Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1997 - 1998MINUTES PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 269 1997 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Rizki, J. Twombly, L. Blair, A. Graff, D. Jeffers, D. Lindstrom MEMBERS ABSENT: P. Siegal STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith OTHERS PRESENT: Martha & Bob Ruschman Chairman Blair declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. A. Graff suggests that since it have been over 31h years since the Board last elected a chairman, they should elect or reelect a new chairman and vice chairman. D. Jeffers nominates Lester Blair to be reelected a chairman. A. Graff seconds and Lester Blair succeeds as chairman by a vote of 6-0. J. Twombly nominates Junad Rizki as vice chairman. A. Graff seconds and Junad Rizki succeeds as vice chairman by a vote of 6-0. C. Smith explained the history of the project thus far, and included that a permit for the project has been issued which excludes the windows in question. C. Smith continued to explain that the Code (1995 CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code) requires that 1 hour rated construction be provided at any wall less that 3'-0" from the property line. That includes that any windows must not be operable, and rated with an approved system, such as glass block. They are requesting a variation, that if approved, would modify the permit accordingly. Mr. Bob Ruschman thanked the Board for convening to review this case and explained the reason that this had come so far without resolve of the issue in question. Mr. Ruschman explained that the existing house is 1'-0" away from the property line. When they desired additional space for their family, they assessed their options, and because they like their neighbors, and their neighborhood, they decided to add on to their existing house rather than move. The addition that they had planned aligns on the west with the existing house. The adjacent property on the west has an open space of approximately 32'4" from their property line to their neighbors house. They were informed at the onset that this was against the zoning ordinance, which requires a 5'-0" side yard setback. They proceeded through the lengthy process to obtain a variation from the Property Services Board Meeting August 26, 1997 Page 2 Zoning Board of Appeals. Only when they were reviewed for permit from the Building Division did the issue of the windows come up as being a problem. We considered our options. Not having the windows did not see like a good solution, since the room we were building would not be as pleasant. Also, without windows on that side, we thought it would look unattractive from the neighbors perspective. The Flannery's (the neighbors to the west) are our dear friends. They, as you can see by the attached letter, are in support of the addition. We did not want to move. D. Lindstrom questions if they considered moving the addition further to the east to avoid the whole zoning and building code issue. Mr. Ruschman responded that at the time they went to the Zoning Board, they were not aware of the issue with the windows. They did consider their options at the planning stages of the project, but as Mr. Ruschman continued, it would have had a far greater impact on their neighbor to the east, as their neighbors house is also close to their lot line. What is submitted seemed to be the most appropriate solution. J. Twombly questioned if the Ruschman's could purchase 2'-0" from their neighbor to obtain the required setback. Ms. Ruschman responded that they tried that, unsuccessfully. Mr. Ruschman adds that even if the neighbors move, the new property owners may not subdivide the lot, because it would create substandard lots according to the current zoning ordinance. A. Graff motions to approve the variation to allow the windows to be installed as indicated on the drawings for 1102 Cleveland, dated 6/15/97. 1 Rizki seconds the motion on the basis that there are many existing openings in that location on the existing house and that is it unlikely that anyone will build right next to the house on that side. Chairman Blair asks if there are any additional questions or discussion items that any Board member has prior to voting. D. Jeffers states that they have several options. They could move the addition over, they could make it 21" narrower or they could use fire rated glass. The Ruschman's responded that they love the house, but like many older homes, all the rooms seem to be slightly too small in both directions. One the things that was hoped to be accomplished with this addition would be to gain a room that was usable to today's activities. Fire rated windows would be very costly, and they were operating with a budget. D. Jeffers responds that you could have the size room you need. but without windows on that elevation. That is an option. Mr. Ruschman responded that they did not view windows as an extravagance. A. Graff comments that sometimes we must look not only at the code, but at the specifics of the site conditions. The appeals process was set up expressly for that purpose. The existing house is in that same relationship to the property line, with windows. D. Jeffers agrees that the increase to fire safety in negligible. A. Graff commented that the neighborhood appears to be a stable and the chance of the neighbors home being demolished or added on to in such a way that would pose a risk to this structure is hard to imagine. J. Twombly adds that with a required side yard for the Property Services Board Meeting August 26, 1997 Page 3 neighbors construction of 5'-0" in the zoning ordinance, plus the 1 foot that this building has, and there would actually be 6'-0" of separation between buildings. The same as 2- T-0" separations that would not require any fire rating. Having heard all discussion, Chairman Blair calls for the vote of the motion to approve the appeal. A. Graff, J. Twombly, L. Blair, D. Lindstrom and J. Rizki voted in favor, with D. Jeffers voting against the motion. The motion passes by a majority vote of 5-1, and the appeal is approved. There being no other business, the Board motioned for adjournment at 8:15 p.m.. The next meeting of the Property Services Board is scheduled for Tuesday, October 7, at 7:00 p.m. in Roo 2404 of ttp,.Evanston Civic Center, Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director, Building Division Community Development Department MINUTES PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1997 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Rizki, L. Blair, A. Graff, D. Jeffers, D. Lindstrom MEMBERS ABSENT: P. Siegal, J. Twombly STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith, D. Mosca OTHERS PRESENT: John Maturo - Hartrey Construction, Susan Rundall - Architect, MaryBeth Roth - Owner, Ed Weingren - Evanston Lumber Chairman Blair declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. A. Graff motions to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 26, 1997. D. Lindstrom seconds, and the minutes are approved unanimously. NEW BUSINM PSB #97-02: Hartrey Conotructioa 2328 HartMy Mr. John Maturo begins by saying the situation of the window opening not being large enough to meet the CABO egress window requirements was an innocent mistake resulting from a mistake in the product data for the window. When the windows were purchased, based on the product literature, Mr. Maturo thought that he would be in compliance with the law. There are 5 bedrooms, with the windows in question installed in pairs, so there are a total of 10 windows that would need to be changed. He continued by saying that with the sash removed, the window is well within the requirement. The issue of the window sash being removed as a way to accomplish the egress size, is not something that the City would accept as a means of achieving an egress window. D. Mosca mentioned that this interpretation has been consistent for a number of years. Although no special hardware is required, special knowledge is required to remove the sash entirely, not to mention that the sash is quite heavy for a child or a senior. This issue of special knowledge is currently written into the BOCA code. MaryBeth Roth, the homeowner, stated that she is aware of the issue, and that she has no problem with the safety issue if the windows are allowed to remain as installed. A. Graff asks Mr. Maturo if the windows in question were a special order, or are they a PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD Meeting Minutes -Tuesday, October 7, 1998 Page 2 manufacturer's standard? Mr. Maturo responded that they were a special order, so that the upper sash would give the appearance of true divided lites. All windows were installed, based on approval by the City of the rough framing. Mr. Mosca comments that the City did approve the drawings for permit subject to the windows meeting the egress requirement. Mr. Maturo was aware of this comment. During the rough framing, this rough opening can vary somewhat based on different framing conditions and manufacturers. This type of issue is seldom discovered during a rough framing inspection, as the clear opening is measured once the window is in place and all the stops can be considered. Mr. Maturo repeated that based on the manufacturer's literature, he thought that he in fact would meet the requirement. When this situation was discovered, he did call Evanston Lumber to see how quickly replacement windows could be obtained. He would have to wait approximately 5 weeks. These replacement windows have been ordered, in case the Property Services Board does not approve his request for an appeal. Mr. Maturo stated that he is planning another house, and the new windows could also be used in that house, should the Board allow the windows in this home to remain. Mr. Ed Weingren, of Evanston Lumber, who represents the window manufacturer, stated that the publication uses the terminology "sash opening". A. Graff questions Mr. Maturo regarding future homes. She asks if she is understanding correctly, that Mr. Maturo will not be repeating this mistake on any future homes, as she does believe that it was an honest mistake. Mr. Maturo confirms this. Chairman Blair comments that although the current homeowner does not object to the safety issue, the City must consider that this may not be the only resident of the home during its life. With only a couple of weeks until the correct windows could be obtained, why not comply. On the other hand, Chairman Blair continues, the reduction is so small, that one wonders if this will really have an impact on allowing egress. It seems a reasonable request, as they are asking for a waiver of less than 5% of the total opening. Also, they are not asking for something that doesn't exist in many existing homes in Evanston already. Although we must be careful not to create a precedent. Dean Mosca cites the wording in the Code, noting that the requirement is for a total opening of only 5.0 SF for openings below grade, not 5.7 SF as is required here. D. Jeffers questions this, saying that maybe this is due to the fact that people have .. . PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD Meeting Minutes - Tuesday, October 7, 1998 Page 3 access to grade at that point, and would not need to take into account the dimension for a (adder against the window. He questions how many of the windows In question open onto a roof. The response is that 4 of the 5 bedrooms windows open onto roof areas. D. Jeffers comments that this could mitigate the situation, as it would be easier to get out. D. Lindstrom motions to approve the variation to allow the windows to remain as Installed for 2328 Hartrey. A. Graff seconds the motion. Having heard all discussion, Chairman Blair calls for the vote of the motion to approve the appeal. The motion passes by a unanimous vote of ", and the appeal is approved. There being no other business, the Board motioned for adjournment at 8:00 p.m.. There is no meeting scheduled at this time. c Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director, Building Division Community Development Department MINUTES PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1998 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT: L. Blair, A. Graff, D. Lindstrom, J. Rlzki MEMBERS ABSENT: P. Siegal, J. Twombly, D. Jeffers STAFF PRESENT: D. Mosca OTHERS PRESENT: David Raino Ogden - Architect, Ana L. Rosario - Owner Chairman Blair declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. A. Graff motions to approve the minutes from the meeting of October 7, 1997. D. Lindstrom seconds, and the minutes are approved unanimously. NEW BUSINESS PSB #98-01: Rosario/Flanagan Residence_" 2813 Park Plarq Architect David Raino Ogden begins by summarizing the project. He explains that the project consists of a 2-story addition at the rear of the house and a bay window addition on the west side of the house off of the kitchen/breakfast area. The proposed setback of the 2-story addition from the west property line is 31" and the proposed setback of the bay window from the west property line is 20". D. Lindstrom asks about the location of the bay window with regards to existing construction conditions in the kitchen area. Mr. Ogden answers that the proposed bay window lines up with a similar existing bay extension on the second floor. A. Graff questions whether the City of Evanston Ordinance has an exemption when construction is proposed that matches existing conditions. Due to the fact that the new 2-story addition and bay window line up with the existing building she doesn't see why this is a problem other than the fact that the bay will partially obstruct the sidewalk along the west side of the house. Owner Ana L. Rosario responds that she realizes that the bay will create an obstruction and that she sees no problem. She indicates that the fence along the west property line is more the V-0" west of the property line which will allow clear passage around the bay window. .I PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD Meeting Minutes - Tuesday, May 5, 1998 page 2 D. Lindstrom asks how the neighbors feel about the possibility of their property being used by the occupants of the subject property to walk around the bay window, Ana L. Rosario responds that they get along well with their neighbors and that there is no problem. L. Blair questions that if the architect has knowledge of the code requirements why doesn't he design accordingly. Mr. Ogden answers that the proposal results in a far better traffic pattern in the kitchen breakfast area. Ms. Rosario adds that the proposal makes the kitchen more comfortable and that the neighbors have no objections. L. Blair responds that the reason for the code requirements in this case is fire protection and not traffic pattern. J. Rizki asks whether the neighboring lot to the west is one lot of record. D. Mosca replies that to the best of his knowledge it is one lot of record. L. Blair states that a similar case was reviewed in the recent past and he thought that it was a special, isolated situation. He now thought that the board might be hearing more cases like this. J. Rizki adds that this is a legitimate request for variance. D. Lindstrom comments that he is concerned about the impact that the bay addition will have on the property to the west if the house is sold and the new owners decide to put an addition on the house which extends towards the east opposite to the bay addition at the subject property. L. Blair responds that the current codes and standards would not permit a negative impact. D. Lindstrom asks whether the number of windows makes a difference in reference to the code requirements. D. Mosca answers that the code prohibits any window opening within T-0" of a property line regardless of the number of openings. A. Graff questions whether a person can pass by the bay addition and if the fence is on the west lot line. D. Ogden answers that the fence is approximately 1.5' west of the lot line. Chairman Blair states that the committee helps people to resolve code issues. We set code requirements and should not have to break the rules for reasonable housing and construction. PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD Meeting Minutes - Tuesday, May 5, 1998 Paae 3 D. Lindstrom motions to approve the variation to allow the windows located less than X-0" from the property line on the basis that they create no further encroachment, relative to the property line, than the existing windows. A. Graff seconds the motion. Having heard all discussion, Chairman Blair calls for the vote of the motion to approve the appeal. The motion passes by a unanimous vote of 4-0, and the appeal Is approved. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the Board motioned for adjournment at 7:30 p.m. There is no meeting scheduled at this time. i Dean A. Mosca, Structural Inspector/Plan Examiner, Building Division Community Development Department