deny preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. M. Mylott seconded the motion. D Marino motioned to table this item. M, Mylott seconded the motion. Discussion: P. Theodore stated that he would like to revisit some of the issues discussed by the Committee J. Aiello stated that any member of the Committee would be happy to provide individual assistance. if needed J Aiello stated that she will discuss the issues raised by the Committee with the Alderperson and inform her that the Committee is working with the applicants on those issues. Committee aooroved the motion r 1 q-0) to table this item A. Alterson motioned to grant concept approval, specifically for the proposed size of the building and that the building is not built to either street lot line. D Marino seconded the motion. A. Allerson withdrew the motion. The site plan and landscape plan (on site plan) have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (9B-0139) SPAARC 98-0062 2122 Sheridan Road Construct addition to Seabury-Western Applicant canceled appearance SUMMARY OF AN INDINGS APPEARANCE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18. 1998 d► Page 6 of 10 Preliminary and Final SPAARC 98-0121 2421 Dempster Street Preliminary Construct 1-story addition to increase service bays from 3 to 5 at auto repair facility (Evanston Tire and Auto Service), Mr Ali Sajadi (architect) presented working drawings (including a revised site plan with parking layout) for a 1-story addition to the auto repair facility (Evanston Tire and Auto Service), located at 2421 Dempster Street. A Sajadi stated that the Issue regarding the rear lot line has ceen rectified, and he has devised a parking arrangement such that all 14 required parking spaces are provided on site. A. Sajadi stated that the parking arrangement works, because employees park the cars. similar to a valet service. D. Jennings stated that parking spaces 6. 7, 8. and 9 are not feasible parking spaces. J. Tonkinson agreed, and stated that parking spaces blocking service doors cannot ce counted as required parking spaces. C. Smith agreed. D. Jennings stated that the site is currently packed with cars, and it is an "absolute mess". A. Sajadi stated that the owner has agreed to remove all junk cars. A. Alterson stated that the site is predominantly automobile storage. A. Alterson stated that the owner has an arrangement with a church located to the north to provide spaces for overflow parking. A. Alterson stated that customers do not park their cars at this type of business: customers drop off their cars, and etnployees park the cars. M. Mylott stated that he appreciated the attempt to produce a creative solution; however, the Zoning Ordinance mandates a certain number of parking spaces for the size of facility the applicant is proposing, and those parking spaces must be legitimate parking spaces M Mylott stated that, if the applicant wishes to proceed, the applicant should submit an Application for Variation. M. Mylott stated that, on the other hand, he can see no outstanding issues on the subject property that would warrant the grant of a vanation; the subject property may simply be too small for the additional activity the applicant wishes to conduct. C. Smith agreed. D Jennings asked A. Alterson: can the applicant count the space within the service bays toward the parking requirement? A. Alterson responded: possibly D. Jennings stated that the access to parking spaces 1, 2, 3. 4. and 5 is not sufficient: a 24-foot aisle is required. A. Sajadi stated that he could rotate the spaces 90 degrees and meet the aisle requirements; however, because of the reduction in the number of parking spaces, he would need to be able to count the space within the service bays as meeting the parking requirement. J Aiello stated that her greater concern is the increased number of cars being stacked outside the building as a result of the increased business C Smith agreed A Alterson stated that this property will continue to have lot- line -to-tot-Ime automobiles, and the site is surrounded by similar uses. A. Alterson stated that he is only concerned with showing 14 parking spaces on site and ensuring parking does not overflow into the right- of-way or street. D. Jennings stated that he is not optimistic that the site will look any different following the addition; this property is a gateway property. and "it is a junkyard" J. Tonkinson motioned to deny preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. D. Jennings seconded the motion Discussion H. Friedman stated that he believes that counting space within a service bay toward the parking requirement is a bad precedent A. Sajadi stated that the property owner will leave the property in its current candibon if denied: if the proposal is approved, the property owner has agreed to remove the junk cars. M Mylott stated that the site is currently packed with cars, the City should SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 19. 1998 Page 7 of 10 not encourage additional business on the site when the site cannot handle the business it has. Committee approved the motion (9-1 i to denv oreliminary site plan and appearance review approval. The revised site plan with parking layout has been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0121). SPAARC 98-0134 1916 Dempster Street Preliminary and Final Demolish portion of building to reduce sue of Office Depot. Mr James Raccuglia presented working drawings to demolish a portion of the budding located at 1916 Dempster Street to reduce the size of the Office Depot. D. Marino stated that this review is for preliminary and fnat appearance review, preliminary and final site plan review was granted on October 28, 1998. J. Raccuglia stated that the building will be reduced from approximately 38,900 sq.ft. to 27,000 sq.ft. J. Raccuglia stated that the canopy will not change; the entrance will be moved west, and the old entrance will be bricked to match the existing brick. C. Smith stated that the existing entrance should not be bricked, rather the applicant should install vision glass. D. Marino stated that the rationale is very similar to that used for retaining vision glass at the new Office Depot on Green Bay Road. J. Raccuglia stated that they may be able to install vision glass. J Tonkinson motioned to grant preliminary and final appearance review, provided the existing entrance is filled with vision glass rather than brick. D. Marino seconded the motion. Discussion: C Smith asked J Raccuglia: wny is the new entrance not centered? J. Raccuglia responded: because of the interior layout. J Raccuglia stated that the entire opening may not be vision glass due to the configuration of interior equipment. C Smith stated that the Committee intent is for vision glass within the entire opening. however, the applicant may be able to install a combination of Spandrell glass and vision glass that meets the Committee intent. D Marino stated that the architect should review the Green Bay Road Office Depot site C Smith stated that she will review the revisions to ensure the intent has been met. Committee aooroved the motion (10-0) to grant areliminary and final appearance review provided the existing entrance is filled with vision class rather than brick SPAARC 98-0067 2035 Ridge Avenue Final Raze detached single-family dwelling and enlarge off-street parking area (The Cradle). Mr James Murray (attorney) presented a revised site plan to demolish the detached single-family dwelling located at 2035 Ridge Avenue and enlarge the off-street parking area for The Cradle. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18, 1998 a► Page 8 of 10 J. Murray stated that the only difference between the site plan granted preliminary approval by the Committee and the revised site plan is that the extent of the fence has been reduced. J. Murray stated that the fence was to extend along the entire Ridge Avenue frontage: now. it will only create a small enclosed play area on the west side of the building. J Aiello asked J. Murray: what is the purpose of the fence? J. Murray responded: the fence is a State requirement. C Ruiz stated that the Preservation Commission is very pleased with the reduction in the extent of the fence. J. Aiello motioned to grant final site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Discussion: A. Alterson stated that he would like the Summary of Findings to reference his previous comments regarding the diminution of the single-family character of Ridge Avenue caused by the proposed demolition, as they still apply. J. Tonkinson stated that this proposal will require a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District permit. J. Murray stated that the stairs will have low-level lighting. C. Smith stated that the photometric plan should be submitted to J. Tonkinson for review and approval. Committee aooroved the motion (2-1) to orant final site olan and agp _aa rance review approval. SPAARC 98-0144 301 Chicago Avenue Preliminary and Final Install above -ground storage tank for gas and diesel fueling. Applicant did not attend. SPAARC 98-0146 630 Davis Street Concept Demolish 3-story building and redevelop 5-story building (Chandler's Building). Mr Robert Perlmutter (Heitman Retail Properties, owner) presented a site plan; north and east elevations; and basement, first, and typical floor plans to demolish the 3-story building and redevelop the 5-story building located at 630 Davis Street (Chandler's Building) Mr. Michael Radis (Heitman Retail Properties), Ms. Wendy Otis Ban (Heitman Retail Properties), Mr Gerald Horn (architect), and Mr Nicholas Bilandic (structural engineer) were available to answer questions. R. Perlmutter stated that he has purchased the building and the land. R. Perlmutter stated that the proposal includes: Demolishing the 3-story building and redeveloping the 5-story building. The project architect and engineer do not believe the 3-story portion can be saved A landscaped plaza will be installed where the 3-story building once stood 2 Providing 2 retail spaces and an office lobby at the ground floor. The first retail space is approximately 2,000 sq.ft., and the second retail space is approximately 1,500 sq.ft.; or, the spaces can be further divided for smaller tenants. The office lobby is approximately 1,500 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December 18, 1998 Page 9 of 10 Providing 4 floors of office space. Each floor is approximately 5.000 sq.ft. The space can be converted for 2.500-sq.ft. or 5.000-sq ft. tenants. Restoring the limestone ends of the building and creating new north and west elevations. Limestone will be provided throughout the ground floor Retaining the name 'Chandler's Building' R. Perlmutter stated that they are considering bay windows to "pop out" the retail spaces along the courtyard. C. Smith stated that the applicant may wish to consider a glass canopy over the retail spaces along the interior of the courtyard. R. Perlmutter stated that they are exploring a metal roof of the office lobby entrance. S Levine stated that the applicants should consider a raised planting bed to provide seating along the bed. C Smith and M Mylott agreed. M Radis stated that they had considered installing benches. C Ruiz asked the applicants: what is the proposed window material? G. Horn responded: all windows will be replaced; most likely, the new windows will be aluminum with insulated glass. G. Horn stated that the existing windows are metal. C. Ruiz stated that the applicants should attempt to match the existing windows as best as possible R. Perlmutter stated that the size of the windows on the ends will not change. M Robinson asked the applicants will the name of the building be portrayed on its exterior? R. Perlmutter responded: probably over the office lobby entrance. some metal plates may be reintroduced elsewhere. C Smith stated that she would like to compliment the architect for his handling of the building; she appreciated that the architect respected the existing architecture. C Ruiz stated that he is pleased with the proposal. J. Aiello motioned to grant preliminary site plan and appearance review approval. J. Tonkinson seconded the motion. Committee approved the motion (9-O] to grant c-Viminary site plan and appearance review ao2LQyW. The site plan, north and east elevations, and basement. first, and typical floor plans have been placed within the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee folder for this case (98-0145). Approval of Summary of Findings J Tonkinson motioned to approve the Summary of Findings of December 9, 1998 M. Myiott seconded the motion Committee approved the motion (.9-0) to aoorove the Summary of Findinas of December 9. 11998. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12 20 p m pectfully submitt d, Marc Steven Mylott, Zoniq SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE December la 1998 Page 10 of 10 December 30,1998 Date