The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 2000FA • • 0 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee December 18, 2000 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman Alderman Absent: M. Wynne Staff` Present: J. Wolinski, A. Berkowsky, P. Casey, M. Franz, S. Janusz, E. Sz)mumki, J. Broumlee Others Present: D. Anderson, M. Calamaro Presiding Official: Aldrman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27.2000 MEETING Aid. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of November 27, 2000, seconded by Ald. Kent. The minutes were approved 4-0. ' ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Ordinance 127-0-00 - Establishine Fine Schedules for Certain Buildina & BOCA Code Violations Chairman Bernstein requested staff to give a brief overview of this item. Mr. Wolinski responded that proposed Ordinance I27-0-00, which establishes a fine schedule for certain building and BOCA code violations as stated, explained that this is a re -mapping of our fine schedule; not only for administrative adjudication but also for housing court. He noted that what staff has listed are various mousing codes that will be under this fine schedule which are governed under the BOCA National Building Code, the Fire Prevention Code, Life Safety Code, Illinois Plumbing Code, the National Electrical Code and the International Mechanical Doe. Also, the CABO 1&2 Family Code, the Burglary Prevention Ordinance, Sign Regulations, Lodging establishments which pertain to rooming houses, and the BOCA Property Maintenance Code. Mr. Wolinski further noted that what staff has outlined for the Committee is a fee structure that will follow along not only with housing codes but also and appropriately with administrative adjudication for various types of violations of these codes. He acknowledged his Asst. Director for iti P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 12/1WOO Page 2 Property Standards and Housing Rehab. Mr. Stan Janusz and staff who have talked to a number of communities that have administrative adjudication and discussed their fie schedules and how they are implemented He noted that they tried to look at communities that have similar types of housing issues as Evanston s�xh as Joliet, Peoria and their neighboring suburb. Skokie. fir. Wolinski said that what sa.= has presented to Council in the first Ordinance is a fine schedule that basically bcraks down to is the process of administrative adjudication and housing court.. However, more specifically, administrative adjudication because they have an ordinance which states that we can't set fine levels whereas with housing court they can have a maximum fire but there is no assurance that the .fudge will levy those fines. He noted that a minimum offense for various property standards violations would be a S50 tine per code szolation. Aid. Newman expressed that he is very concerned about this entire process. He explained that his concern is that there are different types of violators for building code violations. He stated that he does not have any problem taking the person who has numerous and continuous violations and has a record of managing properties in a unfit manner, especially when it puts their tenants in a position that threatens life safety issues_ He feels there needs to be a sensitivity to the first time offender. He recognizes that there are certain individuals on the Council and staff that are looking to maximize revenue even in these cases but he feels strongly that any revenue in the case of property standards and building code violations should be pursued by the City on behalf of the individuals that constantly violate City regulations and there should be some type of leeway for property owners that have minimum or first time offenses. He noted that it is not known or stated who the officials or administrative judges are, but he hopes that they will take into consideration the level of the offence conducted by the individual. Mr. Wolinski requested to give an example of what types of violations that occur most frequently. He pointed out a property that has junk and debris, which is a common ailment in the community whether it be fly dumping on someone's property or the property owners neglect. He said that the inspector would visit the site, then notify the owner by letter stating that they have 14 days to comply. The inspector goes back out after 14 days and notes that the property has not come into compliance and would then issue another letter giving the owner an additional 7-14 days to comply. IF after this time the owner does not comply, the inspector notifies them that a court ticket will be issued. He explained that if after this additional time is granted and the inspector goes out and the property is still not in compliance, the inspector could then issue a ticket with a S50 fine which can be paid without continuing onto a hearing but if the owner wishes to fight this penalty, they are then entitled to an administrative hearing. Aid. 1`rcw-tnan asked if the administrative law judge will only hear cases after the entire process has been initiated as stated by Mr. Wolinski. Mr. Wolinski affirmed this. Aid. Newman then stated that it this case he does not feel as much discomfort as long as proper notification and time has been granted to the property owner to comply and support has been given by City staff to work with the owner to achieve this goal. Mr. Wolinski stated that the spirit in his office is not to collect fines but rather to gain compliance with the ordinance in a more timely manner and that is what they hope to achieve from this method. He also hopes that it will get across to the property owner that P&D Committee Mt Minutes of 12/18/00 Page 3 this will save time and money if they can avoid housing court and prove that the City means business and is serious about complying to the ordinance. Ald. Newman asked staff what they intend to do with persons that have major work to be done to come imo compliance that claim that they are financial unable to do so in the time given. Mr. Wolinski responded that although that is an important matter that they have taken into consideration, he noted that what they are addressing at this time are basic code violations, not numerous major extensive violations, which entail violations where the inspector can write a ticket and compliance is expected and the owner can either pay the ticket through the mail or come before the administrative hearing officer. He said for second offenses of the same violation or similar violations, if they are minor, staff wi.0 again go through the same notification and ticket process but if compliance is not met in the time specified, the property owner must come before the adrinistmtive hearing officer and can be fined up to $300. Ald. Newman asked the time frame allowed to second violation. Mr. Janusz responded that the time frame is approximately a three-year period. Aid. Newman noted that this is not stated in the Ordinance. Ald. Engelman said that he thought this time frame was the cycle of examination but he would assume if complaints are received even for the same offense within a month, inspections would occur as often as calls are made. Mr. Janusz agreed and noted that this would also count as a second offence. Ald. Newman said that if someone receives a violation in I999 and again in 2000, does this count as a second violation Staff confirmed this to be true and noted that this w71) be stated in the warning Ietters. Ald. Newman requested this be written in the Ordinance. Aid. Kent said that he can understand being cited continuously for such violations as abandoned cars but he does not understand how the City is going regulate fly dumping on properties. He noted that this is a frequent problem in some areas of his ward and especially happens to properties owned by senior citizens that are unable to get out in time to get license plate numbers or a name off the truck He feels this is unfair to the property owner whom the City is going to fine $50 for the First offence who will also have to pay for removal of the dumping. He would even prefer in the cases involving senior citizens, if the $50 could go towards the expense in removing the dumping instead of the City fining these individuals. He feels the City is causing more hardship to the homeowner in cases such as fly dumping, when instead they should be offering assistance. Ald. Kent commented on the 3-year cycle. In his mind, the problem buildings and landlords that constantly cause the City problems, this time frame is much too long. He feels the inspection process needs to be a continuous -type inspection cycle, realizing the need to also have a way to gauge what they are trying to accomplish. Mr. Wolinski responded that most of the complaints are registered by neighbors, which his inspectors are constantly handling. With respect to the fly dumping, there is no equitable answer because when this occurs, unfortunately, they have to go after the property owner to clean Us up. He said there is no easy answer to solving this problem unless the culprit is caught in the act, however, staff will take this problem into account before issuing tickets for dumping. He also noted that his staff still has the discretion to work with the property Y1 P&D Committee Mfg. Mirages of 12/18/00 Page 4 owner before issuing a ticket, as they do now. Ald. Kent still expresses his concern for this particular violation because of the cost involved by the homeowner to clean up the dumping which someone else put there. He noted that the price to order a dumpster frmn BFI cost approximately S300 + the cost of removal. He would be much more supportive of the fine amount somehow going towards the cost of removing fly -dumping for seniors who's property is being targeted for this violation. He said that this problem seems to happen to the same senior citizens every year. Aid. Engelman said that he appreciates Ald. Kent's concern. However, he noted that the Committee's position, in making legislation such as this, legislate conduct and they c= not legislate based upon who is performing or something that is improper or unlawfuL He said fortunately, as Mr. Wolinski pointed out, there is discretion in the staff in terms of determining when the person performing the conduct get issued the citation. He said there is also discretion in the administrative law judge in determining whether the violation is lawful or not. He asked for clarification from staff on the statement whereas people who are issued violations do not have to go to court but instead just pay the fine in the case of minor nuisance violations only. Aid. Engelman questioned the difference in minor nuisance and violations of a more serious charge. Mr. Wolinski responded that minor nuisances are those that have been mentioned earlier. He said that when you look at buildings with numerous violations, they will still be using long -form complaints as they currently do. Aid. Engelman asked legal staff, that unless you define what a minor nuisance is and set some standards, there will always remain question as to the clarity of what those violations are. He referred to page 2 of staffs memo regarding the "Fine Schedule and Administrative Hearing Presence Requirements". He noted that there has to be some way of objectively determining the difference between minor offenses and dangerous/unsafe violations. Ms. Szymanski agreed with Aid. Engelman that there leaves too much discretion in the issuing officer. She said there does need to be a criteria of some type to define what requires an appearance for a first time violation. She said that those violations that require a court appearance are notified in advance. Ald. Newman felt that Aid. Engelman is reading into this differently than what it is meant to be. His understanding is that where it is stated "72 hours or less" to bring a violation into compliance or the owner will then be ticketed, it is talking about the policy for giving warning to correct a dangerous or unsafe building violation. Aid. Engelman stated that he was referring to the statement that was made that first time offenders would be told that they would not have to show up before administrative adjudication and it appears that this statement is not correct. Mr. Wolinski asked to reword his statement made earlier for Aid. Engelman. He said that minor nuisance violations, which staff has given examples of those violations, however if they need to outline all of them, staff can do so. He clarified that minor nuisance violations that is a first time offense, the property oN%ner would be issued a citation and they would then have the chose of either paying the $50 fine or appearing before the administrative hearing officer to plead their case. He said this would be the only time the property owner would not have to appear before the hearing officer. Aid. Newman asked where in the ordinance does it state this. Mr. Janusz responded that this is not in the ordinance because it is a regulatory procedure and a policy issue. Aid. Newman asked 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12/18ro0 Pa&s what the minimum fine would be if there is a maintenance problem. Mr. Janusz said d= the fine would be between $50 - $300 and would be determined by the administradv hearing judge based on the seriousness of the violation. Aid. New7ttan asked for Clarification that the ticket is not going to say on these cases that the property oumer c= pay the $50 and not appear before the hearing officer. Mr. Janusz agreed. Ald. Neer= noted that if this is not mentioned in the ordinance and is considered a regulatory pz&--y issue, then why is this not noted in the ordinance. The other Committee members agreed that if this is a regulatory policy issue then it should also be read into the ordinm= because this must be clearly defined. Chairman Bernstein also mentioned that as long as they are talking in terms of standards, what standards would be utilized to determine wbat the violation is between $50 - $300. He also noted that as a person who violates the ordinance should have the ability to govem their conduct and that is what they are trying to do. He said that this discretion between violations must be defined in the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding this matter. Chairman Bernstein said that it appears in this proposed ordinance that if they find that a violation has occurred, they are mandated to create a fine between $50 and $300 and they have no discretion after a finding has been made. Aid. Newman said that thought thax this was cleared this up at the beginning. He said that he does not envision that something is going to get to the ticket process, especially on minor nuisances, that there is going to be a plea of sympathy because people are going to receive repeated warning letters and the opportunity to show in the warning process that they are trying to come into compliance; therefore it will never get to the ticket phase. He said it seems that caul . will only get to the ticket phase if somebody ignores the letters and makes no effort to comply. Aid. Engelman says that the memo states one warning for minor nuisances and three letters for maintenance violations and one letter for dangerouslunsafe violatiots. Aid. Newman stated that he even has concern for the $50 minor violation fine depending on the circumstances such as someone being on vacation and not receiving the letter in time to correct the violation within the allowed time. He noted that when staff mentioned earlier that the inspectors are going to still work with the property owner and give compliance dates and second opportunities before it gets to the ticket stage, he became more comfortable with the S50 fine process. He feels it is important to have some leeway for property owners who are working in good faith to come into compliance and he agrees with staff having the discretion to allow this. Mr. Wolinski agreed and he feels this is the level of service that the City wants to.portray. He said that is why there is a time frame in order to allow people time to comply before a ticket is issued and there is also the question of sending out one letter or two letters of warning before a ticket is issued. He noted that staff received pressure from citizens because of the time given because it appears that they are allowing too much time for violations such as garbage and debris, abandoned autos, etc. to remain on someone's property. Aid. Kent reiterated his concern for circumstantial situations such as the difference between a violation such as abandoned autos and parking vehicles on private property and more serious violations such as the one he mentioned earlier with fly -dumping on innocent senior citizens property. He noted that he lives in a community in which there 0 are many older homes and many owned by older citizens, where an inspector will cite the P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 1211 &/Do Page 6 property/house for several minor exterior nuisance violations caused by aging of tme house. He said that in the cases where the home is owned by a senior citizen, they cam mo longer go out and take care of these maintenance violations in a timely manner and we also on fixed incomes to pay someone to come out and do it for them. Mr. Wolinai responded that in those violation cases, it would fall into maintenance violation case tbw fails into the third section where people would be given up to three months to correset such violations. He reminded that what they are trying to accomplish here pertain to tote more frequented violations such as weeds, junk and debris (including fly -dumping;), abandoned vehicles, excess garbage, and even snow removal for expeditious complian= Mr. Janusz also mentioned graffiti removal, which is a different type of violation bat noted that the City offers free services to take care of this issue. Mr. Janusz explained the range of fines with regards to repeated offenders, seriousness of the violations and numerous violations on a property. He noted that with their existing process down in the Circuit Court, they have a fine range of $25 - $550 and there is M discretion. However, this proposed ordinance and process will allow staff that discredmi and those items are not identified within the ordinance, or necessarily in their policy, as to what depicts a S50 or S500 fine. He said they weigh the seriousness of the violation or a case with a repeated offender in trying to obtain a larger fine for the property owner. He stated that it will be very difficult to qualify each and every violation in a category to fit a specific fine amount because sometimes it depends on the circumstance as far as if it is a first time offense or if this same offense is continuously being committed by an individual, etc. Chairman Bernstein clarified that what staff is saying is that they are depending on the inspector to go in and to determine for the adjudicator how severe the situation is in their opinion as far as their experience and knowledge. Mr. Janusz responded that in their discussion with other communities, this is common and there are ranges in which to determine the fine as far as the seriousness of the violations. He also confirmed that to some extent, there needs to be some discretion and judgement made in the system and the most qualifying place for this does depend on the inspector's experience and knowledge of the code. He assured that the City inspectors would exercise this discrepancy and would make honest distinctions in looking at the circumstances before them. He added that the way staff is envisioning this is that the inspector would not make their recommendations upon themselves but would be done in advance with management staff and then forwarded to the administrative adjudicator. Aid. Newman stated that he does not have a problem with the enforcement of dangeroustunsafe building code violations within 72 hours or the maintenance cods violations where the property owner is given 90 days or less, nor does he have a problem with minor violations being allowed compliance within 14 days, especially where the property owner is financial able to do so. However, he does have a problem with regards to the history or reputation of the Property Standards Division being involved in some of the worst situations such as foreclosures, etc., or people %vithout means such as the senior citizens mentioned by Aid. Kent. He said his problem is with inspectors that are not as empathetic as they ought to be and mentioned the supposedly known situations with stated cases of where the inspector's approach is intimidating and the ability of the inspector to generate good will is lacking. Aid. Newman stressed his concern for some F7 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 12/18/00 Page 7 staff/inspectors having or being able to employ their experience and knowledge to be . depended on as far as discretion and judgement for the administrative hearing judge to go by. His worry lies with across the board discretion to be applied by all inspectors and &V management staff to make sure this is done in all cases. Aid. Newman said that he is a6a worried about how this 14 day time frame is going to be used and implemented agai= the people with first time offenses and taking into consideration all the circunuunc= such as people on vacation or senior citizens who are ill or unable to comply within the time frame but are willing to do so as soon as they possibly can. Aid. Kent supported Ald. Newman's comments and reiterated his same concerns stated for such circumstantial situations. He again pointed out his continuous concern for the dumping situations committed on senior citizens and City staff expecting these homeowners to comply within a 14 day time frame; it is virtually impossible to do financially and ability -wise by these individuals. He requested that staff take into consideration circumstantial situations, such as the ones mentioned, when giving the 14-day time frame for compliance. Aid. Engelman clarified his understanding from the continents just stated, that where the offense is committed without intent or fault of the offender and where there am mitigating circumstances regarding the offenders inability to comply with time frames, they are asking staff to be considerate. Aid. Newtnan clarified that he is more in support of litigating circumstances and he is convinced that there is a violation but the question is determining how to proceed with the citation, the time frame to comply due to the non- involvement of the homeowner, and the amount of the fine for these offenders. He agrees with Aid. Kent as far as the cost of coming into compliance and the burden put upon senior citizen homeowners and their risk of being issued additional fines as second offenders and not coming into compliance within the specified time. He reiterated his concern with staff having the discretion to work with such homeowners, even in repeated cases and how these situations will be handled. Mr. Wolinski responded that his staff has been very competent in working with the homeowner, especially in these cases of fly dumping on senior citizens properties. He also noted that it gets to the point where neighbors of these properties realize the issues involved with these cases as far as the homeowner, however they have to live with the situation and being directly connected to a blight condition and feel the City is allowing this to go on for too much time. Aid. Newman questioned, from what has been stated, what is staffs planned procedure, because if they are allowing 14 days, what happens on the 15th day - are they going to issue a ticket give more time due to circumstances. Mr. Wolinski responded that they try not to get into too much discretion, however it is obvious that many cases require doing so. He recalls from comments he received from several Council members, the allowance of giving homeowners additional time to comply if circumstances on the homeowner's part justify to do so and staff has tried to commit to this. Aid. Newman requested his suggestion to make an amendment on minor nuisance violations. He suggested that if someone responds to staffs letters within 14 days and there is a communication that they are going to do the repairs within this time frame, then he would say not to issue any ticket. Also, if a communication is received by the 0 property owner within the 14 days stating that they do not have the finances or ability to P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of 12/19= Page 8 comply with this time but can comply within a reasonable time beyond the 1.1 days, then he would Ieave it to the discretion of the staff to try and work with the homeowner and not write the ticket on the 15th day. Chairman Bernstein at this point noted the time and the items still remaining on the agenda for consideration this evening. He said with respect to repeated offenders, he questioned if this pertains to people or per building. It was clarified that this pertains to the person. Therefore, if the landlord owns several properties and is guilty of the second violation for different properties, then he will be fined at the second offense level. Aid. Newman strongly feels that this needs to be stated and specified within the ordinance that if you have a second violation whin a certain period that they am going to be fines and you can not just have this as a policy issue because you have to state that if there is a second violation within a year or two years, then the fine goes to the second level. He stressed that this must be defined within the ordinance. Aid. Newman moved to amend the wording to say that the second violation on all the penalties has to occur within a two-year period of the first violation. Aid. Kent seconded the motion. Chairman Bernstein questioned how they would determine the exact date since this is a per diem time period. Should the date be from the day the citation was written up or when the property owner receives it? Mr. Janusz was in the opinion that the daze begins when the citation is written up. Aid. Newman withdrew the two-year period to anend to 3 years. The Committee agreed. Aid. Engelman said that he feels more comfortable with the 3 year time period if it is per diem. Mr. Janusz noted that the time period given begins per citation even if the property owner receives other citations. Aid. Newman questioned if they can raise the fine amount if a building has over 10 or more violations. Mr. V-1blinski agreed that this can be done but they can not go over $750 per violation. Aid. Newman clarified that this could result in someone being fined up to $7,500 if they had 10 violations. Mr. Wolinsid confirmed. Chairman Bernstein noted that these violations could be cited on separate occasions. He noted the more serious the offense, the more important to have abated immediately or as soon as possible. Aid. Kent questioned if these penalties and fines are subject to businesses as wen. He specifically pointed out the businesses in the area of Church and Dodge that seem to have a problem with taking responsibility for the trash and litter in the vicinity. Staff confirmed that businesses will also be subject to being cited for violations and will receive fines, as they do now. Aid. Newman expressed his concern with including the penalties for violations of the sign regulations in this ordinance. He does not feel that violations under the sign ordinance should be included in the property maintenance and building code regulations. Mr. Wolinski agreed with Aid. Newman's point. 0 *4 PRD Committee Mt& Minutes of 12/1SW Page 9 Chairman Bernstein moved to hold item (P1) and (P2) in Committee for further discussion, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. W21 Ordinance 113?-n-OO—Amendment to Zonine Ordinance: Restaurants in the UI District ' Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Mr. James Trer from Kendall College who wished to addmcss this issue. Mr. Trer noted that he is the new President of Kendall College and has only been in the community for a short time. He read from a brief statement and then requested to answer any questions by the Committee. His statement mentioned that he has spoke with several members and businesses in the Evanston Community and asked them their opinion on how the City supports their local businesses and Colleges. He said that he was surprised at the number of responses that implied that the environment for businesses in Evanston is generally hostile with high taxes and a strong regulatory impulse without much recognition of the financial and other benefits that the businesses bring to the community. He realizes that this may not be correct. He noted that Kendall College's study is in the culinary arts and their student population manages and operates two restaurants on site for on -hands learning and lab. He further noted that the College has invested millions of dollars in their culinary arts equipment and on -site restaurants. 'Nir. Trer continued on to point out the College from the beginning and still today, is located in the U1 district This district, as listed in the Zoning Ordinance, identifies a restaurant as a principle use. He noted that the proposed language change would be a restaurant into a category as a. special use in the U1 district. He said that the special use categorization will set Higher or different standards, which may make it difficult to continue to operate their restaurants or cause economic strains on the College. He said this proposed change will make it burdensome restraint on Kendall's operation and puts constraints for them to ever expand or relocate one of their restaurants. Mr. Trer feels that Kendall College has a reputation of being a good neighbor in the community and a large number of Evanston residents, as well as other communities, enjoy their dining facilities. He concluded that he does not feel this amendment to be fair the Kendall College and its well known expertise in the culinary field and the restaurants that they operate as an on -site laboratory for the students. Aid. Newman congratulated Mr. Tres on his new post as president of the College. He agreed with Mr. Tres on Kendall's well-known expertise in the field of culinary arts. However, in response to the comments made as far as the City not supporting their local businesses and forming a hostile environment, he would have to defend Council's position on this statement. He specifically stressed the point that there has never been any inclination of the City not working with or cooperating with Kendall College. He mentioned several of things that the City has done on behalf of the College. He also brought up situations where the College has not been such a good neighbor such as the lack of cooperation by some of students on Kendall's campus. He noted the students lack of respect for the neighboring residents and their misconduct that has been witnessed. Ald. Newman pointed out that Orrington Avenue is a residential street and has always been a residential street. He noted how the residents have been tolerable to the constant �i PRD Commitr= Mtg. Minutes of 121191DO Page 10 food odors that come from the College also. It is his preference to aid in avoiding any . addition to Kendall's restaurant facilities and opening up of any new restaumnts in the immediate surrounding neighborhood. He feels that what Kendall currently has is sufficient for the school and teaching needs and this amendment will serve as a tool to accomplish this. However, he is not saying that he does not want Kendall College to remain as highly respected or diminish its current operations. His concern is not to have the school expand its facilities where it causes further burden on the surrounding residential community. Aid. Newman questioned why the ZBA transcript was not included in this packet and requested staff to provide this for Council. Ald. Engelman welcomed Mr. Tres to the community and commended Kendall College on their operation. He stated that he would like to have more time to discuss this amendment acknowledging the lack of time to do so at this meeting. Chairman Bernstein agreed that he would like to hold this item in Committee to allow for more discussion also. He felt that the Committee owed Mr. Tres the time for his comments since he was in attendance. Aid. Engelman also requested that Council be provided the ZBA transcript. He also legal staff to respond back to the Committee on the distinction between now calling this an accessory use from what it currently is. When you start addressing this, he recalls the case with Michelini's restaurant and their carryout operation and the concern as to where you draw the line as to something being considered an accessory use. In other words, what impact is the word "accessory" going to have and how do they define this. He said that he is especially concerned with this situation with Kendall since their restaurant is part of their educational program and not just to serve the students as a dining hall. Ms. Szymanski also recalled that this same issue came about with Ramy's Food Store when they added their restaurant/carryout operation. She also recalled the convenient store on Howard that added a restaurant facility. She informed the Committee that she discussed this ordinance today with Mr. Hill and they were both in agreement that since legislative enactments are presumed valid, and no doubt this is sustainable. However, given the trend and the concerns, basically what Ald. Newman was articulating with restaurant uses in residential neighborhoods, they understand the need to it but perhaps a special classification created in the Zoning Ordinance would be appropriate in the long run. Aid. Newman stated his concerns with the opening of a restaurant in one of the older larger homes in the U1 district and that he would not like to see this being able to happen in the future. Ald. Engelman moved to hold this item in Committee for further discussion and staffs response to the questions raised by the Committee. Ald. Kent seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. (P4) Ordinance 133-0-00 - Revisina Ordinance Regulating Development in Special Floodnlain Areas Chairman Bernstein noted that the Committee is aware that these revisions are only clerical amendments to the previously approved Ordinance 93-0-00 that was adopted on October 23, 2000. Mr. Wolinski pointed out those amendments in the ordinance and confirmed that these are only clerical modifications that were recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). e • 0 P&D Committee Mt& Miant of 12JI&W Page I I Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 133-0-00, seconded by Aid. Kent The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION D 11 2738 Reese Avenue Chairman Bernstein requested to hold this item for discussion at the next P&D meeting to give the homeowner a change to be in attendance and make comments on his behalf. He noted that if the owner does not attend, then the Committee will go forward with their recommendation on this issue. Mr. Wolinsid ack-nowledged Mr. Moshe Calamaro, the City's contracted Plans Examiner, who was in attendance for any questions since he has had several discussions with the owner and has examined his plans several times. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to address, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfidly submitted, Ja eling E. Brownlee I MINUTES PIanning & Development Committee November 27, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, A. Ne%Tnan, J. Kent Alderman Absent: M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, M. Franz, J. Bro►%mlee Others Present: D. Anderson Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:16 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2000 MEETING Aid. Kent moved approval of the minutes of the November l 3th, 2000 meeting, seconded by Chairman Bernstein. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein noted that there is no business or items for consideration on their agenda. Mr. Wolinski explained that staff originally had two ordinances that were intended to be on the agenda for this evening, but were not yet ready. The ordinances deal with the fine schedule for housing and building code violations for administrative adjudication. He said that there still remains some work to do on the ordinance but assured that they would be ready for the December 1$`h meeting. He further explained that these various fines are for property standards violations. zoning violations, and building code violations for administrative adjudication that bath the inspectors and the hearing officers will have to adhere to. Aid. Newman asked that status of the Plan Commission items for the agenda. Mr. Wolinski believed those items would be ready for the next meeting also; he called on Ms. Anderson for confirmation. Ms. Anderson noted that Zoning Staff are in the process of preparing the paper work on binding appearance review. ADJOURNMENT With no further busincss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted., Jacqueline E. Brownlee X • • MDVUTES Planning & Development Committee November 13, 2000 Room 2403 -- 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, A. Newman Alderman Tardy: M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, A. Alterson, M. Franz, S. Guderley, M. Mylott, E. Szymanski, L Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, R. Cook, A. Dienner, H. Friedman, J. Pernan Presiding Official: Alderman Berstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OGTOBER 23.2000 MEETING Aid. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of the October 23d, 2000 meeting, seconded by Aid. Newman. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Plat of Subdivision at 827 Greenleaf Street Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Ms. Renee Worthington, co-owner of the property. He asked if she had any comments at this time, which she declined. Aid. Engelman asked if this request is to divide the property into 2 separate zoning lots from north and south. Mr. Mylott explained that there are 3 lots of record that equal 1 zoning lot today and now the owners want to subdivide these 3 lots of record into 2 lots of record and into 2 separate zoning lots of record. Aid. Engelman noticed that with the �c � P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes or 1/]3/00 Page 2 subdivision, the 2 lots will not have a straight line boundary, affirmed by Mr. hlyloM which he explained that these lots meet the zoning ordinance to the best of their abilities to pick up the required square footage and to work around the existing structure Aid. Newman moved approval of the subdivision, seconded by Ald. Engelman. Aid. Engelman inquired that this is not a ministerial act because the ZBA has alma&- ruled on this. Mr. Mylott responded that the ZBA has already ruled on the variations, hr noted that this request is the ministerial to subdivide the lots into the 2 zoning lots approved by the ZBA. Chairman Bernstein stated, as alderman of the ward, that he has no problems with this subdivision and approves with the owner's wishes for this property. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Proposed Curb Cut at 2331 Orrinraton Avenue Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the applicant/owner of the property, Mr. Nathan Dardick. He noted that the City of Evanston Corporation Counsel, Mr. Jack Siegel, has indicated that they can do what is being requested of the Committee. Ald. Newman wanted to make it clear for the other Committee members, since it as not stated in the written materials received, that corner houses in Evanston are allowed to have 2 curb cuts. Mr. Wolinski confirmed this statement. • Aid. Newman moved approval, receiving no second at this time. Aid. Engelman asked wiry the owner is doing this, i.e. why they are coming back before Council with this request Mr. Dardick explained that they have been persistent with this request because there are 5 drivers in their house and they only have a 2-car garage and no available parking on the street surrounding their property. He stressed that the lack of parking situation is evident any time of the day. He said that not only is there no parking available on the street for members of his household but also for any workers that might need to come to his home. He noted that the unavailability of parking is not because they don't have parking stickers, it is basically because there is absolutely no available parking spaces in their neighborhood due to the area. Mr. Dardick stated that the parking spaces are being taken all day long, everyday, by Northwestern students/faculty, commuters, Kendall College and Roycemore School. Aid. Engelman asked if he planned to use the concrete area as a parking lot/area for the additional cars in his household. Mr. Dardick confirmed that the drivev.-ay will be used for parking but he has no plans to add onto the existing garage. Aid. Newman backed Mr. Dardick's claim on the lack of parking on Orrington Avenue due to the close proximity to Roycemore, Kendall and Northwestern. He is sure that this is one of the hardest areas in Evanston for available parking on the street to the residential properties that align it. This is also a problem for residents on the surrounding streets such as Sherman, etc. He verified that the residents of this area not only don't have enough available paring for their households, but also for their guests, workers or contractors that need to be on -site at their properties or any other private fbt P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1 I/13/00 Page 3 . functions. Aid. Newman noted that this driveway has been there for many years and is his mind, a curb cut is a very routine matter and is much less imposing than cul-de-sacs and other more imposing situations that have been requested of them. He reiterated that corner houses are allowed 2 curb cuts and he strongly approves of this request in his ward. Aid. Engelman asked if the parking regulations were recently changed for residential parking only on Orrington Avenue because he recalls that it used to be 2-hours only unless you were a resident with a sticker. Aid. Newman responded that it is a different residential only requirement than required in Aid. Engelman's ward because he noted that practically every street in cleared out in the Vh Ward as a result of the residential only parking requirement. He noted that in his ward, especially in this particular area, it is residential only but the people with "A" stickers can all park on Orrington, Sherman, Colfax, Noyes, etc. He further noted that there are currently numerous commuters that utilize those "A" stickers in his ward. Aid. Engelman asked additional questions of the owner on planned parking use for the proposed driveway. Mr. Dardick explained that the use of the driveway would only be for his household to park their cars. Aid. Engelman questioned why this request does not go back before the ZBA because they are the ones that imposed this condition. AId. Newman responded that there is a legal opinion in the records that this case should come before this Committee. Chairman Bernstein seconded that comment and noted that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the ZBA in favor of the Council because of the fact that they • have already ruled on the matters. Aid. Engelman explained tha the reason he raised the question is because it was the ZBA that said when Mr. Dardick built the garage on Colfax, they will let him do this only if he takes out the curb cut an Orrington. He reiterated since the ZBA originally imposed this condition, although it is apparent that the P&D Committee are the elected officials and have the ability to over -ride the ZBA if so warranted, he feels it would be appropriate for the ZBA to render an opinion in this case. Chairman Bernstein stated that the ZBA is without jurisdiction in this matter and it has been so noted by Corporation Counsel and the historical use of the Zoning Board has not been declared declaratory relief but rather advisory powers for consideration by higher authority in charge of rendering a final decision. Mr. Wolinski stated that in the memorandum when he first heard about this he thought the same way as Add. Engelman has stated as far s this matter going back before the ZBA. He said this is why staff asked Jack Siegel for a legal opinion and Counsel was clear, in his opinion, that ZBA does not have standing on this issue. Aid. Newman noted that there is not one member of the ZBA that is still on the Board from the time that this condition was imposed, so there would be no memory of this by any of the current zoning members. He stated that he would take the position that the ZBA condition that was placed upon Mr. Dardick, in his view was illegal at the time because it had nothing to do with ameliorating the variation that was being sought by this owner. He clarified that in his view, 6 years have passed and this is one of the most harmless requests that anybody could ever ask for which is a curb cut. He reiterated that . there is a City policy where they allow houses on comer lots, throughout the City, to have P&D Conuninee Mtg. Minutes of 11/13/00 Page 4 two driveways. Aid. Nm- man feels, in his mind, this is a Ward matter and there is a cleat' legal statement on the jurisdiction here. He said that he is unaware what the past politics have been here from 10 to 15 years ago, but Mr. Dardick is entitled to his driveway and he fully supports his request. He recalled that the traffic staff has told them that except for the fact that there was a lawsuit, they would approve this. Forestry staff has told theca that they would approve this also. He said there is no reason to deny or oppose this. Aid. Engelman stated that he does not believe this was ever a political matter. He noted that he has absolutely no problem with the curb cut, however, he does have a cone em over an open-air parking lot in the middle of a residential area He also realizes that this; is not his Ward, as stated by Aid. Newman who approves of this in his "•ard. Ald- Engelman said that he is bothered by the history of this case, which is why the past time this was before the Committee, he felt it appropriate to deny the subsequent request to do exactly what is being requested here tonight. He recalled that this case did not win in court and then the applicant came back to the City and was denied again. He noted that although it is now 6 years later, the history still remains. Chairman Bernstein said that there is no prohibition period for these cases. He asked zoning staff, with respect to parking in a front yard, if this is not going to be within violation of the Ordinance if they utilize this as a parking area. Mr. Alterson responded that if the driveway leads to a legal parking space, the Ordinance allows what is classified as temporary parking in that driveway. Chairman Bernstein said in terms of public policy, if they are trading 1 parking space on the street for 4 parking spaces on their property, he considers this a net gain of 3 spaces in an area which apparently has a definite shortage of available parking. Aid. Newman responded to Aid. Engelman's comments. He said that basically the comments would make sense if the City didn't allow every corner lot owner the same right to have 2 driveways. He stressed that this is an allowable policy and pointed out that especially in this particular area, this policy is necessary and reasonable. Aid. Engelman reiterated that the issue is not the 2 curb cuts although his concept for allowing 2 curb cuts on a comer lot is where you have a 1-way drive with cars coming in one way and going out another. He said this is practical if avoiding the issue of having to back out the drive and create a safety hazard, however, in this case he does not see that same issue. Aid. Engelman stressed tha this main concern is with the history of this case. He stated that he may support this in the long run, but at this point and time, he is not prepared to do so because of the facts that follow this case. Chairman Bernstein noticed that there was a concern stated by the Forestry Department to protect a certain tree, is this being committed to. Mr. Dardick confirmed that he has all intentions to abide by that request and informed the Committee that the Forestry Department has been out to inspect the tree recently and told him that it is unlikely that the roots from this tree have grown to the location of the proposed curb cut. Mr. Dardick said, in response to questions from Aid. Newman, that the current driveway has been there since he bought the property in the 1970's and there have been no neighbor complaints on the cars parked in his drive. He further stated that it is not his intention to • damage the appearance of his property or bring blight to the surrounding neighborhood. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11/13/00 Page 5 He assured that he has always landscaped and taken the utmost care of his property. Aid . Newman confirmed Mr. Dardick's assertion regarding his property and commended him for the constant care taken of his property. Ald. Engelman stressed that he did not intend to claim the Mr. Dardick did not care for his property and is assured of his pride for his home, however that is not the issue at hand either in this case. With no further comments, Chairman Bernstein seconded the motion made by AlkL Newman previously and the vote was 2-1 in favor of the motion. Mr. Wolinski requested to bring attention to the memorandum under "Communications"' before the Committee addressed the "Item for Discussion". 'Ihe Committee agreed. COMMUNICATIONS Staff memorandum_ concernine Sien Review and Anneals Board re%ie%%ine the current Sign Ordinance Mr. Wolinski noted that this memorandum concerns issues that the Sign Review and Appeals Board is dealing with right now. He explained that the Board is looking at making changes to the Sign Ordinance which may have an effect on the amortization period which is January 1', 2003. Staff wishes at this time just to bring this matter to the attention of the Committee because one of the proposed changes to the Ordinance requested by the Board is to move back the amortization period. He said it hasn't been determined yet as to how far back they want to move this date. He reiterated that at this time, staff felt it necessary to inform the Committee of wfiat is being considered and will keep them informed of the status. The Committee accepted this communication without comment. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IPDI! Bindine Apmearance Review Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Mr. Richard Cook of the Plan Commission and welcomed his opening comments on this issue. Mr. Cook brought attention to the packets received by the Committee, which addresses the recommendation of the Plan Commission to incorporate and adopt binding appearance review within the purview of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (SPAARC). He stated that they are here tonight to have the P&D Committee take a look at and review the recommendations and receive feedback from the Committee as to whether you feel it is appropriate. He explained that the Plan Commission has put together the data which they believe advocates them to go forward. Mr. Cook said their task group at the current time, is somewhat on hold waiting to see and receive some direction from this Committee and Council as to whether you're in favor of a binding 0 appearance review Committee. He stated that the Plan Commission's subcommittee on WI i'mi P&D Commince 1ttg. Minutes of t t/13)'00 Page 6 the binding appearance review is totally in the opinion that this is something they would strongly recommend for approval. However, Mr. Cook noted that as of yet, they would still need to put together the guidelines and all of the data required putting such a process in motion. He said that they do not want to spend the money and the time on putting something together that nobody wants. That is why the Plan Commission ahs put together this compilation of their extensive study to present before the Committee for review with hopes of approval to move forward on this issue. Chairman Bernstein thanked Mr. Cook and his subcommittee for this report. He acknowledged that others have signed up to address this issue and requested to hear from them at this time. Mr. Hans Friedman, member of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee. He informed the Committee that he has just read the report for the first time this evening so he has not had proper time to review the contents. However, he stated that he is a retired architect and service on the SPAARC and is present at those meetings every Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. He also informed the Committee that although he is retired from his architectural firm that he headed for 25 years, he currently is working on 2 independent projects and continues to work out of his home. Mr. Friedman stated that over 2 years ago, Mr. Mylott, Lt. Linda Black and himsel& started the work on drafting a proposed ordinance and proposed guidelines in setting up reasons why they should pursue binding review. He noted that every week they review numerous projects, however, only 2 members of the Site Plan Committer are licensed architects that can vote which is Carolyn Smith and himself. He noted that he is the only non -City member, as an architect, that is allowed to vote. titr. Friedman commended that he City of Evanston is very fortunate in having a number of very qualified architects on staff and other staff with similar valuable qualifications. He acknowledged those staff members beginning with Carolyn Smith noting her architectural experience. Also Mr. Walter Hallen who was recently by the City, noting his heading of a large architectural organization in the past and his respect for Mr. Hallen's experience. Mr. Bob Fahlstrom who is also a very experience and qualified architect and Mr. Carlos Ruiz who possesses an architectural background. Mr. Friedman noted that unfortunately, neither Mr. Haller, Mr. Fahlstrom nor Mr. Ruiz has any votes on the SPAARC. His concluding point in all this, being that with all the qualified staff on hand with architectural background, there are only 2 architects presently that have a standing vote. He also acknowledged Mr. Mylott's experience with an architectural background and extensive sense of design. Mr. Friedman said that, unfortunately, many time they find themselves in the position where they are trying to pursuade the other members, who are all qualified engineers in various categories, to understand why they are objecting to a design or a material that is being proposed by a developer. Mr. Friedman said that his concern is that Evanston has an architectural heritage and there was a time not long ago when clients insisted on quality buildings, quality design, materials and construction. However, now his experience is that time and time again when he makes comments suggesting certain materials for a specific project, they are P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11l13/00 Page 7 struck with the comment "it is not in the budget." bir. Friedman said as a result, the Committee is looking week after week at mediocre designs and buildings, in terms of building materials and he stressed the importance of protecting the architectural heritage of Evanston. He noted that they are not attempting to be "design police" or force designs of certain architectural steles. He also stressed that their intent is not to try and keep within the original historical design of buildings from days ago, however the same quality of building materials would be preferred. The intent, in his opinion on why more architecturally experienced votes would make a difference, is to have a binding review that requires developers to use quality products and materials that protect the architectural heritage and quality to continue within Evanston, regardless of the design of the building: which is a secondary issue that is just as important in fitting in with its surroundings. Mr. Friedman reiterated that the importance here is quality design and use of materials. He said that design guidelines and the use of quality materials on something that will lass can specify quality design. He used dryvit as an example as one of those items that doesn't last and should not be allowed in Evanston if they want to maintain an architectural heritage. Mr. Friedman concluded that he feels one of the recommendations that this Committee should continue discussion further is to: 1) give more votes to the architectural staff members of the City and, 2) to attract additional design professionals to the SPAARC and for binding appearance review is accepted. He stressed that if someone is devoted enough come every week to these meetings in the middle of the afternoon that last at least 2 hours, then he or she should serve on this Committee and be able to vote. Ald. Newman pointed out that with the City's Site Plan Review Committee, its was intended on being a site plan Committee where the members reviewed the proposed development or project as far as traffic and other site related issues. He recalled that at some point and time, appearance review was somehow thrown into the review process somewhat as an after -thought. Ald. Newman said that he is concerned, especially, after reading some of the minutes of the SPAARC and the comments made by a staff member about a project in the I" ward that had nothing to do with how the people in his ward felt. He stated that the significance of this is that if they went forward with binding review, he would not want it to be a staff committee that would be handled by staff or where staff had affecting votes in the matter. He said that he does not have a problem with staff on the Committee handling site plan because there are some professional opinions that staff possesses that needs to be considered. However, he stressed that when you get into appearance review, the will of the community leans towards citizen input and preference of citizen board members. He agrees with Mr. Friedman in that there should be more architectural vote on the Committee when it comes to binding appearance review, but in his opinion, this architectural experience should be citizens of the community, not necessarily City staff members. He noted that there are City staff that do not even live in Evanston and he feels it would be to the best interest for appearance review decisions to come from citizens living in the community with the backgrounds stated by Mr. Friedman. Ald. Newman stressed that he would not support for 5 minutes if binding 0 it P&D Commiuee Mtg. Minutes of lit] 3/00 Page 8 appearance review were put in the hands of staff and allowing them more votes. He does feel staff should sit in on these meetings but not have any majority vote. Aid. Engelman said that he would like to explore what Aid. Newman has suggested because he recognizes the idea of the importance of binding review and the importance of citizen input because of the effect it will have on those living in this community. He pointed out that, in his opinion. what is essential in this matter is how you construe what both Aid. Newman and Mr. Friedman has suggested. Aid. Engelman asked if there should be citizen members in addition to architect members. Aid. Newman clarified that he was suggesting that the citizen members would be architects in similarity to Mr. Friedman's suggestion of utilizing, the architectural staff on hand. He also clarified that he feels the review process should be split between site plan review and appearance review because he thinks it two diticrent discussions. He also noted that he agrees with Mr. Friedman as far as staff input on site plan review but feels the architectural vote and input should be from citizens when it comes to binding appearance review. Aid. Engelman stated the problem with what he has heard it that this does put him in the mind of design police. He explained that the suggestion that there be a citizens committee, including architects, talking about appearance separate and apart from professional staff that talks about how the building looks, is not what he was hearing from Mr. Friedman. His understanding of what Mr. Friedman is suggesting, which he also has concern about, are issues with setting certain quality and materials. He noted the disapproval of dryvit stated by Mr. Friedman, which City Council has voted to approve on some buildings, one being on one of the most visible buildings that will be build in Evanston and using our own money. Aid. Engelman pointed out that another issue that bothers him to a certain extent, is what Mr. Friedman said, but to a great extent with Aid. Newman's comments. He explained this concern being the additional burden and hope for a developer in the process. He acknowledged the work done by the Plan Commission on binding appearance review and the importance of incorporating this in with the site plan review process so as not to hold up the developer with additional stages by separating the reviews. Lengthy discussion took place on Aid. Engelman's opinion of the difference he mentioned between Mr. Friedman's suggestion and Aid. Newrnan's opinion on additional architectural input and vote on binding appearance review and the separation of review from site plan. Mr. Friedman did clarify that although he feels more architectural vote is needed in both site plan and definitely with binding appearance review, he feels staff on hand should be utilized. However, he is not against the possibility of citizen architectural expertise be added but only stresses tha the City is fortunate to have that expertise on hand. He noted that City staff devotes an exuberant amount of time to the SPAARC. He stressed that his intention is not to add additional time or burden to the developer in the review process but only to make sure the review process is done with the utmost assurance that the review is considered and done by the most qualified process available. Mr. Cook interrupted at this point, reminding the Committee, staff and all in attendance, that at this time the Plan Commission is only asking for the P&D Committee's review of what they have put before them and direction of whether they feel it is with the effort to P&d Committee Mtg. Minutes of 11/13/00 Page 9 go forward with incorporating a binding appearance review process within the site play review process. He noted that whether or not it should be a separate review process or whether additional citizens with architectural background should be added or whether additional staff vote would be considered, is another issue that can be discussed in the future. Although equally important, he requested the Committee to keep in mind that the Plan Commission is looking for direction at this time on whether to go forward with guidelines necessary to implement this process. Ald. Wynne entered the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Ms. Anderson gave history at this time reminding the Committee of all the past discussion on binding appearance review. She said there was a great deal of discussion and research done by various citizens that came before P&D on this subject, which some served on the Commission, to prepare the draft of the current ordinance. She noted that many communities up and down the north shore were studied and materials gathered She reminded the Committee that appearance review was thrown into site plan because the then Council was very nervous about what the litigation picture would be if they went to binding appearance review. Ms. Anderson recalled that at that time, several Council members came up with establishing a track record before they go to a final decision. She noted that Site Plan & Appearance Review were put together in order to review and presumably establish that track record. She said that this whole issue of binding appearance review was asked for by both Thomas Stafford, (Plan Commissioner at the time) and herself, who on the Plan Commission claimed that they had had sufficient time to have established that track record. Ms. Anderson also noted that at that time, their were several developers that questioned why the City of Evanston does not have a binding appearance review because they were used to dealing with this review in other communities similar to Evanston. She noted that the subcommittee of the Plan Commission for binding appearance review was opposed to this and began meeting to start discussions on the matter. She clarified that the reason this is in site plan goes back to these discussions that took place prior to the passage of the ordinance. She noted tha the concern about what the litigation record would be, would result in being bogged down by endless cases on the basis of binding appearance review. Ald. Wynne apologized for her tardiness. She stressed her total concern for this issue on binding appearance review and appreciates the opportunity for input in the decision making process. She also stressed the importance of incorporating binding appearance review because in her experience, she has seen time and time again where developers have built something different from what they presented to the Site Plan Committee. She strongly urges that binding appearance review should be incorporated into site plan review encourages the Plan Commission to go forward with putting in order some guidelines to be followed. Mr. Jonathan Perman, Evanston Chamber of Commerce, made comments in support of binding appearance review. He complimented all the work that has been done by staff and the importance their expertise and the expertise being utilized. Staff has always gone the extra mile for the Chamber and this should be acknowledged. He does have a P&D Committee Mtg. Minuets of 11/13/00 Page 10 problem with separating site plan review from binding appearance review because he agrees with Aid. Engelman in that an extra step in the process only puts an extra burden on the developer. He also noted that if the system is working well now, why add another layer to the process. He also agrees %%ith Mr. Friedman in that more architects should be on the SPAARC and able to vote, however, he does not agree that it necessarily has to be staff, although staff input is very important. Mr. Perman felt it important to mention that Oak Park, which he feels is a similar community to Evanston, does not have binding appearance review but has managed to stay within the character and heritage of their community. After more extended discussion, Chairman Bernstein asked the Committee's consensus for the Plan Commission going forward with guidelines for binding appearance review. It v+ras clear by all members that they are totally in favor of going forward. Aid. Wynne especially noted her support and also noted that there is an enormous amount of support in the 3 ward for binding appearance review. Mr. Cook acknowledged the Commission's support and noted that the Plan Commission will now go forward with designing a set of guidelines for this review. He assured the Committee to keep them informed of the progress along the way and that the Plan Commission will come back before them after the guidelines has been agreed upon. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Bernstein announced the scheduled special meeting of Planning & Development Committee to address Ordinance 108-0-00 — Amendments to the Residential/Landlord Tenant Ordinance. This meeting will be held in the Council Chambers beginning at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 20a`. He noted that this meeting will be televised and all are welcomed to attend, ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 ( � Jacque a l;.Vrownlee Is r� Is • MINUTES Planning & Development Committee October 23, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: A- Newman, S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A- Alterson, P. Casey, M. Franz, P. Haynes, R. Molinary, W. Moran, E. Szymanski, J. Terry, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:43 p.m. L� APPROVAL OF THE MINVrES OF OCTOBER 10. 2000 MEETING Ald. Kent moved approval of the minutes of the October 10th, 2000 meeting, seconded by Aid. Wynne. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 5-0. - - ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) PUBLIC HEARING — Homeless Shelter Extension Public Hearing Chairman Bernstein called on Mr. Wolinski to give a brief synapsis on the basis for this public hearing on this issue. Mr. Wolinski explained that this public hearing is at the request of the organization kno%rn as Connections for the Homeless to seek an exemption from Ordinance 49-0-86 which deals with the homeless shelters under our zoning ordinance. He said that the ordinance itself, exempted the public shelter at 607 Lake Street beginning back in 1986 with the requirement that it be brought back every year for a decision of the Planning & Development Committee and City Council whether or not to continue the exemption to allow the existence of the shelter. He said by ordinance, the P&D Committee is directed to hold a public hearing and the Council to render a decision on whether or not to extend this exemption from the homeless shelter ordinance. Chairman Bernstein then recognized those that signed up to speak on this matter. 0 �r PAD Committre Mtg. i Minutes of 1023100 Page 2 i Ms. Jean Baron, 1501 Hinman Avenue, stated that she is a 15-year resident in the neighborhood in which the homeless shelter is located. She read from a prepared statement in favor of continuing the operation of the shelter. She further commended the new director and his stair and acknowledged the previous staff that originally first opened the shelter. She mentioned in her letter how this shelter demonstrates Evanswn's humanity side and how all citizens of Evanston should be proud of this shelter. She also mentioned Raymond Park being shared by all; children, adults, senior citizens and the homeless. She noted that she has never experienzed any trouble or apparent problems imposed by the homeless individuals that also enjoy the park as well. Chairman Bernstein acknowledged two memorandums received from Mr. & Mrs. George & Joan Martin and Mr. Carl Horn/Ms. Carol Lirme and then read each one; both in support of continuing the operation of the shelter. He noted that each Committee member received a copy of these letters. With no further comments or discussion, Aid. New an moved for approval of the one- year extension from exemption of Ordinance 49-0-86. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. The public hearing was concluded at this point. Chairman Bernstein noted that the next two issues on the agenda have been the subjects of conversations with the Chair prior to tonight's meeting; both of which are going to be . continued for specific reasons. He stated, as far as the Residential/Landlord Tenant Ordinance, Ordinance 108-0-00, they have received some additional correspondence from Ms. Haynes and noted that he has spoken with Mr. Hollis Settles and with Mr. Bob Heiberger, but there are issues that will require this to be continued beyond this meeting. He further noted that the item for Starbucks at 519 Main Street has been continued over the past several meetings, however, the applicants have requested to be removed generally, from the agenda until further notice to give them an opportunity to meet with the neighbors. Chairman Bernstein asked staff haw the neighbors will be notified of when this item will be returned to the agenda Mr. Wolinski responded that his suggestion to all would be to leave their name and address and phone number with the Committee Secretary who will notify them in advance of the scheduled meeting or citizens may call the Zoning Office the Friday before regularly scheduled Council meetings. Ald. Wynne volunteered that citizens and neighbors may call her for information also. (P31 Special Use for 519 Main Street Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Mr. George Sarfatty's presence, on behalf of the applicant, who sent the letter to the Committee requesting that this item be continued He also acknowledged all that have signed up for comment on this item and due to the fact that this has been continued over the past several meeting, he asked if anyone wished to make any comments at this time. Mr. Sarfatty did not wish to speak at this time requesting to hold comments until they return on the agenda. 0 i P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10/23/00 Page 3 Mr. Patrick Gibbons, 921 Madison Street, stated that he has concerns with traffic issues . in the area, however, he does enjoy taking walks mith his family and the pedestrian traffic and appreciates having a variety of shops, restaurants, etc. in the neighborhood to attract this traffic. He stated that it is not the issue of whether or not Starbucks is opened in that location, on the contrary, he is more interested in vibrancy coming to Southeast Evanston. His feelings are that at the present, Southeast Evanston is being passed up and he is concerned about the message the City is sending to the business community. He noted that with the 3 condominiums going up, this is a perfect time to attract new businesses to the area. He stated that lately he has been doubtful about mo%-ing to south Evanston versus the Central Street area Chairman Bernstein assured Mr. Gibbons that he did not make a mistake by moving to south Evanston. Chairman Bernstein concluded citizen comment on this item at this time. He announced the removal of this item from the agenda until further notice. (P2) Ordinance 108-0-00 — Amendments to the Residential/I.a0lord Tenant Ordinance Chairman Bernstein reminded the fact that he will be asking for a motion to hold this item in Committee due to conversation he has had with Mr. Wolinski and members of the Evanston Property Owners Association, who are of the opinion that due to the nature of this subject, proper notification should have gone out to the public. He acknowledged Mr. Hollis Settles, Chairman of the Human Relations Commission, who wished to address the Committee. • Mr. Settles said that he wished to comment with regards to the past discussion he heard at the October 10th meeting on the merits and other side issues. He reminded the Committee that they are duly charged with considering legislation that comes before them on behalf of all the citizens of Evanston. He said that this is exactly what the intent of the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance is also and he hopes that the Committee will continue to deal with this on the merits. He noted that the Commission has felt for some time that this ordinance needed an enforcement mechanism, which is the intent of this amendment. He also wished to speak on behalf of the Commission itself. He said that this legislation is not simply the work of the staff; he distinguished that the Commission has put in many hours over months into this matter. He even noted that a Committee %vas formed within the Commission to deal with this matter that included the former Chairman, David Bradford and Commission member Nancy Bailey who put in numerous hours over several months along with Paula Haynes and her staff focusing on this amendment. Mr. Settles wished to address a question that was brought up at the October 10`h meeting, on whether this could be implemented and dealt with fairly. He is of the opinion that it can and this is where the administrative adjudication comes in. He clarified that all stafL along with the Commission, is attempting by this amendment to give voice to the people in the community as needed. He noted that at least half of the nine wards in Evanston have landlord/tenant issues. Mr. Settles also addressed concern for enforcement of this ordinance, as mentioned in the October I01h meeting also. He stated his opinion is that you do not enforce the law by degrees; it is either a Iaw, a statute or an ordinance and all should be dealt with on their own merits. P&D Committee Mtg. Minors of 10/23/00 Page 4 Jason Nevo(?), said that he currently lives at 1109 Sherman, however he experienced significant problems with his landlord at his previous address at another location in Evanston. He was in disbelief that he would ever experience such mis-treatment from a landlord, noting that he has a government job making decent money and considers himself an educated individual who is aware of his rights. He explained to the Committee his past experience was with a house he was renting and the obvious problems that needed to be rectified. At that time, he was fully aware of the currcut landlord/tenant ordinance, however, he was still left in a position of not having any particular way of getting out of his situation without it costing him a lot of money. He called two lawyers who refused to take his case because they felt that although he was right, they would not be able to win his case in Cool: Country court because the judges in Cook County are completely siding with landlords. fir. Nevo strongly feels that with the inclusion of the proposed amendments together with administrative adjudication, will give the opportunity for the tenant to get some justice in situations that would otherwise be very hard for them to receive through the Cook County court system. He also noted that the majority of tenants that run into bad landlord situations are usually with less resources, abilities, time or as stubborn as he is to pursue any legal action on their own. Mn Nevo concluded that he really likes the ordinance as it stands right now and fully supports any effort to create some kind of enforcement at a local level. He feels that this makes much more sense, cost everyone less money and situations will be rectified faster. Mr. Bob Heibereer, residing at 2536 Marcy and also affiliated with Evanston Bond & Mortgage Company. He recalled that this ordinance went into effect or began approximately in 1975. He said that over these years, they have always requested review of this ordinance because, obviously many changes occur over a period of time, for example, the 5% interest on security deposits which has always been a matter of concern that he would like to having input on. Mr. Heiberger stated that they have been promised over the years, that once there was going to be a major change wit the Ordinance, that interest amounts, etc., would be all considered at that time. However, he only found out about this matter being on the agenda for consideration from a representative of Pioneer Press. Mr. Heiberger stressed his opinion that rental property owners and property managers should be called upon for their comments and should be involved with staff on any amendments to this ordinance. He said that they did finally meet with staff last Thursday and he is pleased for the, reconsideration of holding this over to give the Evanston Property Owners Association some time to prepare comments and to give notice to other property owners and managers. EN Ald. Newman noted that it was mentioned this evening that this issue was being considered at the Human Relations Commission for a substantial period of time. He questioned during this review process if property owners were contacted to give their pint of view or chance to offer suggestions. Mr. Settles admitted that they were not contacted during the review process. Ald. Newman said that in his opinion, the property owners should have had some input during the entire review process. He said because if this ordinance with amendments is going to be represented to the P&D Committee, he as a Committee member would feel much more confident with any support given knowing • :a► P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10R3100 Page 5 that this was a joint effort and project of stag', the Commission and input from propert_v owners. He is swayed to believe that this process wasn't complete in tams of the tview without involvement of the people that this ordinance will effect. Aid. Newman recalled to the best of his knowledge that this ordinance has always been under the jurisdiction of the Housing Commission and he can not recall when this jurisdiction %vas changed otiYr to the Human Relations Commission. He is sure that this change -was not done by ordinance since he has been on Council. He does remember that some time ago, the Housing Commission had concerns about this ordinance and the issue was under consideration and he recalls at that time some of the concerns of the Evanston Property Owners Association (EPOA) were addressed. Aid. Newman strongly believes that they should continue to review this ordinance with inclusion of the parties that will be effected by it, as well as giving proper time to address the many questions and concerns that still remain. For example, he still has many concerns and questions on adequate staffing and administration to address these proposed amendments for enforcement of the ordinance. Aid. Newman requested a memorandum regarding which staff will prepare, and how they will prepare, the processing and paperwork for cases to go to the Administrative Adjudication. Included with this information, he would like to know what the current duties are of those individuals proposed to do this work are before we add on this new responsibility. He clarified that he is requesting this information to assess whether or not additional staff will be required to enforce these amendments. Aid. Newman stated that one situation that he finds common is when the tenant uses his security deposit as the last months rent; he noticed that this violation was not on the list. He understands that sometimes landlords are slow in returning this money, if at all, however this is still a violation by the tenant. Ms. Haynes confirmed that situation is indeed a violation of the ordinance. She explained that her staff will be ticketing for such a violation and there will be a fine so stated with that ticket for tenants. Aid. Newman asked if it is the intent, if they go to Administrative Adjudication, to go after tenants and does staff believe that the City will be able to collect these fines. If so, what will be the process? Mr. Casey responded that if there is a fine or judgement against the tenant or the landlord, staff' will follow-up with letters as they do now. He said the final collection piece is still to be determined however it will be similar to other adjudication cases, which is referral to collection agencies or referring the judgement to a credit bureau. He is optimistic that by using this means of collection if not made in a timely manner, that they will be able to collect in the future when the person is trying to obtain some type of credit and is denied because of this debt. Aid. Newman questioned if the City needs to go before a judge in order for the Administrative Adjudicator to administer a judgement. Mr. Casey confirmed that the adjudicator without going before the judge can administer judgements. Ms. Haynes added that she views this as a useful tool for landlords when they pull a credit report on a tenant and see that they owe fines under the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance. Mr. David Bradford, requested to respond to Aid. Newman's comments regarding the process with the review of this ordinance. First, he noted that this process has been an IL P&D committee Mtg. Minutes of 1023/00 Page 6 issue with the Human Relations Commission since the 6 years he has sertied as a member. He informed Ald. Newman and the other Committee members that during this period of time, they have held 2 joint meetings uith the Housing Commission wito enthusiastically supported and endorsed the Ht-'*`''an Relations Commission's concern and desire to add effective and impartial enforcement mechanisms to the existing ordinance_ Mr. Bradford clarified that his Commission does not report to the EPOA, however, they do report to the Human Senices Commission. He noted that at both the joint meetings with the Housing Commission. he is absolute]%- certain that there was generous input from property owners because there are numerous property managers that have belonged to that Commission. Therefore, this ordinance is not a surprise and he apologizes to Mr_ Heiberger if he was unaware of these meeting. %fr. Bradford reiterated that it is their desire to make this an impartial enforcement: mechanism that is party neutral. He concluded that the review of this ordinance has been not secret and they have been more than open about this subject. He acknowledged Aid. Newman's concerns on the need for possible additional administration and the costs involved, hoix-ever, at this time those concerns are relatively minor, in his opinion, until these amendments are worked out and included in the ordinance. Mr. Settles added, in regards to fir. Heiberger's comments regarding concern for property o%kmers and managers input that there does not seem to be a voice out there or representation on behalf of the tenant. Mr. Albert Bowen, landlord and rental propeny owner, expressed his opinion on the constant comments he has heard regarding landlords properly screening their tenants and doing credit checks. He emphasized due to the location of his building in south Evanston, if he were to wait to find a "squeaky -clean" tenant, he would have been out of business years ago. His point being that in some neighborhoods it is virtually impossible to always have, if any, perfect tenants according to credit checks. Mr. Bowen said, regarding tenants living out the last month on their security deposits, suppose this tenant does hundreds of dollars worth of damage to the unit. He questioned what the landlord is should do in these cases, will administrative adjudication assist in these cases. Chairman Bernstein responded that the Ordinance and the state law gives you the right to say that is not how it works but he realizes that tenants wiII continue to proceed with this action. He stated this is where the concern lies and being able to have enforcement at the City level and this is what Ms. Haynes has been trying to accomplish with this amendment. Aid. Newman suggested that a special meeting, be scheduled to hear both property owners/managers and tenants comments and to give property time for discussion with all parties. The entire Committee and staff agreed «ith this suggestion. Ald. Kent noted his appreciation to staff for the information that they have presented to the Committee for this meeting. He also appreciates all the comments that he has heard so far this evening, especially Mr. Bowen's who has a building in his ward and he too has witnessed this situation over and over again. Aid. Kent asked staff if there is any opportunity within the ordinance to enhance some type of communication to tighten the regulations with Cook County Housing Authority since Evanston has over 800 tenants on Section 8. Ms. Haynes felt that there is no way to include any regulations to govern Cook County Housing Authority with the Section 8 program within this ordinance. She suggested that this could be done at the landlord level who needs to tighten own regulations and P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1023/00 Page 7 screening with tenants on the Section 8 program. Because as mentioned before, most Section 8 tenants are good, there are just a handful that give the prvgni n a lad name. She also expressed her concern with the violation of using the security depcWt for last month's rent and noted this being highlighted in the ordinance. She has discussed with her staff about doing some type of internal certification program or training pmgrarn for both landlords and tenants regarding what is a violation and what is within their rights to do. She said that most people are simply not aware of what they can and can not do and she feels that education is the key for more compliance to this ordinance. Aid. Newman explained for the record, that his concern about this is mainly how this ordinance is going to be applied to what he considers the non-professional landlords who rent coach houses, 2-flats and 3-flats. He is not as concerned with the bigger buildings that are usually managed by management companies that are more experienced. He said that he wants to be convinced that this is not going to blow up with members of the Council in terms of how this ordinance is going to apply to those landlords he mentioned above. He stated that he wants to satisfy himself in the process that this can be applied in partiality or he wants to be satisfied that his position is that they ought to proceed with the starting off' with the bigger buildings, if successful, then proceed onto the smaller landlords. He extended his appreciation to the Human Relations Commission on the work that they have done. Mr. Neva disagreed with Aid. Newman stating that he feels just the opposite as far as not proceeding first with the smaller landlords. From his experience, it is the smaller landlords that people have so much trouble with because they tend to get away with things without much notice while the bigger property managed buildings are out in the open and have the means to take care of problems sooner. He feels it would be more helpful and fair to all if the ordinance applies to all landlords and property owners equally. The Committee discussed a date to set for the special meeting. It was agreed to hold the special meeting on Monday, November 20`h to begin at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Molinary suggested inviting Mr. Gary Jump, Director of HUD because Cook County Housing Authority governs them and they are over the Section 8 program. He felt his input might be valuable even if the City has no jurisdiction over that program. Chairman Bernstein agreed, however, he feels that the City needs to get their own house in order first before meeting with HUD. He suggested that maybe a meeting could be planned after the special meeting on November 20`h so that they consider what their own property owners and tenants have to say first. Mr. Wolinski advised the Committee that he is in possession of the property owners list that he will use to notify of the meeting on November 20'h. Staff will hand out fliers to tenant so that they are aware of the meeting also. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1023/00 Page 8 ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m r� u 0 • x • MINUTES Planning & Development Committee October I0, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: A. Mm-rnan, S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, L. Allen, A. Alterson, P. Casey, M. Franz, P. Haynes, R. Molinary, W. Moran, M. Mylott, M. Redmond, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner, J. Hammerschlag Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 MEETING Ald. Wynne moved appro%al of the minutes of the September 25th, 2000 meeting, seconded by Ald. Engelman. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein announced that once again Starbucks has requested not to be heard this evening as they did last meeting. Staff brought attention to the memorandum received from Starbucks making this request and is expected to be on the agenda for the next P&D meeting. (P I Plat of Subdivision at 2014-2018 Moves Street Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Ms. Bihla Solomon, owner of the property. Ald. Engelman revealed that the Solomon's are clients in his office, therefore, he will not be participating in discussion for this item. Yb P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10/10100 Page 2 Ald. Newman stated that he does not recall any subdivisions this year or in past ye.ucs coming before the Committee and asked if this is the first request for this year. M~r. WolinsW responded that staff has always brought any subdivisions before the Committ.-te. Aid. Engelman recalled the subdivision on Hampton Court a few years ago, which was subdivided out as residential lots and apartment building. Mr. Wolinski recalled anotbim subdivision in i' Ward. Aid. Newman corrected that that case w-as denied and did M-a come before this Committee. Mr. Wolinski assured that any request for subdivisions & come before P&D; the request have been sporadic. Aid. Newman said that he does nim understand why some cases go before the ZBA and do not come before P&D. bir. Alterson responded that they have not received many such as this one where it is a simpD& residential subdivision. He said with this case he believes that one of the lots in the underlying subdivision is actually being divided. If this were an instance where the property was just being divided along a recorded lot line in a subdivision, it would not necessarily need to come back for Plat approval. Aid. Newman inquired that there is really no basis for the City to deny the subdivision if it is outside of a historic district. Mr. Wolinski responded that the City's Corporation Counsel has decreed that these a= ministerial acts by the Council if it is outside the historical district. Chairman Bernstein - added as long as the resulting lots conform. With no further discussion, Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion with Ald. Engelman abstaining from vote. (P2) Ordinance 118-0-00 — Snecial Use and Variations for 2142 Ashland Avenue, . Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the applicant, Mr. Jon Leinweber. Ald. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 118-0-00, seconded by Aid. Engelman. Aid. Newman clarified one point, noting that where there is 0' setback, Mr. Leinweber is the property owner on the other side. Mr. Leinweber corrected that it is not exactly 0' but more like 18" setback. Chairman Bernstein said that he has had the privilege of seeing what Mr. Leinweber has done in the past and commended his work and pledged his support for this project. With no feather discussion, the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 116.0-00 — Special Use for 2122 Central Street Mr. Eric Fosse, owner of Homemade Pizza Company, introduced himself. Chairman Bernstein noted that the ZBA voted unanimously in favor of this special use. He asked if it was correct as the transcript reads that this establishment will not sell whole cooked pizzas. %r. Fosse confirmed that statement. Chairman Bernstein asked if this is because of the lack of ovens or equipment to extend this service. Mr. Fosse responded that the real reason is that service is not what his company actually does; they sell all ready made up pizzas prepared with fresh ingredients that are ready to take home to cook in the oven . for 12 minutes. He noted that there are approximately 600 stores, not Homemade Pula, 9k, P&D Cornmium Mtg. Minutes of 10/10/00 Page 3 but similar stores doing the same operation on the West Coast and appears to be growing in interest.. Chairman Bernstein asked why then is he asking to sell slices of pizza during lunch hours. Mr. Fosse explained that most people do not want a whole pizza w lunchtime and he assumes most of his customers to be shoppers or local business people. He feels the demand for that time of the day is to sell by the slice. ARL Nev.-man asked if there are future plans for delivery. Mr. Fosse responded that there are not immediate Plans for delivery at this time. However, if they did consider delivery in the future, these pizzas would be uncooked also. Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 116-0-00, seconded by Ald. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 93-0-00 Reeulatine Development in Srxu:ial Floodnlain Areas Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that the City had to adopt a floodphdn ordinance back in early 1990's so that residents of Evanston could qualify for federal flood insurance. He explained that the ordinance is basically a revision to that ordinance which has no direct effect on anything that they currently do; more administrative language revisions. He said that floodplain in Evanston is essentially the banks of the Northshore channel and some of the beach area in northeast Evanston along Lake Michigan. He said to his knowledge, they have no structures in the flood plains, however, this is required by the State that the City stay current with the statewide ordinance so the residents can apply 18 and can succeed in getting flood plain insurance. With no further comment, Aid. Engelman moved to approval Ordinance 93-0-00, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P5) Ordinance 145-0-99 — Planned Develonment — Sherman Plaza Chairman Bernstein recapped that there was lengthy discussion on this item at the last meeting and it was noted at that time that this case was going before the Parking Committee on October 5's. He also acknowledged the modifications to the plan that was handed out to the Committee by Mr. Alterson. Chairman Bernstein asked Aid. Newman for a report on the Parking Committee's discussion. Aid. Newman stated that the Parking Committee has a recommendation that has been incorporated, that they were able to work it out to keep the alley located next to the bank and the Behles architect office, basically open without increasing the angle on the slope to the entrance of the garage. He further noted that they moved the elevators from in the middle of the block to Davis and Benson. He explained that the Committee did this for two reasons, 1) it will help Davis Street to some extent and 2) it will also have the people who exit the transportation center have an incentive to walk on the west side of Benson to the corner and cross at the light versus crossing through the buses in the middle of the block. He feels confident with the decisions made by the Parking Committee and feels they have solved, from the parking perspective, some of the issues that were before the Committee. He also believes that the businesses on Church Street . that expressed their concerns at the last meeting are pleased with these decisions also; he acknowledged Mr. Yohannan from First Bank & Trust and Mr. Ken Behles, the architect. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10/10/00 Page 4 He acknowledged Mr. Jon Hammerschlag of the Parking Committee. and mentioned &-ir the record all the good work he had done with this case and the scrvire he has pnividL-%i the City with his expertise to suggest to the developer how to redt-sign the garage ;tts presented. Chairman Bernstein brought to attention the issue of the stacking of truck traffic ami noted that it was discussed on the Parking Committee by the developer that the trucks would be corning in from Emerson and there will be a coordinator. Aid. Newman note that now the alley and the loading provisions for Sears are not separate. Chairman Bernstein did recall that being discussed and also that the trucks %ill now be exiting oato Davis Street. He was initially referring to the estimated 75 trucks that %%ill deliver each day and the coordination to take place with the backing up and stacking of these trucks — he questioned where these trucks are going to be stacked. Ald. Wynne recalled that the developer stated that any backed up deliver trucks would be sitting in a waiting area somewhere else outside of Evanston and the coordinator would call them in. Although this part of the discussion at the Parking Committee was recalled, it was not observed in writing in the document before the Committee. Aid. Newman said that this could be written in the Redevelopment Agreement; the other Committee members agreed. Chairman Bernstein brought to attention the information in their packet regarding a study being done with respect to a survey developed by Mr. Tusken. He asked that with the new location of the elevators at the corner, does this eliminate the potential for the bridge across, which he is still advocating. He requested that staff do a study on this because he feels this is a viable alternative to some of the pedestrian problems with crossing in the middle of Henson Avenue. Mr. Klutznick entered the meeting at this point. Chairman Bernstein expressed the Committee's gratitude in working out the parking garage situation. He asked Mr. Klutznick for clarification on the stacking of the trucks that are backed up for deliver. Mr. Klutznick assured that there will be dock master that will control all the trucks, not just Sears, but for all the docks within the development underneath the garage and the entities that are served by them. He confirmed that the backed up trucks will not be in Evanston and they have established a location in Skokie where the trucks will be located. Ald. Newman moved to approve the amendments made to Ordinance 145-0-04, seconded by Ald. Wynne. Mr. AIterson revealed additional changes over and above what the Committee received in their packets. He noted that in Section 2, there is a typo; wording should change to "not less the 24 feet and no more than 42 feet." Also under Section 2 (b) there should be additional wording at the end of the sentence to add -'and thereafter conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance." Linder Section 2 (c) should be changed from 172' to 175', under (d) should be changed from 70 V2' to 73'. He continued that change should be made to Section 4 (b) which should read 175' instead of 171.5' and under (c) should read 147' instead of 146'. He noted one further change on Section 5 which references attachment 1 which is the conceptual site plan; the words "as �I modified here in" are added to reflect the changes that have taken place in Site Plan 0 X P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10/10100 Page 5 • Review which are included in Council's packet materials.' With the additiound amendments so noted, the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Newman moved to approve the entire Ordinance 145-0-00 — Planned Development for Sherman Plaza. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Ll Ordinance 108-0-00 — Amendments to the R. esidential/Land ford Tenant Ordinance: Chairman Bernstein acknowledged his. Haynes and requested that she give Fir presentation at this time. Ms. Haynes acknowledged the specific questions from dw Committee at the last meeting regarding administrative procedures as well as the process for administrative adjudication. She brought attention to the flow chart presented before the Committee which displays "The Process" for enforcement of the Residentio Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. She explained in detail the process from alleged violation that comes to the Human Relations Department for one of the specialist ao investigate. She said upon findings from that investigation, there is either no probable cause and mediation is then offered to the respondent. She said upon finding probabOe cause, the flow chart shows the process from issuing a ticket, then proceeding to Administrative Adjudication and the outcome of that hearing and finally whether additional mediation is offered or civil remedy needs to be taken. Aid. Newman raised questioned the need for more staff to enforce this ordinance once iii is in place. Ms. Haynes explained current job functions of the Human Relations Specialist and what they are presently dealing w-itlt. She stressed that they are already dealing with approximately 2700 calls per year which her department is handling; the additional enforcement issues comes with administrative adjudication. Aid. Newman stated that he is very concerned with the procedure as it is written before them. He is worried about the City's involvement and doing things to wrong way. He said, as it appears, the City will actually be suing individual landlords for specific acts and he has a problem with the City staff doing this initiation. Ms. Haynes explained that Human Relations ,will still mediate these cases, as they currently due, however, the additional of fines will be ensued by the City's Administrative Adjudication process. Aid. Engelman's concern is with regards to being reasonable versus unreasonable and looking at the criteria that the landlord sets for his tenants. He noted that the landlord can refuse the allegations he is accused of according to the principles or conditions he sets for his particular building. He asked for an example of an alleged violation. Ms. Haynes gave the example of a situation where a security deposit not being returned within ?-0 days to a tenant. Her department would step in and mediate to find the reasons for 6-- landlord not returning the deposit and if the findings show probable cause, they would assist the tenant on the procedures they need to follow in order to try and pursue to get their money returned to them. Nevertheless, if probable cause is found against the landlord that a violation to the ordinance has been committed, then staff will issue a ticket for administrative adjudication and a fine to be set. Aid. Engelman said that from what . he is hearing, is the City now going to go to a penal system. The Committee questioned that if there is probable cause against the landlord, %vill the City assist the tenant in P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10/10/00 Page 6 getting their security deposit returned to them. Ms. Haynes said that is not the City s position to do because this would become a civil case between the tenant and the landlord, however staff would inform them of this and recommend what procedures tltny might want to take. The Committee expressed their discontent with this outcome. In most cases, the tenant is in dire need or in a position where they need their security deposit to relocate to another resideme. They agreed that in most cases, tenants don't have the funds to pursue legal action if they are in need to use their security deposit for relocation. Ms. Haynes switched direction to focus on the tenant and reminded the Committee of the position the landlord ends up with in many cases where the violation is on the tenant. Mr. Wolinski commented that with Property Standards staff, they ane directed to cite the landlord in most cases leaving them to deal with problem tenants. Aid. Newman reiterated his opinion that additional staff is most likely- going to be needed. He said that there budget issues that need to be considered with this amendment to the ordinance and should be addressed during discussion of this item. He pointed out where in the past Human Relations staff has been way off in interpreting the rulings of the ordinance and gave an example of a situation where the outcome was devastating for the parties involved. He also reiterated his concerns with the City intervening and involvement in some of these cases that will go before Administrative Adjudication. Ms. Haynes defended on her statTs behalf that in the case mentioned by Aid. Newman, there were Fair Housing issue that needed to be dealt with because it fell under a discrimination situation. Mr. David Bradford proclaimed that his term just ended with the Human Relations Commission after serving 6 years and 3 years as Chairman. He defended the Human Relations staff and endorses the competency of their ability to handle all situations that come before them. He noted that the majority of their calls are inquiries, the second step are minor issues and the third step are serious situations that require staff mediation. Mr. Bradford said that they are in between a rock and a hard place because everyone has to have a place of shelter and there is the moral issue that comes to mind in this case. He feels this has been a very well thought out plan considering the frustration that he has experienced with staff having to deal %%ith the many terrible situations that come to them with landlords and tenants violating the leases because this ordinance and the amendments have been similarly designed to be party neutral. He said that it is clearly spelled out that both parties have to adhere to the ordinance. Ile feels that it is incumbent upon them to do the best they can from a moralistic point of view to have a landlord/tenant ordinance that has effective enforcement mechanisms. He said that as the ordinance stands currently, if either party chooses not to adhere to the rules stated, staff only has the force of persuasion behind them. Mr. Bradford addressed Ald. Newman and his concerns stated. He said that although he appreciates his concerns, he feels they are unfair and incorrect because the current Human Relations staff is a great staff that is more than capable of handling, in the most extreme professional manner, all situations that are presented to their department. He encouraged the Committee to aid and assist the Human Relations Commission in moving K P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10/10/00 Page 7 forward with this amendment. He reiterated that he feels the original ordinance is a gue'a one, however it is lacking one major thing, which is fair enforcement mcchanistns ++•hilt this amendment attempts to address. Aid. Engelman complimented Ms. Haynes and her staff and noted that they have alwa-ys acted professionally and feels they are more than competent. He noted that since fig tenure and her predecessor, Owen Thomas, he has disagreed on a number of oceasioms with their staff s interpretation on certain issues. However, on all those occasions, be experienced fair discussion Mth staff' and total professionalism at all times. He appreciates the additional staff that has been added to the Human Relations Department_ Aid. Engelman feels that it is a legitimate statement that we have to look at the budav-1 and what has been appropriated for certain divisions within the City. He said that consideration may have to be given to the fact that additional staff will have to be added in the future for enforcement. He noted that if they are already receiving these complaints, the argument can certainly be made that by adding the amendments for enforcement, most landlords will be likely to comply in a more timely manner. On the other hand, there is also the fact that with the amendment and the addition of Administrative Adjudication, this might add an extra step causing more time to pass before compliance is received. He noted that whatever the case, this must be thought out thoroughly and done right_ He has always felt that more thought should be given to future situations when considering the budget. For example, the sewer project and how • Council discussed how much it was going to cost to build it but failed to discuss how many things they could not build because of this project. Aid. Engelman said that in his opinion, the current ordinance is party neutral and the proposed amendments are party neutral as well. He does have concerns with staff getting involved and in the middle of a subjective debate as to what the facts are in a case when they should only use the enforcement mechanisms of the ordinance to go after violators. He feels that Administrative Adjudication will be as effective in this area as it will for Property Standards and Building Code issues. Aid. Engelman also stated that he has great concern for the grey areas that need to be clarified before these amendments should be passed. He has confidence that staff will handle those areas that still need to be worked out. Ms. Lisa Allen, Human Relations Specialist, stressed the fact that this is not something that is going to be enforced tomorrow. She noted that the proposed amendments to the ordinance will not be put into effect until after proper training and education to the public has taken place. She further noted that whether it is a small or large landlord, they will all be given the same opportunity to utilize this ordinance. Ms. Haynes added, in response to AId. Kent's concerns, that she and her staff have already planned to give full notification to all landlords when the proposed amendments will take effect and to initially educate the public of this ordinance as well. She figured that by the time they get people trained and obtain processes and procedures, which there still remains a lot that needs to be done in terms of administration, etc., she assumes the effective day of enforcement would be approximately around April 1 ", 2001. She recognized that this time frame or date should also be added to the ordinance. Ms. Haynes noted that this is P&D Committee Mrg. Minutes of 10110l00 Page S something that the Human Relations Commission has been working on for some time and have given a lot of thought to. 0 Aid. Wynne said that many of her concerns from the last meeting have been addressed but she does agree with the concern about budget impact She also is concerned with the wording in Section 1.3 on Complaint Filing Notification. She referred to the last sentence where it states "the Respondent shall ans-wer the allegations in the complaint within 15 days or face a negative inference..." Also where it reads "Finally, the notification will offer Commission's conciliation services (which are voluntary) before a formal investigation of complaint allegations is initiated.- Aid. Wynne said her opinion in reading this goes along with AId. Engelman's concern about staf3 s involvement. She further notices that this step is not demonstrated on the flow chart staff has presented. Ms. Haynes assured that specific wording could be stricken from the proposal. She further explained that this service becomes voluntary if the respond.Ant feel the alleged violation has not occurred on their part and they have another interpretation of the ordinance and what occurred. Aid. Wynne stated that it appears that what staff is saying is that they will offer conciliation before they looked further to figure out whether there , was actually probable cause. She feels this is where some of the grey area appears that needs to be clarified in order to address the situation properly. his. Haynes recognized Aid. Wynne's opinion and she pointed out that in Section 2.3 under "Mediation", it addressed that substantiated violations .%ill not be mediated. She noted that it may appear tha the 2 sections contradict each other but she reiterated that the wording in 1.3 can be eliminated. Ms. Haynes suggested that maybe it should be worded to state "if what they alleged constitutes a violation of the ordinance, then investigation %will be conducted." She added that the period of time could be within a period of 45 days. Mr. Molinary requested to address this issue since he helped writ-- this section. He explained that the intention there was that you can't mediate a violation not unless there is probable cause. He said they can mediate the effect of the violation to help the parties walk away with some resolution to avoid having to go to court. However, with regards to any fine, that goes to the actual penalty for violating the act itself which he noted, staff' will not impose but instead adjudication will do this. He pointed out that even in the case of mediating the effect of the violation, this is voluntary and the respondent does not have to take their offer. Aid. Engelman asked that is a situation where the tenant refuses to give the landlord access to their apartment for certain repairs, staff will help to mediate this situation but he adjudication process would go forward, in terms of any fines incurred. Staff concurred with this. Aid. Newman asked staff how do they feel collection of these fines ranging from S10 on up, will happen. He further questioned where the standards are to address this process. He noted that there is a representation here from staff that this is going to have an effect on tenants, however, he feels this will have very little effect on tenants when looking at the City's track record on collecting small fines from citizens. Discussion took place on the collection process and the realization of collecting small fines versus larger fines. Aid. Newman strongly feels this needs to be spelled out clearly and defined in some type of standards. He also feels, after hearing from Ms. Haynes that the investigation could r P&D Committee %tug. Mimics of 10/10100 Page 9 • take up to 45 days, that this will do no good, especially in the rase where a tenant is trying to collect on a security deposit. He asked Mr. Moran what the standards arse for the Administrative Adjudication law to assess the fines in these complaints. He noticed that it has been stated that fine amounts in the range of S 10 to S750 as penalties: how do they decide what amount to charge. Mr. Moran responded that the fines %hill be per %iolaIRM and the amount is determined by whatever the Department cites as to the number of violations and the seriousness of the situation, i.e., life threatening versus more minor situations. Aid. Newman acknowledged the fact that this fine process is not stated in the ordinance and reiterated the importance of needing a set of standards to address this. Ms. Haynes clarified that they will be establishing a fee schedule to include in this ordinance for Administrative Adjudication and the process or analysis for administering such fines. Mr. Casey assured that in these cases, just as with the Property Standards and Housing cases, they will definitely have to establish a fee schedule for fines in order for Administrative Adjudication could take place. He said that staff would have to have a set of guidelines in which to follow. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Casey what action he expects the City to take to collect any fines from tenants other than writing letters. Mr. Casey responded that underneath the Adjudication system, you are allowed to have default judgements unless they are able to fictively pursue collection of the fines by letters, tickets, etc. He said that basically, most cases result in being reported to a collection agency, which could result in effecting the defendants credit status. He noted that the amount of the fine has a lot to do with how much time and effort it is worth to collect the fines, that is why he is in favor of leaning towards the minimum fines of S100 for Adm. Adjudication. He said any amount below this becomes more difficult and not worth the time involved pursuing collection. Mr. Casey suggested, with regards to what he gust stated that it might be wise to conduct a cost analysis on fine amounts and the time consumption involved collecting such fines. Aid. Kent agreed, especially in the cases involving staffs time for complaint investigations and the entire process around these cases. Aid. Kent questioned how staff will handle cases, in terms of enforcement, where there is no lease in place and what opportunity does the tenant in those cases have to take advantage of this ordinance. Ms. Haynes responded that with the proposed amendments to the ordinance, it would be a violation on the landlord's part if no lease has been initiated. She would like to see this situation eliminated altogether. Chairman Bernstein asked how cases will be addressed where the landlord is not supplying sufficient heat. Mr. Wolinski clarified that that is a Property Standards violation. He stated that one of the ultimate goals with the amendments to the landlord/tenant ordinance is to separate the Property Standards issues from landlord/tenant issues because they are two different occurrences, however, that usually sequence with each other. He noted that the two departments have always worked closely because in some cases, it involves violations of the Property Standards Code as well as violations committed on either the landlord or tenants behalf that have to do with relationship between the two patties or monetary issues. He said that although the departments work closely together, he reiterated the violations are separate and must be addressed and fined separately. 0 t P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10/10/00 Page 10 More discussion ensued between the Committee and staff. It was a definite consensus of the Committee that many of the issues and concerns discussed this evening are not clear in the amendments and documentation as preserrted. The Committee agreed that there are no definitions of standards for fines, which needs to be addressed. The Committee also agreed that budget appropriations regarding the possibility of more staff, needs to be considered for the future with regards to enforcement or this ordinance. Ms. Haynes stated in her staffs defense with regards to comments made by Aid. Neuman, that during the time she was interim Executive Director of Human Relations, before she was able to hire the specialist, she was very short -staff. She informed the Committee that her secretary stepped -up as an interim specialist for a period of time to assist in mediation cases. Although some mistakes were made during that period of being short-staffed and some misinterpretations happened along the wny, she dealt with the situation of being at a dis-advantage with lack of staff and commends the efforts nude by the staff on hand for that period of time. She noted that it was a learning process and because of it, many benefits and lessons were gained. She said it is human error to make mistakes but the benefit is to learn from them. However, since that time she has had the opportunity and has been fortunate to hire two additional staff as Human Relations Specialist that are experienced, qualified and very competent as noted in their credentials. After all discussion, Aid. Newman requested that staff provide the Committee with a list of specific cases that they currently deal with and how these cases will be handled and forwarded to Administrative Adjudication. Chairman Bernstein further requested that with this list of cases he would like the complaints and allegations clearly defined and staffs interpretation. The Committee further requested that staff provide them with some type of standards for the fines and a fee schedule for these fines. It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this item in Committee for further requested information from staff. COMMUNICATIONS ZBA Decision & Transcrint in ZBA 00-23-A, concerning 121 Asbury Avenue ZBA Decision & Transcript in ZBA 000-14-A. concernine 1026 Garnett Place Chairman Bernstein asked staff the status of the legal opinion specifically regarding the decision made by the Zoning Board of Appeals upholding the Zoning Administratim decision with respect to Asbury and Garnett Place. Mr. Crum informed the Committee that staff is still awaiting Mr. Seigel's response at this point but should be forthcoming for the next meeting. Ald. Newman requested that he would like staff to have at least one inspector to be able to walk the perimeters of Emerson to Lincoln bounded by Ridge and Sheridan Road, to identify the over -occupancy situations in that area.. He would like to have these P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 10/10/00 Page I 1 • inspections on a regularly scheduled basis for continued monitoring of this problem. He noted that what come out of that hearing was the charge that was going on in that nma related to over -occupancy and the concerns that the neighbors had. He thinks that in thus area, it is another example of where there are visible violations of our ordinance. FL - reiterated his concern for this block and requested that staff' keep on top of this, Ncr- Wolinski assured Ald. Newman that staff would inspect this area in more detail. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vr.�L— JacquVie Mrownlee • 0 E Planning & Development Committee September 25, 2000 )Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: , A- Newman, S. Berstein, S. Engelman, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, L. Allen, A. Alterson, P. Haynes, R. Molinary, W. Moran, M. Mylott, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner Presiding Official: Alderman Bemtein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE N". UTES OF SEPTEMBER 11. 2000 MEETING Ald. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of the September I l th, 2000 meeting, seconded by Ald. Wynne. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 4- 0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Bernstein announced with regards to Starbucks, that originally the request for a special use on Main Street east of Chicago Avenue was going to be scheduled to be heard tonight. He said that at Starbucks request, this item was removed from the agenda. He informed any one in attendance for Starbucks, that they have requested this time to meet with the community and deal with some other issues. He noted that this item should be back on the agenda for the October 10'` meeting. (Pl ) Plat of Church Mat)le First Resubdivision Ald. Engelman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Ald. Engelman thanked Ms. Aiello for the clarification on the resubdivision of this property and why they were P8D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Sept. 25, 20J0 Page 2 doing it. It was clarified that they separated out the twv* panccls; one is where tl�c mini- • anchor is to be located and the other is where the bulk of the Ameritech Fault v'ill be — Chairman Bernstein added that there %vas also the question of whether they were smug to transfer the title of both properties and why separate now. He said the cxpla tirai _6 men was that the subdivision is for the purposes of dividing the property so that they can transfer the buildable parcel. With no further discussion, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 145-0-00 — Planned Development — Sherman Plaza Chairman Bernstein stated that this item v.-as held in Committee, historically, back on December 13`h, 2000. He introduced Mr. Thomas Klutznick, representing the Sherman Plaza Development, and requested he give a short presentation at this time. He also noted that 3 people have signed up to comment on this matter also. Mr. Klutznick noted that subsequent to December 1999, they have accomplished to address many of the concerns that were stated at that time. Most notably they have made their deal with Sears and in the process of doing so, they have made some plan revisions which City staff has prepared a report for Council to review. He said that essentially, they are here to go further in the process and are prepared to answer any questions at this point. He brought attention to the diagrams and illustrations showing the design and plans of the project. Chairman Bernstein acknowledged the sign-up sheet at this time. ! Mr. Ken Behles -- said that he is co-owner with his brother Joe Behles of the property at 816-18 Church Street which is located immediately east of the First Bank & Tnist building and noted tha this property is not currently part of th development, He expressed his support of the development and believes it will be a great addition to Evanston and the downtown area. He noted that his concerns deal with the use of the alley immediately behind his building, which is currently shown in the proposed plan to be occupied by the proposed parking garage and would be used as the main truck entry for the development. He said this is a shared alley thorough -way and he only has access to the rear of his property through this alley. He also noted that this alley is only accessible one way going eastbound. He said the accommodation for his vehicles, which are primarily passenger vehicles, is that he would have to exit his property through the parking garage and would have to mingle with the truck traffic. Mr. Behles stated that there have been other alternatives suggested for the parking garage, which were addressed in a meeting last week with the development team and City staff. He was very encouraged by the development of this alternative. He explained that the alternative begins the parking garage at the south edge of the alley as opposed to the inclusion of the entire alley. He expressed is support for this second alternative for consideration and believes that this will keep passenger vehicles and truck traffic separate and he would like to see the separation of the development from the current business by • this alley. He feels this alternative is a reasonable compromise. P&D Committee Mt . g Minutes of Sept. 25, 2000 Page 3 . Mr. Joe Behles -- noted, as mentioned by his brother, that he is alu) co-owner of t%a business and property at $16-18 Church and he lines at 2672 Otringt�,n :��-c lie aW expressed his support for the second alternative as presented in the meeting of last He pointed out their position as stated by his brother, with a diagram shooing the layv= of the property before the current parking garage. He also showed hoer the alley ws oo= 24' wide a served commercial tenants on both sides and then bname 14' wide onc--c the parking garage was built in the 60's. He noted that when this happened, they lost tlee cross connection served by the alley, which was acceptable because the alley really ocul} served the businesses on the outbound sides. He noted the current problem with au& traffic that exist with the Osco business and the expected difficulties that will arise with the new development_ Mr. Behles said that his point is, historically, when they when from a 24' alley which would allow easy passage, they now have a 14' dimension which does not allow for easy passage without definite difficulty. He said the development as proposed will only add to that difficulty and they would like to preserve what alley there currently is for access to their own business. As proposed, they are being asked to absorb the incoming traffic for approximately 75 trucks per day, as mentioned in the original presentation. He noted that any access or deliveries to their business will be very hard to deal with. Mr. Behles reiterated his encouragement for consideration of the second alternatir-e which will separate the truck traffic for the development from this alley. He also expressed his support for the development but strongly feels that consideration for the viability of the businesses not included in the development should be considered because they are land -locked and there are life safety access issues that should also be considered out of faimess. Ald. Newman put in perspective that the Behles' have raised a legitimate concern and the alternative they mentioned is logical. He noted how careful the Committee has to be on this decision and that he would like to accommodate the businesses not included in the development. As he looks back at this problem, the probability in the mistake they made in this development was the City not stepping in and wanting to acquire the entire block, including the businesses that are left on Church Street. He explained the reason he says this is because since the entire block is not included in the planned development, it is now being proposed to build a 13-story parking garage instead of a 5-story garage. He noted that by pushing this alternative access to do, they arc proposing a garage with a slope that is considered too tall for the City of Evanston and should be fewer floors. He said this alternative makes the entrance of the garage where the possibility of 1300 cars will enter everyday, at a significantly steeper slope, therefore, they have to really make sure that this is a workable solution. He said if this is not workable, then this can result in non - usage of the garage and the City will have invested 20-25 million dollars in what can possible be a failure. Ald. Newman reiterated that Council has to consider this very seriously and every member should go and actually see what the difference will be in the sloping of the garage so they can make a judgement as to whether or not this will be a deterrent for people using the garage. He reminded the Committee that if people don't P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Sept. 25, 2000 Page 4 use this garage and they don't generate enough parking revenue, not only will all the businesses suffer, including the new development and the City. bctinusc a ecrtarin amount of revenue is needed to make the garage work. He specified the of this because if you build a bad garage, people will not use it. He brought to attention as an example, the garage at 1000 Central Street which he feels is p vrly constructeJ and not being utilized to its potential. He stressed that they do not want to make this sine mistake with this garage especially considering its importance it plays in the success of the new developments and for the downtown area He noted the level of thought that is being given to the garage on Maple in making it user friendly and this garage also must be given the same consideration. Aid. Newman again stressed that this is a very important decision and has to be done very carefully. He reiterated that what the Behles' are asking is of logical concern and could have a potentially huge impact on this development and has to be done as a matter of public interest. Mr. Joe Behles agreed with Aid. Newman and mentioned that he and his brother are licensed architects and are knowledgeable in the fact that a flawed garage is the last thing that the City would want to do. In his honest opinion, rather than spend money on a flawed design, there are more than two alternatives that can be considered and he is confident that there is a solution that can be agreed upon that will benefit all interested and effected parties. Mr. Robert Yohanan — CEO of First Bank & Trust — stated that he also is very much in support of this planned development and project, as well as the Church Street Plaza development. He read from a prepared statement — see "Attachment A." 0 Mr. Yohanan stated that much of this discussion and problems could have been avoided if this had been addressed from the start. He said from their first meeting with the developer some 2 years ago, they expressed the serious concern about taking over the north portion of the alley. He expressed his support for the alternative plan, as addressed by the Behles', regarding the development starting from the south edge of the alley and retaining the current access for use by the bank and the businesses next door. He informed the Committee that the bank currently uses that alley for egress from their parking lot onto Benson Avenue and the inconvenience it would cause if this access were diminished. He noted that this alley has screed as a public thorough -way for over 60 years and that is what was meant to do — serve the businesses abutting to it. He concluded that the second alternative would still accommodate the existing businesses and would also serve the planned development just as well. The alternative plan is a fair compromise for all involved and stresses that the Committee consider this. Aid. Newman asked Mr. Yohanan if he is confident that the alternative, in his opinion, will create a garage where the sloping will not be undesirable to the customers of the garage and customers of his bank. Mr. Yohanan confirmed that he is confident and that this opinion was expressed in the meetings with the development team and by the parking consultant. Aid. Newman stated that the opinion of the parking consultant can be viewed in different ways because if asked of the consultant if this plan for the garage can be built, he will answer affirmatively. However, once the parking garage is constructed, the P&D Committee Ntz& Minks of Sept 2 9. 2000 Page parking consultant is not responsible for whether or not people will actually use the garage. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Yohanan about the usage of the alley for egress by his customers from their parking lot. lair. Yohanan responded that the curb curt allows for customers to enter the lot from Church and exist south onto the alley and out onto Benson Avenue or east to Sherman. Ald. Wynne asked Ms. Aiello if discussion has taken place regarding a potential solution to this problem. Nis. Aiello responded that in site plan B it proposed to reconfigure the parking lot for First Bank & Trust, at the City's expense, so that there is an entrance and exit on the banks property with the addition of landscaping. She noted from discussion with their traffic consultant, that they can maintain the same amount of parking spaces. Mr. Yohanan added that this solution is questionable and further review need to be done before any agreement to this plan could be made. Ald. Newman noted that this is just another alternative that could be considered. I%k Aiello said that this issue is going before the Parking Committee on Wednesday for discussion. Aid. Engelman asked if this is steeper than the Transportation Building at LaSalle & Lake in Chicago. Aid. Newman said that slope is very steep and noted that garage is not a proper role model or example for this situation because they are dealing with a suburban parking garage issue. He further commented that that fact that this is now at 13 stories for this garage is a horrible start to begin with and all the businesses that depend on this garage are going to be effected by the success of its use. Aid. Engelman pointed out that with the current developments going on in Evanston, as well as the proposed, they are facing urban development problems of a City more than their neighboring suburban communities. More discussion took place amongst the Committee regarding the slope and design of the garage. Examples were brought to attention such as the slope for the Whole Foods garage on Chicago Avenue and the problems they have experienced with the customer usage of this garage. They also discussed the slope of the ramp for the old Marshall Fields building garage and if this was even a suitable model to be used because of its age and what it was used for. Ald. Engelman asked staff to address the issue and status of the pedestrian access from the CTA and the changes made to this plan and what has been considered for public transportation commuters and their access and accommodation to the planned development. Ms. Aiello responded that from the very beginning, the preference was to persuade these pedestrians to go to the intersections and directed to cross at the intersections so that pedestrian traffic %*till go around the development to access all the shops available on Davis and Church, including the inner shops, which entrance is accessible from both of those streets as w•elI as Sherman Avenue. She said, consciously, when the design and development team looked at this, they wanted to close the pedestrian access through the garage. She noted that currently people walk through the alley, which is not a safe passageway and this was something they wanted to avoid with the new development. She said, as most of the Committee is aware of, that there is a study being done funded in combination by Metra, the developer, the Chamber and the City, to look P&D Committee Mt& VC Minutes of Sept. 25, 2000 Page 6 at ways in which to enhance ridership of public transportation. She added that they are also looking at the pedestrian access and the feasibility of second -level connectors, which are very expensive. Ms. Aiello said th= the pedestrian flow of downtown streets patterns, is part of the consultant study wiaich they will obtain additional input. She stated that from the beginning, their goat has been to get the pedestrians out of the CTA/Metra stations to Davis and Church 55treets by directing traffic to the intersection crossing and trying to cut off the pedestrian access through the middle of the street. Ald. Newman acknowledged the difficulty in crying to accomplish that goal because he admitted to his crossing in the middle of Henson Avenue along with many, many others where it seems to have become habitual. Aid. Engelman noted that in the designs the Committee last saw and the location of the elevator access out of the garage, he expressed his concern for the 24-hour access to this garage and elevators and what type of secusity will be provided. Ms. Aiello responded that access to only certain elevators will be available at certain hours and these locations will be equipped with security cameras and will be located in well lite and visible areas. It was explained by the architect, using the illustrations and diagrams presented to the Committee, how the access areas to the etn-ators was secured. He showed where the area had high glass overheads and dews with clearance of 1 S' for safety and security in the areas where people will need to access the garage after hours. He further explained and demonstrated from the diagrams where the exact access to the garage would be and what elevators would be available for 24-hour access. Aid, Wynne was concerned with under either plan, with someone wandering through the lst floor trying to get from Benson Avenue to Sears and if this would be possible. Ms. Aiello said that this will not happen and proper signage will be posted throughout the structure to deter from the problem. Ald. Newman questioned the problem with the alley and asked how can they guarantee the tenants on Church Street that they are going to have access to their businesses for deliveries, etc. The architect explained that no trucks will be sitting or parking or blocking the alley at any time because they v.ill only use the alley for access to pull into their driveway to access the docks within the development. There should be no parking or deliveries done within that alley. Ms. Aiello added that one of the documents that will be signed in the agreement will be an operating and maintenance agreement where there will be some language that will address the alley issue as stated by the architect. Aid. Newman followed up that if they do get thal commitment, he would want to see this definitely adhered to and in writing so that it is addressed and enforceable. He reminded that Committee that this happens all too often where it is discussed during the approval stage of a project and never adhered to or enforced. More discussion took place regarding public transportation recipients and their access to this development. The Committee still feels it very important to accommodate this pedestrian patronage, however the safety issue of access from Benson Avenue remains a concern. Discussion took place on the obvious concerns and problems with the crossing P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of Sept.. 25, 2000 Page 7 in the middle of Benson Avenue, even with the plan on directing pedesuians to The intersection crossing. After all discussion taken place so far, Ald. Engelman noted that it is recognizable that before a final vote can be taken by this Committee on the claimed development as a special use, they need to resolve the issue of the alley. However, recognizing the need of the developer to get this moved along because of certain time constraints, he moved that the Committee introduce this item tonight and ask that Council refer this back to Committee to complete the discussion on the alternatives mentioned addressing the alley and come to some conclusion before final vote- Aid. Wynne seconded this motion. Chairman Bernstein questioned why the ideal of the bridge from the CTA terminal to the development is no longer being considered because he felt this accommodation was eery user friendly for the new development for the commuters. Nis. Aiello stated that this idea has not been abandoned yet, she said that the consultant that has been engaged by Metra noted it and the City of the expense involved with pedestrian crosswalks. Mr. Aherson clarified that the draft ordinance before the Committee, some of the language will need to be amended to reflect the changes made in Site Plan Review as they relate to the ziggurat setback as the plan exists now. Aid. Engelman amended his motion to introduce ordinance as drafted by staff after reflection of the changes made in Site PIan Review. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Klutznick if they needed approval within the next 2 weeks. Mr. Klutznick responded yes at this point they are under a time constraint to push this process of the project through as soon as possible. With no further discussion, the Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Bernstein changed the order of the agenda to deal with the Steak-n-Shake item first due to time and money issues. He apologized to all that have been waiting to discuss the Residential/Landlord tenant ordinance but noted that this issue may have to be held over to allow for adequate time for discussion, since there is a genuinely wide interest in this matter. (P4) Ordinance 110-0-00 — Special Use for 2204 Oakton Street Chairman Bernstein acknowledged those in attendance on behalf of this establishment and asked that they introduce themselves. Mr. Matt Anderson, Civil Engineer for Joseph A. Schudt & Associates, introduced himself as well as Mr. Bob Dennison and Mr. Dan O'Connell both from Steak `n Shake. Mr. Anderson briefly described where their building will be located and the basic operation of the business which is open 24 hours. On staffs behalf, Mr. Wolinski complimented the Steak `n Shake organization and representatives on their cooperative efforts in working with the City. He noted how an agreement was reached without any effort or problems and commended them for this. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of Sept. 25, 2000 Page 8 Aid. Feldman gave his support for this restaurant and welcomed them into his ward and to the City of Evanston. 0 Aid. Engelman asked what percentage uses the drive-thru as c7posed to the percentage that dine in customers. Mr. Anderson responded that this is not i fast food establishment, so there is a wait when using the drive-thru, however, approx=- n=ly 30% of customers use the drive-thru. Aid. Wynne asked how often or how m=v customers come after midnight or during the early morning hours. Mr. Andmwn s=icd that approximately 80% of their business is for lunch and dinner. The other 20% is a combination of early breakfast hours or the late night crowd. There is not a mtifiole tat of business during the early morning hours. The Committee all expressed their happiness with the Steak `n Shake establishment coming to Evanston. A few of the Committee members ack-nowiedged other frequented locations and commended their operation. Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 110-040 for the special use application for a type 2 restaurant for Steak `n Shake. AlcL Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. Mr. Dennison announced that the restaurant is expected to open some time in Spring, 2001. The Committee also questioned who now owns the land. It was clarified that subsidiaries of Terraco now own the land. lP3l Ordinance 108-0-00 — Amendments to the ResidentialfLandlord Tenant Ordinance Ms. Paula Haynes acknowledged several members of the Human Relations Commission in attendance, as well as members of her staff, Ms. Lisa Allen and Mr. Rafael Molinary. She stated that Ordinance 108-0-00 addresses and gives the Human Relations Commission and staff an opportunity to enforce the Residential/Landlord Tenant Ordinance. She gave some history on the Landlord/Tcnant Ordinance and how it came about and noted that many things have evolved over its inception. She explained that they have experienced many problems with enforcement issues with this ordinance, especially where it placed unfair burdens on good landlords. She noted that with the amendment, there is allowance for citing both landlords, as well as tenants. She said there will also be the opportunity to establish a documented track record so that they can gain civil action against landlords, should we elect to do so. She noted that the existing ordinance requires landlords to give tenants a 30-day notice if they are not going to renew their lease. The amendment will require tenants also to give a 30-day notice to their landlords if they do not intend to renew their lease. :old. N-_'-v rtan asked with this provision of the tenant giving notice to the landlord, what if this is %iolated — will the City take action against the tenant? Ms. Haynes responded that the tenant could be fined for not following the ordinance. Aid. Engelman feels that the ordinance should allow for 60- day notice from the landlord to the tenant if they are not planning on renewing a lease. He said, currently, the ordinance states that if the landlord does not give the tenant 30 days notice, the tenant has the right to stay there an additional 60 days in order to give time to find another residence. He asked if staff is insinuating that if the tenant does not VP&D Committee Mt& Minutes of sepL 25, 2000 Page 9 give the landlord 30 days notice, would they be liable for a fine up to 50 days tent. \U. • Haynes said that could be a possibility, however, some penalty should be incurred. Aid. Engelman commended the proposal for the amendments to the LandlordiTenant Ordinance but is skeptical that people will take the time to fill out the information forms He said that he is somewhat concerned about the enforcement of the ordinance through administrative adjudication with an ordinance that has traditionally been an adjudication of rights between one person and another, usually money issues between people. Ms Haynes responded that not everything will go through Administrative Adjudication and noted that she has an experienced staff trained to mediate problems and disputes that arise amongst the community. She said that administrative adjudication would be for situations where fines or penalties occur. Aid. Newman asked if this ordinance addresses 2-flat buildings as well. Ms. Haynes replied yes and noted that building size does not matter. The Committee raised questions on the official procedure or administrative procedure that will be followed if the ordinance is not adhered to and situations where fines and penalties will arise — how will this case get to administrative adjudication. Ms. Hayes responded that she is not in the process of developing an administrative procedure. She went into further detail on explaining the amendments to the ordinance and the predicaments they will address. After further discussion. the Committee agreed that at this point, it is not clear on how this all fits together and how administrative adjudication will play its role in this ordinance. They agreed that more clarification is needed from . staff before any fiirther discussion or decision can be made on this issue. Ms. Haynes agreed with the Committee's view on this and assured them that she is in the final stages of developing the administrative procedures and will have a draft ready for the next meeting. Mr. Casey commented, on behalf of the administrative adjudication function with this ordinance that both sides need to present at the same time. He assured the Committee that he and Mr. Moran would be available for comments at the next meeting also. Mr. David Bradford said that he has been a Human Relations Commissioner for the past 6 years and has constantly expressed his concerns with the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance and the lack of enforcement mechanisms. He informed the Committee that these amendments are important and gear towards allowing the Human Relations staff with more mechanisms and procedures to enforce this ordinance and the regulations it interprets. He reiterated that the main reason on requesting these amendments is for the allowance of enforcement mechanisms. Aid. Newman moved to hold this item in Committee to allow staff time to present further information on administrative procedures, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. �J P&D Commince Mt& Minutes of Sept. 25, 2000 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted., i ' e . Brownlee iu • 0 x EXHIBIT A sr�rs�+rot+T- �o sqt .e z ; AO." Nearly 5 years ego when we were selecting the site for Elm Bans: S. Trust, we looked at over 70 possible locations for the bast We selected the one at 820 Church Street for several reasons - the general location was favorable, the building met our needs, the availability of parking was a plus and the ingress egress at tke site was superb. In particular, the open alley was attractive from the standpoint of customer convenience and customer friendliness, All of these considerations were tijectial in our decision to locate at the corner of Church and Benson. Over the last 5 years First Bank & Trust leas witnessed dra=tfc growth, in put, due to the factors I have just mentioned. The bank raised SIA ninhas of risk Capital from approximately 400 shareholders, most of whom live or wort: in Evanston. They are from all walks of life. We are currently in the process of raisin, an additional S7.5 trillion to fond our continued growth in this community. We have never asked for a penny of assistance from the City of Evanston or the taxpayers of Evanston. We now have over 5220 million to assets, most of which is invested right here in Eyaastoa, and over 10,000 Evanston customers. We expect to grow even more in the months and years ahead. 40 As a bank active in the economic development of Evanston and concerned with the economic well being of the city and its citizens, we were extremely disappointed that the redevelopment of this block did not, from the start, contemplate retaining a portion of the alley for the exclusive use of the small businesses that would cot be part of the project. From our first meeting with the developer nearly two years ago we expressed our serious concern about taking the Rest portion of the north alley. Om Monday of last week, at a meeting attended by the developer, the staff of the City of Evanston, the architect for the new development and the parking consultant, an alternative plan which we can live with wise finally presented. This plan calls for the new development to start at the south end of the alley and places a Nall between the development and the alley. We believe the separation of passenger vehicular and track dock actisity enhances the life safety aspects of this development. We therefore auk that the Plan Development Committee approve the development based on this alternative. There are basically two issues here - one of fairness and one of practicality. Rath respect to fahmess, this alley his been a public alley for over 60 years. It abould not now be turned over to a private developer. The developer is already getting I Yi alleys on the block for his exclusive use. The alley was meant to serve existing businesses north of the alley -a principal reason we bought the building and located the bank there. The arbitrary removal of public right of way in favor of a Large outside ecterprtse and to the disadvantage of the local community bank and other smaD businesses that will remain on the block will constitute the most serious of injuries. Wlth respect to the practical aspects, if the development does not start from the south end of the alley and instead either 0 ellmivates the alley or forces bank customers to egress and ingress agalast the enormous L9'd 9Z:9T C�Z V 3-0 x y tratlio of the development, the bank's ensWiners will be seriously Inconvenienced and endangered. In dosing let me say that First Bank do Trust stands firmly on the side of developing the block bounded by Church, Dsvis, Benson and Sherman Avenue. Such a development will be good forEvauston. But First Bunk do Trust cannot stand by idly whilt its very lifeblood L tbrenteneded t n.sW�Vully request the plan Devdopment Committee to approve this project basative presented to us list Monday to commence this project from the soath eadfof the existing alley. 0 • • £Q .d Z4:9i M V VT X • MINUTES Planning & Development Committee September 11, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present:, A. Newman, S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent Alderman Absent: M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, M. Mylott, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Diener Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF QUORUM -r • Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:18 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 14.2000 MEETING Aid. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of the August 14", 2000 meeting, seconded by Aid. Newman. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Reauest for Soecial Use Extension Chairman Bernstein explained that this request is for an additional request for extension of the period in which Ebenezer Church must procure a building permit and begin construction. He excused himself discussion of this item, as he has done with all other previous discussions on this matter, because of his past legal representation of this case when it initially came before Council, however, he would still sit in as Chair during consideration of this case. Rev. Wade stated that Ebenezer is requesting this extension and he believes that they are very close in obtaining their building permit, signing the papers with HUD and ready to • begin the project. He believes they will be ready to proceed within the next 45 da)i. He PAD Committee Aitg. September 11, 2000 Page 2 stated that the majority of difficulties that were an obstacle have now been resolved. Chairman Bernstein mentioned the waiver of fees that was requested previously, he asked if this has been permanently withdrawn. Rev. Wade stated that he believes that all their money issues have been resotsvd and assured that they are not asking the City for any money at this point. Aid. Newman moved approval of the request for special nse extension from Ebenezer A.M.E. Church, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 3-0 in favor with Chairman Bernstein abstaining his vote. Aid. Engelman asked for assurance that Ebenezer will begin construction within the year. Rev. Wade responded that he hopes to be close to completion within 1 year. Aid. Kent asked if the Committee can receive some follow up on the status of funding because he recalls that Ebenezer previously was requesting a waiver of permit fees and funding in the amount of S250,000. Mr. Wolinski responded that as staff, he can address the fact that there were several changes made to the design of the building that was the reason Ebenezer had requested the permit fee waiver and the $150,000 in HOME funds. He believes that they have reconciled this funding with HUD. He also informed the Committee that they have changed the fagade of the building back to masonry and are now providing the retention that was requested by the City and the only change is to a mansard roof instead of a partially gabled roof. which Site Plan has approved. Rev. Wade stated that they had an opportunity to help HUD understand that had the building been built when they were initially funded, the funding amount would have taken care of the project. The fact that it is 5 years later after the initial presentation of the project, the new funding amount for this year, makes it so that they can complete all the changes mentioned by Mr. Wolinski, take care of the building permit fees, etc. Mr. Wolinski asked Aid. Kent if he still wishes staff to forward a memorandum to the Committee on this matter. Aid. Kent responded that he is satisfied with the verbal responses received from staff and Rev. Wade. His concern is that all funding has been cleared so that there are no further setbacks to this project since so much time has gone by since the initial request. Mr. Wolinski clarified that the issues that have held this project up have been between Ebenezer and HUD; the City was not involved until the request for waiver of fees and HOME funds. (P2) Plat of Church Manic First Resubdivision, Chairman Bernstein noted that this request is with respect to the mini -anchor to the Hill project. He asked Ms. Aiello for further explanation and to relay any comments from the mini -anchor subcommittee. his. Aiello responded that there were no comments to pass on from the mini -anchor subcommittee. Ald. Engelman questioned the reasoning to resubdivide this property at this point and time since there is no project there currently. Ms. Aiello stated that they are requesting the resubdivision at this time to keep the books clean and noted that this was part of the contractual obligation to the Arthur Hill Company so that when they are ready to begin construction there would be no delays. Ald. Engelman asked if this was just the mini -anchor site and not housing also. Ms. Aiello agreed and noted that section had been part of the previous subdivision. Aid. av • P&D Committee Mig. September 11, 20W Page 3 Engelman said that it appear that lot #1 would be for the mini -anchor and he questiom • what lot 42 is for. Ms. Aiello responded that lot 42 was the old East Railroad right-of- way and was incorporated into that lot. Ald. Engelman asked if they are doing this subdivision so that they can then sell lot # 1 in the resubdi%ided property for the mini - anchor project Ms. Aiello noted that lots #1 and #2 together are for the mini -anchor. Aid. Engelman still questions why then does this property need to be subdivided. Ms. Aiello explained that this subdivision was not properly done when the first mapping was done. Aid. Engelman discussed with staff what is proposed to be built on lot #3 to the north of the subject lot, which is planned for the residential tower. Ms. Aiello explained that part of this resubdivision was to combine what was the private and the vacated East Railroad, which they now need to incorporate into lots # 1 and 42. The Committee agreed that this would be considered more a consolidation than a resubdivision of property. The Committee further agreed that the way this is before them, is very confusion and they question why this even need to be done. \is. Aiello recalled tha the lot was all owned by the City and subsequently, combined as all one platted area. She said that what they arc attempting to do at this point is going ahead %ith Arthur Hill Company's request that this property be subdivided now so it will be ready to build on when they are ready to begin. Aid. Engelman reiterated his question from the beginning, why- do this? Ms. Aiello stated that this is the way the Hill Co. presented it to the City from their surveyor. She said that there is no hurry at this time and if the Committee wishes to hold this item, staff can get more clarification from the Hill Co. on how they want to proceed. The Committee agreed with Ms. Aiello's suggestion. • Aid. Newman moved to hold this item in Committee, seconded by Ald. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Anderson asked if housing is going on lot 43, is parking going on lot 94_ Ms. Aiello believes that to be correct but could not answer definitely without the map. (P3) Plat of Davis Church Resubdivision Chairman Bernstein noted that this resubdivision is with respect to the McDougel Little project. Aid. Newman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Engelman. Aid. Newman said that he heard the restaurant "Chefs Station" is voicing a lot of concern about the construction. He wanted to clarify that the owner of that restaurant rented his location after the City had started negotiations for the Church Street Plaza. Ms. Aiello recalled that location was rented after they started with the whole Church Street Plaza but before the McDonnell Little project was proposed. Aid. Newman asked if the Church Street Plaza was on schedule as far as construction stages. Ms. Aiello confirmed tha the cinema section is on schedule to open the week after November 16`s and the garage shortly thereafter. She added tat they hope to have temporary parking with the opening of the cinema. She further stated that the City has offered to pay or some additional signage and directional ads. However, the issue they do have that needs to be resolved is with . regards that Nletra is going to be doing some construction for ADA accessibility ramps. P&D Committee Mtg, September 11, 2DOo Page 4 She noted that there will be some problems that at some point and time, the patrons of Chefs Station will have to enter from the «vest through the Nictra tunnel to enter the . restaurant. She said there has been discussion with Miserow regarding the pxissibility of providing some access on the east side, but it appears that this ,%ill be difficult to do. With no further discussion, the Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Ordinance 104-0-00 — Church Street Plaza Special Sien District Chairman Bernstein noted that the Sign Review & Appeals Board have already approved this special sign district for Church Stet Plaza. He informed the Committee that Mr. Tom White, who was present at the previous meeting, has spoken with him before this meeting and informed him that he had another engagement that he needed to be present at. He told Mr. White that it was not mandatory tha the be in attendance at this meeting since he gave his presentation and addressed the Committee's concerns at the last meeting and also that this item was only for introduction this evening. Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 10443-00, seconded by Ald. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Wolinski noted tha the ordinance basically incorporates all of the regulations that were put into the report tha the P&D Committee approved at the previous meeting. Chairman Bernstein recalled that the conversation they had with Mr. White with respect to the east side wall, as it stands if approved, there will be no approval of am• signage for this wall until further addressed before Council. Ms. Aiello confirmed this and noted tha there is a special committee that they have engaged to further review the east side wall. She mentioned several members of that Committee and informed P&D that they have already been meeting to discuss the possibilities. She assured that what is approved wit this ordinance does not include the east wall. (P5) Ordinance 99-0-00 — Amend Zonine Map & Ordinance Ms. Anderson informed the Committee that what is stated in their packet for the boundaries of this map amendment, is not quite accurate. She stated that the rezoning also includes a parcel on Green Bay Road which is now in the C 1 district and will be included in the R5. She noted the property in question is the building located just to the south of Stuart Rogers. Aid. Engelman moved approval of the zoning map amendment and ordinance, seconded by Ald. Kent. Ald. Newman asked what types of properties are included in the rezoning. Aid. Engelman said that it is all single-family, no commercial, although it is questionable what the property was used for that Ms. Anderson mentioned. Chairman Bernstein noted that there was some question raised in the transcript with respect to notice given to the neighbors, however, it appears to have been resolved mi Committee and there is no one present tonight to address this issue. Mr. Wolinski asked P&D Committee Mtg. September 11, 2000 Page 5 . Aid. Engelman if he recalled that when they did the 1993 amendments and thcy la--ked at this area, it was believed that the potential for this locale was for commercial as opposed to residential remaining and he thinks this is why it v.-as decided to stay as a C district at that time. Aid. Engelman responded he does not specifically recall this but the unfortunate thing is that residential is not allowed in commercial so the existing rises are not only non -conforming but are not even allowed. Ms. Anderson commented that when Zoning Committee went over this matter, they felt that commercial use on Lincoln across from the school, given the traffic patterns and vicinity, the usage's were just not appropriate. With no further discussion the Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P6) Ordinance 100-0-00 -- Amend Zoning Man & Ordinance Aid. Kent moved approval of Ordinance 100-0-00, seconded by Aid. Engelman. Aid. Kent noted that although the majority of this area is definitely residential, there are 2 small businesses at the intersection of Dodge and Simpson. He said at one time there was some indication that the owner was going to go residential, but it has been mentioned that he is now considering turning one of the storefronts back to a beauty salon. Ms. Anderson stated that she noticed some signage in the window when the Zoning Committee took a bus tour through that community. She said that at the time they first discussed this rezoning, her committee made the decision and recommended tha this one short block be changed and at that time also, then_ was not building permit in the window. Aid. Kent understood if that was the case, but what if they had already obtained their building permit. He expressed his concern with what happens to this location and will it still be possible to open the proposed business at this point. Ms. Anderson responded that it is her understanding that if the owner had a building permit to do something with that building prior to the time the ordinance was changed, then the owner should be able to proceed with the business as planned. This use would become a non- conforming use automatically. Mr. Mylott explained that the owner would be allowed to open his business because the use has not been abandoned. He informed the Committee that he could look further into this and exactly what the building permit was issued for. Aid. Kent stated that he does not have a problem with the rezoning of this area but does not want to give the owner of the building a hard time if he want to reopen a beauty salon at that location. Mr. Mylott assured that the owner would be able to open the business if a permit has already been issued, the use would simply change from a permitted use to a legal non -conforming use. With no further discussion, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD1) Discussion on Residential Tear Downs Chairman Bernstein indicated that his initial reference was for teardowns in general, not necessarily just residential. His concern by way of history and clarification is that it ' a P&D Committee Mtg. September t 1, 2000 Page 6 occurred to him that during the discussion of the historical district that a primary . opposition that he had was the demolition and destruction of l+.micular buildings of character without the benefit of some public commentary on the matter. Ile questioned at that point, whether or not our Zoning Ordinance allowed for this benefit and realized there is none and no method by which the City can govern demolitions. Chairman Bernstein stated that the situation has become difficult in surrounding communities such as Skokie, which has put a moratorium on teardov s. He noted that in Skokie, people have been buying up 2 and 3 buildings, knocking them dowm and then putting up 1 very large building in place of those buildings which may or may not be in character of the new neighborhood but certainly not in keeping %ith the character of the former neighborhood. Chairman Bernstein noted that Glenview is also experiencing similar difficulties as well as Winnetka and other surrounding communities. He said that it may not be realistic in Evanston where the cost of houses are astronomical for even the smaller homes, but the realization that this could also become a problem here is very possible. Aid. Kent agreed with Chairman Bernstein and feels that be is on the right track with his concerns but pointed out that when you begin to look around certain sections of Evanston, you can find older houses that are still affordable. He feels that what happens in Evanston is the fact that certain undesirable landlords find these older houses in neighborhoods where they are affordable, tearing them down and then replacing those single-family homes with 2 & 3 fiats that are not in particular keeping with the neighborhood and diminishing the affordable single-family housing stock availability. Aid. Newman commented that in Evanston he could see this only happening where lots have been bought side -by -side and then replaced with massive homes out of the character of the neighborhood, for example, he mentioned one home on Greenwood where this has happened. He seconded Aid. Kent's comment on not all of Evanston's single-family housing being non -affordable and that there are still some older less expensive homes that are available on the west side of town and not just in the 5 h Ward. He said these properties are relatively small but are good starter homes for many middle -income households. Aid. Newman feels that they have been ahead of the game with the forming of their preservation districts to the extent where they have some discretion in that area and control over the demolition of historical homes. In his opinion, if the City had additional authority by having a set of standards to follow for teardowns, they would not mis-use this authority. He noted that he has been reading about teardowns every month in the Metro section of the newspaper and does acknowledge the possible concern of this dilemma. With that in mind, he supports taking a look at this issue to take further measures to control teardowns and consolidations of lots. Aid. Engelman stated that from the comments and concerns he has heard so far, it appears that the main concern of the members of this Committee is not with the teardown of the house but instead more of a concern for what is being built in its place. Aid. Newman clarified that currently they have not ordinance that gives the City any discretion on the consolidations such as buying lots side -by -side and building a structure on the combined lots in astronomical proportions that are not in keeping with the S ar P&D Commiaea Mtg. September 11. 2000 Page 7 • surrounding residential properties and over -power the entire block. Ile said that he does not have a concern with someone knocking do%%m a house on their own property but does have a concern with buying several lots and consolidating to forth one greater lot. He noted that teardowns are already happening in some areas of Evanston. He pointed ow that in certain areas on the west side of Evanston, there is much more concrrn for this type of situation to occur. Ms. Anderson referred to the problems in Winnetka with regards to this situation and she noted that real estate in Evanston is not higher in price than that community. She said in essence those older homes become infill housing. She noted that the Zoning Subcommittee has discussed this and one of the things they look at is the average roof line height or the height of the ridgepole. She said that when this gets badly out of whack, you have freely made an impact on the neighborhood that goes beyond what is desired for that area and beyond what the Ordinance intends. Ms. Anderson stressed the point that the height of the ridgepole above the ground is a very significant element when you look at infill housing. She feels that one could say that if someone tears down a house and wants to re -build, it immediately translates into infill housing. Aid. Engelman reiterated that again tha the problem is not in terms of the tear -down but instead the problem in terms of the build-up or "trophy house" replacement. Ms. Anderson agreed with Aid. Engelman but noted that one can not say that very house, even in a historic district, is worthy of retention on its own merits. However, by the same token, you don't want to see something in replacement that is also totally not into the contextual feel of the neighborhood. Aid. Engelman argued, isn't that is what the setback, height, bulk and lot coverage requirements and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance designed to do? Discussion took place on the Zoning Ordinance and what it currently allows versus what was allowed or required in the past such as 12' sideyard setback requirements compared to the current 5' sideyard setback requirement. Aid. Engelman pointed out that one of the major problems lies within the Zoning Ordinance and the amendments made which allows for much more bulk and lot coverage than in the past. He noted this to be the problem in the other communities mentioned as well such as Winnetka, where Zoning Ordinance amendments have resulted in the allowance of more bulk and lot coverage resulting in total build-up problems. Mr. hiylott mentioned that some of the most contested complaints that Zoning staff receives are when a building permit has been approved and it is for an enormous addition that conforms with the Zoning Ordinance but results in that house over -powering and being much larger than all the other houses within that block. Chairman Bernstein stated that in order to preempt a person coming before the Zoning Board with a empty lot and being concerned with whether the neighbors would prefer to keep as an empty lot or have development of the empty lot with a new house. He feels this issue also needs to be addressed. • ,41C P&D Committee Mtg. September 11, 2000 Page 8 Aid. Newman said that if someone builds within the building envelope for the property, he understands this and could not contest the fact with the applicants right to build-up to the maximum allowed. However, he reiterated his problem with someone potentially buying up several lots and the City having no way of stopping the consolidation of these lots and the owner tearing down several houses to put up one very large that ultimatefy conforms because of the additional square footage of the buildable lot. He said it is as appearance issue and the impact of a massive structure in comparison to the surrounding homes. He strongly feels it is a consolidation problem and gave examples of how Northwestern has used this method to construct several of their buildings such as the Family Institute, which resulted in the tear down of several residential properties. Aid. Kent stated, that in his opinion, he would prefer to see as an outcome of standards and regulations to follow with teardowns of residential properties, is for developers to demolish single-family homes and replace mith new single-family homes. His is also is support of Aid. Newman's concerns for the consolidation of several lots and the resulting replacement structure for the combined lot. Ms. Dienner commented that she recalls the bus tour taken in Aid. Kent's Ward and noticed many small lots and many smaller holder homes on those lots. She clearly understands the concern for consolidation build -out on those lots and the disastrous results that can occur within the neighborhood. She also acknowledged Aid. Kent's concern for replacement of 2 and 3 flats on many of lots with single-family homes. Discussion took place on the R4 districts which allow these structures and where those • districts are located. It was noted that most of the 5e' Ward is either R3 or R4, Ald. Engelman again pointed out that it is not the teardown issue in the cases where replacement is with 2 and 3 flat buildings, but the problem is with what our current Zoning Ordinance allows. The Committee and staff discussed what is allowed in the R3 and R5 districts also, Aid. Engelman addressed Aid. Kent's concern and said with most of the 5`s Ward being R3 and R4 which allows for multi -family buildings, the economics drive the desire to build the additional income 2 & 3 flat buildings because it is not economically feasible to replace a single-family home within another single-family home unless a profit is going to be made. He noted that the Rl districts are more feasible for teardown of a single-family home to be replaced with another. Mr. Wolinski noted that Aid. Kent is correct in his comments on the demolition of single- family and replacement of 2 and 3 flat buildings in his Ward. He noted that the only single-family housing that has been built on the west side in the past 5 or 6 years, were the 3 Habitat properties. Aid. Newman pointed out that this construction %%w done by a not -for -profit organization and does not count in the economic consideration or marketplace. Mr. WoIinski said that on the other hand, 3 vacant lots were filled with new housing. He recalled that during the Zoning Ordinance review in 1993, they eliminated the FAR requirement for single-family in the R1 districts because it «as felt that this was a better control mechanism, as our consultants told us at the time to go %vith lot coverage. He believes this has worked to a certain degree, noting that no matter how many lots you buy and consolidate, you still can only have 30% in an R1 district. He noted that there is the problem with the sideyards only requiring 5% however, R1 still allows for quite a bit P&D Committee Mtg. September 11, 2000 Page 9 of green space. Mr. Wolinski feels that the issue in Ald. Kent's Ward prinurily is the isfact that there are a lot of homes that were one-time single-family house; which have been split up into 2-family dwelling units. He used the example of 1820 [Wg'e. whit has been boarded up for some time and is currently a court case for demoliti%\n. He noted that the property is a non -conforming 2-flat and relayed that the owners here want to tear -down the property and replace with another 2-flat but City state has told them that they can not do this. Therefore, the owners now have offered to pay any cow to rehab the existing structure to maintain as a non -conforming 2-flat, even after City staff' and inspectors have concluded the property incapable of being rehabbed and the need for demolition. Ms. Anderson informed the Committee that at the Plan Commission meeting -here they discussed the rezoning of the block on Simpson, they had one person from the audience that came to address the issue. She repeated the comments made by citizen who said that she grew up in this neighborhood and has lived in the same house and stated that people in her community are very fearful of their housing and possible redevelopment of their neighborhood. She said that the women pleaded to have the area rezoned to residential in hopes that it would protect the fear of redevelopment. Ms. Anderson acknowledged the obvious problems occurring in the 5th Ward due to the zoning of majority of their residential areas as R3 and R4. She suggested looking at the Zoning Ordinance to maybe consider rezoning some of those areas from R4 to R2 or possibly Rl. She does not know how realistic this would be to accomplish, but is certainly worth looking at. • Chairman Bernstein asked where the Committee stands at this point -- is it the desire to have staff begin drafting some standards for review by the Committee. Ald. Newman strongly feels that the consolidation issue needs to be addressed and consideration of drafting some standards or regulations in conjunction with teardowns. Mr. Mylott indicated to the Committee that he needed more specifics on what type of standards they were looking for. He questioned if they were proposing standards that covered maximum lot size or maximum lot size based upon the relationship to the average lot size of the block? After further discussion, the Committee did not come to a consensus on this matter. At this point, Chairman Bernstein directed staff to collect ordinances And other information from Skokie and other communities regarding their teardown situation and bring back before the Committee for further review. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, AJacqune i. Brownlee x MINUTES Planning & Development Committee August 14, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: A. Newman, S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, M- Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, R. Schur, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: Y. Dickerson Presiding Official: Alderman Bernstein DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Bernstein noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2000 MEETING Ald. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of the July 24t', 2000 meeting, seconded by Ald. Wynne. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PI) Reauest for HOME Funds for 319 Dempster Street Mr. Wolinski requested to comment on this item first. He informed the Committee of Interfaith's past projects, one of which was on Brummel Street and in partnership with the City and the results were very good. He explained that interfaith plans to purchase 319 Dempster and convert the building from a single -room occupancy (SRO) to a multi- family building. He said that staff was in support of this project because the stability of the building has been an issue in the past back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, before the current owner. The problems ranged in anti -social behavior and %yere a constant problem for the neighborhood. Mr. Wolinski reiterated staffs support for the fact of Interfaith's reputation and good work, staff' is confident that they will add stability to a building, if in the wrong hands, could become a problem again. He informed the Committee that Interfaith has asked the City for $150,000, this case has gone through the HOME Loan Committee and the Housing Commission and was approved by both. Mr. Wolinski acknowledged Ms. Yvonne Dickerson from the Housing Commission for any .41A P&D Minutes of August 14, 2000 Page 2 questions. He also noted that this rehabilitation proposes to add an additional 4 units and each unit will have their own bathroom and kitchen facilities, as opposed to the current common facilities. Ald. Engelman noted that with the change from an SRO to multi -family building, there used to be a tremendous need for SRO's in this community and he questions what this will do for Evanston's housing stock if we take away a building with this type of housing. Mr. Richard Koenig, Director of Interfaith, responded that the building will still be only for single individuals but the difference is that under the rooming housing classification, it is not allowed to have bathroom and kitchen facilities for each individual unit, but is allowed under multi -family classification. He explained that this mill allow each individual living in the building their own private space. Ald. Engelman questioned the change in economics with the change in housing classification. Mr. Koenig justified that the economics will not change because the rents will remain the same and the units will be offered to the same individuals, in other words, the building will be upgraded but will still meet the same needs as in the past for the community. Ald. Wynne questioned if this property is currently a non -conforming us--- Mr. Alterson responded that currently the property is considered a legally existing non -conforming use as a rooming house. He explained that staff is still looking at this property as a non- conforming use as a multi -family residence but consider the change in non -conforming use from SRO to multi -family as less impact on the neighborhood. Aid- Wynne pointed out that one of the concerns in the community has been that parking in that area is particularly difficult and whether potential this change, because of the expected . attraction, will change the parking situation. She questioned staff if this issue has been addressed and if this was addressed at the neighborhood meeting that was held regarding this building. She also questioned staff if this building remains a legal non -conforming use, does the parking requirements change from a SRO to multi -family-. Mr. Alterson responded that the parking requirement would remain the same. She asked Mr. Koenig if he expected the tenants to remain the same. Mr. Koenig feels that the tenants and the parking expectation will remain approximately the same. He said that they have interviewed all the current tenants in the building and one of the questions he asked is if they own a vehicle and where they usually park. He said so far, they have talked to 22 out of the 44 current tenants and only 5 out of that 22 have cars. He said that expectation would be double that number, so the assumption would be around 10 cars- Ald. Wynne asked about the tenant history in the building. Mr. Koenig responded that the group is a very diverse mix. He said from the interviews they have conducted, approximately 1/3 of the people have been there for 15-20 years, 1/3 have been there less than one year, and the other 1/3 are in between, so the turnover varies. In response to a question, Mr. Koenig said that he does expect the tenant mix to remain and from his observation, the building has a high occupancy number of individuals that work in the area where most walk to work or take the train. He noted that out of the interviews he has conducted, only 1 tenant out of the 5 who owned cars actually drove to work. Aid. Wynne agreed that the building does serve a purpose in the area for those tenants that Ar I P&D Minutes of August 1 d, 2000 Page 3 • qualify to live there and she has noticed that many of the residents do % ork can Chicap Avenue. Aid. Newman noted that this building is located in the I' NVW and he did attend the community meeting. He commented on the history he has had %%ith this building over the last 9 years. He said in the first 3 years, this building w-as much more of a problem and the reason for that was bad management. Since then the building has been better managed. He said that back in the early 90's, this building was by nature, highh transient because it had weekly leases available and in many cases there wire high numbers of police calls because of the activities that occur with mis-management. AU Newman said that in his view, having the quality of management and ownership in that building over the long term, is very important to the neighborhood. He added that because the size of the units remain very small at 220 square feet, even with the addition of private bathroom and kitchen facilities, you can not expect high -end tenant occupancy in this building. Therefore, in his opinion, it is in the best interest to have long-term good ownership that Interfaith can provide for this property. He is positive that with Interfaith's management in the offering of long-term leases at the current rent amounts, will result in less transient behavior for the building and the overall good of the neighborhood with a building of this type that attracts single residency. Ald. Newman concluded his comments stating his full support for this project and the money going to this fine organization and is confident of their position of providing a "good • neighbor" atmosphere for this building. He said as far as the parking concern for this building, he noted that this property could have been redeveloped as a different use that would allow or result in the possibility of more care and added parking problems to the area. However, wit the building still attracting the same type of residents as currently occupied; it is unlikely that there will be any noticeable change in the car ownership or use for this property. Aid. Newman moved approval of the request for HOINiE funds to Interfaith Housing Corporation for 319 Dempster Street, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Chairman Bernstein raised the question of relocation for the current tenants during rehab. Mr. Koenig responded that he was informed by his contractor that all tenants will have to be moved during the rehab process therefore, Interfaith will be responsible for finding new places to live and assisting those tenants in paying for relocation expenses and rent assistance. He said that they anticipate that the rehab process will take 8-10 months, so Interfaith will assist in finding relocation housing, will pay for all moving expenses and assist in any additional rent over what the tenant is paying, for the time they are there. After rehabilitation of the building, assistance will cease if the tenant chooses not to move back. However, he informed the Committee, from all the tenants he has interviewed. they have expressed a strong desire to return to their units after rehabilitation Ald Kent congratulated the Interfaith Organization on their rehab projects on this building and other buildings they have done in Evanston and their commitment in keeping low, affordable rents. He also extended congratulations on their efforts to provide rental property instead of converting all their buildings to condos, which do not aid in the keeping of affordable rental housing stock for those individuals that buildings like this Eq P&D Minutes of August 14.2000 Page 4 provide for. He also commended Interfaith on their rekx.ation efforts for the currew • tenants and asked if they plan to seep relocation :�itzs in Eywiston and their plans for tlhe relocation transition back to this building. Mr. Koenig tw1-no%vWgcd the antieipabzd difficulties in the relocation transition_ss and noted th.0 Interfaith does plan to relocate all current tenants to E%muton locations lie mid that the tenants that have expressed .a desire to return to the building, all have prefer to rain in a similar location with the close proximity t the lake and easy accenss to public trr.racporta,tion. Although they reali= this to be a difficult accomplishment Interfaith will do the best they can to provide adequate temporary housing for the interim period and will make all efforts to relocate the tenants within Evanston. Aid. Newman requested to add commendation to the iveord on behalf of Interfaith's efforts on hand -delivering and sending out approximately 250 flyers throughout the surrounding neighborhood for notification of this planned redevelopment and to inform them of the community meeting for their input and concerns mith this project. Chairman Bernstein asked who receives the developer fee. Mr. Koenig responded that the Interfaith Corporation will receive this fee. After all comments, the Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Wolinski brought to the Committee's attention the communication in their packets regarding the "Status Report on the HOME Funds.- as requested previously at a prior meeting. He noted the listing of the previous projects as mentioned earlier that Interfaith has completed, as well as other successful projects completed or in the process, that were supported by HOME funds. He further noted the positive impact those buildings have . had on their neighborhood that were previously blighted, problem buildings. The Committee acknowledged this communication. (P2) Church Street Soerial Sign District Chairman Bernstein acknowledged Mr. Tom White, representative on behalf of the Arthur Hilt Company. He also noted that this case w-as before the Sign Board a few evenings ago and received unanimous approval. Nis. Aiello entered the meeting for discussion on this item. Mr. White recalled that approximately a month ago, the Hill Company proposed a special sign district to the Sign Review and Appeals Board and the Site Plan Committee. He said that they have gone through 2 hearings, the last one being a public hearing, which took place last week. He explained that with this special sign district, it basically remains the same as what proposed in terms of the boundaries for the district and essentially covers all the properties included in the redevelopment, from University Place down to Davis Street. He said that this main idea for the special sign district is to have a unified sign program for the Church Street Plaza Development as a whole. Mr. White brought attention to the design book and portfolio distributed to Council, which illustrates the signs for the hotel, the parking garage, the main pavilion building and the movie theatres. He also mentioned the amendment to include the residential tower, retail for the entire plaza. Ald, Wynne asked for explanation on the color -coding illustrated in the book, she questioned if this requires that all signs be in a uniform color. Mr. White explained that 0 P&D Minutes of August 14, 2000 Page 5 the color palate is specifically for what is happening «ithin the Century Cinema sibmage, • in addition, some of this information has to do with the fiber optic lighting that has been incorporated into that signage. He further explained that they brought the titer optic to the Sign Review Board to demonstrate the lighting of the sign to show how the sign changes color and lighting in process that is of higher quality and less neon sign effiem He noted that the Sign Board was very impressed with the fiber optic signage and the effect it gives off. Mr. White commented on the sign for Wolfgang Puck" which he noted is different than what they are proposing for the standard detail for the signs. He said that this establishment will receive a blade -shaped sign, which no one else is getting but the Site Plan Review Committee has already approved this signage. Aid. Wynne said that she has reviewed the entire portfolio but still questions the process that new occupants will go through for sign approval, %ilI they go before the Hill Company for presentation or will they be required to go before the Sign Board. Mr. White responded that new occupants will first come before the Hill Company for initial approval and will also be required to make a formal sign permit application to the City and will have to comply with the requirements of this special sign district. He said that in this case where the sign does not fully comply, the applicant would have to go through the normal procedure for sign variance to the ordinance. He noted that the Hill Company is asking the City Council to establish an ordinance, which will accept this district, and unless this ordinance is in place, they can not make changes without having to go back through the process. Aid. Newman said that he is trying to determine how big the public parking sign and questions if it will be in full view and noticeable from Church Street. Mr. White responded that the sign will be 16'Y x 9' and noted its immense size and will be show north and south on Maple Avenue. Aid. Newman directed comment to Ms. Aiello, noting her awareness of the discussion in the Parking Committee regarding the frustration in finding City garages. He commended the proposed signage on Maple Avenue for his garage but noted that it does not deal with Church Street and Emerson Street. He stated that his concern is with adequate, proper, noticeable signage for direction to the parking garage, especially on the opening day of the plaza, and he noted the difficulty in finding entrances to the garage and the potential traffic problems this will cause if vehicles will have to keep circling blocks to find the entrance. Ms. Aiello said that consideration has already been given to those concerns and informed the Committee that they will have to add signage at Church and Ridge to start directing vehicles to the entrances of the parking garage. She assured that Mr. Jennings, Public Works Director has already considered this problem and is examining the best Iocations for proper signage to avoid confusion to the parking garage, especially on opening day. Aid. Newman commended the proposed signage, as stated by Ms. Aiello, and he realizes time constraints, but he would like to see some type of signage to begin as early as September to possibly get a head start on educating the community of the parking garage and accessibility to it. He feels this will aid in traffic problems and lessen confusion on the opening day. Ms. Aiello affirmed that she would pass this request onto Mr. Jennings. Mr. White added that he agrees with this request and is willing to come up with some type of temporary signage in the interim until permanent signage is in place. F� P&D Minutes of August 14.2000 Page G Aid. Engelman expressed his concern with the east side of the pavilion, which is a vacant • grey wall. Mr. White explained that they originally had a proposal for that particular wall, which was presented at the last meeting, but because there was the high level of concern with various constituents, they removed that wall out of the district for consideration at this time. He said the reasoning for this is so that the sign package itself would not be held hostage by what -.,.-as being on that east wall. He said the ideal is that they need to be able to tell their tenants direction so that they can start the fabrication on their signs and move forward as soon as possible and leave the back wall to be dealt vdth after the immediate signage for the plaza was in place. Mr. White said that the Hill Company plans, as stated in the Council packet, is to set up a Committee which he has already started working on, to work with the Site Plan Committee, the Chamber of Commerce and City staff, to brainstorm a plan for the east wall. He stated that when a decision is reached and agreed upon on what is to go on the east wall, this proposal will have to come back before the Committee for approval. Aid. Engelman asked if it is the Arthur Hill Company's position that this wall needs to be a commercially viable signage location versus public art, etc. Mr. White explained that this has been discussed and it is the Hill's Company stand that they are not closed minded on whichever direfion is decided for this wall. He stated that what they want is to get something that helps the City and creates connection between the City and the Hill Company and at the same time trying not to offend their constituents as being too commercial. He noted that any signage on that particular wall will be very expensive and this expense does effect the consideration of putting up public art. Mr. White informed the Committee that the Hill Company would like to explore different lighting techniques and other similar situations for that wall that could potentially benefit all interested parties. Aid. Newman asked if this wall is totally exposed to CTA riders. The response is that the wall is visible during most of the year, trees block some of the wall. Mr. White said that some of the trees will be coming down because they impede on the retaining wall that CTA will be putting up. Aid. Engelman asked if the Research Park signage will be maintained. Ms. Aiello responded that signage was owned by the Shaw Company and she questions if part of their sale requires them to remove the signs. She noted that signage is still being maintained at this time and informed the Committee that she will look into the status of these signs and their projected removal date. She pointed out that Research Park signs still remain at the entrance on Clark and one on Maple, also one on East Railroad. Aid. Engelman asked if the Hill Company has any concerns regarding the maintenance of these signs, which are still located in the proposed sign district. Mr. White responded that the Research Park signs are not on their propem• but are located in the public right- of-way and are not located within the proposed sign district. Ms. Aiello noted that the sign at Church Street has already been removed. Chairman Bernstein clarified that the east wall is currently in the proposed sign district but the Hill Company chooses not to deal with it at this time and it theoretically, subject to any of the rulings in the sign district. Mr. White verified that they do not wish to deal with the east wall because they have no definite proposal or plan for at this time. He said there is no provision for that wall until something is brought to the Committee to be P&D Minutes of August 14, 2000 Page 7 approved. Chairman Bernstein said that historically, this Committee had discussions with respect to the build -out and indentations. He asked if this has teen crr ttcd for the east wall to accommodate artwork, if so decided. Mr. White responded the %%-A cti ntains big panels and different coloratimi with a brown face, smooth face bk vk and split fir block variation and is slightly indented. He added that the mounting of a sign or srnv & is possible and there have been se�vral proposals in terms of how to mount things can this wall. Chairman Bernstein referred to the signage of the theatre showing marquee. Mr. White addressed the illustration of the marquee on page G204 of the portfolio, which demonstrates that one portion of the marquee lists for the independent an house and theme are two reader boards that sit on either edge of both sides of the sign. He explained in further detail how the theatre signage would be situated on the marquee. After all discussion, Ald. Newman moved approval of the report and recommendation from the Sign Review & Appeals Board to create a special sign district for the Church Street Plaza. Ald. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. Mr. Wolinski explained that this is the first special sign district that has been created since the 1988 Sign Ordinance and the language for proceeding needs some clarification. He informed the Committee members that P&D must approve the report from the Sign Review & Appeals Board, then forwarded to Council for their approval and then staff be directed to draft an ordinance for approval. The Committee so noted this procedure. (P3) Ordinance 87-0-00 — Amendment to Sidewalk Cafd Reeulations Chairman Bernstein summarized the discussion from their last meeting on July 20 and the Committee's decision to hold this item in Committee, along with the request by Jacky's Bistro to serve liquor at their sidewalk cafd. He asked Ald. Engelman for further comments on this issue and the status of his meeting with the neighborhood. Ald. Engelman said that has, since the meeting on July 24 h, had discussions with all the neighbors that attended that evening, three of which are in attendance now. He stated that there still remains a lot of concern for the parking issue, which has been referred to the Parking Committee to address in the near future. He said there also still remain much concern about the noise issue. He noted that he also had a conversation with Mrs. Icahn who resides on Prairie Avenue and had expressed her concern with the serving of liquor in an area near Haven School. He said that her concern would be fulfilled if they prohibited the sale of liquor in the sidewalk cafd during the daytime hours. Ald. Engelman said that he has concluded from the past discussions with the neighbors, that there is no consensus with regards to Jacky's Bistro and the addition of serving liquor at his sidewalk cafd. However, with regards to this ordinance which allows the Council the ability to allow the sale of liquor at their sidewalk cafd by someone holding an appropriate license, he feels that they should proceed. He recalled that at one time there was not a big variety of restaurants to choose from in Evanston where you could get a decent meal with a glass of wine. He said now Evanston is known as one of the best 0 dining cities on the Northshore. He feels it is very important that Evanston keeps in with P&D Minutes of 19 August 14, 2000 Page 8 the trend setting in the offering of a variety of restaurants and specialties that they can offer, including the sale of liquor at outdoor cafes. However, he realizes the concerns this 0 draws when it is offered at a restaurant in close proximity to residential areas, as in the case with Jacky's Bistro. He noted that is why this ordinance would allow a mechanism for Council to consider any request on a case -by -case basis and would still allow the ability to allow it if there are no significant adverse impacts as a consequence. Mr. George Sarfatty, questioned what is presently the vehicle to allow a type 1 restaurant to have outdoor seating if they are located outside of the core area. Mr. Wolinski explained that the applicant would go before the Site Plan &: appearance Review Committee for approval if it is a type 1 restaurant and does not require going before P&D, if approved. Mr. Sarfatty stated that he is extremely concerned with this procedure because, as with Jacky's Bistm, if he had been aware at the time they requested outdoor seating, he would have voiced his concern about this at the time of their request. Aid. Engelman acknowledged Mr. Sarfatty's concerns and assured him that any and all request to serve liquor at an outdoor cafd outside of the core area, would have to receive Council approval. Mr. Sarfatn• complained of citizens not being notified properly of issues that may affect them and of meetings when these issues are being addressed. He stated that he would definitel%. like to see a notice requirement addressed with this ordinance and a proper time frame in which neighboring properties should be notified before hearings. The Committee called on staff to verify the notice requirements in this case. Mr. Alterson responded that type 1 restaurants that are within 250' of residentially zoned property, are required to go before the Site Plan Committee and do have a notice requirement to post a notice and do flyers within 250' of the subject property. He noted that staff followed this same notice requirement model in the consideration of the liquor request for outdoor cafe. Ms. Eberly testified that she did see a flyer in her apartment lobby 2 days before the hearing for Jacky's. Discussion took place on the required notice time of no less than 95 hours or 4 days notice before a hearing. Ald. Wynne strongly felt that this notice time frame is not sufficient and should be at least the same time frame as required for special uses which is no less than 10 days notice. Mr. Alterson explained the rationale on the time period requirement for notice of sidewalk cafd's with type 1 restaurants within 250' of residential zoning, is that given the short period of time in which the cafd will be in operation, the notice requirement time %vas shortened and they used this same rationale for the notice of request to serve liquor at the cafd. Ald. Newman stated that he has a difference of opinion and objects to this amendment. His reason being that with type I restaurants being within 250' of residential properties is very close proximity and the sidewalk cafd alone, is noisy, contributes smoke and odors to the air, along with other problems. Especially, in the case -%ith Jacky's Bistro, which is located directly adjacent to apartment buildings and residential homes, this is potential disruptive enough and the addition of liquor will only add to the current problems. Ald. Newman noted that no other tyT�e 1 restaurants have come in with this request this season and he does not envision mangy- request of this type in the future. He pointed out the type 1 restaurant in his ward which has a sidewalk cafe in the Noyes Street business district, the liquor laws are so confusing as it is because they are not allowed to serve liquor at their cafd and there has been a denial for a liquor license to D&D Groceries directly P&D Minutes of August 14.2000 Page 9 across the street to sell packaged liquor. In his opinion, he t'ecls there it m-i ncti tier this amendment and all consideration should be given to the 1xitential inp k-t on the ck-uc proximity of the surrounding residential area. He n%sted to the C onintitry nwni cx i that if it were any other restaurant that were not considered as high -end as J&-I,.'s Bistsv-% tbces they would not even be considering this amendment. He concluded that he really d rs not see any need at this time for this amendment at the request of ooc restaurant and would prefer that this item be tabled for future consideration if the need sri-cs Chairman Bernstein's opinion is that each case should be individually cvnsiiderrd due to their own set of circumstances and how they may impact on the residential district surrounding their establishment. He noted that this ordinance is only to allow the Council a mechanism to look at each application on a case -by -case basis, and if feasible, giving the applicant a chance to have their request and prove themselves, especially since the renewal of all applications is every year. He feels this ordinance should not be voted on in conjunction with Jacky's Bistro. Mr. Sarfatty agreed with Chairman Bernstein in that this ordinance should not be voted on in consideration of Jacky's, but noted the obvious impact that his restaurant is already having on the neighbors and the neighbors obvious disapproval of adding the serving of liquor to the sidewalk cafe. However, he feels that if this ordinance is approved, there should be the addition of a formal official notice being sent out to all properties within 250' feet and that the minimum time frame should be not less than 10 days before the hearing. Ms. Hirshfield thanked Ald. Newman for his comments and support on behalf of considering the neighbor's position on this issue. She further stated her disapproval of being made to feel that she and her constituents needed to compromise with Jacky's, when the obvious feel that the compromise should be made on Jacky's part and total consideration given to the already established residential neighborhood that this establishment happens to be located in. Aid. Wynne stated that if the Committee goes with this amendment, then she strongly feels it is critical to amend the notice requirement to no less than 10 days or 2 weeks before any hearing. Otherwise, she would be inclined to vote against this ordinance. After all discussion, Aid. Engelman concluded the obvious lack of consensus on this issue and felt that with no clear support, the Committee should move to table this item until further request. This conclusion was put into motion, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P4) Sidewalk Cafe for 2545 Prairie Avenue Aid. Newman moved to table this item also in view of the vote on Ordinance 87-0- 00. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. 0 P&D Minutes of August 14.2000 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jac\Ine E. Brownlee N-LI kL VILV. — r1 u • .7 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee July 24, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: A. Newman, S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent Alderman Absent: M. Wynne Staff Present: A. Alterson, P. Casey, M. Franz, S. Janusz, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner A Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM . Chairman Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 10.2000 MEETING Ald. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of the July 1&, 2000 meeting, seconded by Ald. Kent. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P 1 l Ordinance 87-0-00 — Amendment to Sidewalk Cafd Rezulations Ald. Engelman noted that the Committee first received wind of this and had a brief discussion on this issue when Jacky's Bistro came in for his sidewalk cafd license and after being in operation for 2 months, the matter of being able to serve liquor in the cafe came up. He informed the Committee that he held a neighborhood meeting on this issue 10 days ago which he forwarded a memo to P&D members previously. Also, he brought attention to the copy of a signed statement in favor of the proposal from Jacky's Bistro, from the residents of the condo building at 2009 Harrison which he received by fax today. He noted that the concern that was raised not over the liquor issue but more over the parking issue. He acknowledged an additional petition that was signed by the residents of Harrison and Prairie, which state their concerns for the parking issues. Ald. Engelman pointed out that the way staff presented this particular proposal with regards to P&D Committee Nit& July 24, 2000 Page 2 liquor in outdoor cafds outside of the core area, only consist of Jacky's Bistro and Noyes Street Cafe at this time. He said there was some question with regard to staff feeling that there might be less cumbersome to just allow the request when the type 1 restaurant applies for their sidewalk cafd. However, the %%ay this ordinance has been drafted, it is an extra step similar to when Council waives plastic plates and cups and this must be renewed every year. He acknowledged that many of the neighbors are here to speak on behalf of this ordinance as it applies to Jacky's Bistro. Aid. Kent asked what would be the grounds of denial by the Committee, when another outside cafd comes before them asking to serve liquor, other than the fact of receiving negative input from the neighborhood. Aid. Engelman responded that when dealing with liquor, the Committee has much more discretion than they do with many other circumstances. He pointed out that a restaurant such as Jacky's Bistro, is a high -end restaurant where most of the liquor sales would be wine accompanied with the meal versus a restaurant on the level of a pizza parlor that would serve mostly beer. Chairman Newman asked if he were referring to an establishment such as MicheIini's. Aid. Engelman noted that the issue of how Jacky operates his business did come up at their neighborhood meeting and the issue of other various restaurant operators. He said that the impression he received was that MicheIini's would not have the same kind of support for liquor to be served at a sidewalk cafd. Chairman Newman pointed out the standards on page 6 of the ordinance, specifically the wording in standard (a) regarding the cafd not causing a negative cumulative effect. He questioned if these standards apply to type 2 restaurant.-, as well. Mr. AIterson confirmed that these standards apply to both type 1 and • 2 restaurants. Chairman Newman referred to Aid. Kent that these same standards on page 6 of the ordinance is how they will determine each request on a case -by -case basis. Aid. Kent referred to the second statement listed from the 2009 Harrison condo which states the noticed increase level of noise during the evening hours as a result of the outdoor dining, but do not regard this as a serious problem. Although he understands the standards, he questions how the Committee can pick and choose fairly which cafe's to allow serving liquor because, truthfully, they have no way of knowing how the restaurant will handle and keep a firm control over their operation with serving liquor until they have given the establishment permission and witness how they handle the situation. He feels every restaurant should be considered equally before judging and assuming how they will handle the situation, otherwise, Council «ill run into problems with setting a precedence over certain restaurants. Chairman Newman pointed out that presently under type 2 restaurants, they have to come back every year to re -apply for a sidewalk cafe and he questions if the type 1 restaurant with liquor has to apply every year also. Mr. Alterson confirmed that type I restaurants would have to receive yearly approval also. In knowing this, Chairman Ne A -man felt that they have an added protection because if the restaurant is approved one year and problems occur, then Council has evidence to support denial of renewing their application for the next year. Whereas, the type 1 restaurants in the downtown core area that serve liquor are not approved by this Committee because they receive approval administratively. Aid. Kent stated that he does not have a problem with that procedure but is justifiably concerned with the fairness issue. Aid. Bernstein also stated that he P&D Committee Mi. 8 July 24, 2000 Page 3 • does not have a problem with this policy either but he feels they should specify that any approval to one restaurant is non -transferable and should be unique to the specific operator. Aid. Engelman noted that any change in ownership would compel them to apply for their own liquor license. With no further discussion. Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 87-0-00, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P2) Ordinance 88-0-00 — Amendment to Section 9-5-10(c) Cansumotion and Possession of Alcoholic Liauor on Public Pronerr . Chairman Newman asked staff' to explain in more detail why this matter is being considered by P&D instead of A&PW. Nfr. Pat Casey, Budget Director, explained that staff has forwarded this ordinance to P&D versus A&P%%' because it is a companion ordinance to the previous ordinance 87-0-00 and they felt it be better to deal with as a package deal. He said that this ordinance makes an exception to the sidewalk cafe ordinance to permit the consumption of liquor in the public right-of-way to certain restaurants outside of the core area as well as within the core are, by approval of City Council. Aid. Bernstein asked Mr. Casey if he has discussed this exception with the Mayor in her role as the Liquor Commissioner and whether this is going to effect her role analysis in considering the applicant for approval or denial. fir. Casey responded that he has not had this conversation with the Mayor. Aid. Bernstein also noted that there has been some discussion and question amongst staff as to whether these cases should come before P&D or through the Liquor Commission or both. Mr. Casey responded that the • initial liquor license goes before the Liquor Commission, but consideration of the application to serve liquor at a sidewalk cafd would require the applicant to go before the P&D Committee. He recommends that any of these applications should be forwarded to the Liquor Commissioner for consideration and approval as well. Chairman Newman asked where specifically in this ordinance it is worded for the exception to the sidewalk cafd ordinance or does the entire ordinance cover this. Aid. Engelman recognized that this ordinance aids for an exception to the general ordinance that exempts the consumption of alcoholic beverages in public areas. Mr. Alterson informed the Committee that the new text is under subsection (c) where it reads after the City Code "and possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages by patrons at such cafes, shall be permitted." He added that the current text allows for the service of alcoholic beverages for a sidewalk cafe but didn't allow for its consumption With no further comments, Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 88-0-00, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Sidewalk Cafe for 2545 Prairie Avenue Chairman Newman acknowledged the sign-up sheet for citizen comment on this item. He asked how many in attendance were opposed to this request — approximately 6-7 people raised their hands. He then asked how many in attendance were in favor of this request — approximately 5-6 people raised their hands. He informed the audience before any comments are made, that the initial issue before P&:D with this case is the request to amend the sidewalk cafd permit to allow service of alcohol and not necessarily to do with %;KI I PRD Committee Mtg. July 24, 2000 Page 4 the parking concerns expressed by the neighbors, which he is assuming many want to speak upon. He then referred to the sign-up sheet in the order signed. Ms. Saliv Rutherford, stated that she is a proponent and supporter of Jacky's Bistro and their request to serve liquor at their side;;-alk cafd. She noted that Jacky's is a "high end" restaurant and feels they are an asset to the neighborhood. She feels the patrons of Jacky's spend quite a bit of money and she does not see their clientele to be the type of people that would abuse alcohol and become disorderly. She supports the management operations of Jacky's and is confident of their managing and overseeing of any liquor consumption within their sidewalk cafe, which does not have many tables and is relatively small in size. Ms. Rutherford stated that she is appreciative to finally have a vibrant restaurant in that location and an asset to the tax base in their community compared to the past establishments that were in the same site. Chairman Newman asked if the same restaurants had asked for this same request, would she have supported it. Ms. Rutherford openly expressed her disapproval for the past restaurants operations and their management and assured that she would not support those establishments for either a sidewalk cafe or request to serve liquor. She feels those past operations are not in the same class as Jacky's Bistro and are no comparison. She supports the approval of allowing liquor consumption at the sidewalk cafd for Jacky's Bistro because she feels confident that they are the type of establishment that would not abuse this privilege. She also agrees that the consideration of these requests should be on a case -by -case basis and based upon their reputation and type of service. Ms. Debra Hirshfield, stated that she is opposed to Jacky's Bistro request to serve liquor • at their sidewalk cafd. She stressed her continued concern for the parking problems in their neighborhood that they have been experiencing and is escalating in the area She feels there is added concern for parking problems with Jacky's because of their level of business that she also feels will accelerate with the service of liquor at their sidewalk cafd. She has noticed the added noise level from the sidewalk cafe, which is not as noticeable by the residents on the opposite side of Harrison as those directly adjacent to the location on Harrison and the residents on Prairie Avenue in close proximity to the restaurant. Ms. Hirshfield brought attention to the signed petition forwarded to the Committee with 123 signatures and noted that most of the comments she received from those who signed were concerns wit the parking issue, which were overwhelming on the Prairie side, and their concern wit the added noise level and cigarette smoke. She mentioned that she Iives almost a block away from the location and was disturbed by the noise level she heard which generated from Jacky's sidewalk cafe at approximately 11:15 p.m. on a Sunday night. With all this in mind, Ms. Hirshfield stressed her opposition to the addition of serving alcohol at this sidewalk cafd. Chairman Newman addressed Aid. Engelman and questioned the memo he received from him about the neighborhood meeting, giving the impression of having more harmony amongst the general feeling of the neighbors which he questions after hearing the strong opposition expressed by Ms. Hirshfield. Aid. Engelman responded that at the neighborhood meeting, one of the neighbors, Mr. Sarfatty, did express serious concerns with added noise, smoking and the attraction of more patrons at Jacky's because of the . service of liquor at their sidewalk cafd, which would add to the parking problem in the P$D Cornrnince Mtg. July 24, 2000 Page 5 area. Although these concerns were mentioned at the meeting, he did not fully realize the full impact of the neighborhoods concerns for these issues. He explained drat there are now 3 petitions; one provided in the packet was supplied by Jacky and signed by patrons of his restaurant, the second petition was received by the condo across the saeet from Jacky"s at 2009 Harrison and now the 3`' petition which Ms. Hirshfield circula"- which concentrates on the issue of parking. Chairman Newman asked NIs. Hirshfield if the people who signed the petition are against the service of liquor at the sidewalk cafd or are they mostly concern with parking problems generated from this restaurant. Nis. Hirshfield responded that the main concern expressed was for the added parking problems, however, there was also a green deal of concern expressed for the added noise level. She personally stressed her concern for the noise level generated by the sidewalk cafd. which she has experienced. Ms. Bettv Kahn, expressed her concern for the liquor issue and her opposition of adding this to the sidewalk cafd. She pointed out that this is a strong residential neighborhood with families and many children in close proximity to schools and a churib. In her opinion, this added service of liquor would be more appropriate in a less residential environment. She feels the service of liquor openly on the public right-of-%zy gives a wrong message about alcohol to young adults and also is not appropriate to bc seen by young children. She also noted the problems of serving liquor at a comer restaurant adjacent to the street directly where cars are parked. Ms. Kahn concluded that due to the strong family orientation of the surrounding neighborhood, this location is not appropriate for consumption of liquor at an outdoor cafd. Ms. Marearet Cherly, said that she is straddling being in opposition and proponent of liquor being served at Jacky's Bistro. She mentioned that she did attend the neighborhood meeting held by Aid. Engelman and she did state then and still expresses her concern for the addition of parking problems in the area. She feels the added service of liquor at the sidewalk cafe will make the restaurant even more popular than the revues and attention it is receiving now. Although she supports the restaurants success and business, she also has an even amount of concern for the addition of allowing liquor at the outdoor cafe and feels the restaurant would remain just as successful with limiting the serving of alcohol at their indoor dining facilities. Ms. Karen Peterson, objects strongly to any situation that could possibly add to parking problems for the surrounding residential neighborhood. However, she feels that Jacky's Bistro should not be singled out as the main cause of additional parking problems because there are many other businesses in the area where employees contri-bute to the problem both day and night. Chairman Newman stated that the P&:D Committee concentrates on land use and right now the liquor issue being served at a sidewalk cafd is what is before them to consid,=. He pointed out the focus is on whether they should allow the service of liquor at Jack-'s Bistro sidewalk cafd, in conjunction with the approval of the previous ordinmces giving P&D Committee Mtg. July 24, 2000 Page 6 Council the power to consider the exemption on a case -by -case basis. He requested ft-d this specific situation be kept in mind. Mr. Georee Sarfatty, spoke on the behalf of the standard on negative cumulative effects. He noted that this particular standard should be given a lot of thought because for 1) therr. is a strong surrounding residential neighborhood and the consumption of liquor openly at a sidewalk cafe in close proximity, could definitely have a negative cumulative effect oa the surrounding area and 2) the added noise level and the exasperation of the parking - problem to the surrounding area. Mr. Sarfatty concluded that in consideration of all the possible problems he stated, the standard on negative cumulative effect should be argued and strongly considered by the Committee. He also stated his opposidon in adding the service of alcohol to this outdoor cafe. Chairman Newman asked how many tables are in the outdoor cafe. Nir. Jacky Pluton, owner, responded that there are 7 tables that could serve a maximum of 28 people. Chairman Newman then asked if there was any one else from the audience that would like to speak on behalf of Jacky's Bistro. A resident residinc on Prairie Avenue stood up and expressed her support in favor of Jacky"s request to serve liquor at their outdoor cafe. She noted the obvious reputation of Us restaurant and the quality management. She also noted that this restaurant is making an obvious contribution to the tax base in Evanston and stressed the importance of such a contribution by any business in Evanston which should be supported by residents and Council as well. Although the parking problem is a serious issue, she feels Council and City staff should aid in trying to find a solution to this situation for this establishment and all other businesses in Evanston experiencing the same problem. She also noted Jacky"s support and effort in trying to work with the neighborhood and she feels he should not be singled out or penalized due to an on -going problem that has existed in this neighborhood for some time now before his establishment at this location. Mr. Bob Hall, stated that he lives north of Central Street and is in opposition of extending permission to serve liquor at a sidewalk cafe in close proximity to a family -oriented neighborhood such as this. He noted, especially, that liquor should not be served at any time during the day when school children are accessible to walking by and witnessing this consumption. He stressed that this situation should be highly considered in this area as well as any other residential areas where children are present. At this point, Chairman Newman concluded citizen comment for discussion amongst the Committee. Aid. Bernstein pointed out that theoretically these standards were for sidewalk cafe and now for those cafes wanting to serve liquor if the decision is made on a case -by -case basis. He noted that Mr. Sarfatty has raised a good point and consideration of all the standards is relevant. He questions where they are going to decide or consider specific issues such as with parking; should it go before the Parking Committee, Site Plan, etc.? Chairman Ncu-man felt that in terms of granting Jacky's an outdoor cafe that serves liquor, they have to look for the standards right now as they exist and they can assume that there is going to be no change in the parking at this immediate time. He P&D Committee Mtg. July 24, 2000 Page 7 asked what is being proposed -- parking for residents only from 6-8 p.m. on Prairie. AU • Engelman confirmed this proposal. Chairman Newman asked Mr. Pluton if he supports this proposal. Mr. Pluton affirmed his support. Chairman Newman questions if the other businesses in that area is going to support this proposal as well, noting that they should be properly notified. Aid. Bernstein agrees that this proposal should be considered, but he questions what conclusion the Committee can come up with because the parking isswe should be deferred to the Parking Committee. Chairman Newman noted that tine Committee would not be able to solve any parking problems with Jacky's tonight and he feels the concern about the amount of cars parking in the neighborhood being exasperated as a result of serving liquor at the sidewalk cafd, is a factor in considering this case. Ald. Bernstein asked if the restriction from 6-8 p.m. is for Evanston residents only. Ald. Engelman said that he is trying to fund a way to solve the problem for the residents, bearing in mind, that there is a huge demand for parking by a +vide variety of constituencies at that location. He noted that there has been a huge demand for restricted parking in the 7-10 a.m- issue because of employee parking and commuters. He said that Parking Committee addressed this some years ago. He noted that since the advent of a wide variety of evening entertainment venues in the area, the demand for restricted parking during the evening hours has arisen. Aid. Engelman agrees with the resident that spoke on behalf of Jacky's in that the parking problems were not caused by this establishment alone, but as a result of a multitude of different reasons and they should not be penalized or singled out. Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Jacky Pluton, owner of Jacky's Bistro, to speak at • this time. Mr. Pluton stressed that he does not believe that adding the service of liquor at his sidewalk cafd will generate any more to the already existing parking problem. He noted that his business has been doing well without serving liquor at the cafe, therefore he does not believe it will make any effect. He requests this as an added service to be able to offer the pleasure of a glass of wine with dinner to those dining at the outdoor cafd. He reiterates that adding service to liquor at the outdoor cafe will have no bearing on adding to the existing parking problem. Mr. Pluton responded to Ms. Hirshfield's comment on the noise she heard coming from his sidewalk cafd at 11:15 p.m. on a Sunday. He noted that his restaurant closes at 8:00 p.m. on Sundays, therefore the congregation of people she heard was not commenced from his bistro. Chairman Newman responded that he does find a serious issue that there would now be the potential of having literally a party with 7 tables all filled and people drinking at all those tables. He said it may be unlikely, but is very much possible and this is a serious matter with a restaurant located adjacent to residential units. He said this situation could not be easily dismissed. In spite of this, Chairman Newman commended Jacky's Bistro and noted that they are a great restaurant and he has recommended this restaurant to relatives from out of town. However, he does not think the decision from this Committee's viewpoint should be whether they like the restaurant or whether the restaurant is necessarily "high end". He said in fairness, he feels Michelini's should have had just as much right as Jacky's to have the same treatment and expect the same consideration, despite the difference in the type of service they provide. He noted that a well established restaurant may be well managed one year and the second year fall under new 0 management that don't have the same ethics as the first. P&cD Commiuce Mtg. July 24, 2000 Page 8 Aid. Engelman feels there is a distinction betwe= the class of a restaurant =d comparisons can easily be made. Had he felt that there was going to be this type of concern in the neighborhood, as expressed by 5 people this evening, he would not have brought this before the Committee at this time. He suggested holding this in Committee until he can have the opportunity to talk again with the neighbors and come to an understanding of what the majority concerns and desr=s are. More discussion took place amongst the Committce_ Additional comments were heard from Ms. Hirshfield and Mr. Sarfatty on the comme=s they heard from Mr. Pluton. Ms. Hirshfield stressed that she did hear and see people -y Jacky's sidewalk cafd that Sunday evening around I I p.m., even though he says they %% -re closed at 8 p.m. She reiterated her concerns with this type of situation reoccurring and definitely feels that the added service of liquor will intensify the noise level and p.�ty atmosphere v-ithin the sidewalk cafd. Other residents on Prairie Avenue also raised the concern of additional delivery trucks with the busy establishment at Jacky's. Several other residents testified experiencing added noise level in the area from Jacky's sidewalk cafd and are worried with additional noise if liquor is served. x Ms. Rutherford, who spoke in the beginning on bcL if of Jacky's, said that she agrees with the comments made by the owner, Mr. Pluton, in that the addition of serving liquor at the outdoor cafd is not going to generate more business one way or the other, therefore will not generate more parking problems to the are- She feels that the clientele that • already come to the restaurant, will continue to come to the restaurant and their train reason will not be to sit at the outdoor cafd and drink because it would be available. On that same note, she also feels that the serving of liquor at the outdoor cafd will not automatically attract a more rowdy crowd because of the availability to drink outdoors. Chairman Newman acknowledged that it appears to be no consensus at this time, even after all the discussion and comments heard to this point. Aid. Engelman agreed and stressed this is why he wants to hold this item in Committee until further meeting with the neighbors. The Committee members agreed. Aid. Engelman moved to hold this item in Committee, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Chairman Newman feels that they should hold the entire package in Committee together. Aid. Engelman suggested that Ordinance 88-0-00 move forward but 87-0-00 should be held also because it is the ordinance that provides the mechanism for City Council to review these request to allow type I restaurants outside of the core area to serve liquor in their sidewalk cafes. The Committee agreed. AId. Engelman moved to hold Ordinance 87-0-00 with (P3) also, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. The vote for both of these motions was 4-0 in favor. (P4) Ordinance 78-0-00 — Amendine the Zonine Ordinance Chanter 3 "Im0ementation and Administration" Chairman Newman noted that this is a reference from Aid. Bernstein Aid. Bernstein stated that his concern is that he feels it is foolish to believe that in any commercial and in 41, . P&D Committee Mt . B July 24, 2000 Page 9 many residential, that financial impact is not a very important part of the need for the variation. In the residential situation, because is most instances people can not afford to buy a bigger house elsewhere so they choose to increase the size of their present hone and usually requires a variation. However, it is clear that when a developer is asking for 20 instead of 16 units in a development, it seems to be that the financial issue is trying to make the numbers work to benefit from the project. He noted that historically and even presently, they have several member-, on the Zoning Board that are strict constructionafist who is consistently voting against variations for this reason. Aid. Bernstein stated thad his reference was to make the code reflective of what actually exists in the zoning area, specifically with regard to accepting the fact that developers need the bottom line to be appropriate or it is not worth going forward with a development. Chairman Newman asked Aid. Bernstein his opinion on the language being proposed in this ordinance. Aid. Bernstein said that he does question the difference between points 5(a) and 5(b) because he feels it directs back to the financial condition of the individual and he also feels that point 5 is similar to point 6 and could be eliminated. W. Aitersom said that could be a reasonable argument and was discussed at the Plan Commission. M said that often when the Zoning Board looks at this, interprets this as the applicant isn't trying to get the variance so that he can "make good on a bad debt." Ms. Anderson added that this language and the whole discussion about how- important this was to retain in the ordinance or exclude from the ordinance, was discussed almost exhaustedly for some time. She said to Aid. Bernstein, as a lawyer, he knows that something similar is not the same. She noted that the Zoning Committee is aware of this problem but they are also cognizant of the fact that no one does anything without at least expecting to get their money back, preferable some profit. From this standpoint, it is almost impossible to meet the standard. She said that their ultimate decision in putting language like this in the ordinance, is because they felt it was important to keep balance, although you may have to massage the wording. some. She that it is when this becomes an apparent and overwhelming element as opposed to all of the other standards, they go as a package. She pointed out that it is one thing to talk about having to meet each and every element, but in the final analysis it is the preponderance that pursues your decision on whether to approve or deny any case. Aid. Bernstein pointed out that this has always been the case and people come before the Zoning Board prepared to meet those standards. 11s. Anderson noted that they are never going to be able to guarantee absolutely all testimony heard from applicants. Aid. Engelman asked if Aid. Bernstein's concern would be satisfied by putting the word "solely" or the word "personal" after the word `rest" in point 6. Aid. Bernstein responded that it still remains a question of balance and degree. Ms. Anderson said, on the other hand, that if you take a building, for example the Manufacturer's News building on Central Street, it was suggested to the Zoning Committee that it was a matter of peer pressure based on what she has heard of the owner and the way he arrives at his conclusions. She said that it did not strike her that peer pressure was something that he would buckle down to and it struck her as being the sort of thing where he felt that taking all of the other standards into account that they would overwhelm the idea of voting 40 against of the economic issue. Aid. Bernstein stated his approval of the language as P0 P&D Co=itut Mt& July 24. 2000 Page 10 written, especially what resulted in -;{a) because this basically allows the Zoning Board tn' take into consideration whether or mm it is going to be a benefit to the community whicb is really the primary concern. his. Amicrson noted that kudos belongs to Mr. Alt*rsaty who takes the Zoning Committee's con%x-rsations and tries to filter the wording into something that makes sense. Although Aid. Bernstein approves c f point 5. he still questions point 6 and whether they, should take Aid. Engelman's suggestion of adding the word "solely" or if there is, someway to relate this back to 5(a) which %would reflect the same spirit. He further suggested the idea of taking out port 6 altogether. The Committee and Ms. Anderson. discussed this in further detail. They- discussed what exactly is the message that they are trying to get across — Chairman Nc%%,man said are they trying to allow somebody who has some financial benefit in getting a .asiance to be able say openly that it is and that is ,% ty they are requesting the variation. Aid. Engelman was under the impression that they were trying to do was to say whether or not there is a financial benefit should have no bearing either for or against. He said the point 6 in conjunction with S(b), prevents Mr. Saperstein from voting positive earn though the public benefits may outweigh the economics. Chairman Newman brought up the case, for example, where a homeowner was trying to subdivide his property- and for some reason needed a major variation and nobody in the neighborhood cared whether he subdivided except for the Zoning Board who felt the homeowner was basically doing this for a financial benefit and they denied his application. With this in mind, Chairman Newman is in the opinion that if someone is coming in for a zoning variance and he/she is open about the fact that there is some financial gain, with no disapproval from his neighbors, then he/she should be granted the variance if it is reasonable. He feels this flexibility should be available in our Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Anderson said that you have to be careful with setting a precedence that could result from approving a variance for this reason. Chairman Newman reminded that crises should be considered case -by -case. Chairman Newnan asked how the other Committee members view number 6 is if they have 5(a) and (b). Aid. Bernstein feels that point 6 detracts and creates an ambiguity and this is what concerns him. Chairman Newman acknowledged a developer from the audience that wished to speak on this matter. Mr. John Leinweber stated that he personally does not believe that financial issues should impact the Zoning Board's decision related to variances at all. tic said the fact with the examples cited the Committee, he feels no one of these has an issue of financial impact as to what the decision should be. He further stated that he feels the financial issue is entirely secondary to the merit of the project itself or to the merit of the variance that is being asked for From discussion, Chairman Newman agreed with Aid. Bernstein in is suggestion to eliminate point 6 because it seems to add confusion to the matter. He feels that no change should be made to point S. The consensus of the Committee was in agreement with this. 0 • • LI P&D Committee Mt& July 24, 2000 Page t t Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 78-0-00 with the amendment that point 6 be eliminated. Chairman Newman seconded the motion. Brief discussion ensued with Aid. Engelman questioning why eliminate all of point 6 wt= the woad "solely" could be added. Chairman Newman and Aid. Bernstein felt that potint 6 is redundant to what is stated in point 5. After all discussion, The Committer voted 4-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT Time did not permit the Committee to address agenda item PDI regarding Discussion on Residential Tearpowns. The Communications were accepted without comment_ The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i �C�,aa Iacqueli a E. $rownlee �C • MINUTES Planning & Development Committee July 10, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. W)i= Staff Present: J. Wolinski, J. Aiello, A. Altersoa, M. Franz, S. Janusz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7_12 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26. 2000 MEETING Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of the June 26th, 2000 meeting, seconded by Ald. Engelman. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION fPl) Recauest for Waiver of Permit Fees Chairman Newman asked if this item is to be moved from the agenda. Mr. Wolinski responded that they have been waiting on HUD to have a meeting on this matter to discuss their funding. As of this date, the meeting has not taken place. He recommends moving this to "hems for Future Consideration." The Committee members agreed to this. Chairman Newman stated that he asked at one of the past meetings for copies of the appraisals on this property. He said that it appears that HUD is also questioning the sales price of the real estate. He clarified to staff that when this item does come back before P&D, he insists that those appraisals be available to the Committee at that time. Staff acknowledged. AId. Wynne motioned to remove this item from the agenda to be placed for future consideration. Aid. Kent seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7/10/00 Page 2 (P2) Temporary Sien Request for American Craft Exposition Aid. Engelman moved approval, seconded by Aid. Bernstein, The Committee acknowledged that this request has come before them the past several years with the same request and no problems noted. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P6) Ordinance 12-0-98 —Man Amendment, 860 Chicago Avenue Chairman Newman asked if this map amendment was approved some time ago. Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee that Council referred this item back to Committee because there were only 3 aldermen the evening that the recommendation was made. The Committee felt this item was tabled by Council and was removed last meeting and referred back to P&D. Chairman Newman questioned when this originally came through the Committee to Council if it was not approved at that time. Mr. Wolinski stated that the original vote was 2-I with Ald. Engelman voting nay and the other two aldermen present were Aids. Newman and Kent. Chairman Newman asked Ald. Engelman if he desired to revisit this matter. AId. Engelman did not wish to revisit and requested that this proceed before Council. Mr. Wolinski noted that there is a change to make on the legal description that is incorrect. It was the consensus of the Committee to move this on to Council with the correction to the legal description. (P7) Request for a Special Sian District Desienation Chairman Newman directed a question to Mr. Tom White of the Arthur Hill Company, asking if he is simply asking for the Committee to refer this request for a special sign district to go before the Sign Board of Appeals for a public hearing. Mr. White concurred. Chairman Newman asked if the Committee could wait for their presentation until after the Sign Board hearing process. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that the way the Ordinance reads, it states that when you have a special sign district request, it comes to the P&D Committee who may or may not recommend to Sign Review and Appeals Board (SRAB) to discuss the issue with the applicant and there they would have a public hearing on the final outcome. He said the final recommendation from the SRAB would come back to P&D and onto Council. Chairman Newman inquired about the time schedule needed pass this on. Mr. White responded that they are on the agenda for this Wednesday for the Sign Review and Appeals Board, therefore, they need the referral of the Committee this evening to proceed. Aid. Engelman asked for further clarification of this process. He asked if this special sign district is passed, does this mean that this district is not subject to our Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wolinski concurred further noting the addition of certain specified relief from the Ordinance. He added that there are specific requirements in the new district that may not match what is in the existing Sign Ordinance. Chairman Newman asked if the sign ordinance provides for special sign districts. Mr. Wolinski affirmed. He brought attention to the additional materials sent to the Committee on Friday which is the Arthur Hill proposal which are the same materials that will presented to the SRAB. Aid. Engelman noted that when the SRAB reviews this item, they will review both the policy issue of establishing the special sign district and also review whether or not the proposed P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7110/00 Page 3 signage is consistent with the requirements set forth in the special sign district. !a+ir. Wolinski confirmed Ald. Engelman's statement. Chairman Newman motioned to refer the request for Special Sign District for Church Street Plaza to the Sign Review and Appeals Board, seconded by A1Ed. Bernstein. Chairman Newman asked when this item will come back before Committee. Mr. Wolinski responded that an initial presentation will go before the Sign Board on Wednesday at which time a public hearing will be set. He noted the requirement is not less than 15 nor more than 30 days to return a recommendation back to the P&D Committee. He said the earliest meeting would be August Ie. Chairman Newman said that it would be helpful to get a sense, in writing, of the deviation between the current sign ordinance versus what is being proposed in the special sign district. He stated that although he requests this information, he does not wish to delay the process to receive it. Mr. Wolinski assured that staff will provide an analysis for the Committee when this item returns to their agenda The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (P3) Ordinance 81-0-00 — Special Use and Variation at 3200 Grant Street Chairman Newman acknowledged Ms. Betty Brady; a homeowner signed up to speak in opposition of this project. Ms. Betty Brady, resident on Grant Street, said that she was unable to address the Zoning Board regarding this case on June 20'', but she has received a copy of the minutes of that meeting. She said upon reading those minutes, she feels this did not meet the standards that are required for zoning relief. For example, the hardship issue stated by the applicant seems hard to believe when the resident of the Presbyterian Home pay between S50- 300,000 upon entrance to the facility and additionally between S1,500 - S3,000 per month in fees. With these figures, there should be no financial hardship on the applicant and they are very well funded. Secondly, Ms. Brady stated that the applicant is not supposed to create a negative impact on the neighborhood by building this structure but she feels a 4-story apartment building on golf Street would drastically alter the streetscape. She said currently there are scattered I -story cottages and beautiful landscaping and open space and this proposed building would create a more dense and urban setting and she feels they would lose the ambience of the neighborhood. Nis. Brady also pointed out at the June 20`" ZBA meeting, a question was asked regarding how many variances and special uses has the Presbyterian Home been granted over time and Mr. Mulvey responded that he did not know. She feels that is a eery crucial question that needs to be answered before considering granting this facility anymore because it appears that they have become a special class of property onto themselves and can do whatever they please no matter how it affects the neighborhood. She realizes the Presbyterian Home considers themselves a good neighbor to the community but the neighborhood is not allowed to use their facilities, therefore she feels they need to consider the impact on the entire area when they add such a large structure that is out of character with the neighborhood. Chairman Newman noted that in order to do a special use, there has to be notices sent out within the required radius of the subject property and to the local paper. He asked if Ms. Brady has had the opportunity to discuss this project with some of her neighbors. Ms. F� P&D Committee hit& Mi atates of 7/10/00 Page 4 Brady responded that she has but she lives on Grant and the neighbors that she leas . spoken with feel that this project ►►ill not effect them too adversely however, she fads this will effect the whole neighborhood. Chairman Newman asked if she has any idea why no one else has showed up to speak in opposition of this project. Ms. Brady avied that the initial mailing omitted a few important details such as the structure berg 4 stories tall and did not show in the diagram where the proposed building %%=U be located. Therefore, she feels this did not initially pab people's attention or concern for what was actually going to be built. Chairman Newman acknowledged the representatives from the Presbyterian Home at this time for response to Ms. Brady's concerns and for a brief presentation. Mr. Peter Mulvey, President and CEO of the Presbyterian Homes, said that they vwzoled to make a few comments and then refer to the site plan to give the Committee a feel of the proposed project. He introduced Ms. Nancy Tolan, director of Facilities Managr=ww for the Home, who has put a lot of effort and thought into this project. He also acknowledged the presence of staff from their architectural firm if the Committee has questions of them. In response to Ms. Brady's comments and concerns, Mr. Mulvey felt it important to now that the Presbyterian Home is a not -for -profit organization. He stated that the Home spends $7 million a year in charitable care and pay real estate taxes to the Croy of Evanston in the amount of $1 million per year between this campus and the dovmtcrAm campus. He noted tha the proposed building will also be paying real estate taxes. Mr. Mulvey explained why this project is so important to their organization. He referred to the site plan diagram and pointed out the locations of Grant Street and Gold Road and where the proposed building will be located on the property. He pointed out 3 independent living apartment buildings which were built in 1963 and noted that what has happened is the expectations of older people has changed tremendously and what -Ams suitable then is not good enough now particularly with the size of the units. He stated the only way they could really increase the size of the units in those buildings was to combine 2 or 3 units into 1. He explained that they have lost 65 units in the process and are going to loss I I more. Mr. Mulvey said they are concerned with the result of this lose of units will further result in the lose of residents to support their operations and will put pressure on the monthly service fees that the residents will have to pay. He said another point of importance is the fact that they currently don't have enough larger units that are preferred by the senior citizens. He said the buildings with the larger units currently has a 10 year waiting list and this time span is unacceptable for elderly people who are not willing or able to wait that long. He said that they are concerned with not having the abilit%- to accommodate their applicants and having competition from other areas axed communities coming in an offering their services to their applicants who would prefer to stay in this community. He felt this is a very important reason to update their facilities and accommodations. Mr. Mulvey responded to Ms. Brady's comment on the amount of special uses requested • by the Presbyterian Home over time. He stated that this facility has occupied this site P&D Committee Meg. Minutes of7/10/00 Page 5 since 1922 and was classified then as a special use which means that consequently everything they do, whether it be an addition to one of their cottages or any renovation or construction, would require permission from the City and an amendment or modification to the original special use. He noted that in lieu of the time that this facility has been located this property, it would account for the numerous requests for special rises and variances to keep up with the changing time and needs. Chairman Newman noted that Mr. Mulvey stated that this new building would be on the tax roll. He questioned why some of the property is on the tax roll and some is not; hoar is this determined. Mr. Mulvey responded that this determination of the amount of property on the tax roll results from a court case that was done in the 70's and started wit the Georgian and then spread to the other retirement centers. He said basically, the rule of thumb that came down with the Presbyterian Home campus, is the fact that if people live in units and have resources, then they most pay taxes on them. If the units are charitable in nature, then they become exempt from real estate taxes. He said also the health care facilities that have Medicare patients are exempt from paying taxes. He said the proposed building will be for people who do have resources, therefore qualifying to be on the tax roll. Chairman Newman noted the proposed building will supply 24 units and he asked at what cost per unit will pay in real estate taxes. Mr. Mulvey responded tha the is unsure at this time but noted that each unit is considered under a "life lease", therefore the exact amount per unit is difficult to assume at this time until the unit is occupied by the resident. He stated in comparison to their other units similar to the . proposed building, he would estimate approximately $100,000 in total for the building but reiterated this amount is not conclusive until the residents have been established for each unit. Chairman Newman asked for cMfication of the statement made by Ms. Brady regarding the initial notices to neighbors. Ms. Tolan handed a copy of the original notice that was sent to neighbors that Ms. Brady was referring to which was intended for the neighborhood meeting. She did concur with Ms. Brady's frustration in that this notice did not clarify the location of the building and height was not properly listed. However, Ms. Tolan does note that the description that was given by the City for notice requirements, does property list the 4-story proposed building and the location. Mr. Alterson affirmed that the official required notice sent out for the actual zoning relief to residents within a 500' radius of the subject property did list all required for the zoning variance and special use. He informed the Committee that there were 2 notices sent and the original notice referred to by Ms. Brady was for a neighborhood informative meeting and the official notice was sent out afterwards for the zoning case. Aid. Bernstein noted that only 10 people showed up out of the approximate 250 notices sent out for the neighborhood meeting. Chairman Newman asked Ms. Brady if she also received the official notice. She responded that she did receive this notice also but reiterated that the initial notice for the neighborhood meeting was misinforming which she feels resulted in the lack of concern by the neighbors to begin with and did not grab their attention. Mr. Mulvey added that they did receive a number of calls from neighbors with regards to the 0 first notice sent and their questions were answered by phone. PAD Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7110/00 Page 6 Ms. Tolan further explained the proposed building in more detail stating that the current berm along Golf Road %%ill remain. She explained and illustrated from the diagram the exact Iocation of the proposed building and noted that it will be 80+ feet from the edge of Golf Road. She assured the existing landscaping would be untouched by this project. She pointed out from the site plan diagram where they will take down some single level parking garages that are not currently consistently used by their residents and how they will maintain landscaping in those areas_ She noted that the proposed building will be place on the current asphalt parking lot and they will provide 35 underground panting spaces, which will accommodate the 24 units and the few garages that they will remove for this building. Aid. Bernstein asked if there are any other 4-story buildings on the site. Ms. Tolan responded that there are and pointed out their locations. Aid. Bernstein commented that this is consistent with that is already on the property. Ms. Tolan continued with her explanation of the project referring to the site plan diagram for assistance. After hearing comments from Mr. Mulvey and Ms. Tolan, Chairman Newman addressed Ms. Brady on her thoughts at this point. He added that from what he has seen from this presentation, is a property that is currently well kept and aesthetically pleasing and the proposed building will be consistent with what is existing and has been well a thought out project. Ms. Brady stood firm on her thoughts that this proposed building will still negatively impact the neighborhood and feels the Presbyterian Home is expanding the property to the limits and has become a special use entity of their o%m. She reiterated her opinion that the original notice was misleading. Aid. Bernstein commented on the negative effect stated by Ms. Brady and stated that on the contrary, he feels this project is fitting for the facility and to what is currently on the property. He commended their excellent landscaping and he feels the addition of this building will not change their quality upkeep of the property. He said as far as the economic hardship argument stated by Mr. Mulvey, this argument will soon be considered under Ordinance 78-0-00 regarding amending the implementation and administration relating to the financial or economic situation of the applicant, which is on the agenda for tonight. He noted that this ordinance stems from a referral made by him because of his concern with certain cases and situations, such as this case, financial hardship should not be considered as sufficient ground for meeting the standards for zoning relief. Mr. lack Siegel, City of Evanston Corporation Counsel informed the Committee and others in attendance, that this case is ancient history on his part. He stated that he represented the City of Evanston in the case called "Methodist Old Peoples Home" versus the City of Evanston. He said that when they established the principal based upon the Georgian Hotel, which came in for tax exemption, went to the Illinois Supreme Court, the Georgian like the Presbyterian Home leased portions of their properties which required an entrance fee depending upon the size of the unit. Mr. Siegel requested not be held firm to this statement, but he does recall at that time it was between $25-50,000 entry fee plus a monthly charge to incoming residents, He stated that the Supreme Court property held that this was not an institution that met the requirements for tax exemption which is that the benefits are available to all without any burden to the applicant, - therefore qualifying as an economic operation. He said that the Presbyterian Home • P&D onunittee C Meg. Minutes of 7/10/00 Page 7 • attempted to get total tax exemption; they went to court on this and the Court ruied that those portions of the Home that follow the pattern of the Georgian that regmred a founders fee for a portion of their facility, were deemed taxable. He recalls at thm time, there were some units that did not require the payment but the law was clear on that is.= and the Presbyterian Home was considered along the same line as the Georgbm In conclusion, Mr. Siegel assured that those units deemed qualified to be occupied by residents entering without the burden of any assistance, qualify for taxable expectation and those units occupied by Medicare or charitable assistance, do qualify for tax exemption. Upon hearing all comments trade by the applicant and Corporation CounscL A]& Bernstein moved approval of Ordinance 81-0-00, seconded by Ald. Engelman. Chairman Newman expressed his understanding towards Ms. Brady's concerns especially with the mis-guidance of the neighborhood meeting notice. However, he is inclined to go with the persuasion of the obvious quality and thought put into this project and the applicants proven reputation in the upkeep of this property. Ald. Bernstein raised question and concern with the current amount of false alarms called to this for the Fire Department and he requested that the administrative staff look into this and work on eliminating the amount of calls. Mr. Mulvey assured that their staff will work aith the residents in helping to alleviate such calls. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. f P4) Ordinance 78-0-00 -- Amendine the Zonine Ordinance Chanter 3 "Imo_ lementation and Administration" . The Committee agreed to hold this item in Committee for the July 24`h meeting due to lack of time for proper discussion of this matter. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD2) Discussion of Vested Rights vis o vis Land use Regulation Amendments Ald. Rainey was called over from A&PW for participation in this discussion. Ms. Anderson requested that the Committee in combination with the Plan Commission be on the same page regarding any conclusion to this decision. She said that her understanding from the standpoint of the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission is that the pipeline had its beginning when the developer walked in with their proposed plans and they were accepted to continue with zoning relief and site plan consideration. On the other hand, is the determination of being in the pipeline when the developer walks out of City Hall with his building permit in hand? She said the question is there a place along that line when the City will install a bell at a certain point and where is that appropriate point. She stressed this is the point of consideration that needs clear determination and request tha the Committee keep this in mind because that is specifically what must be established and agreed upon between the Committee, Commissions and staff to clear this matter. 0 P&D Committee Nftg. Minutes of 7110/00 Page 8 Chairman Newman stated that this crucial issue came about at this time in relation to t1ke proposed project at Asbury and Howard and what was requested by the Committee to look at this evening x ith regards to that matter. Ms. Anderson clarified that the original concern with this issue came about as a result of a matter in Ald. Wynne's ward and. consequently extended to the case at Asbury and Howard. Chairman Newman acknowledged that fact, but stressed the realization of the facts that extended from that case onto this one is when it triggered the amount of citizen concern and participation. He stated that he was under the assumption that the Committee was to receive a legal opinion from Corporation Counsel on the interpretation of this issue, noting Mr. Siegel's presence for a verbal interpretation. He also recalled the request to staff to provide various case scenarios of buildings and projects where they Committee could take a look at for purposes of comparison. Mr. A"olinski responded that what staff sent the Committee was the time line on the project for both the Coronet Theatre and for the 121 Asbury project. Chairman Newman referred to Mr. Siegel for his comments at this time. Mr. Siegel stated that he has been asked basically to determine this opinion as to what his understanding of the law is with respect tot at what point the pipeline gets the valve. He said that the Illinois Supreme Court in 2 major cases, both of which he was involved set that the basic rules forth. First case is "Not versus "Alolfe" which is at 19 Illinois god, where he represented Bill Not who incidentally was an alderman at that time in Evanston, noting that he was not Corporation Counsel for Evanston at that time. He said that his applicant and partner at that time had purchased property at what as then known as "no mans land" in Wilmette. He said the zoning ordinance in Wilmette at that time, . permitted hotels and motels to be established in that particular district. He said his applicant purchased the property and hired an architect who drew up the plans and received engineering studies and subsequently applied for a building permit at which time the Village of Wilmette amended their zoning ordinance to eliminate hotels from the district. He said the Village Manager was Bill Wolfe who became the defendant and the case ended up in Illinois Supreme Court and established the rule that the plaintiff who has substantially changed his position, in reliance upon a zoning ordinance is irnmuned from any subsequent change. Mr. Siegel said in that instance they were able to convince the Court that what has taken place constituted a substantial change; the change being the acquisition of the property, the preparation of plans and the engineering studies resulting in out-of-pocket expenses in the approximate amount of S200,000. The Court held this constitutional in a substantial change. He added that from this case many other similar jurisdictions adopted this principal and noted that this was the first case of this kind in the State of Illinois. Mr. Siegel said that several years later, he was hired by a group of doctors who wanted to building an office building in Evanston. He said they purchased 3 homes on the west side of Ridge Avenue, hired an architect, drew up the plans and applied for their building permit. The City of Evanston changed the parking requirements on Ridge Avenue so that it was not possible for them to build the office building. He revealed that the was the COS Company. Mr. Seigel said that the COS Company hired them and he won the case again based primarily upon the fact that there was a substantial change in position in • reliance of the zoning ordinance. He said that the court ruled in favor of the precedent set ' P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7/ 1 QIDD Page 9 • fram the previous case. He said that the City appealed the k:-.tc w the Illinois Supreme Court and he wrote the brief on behalf of the COS Corlx)ratkNn. tic noted that before the case was argued, he was hired by City of Evanston w; Corporation Counsel. tit which tirne he withdrew from the case. Mr. Siegel stated that even with this care. again relying upon the proposition that there had been a substantial change in rrliartcr 4:1n tltc toning ordinance. He said the most recent case that has come down sinct then is "Zights versus Village of Glenview" which involved a development in a metro area in Glenview. He noted that the principal was applied to the ruling of this case. He gated that it is easier to annunciate the principal that it is to apply it. He explained that the principal obviously is that any substantial change by a property owner in reliance a uFVn the existing zoning exempts that property ownerfrom any subsequent change in zoning. H noted that there is a coviat to this which arises out of a case from the Village of Palatine that says if a municipality has actively engaged in the process of amending or considering an amendment to the zoning ordinance then the Village may refuse to issue building permits. Ald. Engelman recognized this as the reasonableness of the reliance. Mr. Siegel said that each one of these case was decided on its own particular facts so that we have to look at the following considerations in determining at what point the valve is inserted. He said it would seem to him as a general proposition absent the fact that the City Council has actively considered a change which would preclude the modifiable use so that if for example they publish where a change in zoning and all of a sudden someone comes in and buys property and hires an architect that says he has changed his position in reliance. He believes this is a situation where the City could say to the property owner that he . knew about this and it appear to be an attempt to win a race to the Zoning Board. He said normally, if a property owner has changed his position by virtue of acquiring property and by taking further steps, in his opinion that property owner has immuned from any subsequent change. Mr. Siegel concluded his interpretation and noted that he has not had a chance to analyze the case and time issue around the 121 Asbury case nor the Coronet Theatre so he in unable this evening to give his opinion on either situation. He informed the Committee that he would be willing to look at these cases and respond back to them if they desire. Aid. Wynne addressed Mr. Siegel noting that in her opinion, they are trying to figure out and develop some kind of bright line rule for developers, community members and city staff members so that there is a clear understanding of when someone is truly in the door — plans accepted and the applicant has made some kind of reliance on our zoning ordinance. She gave a hypothetical situation — referring that a process has taken place in year 1 and at year 3 after a report has been written recommending a change in the zoning and it has been sent to the Plan Commission. Then a property owner purchases a property, which is within the contemplated district to be changed, and gradually the Plan Commission acts on the reports, recommends it to the City Council and they go on to introduce this amendment and passes it. She questioned does that property owner, who knew a 3 year process had taken place and a report had actually been written and sent to Plan Commission recommending a change, is this property owner considered in the pipeline or not. Mr. Siegel responded that from the story, he would consider the property . owner not in the pipeline. Aid. Wynne asked if that property owner even says to an Alderman that they bought that property planning to be the last one in under the current .14it P&D Cosanr..rr Mtn. Minutes of 710 00 Page 10 zoning. Mr. Siegel informed Ald. Wynne that any privite conversations brtween a property owner and a Council member as nothing to do with anything. She noted that tt&- intent was there. Mr. Siegel responded that it seems to him that if there is public noti, and active consideration of an amendment which would hair the specific proposal and tlx property owner then buys with knowledge of this. then in his opinion you should be able to tell the property owner that he has created his own hardship in this case. Aid. Engelman interpreted Mr. Siegel's principal to his understanding. which seems tbat there already is a test, it is not a bright line in terms of being written out like building codes, but what he is saying is that the test depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He continued that it depends upon a variety of things such as change in position, was the change substantial, was it in reliance and was the reliance reasonable.. Mr. Siegel commended Aid. Engelman's interpretation. Aid. Wynne asked at what point was the change being in the process. Aid. Engelman clarified that it depends upon existing zoning reasonable, not reasonable if the change has been made aware and they should have known about it. Chairman Newman followed up noting there is a difference. For example, a person owns the property and is currently doing nothing with it, and then the proposed amendment gets to the Plan Commission, which is the fast step. He continued that after this reaches the Plan Commission, within a week the owner goes out and spends thousands of dollars on plans to do a building. The City knows that this money was spent after the amendment reached the Plan Commission. Chairman Newman questioned that although aware of the substantial amount of money spent by the homeowner, is that owner out of luck because the amendment was already on the table. isMr. Siegel responded that he believes at that stage the City could very well take the position that the owner was aware of the fact and he pointed out that no one has the right to continuation of the Zoning Ordinance. In other words, the City Council has the right to change the Zoning Ordinance at any time; the only question is whether anybody's property rights have approved The Committee and Mr. Siegel discussed this situation in further detail. Aid. Rainey gave a hypothetical situation where there is a contract to purchase a piece of property in the B3 zoning district. She stated that the purchase has not taken place and the Council obtains the zoning from B3 to B2, which in no way impedes any of the uses of the B3, which was the zoning when the contract for purchase was acquired. She said that the developer didn't actually own the property -at the time the change took place and secondly, the developer hadn't applied for building permit but has received a zoning certificate saying that the project presented from their drawings, although not working drawings, does meet the zoning requirements. Aid. Rainey asked for Corporation Counsel's opinion on this situation. Mr. Siegel responded that it seems in this case that it depends on the nature of the contract. He explained that if the contract was petitioned in any way upon a building permit, he believes this would effect it. He noted that a mere contract purchaser would have the right to challenge the zoning but he does not believe this would be a sufficient change in position. Chairman Newman acknowledged those citizens who have signed up to comment. P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 7/10/00 Page I 1 Mr. Frank Anderson, 1409 Dobson, commended Aid. Rainey and thanked her for bar support and standing with them as a community -x--incern. Mr. Richard Engling, 135 Asbury, requested dut City sWTscnd a registered letter to ti= applicant notifying him of the zoning amen iment and his position as far as bei= considered in the "pipeline". Chairman Newman said, from all discussion and commrras made, that in his opinion a legal opinion should be obtained for each case being rrtetrcd to in this discussion, am whether or not the City has discretion to request that a bui5ding permit not be issued. He: said from what Corporation Counsel has disclosed, e- h case should be considered separately on their own set of facts. Aid. W)mm added tL,,a she learned this evening that there is a starting point to some degree in the process and whether a change is being contemplated; this sets a threshold in this whole discussian. She feels this is a trig new piece of information that is now on the table. Chairn= Newman feels an importtznt issue that he has learned tonight Mr. Jonathan Perman, Evanston Chamber of Commerce, stated that in his opinion th= should be some type of guidelines for developers to follow and be made aware of the opinion that has been interpreted this evening. Chairman Newman suggested that in the case of 121 Asbury, the developer should supply a copy of his contract to purchase and a record of all his cost incurred from the date of the Iscontract. Aid. Rainey expressed her discomfort with the dceloper producing evidence of his cost incurred with this project because of computer technology, it is easy to alter receipts and other financial information. COMMUNICATIONS Plan Commission Activitv Report from January 1999 — Andl 2000 This communication was accepted without comment. Citv Cost Incurred for the Northwest Evanston Historic District Process This communication was accepted without comment. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacgt linet Brownlee is X MINUTES Planning & Development Committee June 26, 2000 Room 2403 -- 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman Alderman Tardy:. M_ Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Franz, R. Schur, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was held due to the fact that a quorum was not yet present. Chairs Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. He apologized for the late start due to unforeseen circumstances. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 12.2000 MEETING Ald. Kent moved approval of the minutes of the June 12th, 2000 meeting, seconded by Ald. Engelman. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Newman discussed with the Committee members, rearranging the agenda to accommodate the large crowd that appeared to be in attendance for item (B). They decided to address the items first that do not require a lot of discussion. (P4) Reauest for HOME Funds Aid. Kent moved approval of the request for S22,500 in HOME funds, seconded by Chairman Newman. 0 92 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of June 26, 2000 Page 2 Aid. Engelman questioned if this is a loan or grant. Mr. Wolinski responded that this S request is actually for a grant. He explained that this has gone before the City's HOME Loan Committee and recommended by the Housing Commission to approve. It was clarified that these funds are for administrative purposes for Reba Place Development Chairman Newman requested to hold this item for further discussion when Ald. Feldman can be called over from the A&PW meeting. (P2) Request for Waiver of Permit Fees Chairman Newman requested an update of this request. Mr. Wolinski explained that he and members of his staff had a meeting with HUD concerning the allocation of finds for this project. He said there are actually two divisions of HUD that are involved in this: 1) their Housing Division and 2) HUD's Capital Division. He said there is also the Minis Housing and Development Authority involved. He stated that he is not sure that all 3 of these agencies have been discussing how they together are funding this project, so of er the meeting with HUD concerning their request of S250,000 from the City. that HUD decided that they wanted to reassess and reevaluate the project. He said HUD then informed that they would call a meeting with Rev. Wade and Ebenezer staff to further discuss this decision. Mr. Wolinski brought attention to the letter he handed out from Rev. Wade stating that if the $250,000 in HOME funds then he would withdraw his request for the waiver of permit fees. Chairman Newman expressed his approval of this method instead of having to use general funds. He said that he would like to hold this item until it is clear whether Ebenezer wishes to withdraw this request. He stated that he would still be interested in seeing the appraisals of the property and receiving staffs opinion that the price being paid for the land is a reasonable price, even if they do withdraw their request He feels that this request is justified with the request for HOME funds and he would like to see this information before he votes on the HOME fund issue. Mr. Wolinski said that he assumes the idea is to bring the $250,000 request before the Committee soon after the meeting between Ebenezer and HUD takes place, Ai*h he hopes to be in the next week. He said that he has two (2) major issues, the acquisition price of the land and also the relocation fees involved. He said these are the two areas where there appeared to be some confusion as far as who is allocating what money from what federal agency. He stated that staff will bring both issues back before the Committee at the same time. The Committee requested that staff provide the zoning minutes for this case, a copy of the special use ordinance, and the appraisal information for the next meeting. (PI I Plat ofResubdivision — Universitv/Manle Aid. Engelman moved approval for the plat of resubdivision at University and Maple, seconded by Aid. Kent. The motion was approved with a vote of 3-0. (P7) Ordinance 78-0-00 — Amendine the Zonine Ordinance Chanter 3 "Imnlementatioa and Administration" The Committee agreed to introduce this item this evening and refer back to Committee for discussion at the July 10tb meeting. 0 K P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of June 26, 2000 Page 3 (P6) Sidewalk Cafe at 711 Church Street- Chipolte Mexican Grill Chairman Newman acknowledged the attorney for Chipolte, Ms. Jennifer Gallery. Ms. Gallery introduced Mr. Brian Ferguson, on -site manager for the Evanston location. Chairman Newman stated his concerns from past experience with t)W 2 restaurants wO their sidewalk cafes. He understands that this restaurant is a more up -scale type 2, which the City has even extended a liquor license, but there still remains the problems with proper monitoring and staffing of the cafe. He asked what their procedure will be for staffing the cafe. Mr. Ferguson responded that they will have full-time bus staff during the busy lunch and dinner hours and during the other hours the cafe is in operation, staff will be inside but %%ill constantly monitor the tables. Chairman Newman said that is exactly where his concern remains with type 2 sidewalk cafes that they don't have to worry about with type 1 restaurants and that is with the sidewalk cafe ha%dng constant bus staff at all times. He is particularly concerned because of the location of Chipolte and the transient problems in that area. Mr. Ferguson assured the Committee that they already have a full and available staff to constantly monitor and bus the cafe and have purchased a proper sized trash receptacle specifically for it. Chairman Neuman reiterated the problems he has experienced from other applicants in his ward that have promised to properly monitor and staff` their cafes to the Committee and within weeks, go in contradiction of everything they promised. With Mr. Ferguson's assurance and the reputation of this restaurant, he is hopeful that everything promised is abided by. Chairman Newman questioned staff regarding the waiver to allow foil wrapping. Aid. Engelman also questioned the requirement to serve the foil wrapped food in a plastic basket. He said that he would be opposed to voting in favor of a waiver for the foil wrapping without the requirement of serving it in the plastic basket. He feels the plastic basket will aid in helping to keep the foil wrapping from being trashed in the area and will compel the staff to keep a constant eye on their merchandise and the cafe. He questioned the estimated cost per basket. Mr. Ferguson responded that the cost is approximately S.25 per basket. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that, technically, Ordinances 67-0-00 and 73-0-00 must be approved before a waiver can be granted for either the foil wrapping or the plastic baskets. The Committee then chose to vote on these two matters during consideration of the sidewalk cafe for Chipolte. fP9) Ordinance 67-0-00 — Amendment to Citv Code Section 7-2-6(D)5c Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 67-0-00, seconded by Aid. Kent. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. (PIO) Ordinance 73-0-00 — Amendment to Citv Code Chapter 14: Site Plan & Annearance Review for Sidewalk Cafd Regulations Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 7"-00, which coincides with the previous ordinance. Aid. Kent seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. 0 P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of June 26, 20W Page 4 Chairman Newman explained to 6_- applicant why these two ordimmcs needed to be approved before they could consider. their request for wailers. AId_ Engelman reiterated his firm belief that there should be a condition put upon the allowance of foil %Tapping if the plastic baskets are used with customers wishing to eat in the sidc%k-Jk cafe. The other Committee members agreed to this condition. Aid. Engelman moved approval of the request for sidewalk cafe for Chipolte Mexican Grill at 711 Church Street and the request for waiver to allow foil wrapping with the condition that plastic baskets arc used in conjunction for the sidewalk cafe. Aid. Kent seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. (P8) Ordinance 79-0-00 -- Amending the Zonine Ordinance and 7_onine Man Ald. Rainey was called over from A&PW for participation in the discussion on this issue. She spoke on behalf of many of her constituents in her ward, that this reference to amend the zoning ordinance and map is due to the proposed project at 121 Asbury Avenue. She said that the main concern is for the allowance of 85' height ender the B3 zoning regulations. She said that a building of the height would be cxtrrmely overwhelming in that area compared to the residential houses, especially the one-story structures that are neighboring this property. She noted that a building of this height would be inappropriate for that site and the surrounding neighborhood, as well as in most other neighborhoods within the City of Evanston. Ald. Rainey emphasized that the neighbor's primary issue is with the height and that there are no real objections to allowed uses for the site. Upon hearing Aid. Rainey's comments. no objectors from the audience, and obvious . consensus of the Committee, Chairman Newman moved to concur with the Plan Commission recommendation of Ordinance 79-0-00 to re -map certain areas from B3 to B2, seconded by Aid. Kent. Chairman Newman said that he appreciates this recommendation and feels it is a much broader issue beyond just one particular site. He stressed that this amendment must be consistent in all the areas abutting residential districts such as Central Street, Chicago Avenue, Asbury. etc. The other Committee members agreed. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Anderson wanted to clarify the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission position on this matter. She explained that this issue at Howard and Asbury arose because the Plan Commission was looking at B3 as a result of the Neighborhom Committee's work on Chicago Avenue. She said that B3 only appears on Chicago Avenue and Howard, which abuts an R2. Furthermore, she said they looked at what they might do on Howard as opposed to what they might do Asbury, they looked at the use list and took all of this into consideration under this recommendation. Discussion of (P4) Request for HOME Funds — continued, Ald. Feldman was called over from A&PW at this time. Chairman Ne rnian acknowledged Mr. Davis Janzen and Mr. Edmund Steel from Reba Place Development Corporation. Mr. Janzen explained their request for HOME funds of S22,500 in capacity building funds and specifically what they will be used. He summarized that the funds will be used to support a salary supplement of the full time project manager, money to set P&D Committee Mtg- Minutes of June 26, 2000 Pagc S up a more permanent office and to support needed training experiences. He noted their recent purchase of 707-13 Seward Street and the work they are doing there. Aid. Feldman expressed his strong support for the Reba Place Development Corporation and gave background and insight of the on -going work they have done for the neighborhood and continue to do so. He stressed that they have continually made improvements for the neighborhood since they have taken over some buildings that were the cause of constant gang and drug problems and uncooperative with their surrounding neighbors. He pointed out how they weeded out the bad tenants and worked with the good tenants remaining and have done a good job in screening new tenants to form buildings that fit and work to better the community. He backed Reba Place on their request for these funds to provide proper training services to continue their efforts and to supplement a full-time project manager with their ongoing Work to be done. He request that the Committee support this request for HOME funds on behalf of Reba Place's proven worthiness and efforts they have put forth. Chairman Newman agreed with Ald. Feldman and also commended Reba Place for the work they have done in that neighborhood. The Committee expressed some concern as to whether this is actually a loan or a grant. It was clarified that this is a "capacity development" grant, it is not a loan. There was some discussion, from a concern expressed by Aid. Engelman, as to the procedure of requesting HOME funds, which Chairman Newman assured that this request should come before the P&D Committee, . Aid. Engelman questioned the usage of HOME funds for administrative use versus acquisitional use. Ms. Schur clarified the functions that HOME fund are used for and noted that approximately 5% of the funds are used as a grant for this exact purpose and requested by Reba Place. She further explained that this is a one-time only grant given to a Community Housing Development Organization (CHODO) to better their position, receive the training that they need and help enhance the organization. She noted that a similar grant was extended to Interfaith two years ago. Aid. Kent asked how many grants of this nature have been given away in the past and he questions how an organization gets to that point of requesting these funds and how do organizations receive information to become a CHODO. '*Is. Schur responded that grants such as these are reviewed by staff, followed by a meeting and then forwarded to the Housing Commission and finally before the P&D Committee. She said that all of the loan application are also reviewed by staff and then forwarded to the HOME Loan Committee, next the Housing Commission and then P&D. It was the consensus of the Committee to approve the request for HOME funds from Reba Place Development Corporation for S22,500 in Capacity Building Funds. Chairman Newman requested that staff provide a semi -yearly or yearly report on HOME funds listing the organization, the allocation of funds and what they are being requested for. 0 PAD Committee Mtg. Minutes of June 26, 2000 Page 6 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD2) Discussion of Vested Riehts vis a vis Land Use Remilation Amendments Chairman Newman noted that Aid. W}nne was not present and this was her reference. He further noted that more time than what remains in this meeting, is needed for discussion of this matter and it is important that Aid. %Vynne be present for tbat discussion. The Committee recognized the amount of citizens signed up to speak on this matter and decided that they should allow those wishing to comment, the time to do so. At this time, Aid. Wynne entered the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Newman filled her in and explained the Committee's position. He asked her rote on Ordinance 79-0-00 regarding the zoning map and ordinance amendment for certain areas from B3 to 132. Aid. Wynne confirmed her support for this ordinance. Chairman Newman said the seriousness in this issue, in his opinion, is with regards to when people start investing money into significant plans for a project and rely on what the ordinance defines at that time. He would consider this "in the pipeline." He said there are also a couple of other issues on pipeline such as the application for a building permit and certificate of zoning compliance. He response to Aid. Rainey's question on ownership in order to go through the system, he questions this requirement because you want people to redevelop property and the outcome of what is permissible on that property, is the basis for acquiring ownership. He noted that there is a serious policy implication that has to be thought out in this issue. Chairman Newman pointed out, that because of the seriousness of this, it will require more time for discussion that this meeting allows, but he would be interested in hearing from the citizens that have signed up to speak within the remaining time. He also requested that staff provide a chronological history of the planned project for 121 Asbury, which is the subject of main concern for these citizens. Mr. Wolinski noted that at the last meeting, the Committee had requested Corporation Counsel's legal opinion on this and he informed the Committee that the opinion has not yet been received. ifs. Anderson depicted that this Committee is a legislative body that is in the position to set legislative rules where appropriate. She pointed out that developers take risks all the time with zoning ordinance amendments and changes. Aid. Wynne clearly feels that the legal opinion needs to be obtained for clarification of what is currently warded in the ordinance. She feels what is currently in the ordinance is contradictory. She also feels that a better analysis is needed from staff on various points which could be considered the beginning because of the application and zoning process itself and the scheduling of meetings, it is easy for developers to slip through the process even while making amendments to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wolinski brought to the Committee's attention a memo in their packet rendering Ms. Szymanski's opinion on the language in the ordinance. Aid. Wynne requested more information, in more detail from what was provided in this memo. Ms. Szymanski explained that memo was a brief explanation to Mr. Alterson and was not intended to give a legal opinion of the language in the ordinance. P&D Committee Mt& N intaft of June 26, 2000 Page 0 At this point, Chairman Newman ga-*v citizens signed up to spmk, s chance to comment_ Mr. Richard Engling, 135 Asbury Avenue, said that he has attend two meetings, on this project intended for 121 Asbury, which has to do with the amcTrJL=g the zoning ordinance from B3 to B2. He said that everyone has agreed that rezoning tmm B3 to 132 is the right direction in this neighborhood And he feels that this particular c.-cmnple at 121 Asbury, its the worst case scenario. He pointed out bad situations the building. if built under EG regulations, would cause for the area such as with its towering height over the tmisting buildings and residential in the immediate area and the addition of traffic on an already congested corner, parking problems, etc. He stress that if there is any way to stop this particular project, that is what they are trying to accomplish Kith the zoning amendment, if not, this process would deem pointless to them. Aid. Wynne Feinted out that in the P ward, the project at the Coronet Theatre site is a good example of a developer getting their foot in the door before the zoning could be changed in tirne from C 1 a. She agrees with Mr. Engling's view on this matter. Chairman Newman added there are many casts that he can recall since he has been alderman of the 1" ward where this exact situation has occurred. He pointed out several sites where this has happened, including one Northwestern building which was denied by the Site Plan Review Committee, but they were told they would probably loose any case because the building was within the permitted building envelope. He agrees that this is a stressful and frustrating situation and feels this matter is worth giving the proper time address. • Aid. Engelman asked if the developer for this proposed project has ever completed a project Mr. Wolinski said that he can not recall but does remember that he once was employed by Roger Parris. The Committee questions this developers capability because of his track record. Mr. Engling said that he has been to all the meetings regarding this proposed project and he recalls that at the first meeting there were 6 people from the development, second meeting there was no one present from the developer and the third meeting there was just the one person representing the developer. He agrees that this does reflect the developers credibility. It was a consensus of the Committee to review the chronological history of the proposed project for 121 Asbury and to review the drawings that were presented to the City and the neighborhood meeting for that site, at the next meeting. Aid. Kent further requested for staff to pull up other projects done by this developer and his past employer, if possible, that were presented to the City and attempted to build something else. Chairman Newman said upon review of this case, he is hopeful that there still will be time to stop this specific project before being considered in the pipeline. 4is. Ilene Pender, 1207 Dobson Street, wanted to clarify tha-, she and many of her neighbors are not opposed to business development for that site, but are specifically opposed to the proposed project presented for that site. She said they are also very opposed to vacant lots and buildings and are looking forward to that site being developed with an appropriate structure. She said that particular site is not appropriate for an 85' • building and pointed out that Asbury from Howard Street is one of the main gateways into Evanston and the north shore from Chicago and it is impem!ive of what is viewed or P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of June 26, 2000 Page 8 presented as you enter from these points. Her point being that this decision will effect the entire City of Evanston and is of utmost importance for consideration. Ms. Anderson suggested to the Committee that they consider suspending the rules to introduce and pass Ordinance 79-0-00 this evening. She said it could help the situation if the amendment is set as soon as possible. Chairman Newman reminded that the particular case at 121 Asbury has only come to their attention this evening and they have only been presented with this zoning amendment at this point. He said the Committee had only planned on addressing the zoning issue this evening, not the proposed project at 121 Asbury. He clarified that it is only because of this reference from a problem that stemmed in the P ward, that it was realized how it has effected many projects throughout Evanston. He said that the decisions that the Committee makes on this particular reference or ordinance change, have broad implications for the entire City because the rules they put in place will apply for the entire City. He said that there still may be time in this case and as requested, the Committee has asked staff to supply the history on this case for the next meeting. Mr. Chris Chen, 1210 Dobson Street, pointed out to the Committee the difference in height requirement from 133 to 132 which is 85' to 45'. He stressed that the Committee keep this major difference in mind. After all discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee to hold this matter for further discussion at the July 10'h meeting. Staff is requested at that time to have the legal opinion from Corporation Counsel, a memorandum from staff with their interpretation of a working definition for when a project is considered in the pipeline, and a chronological history on the proposed project for 121 Asbury Avenue. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacqu ine it. Brownlee �I • E 0 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee June 12, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Prevent: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, bL Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolin ski, M. Franz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Dienner Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 22.2000 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of the May 22nd, 2000 tneedn& seconded by Aid, Wynne. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (P1) Reouest for Waiver of Permit Fees Chairman Newman acknowledged Pastor James Wade of Ebenezer A-NLE. Church. Pastor Wade stated that they are very near completion to bringing this project to the next stage to begin construction. He explained that they are several thousand dollars short because water retention specifications which has to be done in a particular way which increased the cost of construction. He said the request for the waiver of fees would allow them to have close to $100,000 that would allow them to move forward. He estimated to begirt construction next month. Aid. Kent asked for clarification of the memorandum in the packet which states that 5100,000 should be fairly close to the figure in estimated permit fees; he requested staff' explanation. Mr. Wolinski stated that the Jacob Blake Manor has been fully permitted but staff does not yet have all of the various contractor work sheets in to give an exact amount on the permit. He explained that if the project is estimated at 4.5 million dollars in construction cost at $11,00 per $1,000 — this comes to approximately $550,000 which would equate to about a $55,000 building permit fee and figure another 3040% of this amount for electrical, plumbing and HVAC permit fees. . This is how they estimate the total cost in permit fees to be around $ 1 00,000. Aid. Kent P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of6/12100 Page 2 said that the real predicament they are facing is that the $I00,000 would come back to the City and he questioned where these funds would go. Mr. Wolinski said that the money would go in the general fund where all permit fees go. Ald. Kent noted that since Pastor Wade has mentioned that they expect to begin construction in a few weeks, he asked if there any other options thai the City can work out with them that might fill the void. Mr. Wolinski said another option, which the Pastor has requested, is the use of HOME funds. He noted that there is a minimum of $250,000 and this request came in with the request for waiver of permit fees and is being routed through the Housing Commission and is expected to come before P&D at the next meeting. He informed the Committee that there is an issue with the east majority of this project being sponsored by HUD and whether or not HUD will allow us to spend HOME funds for a project that is basically already funded by them. is uncertain. However, he does feel that HUD is going to look closely at the fact that there is enough money budgeted for this project by them to construct the building. Other than this, he stated that he has no other thoughts on where funding could be obtained for the $ I00,000. Chairman Newman said that he is concerned because this is a large request for waiver of fees. He noted that during the original meetings on this subject, he does not recall any discussion or consideration of requesting a waiver of permit fees or for the City to contribute any funding on this project. He also recalls that there is wording in the ordinance regarding some type of tax contribution. Pastor Wade responded that this property is not tax exempt, mentioning the fact that they do feel the property should be tax exempt by virtue of state statutes. However, their agreement came to a hefty amount starting at $38,000 and escalating each year. Chairman Newman stated that with a project of this magnitude, as with any other in the City, there needs to be proper review and consideration of any request for funding or assistance from the City. He noted that he would like to see the minutes involving the original discussion of this project and what was agreed on and the original ordinance for this project. He said it is important to remember the this project will still require City staff to conduct all inspections and services that go into any other project, so it is imperative that all things to be considered be given before agreeing to waive any fees that are due the City. He asked the applicant if there is a time constriction on beginning this project in order to give time to gather and review the information requested for consideration at the next meeting. Pastor Wade responded that they were planning to begin the construction schedule at the end of June. It was noted that the next P&D meeting is June 26`h. Ald. Kent asked for explanation of the actually shortage for the project. Pastor Wade responded that the actual amount is slightly over $350,000 which is why they need the additional 5250,000 in HOME funds. He explained that they just received an increase in funds from HUD last week in the amount of $500,000. He said that if funds are received, they will be able to begin the construction phase immediately. Aid. Kent asked if any reduction or changes to the building design of 5 stories, 76 units, have been considered to reduce the cost of construction. Pastor Wade responded that it is not possible to reduce the number of units at this time because it would make the project unfeasible. He explained that the cause in the shortage of funds is due to complying with the City's � Pa:D Committer Mtg. Atiauies of 6/ 12/00 Pun 3 demands and requirements. He said as a result from the Site Plan Review, they were inmructed to use brick instead of stucco for the facade of the building which would have sar•cd them quite a bit of money and there %as also the water detention issue requirements that were more costly than originally expected. He said that it was these t%%A.N items that took them over the amount estimated for the Mject. Pastor Wades affirmed that if there were any other means of obtaining the funds needed to proceed, he would not be before City Council requesting this assistance. Mr. NVolinski explained tho when Pastor Wade came back before the Site Plan Committee with rc-Osions, the building had changed from basically all masonry to a dr}vit building, noting the SPAARCTs feelings on dryvit. He recalled that it was his suggestion thai a building of this importance and magnitude and being located directly on Emersom a main passageway thoroughfare to downtown, he felt it would not be desirable to have a drSwit fagade. He also recalled that he thought of the alternative of possibly waiving the permit fees if it allowed the applicant in affording to make the building masonry. He said, in addition, the issue of detention came up as well, which is a big ticket item as well. Aid. Kent felt it important to mention, for the Committee benefit, that there are over 10 houses in the 50 ward that are boarded up and the $250,000 in HOME funds is just as serious as the S100,000 getting into the general fund. He feels this fact puts the Committee in between a rock and a hard place. He questioned when the demolition of the property takes place without anything else because one of the problems he tend to see with abandoned homes is with people breaking in, squatting, etc. Pastor Wade agreed with Aid. Kent and said that demolition would be the first phase with the construction process. He hopes this could happen as soon as next week if they can bring closure with HUD. He also noted that the contractor is waiting for the OK to begin work and has vxithheld starting any other projects to be ready for this one. Aid. Engelman stated that it is his understanding that the applicant not only needs the $100,000 waiver but equally needs the $250,000 in HOME funds which is not before P&D Committee this evening. In conclusion, it appears that the project can not begin without these needed funds. He noted that even if the Committee agreed to waive the S100,000 in fees, the applicant still would be short and not be able to begin construction as planned for next week, Pastor Wade hesitated but concurred with Aid. Engelman's statement and stressed the need for both sources of funding. He informed the Committee that the planned date to begin the project is on June 30`h noting that this date is just days before the deadline of their last extension granted for the special use. He also noted that HUD granted them an extension as well. Ald. Engelman asked if this matter is held and voted on at the June 26'h meeting, will the request for HOME funds be before the Committee at that time. Mr. Wolinski said that given the date Pastor Wade has stated, the HOME fund request has to go before 2 committees — (1) the HOME Loan Committee consisting of bankers, CIC and residents and (2) the Housing Commission. He said that staff could schedule a special meeting of the Housing Commission, but he feels this can be accomplished and staff could bring the entire matter before P&D on June 26 h. Chairman Newman asked whom the land was purchased from. Pastor Wade responded the purchase of land was from Mr. Robinson and several appraisals done. In response to a question on the price paid for the land, Pastor Wade responded that unfortunately he a PdtD Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6l12,'00 Page 4 can not disclose that amount due to several adjustments made that effect the final cost of the land. Chairman Newman inquired about the pro forma report on this project. Aid. Kent replied that the original pro forma was reviewed along with a large packet of materials but the problem is that the Committee reviewed it over 2 years ago and several extensions have been granted since that time. Chairman Newman said that with the assurance of staff that the HOME fund request can come before the Committee on the June 26 h meeting, he would prefer to consider both items together. He also requested that staff supple all the zoning minutes pertaining to this case. He said that he would also be interested to see the appraisals on the property. Agreeing with Chairman Newman's suggestion, it was a consensus of the Committee to hold this item in Committee until the June 20 meeting to consider the waiver and HOME funds at the same time. Aid. Bernstein stated for the record that he will not take part in the discussion or vote on this matter due to his representation on behalf of Ebenezer Church in the beginning of this application. The Committee agreed to adjust the agenda to address the amendments to the City Code for sidewalk cafe regulations before addressing the request for sidewalk cafd from Chipolte Mexican Grill. (P3) Ordinance 67-0-00 — Amendment to Citv Code Section 7-2-6(D)5e Mr. Wolinski stated that staff has taken the direction that the Committee instructed at the last meeting to take this matter back before the site Plan Committee for discussion. He explained that they came up with wording that expands the waiver possibilities to Council beyond just the beverage containers. He said that virtually all the issues that were discussed by P&D regarding paper foil, plastic wrapping etc, can now be requested as a waiver and is reflected in this proposed ordinance. He further explained that item (P4) on the agenda regarding the related amendment to the Site Plan & Appearance Review for sidewalk cafe regulations also addressed this issue out of necessity. Mr. Wolinski recalled a question from the Committee if this would permit McDonald's to come before Council to request a waiver and he confirmed that possibility. Aid. Engelman agreed that discrimination would not be allowed to any type 2 restaurant if they requested the waiver even though it is the Council's discretion to grant they can not act arbitrary to any request. He raised the question of whether anyone can think of any polystyrene wrapping in this case that would not be single use. He stated that this is the one use that he can not imagine that they would need to waive. Aid. Wynne added that this product could not be cleaned effectively for re -use. Aid. Engelman felt to avoid any issue or concern with this product, it would be desirable to eliminate any consideration for waiver. He clarified that he would like to see polystyrene not be something that they can waive and he feels this would clean up the wording of the ordinance significantly. AId. Wynne agreed and also questioned plastic products as well. She further recalled the request by Chipolte for use of wicker baskets and questions this use because of the ability to clean them effective for re -use. Aid. Engelman stated that it is possible to re -use these baskets with proper lining. Mr. Wolinski said tha the issue P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6112100 Page 5 with fast food restaurants is that they don't have the proper dishwashing capabilities dvd • the type 1 restaurants have, therefore, any re -usable items would need to be hand-washed- Ald. Engelman said that an important issue, in his mind, is giving the restaurant the incentive to have property staff outside at the caf6 policing the area at all times to contra] any litter and debris problems and the possibility of people walking off with any rs- usable products. Ald. Bernstein stated that the problem has always been litter in consideration of granting any type 2 restaurant for a sidewalk cafe and he has witnessed a major problem with litter being generated from paper napkins blowing away from tables. He feels there has been a lax in enforcement bemuse of the difficulty with constmat monitoring by City staff. He said that most case of enforcement are from the result of complaints and staff having to go out and investise the matter. He stated that he fees any decision on this amendment they will have to put in a very stringent capacity for the restaurant to maintain the litter program or agreement put forth or face the consequences immediately by revoking the cafe permit. Aid. Bernstein recalled Chipolte's proposal go wrap their food product in foil wrapping and sen•e in plastic baskets. He agrees Willi Ald. Engelman's comments in that there is no net,d to allow the possibility of waiving any polystyrene products because it should not be a consideration waiver. Ms. Anne Dienner of the Plan Commission commented on her thoughts of keeping the sidewalk clean and making the restaurant responsible for the areas surrounding their facility. She made mention of certain restaurants where drippings from their food products have caused greasy surfaces with stains in front of their establishments. She recommended to the Committee that they take into consideration adding a condition that restaurants be responsible for the upkeep of the sidewalks surrounding their facility to keep clean of any drippings or greasy residue caused by their food products. She suggested that hosing or power washing the sidewalks at regular intervals can accomplish this. She feels this condition to be as important as the responsibility for the upkeep of trash and litter. The Committee acknowledged Nfs. Dienners' suggestion. AK Engelman moved to delete the word -polystyrene" from the amended ordinance, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. With no further discussion on this matter, Aid. Engelman moved to approve Ordinznee 67-0-00 with the above modification, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (N) Ordinance 73-0-00 - Amendment to Cin- Code Chan_ ter 14: Site Plan & Atmearance Review for Sidewalk Cafd Reuulations Mr. Wolinski reiterated the reason for the necessity to amend the City Code regarding d-A-- Site Plan & Appearance Review for sidewalk cafe regulations to reflect the previor4 amendment as stated in Ordinance 67-0-00. :old. Engelman moved to apptrwe Ordinance 73-0-00 with the agreed modification to remove the word "polystyrene as stated above. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 6/121ot1 Page 6 The Committee ensued in further discussion on the requirements of housekeeping that should be the responsibility of the restaurant in question requesting a sidewalk cafe whether type I or 2. Aid. Wynne strongly feels this issue should be included and enforced as part of the litter control plan required by all restaurants and should be included in the consideration for grounds to suspend sidewalk cafe permits, if not complied by. She pointed out specific restaurant establishments, as stated by Ms. Dienner, that she also has witnessed staining and a gummy, greasy residue from drippings of food products in front of their businesses, such as the downtown Burger King for example. The Committee discussed the responsibility and specific function of the sidewalk cleaner duties operated by EVhtaRK. The Committee called over Judy Aiello for any insight that she might have on this agreement. Ms. Aiello explained that to her knowledge, the agreement with EVMARK is that their "green machine sidewalk cleaner" does a regular weekly sweeping of the downtown sidewalks. She said that once in the summer, they do a steam cleaning of the sidewalks, which does not entirely remove all gum and stains, but does significantly clean the sidewalks. She informed the Committee that because of the material the sidewalks are made of with the sand in between the bricks, it is difficult to power -wash because it will lift the sand. However, they are trying various methods to get around this problem while keeping the sidewalks as clean as they can possibly obtain. Aid. Bernstein stated that the problem of residue on sidewalks is a problem but he feels council has the opportunity with type 2 restaurants and sidewalk cafes to expand our ordinance to include the restaurants assistance in are housekeeping if required. He suggested tha this is an item for the Committee to discuss, as suggested by Aid. Wynne, to expand our ordinance to consider this responsibility being passed on to the business for assistance in keeping the sidewalks clean. The Committee also agreed to address the applicant for Chipolte on their thoughts on this matter. (P2) Sidewalk Cafd at 711 Church, Chinolte Mexican Grill It was the consensus of the Committee to hold this item over to the June 26's meeting — noting the absence of the applicant at this meeting. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PDI) Discussion on Residential Tear Downs The Committee decided to hold this item for discussion at the June 26ei meeting. (PD2) Discussion on Vested Rights vis a vis Land Use Regulation Amendments Chairman Newman acknowledged that this reference «•as generated from Aid. Wynne. He noted that staff has provided transitional rules on the mater. Aid. Engelman asked for clarification that the current rules define "in the pipeline" in essence as having applied for the building permit. Mr. Wolinski concurred. Aid. Engelman further asked for clarification that if the applicant does not have working drawings and zoning permission on file and changes are made to the Zoning Ordinance, then the applicant is out of luck. Aid. Wynne said she was under the impression that a building permit is obtained after 0 P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of6/12/00 Page 7 zoning analysis and site plan 1---s been approval, Mr. Wolinski MTonded that stater=t to be true and further noted that the words in the Zoning Ordinattrc state `once application of the building permit is received.- He said that there are of diffe,=t ways they can play with the application for a building permit — one being submitting application for a building permiit without w7inen drawings but have tiled for zrning analysis. Aid. Engelman noted that the transition rules state that "where an application for a building permit .... accompanied by working drawings." Mr. Wolinski clarified that he was saying that an application for a building permit can be applied for without working drawings. Aid. Bernswin asked if he is referring to construction drawings or something preliminary. Mr. Wolinski responded that, technically, you can not get final site plan approval until you have permit drawings submitted to the Building Di%ision. However, he feels this issue is the question of whether you want this to be considered the pipeline point or do you want to consider the pipeline point at an earlier stage in the permit process. He pointed out situations such as if someone were to buy a property and has spent thousands of dollars on architectural drawings and is then told that they can do what they want because the Zoning Ordinance has changed since their drawings were done. He noted that the way he has always looked at this issue in the past is that if someone has a zoning analysis that has been reviewed by Zoning staff and is made a public document and they have made application for a permit, then this case should be considered in the pipeline and grandfathered in to any legislative changes made after the beginning of the application process. Aid. Wynne felt that one of the critical issues is that this be confined in some way so it . does become very clear in the transition rules. She concurs with Mr. Wolinski's description for the consideration of "being in the pipeline" but it is not similarly worded as such in the transition rules. She explained that the reason she made the reference is so that they come up with a specific rule so that there is a clear interpretation in writing to determine at what point your application for a building permit is excepted by the City regardless of any legislative changes made afterwards. Aid. Bernstein said that it is his interpretation that it seems the pipeline does not really begin until a building permit is issued within six months of the submittal of working drawings and application. If this logic is followed, you technically are not in the pipeline until a permit is issued. Aid. Kent said even after all the determinations that have been mentioned it is still not clear exactly where the pipeline begins. His concern is for projects that receive a building permit and the construction period last for years and years, for example, the church at the comer of Simpson and Brown. Ms. Anderson made a comment that most other municipalities do not consider the stages before a building permit is actually applied for as being in the pipeline. After all discussion, the Committee concurred that more clarification to the Transition Rules needs to be done. The Committee requested that staff provide additional information and examples for further discussion on this matter. 0 MINUTES Planning & Development Committee May 22, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center . Alderman Present: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Franz, C. Ruiz, E. S2:)manski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, A. Diener, Members of Preservation Commission Presiding Official: Alderman Ncwmm r DECLARATION OF OUORUti1 Chairman Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. . APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 10. 2000 AND MAY 8, 2000 MEETINGS Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of April 10" and May 8 h, 2000 meetings, seconded by Aid. Engelman. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION' (21) Sidewalk Cafd at 711 Church Street. Chinolte Mexican Grill Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Marc Simon, representative for Chipolte Mexican Grill, and asked that he address the Committee at this time. Mr. Simon presented to the Committee, a sample of their product as served wrapped in foil wrapping and presented how they propose to serve this foil wrapped product in the wicker basket. He noted that his restaurant does not quite fall into a type 1 category for fine dining nor do they fall into the type 2 fast food establishment; he feels they are a genre in betwecn these two categories. He pointed out their use of reusable products, as presented to the Committee, in serving their food, and there has been some question of what they will use for the sidewalk cafd. He informed the Committee that they plan on purchasing very select, expensive patio furniture. He said that when they applied for their liquor license, Chipolte offered to police the area within a large radius of the restaurant, which they have complied with. He conceded that they alley between Orrington and their restaurant has _� P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 22, 2000 Paget never been cleaner or more well maintained since they have been policing the area. He also conceded that they have been good neighbors since their establishment at that location and have participated in fund raising for the community. Mr. Simon explained that what they are proposing to do is to dispose of the paper ++rapper, that they currently use, for customer orders wishing to sit in the sidewalk cafe. He said, in addition, they propose to put additional trash cans on the sidewalk for the cafe and are prepared to have someone from staff on site at all times the cafe is in use to monitor trash disposal, etc. He assured that their actions would be consistent vdth the promises made to the City, as they have proven when they received their liquor license. Ms. Jennifer Gallery, Attorney for the applicant, said that it is her understanding that the base reason against a recommendation from the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee, dealt directly with the materials being utilized in the business operation. She said that the SPAARC recommended that first. thew- approach the P&D Committee and then City Council with the reasoning behind their use materials and to address the trash concerns that the local ordinance has against disposable and foil wrapped items. Mr. Simon demonstrated how the product is wrapped in the foil and is necessary to hold together the food item because of the way it is prepared and served to the customer. Mr. Wolinski explained that when the SPAARC re+-ie++-ed this application, they felt their hands were tied by the legislation and he does not recall any issue with the actual sidewalk cafe itself. He assured that the SPAARC wanted to approve this application, but again, felt strongly that they were stuck in the language of the sidewalk cafe ordinance for type 2 restaurants. He read from the section of the ordinance, which states "no food or beverage shall be served to the customer wrapped or packaged in fail, paper, plastic, or polystyrene plastic." He reiterated that this language is very specific and the SPAARC could not recommend something that is against the legislation which is also why the recommendation was given to come before P&D Committee this evening,. Mr. Simon replied that the legislation was written at a time when the type of offering they present did not exist. He said their genre does not fit clearly into type 1 or 2 restaurant categories and presents a different set of challenges .%-hich was also particular with their liquor license application. He requested that the Committee view this application in the same manner in which they were viewed with their liquor license application. Ald. Wynne asked if Chipolte will bus their sidewalk cafd tables. Mr. Simon replied that the customer will take their own food out to the table and their staff will pick up their baskets and any other litter left. He added that if the sidewalk cafe is granted, they have decided to place a staff member there full-time during the lunch hours. Ald. Wynne recalled discussion in the SPAARC minutes regarding the material of the basket being real or plastic. Ms. Gallery responded that discussion involved the distinction between disposable and non -disposable products and not whether the basket was plastic or wicker because whether it were made out of either material, they are considering it non - disposable. Ald. Engelman said that he is sympathetic to the petitioner's point of view and he recognizes the distinction with a re -usable plastic basket without the paper liner. He also • appreciates their willingness to have busing staff with the cafe full-time during rush P&D Comrniner sit£_ Minutes orMay 2), _'two Page 3 hours. However, he agtres Ajth fir. Wolinski for their hands are tied with the language stated in the ordinance. %%hich is specific. Nis_ Szymanski agreed that as far as the foil or the plastic basket is con%vmcd. absent an amendment to the code. the Committee's hands are tied. Ald. Engelman suggested that the Committee could make a reference to craft an exception that might apply to dhese kinds of rrs-,L ants. He �_--.l;ed if Paniera's restaurant has an outdoor cafe. Chairman Newman rrsWndcd that particular restaurant ceased operation of their cafe becaus: of the City's 3pp rent inabili;-• to police the doivntown area of panhandlers, etc. He also agrees that dtc to the legislature of the Code, their hands are tied and explained to the applicant. that if they were to waive or allow them to do something, it would set pretiedence for all .ether applicants after them. He pointed out that the purpose of this ordinance is to treat ttipe 2 restau mants similar to type 1 and alleviate the litter problem caused by disposable }products. Chairman Neuman recalled the problems experienced in the past from other t.pe 2 restaurants with litter. He asked the applicants what the problem is in complying with this ordinance. Mr. Simon responded that set up for non -disposable dish« -am because thcv do not have the proper dishwashing equipment on site. Fie said their entire set up does not comply with the ordinance and would fundamentally change their character. Aid. Engelman commented that the idea of outdoor cafe adds to an ambience and excitement along streets and is %-cry good for cities such as Evanston. However, there are certain risks involved with regards to litter and the requirement that the City treat all equally when considering these applications. lie said they could possibly begin to be more lenient with regards to sidewalk cafes for type restaurants and feels this is something that the Council could consider, but not N%ith this particular case at this time. He agrees there needs to be a request for an amendment to the ordinance with this case. Chairman Newman stated that his problem is with applicants following through with their promises they make to the Committee And Council and not .sticking to them. He gave examples of past experiences with certain restaurant applicants that did not follow what they represented to the Committee. He wants to believe the applicant in this case and feels they are capable of following through with what they represent, but past experiences with previous applicants, has resulted in the Council taking caution at this point. Chairman Newman said that is why he is comfortable with the ordinance as it is now with the compromises for paper cups. He too agrees that with the request in this application, the applicant will need to request an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Simon expressed his trouble with being held accountable for the misfortune of the mis-doing of others before their request. lie stated that evenlMng that the City has asked them to do, some of which has been very difficult. they have complied with. He stressed that all that he has presented can be construed as rhetoric until they can be given the opportunity to prove differently. He feels that their record so iar with the City and their reputation, should speak in their favor. Mr. Simon said that the other dilemma he has as a business man, is that they have come to the community and have spent a lot of money in doing so, and have developed an amenity to add in the improvement of businesses in dow Town Evanston. He feels that they have found every accommodation that they can possibly make in the basic operation of their business in order to be a good business neighbor to the community. He said he finds it puzzling that what seems to be a desire P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 22.2000 Page 4 on the part of some of the Council members and the acknowledgement that this is Est amendment, the apparent fact that City Council holds in its hands the abilih• to chine laws. He said it seems to him that it would be inconsistent with the Conunince's desire to improve the ambience in the downtown area versus the restrictions that a= put ur%m the applicants given the fact that they are neither a type 1 or 2 restaurant. Chairm= Newman responded that if the City had unlimited staff, then they would be able to maintain and monitor the downtown area at all times. He added that the lack of support from the some of the downtown business community is also a factor in helping to keep the area clean and the City is held accountable for it. He assured that the City does desire the sidewalk cafes but they do want to minimize the amount of additional litter because they do not have sufficient staff to constantly maintain the area nor do they have sufficient staff to constantly go out and enforce the policies. He also noted that the City did grant Chipolte their liquor license which shows support for this business, but he reiterated, that the Committee's hands are tied writh the requirements of the ordinance, which are clearly stated, and this would require an amendment to the ordinance to be considered. The Committee discussed exploring the option of amending the ordinance. Ald. Engelman said that he is willing to explore this possibility. Chairman Newman agreed and feels this is the only way to deal with this issue. However, if the ordinance is amended to add a waiver mechanism for nondisposable dish -ware and the foil gapping, it should be subject to strict conditions. Ald. Bernstein agreed also. He sympathizes with Mr. Simon's comments on being held accountable to others mistakes in the past but . anticipates that the applicant will understand that the process for amending the ordinance must be followed in this case. Chairman Newman requested to staff that he would like to address this amendment at the next meeting so as not to hold up the applicant in receiving their response in this matter. Ms. Doraine Anderson questioned when a business applies for their license, does it not list whether it is a type 1 or type 2 restaurant. The response to this question .%as yes and Chipolte applied as a type 2 restaurant. AId. Engelman asked Counsel if the applicant would have to start over the application process to request the amendment to the ordinance. Ms. Szymanski felt that this item could be tabled and she recommended to hold this sidewalk cafd application in Committee until the new ordinance is introduced to Council. She sees no need for this to go back before Site Plan Review also. Staff confirmed that they could have the amended ordinance ready for the Committee's next meeting. Mr. Wolinski asked for clarification in drafting the amended ordinance, he recalled the original process being quite lengthy: he asked the Committee if they wanted language that would allow them the authority to waive any aspect of the type 2 regulations. Chairman Newman said that he would prefer to keep the language as is allowing them the same level of authority in being able to waive the regulations to allow certain disposable dishware and wrappings as they do with beverage containers. The Committee agreed. Ms. Szymanski asked for clarification with respect to the issue of the foil wrapping, what would the Committee like to see in t% draft ordinance. Chairman Newman responded that he would like language to allow a P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 22, 2000 Page 5 mechanism to waive this regulation also. Ald. Bernstein reminded the Committee the legislative intent behind eliminating foil. A gentlemen from the audience suggested W the applicant that they investigate the possibility of getting insulated biodegradable paper products to wrap their food instead of using foil. After all discussion, the Committee agreed to hold this item until the draft ordinance to amend the regulations under Title 7, Section 7-2-6(D)5c, is introduced to Council. (22) Side%%mlk Cafd at 2545 Prairie Avenue Aid. Engelman moved approval of the request for a sidewalk cafd for Jacky's Bistro, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Aid. Engelman informed the Committee that he talked to Jacky, the owner, earlier today. He verified that this is a type I restaurant, fine dining establishment and the owner has informed him that he would be operating the sidewalk cafd until 10:00 p.m. on weekends and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays. He has spoken with some of the neighbors in the vicinity, as well, who have no objections to the cafd or the hours of operation. Aid. Engelman asked for clarification of the regulations for no liquor in the outdoor cafes, is it only in certain areas or everywhere? Mr. Wolinski said that liquor is prohibited in all areas for type 2 restaurants. Mr. Alterson added that the regulation reads "licensed type I restaurants possessing an alcoholic beverage license of any classification, and located within the core area, may sell alcohol within the sidewalk cafe premises, if located outside the core area, type 1 restaurants are prohibited to sell alcohol." Aid. Engelman said that he still needs to talk to the neighbors regarding the sale of alcohol at this outdoor cafe. He commented that with type I restaurants and certain operators, this is not an unreasonable request to have; the only concern would be the close proximity to residential properties. He does not want to push this issue if those alderman who have restaurants outside the core area that are close to residences, see a problem with this. Aid. Wynne expressed her concerns for any restaurant, even type 1, selling alcoholic beverages in that close proximity to residential districts. She noted that this would be a major concern in her «ard with any restaurants on Dempster Street. Aid. Kent questioned if the purchase of food is still required when selling alcoholic beverages, even for the outdoor cafes. Aid. Engelman confirmed that this is still a requirement and would definitely be regulated at this particular restaurant, although for purposes of the motion before the Committee, there is no alcohol with this sidewalk cafe and the applicant is aware of this. Chairman Nc%vman said that he personally-, does not see any problem with liquor being allowed to be served at this particular establishment because of their character and the hours of operation are acceptable. He further noted that these applications are renewed every year and if there is any problem noted or if the restaurant does not comply, then their license would be revoked. Aid. Wynne still wanted her concerns noted with serving liquor at any outdoor cafd within 200' of residentially zoned property. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. 0 WAS P&D Co=ittcc Mtg. Minutes of May 22, 2000 Page 6 (25) Ordinance 56-0-00 — Northeast Evanston Preservation Ordinance Chairman Newman noted that this item has been discussed previously but is on these agenda this evening to give the two alderman (Aid. Engelman and Aid. Kent) that were not present at the last meeting on May 18`h regarding this issue, a chance to comment cc the decisions made. :old. Engelman stated that he would like to get a bea,= understanding of the justification for dra%%ing the line down Lincoln Street. He said tho since that meeting and over the weekend, he has heard from every owner on the south side of Lincoln Street, all of who are opposed to being included in the district which its also stated in the petition he received from those home owners via fax. He said that cm the north side of Colfax Sweet. there are properties that also do not want to be included in the district. He said that in that block alone, 64% of the residential property owes between Lincoln and Colfax, don't want to be in this district which are also part of the 7a ward. Ald. Engelman propositioned. the Committee members on considering moving the north boundary to the north side of Colfax to the north side of Lincoln Street. HC explained that 1) the residents do not want to be included in the district and '_) be understands that there is a desire on behalf of this Committee to make sure the boundaries are defensible. Aid. Eneelman noted that the Northeast Evanston Historic District was proposed to celebrate or commemorate the history of the construction of single-fami-y residences over a period. of 75 years as the City of Evanston extended north. He said that if that is the basis for the district, then including the block between Colfax and Lincoln does not add anything to the district other than the 12 homes that do not want to be in the district. He said what adds to the district east of Sherman is Kendall College, which is an institutional use, Roycemore School that is also a institutional use and has already been • designated as a historical structure, and Northwestern University institutional uses. Therefore, in that one block there are institutional uses that do not celebrate the justification for establishing the district and residences that do not want to be included in the district. Chairman Newman asked for clarification from Aid. Engelman, asking him if he wants to amend the ordinance and then vote against the district being created. Aid. Engelman clarified that if this Council wants to draft this district, then he would like to the district to be the best district that the City can pass and he does not feel that a good district should or does include a section where 74% of the people within that district do not want to be in it. Chairman Newman reiterated his question, which Aid. Engelman replied that he has problems with the nomination meeting the standards but this is not the issue. He feels that if an ordinance is going to be crafted, then it should be done so that it represents the values of the community. He also pointed out, in light of Chairman Newman's comment about him amending the ordinance and then voting against it, that they talked about Northwestern providing police protection to the City and an agreement stating this; he noted that Ald. Kent said fine but did not want it in his ward and made the motion .o amend the agreement to exclude his ward. He uses this as an example because of the similarity to his position in this matter. Chairman Newman said, in all due respect, that he has experienced several issues in his ward that he did not desire and he recalls most of the alderman voting in favor of those very issues knowing his disagreement and lie acknowledged that right to everyone's choice in how they vote. His point being, that + what you do in your motion, you will take more of the history out of the district becau— IT P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 22, 2000 Page 7 Roycemore is a historical part of the district that is referred to in the findings by the • Preservation Commission. In addition to this, there are houses that continue to surrotmd the Kendall campus «-hich is U 1 zoned and those houses add to the residential flavor of Colfax Avenue. Also. the part of Colfax that Aid. Engelman wams to take out is a pert where there is no voters in the 7`h %,. d and where his ward (1st) is owned by institutions, but there are still houses and still add to the residential took of Colfax Street and Orrington Avenue. In conclusion to his comments on this issue, Chairman Newman said that he disagrees with Ald. Engelman's view on changing the north boundary from Lincoln to Colfax. Aid. Kent asked the Committee members that were present at the %fay 18'h meeting, haw they came to agree upon setting the north boundary at Lincoln Street. Aid. Bernstein explained the Committee's discussion and logic in determining this boundary. He recalls the fact that there was a north/south situation and how they came to the conclusion that Lincoln Street at Long Field being a natural border. He said in terms of defensible boundaries, he originally indicated that he feels the entire district is contrary to Ald. Engelman's comments in that it does meet the standards in our ordinance. He added that this was not a political boundary decision. AId. Engelman reiterated his feelings and pointed out from the map, the large red opposed area tends to break off at Colfax, not Lincoln, and the obvious majority of red opposition in the block on Colfax Street is very clear. Chairman Newman stated that was not the basis for him supporting Lincoln Street because of where the amount of red opposition breaks off. He explained that his decision had to do with where the natural barriers are and what the threat to housing was. He feels • that most of the fear of homeowners is giving up their rights and not being able to work on their homes if they desire but there has been no evidence or experiences with the Preservation Commission not supporting homeowners or not working with them to come to an agreement. He suggested the development of a tear down ordinance might ease the apprehension that these homeowners have. He said that this ordinance is about structures that can be taken down and whose going to take them down and this is the difference between the northern end and the sotahern end. Aid. Engelman understands that fact but it regulates those structures also and his point is to not draw a huge mark across an area of this community that clearly has voiced "no thank you" to being a part of that ordinance. Ms. Dienner asked when the LakeShore Historic District was formed and the Ridge Historic District, were those ordinances or that ordinance the same as it is now. Aid. Engelman responded that 1) they were not the same and 2) the areas and structures within them are not the same, there %vas a significant difference between the state of the housing stock in those two areas when the historic districts were created. A member of the audience, who was an associate of the Preservation Commission at that time, disagreed with AId. Engelman. She claims there was not difference in housing stock between the districts. And the condition of the housing stock at the time those districts were created there was never a discussion of fret of tear down or threat of intrusion at that time. Ald. Engelman said that he would respectfully disagree with those comments. 49 Committee P&D Comma Mtg. Minutes of May 22, 2000 Page 8 At this point, Aid. Engelman moved to recommend an amendment to the ordinance to make the northern boundary to the north side of Colfax instead of Lincoln Strrvt. Aid. Kent seconded this motion. Ald. Kent commented that although he understands Aid. Bernstein and :old. \e%i-ma is explanation on coming to the conclusion of making Lincoln Street the bound-*-y and Long Field being an natural margin, he has some reservations that this is a good tti-cmdary decision with so much opposition in the block just south of this location. Chairman Newman further explained in detail their reasoning and also showed Aid. Kent --,—,%Yral photos of houses in the area. Aid. Kent asked Mr. Ruiz his personal point of %iew- of the decision of the boundary being at Lincoln Street. Mr. Ruiz responded that he &dnS:s that if the Committee were to recommend changing the boundary, he would like to confirm with the argument that was made by the proponents where they justify Central being a more defensible boundary, but he understands the reasons w- y the Committee has concluded with the Lincoln Street cut off. He said the transition that occurs bcmxcn Colfax and Lincoln is perceptible because there are residences or homes that appear to be residences that are owned by Kendall College and he thinks that there are a number of properties along Colfax on the north side that appear to be not in direct opposition to the district. From discussion of the motion, the vote on AIderman Engelman's motion to recommend an amendment to the ordinance to make the northern boundary to the north side of Colfax instead of Lincoln Street, was 1 in favor and 4 voting nay. This motion did not class. . Ald. Engelman still stressed his disagreement with pointing out Long Field and a natural boundary. He said that if appearance by rational is motive of the decision on the boundary, and not politically motivated, then he suggested an alternative motion of amending the boundary line to make Sherman Avenue the western boundary to Colfax east to Orriagton Avenue. This motion received no second. With no further discussion or comments at this point. Chairman Nev-rman requested to include and amend on the floor that the A&D Committee did discuss this matter at this meeting because of the substantial discussion on the boundary- issue. Ms. Sn-manski responded that this item is on the agenda so it is appropriate to amend this on Council floor. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. �Respectfully submitted, JacqueNne Brownlee i • MINUTES Planning & Development Committee May 8, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:30 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman. A. Newnan, hl. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, hi. Franz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:54 pm_ APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 24. 2000 • Ald. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of April 24m, 2000, seconded by Ald. Bernstein. With no corrections or changes, the minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Before the Committee began deliberations of the items for consideration, Mr. Wolinski informed the members that there is a typo on both the P&D and Council agendas in their packets. Under item 919 regarding the Planned Development for the ChurchC&ple project, it reads "Ordinance 43-0-00" and should be corrected to "Ordinance 60-O-W. The Committee made a note of this. (18) Sidewalk Cafe at 500 Main Street Aid. Wynne moved approval of the sidewalk cafe for Cafe Express at.500 Main Street, seconded by Aid. Engelman. Aid. Engelman asked if the exemption for disposal products was requested. Ald. Wynne affirmed this. Mr. Alex Sprout, owner of The Main, expressed his support for this sidewalk cafe. With no further discussion, the motion was approved 4-0. 0 P&D Commince Mtg. Minutes of May S. 2DN Page 2 (191 Ordinance 60-0.00 — Planned Development — 1004-10 Church/1642 Maple Avenue Chairman Newman acknowledged Mr. Waiter Kihm, properr owner and applicant and his architect, Mr. Michael Gelick and Mr. Ron Kupner. He requested a five minute overview of the project and plans for the site from the applicant. Mr. Kihm explained that this development will be located on the corner of Church and Maple in place of the former Mexican restaurant — west to where Carmen's Pizza is currently located and south to the alley. He said the proposed planned development for the site consists of 280,000 square foot buiiding with 84 condominium units and mixed use providing approximately 18,800 square feet of retail and 17,400 square feet of office space and also to permit a drive -through bank facility. He stated that they will provide more than adequate parking for both the residences as well as the retail and commercial spaces. He turned for further clarification over to his architect Mr. Gelick. Mr. Gelick described the project in more detail focusing attendon to the model of the proposed building. He demonstrated from the model the proximity of the train station to the project and how the building will be situated on the proposed site. He explained that a parking structure would be located over commercialfretail to the southend of the site creating a courtyard entry to the building. The commerciallretail wraps around the site on Church and Maple and the courtyard off of Maple also opens up commercial/retail to The south end of the site. He said that there are two levels of office space, one floor of mechanical and 12 levels of residential condominium units above those floors. Mr. Gelick noted that the condominium component of the building faces north/south so it has minimum impact of shadows on adjacent buildings and has optimum views around the entire building. He felt this project to be a western gateway to downtown Evanston and forms a component that compliments the Church Street Plaza. Mr. Gelick compared the height of this building to other buildings proposed in the Church Street Plaza noting this building to be a shorter, transitional structure with a height of 170 feet to the top of the tower. He explained in more detail how the proposed shape of the building, pointing this out in the model, will compliment the comer of Church and Maple and the configuration of the site and also compliment the surrounding buildings and upcoming proposed buildings. Mr. Gelick explained that the design plan for the commercial/retail space and entryway for both the condominium and office space. He further explained the proposed configuration and location of the drive -through banking facility. He also noted that they are proposing 7 condominium units per floor with 12 floors of residential. He said that the building will have a brick facade to relate to the materials of the majority of buildings in the immediate vicinity. He said there will be an upper concrete and glass structure for the tower in a limestone color that relates to the post office located I block away and other buildings in the neighborhood. Mr. Gelick noted that in relation to the question of parking, there is a required parking count for this building of 137 spaces and they will be providing 164 spaces. He said 1.3t parking spaces will be provided for residential, which exceeds the requirement. lie said they are providing for 4 loading berths, explaining that there will be I combined/shared dock for office and residential because the threshold for count of square foot area were just over in the residential. Mr. Gelick pointed out that they have eliminated the building ziggurat • setback that %%as initially located on Church Street and demonstrated on a model what P&D Commiree Mtg. Minutes of Mtn• 8, 2000 Page 3 that zoning would create and is a setback which has been modified on numerous other buildings along that corridor. He concluded his overview of the project site by demonstrating from a diagram the proposed gocation of the drive -through banking facility and the ingress/egress for that use. Mr. Gelick finished his summary by noting that the existing of FAR zoning for the location is 4.5 and they are proposing approximately 5.1 as a planned development for this development. He's discussed the parking, loading berths, ziggurat setback, the special use for the bank drive -through fa.:ility, building height of 170', which is considerable- shorter than other new buildings in the same zoning district and also noted that this height is allowed . ithout any revi,ions to the yard setback. He further noted that they are not building to the lot line ky prkmiding the courtyard plaza and also brought attention to the easement of traffic flow %%ith Church Street being a one-way going east and the turning onto Maple Avenue will keep the traffic pattern as it currently is today. Aid. Bernstein asked for more explanation of the driveway and ent"7a), into the building and drive -through bank facility. Mr. Gelick explained in more detail and demonstrated from a diagram of the facility. the ingress and egress from off of Maple Avenue for the banking facility and entrance to the residential and parking structure. He also pointed out the pedestrian entryways into the building for commercial/retail and office space. He said there will be 3 drive -through aisles for the bank with a 10-car holding capacity in total for all 3 aisles. AU Bernstein expressed his concern for car back-ups during peak hours for the bank and the danger this could cause on a narrow street such as Maple Avenue. Mr. Kihm responded that he has had several meetings Aith is the bank that is proposing to use this facility and they have verified that at their maximum, they have 50-I00 cars per day, so he is assured that there will be minimum concern for car back-ups at this drive -through facility. Aid. Wynne questioned why the ziggurat plan was eliminated. Mr. Gelick explained that their view when they looked at the sight and its potential development without asking for the planned development, was that the way the zoning set the site up and the way the setback is established, it set a very bulky configuration. He said the ziggurat would have resulted in a massive wall directly across from the railroad creating a strong echo effect He said, also, it would have resulted in no relief to the site and being denser- filled and high ground cover and parking would have been jammed into the project. Mr. Gelick pointed out that in that existing zoning. which is an 85' height limitation allowing 4 levels of parking, they have presented 2 levels of parking and the building in actuality is 105' high with the normal zoning requirement_:. He explained that what they tried to do was to relieve the site and relieve the space against the embankment and by doing that, they reconfigured the building which did require the building to be taller. He said they set the building with the grid of the Cite rather than following the diagonal and have a massive wall effect. He said, in addition. they pushed the parking to the side rather than stacking underneath so they could get some other mixed uses that are desirable in that location. He said one of the main concerns was for the 170' high building wall directly adjacent to the sidewalk giving an immense effect. Aid. Wynne said that one of her 0 concerns was for the 155' high straight ►va11 along Church Street; she questioned how r� P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 8, 2000 Page A wide that sidewalk is. Mr. Gelick responded that the sidewalk on Church Street is wide • with a planting area pro%ided also. He maintained that the mass on that side of the building has actually been reduced by using the angle of the site to chancellor the corridor of the building making a special feature at the comer and also creating another mini -court. In response to another question from Aid. NVynne, Mr. Gelick responded that the balconies of the condominiums will be recessed in the fagade of the building and he pointed out their location from his diagram. Aid. Bernstein said the conforming structure is built to the lot line on Church and Maple and it appears that they have established a setback from Maple on the comer. Mr. Kihm responded that in his opinion, the important thing about that building is that it is conforming will provide more than the 105 parking spaces as required and less than the 105 residential units they could have constructed. He pointed out that not only are they providing more parking spaces than required but %pith less residential units as well. He said they were able to achieve more of a desired parking ratio than expected. He added that most of the units are 2-bedrooms and also %%ith dens. which appears to be the market for this area. Chairman Newman pointed out that the property taxes on the current building, as it exists, is approximately S61.000 versus the proposed taxes by the time this building is constructed, is estimated at approximately $600,000 per year. He raised a question for Mr. Ron Kupner, asking him how the Hill Project has influenced this project. Mr. Kupner responded that they had been working on developing this site for over 2 years ID and finally came to an agreement once the City came to its agreement with the Research Park project. With no further questions or comments from the Committee to the applicant, Aid. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 60-0-00, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Bernstein said that when he originally viewed this project and the; differentiation between building out to the lot line as of right and what's accomplished here, is a big difference. He praised the overall design of this project due to their decision not to build to the lot line and feels the building has enough relief by the configuration of north -to - south rather than east -to -west. He remains with some concern for the possible queuing up with the drive -through facility and the traffic problems this could cause. Aid. Wynne appreciates the increase in parking for this site and the ratio of parking spaces versus residential units. She did have some concerns for building to the lot line at such a great height but agree with the applicantlarchitect that when you look at the comparison of what could have been built by right, this design is much more aesthetically pleasing. She asked a question relating to the Site Plan minutes where there was a question about changing the materials of the building in terms of bringing the glass down to the base. She asked if this change was made. Mr. Gelick responded that there was a question as to whether this portion of the building, which comes down to the ground, should be the same material which is a masonry fagade or if it should be concrete and glass. He pointed out that actually the comer does come down with the concrete and P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of May 8, 2000 Page 5 glass and the question in Site Plan is whether they should do more or hame a contintmem • of those building materials. Chairman Newman expressed his opinion on this being a great project. He note that tli,e existing ground floor retail for that location has been an cycsore for some time and to bc able to maintain the street retail and get enough parking and expand tentixId the taxes that are being generated by this development, are all a plus and a fabulous opportunity for the City of Evanston. He pointed out that no contribution is being asked for from the City. He also pointed out that they have heard from past hearings, that residendsl do%%mto%%m is very desirable to have and to helps create the mixed use environment that is needed. Chairman Newman said that this development comes before the Committee at an interesting time because of the past recent discussion on the Chicago Avenue corridor and the issue of height in the business districts that are in the outlying portions of the City and very close to residential neighborhoods. He said at the time when he supported the changing of the zoning downward in the C l a, he made the point that in order for the City to be able to handle the long-term budget needs, there was going to have to be height somewhere in the City. He realizes that everyone would rather have the lower -rise buildings that seems to be welcomed by the community but in the downwwn D3 area, when you get an opportunity to aid the tar base and maintain the retail and also have this building deal with its own parking needs, in all an advantage to the City. Chairman Newman concluded that he fully supports this project. Aid. Wynne asked the building/construction schedule for this project. Mr. Kihm and Mr. Gelick both agreed that the construction time should take approximately 18 months with an opening date sometime in 2002. Aid. Engelman asked the square footage for the bank Mr. Gelick responded the area will be approximately 8,000 square feet. With no further comments or discussion, the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacque 'ne E irownlee 11 . .. • NILNUTES Planning & Development Committee April 24, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, A. Newman, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: J. Kent Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Franz, M. Mylott, C. Ruiz, R. Schur, J. Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Newman noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. iAPPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27.2000 AND APRIL I1.2000 Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of March 27'" and April 11`s, 2000, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Newman anounced his decision to change the order of the agenda to move item (21) regarding the Northeast Evanston Historic District. He also informed the audience that no further citizen comments will be taken or heard at this meeting since the 6 hour session was held on April 12'h for the public. He said this item will only be discussed amongst the Committee for questions and deliberations for a decision to move on this item. (201 Sidewalk Cafe at 1745 Sherman Avenue It was noted by staff that there is no one present to represent Einstein Bagels. The Committee recognized this sidewalk cafe request from Einstein Bagles as a repeat request over the past few years. Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that this request was reviewed in Site Plan Review and made a positive recommendation to P&D and Council for approval. Chairman Newman added that the feels this sidewalk cafe has operated • well over the years with no major concerns or complaints. P&D Committee Mtg. Olt Minutes of April 24.2000 Page 2 Aid. Wynne moved approval of the request from Einstein Bagel (or a sidewalk cari • at 1745 Sherman Avenue, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote w2--. 4-0 in favor of the motion. (22) ResoIution 37-R-00 — Reservation of the Citv of Evanston's Bond ` 'fume Can Chairman Newman requested that staff give a brief overview of this item. Mr. Nolinski explained that this is a program that is offered by the State on a year -by -year basis and provides approximately $50 for every resident of the community, therefore. providing money in the area of $3.5 million possible in bond volume cap funds. He said this can be used for various programs such as affordable housing, Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRB's). and Mortgage Credit Certificate Programs which it has been used for in the past. He noted that the larger the community, the more money that can be received from the State. He acknowledged Ms. Roberta Schur, Housing Planner, being present for any further details of the bond volume cap program. Ms. Schur seconded Mr. Wolinski's comments made. With no further discussion, Aid. Bernstein moved approval of Resolution 37-R-00, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (23) Resolution 38-0-00 — Allocate $2 million of the 2000 Bond Volume Can for a Industrial Revenue Bond to benefit Rilev & Geehr Mr. Wolinski explained that this is an IRB and is only a resolution tonight. To actually cede that money, this will require an ordinance that staff will bring back before the P&D Committee. He further explained this item will go before the Economic Development . Committee first. He noted the important issue is that the guidelines require this information has to be into the State by May Ie or we stand to lose the revenue bond. He informed the Committee that Riley & Geehr are a local Evanston manufacturer which staff has an agreement with them to utilize the IRB. Ms. Schur elaborated further explaining the need for an expansion in funds to be used for purchase of equipment which the IRB will cover. With no further discussion, Aid. Wynne moved approval of Resolution 38-R-00, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (24) Ordinance 58-0-00 — Cedine $1.596.400 of the 2000 Bond Volume can to the Illinois Housine Develop_ meat Authority for the numoses of a First time Home Buver Program Mr. Wolinski explained that this ordinance will actually be ceding the amount stated for the purpose of supporting IHD A's First Time Home Buyer Program. He acknowledged that this item has gone before and has been approved by the Housing Commission and is submitted tonight for the P&D Committee's approval. Ms. Schur added that this program is similar to the typical first time home buyer program with a 5% interest rate, S1,000 assistance towards closing costs and also down payment assistance. Mr. «'olinski further added that one of the benefits of this program is the closing cost aspect which many programs, including the City's existing program, does not provide. P&D Committee Mcg. Minutes of April 24, ?000 Page 3 With no further discussion, Aid. Wynne moved approval of Ordinance 58-0-M, 00 • seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. (25) Ordinance 57-0-00 — Planned Develooment — Amend Church Street Plaza Planned Develooment (Parcel 18 with Research Park) Mr. Mylott handed out to the Committee a modification of Ordinance 5740-M with hand-written amendments made by staff. He requested that the Committee replace this modified ordinance with the one received in their packet. Chairman Newman acknowledged the representatives for this proposed development and requeszed that they start with their presentation first and the Committee will follow with questions and deliberations. Mr. David Reifman introduced himself accompanied by Paul Shadle with the [aw• firm of Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe, representing Davis Church Office Development also affiliated with Mesirow-Stein Organization. 1vir. Reifman began his presentation by informing the Committee that the Plan Commission reviewed this proposal on March 30d' and unanimously recommended approval of this project. He said the City and Davis Church Office Development are co -applicants on this project. He acknowledged that the City still owns the land and Davis Church will be developing this office building largely for the McDougal Little project. He recalled for the Committee that the property was zoned pursuant to a planned unit development last year for the Church Street Plaza development and had 3 different zoning blocks. He referred to a diagram to point out lot "C" within the Church Street Plaza development which had some definition for zoning parameters, but based on a plan, the City has determined to go in a different direction at this time. Mr. Reifman said that the planned development had attached to it a development plan, which set forth various uses, setbacks, etc. — understanding that the underlined research park zoning district has no setback requirements. He noted that the development plan, nevertheless, showed some potential improvements and dictated various setbacks. He further noted that another thing that the planned development did was to limit the uses to those that were considered at the time and effectively over -rode all the permitted uses within the research park zone. He stated that they are back before the P&D Committee and Council at this time because the proposal is largely for an office development, including the possibility of a medical office and because the site plan itself doesn't identify those uses. He claimed that they are here to add to those uses and request reinstatement of office uses, which are permitted in the research park: zone, and there will be some adjustment of the side yards in order to permit this development. Mr. Reifman concluded that in other respects, the proposal does comply with the research park requirements, noting that it is well below the floor area ratio and meets the permitted height of 85. He added that parking and loading are contemplated partially on site with 66 spaces being provided including handicap spaces as well as a certain number of spaces to be ]eases from the City. He said, in addition, there has been a significant emphasize on respecting the public spaces that are involved here both in the plaza level and in order to take advantage of the relationship with the project for both the CTA and Metra lines. He noted that there is an easement that will be granted to Metra in order to permit its potential expansion as well as a public easement over effectively the outdoor areas to 0 create a plaza for public use. Mr. Reifman pointed out that in the original notice, it was P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of April 24, 2000 Page 4 noted to the public of requirements in the change in setback. He e~vplaincd ilia the: application itself refers to a setback along the west propem, line of approxintately 17' and in the course of refining the design, there was some slight change to the footprint of the: building, which reduced that setback at grade of the building fagade to 15'4". Ile said because of certain changes required by the Site Plan & Appearance Reczc%v Committee — there were certain features at the rooftop, which protrude even further into the required setback Therefore, although the originally contemplated relief of something in the 17' range, it is now requested that there by 15'4" at the setback of the building and reduce the 10' at the roof line in order to permit that ornamental Feature to be constructed. Mr. Reifman acknowledged Ms. Alice Rebechini from the Mesirow-Stein Organization and also a representative from OWP&P Architects, and Larry Okrent Aho is their land planner. He noted that all these individuals were introduced and have been involved since the original process. He also noted the study done and presented to the City by KLOA Traffic Engineers. He reiterated that the main purpose of this project is to preserve this location as corporate headquarters for McDougal Littel and still remain at 11-12,000 square feet of retail for the Hill Project. Chairman Newman thanks Mr. Reifman of his presentation. He mentioned that all the Council members have expressed their satisfaction ticith the way this project is proceeding. He began Committee questioning, asking the representatives to show where the City will continue to own any of the property than used to be turn around for public access to the train stations. Ms. Alice responded tha the City is intending to sell the developer the entire parcel and they will create a public access easement an almost the entirety with the exception of the ramp and area between the CTA building and the east wall of the office building which she pointed out from the exhibit diagram presented. She explained that they are expecting the same usage from those who presently use this turn around. Chairman Newman asked if there would be signage put up clarifying this so there is no confusion or misunderstanding. At this point, �4s. Aiello was called into the meeting to clarify this issue. Ms. Aiello confirmed that signage will be put up to clearly define this continued public usage. Aid. Engelman raised questions on the easement that will be granted and the provisions provided for pedestrian traffic through this development. Ms. Alice explained that public access would be provided even though the ownership of the property will be private. She illustrated from the diagram were the public access will be provided and explained in detail. Discussion ensued regarding the required parking for the office building and its additional uses. Chairman Newman questioned the medical office usage and the required parking for this use. Ms. Alice responded that the medical office would be provided their share of parking spaces based on the amount of spaces required per square footage, which will give them a handful of spaces. She said the number of spaces will be based upon the 20,000 square feet proposed for the medical office which may result in the usage of public parking if there is the need at any time for more spaces for that use. Chairman Newman asked how much square footage McDougal Little will possess in this building out of the total space. Ms. Alice responded that somewhere between 115-130,000 square feet out of 210,000 square feet. Chairman Newman recalled that it was mentioned that -P&D Committee Mtg. V Minutes of April 24, 2000 Page 5 one of the ideas was for McDougal Litxel to possibly u_-.c another building. Nis, Alice confirmed that was a possibility mentioned and stated that they have 3 options that occur in a sequence of years and the longest available space they ha%ti is a q year least. Therefore, the proposed location is the target location for the medical office use and McDougal Litter's headquarters. Aid. Bernstein, at this point, asked zoning staff' the required parking for medical and office use. Mr. A terson responded that the parking requirement for medical is 4 per 1000 versus 5 per 1000 for office use. \Is. Alice stated that they requested an additional 3 per 1000 over the anticipated area of the probable lease. And this request was made in their amended application. Aid. Bernstein raised questions on expectd deliveries to this Iocation, specifically from semi -trailer trucks and where such deliveries would be anticipated. He noted the congested area in which to maneuver any delivery trucks in this location, Ms. Alice responded that they do not expect or anticipate large delivery trucks of that type for this office building and assumes that if any, it will be very limited. She pointed out from the diagram where any truck deliveries would occur but reiterated the unexpected need for any large or frequent delivery services. With no further comments or Committee questions, Ald. Engelman moved approval of Ordinance 57-0-00 with the inclusion of staffs modifications to paragraph 45 adding the wording of "made modifications" and the revision to Section Three replacing "existing with "this". Ald. Wynne seconded the motion. Chairman Newman commented that he feels this proposed development is a great use of that property and location and commends the quality of the project as presented to the Committee. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Newman also noted the $1.2 million estimated tax revenue that will be generated from this development. !21 l Ordinance 56-0-00 -- The Northeast Evanston Historical District. Chairman Newman noted that the time in this meeting will be used for the Committee to ask questions they were unable to ask at the public meeting and to discuss amongst the members to come to a consensus. Aid. Wynne asked what the average time period is for processing applications for certificate of appropriateness from submittal to approval by the Preservation Commission. Mr. Ruiz explained the process in that it can take anywhere from 2-3 weeks up to 45 days, depending on the time the application is received. He said that the Preservation Commission must respond to the applicant within 45 days. Aid. Wynne requested that staff provide more detailed information on this time frame. Aid. Engelman pointed out that the chart received under communications showing a chart of certificate of appropriateness approved by the Preservation Commission is not clear in showing the number of approvals the first time presented. He also pointed out that some of these cases are repeats of applicants coming back, therefore, the total number of cases in not quite accurate. He asked Mr. Ruiz the number of staff, beside himself, who process preservation cases. Mr. Ruiz responded that currently he receives assistance from the other planners within the division, if needed, and has the assistance of the VIW P&D Committee4ttg. ' Minutes of April 24. 2000 Page 6 division. secretary. He assumes the equivalent of .33 staff assists him at this time. AU • Engelman expressed his concern with the impact on current staff with the addition of the number of structures from the historic district. Mr. Ruiz stated that there are already 80 buildings deetned historical landmark in the district. Ald. Bernstein asked % r. Ruiz if there is a package or set of rules to follow• that another planner could go by in his absence. Mr. Ruiz responded that there are guidelines set forth in the preservation ordinance. Aid. Bernstein asked Mr. Ruiz if it is within his expertise to approve the type of roof or similar, at staff level or would this need to go before the Preservation Commission. Mr. Ruiz said that he currently approves many applications of that nature and it depends to the material difference from what is existing. Chairman Newman asked what the time frame is for residential plans to be approved for historical homes if there is no need to go before the Preservation Commission. Mr. Wolinski responded that these cases would go through the nornial permit process with the addition of Mr. Ruiz's review. Chairman Newman noted that it is stated that 474 structures are quoted to be located in the Northeast Evanston historical district. He further noted that all of these structures are eligible if applied for, the tax -freeze status for national registered historical structure, whether this district is deemed historic or not. The other Committee members agreed with Chairman Newman's statement. The Committee, Ms. Barbara Gardner of the Preservation Commission, and staff discussed in detail the number of structures in the district and the percentage requirements for renovating or rehabbing the structure before the need to go before the Preservation Commission. Ms. Gardner elaborated on the Preservation Commission's procedures and guidelines followed and emphasized the fact that very few cases are denied. The Committee agreed that it is still not clear as to the time frame of the application process. Aid. Wynne requested staff to provide this information for the next meeting. Mr. Ruiz explained why some cases might take longer than others for a number of reasons such as the time the application was received in relation to the date of the Preservation Commission meeting or other difficulties that might arise. He confirmed that he will gather this information to be available at the next meeting. Chairman Newman pointed out that much of the historical district is located in his ward and he conceded that over the last b years since he has been alderman, he has never received a phone call from any constituent complaining about the process before the Preservation Commission. He asked the other alderman if they have received any calls from their constituents regarding this matter. Aid. Wynne responded that she has only received I call since she has been alderman and this call was from someone who had been denied. Aid. Bernstein responded that out of 255 homes and churches in his ward with historical status; he has only received 2 complaints. Aid. Engelman responded that he has not received any complaint calls since he has been an alderman. With no further discussion, Chairman Newman announced that Ordinance 56-040 will be introduced this evening on Council floor — there is no need for any vote at • this time. • • s P&D Committee Mlg. Minutes of April 24, 2000 Page 7 COMMUNICATIONS Certificate of Annromiateness Amroved by the Preservation Commission (1994-Ptrsew This communication w-as reviewed during discussion of item (21) regarding the Notth+c;m Evanston Historic District. This Committee has requested further information on the application process and time frame to be provided at the next meeting. Memorandum from Northeast Fvanston Historic District Association Board of Directors re: Follow-uD to Northeast Evanston Historic District Public Meeting This communication was accepted without comment. ZBA Decision for 2111 Orrineton Avenue This communication %-as accepted without further comment. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f , <i - Jacqul�ine ..Brownlee x • • DRAFT - NOT APPROVED PLANNING AND DEVELOPiiIENT COMMITTEE 111NUTES Futsdgt: April 11, 2000 6.-30 p.m. - Room 2403 Evanston Civic Center ALDERMEN PRESENT: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Neu man, M. Wynne STAFF PRESENT: J. Wolinsld, D. Marino, A. Alterson, M. Nl}Mott, E. Szymanski, J. Larson, M. Baaske PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. NewTnan DECLARATION OF QUORUM Aid. Newman called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m., a quorum being present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH I AND MARCH 27, 2000 Approval of minutes was held over until the next P&D meeting of April 24, 2000. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (23) Ordinance 42-0-00 —Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (C 1 a Regulations) Consideration of recommendation from the Plan Commission to amend the C I a regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. After much discussion Ordinance 42-0-00 was amended to read as follows: 6-10-3-1: PURPOSE STATEMENT: The C I a Commercial Mixed -Use District is intended to provide locations for the development of mixed use buildings consisting of retail oriented and office uses on the ground level and office uses and/or residential dwellings located above as well as multi -family residential. A higher FAR and building height will be permitted in the C I a District in order to encourage this type of development. 6-10-3-2: PERMITTED USES The following uses are permitted in the C la district: Caterer; Commercial indoor recreation; Commercial shopping center; Cultural facility' Dwellings; Education institution -private; Educational institution — public, Financial institution; Food store establishment (with hours of operations between 6:00 A.1,i. and 12 A.M.); Government institution; Hotel; Office; Public utility; Religious institution: Restaurant -- Type 1: Retail goods establishment; Retail services establishment. .When Aid. Newman asked if the Committee was in agreement on permitted uses, Aid. Engelman said that for purposes of this ordinance he %vas in agreement. However, lie thought that the overall policy of the City as to where religious uses are permitted should be studied because of the tax impasse. �I Planning and Development Committee Meeting* - April 11, 1000 Paee Two • Ald. Newman thought the Committee should ask the Iegal staff to make some suggestions for a good policy for religious institutions and not only for it to maize sense for the City, but that it would be legally defendable. Ald. Engelman thought that the City should look at and reallocate the limited land it has for the appropriate placement of religious institutions. He was concerned about maintaining the highest taxable property on the Mx rolls while providing for an opportunity for religious institutions to be in the City as -of -right and take property off the tax rolls. He did not want to see religious institutions in prime commercial spots_ 6-10-3-3- SPECIAL. USES: The following uses may be allowed in the C I a District, subject to the provisions set forth in. Section 6-3-5, "Special Uses": Assisted living facility; Commercial outdoor recreation: Convenience store. Day care center — Adult (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-3, "Adult Day Care Homes"). Day care center — Child (subject to the general requirements of Section 64-1, "Child Day Care Homes); Drive -through facility (accessory only). Food store establishment: independent living facility; Long term care facility: Media broadcasting station; Membership organization: Recording studio. Religious institution: Residential care home — Category I (when located above the ground floor and subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-4. "Residential Care Homes') Residential care home -Category lI (subject to the general requirements of Section 6-4-4.:Residential Care Homes"); Restaurant -Transitional shelter (subject to the requirements of Section 6-3-5-11. "Additional Standards for a Special establishment; Planned development (subject to the requirements of Section 6-10-1-9 and Section 6-3-6, "Planned Developments"). 6-10-34: LOT SIZE The minimum lot size requirements for the C I a District are as follows: (A) Nonresidential Uses: There is no minimum lot size requirement for nonresidential uses in the C 1 a District. (B) Residential Uses: The minimum residential lot size in the C I a District is 350 square feet per dwelling unit. 6-10-3-5: LOT WIDTH The lot width requirements for the C 1 a District are as follows: (A) Uses when not incorporated within a commercial shopping center: None. (B) Commercial shopping centers 150'. 6-10-3-6: LOT COVERAGE There is no maximum lot coverage in the Cla District. 6-10-3-7: FLOOR AREA RATIO The maximum floor area ratio in the C l a District is 4.0. 6-10-3-8: YARD REOUIREMENTS: The yard requirements for the Cla District are as follows: (A) Front yard: Building, none: parking, landscaped setback required subject to site plan x Planning and Development Committee Meeting - Anril 11. 2000 llai,,e Tim review as set forth in Chapter 3, " Implementation and Adniilit stration" (13) Side yard abutting a street: Building. 0'. Parking 5' (C) Side yard when abutting residential district. Building 15% Parking 10' (D) Rear yard when abutting residential district or %%-hen separated from ;t residential disci by a public alley: Building 10', Parking 10' (E) Side yard when abutting nonresidential district: Building. 0' to a height kif 24 feet abo-.r grade, above 25 feet a 5-foot setback is rzquirt-d; Parking. 5' (F) Rear yard when abutting nonresidential district except when separated from tt residcntw district by a public alley: none 6-I0-3-4: BUILDING HEIGHT The maximum building height in the Cla District 67'. 6-10-3-10: SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR PARKING Within the C I a District enclosed parking and appurtenant areas must be 20 feet set back from any front or street side lot line, except for driveways. Enclosed parking may not be visible from any abutting streets. No devices or openings for automobile or other vehicle ventilation may be visible from abuttinu street. 6-18-3: DEFINITIONS Building, Height of- (A)The perpendicular distance at the center of a building's principal front measured from the established grade to the high point of the roof for a flat roof, and to the mean height level for gable, hip or gambrel roofs. Chimneys and spires shall not be included in calculating the height nor shall mechanical penthouses pro-,ided the penthouses can not be seen from the street. (B)The height of any story of a building; shall be excluded from the calculation of building height when seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the gross floor area of such story consists of parking required for the exclusion of required parking from the calculation of building height shall be applicable to all permitted and special uses in the B3, D2, D3, and D4 zoning; districts including planned developments, with the exception of planned developments in the D3 zoning district. Where the required parking exclusion is applicable, it shall in no case be greater than 4 stories or 40 feet. whichever is less. Ellen Szvmanski stated that the third paragraph of Ordinance 42-0-00 should be amended to read "WHEREAS. the Planning and Development Committee of the City Council considered and adopted the Plan Commission's findings and recommendation at its March 27, April 10. and April I 1 meetings, and" SECTION l: That the City Council hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Plan Commission as modified by the Planning and Development Committee in the • aforedescribed case no: ZPC 00-1 and amends the text of the Zoning Ordinance, as more particularly described below, V Planning and Development Committee Meetine - April 11. 2000 Palzc Four The Planning and Development Committee passed a recommendation to recommend adoption of Ordinance 41-0-00 by the City Council by a vote of 4 ayes to I nay. (Aid. Engelman voted nay r 124) - Ordinance 41-0-00 Recommendation of the Plan Commission to increase the number of parking spaces required for residential uses in non-residential districts along Chicago Avenue south of Lake, north of Cal-ar, _ Aid. Wynne moved approval of parking requirements as recommended by the Plan Commi-Lsion. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Ellen Szymanski amended that motion to include adding March 27, 2000, April 10. 2000, and April 11, 2000 meetings. Aid. Engelman stated that people Iivin_g close to mass transit drive less than people who don't live close to mass transit. lie said that the Committee should be examining parking needs throughout the City and providing incentive in the C I a for parking. Aid. Engelman added that is not being done, what the Committee is doing is malting parking more restrictive in terms of parking requirements in the C I a than it is in the other residential districts. Aid. Wynne said that people living close to mass transit may drive less on weekdays, but they don't own fewer cars. and that is what the surveys done demonstrates. She added that the third ward is the densest ward in the City. Aid. Wynne felt the Committee should not miss the opportunity to address a serious concern that doesn't just address Chicago Avenue, but impacts an important part of the City in terms of value of property and value of commercial space. Aid. Engelman said that while he agreed with Aid. Wynne, he believed that when this ordinance is taken as a package, when you cut off the ability of the developer to have that extra floor of parking then increase his parking requirements, you are sending a very difficult message to developers for the developing of this area just at a time when Chicago Avenue is finally beginning to see development. Aid. Newman said that if the development community looks objectively at the way the City Council has been taking these projects on a case by case basis, they will see that more have been granted :hart have been denied. Motion passed 4 - 1. (Aid. Engelman voting no.) (21) 26-R-00 Resolution Chicano Avenue Plan Aid. Newman asked if there was any additional comment on the Chicago Avenue Plan. Aid. W y=e moved adoption of Resolution 26-R-00 - Chicago Avenue Plan, which includes the Chicago Avenue Corridor Recommendation Report. Seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Aid. Engelman clarified that it should be adopted as amended by the actions of the Planning and Development Committee. Ellen Szymanski said that Resolution 26-R-00, Section l should be modified as follows: "That the issues, key findings, objectives, and recommended actions contained in the Chicago Avenue Corridor Recommendations Report marked as Exhibit A. attached hereto, as amended by the Planning and Development Committee on April 11. 2000 and incorporated by reference are adopted." Motion passed 4-1. (Ald. Engelman voted no) 0 Planning and Development Committee • Meetine - April 11.2000 Pace± Five (PDl) Consideration of an amendment to the Propertv Standards Code nrohibitine plvwood oni buildings for more than seven days. James Wolinski said that this subject had been researched and there is another type of material t>iust is used in place of plywood. He said that this material might be a more pleasing look, but is much snore expensive than plywood. Chief John Wilkinson, of the Evanston Fire Department commented that seven days is very unreuilistie. Fire investigations can take longer than seven days. Once that is resolved, the insurance compam, pa)-s and contractors can be hired. He thought that buildings boarded up because of fire could be con*5dered separately. Because this w-as Aid. Rainey's reference, the Committee decided to hold this item and invite AD3. Rainey to the next P&D meeting. OTHER BUSINESS After much discussion among P&D Committee members regarding the order of Preservation Commission, public proponents and opponents comments at the P&D Meeting on April 12, 2000 (for •the proposed Northeast Historic District), it was decided there would be a coin toss to decide if the proponents or opponents would start the public comment. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee, the meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f� Mary e Baaske Planning Division r� MINUTES Planning & Development Committee Special Meeting April 10, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. W)mne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Atterson, M. Barry, M. Franz, D. Mareno, M. Mylott, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson, J. Lyman Presiding Official: Alderman Newman DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Newman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Newman explained that the agenda this evening revolves around the Chicago Avenue Corridor Plan that was forwarded to the Committee by a neighborhood group and the Plan Commission. He added that the two additional items on the agenda are amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on the Cla Regulations and Residential Parking in Non -Residential Districts. He made mention of the memorandum received this evening from Zoning staff regarding Cla Amendment yard requirements. He acknowledged James Wolinski, Director of Community Development, whose staff was very much involved with the drafting of the Chicago Avenue Corridor Plan. He requested that Mr. Wolinski give background on the neighborhood groups and others involved in working together on the Plan. Mr. Wolinski explained that during the Plan Commission's retreat back in 1997, the Commission directed the Neighborhood Planning Committee, which had been principally focused on Howard Street revitalization, to begin a process of accessing conditions and trends on Chicago Avenue. The Plan Commission at that time hoped that this work would lead to findings and recommendations about Chicago Avenue that would assist the members of the Plan Commission in considering singular aldermanic references Cr zoning relief petitions. He said the genesis of the Plan Commission's direction also included a concern expressed often to the City during the early 1990's about the lack oi: new development or rehabilitation on Chicago Avenue. Mr. Wolinski said thaa community leaders expressed concern about the loss of car dealerships, commerciaL at P&D Committee Special ��ttg. Minutes of April 10, 2000 Page 2 vacancies such as Horizon Federal at 811 Chicago Avenue, and the loss of marginal retail uses, especially from 1990-1995. He said the Neighborhood Planning Committee (NPQ had undertaken the study of Chicago Avenue in the context of an expand redevelopment issues and opportunities for this major commercial corridor of the CCrty. With the support of City staff, the N'PC has generated a range of information as a base for planning analysis including zoning. business and land -use inventories, property tax payer and tar base information, a base map of zoning land use, etc. and also includes a block - by -block photographic inventory. Mr. Wolinski said that the Neighborhood Plan Committee between January 1997 and the end of 1999 held over 30 meetings. He said at these meetings, the Committee heard from various stake holders on Chicago Avenue which included the Southeast Evanston Association, Chicago Avenue Initiatives Committee, The Main Street Merchants, The Dempster Street Neighbors East, Preservation League of Evanston, Nichols Neighbors, Chicago/Dempster Merchants Association, local developers, commercial property owners and also input from both AIderman Wynne and Alderman Bernstein. He said the culmination of their efforts is the Chicago Avenue Neighborhood Recommendation Report which is before the P&D Committee this evening for review. Mr. Wolinski also acknowledged various members of the Plan Commission who were instrumental in both the process and the development of the plan namely Ms. Doraine Anderson, Steven Knutson, John Lyman, Marty Norkett, Ron Kobold. He noted that these Plan Commissioners dedicated a good part of their efforts in the civic area towards this report Chairman Newman noted that it was mentioned that residents along Chicago Avenue, merchants and the City's Planning and Zoning staff all participated in the discussions of those meetings. He questioned if the meetings were headed by the Zoning Committee of the PIan Commission or was this a completely separate group. Mr. Wolinski responded that the Neighborhood Committee was a separate sub -committee of the Plan Commission. As stated, there is also a Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission, which dealt with the two ordinances, and there are various other sub -committees within the Plan Commission that deal «with varying issues. He added that staff assisted the Neighborhood Committee throughout the process. Chairman Newman acknowledged the sign -in sheet for those who wish to speak this evening. He clarified the order of the meeting will be first to hear from all that signed up to speak and secondly, the Committee will discuss the recommended amendments amongst themselves. He requested that everyone keep their comments brief and within a 5 minute time limit in order to give everyone ample time. Ms. Katherine Saccanv, 926 Judson Avenue, says she is a 25 year resident of Evanston at the same address. She admitted that she just read about this meeting in the Evanston Review and has not had a chance to read the Chicago Avenue Corridor Report. She said from experience, that more than 1 parking space per condominium unit is necessary. She said the neighborhood is currently desperate for parking and any newly proposed condominium developments need to provide more than 1 space per unit to avoid the need for street level parking. She said this in combination with commercial parking needs, has already congested the current parking availability. Ms. Saccany stated that the reason P&D Committee Special .%itg. Minutes of April 10, 2000 Page 3 why many people have chose to live in that area is for a more residential aspect rather than a Rogers Park or Lincoln Park atmosphere with congestion and dcnscly populated areas. She claimed that this is one of the major topics of conversation tuutingst her neighbors; nobody wants the type of development, or continuance of that r%Tv. that they have seen go up recently on Chicago Avenue. She is hopeful that the Committee M11 see the neighbors view on this issue and their belief that this is a step back and tic -look at what the proposed type of development would do to their neighborhood. Ms. Saccany noted that she is a MBA, CPA and a 25-year banker and has a _ mt deal of understanding and respect for the need of replacement of the commercial businesses and the need to bring money into Evanston. However, she feels to replace this need with high-rises is not the way to go. Mr. Jim Fox, 55 E. Monroe St., Chicago, said he represents Jim Flannagan who has property on Chicago Avenue. He acknowledged the 3-ring binders he passed out to all the Committee members, which illuminates on their position as a property owner and contract purchaser of three pieces of property along Chicago Avenue. He said that one of these properties is "The Main" on the southeast corner of Main and Chicago and is not actually being affected by these proposed changes. He said the two properties to the south of "The Main", are to be affected by the amendments. He explained that why "The Main" is effected by this is because when Mr. Flannagan wrestled back the title to his property from the borrower who had defaulted, he began trying to put together a larger scheme which would encompass "The Main", some rehabilitation of the one portion of the property that is worth saving and combining the properties to the south. He claims that while they were working on a plan to encompass the entire property, they were unaware of the deliberations on the amendments to the Cla regulations. Mr. Fox stated that the materials in the 3-ring binder go through the schemes in more detail. He said the reason he asked Neil Kenig and Jacques Gourguechon to attend this meeting is to express their concerns about the C 1 a issues, the rezoning concept, and the height and parking amendments. He requested that the Committee listen to comments from .tifr. Gorguechon about the rezoning, dwelling unit ratio and the walking neighborhood as he refers to it and additionally ask that the Committee listen to Mr. Kenig's concerns as their traffic consultant on this specific project as to why the parking ratios within this area which are closely connected to public transportation, may sound correct but does not actually fit in an equitable basis. Chairman Newman said that he is a bit confused because there is no zoning decision that he is aware of on this project tonight but there is the general consideration of the Cla Districts on Chicago Avenue. Mr. Fox concurred and noted that is why he does not want to get into the specifics of their project because it will stand on its own as a zoning application. He reiterated that is why he would prefer Mr. Gourguechon to speak on the Cla issues because he vms involved in the process of this district when the City of Evanston amended the Zoning Ordinance. He said the only other issue that is of general nature is the parking ratio which he will have Mr. Kenig speak on. X P&D Comminee Special hitg. Minutes of April I0, 2000 Page 4 Aid. Bernstein mentioned that he owns property at the southeast corner of Chicago Avenue and South Boulevard, which happens to be in a Cla District. He said that he has been informed that he %till probably be precluded from getting involved in the discussiarr on this issue as it involves his property. His concern, however, is that Mr. Kenig and Mr_ Gourguechon were also involved and he speculates on the propriety of their involvement_ He further noted that Mr. Kenig is cited in the Neighborhood Plan and Mr. Gourguechon was heavily involved in the amendment work to the Zoning Ordinance. Ald. Bernstein raised the inferences with respect to this matter and stated that he respectfully abstains from discussion of this issue. Mr. Fox responded that both individuals have background that is helpful and if the only concentration is on this small area which is the Cla on both sides of Main Street, Mr. Gourguechon did make some suggestions in his memorandum reflecting on what has happened since he did act as a consultant to the City. He said these suggestions might have some bearing on what the Committee's ultimate decisioa will be. He stated that Mr. Kenig Iooked at some of the materials that were gathered during the neighborhood review, and in particular, is only going to speak to %by are these ratios to apply in the Cla district which is so closely tied to public parldng and transportation. He added that Mr. Kenig feels in his professional opinion, this area is the last place where the City should be imposing higher parking ratios. Aid. Wynne agrees with AId. Bernstein and also raises the Question of Mr. Kenig having a conflict of interest because KOLA was the firm that the City used for the Neighborhood Committee's parking and traffic study. She said it seems that what Mr. Kenig is doing is contradictory to what was told in the neighborhood study. She stated that she is not comfortable with him speaking on behalf of the developer. Aid. Engelman said that he appreciates Aid. Bernstein's disclosure of the attempt to abstain based upon his financial interest in his property with the outcome of any decisions made on the C I a regulations. However, he noted that even if Aid. Bernstein owns a piece of property in this district, the Council as a whole, all own properties and pay taxes in Evanston. Therefore, he does not feel that Aid. Bernstein has a conflict of interest in this case. Aid. Engelman stated that he also feels the conflict of interest is questionable in Mr. Gourguechon and Mr. Kenig's case because they are noted authorities in their fields and do not have a financial interest in the outcome of the zoning decision. He said at this point, the Committee does not know what Mr. Kenig will testify to and the Committee wz1I have to determine if any conflict of interest is evident. He affirmed that there is no conflict with regard to their having any financial interest or deriving some benefit in the outcome. Therefore, Aid. Engelman said he is anxious to hear what they have to say. Aid. Wynne agreed with Ald. Engelman as far as no conflict of interest with regards to financial interest. She feels there is a revolving door appearance issue in this case with the consultants working for the City and then turns around and works for a private client involving the same issue. She stated that this situation is important to note and be on record because the information provided in Mr. Kenig's study for the City is still under consideration. Chairman Newman also agreed with Aid. Engelman because Mr. Gourguechon has already testified with the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission and is part of the record. He said .%ith regards to what he is testifying to it P&D Committee Special rtt& Minutes otApril 10, 2000 Page S now, is on behalf of his client and the Committee can determine if there is any conflictutf interest in their deliberations. Mr. Jacaues Gourguechon. Camiros Ltd. Planning Consultants, said that gi%vn thte Chairman's request, he will keep his cwrnments hrief and will tiol tqcat the lcngtliu• presentation that was made before the Zoning Cornmittre of the Plan Commission. Fie said his presentation this evening contains highlights of those issues that are already im the record and are essential. He wished to start with the that tic resihmd which are in the memorandum befom the Conimiucc because it will make Us presentation more efficient. He informed the Committee tha! he came to this assignmerra as a person knowledgeable in his profession about the Evanston Zoning Ordinance - having been the primary author and the primary proposer of the C l a rt-gulations when k was developed. He said to those who were on the Council at that time, they w0l remember that the C I a regulations were discussed at length regarding the planning issues that were involved, the redevelopment issues and lengthy parking analysis. NE-- Gourguechon feels the work done at that time is still valid and the ideas that wer= proposed at that time, some of which have begun now, actually show the legitimacy atf that policy in terms of an appropriate redevelopment in a very small area of the City. Mr. Gourguechon went through his conclusions. First, he urged the Committee to keep the density, the height and the incentives in the C l a that provide the necessary financiiO basis for redevelopment to occur along Chicago Avenue in that district. He noted dbr area of Chicago Avenue, which is from the south point of the downtown area south to South Boulevard, is a challenging area but is not similar the entire length. He said thtut much of the structures along this area have become marginal in nature and less thaw efficient in terms of their tax production capability and they're not necessarily doing 6-- best possible job that could be done for the City of Evanston as we move into the futur--. Therefore, the first 3 recommendations, in his conclusion, are to retain the current grour d floor commercial requirement for that portion of C I a, at least between Main and Kedz5-- Streets because that is a commercial core that makes the Main Street business dirt -fi t work. He said it also functions well with the commercial and retail that are on Mann Street and will enable us to keep the character of that district. Secondly, NET- Gourguechon suggested not increasing the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. He fee�s it is essential that parking for any development that occurs there, whether it is retail crr residential, to have the financial ability to provide parking not only for its own use but if structured properly, to take some of the stress off of parking in the wea in general. He stated that many of the buildings that were built in the 1920's and 19330's in that distsv.-t were built without modem day parking and they are trying to accommodate that With'a combination of street parking and surface parking on those lots. He pointed out t5z obvious difficulty in doing so and that is why they want to provide parking incentiv s that will go in the new buildings. He said this is one of the reasons wily they would lDr the Committee to consider taking off that requirement that says you can only put requir°rd parking in those buildings. Mr. Gourguechon said the issue in the area with regard 10 parking is a historical situation and not wit the new buildings. To the degree that we can provide incentives to reduce some of the parking stress, is a positive move. Chairrrart Newman noted that at the last hearing on this, Alex Sprout from the Main Street business It P&D Committee Special 4ltg. Minutes of April 10. 2000 Page 6 district, told us tha the parking requirements within the Cla should not be used to ameliorate the parking situation in the residential requirement to the east. He said, given Mr. Sprout's pint of %iew•, which is important because of the fact that many of the buildings southeast of the Main/Chicago intersection, were build at a time that allowed for 15 spaces per 100 units and this issue came up when Council was dealing %ith revising the Zoning Ordinance. He asked Mr. Gourguechon if he really thinks the developers are going to build parking so as to help the City or area with the parking problems that were created in the past. Also, realizing the cost of providing such park:Eng, why not just provide the parking requirement for their building. Mr. Gourguecbon agreed with Chairman Newman but if an incentive is provided, such as some type of payoff like extra density/extra units for example or the ability to sell off those ettra parking spaces. He noted that this will not solve the entire problem, but could aid in providing some relief to the parking problem. Chairman Newman recalled discussing 7 years ago during the Zoning Ordinance revision, having retail in the ground floor and he thought it w-as a good idea then but he is not so sure now. His reasons why is because in looking at the 811 Chicago Avenue building, the retail on the ground floor, in his mind, is somewhat fraudulent because it does not provide real retail, has minimal window space and has not been permaneasly occupied as yet, to his knowledge. He said that he is in support of ground floor retail but in reality, such usage is not always available or the location is hard to lease and end up being developed for such use in order to comply wit the Ordinance whether used for that purpose or not. He said because of this, he has questioned this requirement over the years since the revision of the Zoning Ordinance. He asked Mr. Gourguechon for his thoughis on the matter. Mr. Gourguechon responded that certainly at that end of the district, it is harder to do commercial and is one of the reasons the 811 Chicago Avenue building Eras struggled in leasing the ground floor. Secondly, in the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, it cannot guarantee proper or idea execution of requirements but can only se minimum standards for what is required. He pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance does provide a site plan review process and the theory is that the minimum standards should be set in combination with this review. Chairman Newman noted that the problem with the site plan review is that most of it is not binding. Mr. Gourguechon stated that the issue is not exactly what site plan review is but more on the theory of how it should work and tape should learn from that example. He stated that if the site plan review. in that case, does not have the means to establish and bind to what has been created in the Zoning Ordinance, then consideration needs to be given in strengthening that review process. He added that it requires and is important that it be carried out property, noting all the different administrative latitudes in discretion in the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of making use of a good staff and good boards of review so that you can go beyond the basic standards and principals if there is a definite need to do so. He said that you can not do this with the language in the Zoning Ordinance but can be accomplished in the process. Therefore, he suggested that the process is the area in which needs some fire tuning to carry out the problem with making such review binding. Mr. Gourguechon continued his presentation noting that one of his staff suggested, in looking at the Cla regulations, that the way to solve some of the problems where we"m 7-4 P&D Committee Special Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2000 Page 7 focused on the real core of the Main Street business district, is that the area between Nbin Street and Kedzie be rezoned to B3. He feels this would be a clean cut, simple solclim that limits the character of the urban village type of area that exists there. He stated this would require a map revision and would allow for that area to perform the way he fi is should be able and the way Council felt in 1993. He stated that ability is to provide &T a real urban village and pedestrian area that allowed people to live, work, access public transportation and shop all in this particular unique area. He suggest this as an alternative to all the fine tuning in the Cla district. He reiterated that this goes back to his point tbat Chicago Avenue is not the same in its entire run between Lake Street and South Boulevard and he suggest this map rezoning only for the area he stated. Mr. Gourguechon showed 3 maps to the Committee explaining each maps purpose in exhibiting the real core planning notions about the Main Street district. He added that this area is one of 3 areas in Evanston which displays the characteristics that arc particularly unique to the City and for which Cities all around the country are striving for, areas that bring together a real pedestrian environment that provide a small urban village that has living activities, shopping, access to public transportation, all together. His 1" map illustrated the Main Street urban village concept shoving the small area in which be is suggesting where the height can be accessed and backs up to the R5 district where there already exists large apartment structures. He explained the 2d map, which illustrates the current zoning district and existing building heights and the Cla zoning district review. The 3`d map illustrates his suggested map rezoning and the redevelopment potential he is referring to and how it will accomplish the urban village concept, which is the most improved, most economic use for that specific area. Mr. Gourguechon concluded that his proposal for the area is to offer the opportunity to be redeveloped into an area that strives and develops into something tha the City can be proud of. He pointed out that in Iooking at the current situation and buildings along that stretch of Chicago Avenue, it is not aesthetically or financial acceptable and must be redeveloped in order to keep up with the times and the principal of new life and vitality that is essential. Ald. Engelman stated that he is particularly sensitive to the mass that a building can have when you add 4 additional levels of parking on top of an already existing building as an exemption, in addition to the building being built right up to the sidewalk with no setback. He recalled that when the Zoning Ordinance ws being revised 7 years ago, he remembers that the Evanston Hospital Medical building was not fully developed at that time. He further recalls he and his constituents look at that building now and see how imposing that mass can be. As a result, he is sensitive to the concerns that have been raised in this report regarding what would happen along Chicago Avenue if all the buildings were built along that frontage like the *'811" building. Ald. Engelman requested that Mr. Gourguechon expand on the issue of exuberate (?) setbacks of buildings in certain business areas, and if he feels this may b an appropriate vehicle in this subject area to address some of the problems that he also recognizes could exist if they were to do nothing wit the existing zoning. Mr. Gourguechon responded that actually this could be applied as an to the incentive, but in addition, he feels it is A P&D Committee Special NItg. Minutes of April 10, 2C*D Page 8 appropriate to also require some setback because he realizes the sidewalks in that area air too narrow. He stated that they did and have looked at that issue and agree there nerds to be more setback %%ben considering the narrow 3' wide sidewalks in some areas. He affirmed that he «vuld urge that be pan of the Ordinance or even part of the site plm review process. Ha%,.•ever, 4ir. Gourguechon said that the staggering setback fimctioxa could be applied in this case which is built into the Ordinance for the dou-ntovm buildings. He pointed out that this is an already existing provision that is a technique that currently is in the Zoning Ordinance that can be easily adapted to apply to these area as well. Aid. Engelman asked if Mr. Gourguechon thinks this could have a deleterious impact to the potential development of this area if we were to apply it at this time. Mr. Gourguechon responded that if the other incentives are maintained, it certainly is a reduction in total square footage that is allowed. He said the question remains of the balancing act of how much of a reduction in total square footage is going to effect the ability to make these projects financially feasible. He stated that he does not ha%�e the capability of fine tuning that exact number but it seems that if the number is reasonable, and not overly acccssive, that it might be an architectural or scale designed solution that will not kill the possibility of being financial feasible_ Aid. Engelman asked for more elaboration on the statement made in advocating a front yard setback. Mr. Gourguechon responded that there are other setbacks here and they looked at the fact of how you can develop a streetscape with these types of buildings that wouldn't create open side yards that become view alleys. He noted that they designed them so that they close down %then you get approximately 25-30' back. He further noted that there are many little design features that should be part of the site plan re%, iew process. Aid. Engelman clarified that in his understanding, it appears that Mr. Gourguechon is suggesting that if we had front yard setbacks that it might help alleviate part of the problem infrastructure in terms of the sidewalks being to narrow. Mr. Gourguechon responded that it depends on how you design it. He explained that you have a walking path but there are other features that are as much a psychological issue in a sense of space having elbowroom and what it looks like. He pointed out that fortunately, there is the piece of park -like area that sits on the west side of Chicago Avenue which has the possibility of being fixed up and designed much better and could be a desirable urban development that should occur on the east side of Chicago Avenue. He noted that this can be reflected with gardens and plazas in the type of redevelopment they see appropriate there. Chairman Newman noted that on the East Side of Chicago Avenue there exists residential across the alley. He asked Mr. Gourguechon's opinion on the effect to this existing residential area it will have from building more residential building on Chicago Avenue adding to 100+ units in terms of light and air and added usage of the shared alley. Mr. Gourguechon responded that in his opinion, he feels there is not a large concern for the added usage because of the orientation of the buildings to the sun pattern is not going to cast shadows on the single family homes east of the proposed condo building. He admits it may cast shadows on the parking areas and alley areas but is an unfortunate layout that may occur ssith any prospective development. Chairman Newman noted that currently there are only I and 2 story buildings on Chicago Avenue abutting the residential district to the east and any proposed development of 7 stories will definitely affect those residential properties. Ald. Wynne added that even the F� p&0 Committee special ttitg. Minutes of April 10, 2WO page 9 3-story residential dwelling buildings will also be affected because they are still considered homes to the residents that live them and will still be over-whelmed by a 7- story structure towering over them and will defuriteiy effect their light and air as vv 1. Mr. Gourguechon feels that the R6 district that abuts the C l a and 133 districts will t2ot experience much detriment to light, air and shadows because of the way those buildings are oriented. Mr. Neal Kenig, traffic and parking consultant for KLOA Traffic Engineers, said that be would like to clarify the issues with convict of interest. He noted that he is very well aware of any conflict of interest situations and with every project that they hz%v conducted in Evanston, they notify staff and the City Manager's office for approval. He affirmed that he did receive that approval for this project and felt that what KLOA would be providing would be an objective analysis whether working for the community or for the developer. He informed the Committee that this is not the first project where they have come before the City — they have worked on another project on Chicago Aver= between Dempster and Main Street, one for the McDougal Littel buildings and another project in the downtown development area. He said as far as this particular project goes, he was not aware until this evening that this item was going to be on the agenda. He noted that his report in the notebook before the Committee does not discuss parking other than to note what the developer is proposing for his project. There is no opinion as to right, wrong or indifferent. Mr. Kenig said that he is addressing the parking now because he has read the staff reports and the neighborhood development report and would like to comment on the proposed parking provisions. He also pointed out that the study that KLOA did in 1998 for this corridor, looked at several points: 1) being the existing traffic conditions in that area, 2) looked at the existing parking conditions on Chicago Avenue and 3) looked at several scenarios based on future development opportunities presented to us by staff in terms of densities. He said the first study they conducted of those scenarios it was pointed out that there is going to be some serious traffic problems and serious parking problems. fie noted that staff came back and requested they conduct an updated study, which he notices is not in the current neighborhood planning report. He conveyed that the updated study reduced the densities in that corridor and they analyzed what it would do to the corridor and found that this could be accommodated over the original study. He also noted that this study is dated one month later after the first study. He said that they did not establish parking in that study, explaining that the study was to point out what problems exist and what problems there will be with development in that corridor based on the demand. Mr. Kenig reported that he is not addressing the traffic issues at this time, but is addressing the parking issue. He congratulated staff on the parking study they conducted on all the units in Evanston which he appreciated and complimented, noting the study to be one of the most comprehensive done of parking in a community. He pointed out that staff's study shows what the parking requirements are in other north shore surrounding communities which is a thorough comparison but in no way does the study tell you what the demand is for parking. He noted that the zoning requirements in most of the studied municipalities, is copied from one ordinance to another and many have not been amended in 30 years unless staff personally goes out and conducts a study, which Mr. Alterson did. x P&D Commince Sped:! %t:z Minutes of Apri! 10• 2000 Page 10 He said updated studies of current zoning requirements is net.�ar�' i�ceausc� �'f charges in use occur all the time_ Mr. Kenig pointed out Evanston's uniqurnc..c in otTering m-re transit development than most communities -which results in a tomlhy different hx*- at the parking demands for any land use in the city. He feels that parking in this corrid-or above retail should not be higher than what's currently required in the residential zoning distract. He questions % by any residential unit over a retail or garage establishment should require more parking, especially- abutting the R6 district. He stated that the studies charity showed that in this entire area east of Chicago Avenue, that you had bet«ven 1.33 and 1.48 parking ratio in total. He noted that the only thing missing from the study is a comparison of the number of parking spaces per bedrooms per unit; this is an important issue that needs to be considered. Mr. Kenig concluded that in his view, people are buying units in this area because of the excellent transit pro%isions, not for the views of the lake or surrounding vicinity. Therefore, to require more parking be provided for than what is needed for the units in the building, is not essential; the parking problems were created by the existing apartment buildings when built because not enough parking vras provided for due to the need at the time. He said as a whole, residential development is one of the lowest traffic generators in the area and he feels that if there were all retail and office use in this district, it would generate far more traffic than residential. Ms. Madeleine Bennett, 1302 Hinman Avenue, informed the Committee that the citizens of the resident working group, which is a combination of al the community groups in the Yd and 4Ih wards, were concerned about the development in their neighborhood and Evanston making sure the tax base is maintained and improved in the community. She noted that a working effort in the process involved City staff. the Plan Commission, neighborhood businesses and merchants, neighborhood property owners and developers. Ms. Bennett mentioned the neighborhood study done which was concluded from discussions of their meetings held regarding urban design, land use, zoning, parking, economic and fiscal impacts, traffic, the public transportation system and infrastructure. She noted that when discussions begun, many felt that no more than 3 stories v<•as enough for Chicago Avenue and the developers wanted a building height of up to 125 feet. She said an agreement was arrived at a building height of in between 55-67 feet for Chicago Avenue and it was also agreed that there is a need for additional parking requirements for the C 1 a district. She does agree that there is a need for development for enhancement of the tax base in the area, especially urith the Yd ward having the greatest density in Evanston. Nevertheless, her group all feel that a maximum height of 67 feet is more than capable of assisting in the increase in tax base. They feel this to be a reasonable and balanced way to approach the problem without destroying the surrounding neighborhood with excessive bulk and height. Ms. Bennett brought attention to one of the purposed of the Zoning Ordinance in item (1), .which states "prohibiting uses, buildings or structures that are incompatible with established zoning districts." She also referred to another objective in the Zoning Ordinance which states "preventing the overcrowding of land by regulating and limiting the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected as said buildings relate to land area." Ms. Bennett stressed to the Committee that these intents of the Zoning Ordinance be particularly considered in their review of the amendments for Cla. [ 2 P&D Committee Special Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2000 Page I I Ms. Beth Steffen. stressed her astonishment at the comments made by Mr. Kenig azth regards to parking needs and requirements for the Chicago Avenue corridor. She ticrls Mr. Kenig speaks as if no real people live in that area and call in their home ,and neighborhood. She noted that her resident working group all live in the vicinity and are made aware of each day of the current parking problem that already exists and her &-aup feels that any type of development, whether residential or commercial, will add to the existing problem. She feels it is detrimental that any new development provides adequate parking plus help or aid in relieving the stress on the parking situation in the area.. Ms. Steffen proceeded with her presentation of photos she has taken of the 811 Chicago Avenue building at different angles and from the alley. She explained the different photos and pointed out the significant impact this building has on the surround ng buildings at its height of 79'. Her point being, that if this building has effect on the aria, a building with more height and bulk would be detrimental. She displayed a second set of photos which demonstrated the "disappearing sky" that would result if the allowable building height were extended to 125'. She stressed how extreme this height would be to the surrounding neighborhood and how buildings built to the maximum would block out visibility of the sky light and normal aerial views. Ms. Steffen passed around an exhibit of photos taken from various Chicago neighborhoods including Ravenswood, Lakeview and the North Clybourn corridor. She was surprised to see that the majority of the most recent developments were not high-rise but were more low-rise, smaller developments of no more than 3 floors. She pointed out that Mayor Daley has recognized the importance of reviving the neighborhoods in Chicago, and as a result, the City has been flourishing with fresh development and prospering with new retail and commercial developments in the neighborhoods as well. She continued to point out from the photos the rehab developments, which result in preserving the existing buildings yet modernizing and updating the look for the present. Ms. Steffen concluded her presentation by requesting that the Committee look at the City of Chicago's example of reviving what is existing in their neighborhoods and instead of using high-rise development to enhance the tax base, consider more moderate to low rise developments that will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area but will still support increasing the tax base for Evanston. Aid. Engelman asked Ms. Steffen if she feels the areas in Chicago where the photos were taken are comparable to the Chicago Avenue corridor. Ms. Steffen responded that it is obvious that the areas are different in era, density and even atmosphere, but are very similar in wanting to retain the urban neighborhood traditions. She is confident that similar developments could be built along the Chicago Avenue Corridor with a positive impact. Mr. Rav Pierrehumbert. 415 Greenwood Street, commented on the height limitations and his opposition of allowing a maximum of 125' and cautioned the Committee of the possible outcome that could result from such an extreme allowance. He does agree with Mr. Gourguechon in the importance of keeping and preserving ground -floor retail. He feels such retail and commercial shopping availability is important in keeping udth the VI P&D Committee Special Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2000 Page 12 urban neighborhood trend. He commented on side yard and rrar yard setback requirements and the importance of allowing enough off the alley or front a side yard abutting a street, room for turn -around and ingress and egress from parking cntr mn a He also pointed out that the current setbacks from the front of buildings on Chicago and Main are approximately 8' but the parking meters and light poles are approximately 34' from the curb, leaving approximately 4-5' of space for pedestrian traffic. Thought should be given to adding additional development built to maximum height and usage and how much pedestrian traffic that will be added by over -de- elopment of the area. Mr. Pierrehumbert gave an overhead presentation showing three-dimensional view's of Chicago Avenue if built out under the current zoning with maximum allowable height of 107' buildings and noted the immense contrast to the buildings on Hinman Avenue and to the east. He showed a view of the comparison in height of the allowable 107' to the 811 Chicago Avenue building at 79'. He illustrated buildings at the proposed change of 67' and how even that height would still result in excessive development for the area but would not be as detrimental to the surrounding existing buildings in the neighborhood to the east. He made a suggestion that the Committee consider the elimination of allowing the addition of 4 stories for parking and encouraging the de,•elopers to come up with better designs on buildings and considering going to underground parking. He concluded that he feels it is clearly time to revise the Cla envelope. He stressed that people do want to live in Evanston and are attracted to the quality of preservation of buildings here and any new development should fit in with the community as well. Ald. Engelman asked Mr. Pierrehumbert his opinion of the same type of developments such as townhouse developments as shown in Ms. Steffen's photos, would be appropriate along Chicago Avenue. Mr. Pierrehumbert responded that maybe not that same type of development but preferable something in between the photos and what is being proposed. He suggested along the lines of mid -rise development. Aid. Engelman questioned his assumption that every developer will build to the maximum height limitation. Mr. Pierrehumbert recognized that it is highly unlikely that all of Chicago Avenue will be built up to the maximum allowed and we could go with the zoning regulations as is and hope for the best. His observation is that no matter what, the C1 a regulations need to be revised. The Committee members and staff proceeded in significant discussion on binding site plan review. Mr. Wolinski elaborated on the procedural of the site plan review process and that they are not bound by the architectural design. Chairman Newman commented on 811 Chicago Avenue which should have provided for retail on the ground floor but is being used for office space. He understands how difficult it is to lease storefronts in Evanston but every effort should be made to attract retail for those locations. Aid. Wynne noted that during discussions in their workshops regarding the neighborhood report, there was extensive discussion on the quality of retail along Chicago Avenue and giving incentives and making efforts to attract such a market. She added that the intent or desire is for strong pedestrian oriented atmosphere and neighborhood shopping environment. She agrees that it is important to try and retail all the retail they can in the ground floor store fronts. Aid. Engelman also agrees and understands the desire for P&D Committee Special Mt . iNinutes of April 10. 2000 Page 13 strong pedestrian shopping available in the neighborhood which tends to attract families to the area. The Committee discussed fiv—dier the issue of ground floor retail being provided beneath residential buildings. Mr. Frank Konvelman, 1122 Hinman Avenue, said that he is a professor at Northwestem University in the Department of Transper-ta6an and he wished to comment on the traffic and parking impact that new development Ail] have on the Chicago Avenue Traffic Corridor. He does agree that new deve}oprnent is needed and will replace the strip of "wasteland" that is an eyesore with ems buildings and bad infrastructure issues. He also realizes the need for Evanston m.r_+ang efforts in attracting development that will raise the tax base, however, not at the e,�+ense and burden of over -development in already densely populated areas, which i`: the case in southeast Evanston. He noted that there will be a definite increase on the uafflc impact in the area and there is already a serious pedestrian traffic problem in the a-=s with narrow sidewalks. He noted that there is not enough room to add turning lanes at the intersection of Main and Chicago Avenue which would result in creating more probletms for vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic. Mr. Koppelman stressed the fact that new development will increase traffic and exasperate more parking problems in this already congested area and there is no way around it. He agrees that the developer should not be expected to solve the current parking problems but should be expected to take care of the burden on providing sufficient parking added by their new de%'clopmcrit. Ms. Niki Hiltwein, 820 Hinman Avenue. commented on changes to the side yard and rear yard setback requirements in the C I a district. She feels that if the requirement is changed from 15' to 10', this is not adequate turning room for cars entering and exiting from a garage, especially if there is going to be a car elevator with entrance off the alley. She noted the current very congested situation in the alley east of Chicago Avenue, south of Main Street. She further noted the stores and businesses that use that alley for deliveries, the City uses this alley for garbage pickup, as well as the residents that live off of this alley. She is very concerned with the added traffic that this proposed development would impose on this alley. She requests that Council restore the required setbacks needed for this extremely congested alley. Ms. Hiltwein also commented on her feelings that she does not necessary want to live in an urban village envirorunent, nor do most of her neighbors. She request that consideration be given to the already present neighbors and residents that live in southeast Evanston and give thought to approving excessive development to an area that can not handle the maximum C I a requirements. Ms. Debbie Hillman, representative of Nichols Neighbors, said that her group has been involved in the neighborhood planning committee report and have followed the Chicago Avenue corridor development plan fronn the beginning. She thanked all that have participated in the neighborhood group and thanked Ald. Wynne and Aid. Bernstein for their involvement. She pointed out that the southeast section and neighborhoods of Evanston are the most densely populated areas in the City and already have serious traffic and parking issues. She made mention of the compromise the committee reached which was something the City, developer and neighbors could live uith. She noted that the Cla and B3 districts are only in southeast Evanston and the B3 district allows up to 125 feet x P&D Comminee Special Mt& Minutes of April Io, 2WO Page 14 in height. She hopes that Council will contemplate the possibility that even if the Cla height limitation is amended to 67 feet, their neighborhood is still faced with the chance of higher and denser developments in the near future. Ms. Hillman accentuated that trying to build and develop as much as possible on a piece of land with building height, is not a civilized way to promote living for the future. Ms. Doraine Anderson, member of the Zoninc Committee of the Plan Commission, clarified for the record that she is not a member, nor at any time was she a member of the neighborhood group. She stressed that her only participation has been with the planned development report and as a member of the Zoning Comminee of the Plan Commission. Ms. Anderson encourages development of more 2-bedroom units versus 1-bedroom units to attract families more than single occupan&o% ner of these condo units. She feels these types of units with 2 or more bedrooms will attract residents that will be of a more permanent nature. She also encourages giving developers more of an incentive to provide more over than what is only required for their buildings to encourage participation in helping to relieve some of the current pariting problems that do exist in that area. She realizes the added cost of building underground parking, but with adequate and sufficient planning, and with the already exuberant cost of development, this is a doable alternative and could allow for the developer to add more living spaces in placement of the floors are area planned for parking use. At this point, the Committee addressed the recommended amendments to the Cla zoning regulations. Chairman Newman began with amendment #1. that the lot area required per dwelling unit be increased to 350-sq. ft. from 300 sq. ft. The Committee agreed to this amendment. Amendment #2 -- Mandatory commercial usage of the ground floor frontage eliminated; no enclosed parking within 20 feet of the front or street side lot line, except for driveways; enclosed parking may not be visible from the sweet; no devices or openings for automobile or other vehicle ventilation may be visible along abutting street. Mr. Wolinski commented on the difficulties in attracting commercial usage for all ground floor frontage. 1t was the consensus of the Committee that it might be best to leave in commercial uses for ground floor frontage because it is a preferred use under residential development. After further discussion, the Committee agreed this was a difficult subject and decided to leave for a decision with full Council. Amendment #3 — a) Eliminate 5-foot side yards at grade within blocks along the Chicago Avenue street wall while maintaining the 5-foot side setback above the second floor. Aid. Wynne supports maintaining the 5-foot side setback requirement for various reasons that are in the best interest of safety, vision, and pedestrian traffic. Aid. Engelman agreed with wanting solid frontage along Chicago Avenue. It was the consensus of the Committee to keep in the 5-foot side yard setback requirement at grade. B) For Cla rear yards along the alley east of and parallel to Chicago Avenue require a 10-foot rear P&D Committee Special Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 4O) Page 15 margin which will allow for a "standing" space for emergerwy and service vehicles d= presently block the alley. The Committee agreed unanimously on this amendmmr- Amendment #4 — -Uses" Chairman Newman stated that he would like to keep religkum institutions on the list of permitted uses. Aid. Engelman suggested that they look V where religious institutions are allowed and where most desirable. He feels this locatinm is not best suitable for religious institutions and should be reserved for tax based properties. The Committee discussed this at length. Chairman Newman remained im preference to leave in this use at this time for further discussion when this is before HE Council. Amendment #5 — To highlight and encourage the appropriate development of multii- family residential and townhouses in the Cla District and to remove the encouragernernt of strip malls and surface parking areas. Aid. Wyttne is in full support of thiit; amendment. She clarified that she is not anti -commercial but does feel that strip mauls have their suitable locations. She noted that there is already one strip mall in her v4u& along Chicago Avenue and there is no need for an expansion of that use. The Commimtir discussed this matter further. It was the consensus of the Committee to alter purpose statement to take out wording regarding encouragement of strip malls and surface parking areas. Amendment 46 — Reduce the current exemption of up to 4 floor of parking from the 67 foot height maximum to 1 floor or 10 feet. Aid. Wynne supports the 67-foot heighd maximum versus the 77 feet. She feels this is an appropriate height level fe r development on Chicago Avenue without becoming too overbearing and impacting cm the residential district to the east. Chairman Newman agreed. Aid. Wynne added in lighn of this, that she also feels there should be no parking exemption with the 67-foot heigha limitation. The other Committee members expressed some concerns with eliminating the parking exemption but overall support the 67-foot height maximum. Ms. Andersam stressed her opinion on underground parking being considered and giving incentives tD developers to take this option into more thought. She noted the extra cost to thin developer to deliver this alternative parkins but feels it would be worth the additionail cost and labor overall; giving the developer more floor area to construct residential usic and the ability to provide adequate parking which assist in relieving the current parking; stress that is significant in that . area. The Committee discussed Ms. Anderson's comments further. They decided to continue discussion on this matter in more detail an the next Council meeting that will address this issue. The Committee addressed Ordinance 41-0-00 regarding the amendment to the Zoni= Ordinance for residential parking in non-residential districts. They discussed increasing the number of required parking spaces in residential districts and came to the consensus that studies should be done in different residential areas to get an idea of the parkin demand for certain areas. The need for requiring additional parking over the curr= zoning regulations varies dependent upon the neighborhood and types of residential use. P&D Committee Special Mtg. Minutes of April 10, 2000 Paga 16 AK Wynne concluded that she feels the' plan Commission has dace an excellent,�ob w their recommendations for amendments to the` C l a` — Ju bans and she commended a]! their time and effort put into this subject, The Committee seconded Aid Wynw*s comments. With no further discussion; the meeting was adjourned at I I:25 p in: r X DRAFT - NOT APPROIVED' PLANNING AND DE% ELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Afonday:.11arch 27, 2000 6:30 p.m. - Room 2403 Evanston Civic Center ALDERMEN PRESENT: S. Bernstein. S. Engelman, J. Kent. A. Newman, ht. Wynne STAFF PRESENT: J. Wolinski. S. Janusz, D. Marino, A. Alterson. M. Mylott, E. Szymanski. J. Larson, S. Guderlcy, M. Baaske PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Aid. Kent DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Kent noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 13. 2000. Aid. Wynne moved approval of the March 13, 2000 minutes, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (21) Ordinance 46-0-00 — Adontion of the Comprehensive General Plan, James Wolinski stated there must be a public hearing for the Comprehensive General Plan. Jay Larson added that the public hearing must be within 90 days of adoption. The public hearing was scheduled for the P&D titeeting of April 24. 2000. Aid. Wynne moved approval of the Comprehensive General Plan and of its introduction to Council. Aid, Bernsteinseconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. (22) Ordinance 43-0-00 — Planned Development — 1234 Chicago Avenue Consideration of the recommendation of the Plan Commission in ZPC 00-3 to amend the zoning map to include 1210-28 Chicago Avenue in the B2 District, and grant a planned development for 1210-28 Chicago Avenue. Thomas Rozak with Rozak /ADC gave a brief presentation of the plans for 1234 Chicago Avenue. He said that the project consists of four buildings (he named A, B, C, &_ D) on approximately 55,000 square feet. Building A is a four-story building that includes 18 �1 Planning and Development Committee Meetine — March 27.2000 titer "L tiro residential condominiums on floors two through four. There is 6?00 squarr feet oror ict wind retail on the first floor with parking in the basement level. On the fifth tltn-r is a penthou�; pool, exercise room and party room. Building B is a seven -story building with 3 o residential condominiums on floors two through seven. Parking is on floor one and the basement IevO, Building C is a seven-stor-: building with 5I condominiums of floors two through seven. 'There is parking on the first and basement levels. Building D is a seven -story building with 52 condominiums on floors three through see en. There is parking on condominium parking cin the second floor. and the basement level. The first floor is designated as a new municipal paring lot. Mr. Rozak said there is a total of 157 condominiums with 215 parkin_ spaces. Madeleine Bennett said sbe was speaking on behalf of the Resident Working Group, (a composite of neighborhood groups, residents, the Southeast Evanston Association, Dempsarr Area, Neighbors East and Nichols Neighbors) and that they supported Mr. Rozak's project. She said he has met with the n.-ighbors, asked for comments and made adjustments. Ms. Bennett added that Mr. Rozak had read the report of the Neighborhood Plan Committee and adjusaed his plans to conform to the desired statements in that report. Aid. Newman asked what the impact was of being able to incorporate the City parking lot into the project. Mr. Rozak replied that one impact was that one whole floor of condominiums was displaced forcing them to go down one more level. Aid. Newman added that the property where the City lot was would now be on the City tax rolls, there will be meters on those 35 parking spaces and the City will receive the revenue from those meters. In response to a question from Aid. Newman, Mr. Rozak replied that the prices of the condominiums start at S 135,000 for a one -bedroom condominium to 5325.000 for a three - bedroom condominium. Aid. Wynne pointed out that the community met with Mr. Rozak. and several of the issues raised were going from a flat p».-king lot to an enclosed structure. what potential security issues might exist and what could be done to minimize those issues. The community asked, and Mr. Rozak agreed, to make the parking lot more open along the sides, and have security cameras in the garage. Aid. Wynne added that the parking lot will be user friendly, xvelt lit and very secure. Ray Pierrehumbert, 415 Greenwood Street stated that this was a outstanding, opportunity to take one of the most pedestrian unfriendly parts of Evanston and make it a much nicer place. fie said he would like to see the building pushed back two feet alloxvinv the sidewalk to be wider than it is now. Mr. Pierreliumbert added that riAt now there is only -round floor commercial space in the middle building. and thought it would he a much more main street feel if there were commercial frontage in at least one of the other buildings. Aid. Wynne responded that the community did ask ,fir. Rozak to push back the buildings. She said he did agree to push back the north and south buildings back two feet to allow a small landscape strip. She added that if you push the buildings back too much farther you end up losing parking space. If Planning and Development Committee Rleetine -- March 27. 2000 1%we 'Three Aid. Kent asked why this project had to be condominiums in order to make this an appealing project, what was the rationale as far as affordability. He thought that one thin; Evanston is missing is affordable housing. Mr. Rozak replied that was what his firm did, they guilt condominiums. Fie said that because of the financing. his firm wou.I3 not he able to do 156 apartments. Mr. Rozak added that they analy-rcd what was available in Evanston and the pricing of the condominiums is the market price. Aid. Bernstein asked if Mr, Rozak would develop rental apartments if he were not able to sell condominiums. Mr. Rozak said that was a backup plan. Aid. Kent stated he had never seen condominiums turn into apartments, but that ire had seen apartments turn into condominiums much too quickly. He addled that there is a certain section of Evanston that is being lumped into a couple of areas because of at ordable housing. Aid. Kent stated the City Council is going to address that subject. Aid. Wynne said that originally Mr. Rozak had a plan to build something much denser and much taller. He was given a copy of the neighborhood committee report and three weeks liter he came back and had met the parking request and the height cap mentioned in the report. She said she vm much appreciated that Mr. Rozak and his team Iistened to the concerns and the discussions and looked at the analysis that had gone on for three years during the Chicago Avenue Committee's deliberations, took that into account and made the project work. Ald. Wynne felt that this was a very good template for Chicago Avenue. James Wolinski said he shared Aid. Kent's concern for affordable housing in Evanston. He felt that one of the positives about this project is Evanston is not losing any rental property to condominiums, as is the case with many of the conversions in town. Mr. Wolinski said that the realities of life today is that any new projects that are built for rental are not going to be for affordable housing, it is going to be high end. I le Colt that the challenge is to keep some of the current rentals as affordable housing. Aid. Newman expressed his support for ;vir. Ror_ak's project. Aid. Wynne moved approval of ti1r. Rozak's project. Aid. Newman seconded motion. Motion passed unanimously. (23) Ordinance 42-0-00 -- Amendment to 7_onine Ordinance (Cla Regulations) Consideration of recommendation from the Plan Commission to amend the C I a regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. James Wolinski suggested that the Committee first discuss the draft of the Chicago Avenue Corridor Report that was recommended by the Plan Commission. Ordinance 23 and 24 are incorporated into that plan. He said we would be asking the Committee to consider directing staff to draft a resolution for the drafting of the Chicago Avenue Plan with any changes. x. Planning and Development Committee Meetine — March 27. 2000 ll'aec Pour (PD2) Consideration of the Daft Chicago Corridor Recommendation Rerx-irt Aid. Wynne said that this is the project resulting from an incredible thorough disci sion and analysis. Aid. Wynne made a motion that the P&D Committee adopt the report and direct staff to draft a resolution. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Aid. Wynne stated the Chicago Avenue Committee consisted of all citizen volunteers and has produced a report that was very well reasoned and very thorough. The report covered all of the topics that are of concern along Chicago Avenue including traffic. parking. streetscape, zoning and %vays to develop good development. Aid. Wynne added that participation in this process is the single most positive aspect of her term as alderman. John Lyman, Co -Chair of the Chicago Avenue Committee added that this has been an ongoing process. He said that it doesn't end here. but that this plan is a platform with which to work. Aid. Engelman said his concern was whether the discussion of the report should be before there is a resolution, or whether it should be a resolution to adopt so that the Council is left with only an opportunity to amend the plan. Aid. Wynne said she thought Aid. Engelman was correct. that two of the most critical issues in the report are Items 23 and 24 on the agenda. She felt that once these two issues are resolved one way or the other, the two biggest pieces of the report that might raise issues will have been resolved and then the other small issues can be looked at that make up this report. Aid. Bernstein was concerned that this report be dealt with expeditiously as possible. Historically it began to preclude a canyonization of Chicago Avenue_ Unless this report is dealt with as expeditiously as possible, there may never be an implementation ofsome of this plan with respect specifically to heights. Aid. Newman stated that the motion on the floor is to bring back Item PD2 in the form of a resolution. Motion passed unanimously. (23) Ordinance 42-0-00 - Amendment to 7.oninu Ordinance (Cla Reaulations) Consideration of recommendation from the Plan Commission to amend the C 1 a regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. Alex Sproul stated that lie participated along with the neighbors in the Chicago Avenue Report for the last three years. He said there was much that he supports, but the one difference the business community has with the Dempster neighbors and that is the desirability of high density housing along commuter rail lines. Mr. Sproul said that the business community thinks high density is desirable, not just because of public transportation and environmental benefits, but there is also the question of the tax base. tie felt nothing should be done to inhibit development in an area that has promising market demand. Mr. Sproul said as far as a canyonization that was X Pl: nning and Development Committee M etine — March 27, 2000 Pace Five. referred to, it is at worst a one-sided canyon with a maximum of 107' high buildings. He added dw buildings would be located behind, for the most part. these vintage courtyard buildings and it is the backs of these courtyard buildings that would face this development. Mr. Sproul thought that the parking situation is such that builders should be encouraged to put up additional parking and given the exemption for any added parking they choose to provide. In response to a question from Aid. Newman, Mr. Sproul responded that there is an existing parking problem on Hinman Avenue where the old apartments are. his position is that the City should not try to solve that problem by penalizing developers on Chicago Avenue. lie went on to say that developers on Chicago Avenue should be expected to provide enough parking in their buildings to accommodate the demand that tile\, are bringing in — that is the new occupants. Mr. Sproul did not think it was good public policy to expect developers and businesses to provide parking for a residential problem that has existed for a long time. Aid. Wynne stated that the point was not to burden future development with the existing problem. that is the City's problem to solve. but it is also critical that we not allow future development to exacerbate a problem that is absolutely chronic. Aid. Engelman stated that when you increase parking requirements you are, in fact, addressing the problem of increased density. Jim Flannigan said his traffic study disputes the comments made tonight. Residential development does not exasperate or interfere with parking. He asked how it could be said that a condominium owner paying property taxes would not benefit the City and the school system. Mr. Flannigan offered to share the traffic studies as soon as they were available. Aid. Wynne said that the City had a traffic engineer do a traffic study and it stated that the City was above the saturation point south of Main Street. She added that.a parking study was done of the surround community, a parking study of S 1 1 Chicago Avenue which has only one space per unit and the car ownership in that building is 1.3. leaving 16 more cars to park on the street. Jonathan 1'erman said that one of the things not being taken into account is tax plus location. The fact that commercial property in Cook County is assessed at twice the rate of residential. He commented on Aid. Kent's concern about affordable housing. Mr. Ferman said that one of the reasons that there is a lack of affordable housing in Evanston is that tax classification issue. :Apartment buildings .vith six or more units are assessed at twice the rate of a residential home or a condominium. He said he has been working very closely with :Assessor Houlihan of Cook County to come up with recommendations that will transition away from that bias against rental apartments, and develop a reform type of assessment that is now being proposed and is before the Cook County Board of Commissions. Mr. Perntan commended John Lyman, Aid. Wynne and members of the Plan Commission. He Planning and Development Committee Mcetina — March 27. 2000 Ilwe Six said he agreed with Aid. Wynne's assessment that this was a very collaborative pro csc that included the participation ofever%. stakeholder. fir. Perman added that it »:t• his he -pc that some kind of compromise can be found that enables a residential neighborhood to maittt:titt its strung quality of life. and at the same time recognize that there is a connection between the desires of this community for better schools, more services, and the need to generate more c-qualized assessed value out of the property that we have. He said lie has a chart that sho%%s the F-AV per capita generated in Evanston with the EAV generated in 15 other communities. Fvan:ton is tar below the EAV per capita of those communities. He added that the impact of «hat is decided here at P&D and City Council would have: a far-reaching impact on school children from every ward. It is the schools that get the great bulk of the property tax dollars that are generated from any new development. Mr. Penman summarized by saying the Chamber of Commerce does not want to sec a change in the height and density. The Chamber does agree that there should be an increase in the requirement for parking, and that requirement should match the scientific study done about the number of cars generated in a particular property. Ile said that greater setbacks should be looked at as a way to overcome some of the aesthetic opposition to taller buildings and greater density. Aid. Wynne said that the point Jonathan Pcmzan is making was raised at the Neighborhood Committee at the first meeting. That being that the City is in dire economic straits and here is an opportunity to generate more tax revenue. She said that she takes issue with the thought that Chicago Avenue is going to get the City out of all of its economic problems. lip until 1993 these areas were all zoned CI. C2, and C3 and did not permit any residential whatsoever. The Committee is not saying no residential. the Committee is saying some residential. What is appropriate along a street where you have fixed infrastructure? It's a two-lane street for the most part that carries 19.000 cars a day. The sidewalk south of Main is eight feet wide, the other side is a railroad embankment that forms a fixed wall causing a canyon el'fect. Aid. Wynne felt the issue was «hat is appropriate and does not cause other negative impacts on both traffic and parking and the surrounding community. What's good for everyone, not just a single property owner and she did not think that the argument that this will significantly benefit our revenue base is all that valid. We have a memo produced by Bill Stafiurd, the City's Finance Director, specifically on the issue of %that is the impact of increased residential density. She read from the memo " the effect of residential property added to the tax rolls is to expand the tax base known as the EAV. This, however. does not necessarily translate into niore property tax money for the City or for (lie schools-. Aid. Wynne said that the City does want to improve its revenue base. The question is what is the appropriate amount of densitv? She said that at 67 feet which is only ten feet shorter than 81 1 Chicago Avenue has conic up with a lot ot'density in an area that has very fixed infrastructure. It is the degree to which you are going to overstress the infrastructure and then devalue everybody's property both along Chicago Avenue and in the surrounding community. She thought that 67 feet was not unreasonable, but that 107 feet is unreasonable because the benefit is not that great and the negative impacts are significant. Jonathan Perman responded by saying that no one knows the economic benefit would be because- x Planning and Development Committee Meetine — March 27.2000 Paee Severe there has not been an analysis by parcel to see %%hat could be generated by each of those parse s- He said lie was not suggesting that this was an economic panacea or silver bullet for all of the fiscal problems of this community or its schools. lie felt it can make contributions and the policy the Council decides for Chicago Avenue will set a precedent for later decisions in other commercial corridors of the City. That is why this is not just a Chicago Avenue issue, it is a City-wide issue and stressed that it K, looked at that way. Donnie 1-lauser. 1318 I-linntan, member of the Resident Working Group commented that the difference to tite City between a 107 foot building that looks like a $160.000 in incremental tames and a 67 foot building is about S15.000. She felt that no one in the community wanted to compromise the community for S15.000. Sydney Grevas. Chair of the Plan Commission spoke of the process involved in the recommendation from the Plan Commission to amend the C I a regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. She asked the PRD Committee to consider the recommendation of the Plan Commission because it came after hours of listening to fellow constituents. fellow homeowners~ business owners, and property owners here in Evanston. A lot of thought, study. and volumes of reading went into their recommendation. Frank Koppelman. spoke of the balance in the development. He said there is the balance of increasing the densities in Evanston. there are also issues of preserving the neighborhoods in the area that is being discussed, and the issue of balance between private buildings and public infrastructure that needs to be addressed. Mr. Koppelman mentioned the 1993 change to the zoning ordinance when there was a substantial increase in all the allowable height in the area currently known as CIa. At the same time, there were reductions in the building capacity of residential lots immediately across the alley on llinman Avenue in terms of percentage of lot area and coverage that was allowed. I le thought that sonic balance was lost in the 1993 changes. Mr. Koppelman said that while this is a transit area zone, transit oriented zones in suburban neighborhoods are not the same as downtown transit in central cities. He said the transit in the area of Chicago Avenue primarily serves work -commuting trips. Very little other traffic is on either the El, line or the rail line. ,Mr. Koppelman said we have an opportunity to limit the impact. He added there will still be a negative impact on the infrastructure. *,vc recognize we have to live and deal with it, let's keep it within range, lets keep it within balance. Ana -Jo Mounce, owner of Mainly Cards, 522 Main Street said her interest is to see the area continue to develop and did not know how that could be done without inviting density. She said she would like to sec greater setbacks to maintain a street level feel. but the only way to improve the aesthetics is to redevelop some of Chicago Avenue. Ms. Niounce said it does not make common sense to say that residential buildings are going to be «orse on the traffic situation than a commercial building. The traffic that goes in and out of strip mall is going to be greater during the day than any residential building because those people are at work. She added that the tml'fic that goes oft in that intersection has very little to do with the residents of that district, it has to do with the people that are going from Sheridan Road as far %best as they can because the x Planning and Development Committee Meetina — March 27. 2000 interstate is so far a%%ay. 1%,vpc Eicht Ms. Mounce felt that there are a dot of traffic issues in that neighborhood that hia%v tr.Nthing to do with residential usage. Parking restrictions as they are now just push the entire congestion farther south and exasperates the problem. She closed by saying that she wanted a b-cautiful community and wanted to attract more and more people to the community. Pmxcctikmtism is not appropriate, we must make room for people still to come to Evanston. Ray Pierrehumbert said it was mentioned that it was hard to visualize what the area %vould look like at full build -out. He passed around some handouts of a 3-dimensional virnW reality rendering he had done of ghat the zoning envelope would look like under full build -out. The rendering included the area bounded by Lee Street on the north to South Boulc%ard on the south. and from Forest to Chicago Avenue. Mr. Picrrehumbert explained the handouts to the Committee. Nicky Hiltwinr pointed out that the average height on I linman is 37 feet, so 67 feet is a compromise. She said that the Neighborhood Committee has «orked hard and asked the P&D Committee to keep in mind that giant compromises have been made by all parties. - Doraine Anderson. 1860 Sherman, a member of the Plan Commission for ten years, that this report is the finest report the Commission has put out in ten years. Aid. Wynne moved to introduce Ordinance 41-0-00 and bring it back to committee. Motion seconded by Aid. Bemstein. Motion passed unanimously. Add. Bernstein moved to introduce Ordinance 42-0-00 and bring it back to committee. Motion was seconded. Motion passed 4 ayes d no After much discussion, the P&D Committee voted to hold a spacial meeting of the P&D Committee at 7 p.m. on Monday, April 10, 2000 to discuss Ordinance 41-0-00 and Ordinance 42-0-00. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the meeting adjourned 9:15 Respectfully submitted, Mary E,-daaske Planning Division r • MINUTES Planning & Development Committee March 13, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. .Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, M. Franz, J. Larson, D. Mareno, C. Ruiz, E- Szymanski, J. Bro"mlee Others Present: D. Anderson, D. Dienner Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent noted a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. He requested to change the order of the agenda to deal with the item under Communication fast before Items for Consideration. 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 28, 2000 MEETING Ald. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of the Febniary 28, 2000 meeting, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The minutes were approved 5-0. COMMUNICATIONS Evanston Preservation Commission Resolution requesting the City Manager to transit the Evanston Preservation Commission's Recommendation and Renort that the Citv Council Designate the Northeast Evanston Historic District as an Evanston Historic District Chairman Kent noted that it is his understanding that all that is needed from this Committee at this time is to mark this item accepted. He explained the reason he requested to cover this item first is because of the attendance of several individuals interested in this item. Also, it was discussed that this item would tentatively be scheduled for April lTh as a special meeting with all Council members present. Ald. Newman said he believes the Committee needs to give direction on the introduction of the ordinance because the plan that the rest of the Council accepts what has been tentatively proposed by the four members of Council on the Rules Committee, is to introduce the ordinance, have a public meeting on April 1 P and an additional meeting on May 8`h for final action. He feels this item need to be introduced by the next meeting. Ald. Engelman stated that he was under the impression that what was decided was to refer this matter to the Rules Committee, which did meet on this matter and unfortunately, there P&D Commimee %ttg. Minutes of Myth 13, 2000 Page 2 was no quorum. He believes this is on the Council agenda at this time. 5.--,. he thinks that tefore . they talk about whether this is going to be introduced on P&D's agenda. it should be dcci3:d by all the Council members. Chairman Kent stated that this antler is on Council agenda tinder "Other Committees- assuming because there will be a spccW meeting -c-c-oducted on this item. Aid. Newman noted that two of the Council members arc on the P&D Committee and hvO ethers on A&PW Committee, therefore atleast 7 Council members bave discussed this item. He stated that he has no problem with designating this item on Council boor tonight regardless, h+e feels this will be introduced quickly. Chairman Kent emphasized that his only -purpose for acceptance of this item at this time ws in consideration of the people in attendance interested in the item which only requires acceptance by this Committee giving recognition to the recommendation by the Evanston Preservation Commission. The Committee members accepted this communication with no further comments. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION The Committee combined items (23), (24) and (25) for discussion and consideration -all dealing with the Main Street Depot. (23) Resolution 13-R-00 - Snonsoring Application for ITEP Fundinq Rehabilitation of Main St.. Depot (24) Resolution 14-R-00 - Sponsoring Application for CMAO Funding Rehabilitation of Main • St. Depot {25) Resolution 15-R-00 - Authorizing Antilication for Mass Transports -ion Assistance Grant Chairman Kent acknowledged memorandums received at this meeting from Carlos Ruiz, Preservation Coordinator/planner, which provides additional inform r-ion on the resolutions explaining in further detail what each funding application would provice. Mr. Ruiz introduced Mr. John Szostek of the Custer St. Fair, Inc., who is present for commerus and questions. Mr. Szostek gave history on the project, stating that when they started this venture, they came before the City Planning Division to discuss options for funding. At that time, Ms. Lisa Lyon (Neighborhood Planner), discovered and informed him that there is a tic in with the project with the Chicago Ave. Corridor program and recommended that they submit application to ITEP (Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program) for federal funding. He said from that point, he and his architect met with Mr. Ruiz to clarify what steps to take to move forward on the project. He said it was noted that funding would not be possible from ITEP without the property being designated as a historical landmark. Mr. Szostek said, it was then recommended to contact iDOT to proceed with the application for federal and state funding- He said that further recommendation was extended from IDOT to apply for split funding from ITEP and CMAQ funds (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) and Operation Greenlight Transit Program funds. He said tha the Fair is hopeful to receive 100% funding with the combination of the 3 programs. He said that the funding from ITEP and CMAQ requires sponsorship from the City and he assures . that the Fair would assume all responsibility for all costs, matching funds and liabilities P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of March 13, 2000 Page 3 . associates with the project. Mr. Szostek stated that it is the requirement for ITEP and CMAQ funds that the local government sponsor the projects %ithin their jurisdiction, before funding disbursement. He stressed that the liability still falls upon the organization requesting the fm&, not the City — but sponsorship by the local government acknowledges approval and backing of the project. He pointed out tha the most important application at this time that requires immediate attention is the application for 100% funding for Mass Transportation Capital Assistance Grant money. He said they already have knowledge of the fact that this project has scored high in qualifying for the funds. He noted thaa the funds applied for under ITEP and CMAQ are lessor amounts and most likely will not quaEif�. for total funding but in combination of all 3 programs, will assure this project to be 1001'a funded. Mr. Ruiz added that the applications for funds from ITEP and CNIAQ require matching or equal responsibility from the City for any costs and liabilities. He noted that the resolutions before the Committee speak upon the accepted agreement between the City and Custer St. Fair regarding the sponsorship. He further noted that the applications state that the sponsor is responsible for everything that is needed by the applicant, but the agreement between the City and Custer St. Fair is that the applicant is responsible to the City in case of any default. Mr. Szostek backed NIr. Ruiz comments and noted that IDOT is aware of this agreement. Aid. Engelman was called over to A&PW Committee meeting at 7:50 p.m. Aid. Bernstein acknowledged the statement made by Mr. Szostek and Mr. Ruiz, but still questioas the City's real position on liability in the case of default by the applicant. He raised this question back in October, 1999 as to whether the City can do such an agreement indirectly. He wants it known that he is strongly in favor of this project but it remains a concern of the actual legality on the part of the City if in fact, Custer St. Fair can not fulfill their obligation for any number of unforeseen reasons. Aid. Bernstein said that as a sponsor, the City gives recognition of the responsibility and liability for any default and the question remains what assurance does the City have from the Fair for acknowledgement of repayment to the City if such situation occurs. The other Committee members azreed with Aid. Bernstein's concern and discussed the question further. Aid. Newman referred this question to City legal staff asking what position the City would be liable for if for any reason, Custer St. Fair was forced to back out of the project and were unable to perform. Ms. Sn-manski responded that she is not able to answer that question at this time because she has relied on the information Forwarded to her by Mr. Ruiz regarding this matter and assumed that the information received was researched and confirmed by him. Aid. Newman said that response is unacceptable because all and any legal matters should be cleared by City legal staff before proceeding. He reiterated his concern with communication between department and legal staff and stressed the importance for legal review on all matters that require such. Discussion took place between the Committee and staff regarding this matter. Mr. Ruiz explained his position in assisting the Custer Street Fair in obtaining and applying for the available federal and state funds to his knowledge and expertise. Mr. Wolinski backed and supported MT. Ruiz's position as a planner and his expertise in that field. He stressed that legal information and recommendation is not Mr. Ruiz responsibility. He said that this information was forwarded to City legal staff but no direction was given and the information provided is within the knowledge and expertise of a planner. n rM P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of March 13, 2000 Page A Aid. Newman said, after all discussion so far and comments made by Air. Szostek and titr. Ruiz, that he has faith in Custer St. Fair's capability to perform and fulfill their responsibility m the • City and faith in Mr. Ruiz's support and work he has done on this project. However, dent -ire the confidence he and other members of the Committee mi:ht have, there still remLins the possibility of the fact of what position the City will be put in for liability %vith repaymeriz of the funds if Custer St. Fair defaults. He and the other Committee members would like to -%c-- some form of written reassurance stating the fact that if the City vv= put in the position to be liable for repayment of the funds, that Custer St. Fair would be liable for repayment to the City and obligated to pay. Aid. Newman questioned legal staff if there is any such contract or resoiution that creates any liability to the City for repayment by the Fair. his. Szymanski responded that in this case, none was presented and she reiterated here previous statement that she has relied on the information given by Mr. Ruiz. Aid. Newman feels that this question on liability is important enough to hold this item until legal can ascertain and re%iew this matter for a definite response to the question. Chairman Kent asked Mr. Szostek if holding these items over for legal response will jeopardize the funding. Mr. Szostek responded that they are unfortunately under a time frame to receive approval from the council at this time because of deadlines on application submittals. Aid. Bernstein noted that this matter was before the P&D Committee in October, 1999 and the same question was raised, so it is not a problem caused by the Custer St. Fair, Inc. at this point. He understands Mr. Szostek's position, informing the Committee that he received a letter today from Mr. Szostek explaining their position to expedite and move forward on this matter in order to proceed with the applications for funding. He stressed that it is mandatory for Council to act on this item immediately because the final application process needs to be submitted this week and sponsorship by the City is required. AId. Bernstein asked for clarification that the maximum downside is $S 1,000 at this point. Mr. Ruiz responded that this would be true if actual money was spent but the point is, he assumes the City is not liable if no money has been spent and the City can withdraw their application at any point before any funding is committed to the project. He said his understanding from conversation with members of ]DOT and Mr. Szostek, is that the City would not be liable if the written agreement were with Custer St. Fair. He said this written agreement would make Custer St. Fair assumable for liability of the project. Aid. Bernstein said that fact is understandable and is stated in the resolution, but the concern lies with the third party; this party is the one that will not give the funds to Custer St. Fair unless the City stands behind them as a sponsor. He stressed that third party is going to want reimbursement for the funds expended and the City as a sponsor, will be liable if the Fair defaults and is unable to complete the project. Ald. Bernstein and the other Committee members stood firmly on the need for some type of contractual agreement between the Custer St. Fair, Inc. and the City specifying the Fair's liability and obligation to repay the City if such an occurrence were to happen. Aid. Wynne asked Mr. Ruiz for clarification on his comment that this is a reimbursable program; she questions that if the City did not participate would the funding organizations approve. Mr. Ruiz responded that there would be nothing to reimburse because sponsorship by the local governing body is required. Aid. Wynne then questioned what would happen if Custer St. began the process and for some reason, a situation occurred that enabled them not to continue proceeding, is the City then liable? Mr. Ruiz responded that this was one of the main issues discussed with Custer St. Fair, that they have to come up with the matching funds. In response to the Fair" position on negotiating those funds, Mr. Szostek said that after the sponsorship is agreed to and received, they then will enter into an agreement with the City and the negotiated funds will be relinquished to them. He stated at this 40 P&D Comminee Mt . B Minutes of March 13, 2000 Page S point, there stands a verbal agreemem upon recognition of sponsorship by the City. The Committee members and Mr. Szostek d-:scussed the amounts negotiated between the Fair and the different organizations agreeing to the backing of this funding. After all discussion, the Committee was in agreement that this project is a positive one and is in agreement to support sponsorship by the City on behalf of Custer St. Fair, Inc. The Committee is also in agreement that under assured !paod faith ethics, the Fair %gill perform and fulfill their obligation to this project. From the statements given by Mr. Szostek and Mr. Ruiz, the Committee has also come to a consensus that adequate matching funds have been applied for and will be obtained upon sponsorship by the City. Although the Committee's preference would be to have a contractual agreement before them at this meting to confirm the Fairs obligation to the City for any repayment liabilities, they understand the position to expedite these applications at this time. Aid. Newman requested, for the record, a verbal confirmation from Mr. Szostek at this time, that any and all obligations will be upon the Custer St. Fair for repayment of all funding and reimbursement to the City upon any unforeseen default on behalf of the Fair resulting in liability falling upon the City. Mr. Szostek reassured that it is the Custer St. Fair's intent to fulfill the obligations of this project and are eager to see the results of the completion of the project. He also reassured that any and all funding obligations solely lie on the Custer SL Fair Inc., even in the mishap of any default, he reassures matching funds have been applied for and will be obtained upon sponsorship by the City. The Committee was satisfied with Mr. Szostek's response. • Ald. Newman moved approval of resolutions 13-R-00, 14-R-00 —sponsoring the application for ITEP and CMAQ funding for rehabilitation of the Main Street Depot and resolution 15-11-00 authorizing the application for Mass Transportation Assistance Grant funds from IDOT. Aid. Bernstein seconded the motion. Chairman Kent requested that, although these items have been moved and seconded, they hold this for final vote and comments from Aid. Engelman, as he requested. The Committee agreed. Upon Aid. Engelman's return to the meeting at 8.10 p.m., he raised the same questions and concerns discussed previously by the other Committee members regarding the City's liability position upon any default of Custer St_ Fair, Inc. and also the question of what would happen if the City did not sponsor this project. The other Committee members informed Aid. Engelman of the discussion on this matter that took place and the reassurance given by Mr. Szostek and staff on the matching funding being obtained by the Fair. Aid. Engelman accepted and agreed upon what was discussed and agreed upon by his fellow members. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (26) Ordinance 25-0-00 — Special Use for 1822 Ridge Avenue Chairman Kent noted that his understanding on the status of this item with regards to the amendments of the ordinance, is that the balconies were no longer a variation request and the amended ordinance reflects that fact plus other amendments to reflect approval by the Committee on the variations to height and floor area ratio. He requested staff's overview on the amendments made. Mr. Alterson explained that the variation request for the balconies, have dropped from the application because the balconies along the north and south wail are now going M4 P&D Commince Mtg. Minutes of March 13, 2000 Page 6 be recessed. He said there still remains the variations for height and floor area ratio, %rhich were • denied by the ZBA but subsequently over -ruled and approved by the P& D Committee 4d the February 28, 2000 meeting, He acknowledged the Committees direction it) st:itt' al the last meeting to amend the ordinance reflecting the above stated amendments and bring brizk- before the Committee, which is what staff has done. He directed further explanation onto Mr. %Nlott for more detail of the amendments to the ordinance. Mr. Mylott directed the Committee to page 3 of ordinance 25-0-00 under Section 3. (a) through (h); he read each item_ He stated that he forwarded a copy of the amended ordinan:e to the applicants attorney and he accurately pointed out a procedural inconsistency in that staff determined after the notice was sent out that there were no variations necessary for balconies located upon the east and west sides. So, Mr. Mylott asked that the folloving corrections be made to the ordinance. He referred the Committee to page 1 and requested a new second paragraph stating "WherEas, the City Zoning Division determine that no variations are necessary for balconies located upon the cast and west facades; and.....". He continued by referring to page 2, Yd paragraph, right before the semi -colon on the Yd line, be changed to "AIl related to balconies located upon the north and south facades." He explained that this re -wording refers to the applicant's withdrawal of the variations for the north and south sides and that they recessed the balconies. Mr. Mylott continued, referring to the back page, under Section d, were it starts with the I" section 6.4.6.3.B.6 — permitting balconies within the side yards. He directed the Committee to change this by adding a period and then strike everything else within that paragraph. Mr. Mylott stated that the one only procedural amendments which acknowledge staff's recognition that the balconies on east and west sides do not need a variation. . Mr. Alterson added than this plan was re%tiewed by SPAARC and received preliminary approval on the basis of the balconies now being recessed and the need to obtain a binding appearance review upon approval by this Committee. The Committee discussed the comments referred to as a "binding appearance review" and questioned the exact definition of this. Aid. Newman asked if this project will go back before the Site Plan Committee within the next 2 weeks if introduced tonight. Mr. Mylott responded that typically, the Site Plan Committee waits to conduct a final review upon submittal of a building permit application. Aid. Wynne referred back to ''`binding appearance review" and asked staff for more clarification Mr. Alterson responded that typically occurs on projects of this type, however. This has already gone through preliminary ro-iew and received approval. Therefore, this was a suggested condition in the staff's report. He further explained "projects of this type" as projects qualifying under visual significance due to their delicate and effective impact on the surrounding community. Aid. Wynne stated that she is in favor of some type of binding appearance review for all major projects under the review phase. She does not quite understand why certain projects should be subject to such binding reviews because she feels all major projects should be required. Aid. Newman stated that he does not necessarily agree that staff ought to be the ones doing appearance review for the City of Evanston. Although he respects staff's position and expertise, he feels more input should be received by elected officials on such a decision for binding review. He feels staffs expertise should be an a recommendation basis to elected officials relied upon to make such decisions and subsequently decided on. Aid. Newman said, that despite the issue on binding appearance review, he feels the issue here is whether or not this project at this point and 0 r P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of March 13.2000 Page 7 • time, should have this condition of binding review pincrd upon it. lie ttddnp i that dSe only ti the City Council has the right to impose a condition on a special use or %-tri mccr is if that condition will effect the imposition of the special use or variance up<in the commuriN% In other words, we can not make up any condition we want because of a situation «r prrfrs, it hss to directly be related to the land use consideration. The Committee members discussed further the comments and statements made up to this palm After all considered., Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 25-04V with the amendments as stated and read into the record by Mr. Nlylott. Aid. Bernstein srcoadcd the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (27) Ordinance 37-0-00 - Amendment to Fee Ordinance/Roomine Housc License-s Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. John Meroczka, Director of Residents & Building Operations of the McGaw YMCA. Mr. Memczka expressed his opposition in this increase in fees. He regrets that this fee increase would have to be passed on to the tenants of the YMCA, the majority being on fixed or low incomes. He noted that the YMCA is a not-for-proftz organization and he questioned the possibility of qualifying for a waiver. The Committee - members, sympathized with Mr. Meroczka's position on behalf of the YMCA. Ald. Newm= said that if any organization could qualify for a waiver, he could support the YMCA - Unfortunately, if they were to grant a waiver for the "Y", it would set precedence and require them to waive other organizations that would request the same. He said a waiver process would require making a set of rules or guidelines for qualification that would be hard to decipher. He • stressed the importance in why this fee increase occurred and regrets that all rooming houses must be subject to the increase. The other Committee members agreed. Aid. Engelman added that a study was conducted on the effects of the fee increase and it was figured tb= approximately $1.00 - $5.00 per roomer in the YMCA. Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 37-0-00 amending the fee ordinance for rooming houses, seconded by Aid. Wynne. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD2) Amendments to the Comprehensive General Plan Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. Ron Naylor of Facilities Management at Northwestern, %bo signed up to speak on this matter. Mr. Naylor referred to Aid. Nemnan's insert for Part I, Pam 38. He agrees with the message put forth and with most of what is mentioned. He is opposed m the last part of the paragraph where it mentions the University's presence has created the problems in the neighborhood was of the main campus with traffic, parking, litter and noises. Fc feels this is a strong statement to put on the University, especially to be included in E�c Comprehensive Plan. Aid. Newman defended his statements made in his insert. He especially liked that sentence ar - readily backs the message he is tr%ing to put across to Northwestern. He feels their added znd increasing development of the University, west of Sheridan Road has heavily impacted on the primarily residential neighborhood. As mentioned in the insert, the Zoning Ordinance permim Y P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of March 13, 2000 Page 8 all university uses east of Sheridan Road to the maximum building development. He stressed the purchase of residential properties west of Sheridan Road by the Uni-.vrsity for their use began • the influx of further university development west of Sheridan. Aid. Newman pinpointed the problems in the neighborhood specifically caused by the University and their students. He stressed the problems with parking along Sherman and Onington Avenues for the residents/property owners who live on those streets. He said most of the student cars are recognizable by plates usually and sometimes the lack of respect to the parking regulations is demonstrated. He pointed out the litter and noise problems caused by students renting apartments in buildings west of Sheridan Road. Although these students are off campus property, he feels the University should share in the responsibility of these individuals by providing NU police assistance in combination with Evanston Police. Ald. Newman and Mr. Naylor proceeded with further discussion on this matter. Aid. Wynne understands Ald. Newman's position but suggested softening the language for the last sentence to read "The University should be actively encouraged to take responsibility to reduce the problems of traffic, parking, litter, and noise that are a consequence of its presence in the neighborhood to the west of the main campus." Ald_ Newman concurred with the suggested amendment. Aid. Wynne moved to alter the language to Part I, Page 38, first paragraph, to read as suggested above. The motion was also accept all other amendments made to the Comprehensive General Plan and to move forward for introduction. Aid. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8A9 a.m. Respectfully submitted, GzC.t�R�.wUi � Jac- 'ne H. Brownlee x • �;, MINUTES Planning & Development Committee Special Meeting March 1, 2000 Room 2403 — 6:30 p.m. Alderman Present: & Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, M. Wynne AIderman Tardy: A. Newman Staff Present: J. Wolinski, P. Haynes, R. Schur, J. Brownlee Others Present: A. Gitelson &. other Hsg. Commission members - Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent noted a quorum and called the meeting to order at 639 p.m. He . welcomed the large attending crowd and encouraged their comments and concerns on the subject. ITEM FOR DISCUSSION Aaartment Rental Licensing/Reeistration Chairman Kent recollected the purpose of this special meeting to specifically consider the licensing of buildings with rental units, most likely of with 4 or more units. He recalled the last discussion between the Committee and staff regarding this matter, that it was requested of staff' to do some research on other similar communities and bring this information back to the Committee. With this, he turned comments and discussion over to staff for further explanation of the research done and where we stand at this time. Chairman Kent pointed out that what the Committee wants to hear at this time is feedback and suggestions from the landlords on this issue. He reiterated that this is the basis of this special meeting and stressed the importance of hearing these comments in order for the Committee and staff to proceed forward in the best direction on this licensing issue. He acknowledged the several management firms that have expressed concern and have followed this issue from the beginning, who are present tonight. Chairman Kent also acknowledged the citizen sign-up list and assured that they will get to everyone on the list after staff comments. • Mr. Wolinski stated that this issue stems from a reference from City Council to the Planning & Development Committee to study the possibility of licensing multi -family X P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 03/01 /00 Page 2 properties in Evanston. He said that staff has since done extensive research on this issue. He referred to the communications in the packet materials which staff has accumulated a number of licensing programs from various communities arotmd the Chicago -land area; Ns includes ordinances in both Elgin and Oak park. He stated that they have tried to look in communities similar in size and amount of rental housing as Evanston which comes to approximately 15,000 units. He added that they have also included a model rental license ordinance that was based on a compilation of the materials received from the similar communities. Also, he said that added are 4 letters — I from the Evanston Chamber of Commerce, 1 from Schermerhorn & Co., 1 from G.M. Realty and I from Ms. Liesbeth Fickes, resident. Mr. Wolinski said that licensing, as staff has observed so far. is basically the same in most communities. In some communities it is called registration and in others there is a licensing program. He briefly summarized what licensing means which would be based upon what Council would decide on whether or not to license every residential rental unit or to consider all 2-flats and 3-flats, or to consider 4-units and above. He said that most communities licensed 4-unit buildings and above, the logic being that smaller unit buildings tend to be occupied by the owner and is more Iikely to be kept up with regards to code violations. Mr. Wolinski stated that staff particularly looked at what the fees were and what the power of the municipality would be in these cases. - He said that most of the communities looked at go through a licensing program for 4-unit buildings and above and is renewable every year. He said the license is on the building, not on the property owner. He said there are penalties involved with the licensing, unfortunately, • but one of the effects they looked at and was stated of considerable interest and concern by the Council, was to get a better handle on the property code issues and landlords that are not following them. He reiterated that the license are renewed on a yearly basis and if there is a problem with the landlord and tenants in a building, then a license can be suspended by the City. He explained this would mean that the landlord is given a period of 60 days to correct the violations in the buildings. He said that if these violations are not corrected with that period, then the City may pursue revocation of the license, which could possibly result in termination of the occupancy of the building. Mr. Wolinski said to the best of his knowledge, the City of Elgin has been the most aggressive on this licensing program; they have revokes approximately 60 licenses in their community but s of discussion held with Elgin's Housing Director yesterday, there has been only I building where they had to terminate occupancy and relocate the tenants. Chairman Kent thanks Mr. Wolinski for his update and staffs research on comparable communities that have a licensing program in effect. He said that the Community has been pondering over this information and is now at the point to include and consider comments and suggestions from Evanston building owners and managers. He referred to the sign -in sheet at this point and acknowledged each person signed up from first to last on the list. Ms. Susan Pastin said that she has heard some interesting suggestions to alternatives to licensing such as posting problem buildings on the Web Site or in the local papers. She asked if licensing has been tested in Court; are there any court cases to test if it is P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 03/01/00 Page 3 constitutional to license buildings. Ald. Bernstein responded that there are and have been • court cases on this subject and Cities can protest their residents and that is the guide under which licensing has been upheld. Ms. Pastin asked if the Courts have upheld cases from Elgin and Oak Park. Ald. Bernstein responded that he can not specifically speak on those cases but in general, cases have been upheld in Court and those cases have been challenged. Ms. Klara Comess responded that she has not questions or comments at this time. Mr. Augustus Abraham — responded that he has no comments at this time — preferred to listen. Mr. lames Koconis — responded that he has no comments at time. Mr. Charles Lesman — said that he is the owner of a 2-flat building and definitely feels that the smaller unit buildings, especially owner -occupied] should be excluded from the licensing program. He said that the smaller owner -occupied buildings have less profit and are usually renting at costs to cover their mortgage payments. He questions what benefits this program will have for the landlords because he only sees the benefits for tenants. He questions if the City will help and aid in the eviction of bad tenants when the problems are due to them. Chairman Kent feels this is a good question that should be addressed. He noted that while there are some bad landlords, there are certainly many bad tenants that cause the problem. He reiterated the importance of considering both • sides of the issue and hearing such legitimate questions that need to be addressed before proceeding with such a licensing program. Ms. Nooshin Saharhkin — responded that she has not comments at this time. Mr. Bob Heibereer — Evanston Bond & Mortgage, handed out a letter written by Ms. Linda Bush, President of the Evanston Property Owners Association, which he read for the record (See attachment "A" }. In summary, the letter states the amount of overall rental units, 2- & 3-flats being predominant and the approximate number of Iandlords. The letter states the rise in cost over market rates and the result in owners of smaller unit buildings receiving no profits and major property management firms no longer wanting to do business in Evanston because of the extreme costs -- subsequently resulting in selling their buildings or converting to condos. The letter also states out of the approximate 2,200 landlords, it appears that only % dozen or so landlords are the undesirable operators of multi -family rental buildings. In conclusion, the letter states the lack of any support or benefit to the landlords from the licensing ordinance, especially for those that keep up their properties and work hard to fulfill their obligations to correct all code violations within a timely manner. The audience applauded alter the reading of this letter. Ms. Margaret Coarsen — responded that she has no comment at this time. Ms. Frances Gay — responded that she has no comment at this time — here to listen. 0 M- P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of01101/00 Page 4 Mr. Louis Jara (?) — says he is the owner of a rental building. He said he has only had a • few violations on his building and has fixed the violations promptly with his own money. He said no sooner than he fixes the violations the neighborhood drug dealers and g•.=g activity come back and break out windows and do other damage to his property. 1;-lss question is will this licensing program help the landlord in any way %vith the e%iction of bad tenants or help in policing areas to minimize gang activity in and around rental buildings. Chairman Kent responded to Mr. Jara's questioning which seems to be x major concern of building owners and a legitimate question. He said it is his understanding that the licensing program benefit would come from being able to control the building itself and the inside activities in the building. He said if the building is located in a neighborhood with drug and gang activity or in a building located next door, this would require police action. Chairman Kent honestly admits he does not see where the licensing program will benefit the landlord with criminal activities surrounding their buildings. Someone from the audience mentioned the purpose of security deposits from tenants and this money should be used to fix broken windows and manage to the property. Ald. Engelman responded that the activities mentioned by Mr. Jara are not always tenant related but result from the outside scenario around the building. He stated that he is particularly interested in hearing speaker's talk about the benefits they think licensing would give to them or should pro%ide for them as rental building owners. Ms. Marie Obrius — said she is particularly curious in what precipitated all this thought on licensing. As she understands, it stems from just a handful of landlords that are creating problems and not taking care of their properties. If this is true, she questions why this problem has to effect all landlords and building owners and why not just penalize those few. She asked for explanation. Mr. Wolinski responded that this issue started from an aldermanic reference and as the City's Housing Director, he is in charge of the inspectors that conduct the property standards inspections. He explained that what has been happening is that certain areas of the City's rental housing stock has been deteriorating over time and it is obvious where these areas are located. He said tha the problems first started down in the ClydeJCallan corridor approximately 6 years ago when there was a number of shootings in the area and some people were killed. He said the community came out and told the municipality that they wanted better control on both who were living in areas and better control of police, fire and property standards enforcement. He stated that was the genesis of where the City started in considering a licensing program. Mr. Wolinski said that property standard inspections began over 25 years ago but because they were starting to run into difficulties with gangs and crime in certain areas and it was discovered that a number of buildings were housing some of the perpetrators. He referred to the statement in Ms. Bush's letter of there being only a '/2 dozen landlords being the problem, but in fact, he disclosed that there are actual a many number more than that. He also admits that out of the approximate 2200 landlords in Evanston, clearly the majority are good law-abiding citizens that do their best to maintain the buildings they own. Mr. Wolinski continued to explain the court process when the City takes landlords to court for violations of property standards issues and over -occupancy cases, these cases are taken and heard before the second district courts at the Old Orchard Court House. He further explained the process P&D Comminm tiitg. M inutes of 03 101 100 Page S and with the court system and su essed that the process is much too lengthy and takes up a • lot off City officials and inspectors time. He said that staff has tried to work this process for many %cars but the outcome is not successful enough and is much too slow with the result of macs being allowrd many continuances over time. He said in some situations, due to continuances, the City- could have a landlord in court long enough over time until they are due for another initial inspection of the building. He said it appears that the Judges in the court system are neat particularly sympathetic to property standard issues oa behalf of the City. He said as a result. the City has been working diligently over the last 6 years to come up with a better solution to handling this problem, possibly within our own jurisdiction. Mr. «'olin_-l.-i noted the City Council and staffs itsstallation of art Administrative Adjudication prtkcss, which many communities have gone to. He said this involves a situation where instead of property owners or tenants being taken to housing court, the City has an Administrative Adjudication hearing officer that basically will hear the testimony here at this Civic Center and tender a derision. This decision can of course be appealed to the Circuit Court but it is an effort to speed up compliance by having* municipality control before going to court action., He stressed that the City is most interested in speeding up compliance. Mr. Wolinski noted that he presently has at least 30 property owners per month in court and housing court is held every fourth Friday of the month. He stated that many are continuances and some are new. He reiterated that the main concern is to gain a better handle on controlling this issue and one of the ways to do this is to possibly license properties so that there is the chance of the municipality taking over the property if in fact the property owner can not govern or handle their own properties. Mr. Brian Becharas — he questioned Mr. Wolinski's comment on the approximate 30 court cases per month, averaging 360 per year. He asks how many of these cases are the same people/landlords. He added that if the case is that the majority are the same landlords, how will licensing help the process. He said it would seem to be adding another layer to the bureaucracy of the process and add to the tax burden on the property owners of Evanston. He noted that this licensing will only add to the cost of owning property in Evanston and will effect most that have nothing to do with the real issue involved. He questions the rules and regulations in effect and why there are not stronger measures taken to attack and penalize only those guilty of not following or abiding by the rules in place. His question is with the fairness to all 2200 landlords as a result of those few known culprits. Mr. Wolinski responded that the City is subject to the rules of the Court. He said the City does not issue fines or penalties but are only capable of trying to enforce our ordinances and if not followed, then the City must take the property owner to court which is then in the hands of the Judges to rule a decision. He stated that licensing by the City, with Administrative Adjudication in place, would allow the City to have more control at the municipal level. Mr. Dave Kase still questions how will licensing change that effect if the property owrm is able to appeal all rulings. He recalled it was mentioned that the licensing would be on • the building, not the landlord and in a sense, this does not seem like it will help in ic P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 03/01/00 Page b penalizing the landlord so that they are pursued to maintain their buildings. He feels there must be other alternatives to licensing all rental property owners that will $till accomplish dealing wit the problem landlords only. Nir. a olinski responded that is wry they are here tonight to possibly gather other alternatives to consider from other property owners and landlords. Mr. Becharas commented that many of the problems mentioned, which also seem to cause property standard violations and problems, are actually police issues such as gang and drug activity, broken windows and damage to properties by outside individuals from the neighborhood, and many times it does have to do with the tenants living in the, building. Chairman Kent agreed wit the comments made by Mr. Bochara_s and Mr. Kase in that many of the problems can stem from criminal activity around the wilding as well as drawn to a certain building because of its tenants. Police involvement and control would address the problems. It is an on -going problem and concern but the basis for this issue is to gain more control over the property standard issues which ultim=-ely can result in helping to eliminate many bad living conditions which tend to surround badly maintained buildings. Chairman Kent expressed one of his main concerns with this issue is absentee landlord and the problems caused with them taking interest in caring for and managing their buildings. He feels many problems lie with those landlords as-�d their lack of concern for their properties and the problems evolved around them and -he overall care of the buildings because they are not Evanston residents or have to Give around or be affected by the problems in their buildings. He said the effected neighbors and neighborhoods are the ones who suffer and are constantly calling the police and inspectors for help. Chairman Kent says there still remains the probl= of getting those absentee landlords to care for or take interest and involvement in the responsibility of cleaning up their building and removal of bad tenants. He said that is why the continuance of those cases bother him so and he would like to see the. City in a better position to be able to move more rapidly in being able to gain compliance and take over those properties if compliance is not reached. He said it is a give or take situation with the problems being police issues when they can not gain landlord supports to help clean up their owtt buildings. Aid. Ann Rainey requested her chance to comment on this issue berg that it ws her aldermanic request originally for staff to look into the possibility of a li=nsing program. She stated that the Clyde/Callan corridor is within her ward and she ha--- had an on -going concern for the whole issue of grasping more control over the property iandard problems stemming from lack of landlord maintenance and control over thei.: buildings. She encouraged members of the audience to come to housing court every fo,_mh Friday of the month to witness what goes no and how the housing court Judges appear not be sympathetic to the City's plight in gaining compliance over properties with on -going violations and obvious serious problems in a more rapid manner than wiiat is provided by the Court system. She expressed her total disappointment in the lack of support by the Courts to gain compliance and to penalize the guilty landlords in a moro timely manner that will ultimately result in the overall appearance of Evanston as a whole. Ald. Rainey P&D Convnisar Ntr& Minutes of 03101/00 Page 7 • stated that she feels licensing will allow action at the municipal level which will msuh in the City being able to gain more control in taking over those properties that cau a marry problems and on -going police problems that could possibly be avoided if the contrtitl over such buildings were enforced more rapidly and effectively. She feels this is a problem that ultimately effects all values of rental buildings and all prapertic: in general throughout Evanston. She feels that even though it is a minority of landlords in comparison to the majority of good landlords and property managers, that are the cause of the problem, we must all be accountable in aiding to eliminate these problems wlkh effect all of Evanston overall. She feels the licensing program will encourage and aid in keeping with our expected property standard and living conditions for all of Evanston if it helps to void out those who do not respect our standard of living. Aid. Rainey stressed the importance of all landlords and property managers support in the licensing program if it will help to keep out bad building management and help keep up our standards of building maintenance expectations throughout Evanston. She stressed it is a problem tbat effects all building owners and unfortunately, we must pull together to eliminate the bad to gain and continue with the good. The audience expressed vocal opposition to Aid. Rainey's comments but she stood strong on her belief that the licensing program could overall benefit property owners in Evanston. Ald. Rainey did, however, express her understanding of the opposition expressed and wished it did not have to be this way, but reiterated the importance of taking a stand as a community in whole if that's what it takes to weed out the bad. IDMr. Todd Stevens -- said that he is a real estate attorney and expressed his concern and problems with the licensing procedure and he feels it will not work. He gave his reasoning from past experience with these types of cases in court, which he states, result in holding up the docket each time it is held over or appealed. He says what will happen with the licensing program, he feels will slow the procedure up even more with creating another level to appeal. He also feels people will not have a fair trial because the hearing officers here at the Civic Center will be around the City employees on a daily basis, which is not fair for the case on the part of the property owner. Mr. Stevens tends to feel the Circuit Court is working with regards to the property on Custer Street that was taken over, ordered to be boarded -up and the tenants were displaced; this take-over was done in a very expedient manner. He says the Circuit Court does work if you work with them. He suggested that City officials should meet with the Judges and tell them the citizens concerns in gaining compliance in a more timely manner and ask the Judges to work %ith them. He does not believe that licensing is the answer to this problem. The audience applauded to Mr. Stevens comments and suggestions. Aid. Engelman stated that Aid. Rainey identified one of the primary motivating factors behind their examining this issue and that is the attempt to insure quality building maintenance in this community. He said that one of the other problems that they are trying to address is the issue of screening tenants, especially section S, so that we keep tenants in buildings that are desirous of maintaining proper landlord/tenant relationships, understand their responsibility as tenants and are willing to work with the landlord. Ald. Engelman said that it seems from the comments he is hearing from the audience, that it is x P&D Committee Nltg. Minutes of 03,01100 Page 8 the impression that the City has already decided to put in place the licensing program. He stressed that is not the case; this decision has not been made and is only in the stage of consideration and review. He reiterated that this meeting is to be included as part of that review by herring the comments and suggestions by the rental property owners. Aid. Rainey asked for the distinction between the mediation process and the administrative adjudication process. Aid. Engelman explained that what Council was talking about has nothing to do with what they are proposing for administrative adjudication in terms of the mediation program that goes on in the Circuit Court of Cook County. He said, in fact, housing court is not part that program at all. He stated that he disagrees with Mr. Stevens' comments that administrative adjudication will include Judges who are already pre -disposed towards the City. He stated that anyone who is appointed to adjudicate a case, are people who he would assume take their jobs seriously and will listen to the evidence and «ill decide their cases based upon that evidence presented. He also noted that the adjudicator will not be a full-time employee of the City but are hearing officers whose job is travelling around to different communities to hear cases. Jerry & Yvonne Martin — wanted clarification that this licensing program is only in the research stage and has not been in effect yet. Chairman Kent reassured them that this program is only in the research stage, there is no definite decision made on this program and this meeting is part of that research. Ms. Martin feels that Evanston is a beautiful community to live in but the cost of living here is already much too high and the cost of . licensing Kill only add to that cost that will be passed on to their tenants. She said that landlords are already forced to charge very high rents in order to pay their mortgages and maintain their buildings. She expressed her opposition on any licensing program and feels that the City should only go after the landlords that have proven not to maintain their buildings. Ms. Loma Balan — stated that she has only heard the negatives that the property owners feel the licensing program will bring — what are the positives? She saes it should be clear to the City officials that the landlords and property owners of rental buildings that keep up the maintenance of their buildings, as are present here this evening, do not want to see a licensing program put in effect. She would like to see the City get more involved in aiding landlords to evict bad tenants in a more timely manner, especially section 8 tenants, because in some cases section 8 will cut off the payment of their rent, leaving the landlord the trouble of losing rent money while waiting for the Sheriff to come and evict the tenant. She also commented on the statement made by Aid. Engelman that landlords should screen their tenants more thoroughly, especially section 8. She said, in fact, that she is the owner of a small building so the rental of each unit is crucial at all times in order to keep up the income earned for the building. She carefully screens her tenants in all cases, but sometimes after approval of a tenant, they will move in other family members without the landlords knowledge. Her point being that it is very hard sometimes for the landlord to be totally accountable after they have screened their tenant on the lease. Ms. Balan said the main benefit she would like to see from licensing, if it P&D Committee Mtg. Mimues of 03/01 /00 Page 9 were put in effect, is for the City to assist and help she landlords evict and displace bad or • problem tenants. Nis. Haynes informed the audience the landlords and property managers should refer to the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance and that her depsr=ent, Human Relations, will be happy to assist them in any way. She stated that there am laws and regulations through the Courts that assist the property owner with evicti-ons. Ms. Balan responded that she has referred to the Ordinance before and it is not helpful in removing problem tenants nor is the court system when it comes to removing the tenant in a more timely manner. Mr. Alan Goldberg — expressed his opposition and feels many and possibly more problems will arise if the City were to go a licensing program. He also feels it will not be helpful in bringing problem buildings within cx�mpliance in a more timely manner because essentially it could cause an additional steep in the process. He also noted the licensing cost would be burdened upon the tenant~ causing higher rents in Evanston. Mr. Lerov Turman — said that he owns property in south Evanston and agrees with Mr. Goldberg's comments. He disclosed that he has experienced in the past that the City's interference with an eviction case caused the situation to take even longer to rectify. He feels the Landlord/Tenant Ordinance is designed only to help the tenant. He stressed the cost that will be pushed down to the tenants and effect the cost of rent which is already astronomical in Evanston. He expressed his opposition to any licensing program. Mr. Leon Robinson — said that he is a life-long resident of Evanston and owns many multi -family rental buildings in Evanston. He retailed a bit of history of south Evanston when Juneway Terrace was a popular rental area- As time went on, the Juneway Terrace area changed for the worst and people started moving from that area into south Evanston. He recalled at that time, south Evanston became a haven for developers rehabbing buildings. He feels the problem is that licensing is not going to help anything. He agrees that all buildings should be kept up and maintained by all landlords and does not understand how those few problem landlords can get away with not bringing their buildings into compliance within the time frame the City allows. He stated that he has many buildings in Evanston and works hard to bring his buildings into compliance within the specified time set by the inspectors otherwise the City gets on him promptly. Mr. Robinson agrees with comments made by other building owners in that it is a timely and sometimes difficult task with the eviction process and it is also a hard task to get 100% luck in the screening process of tenants. He suggested that the City should get with the financial institutions and set up some type of loan programs for landlords to fix up their buildings at a low interest, if they are caught in a financial bind. Ms. Eva Langston — responded that she is here just to listen. Ms. Miriam Davidson -- responded that she has not comments at this time. Mr. Joe Goodman - sand that it appears the main issue raised here tonight is that is seems . that all this consideration for licensing has come about because of a handful of bad 7M P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of03/01100 Page 10 landlords. He said that from the comments beard this evening, it is clear that all tse landlords and property managers here feel that the City should go after only Eh,. - creating this problem and leave the good responsible landlords alone to cants u c -.11:: what they have been doing all along. He said it is not fair that the majority of lsai%c+ci should be burdened with this cast. He does appreciate this meeting and %-,hat is trvi� W be accomplished from it but he does feel that EL. n and Oak Part: should not br ca3.—ap4cs for the City of Evanston to look at. He said that no evidence has been prescntrd oc admitted from the communications that their programs are actually «oruig, for t&- betterment of that community. Mr. Brian Becharas — added to his comments made earlier. He suggested that all the bad landlords should be weeded out from the good and this list made public for all to know. He said as the landlord makes improvements and begins to keep his property up to code, this should be equally publicly known. He feels such a list will pursue bad landlords to think about the situation before taking it so nonchalantly as they do now. He also suggested forming a group or committee of property o%mers and volunteering citizens to go out and flag those buildings and help with the public notices. He said that this group should also work to help assist the landlord in bringing his building into compliance, if such assistance is needed. He said that he would be the first to volunteer for such a committee. Mr. Dan Schermerhorn — president of real estw.te Management Company, said that he does not feel this program will solve any of the real problems that are of concern with bad property management. He stressed that the pressure must be put on the bad landlords only and their position publicized. He said that the penalties, fines and their rights to own and manage property in Evanston, should be under scrutiny for the guilty parties only. He said that the good landlords and property managers should be rewarded for their efforts instead of forced to pay a license fee and more added costs for maintaining their buildings. Mr. Dave Kase — said that it seem that this licensing is needed to support the Administrative Adjudication system, supposedl; giving the municipality more power to take over those problem buildings from the problem landlords. fie stressed that the licensing program will only result in another added cost for Evanston property owners while not really resolving the actual problem_ The main problem lies with those landlords that are not taking care of their properties and they are the only ones that should be affected by such a licensing fee and program_ He pointed out that it was mentioned that 2 and 3 units buildings do not have as marry problems but he can recall many buildings in Evanston under 4-units that are problem properties and their owners should be penalized also. He concluded that there are many other altematives that have been mentioned and should be considered that will not impact on others that keep their buildings up to code. Chairman Kent closed comments from the audience at this time. He noted that this meeting was held to hear comments and suggestions from property owners and that is • • 49 P&D Committee Mt& Minutes of03/01/00 Page I exactly what was heard this evening. He said that all the comments and suggestions will be on record in the minutes and included in their review of the rental Iicensing program - ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r c L'A Jacqueli a E. 6rownlee x MINUTES Planning & Development Committee , February 28, 2000 Room 2403 - 7:00 p.m. Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman. A. Newman, M..Wynne Alderman Present: J. Kent Stain Present: J. Wolinsid, A. Alterson, S. Janusz, E. Szymanski, J. Brownlee Others Present: D. Anderson Presiding Official: Alderman Engelman DECLARATION OF OUORUM In absence of Aid. Kent, Aid. Engelman stood in a Chairman. He noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14.2000 MEETING Aid. Bernstein moved approval of the minutes of February 14, 2000, seconded by'Ald. Wynne. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (16) Ordinance 25-0-00 -- Special Use for 182-1 Ridee Avenue Chairman Engelman acknowledged Mr. James Murray, Attorney for the applicant. Mr. Murray noted his applicant's request for approval of the special use and additional variation requested excluding the location of the balconies, over the negative recommendation of the ZBA. He repeated that they are not asking for the granting of the variation for the balconies. He explained tha the balcony design element emanated from the Site Plan & Appearance Review and they agree to eliminate, but wish to proceed with the other requested variations to height and floor area ratio. Mr. Murray stated that what they propose at this point is to be allowed to go forward to build the structure - recess the balconies to within the building footprint so that there is no variation required to the sideyard. He further explained that because of this recession in the requested variation for the balconies, it appears to be some confusion left over the additional variations requested. He concluded that the other variations for height and floor area ratio remain. He used a 3-dimensional diagram of the proposed building to demonstrate where the other variations would be needed. P&D Commfn= Mtg. February 28, 2000 Page 2 Mr. Murray showed the diagram of the proposed building with the protruding Mconies in comparison to a diagram of the building without. He illustrated hog+• the building would be situated next to the building at 1830 Ridge directly, north of the proposed site. Mr. Murray noted that there several objectors in the 1830 Ridge Building to the pwposed building for 1822 Ridge. He further showed that the diagram also indi:ates the change is the balcony configuration to fit within the required setbacks. He further stated that the diagram demonstrates what can be built as a matter of right without a special sue permit and with a residential building requiring a special use but without variations. Mr. Murray further pointed out from the diagram the various materials that are being proposed to be utilized with the construction of the building. He pointed out from the fagades of the building, focusing on the north side facing the 1830 Ridge building and the noticeable sideyard setback between the buildings. He reiterated the recession of the balconies to fit within the footprint of the building to minimize the encroachment into the sideyard. Mr. Murray noted that part of the confusion stems from Ald. Engelman's ordinance amendment of the 1993 Code in dealing with the issue of setbacks for the Oldistricts with construction next to or adjacent to R1-3 residential districts. He said it was the intent of the developers to keep as much as possible, within the angle of construction as required by the Zoning. Ordinance. He said the variations requested are required in order to construct a building with enough units to be an equitable project_ Mr. Murray concluded that what the Committee sees before them is a model constructed by the architect, which is a representation in bulk. He said that there will be a structure on the roof line 10' above the required height limitation to allow for a penthouse atop the structure. Mr. Murray acknowledged Mr. Lucasik, architect of the project, to explain further. Mr. Lucasik explained that the proposal is for a 6-story building with 36 units with the addition of a penthouse on the top level of the building. He noted the center of the building having an elevator tower. He further pointed out from the diagram, the configuration of the units and the balcony locations, focusing on the deletion of the encroachment in the sideyard. Mr. Lucasik showed from the model the allowable building envelope for office use versus the requirement of a spccW use variation for residential use in this district. He especially made notice of the desire to promote residential use for the site versus office use expressed by the adjacent neighbors on Asbury Avenue. Mr. Lucasik stressed the keeping within the condo/loft atmosphere as the 1830 Ridge Building. In response to a question from one of the Cormittee members regarding the range in price per unit, Mr. Murray responded that the cost of the units would range from approximately $175,000 - $225,000 per unit. These prices are comparable to the units in the 1830 Ridge building. Chairman Engelman asked what would be eliminated from the proposed building development if the Zoning Ordinance rules were followed. Mr. Lucasik- responded that 6 units would be eliminated if they followed the requirements. Discussion took place on the Zoning requirements for that location and the angle for allowable building space. It was discussed in length the allowable building envelope beginning at the setback from the residential/office district line — climbing up on allowable buildable angle. The P&D Commies Mtg. February 28.20N) Page 3 Committee aalted for staff to elaborate. Mr. Alterson responded that what the ordinance states is "the maximum building height in the 01 district is 52' except that when the of zoning district is adjacent to RI, R2 or R3, the maximum height of any building or structure shall be established within the 15' degree." He noted that there was a great deal of discussion at the Zoning Board as to whether or not both rules should be considered Mr. Alterson deciphered that from the measurement should come from a point 5' above the common zoning district line, including rear lot lines along Asbury abutting Ridge Avenue. This measurement should be considered in this case, from the abutting rear lot lines of the properties. At this point. chairman Engelman welcomed comments from the audience. Dr. Mitchell Slodnik, accompanied by his son Barry, informed the Committee that they own apartment 403C, which is located on the fourth floor, southeast side of the 1830 Ridge Condo building. He noted that he has been chosen to be a spokesperson for the other owners, in the building. He stressed that they are against the special use and the proposed variations, even with the recessed balconies and the bulk of the building. Dr. Slodnik pointed out that shadow that would be cast from the proposed 1822 Ridge Building that will put the entire south side of the 1830 building in darkness. He noted the lack of privacy issue with the closeness of the buildings and locations of windows facing each other. He informed the Committee that the units on the higher floors, facing southeast, the owners have paid a higher price per unit because of their view. He stated • that the 182-1 Ridge building will cause a view obstruction and result in lower selling prices than anticipated. Dr. Slodnik claimed that they would prefer office use for the 1822 Ridge site which is much different in terms of the types of occupancy and only certain times of the day when cars are likely to go in and out and use the alley. He said that typically there are no balconies in an office building. Also, office buildings are not typically occupied on weekends, holidays and evenings at times when residential occupants would be in that building. Dr. Slodnik concluded and reiterated that the occupants of the 1830 Ridge building are against the special use for multi -family residential use of the 1822 Ridge site. Chairman Engelman asked Dr. Slodnik that when he purchased his unit, was he at all concerned of the possibility of a building be built to the south of his building. Dr. Slodnik responded that the realtor who sold him his unit as well as many others in the building, Mary Summersville, told them that a building built to the south of 1830 Ridge would have an adverse effect on the value. He said that she did inform them that if a building were built, it could be no taller than 52' and built on the slant starting from the rear lot line. Chairman Engelman noted that the height of the 1830 Ridge Building is not much taller than the allowable 52', therefore, the height of the 1822 Ridge building would inadvertently effect the 1830 Ridge building. Dr. Slodnik realized that fact but was lead to believe that with the allowable buildable slant, any building would obstruct the view but would not have the impact or bulk as the proposed building of 1822 Ridge. P&D Commiuee Mtn February 29. 2000 Page 4 Ald. Newman said that he has mixed emotions on this case. He understands how Dr. Slodnik and the other condo owners at 1830 Ridge feel and he hates to see the views ruined. However, this is a risk taken when purchasing units in high-rise buildings in a location that has room for development, such as this particular location. He said that this same thing happened with the building he lived in downtown Evanston when Evanston PIace was built and the views from his building were obstructed. AU Newman pointed out that this occurs in areas were condo developments are flourishing in densely populated areas, for example, along Sheridan Road and the Gold Coast. He encourages this type of use for the proposed site and the special use is consistent with the other multi- family uses to the north. He added that the style of the building is also consistent with the other condo developments along the curve of Ridge and is compatible in height also with the other condo buildings. Aid. Newman praised the developer on the high quality of the professed building on the design as well as the seemingly high quality of the materials to be used. Aid. Newman also complimented staff on the report drawn up for this particular case noting its excellent depth and explanation. He requested staff continue with this type of report for zoning cases. Aid. Bernstein said that he echoes Aid. Newman's previous comments. He apologized for the realtors misleading the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance to the owners at the 1830 Ridge building. He said that it was mentioned in the transcript by one of the owners in the 1830 Ridge building that they did not get any variations so why should this building. He said the intent of this ordinance was made to be reasonable and to create a balance in what can be built between the buffer area between residential and office use • districts. He reiterated Aid. Newman's comments on the "condo effect" and the consequences of more building and loss of views. He further stated that there was always the possibility of redevelopment of the 1822 Ridge building, whether office or residential, that would cause obstruction of views for the 1830 Ridge building. Aid. Bernstein said that it has been conveyed by the resident/ltomeowners on the east side of Asbury, whose properties abut this location, that they are in favor of residential development over office use because of traffic produced by that use. They have experienced for many years wit the existing manufacture and businesses that were located along Ridge Avenue. Aid. Bernstein suggested a motion to agree wit the Zoning Boards recommendation to approve the special use and to over -rule the denial of the applications for the 2 variation to the height and floor area ratio, without the variations for size and location of the balconies. He concluded that he feels this is the best and least offensive use to the 1830 Ridge building with regards to traffic, density in use, etc. Aid. Bernstein conveyed that he will be making a reference on Council floor for the Plan Commission to review the standards with regards to this particular ordinance. Aid. Wynne agreed with Aid. Bernstein in that the same objections occurred with the construction of the 1830 Ridge building and the 1834 Ridge building. She questioned the comment made regarding the 1830 building not needing any variations. Mr. Alterson clarified that the 1830 Ridge building, as well as the 183.3 Ridge building, were granted a special use. Ald. Wynne pointed out that with the construction and redevelopment of the 1834 Ridge building, it was an obvious indication that the same redevelopment of 1822 • Ridge could occur. She feels that office use for that site would be much less attractive to P&D Comminee Mt . s February 28, 2000 Page 5 . live next to in terms of light, traffic and the overall difference in uses located adjacerti to each other. The proposed multi -family use is keeping in unison with the development of that immediate area and is very compatible versus an office building. Ald. Wynne said traffic wzli be significantly reduced in the alley with residential use versus office use and the safety issue of ingresslegress from Emerson is one that should be taken seriously due to the obstruction of the view when turning onto the street. This issue %;as always of major concern. She overall feels this proposed development is for the best interest of the location and creates a good buffer between the residential district to the west - Chairman Engelman said that he too believes that arterial streets such as Ridge Avenue are extremely appropriate for mid -rise residential structures. He said they are one of the highest and best uses for such streets. He pointed out that this particular site presents• some significant challenges for residential because of the curve, lack of parking and the site lines in the front. He stressed that the more dense residential that is constructed an that site, the more difficult that alley is becoming. He noted from the beginning, this issue of the alley becoming more like a street and the impact of traffic on that alley_ Chairman Engelman pointed out that approximately 100 families will live off that alley when all the developments are finished. He said it is a significant traffic problem that needs to be addressed by the City. He feels the addition of office use would ultimately add to the problem. With regards to the reputed "Engelman Rule", Chairman Engelman clarified for the is maximum that when he proposed this, it was his intent that the 54' height Iimitation be a maximum height. He said the angle was to force a reduction of the height depending upon where you put the building. He said the impetus for this w•as the COS building located in the 7`h Ward. The concern a -as that the building, which is now sunk down because of the level of the land, if it were to be torn down and another structure built closer to Ridge Avenue that went up 54', this would be an imposing effect immediately - across from residential properties. He clarified that this ordinance was intended to provide a buffer to force developers to move their buildings back from the lot line. After all said, The motion made earlier by Aid. Bernstein was seconded by Aid. Wynne. Chairman Engelman stated that staff has requested to hold this item in Committee until the March 13, 2000 meeting for an opportunity to prepare the ordinance to reflect the amendments made from this meeting. The Committee voted 4-0 in favor of the motion and request to hold this item in Committee. Aid. Newman noted that the reference made by Aid. Bernstein earlier to review the standards for this ordinance, should be made as a reference from the P&D Committee to the Plan Commission instead of an aldermanic reference. Aid. Bernstein concurred. Aid_ Newman noted that from the transcripts, it is obvious that the Zoning Board struggled with these standards. He requested that staff look into the zoning requirements for other communities. 0 K P&D Committee Mtg. February 28.2000 Page 6 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (PD2) Consideration of an amendment to the Prom-rtv Standards Code arohibitir= plywood on buildings for more than seven days (Aid. Rainev) The Committee agreed to hold this item over for discussion at the March 13, 20011 meeting_ COMMUNICATIONS Letter to James M. Wolinski from nrooerty owner re: licensing of multi-familv mmmil buildings. This communication was accepted without commenL Notice of Planning & Develonment Snecial meeting. re: ADartment Rental Licensing. am Wednesday. March 1.2000 at 6:30 D.M. . Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that notices were sent out to all buildinz ownerstmanagers of buildings over 3 units. He noted the heavy response from calls am3 inquiries regarding this meeting, that staff has received since the notices were sent oUL He expects from the responses, that there will be a large crowd for the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Wolinski informed the Committee that staff is prepared to bring the Comprehensive General Plan back for discussion and review. He asked the Committee if this item could be put on the March 13`' agenda. The Committee members concurred. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacque ' e EABrownlee r1 L_J • x MINUTES Planning & Development Committee rES-j*nvery14, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Alderman Present: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, D. Jennings, E. Szymanski, J. Brownire Others Present: D. Anderson Presiding, Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF (QUORUM Chairman Kent noted a quorum present and called the meeting to 'order at 7:23 �p."m APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 10.2000 MEETING Aid. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of January 10, 2000. seconded by Aid. Engelman. The minutes were approved 5-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (15) Ordinance 14-0-00 — Snecial Use for 630 Davis Street Chairman Kent acknowledged Mr. Travis Swendseid, applicant for Jamba Juice and Mr. Gary Kaplan, representing the landlord — Chandlers Building, being present to respond to any questions or concerns of the Committee. Mr. Swendseid began by informing the Committee that most of their produce comes in frozen for the juices as well as the breads and soups. Aid. Bernstein asked what appliances would be used to heat the jambolas. Mr. Swendseid responded that the main products for sale are their juice smoothies, which are frozen products. The jambolas are delivered frozen as well and are heated on turning toasters. He said the soups are delivered frozen also and are heated as ordered. He said they will have juicing machines to make the smoothies. Mr. Swendseid handed out menus to the Committee members and staff to familiarize them with his main items of business for sale being the smoothies. Aid. Engelman asked Mr. Kaplan, as representative for the landlord, the status of the opening of potbellies. Mr. Kaplan responded that PotBellies is still opening at this location with expected operation to begin in mid -March. In response to an additional question by Aid. Engelman, he confirmed that frontage on both Orrington and Davis %ill 40 be with the 2 fast food restaurants. P&D Committee Mt& February 14, 2000 Page 2 Aid. Engelman asked the percentage of business % ith regards to the stile of smoothies versus the breads and soups. Mr. Swendseid responded that apprctiximately 2% of their sales are soups, 1% jambolas and the remaining 97% are smoucties. He stated that Jamba's specialty and main promotion lie within the smoothie bus;:ness, which they find to be a very popular trend in today's society. Ald. Newman asked if there is.any intent along the line to have Outdoor cafes in either restaurant at that location. Mr. Kaplan responded that Pot Bellies is planning to have a few tables out in the plaza area but Jamba's has no plans for Qutdoor seating at this location. Aid. Newman asked how many employees Jamba Juice usually has. Mr. Swendseid responded that usually no more than 3 employees are on site at one time. The hours of operation were asked and it was noted that normal hours could a from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. but Mr. Swendseid said that they would operate with=n the hours approved by the Zoning Board. Aid. Bernstein noted that in the ZBA transepts it was stated that the hours of operation would be between 7 a.m. until S p.m. , I . Aid. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 24-0-00 for a special use for a type 2 restaurant for Jamba Juice, seconded by Aid. Bernstein. Chairman Kent suggested to Mr. Swendseid that he consider during the summer months, to sell Jamba Juice products at James Park during the baseball season as an option to the regular concession stand items that are usually sold. He informed him to contact Mr. Doug Gaynor, Director of Parks and Recreation to find out the proper procedure and also to contact someone from the Youth Baseball Association for Their schedule. Mr. Swendseid was enthusiastic of this idea and would follow through in pursuing this suggestion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION X fPDI) Consideration to Develop a Poliev for Camnaian Siens and Citv Actions on Election Dav This item was originally brought to attention by a reference from Aid. Newman. Aid. Newman stated that his intent was that he would prefer to not have this ordinance enforced on election days. He feels enforcement of this ordinance on Election Day is way too perceptible to political shenanigans and pranks on that speci:�ed days and he also feels people generally accept polling place signs near polling sites on election day. He strongly feels that on Election Day only, the ordinance for removal of campaign signs on parkways in front of polling sites, for a specified distance, should r.:ot be in force due to the nature of their intent. Ald. Bernstein agrees with Ald. Ne%r 's feelings on the intent of not enforcing this policy on Election Day. He added that be would be in favor of this policy only being in effect during through the 24 hours of Election Day. Aid. . Newman agreed. OV P&-D Committee Mt9 February 14, 2000 Page 3 • Aid. Wynne asked for clarification of what Aid. Newman and Bernstein are suggestinT, She asked if they were suggesting that it be acceptable to have the signs on the parley directly in front of polling places. Aid. Bernstein stated that subject to any state laws that exist, he is suggesting within 100' on either side of the polling place entrance. He added that the signs direct people to the polling places noting that he has experienced mzay people who are reminded of voting on that day %Yho normally would not have recognize the American flag in front of the polling place to go and vote. Aid. Bernstein clarified that he is only suggesting around polling places, within 100'. that the sign be allowed. Ms. Doraine Anderson, Plan Commissioner, commented that from experience at her polling place at Willard Hall, signs were placed in front of the building facing University Place, but the entrance was around the comer — further than 100'. Her point being that this allowance of signs within 100' of the polling place could become a controversial issue and would need to be specifically defined. Aid. Engelman asked if the intent for the request of this reference the desire to enact legislation to allow what is currently not allowed in the parkway, which includes any signs at all times, to be allowed only an election day. Aid. Newman responded yes; he added that it is a somatically thing for only the one day when it is of importance. Aid. Engelman feels that they should not enact any legislation that goes against the enforcement of a policy or specified ruling, for any occasion. He argued the importance of enforcing all rules and regulations and the reasons they are made and the danger of setting precedence if they are not enforced. • Discussion ensued on this argument. Aid. Newman stressed that there is a misunderstanding on the intent of this policy, reiterating that he is only requesting that this policy be in effect on Election Day and that the signs only be allowed in the %icinity of the polling places within 100'. Aid. Engelman pointed out that Orrington School is a polling place and allowing 100' from the location would allow for signs in front of residential homes on the parkway. Aid. Newman stated that in that circumstance, judgement should be within reasonable measures. Mr. WoIinski requested that Dave Jennings, Traffic Engineer, be called in because his department regulates this policy. Aid. Wynne stated that she can see the value of having the campaign signs near the polling places for voters recognition and to Alert them of voting day but she does not see how on Election Day only it should be allowed to have these signs in the parkway when it is clearly not allowable. She fees the American fag in front of the voting places should be sutficicnt for a reminder of voters to vote_ She assumes that all signs, campaign or otherwise, are mainly removed on a complaint basis and are especially noted during election time. Mr. Jennings responded that his staff will remove any signs in the parkway on a complaint basis or otherwise by driving by and taking note of any illegal signs in the parkway. Aid. Wynne feels that Aid. Engelman has a legitimate point on setting aside Election Day only to single out not enforcing the sign policy. She added that the 100' vicinity is hard to rule also because some polling places do not allow for this spacing such as the South branch library on Chicago Avenue; there is no proper parkway to alloy;' signs. Chairman Kent said that it is important to take into consideration that polling place differ and vary P&D Committee httg. t=ebxuary 14. 2000 page 4 in locations. As. AId. Newmasi stated earlier, it should be within reason the lxisting of • any campaign signs within the 100' of the polling place. .sir_ Jennings commented that the difference between Electior. Day and any ether day he feels is subject to delil?tration. in other words, his staff can rot get them all. He said that even if his staff get out early and pick up the signs ahead of time before dic polling starts. signs are guaranteed to be replaced on put up in other locations. fie stressed that his staff just works harder on election day due to the extra volume of complaints, but history and experience prevail, that on Election day, it is especially hard to totally enforce the regulations for signs put up in the parkway. More discussion ensued amongst the Committee members regarding the pros and cons of enforcing such a policy to allow campaign signs in the parkways on Election Day only. Aid. Bernstein expressed his feelings on the importance to promote more voting and if the signs tend to sway voters to polling places, then he is all for the allowance of campaign signs in the parkways only during that time. He stressed his disapproval of the over -aggressive enforcement of the removal of campaign sims on Election Day due to what they represent. Aid. Ne«man agreed and stressed that this reference for a policy to sustain the enforcement of removal of campaign signs on Election Day only is not a difficult procedure to understand. He feels this will not set precedence against all other regulations of the Sign Ordinance due to the significant nature of the event. He also stressed the point of the "greater public good" argument in this case. Aid. Engelman pointed out that'in the case of removal of campaign signs on Election Day • due to complaints, it is not by staff request but usually by component complaints to staff for the removal of signs. He said that while there is clearly a public good in identifying the location of polling places and the promotion of voting, there is also a reason why the City does not allow signs on parkways, in addition to the fact that it does not look good. He pointed out the safety issues on being able to have a clear view beyond the signs on parkways, in some cases. Aid. Engelman concluded that he does not have good feelings in supporting such a policy. At this point, Chairman Kent asked the consensus of the Committee on what they want to do with this issue. Aid. Bernstein stated that he feels this is an appropriate policy to put in effect, but can go with the majority rule of the Committee if it is not in favor of enforcing this due to the already existent ordinance for the non -allowance of signs in parkways. Aid. Newman suggested that staff form a letter to send to both political parties to get their viewpoints on this matter. The Committee discussed Aid. Newman's suggestion further. It was noted during discussion that there are more than 2 political parties existing with many vie.. points in all parties. Aid. Wynne asked if the Legal Department is aware of complaints of improper removal by the City staff of any campaign signs in the past. I' is. Szymanski recalled that at the last aldermanic election, calls on the subject came into the legal department. She said that people were raising the issue of can the signs be removed or are they allowed on the parkway. She noted no specifics site can recall. Mr. Jennings questioned the statement of improper or selective removal of any campaign signs because he stands firm to the fact that his staff will . *V P&D Committee Mtg. February 14.20M Page S remove all signs from the parkway regardless of complaints, political party difference. etc. Chairman Kent said that due to the pros and cons argues %%ith no obvious consensus by the Committee to this point, he suggested leaving the ordinance as is with no policy change. He requested the Committee's consideration of pulling this item from the agenda at this time with no further discussion or change. The Committee agreed with Chairman Kent to leave the ordinance as is at this time. (PD2) Amendment to the Zonine Ordinance (\onconformine Uses & Nan-comolvinQ Structures Aid. Newman moved approval of the Plan Commission recommendation of no change at this time, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Aid. Engelman asked the Plan Commissions position on this matter since they recommend no change at this' time — are they looking into this for the future. Ms. Anderson responded that the Plan Commission is still reviewing this amendment. Aid. Bernstein asked if the Plan Commission is Iooking into the enlargement of non- conforming structures. Mr. Alterson responded that this amendment did not deal with enlargements but dealt with rebuilding if the structure was destroyed. Ms. Anderson asked the Committee if they want the Plan Commission to look into enlargements as well. Aid. Bernstein explained that he was involved in a case where the ZBA ruled an . enlargement of a nonconforming structure but his argument was that it was not because the same distance was maintained and there was no issue of height. Fle suggested that enlargements should be considered with this amendment also. Aid. Engelman asked if the grandfather and when special use expiration issues are being looked at also. Mr. Alterson responded that the issue of the special uses is currently on P&D's agenda under "items for future consideration." He said the PIan Commission will deal with this separately. With no further discussion, the vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. (PD3) Consideration of Zonina Renuirentent that Townhouses Front Dedicated Street Chairman Kent called on Aid. Engelman who originated this reference. Ald. Engelman said that staff's survey and research are excellent and helpful, especially the information on Chicago. He asked how often does the City have a request to do a townhouse development that does not have very unit facing the street. Mr. Alterson responded that they have had 2 developments since lie has been the Zoning Administrator, noting the Research Part: development and the new development at Crain & Dodge. Aid. Engelman stated that he is sensitive to some of the issues raised by Aid. Drummer that there are a lot of neighbor problems when you have one structure facing the street and another structure perpendicular to it, in terms of front yard, sideyard and backyard space. He said, on the other hand, that it is unlikely and hard no to do townhouse development without this situation happening. lie said that he would like to see a similar mechanism . for Evanston as Chicago's policy where under the right circumstances with the process, that kind of development could be allowed. He noted the variation process being P&D Committee Mtg: February 14.2000 Page b effective for these developments. Mr. Alterson stated that the Crain & Dodge • development came in as a variation to the requirement of .1] units fronting on the stmet because the north row of to«mhouses do not face the street. Aid. Newman feels that no change should be trade to the requirement due to the variatkm process, which is appropriate in this case. He added that "tices go out allowing people to be informed and giving them a chance to look at the proposed development in their neighborhood and the opportunity to respond and comment_ He said that if the neighbors feel it is not harmful to their area, then the development could be approved. Aid. Wynne noticed that the ordinance in Chicago w-as enacted in 1998 so most developments were there prior to that date. She noted the newly developed Southport townhouse development in Chicago, frontage being along the street except that the front doors are on the inside of the courtyard. She pointed out that what you see from the street are small yards that are not front entrances. She asked staff if the suggestion is to prohibit the requirement of front doors facing the street. Ald. Engelman informed her that the current ordinance requires all townhouses to front on the public way. Aid. Wynne noted the Research Park townhouse development as a good example. Aid Newman agreed stating that he is not fond of this configuration which puts him in the mind of a jail -type" setting. He said it -would be better if a development of this type is able to go through the variation process for the ability of the Committee, staff and neighboring properties to get a sense of the proposal and be able to have some sense of control over the outcome of the development. He stressed the appropriateness of • requiring the variation process for these developments. Ms. Anderson pointed out that there are various townhouse developments throughout Evanston, focusing on Dodge Avenue. She referred to the section from Greenleaf to Main Street with the townhouse development that was built in the 50's, as kvell as further south on Dodge near Washington Street that were also built around that time. She said those particular townhouses were deliberately set up so thzt front doors face each other as well as back yards. The setbacks for all units are the same and the configuration is aesthetically pleasing and acceptable for the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Anderson said, however, that most of the townhouse developments in town are not set up like those including the "spot developments" or clusters that don't quite fit into their surrounding neighborhood settings but do tend to front on the dedicated streets. She concluded that since we have no way of knowing the exact configuration of the developer's plan for these developments, it is to the City's and neighboring properties advantage to remain in effect the full variation process for review of all townhouse proposals. Mr. Wolinski added that the townhouses Ms. Anderson referred to on Dodge between Greenleaf and Lee, are the Crown Part: Development. which were built in the 50's. Ile said the problem. with those townhouses built during that period and the reason they have gone out of vogue, is mainly because of the problems -.-,it the utility connections with this design. He explained that there is usually one common water and sewer line that is connected to a row of townhouses all sharing the line in common. He said this type of connection is common to the condominium setting. Nir. Wolinski informed the Committee that the . P&D Committee Mtg. February 14, 2000 Page 7 City now requires each individual unit: ao have its own separate water line. He said is is • very expensive to do with the perpendiiaular configuration. Chairman Kent asked the Committee f,nr a consensus of what to do with this item. A.11d. Engelman pointed out that in consideration of Evanston being an older community :-d making the best use of remaining and existing property that can be developed. be recognized the narrow and deep lots a%milable. He noted that in a changing neighborhood that is going through higher density, t cmmhouses are a very desirable product and our current ordinance does not encourage them. However, in the absence of demand by developers, and since there is a variaticw process, he suggest not pushing any regulations above and beyond what is currently in effect. There was a consensus of the Committee in agreement with Aid. Engelman's concDoding statement. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Wolinski reminded the Committee of the decision made at their last meeting to hold a special meeting on March I" to discuss the licensing of multi -family rental buildings. He informed them that staff has prepared notices to be sent out to all rental management companies and all other interested patties. He asked the Committee for confirmation. The Committee confirmed the meetini to be held on Wednesday, March I, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. and instructed staff to send out the prepared notices. • COMMUNICATIONS Letter to James Wolinski from G.M. Realty Company re: licensing of multi -family rental buildings. This communication was accepted without comment. Pronosed Lane,uape for "Institutional Use" in the Comprehensive General Plan from Aid. Newman Mr. Wolinski requested the Committer to consider a date to bring back the discussion on the Comprehensive Plan. The Commimee discussed this matter and it was noted that they do not wish to hear repetitive testimony over again. There was also mention of a time frame in which to hold a meeting to give proper time to hear any new testimony and equal time for Committee deliberation. Aid. Engelman suggested that it would be appropriate for this matter to be herd by the Rules Committee at this point. The Committee members agreed. Aid. Ne7vman requested that Chairman Kent notify the rest of Council this evening of P&D's discussion. This matter will go before the Rules Committee on March 6. 2000. AD.IOURNMENT 49 The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. ,X MINUTES Planning & Development Committee January 24, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Alderman Present: J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Alderman Absent: S. Bernstein, S. Engelman Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, J. Broaalee Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chairman Kent noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2000 MEETING Ald. Wynne moved approval of the minutes of January 10, 2000, seconded by AUL is Newman. The minutes were approved 3-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (17) Ordinance 10-0-00 — Amendment to Fee Ordinance/Zoning Appeals Ald. Newman moved approval of Ordinance 10-0-00, seconded by Aid. Wynne. Mr. Wolinski explained that this ordinance is a collation of the discussion between P&D Committee and staff several weeks ago concerning the refund of appeal fees to people who have had their appeal affirmed at the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Altemn brought attention to the language written on the agenda data sheet that is not in the ordinance. He noted that staff recommends this further modification which adds language that allows for someone who has applied for a fence or minor variance and has been turned down and is appealing to the City, to not be required to pay a double fee. The Committee members accepted this modification to be added to the ordinance. The motion was accepted with a 3-0 vote. (18) Ordinance 143-0-99 — Special Use & Variance for 430 Asbury Avenue Chairman Kent noted that this item was introduced at the meeting on January I & and referred back to the P&D Committee for further discussion and consideration of the P&D Committee Mtg.{ January 24, 20W Page 2 issues that were raised at that meeting. He acknowledged Mr. Bill Shiny Project Manager for the Developer (Mid-Northem Equities Management. Ltd.. and ,Lit. Randy Gussis, Attorney for the Developer. Mr. Shiner said that one of the open issues were with regards two the Im- iscaping replacement. He acknowledged the memorandum to Arthur Alterson that smics that they agree to do what is written in the ordinance but would like an affirmative statement added to the effect that in the event of force by nature, replacement of any failed planting shall be replaced during the earliest available planting season thereafter. Chairman rent asked for clarification that Mr. Shiner is saying that they do agree with the -wording in the ordinance as written. Mr. Shiner clarified that they do not agree with the language as written but are trying to compromise with their proposed wording to be added for a provision. He reminded the Committee that the language that they submitted was not acceptable by the Alderman of the ward. This language stated that they would repair within 45 days if there was notice unless there Aas the impossibility to perform. He noted that Alderman Rainey said at the last meeting something to the effect that the City would never fine Osco's the $5,000 if there was an impossibility to perform. He said that their proposed language would be an affirmation to that statement made by the Alderman. He confirmed that they would be more comfortable if this language were added to the Ordinance. Mr. Shiner quoted from the Ordinance as written which states that they must plant within 30 days of notice; in some instances this would be impossible due to weather constraints and availability of certain shrubbery. He reiterated that the addition of their proposed language would allow a provision to take forced instances into consideration. . Chairman Kent read from page 3 of the Ordinance which states that "failure to replace plantings within the time specified by the City shall require a fee of S5,000 within 30 days," and "the time given for replacement shall be within the planting season, if appropriate but no event more than 9 months." He questions where the 45 days is mentioned. It was noted that the 45 days is written in the language proposed by the developer as written in their memo to Mr. Akerson. Chairman bent asked fir. Alterson for any suggestions he may have on this issue. Mr. Alterson responded that as the enforcement official for Zoning, they always try to enforce any conditions that are attached to a special use or variance but stressed that staff will always try to work with all land users for the best possible outcome and will always take forces of nature and other uncontrollable situations into consideration. Ald. Neuman suggested that consideration for 30 days to be given after both parties agreed that it is a plantable time of year. He said that the key here is to get timely compliance within a time that both panics agree is possible to work with. Ald. Wynne stated that she still feels that the original language was fairly clear. She quoted from the original language which reads "any plants planted pursuant to the landscaping plan which die or fail to thrive, shall be replaced during the earliest available planting season thereafter upon written notice from the City." Ms. Gussis stated that the problem comes with the next sentence after that statement which states "failure to replace within the time specified by the City..." is contradictory. She clarified that one sentence states to be planted within the next planting season and the following sentence states to be planted when the City tells you to plant. She reiterated that this is why they request the proposed language to be added for a provision to be P&D Committee Nftg. January 24, 2000 Page 3 stated within the ordinance for affirmation of the :E-= sentence. The Committee members • agreed with Ms. Gussis explanation. Further discussion ensued regarding the inclusioc :r! the proposed language suggested by Mr. Shiner and Ms. Gussis. They discussed taki: -Gaut the sentence to replace within the time specified by the City, agreeing that it is cLr=adictory to the fust sentence. Aid. Newman commented that he feels the City needs x:, be reasonable to their expectations, adding that he also feels this developer wi;: zomply with their responsibilities. Discussion of how to determine when the next pL,--tang season should be considered went underway. It was the consensus of the P&D Ce ittee members, Mr. Shiner and Ms. Gussis that this determination would be clear ac-%:�zr3ing to the time of year and weather permitting, that the next available planting sea_sc would be considered. Discussion of changing the 30 days to 45 days, as suggested ;g the developer, ensued. It was the consensus of the Committee members that the .days should remain as worded in the ordinance and Mr. Shiner and his. Gussis agreed -.,:! ?his. Aid. Wynne brought up the issue regarding the suggested requirement of delivery trucks to turn their engines off while sitting idle to unloajJ their deliveries. Mr. Shiner stated that this requirement would not be a probl.-- and is enforceable by the store management. Aid. Wynne motioned to amend the ordinance to include wording to require that all delivery trucks must turn off their engines while loading or unloading at the subject property, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the amended motion. From the discussion above regarding the landscapiru- Ald. Wynne moved to substitute the proposed language as submitted by the devekper in their memorandum to Mr. Alterson with the exception of changing "within 45 days to 30 days". Akd. Newman seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0 in favor. The final issue of excluding deliveries between certain hours was discussed. Chairman Kent inquired about the conference call that was to take place, as discussed at the last meeting. Aid. Rainey informed him that neither Albertson's nor the developer have contacted her. He recalled that he introduced this on Council floor at the last meeting and specifically said that the delivery hours and landscaping would be discussed in a conference call with Aid. Rainey and the two org—mizations. Mr. Shiner informed the Committee that the contact person at Albertson's is currently involved in a business acquisition and was unavailable for the suggests conference call. However, a letter from Albertson's addressed to City Council, was wr:nen on behalf of the concerns stated and is enclosed in the Council packet. Mr. Shiner rcn.� to the Committee the feedback he received from Albertson's representatives was to &-d effect that "enough is enough". He explained this statement from Albertson's is because they feel that they have accommodated these concerns from the comet--nts that were received from the neighborhood meetings by agreeing to install an 8-:oat fence to keep the children from cutting through the property. He also noted that the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the plan and traffic flow and accepted their pL-n- and felt that there would be no • significant impact on the area. This included tb_ir truck deliveries for the subject P&D Committee Mtg. January 24, 2000 Page 4 location also. Mr. Shiner feels that he is being placed in a position bet%%peen the City of Evanston and Albertson's with both wanting different responses. He stressed that Albertson's does not want to be put in a position to promise something that they can not deliver because it is very hard to enforce the time of truck deliveries and their schedules He reiterated that the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the impact on traffic flow and has stated that there is no real concern for any significant impact on the area. Mr. Shiner further informed the Committee that on July 9 h, he called Ald. Rainey 3 times to notify her of the change in delivery system since Albertson's purchase of Jewels; he has records of this statement. He said, in addition, his attorney faxed the original letter that was reviewed by the Committee to Ald. Rainey on July IOm and has evidence that she received this letter also. Mr. Shiner recalled that in the community meetings, the issue of safety for the children and the delivery hours, did not coincide. He explained that the school issue was addressed because the principal came to the meeting and expressed his concern for kids cutting through the rear of the property and this issue was addressed by the installation of the 8' fence. In addition, Osco offered to install a stop sign at the entryway to the drive - through to eliminate any speeding. Ald. Newman asked Mr. Wolinski if he has discussed this issue with Dave Jennings. Mr. Wolinski responded that the traffic issue was discussed extensively during Site Plan Review. He said in those discussions, there was concern primarily regarding left turns out of Osco onto Asbury and Oak -ton. He said that at that time, they were under the assumption of the truck deliveries as specified by Jewels but were informed that they could not guarantee all the times of delivery. Ms. Gussis recalled a subsequent meeting with SPAARC after the change to see if they had any problems with it and it was conveyed that there were no concerns. She stated that it was suggested at that time to get a letter from Osco with what the changes were and to take this before the ZBA, who had no problems since SPAARC did not. Chairman Kent concluded, that from short, it appears that regulation of the delivery hours can not be done. Mr. Shiner commented that as far as delivery hours, there is no material change for what is originally worded in the Ordinance. He said that the testimony in the letter of September 9's """ that Osco uses all best efforts to get most of their deliveries in the morning, this will avoid the aftemoon hour when school lets out. Mr. Wolinski stated that he attended the original neighborhoodiw•ard meetings regarding Osco's and recalls the principal of Chute School being very outspoken about the possibility of the children running into problems with not only the truck traffic, but also added traffic in general. However, at that time, he felt the tore of that meeting was that the majority of the neighborhood that attended wanted and xas in favor of the Osco development. He said that even with the heated concerns expressed by the principal, the tone of the discussions were in favor of making this work all around including the safety for the children. The feeling of the neighborhood w-as also that the development of the Osco is much better than having the abandoned grocery store as existing. qZ Ald. Newman said that he would like to accommodate this development and he feels it needs to be pointed out that in this case, the design of the building is substantially greater • than most existing Osco's. In addition, a substantial amount of money has been paid by y P&D Committee Mtg. January 24,2000 Page 5 the developer to meet the concerns of the neighborhood. He pointed out dw neighborhood store near his home has a parking lot and several deliveries during the day with many children frequenting the area. He said, however, that the neighborhood appreciates and enjoys their small shopping district and finds it very convenient. He fees this Osco will be an enhancement and convenience to its surrounding neighborhood at well. He pointed out that the concern for safety is just as great for incoming cars as it is with delivery trucks. Aid_ Newman said that it is clear in this case that the change is management appears to be the main reason for this development having to go back before the ZBA. He said it is also clear that there no intent on the part of the developer and that they have no interest in not meeting the City's and neighborhood concerns. He reiterated that he would like to accommodate this development and not hold up their progress or opening date any further. Aid. Newman asked Ms. Anderson, Plan Commissioner, if she could recall with the trucking restrictions placed upon the NVhite Hen, if they were able to enforce them. Ms. Anderson responded that she does recall enforcement issues but mainly is concerned with the recurring problem of important restriction regulations that are requested of developers after the fact, when in fact, should be told or requested in the beginning of the project. In her view, if the City wants to restrict deliveries to a certain site, this should be one of the first things that a developer is told right up front. Chairman Kent read over the letter from Albertson's and referred to the wording in the first paragraph that addresses the safety issue with students cutting through the property by installing an 8' fence. It then addresses the fact that the school was open when the property. He agrees with Aid. Newman, in that he too would like to accommodate the • developer who has made a tremendous effort to work with the neighborhood. Aid_ Newman added that the developer has shown good faith during the entire duration of the project. After discussion, the Committee agreed that Osco's is not in control of the truck delivery hours and have testified that the majority of the deliveries will be in the morning hours. The Committee also agrees that the developer has shown good faith effort in working with the neighborhood and concerns for safety in the neighborhood and for the school children in the area. AId. Wynne motioned to approve the amendments as stated above, seconded by Ald. Newman. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION It was the consensus of the Committee to hold items PDI, PD2 and PD3 until the February 14'-' meeting for discussion participation from Aid. Berstein and AId. Engelman. P&D Committee Mtg. January 24.2000 Page b : OTHER 13USINES5 Chairman Kent asked the Committee members and staff for their consideration in holding a special meeting for discussion of the multi -family licensing issue. The Committee members and staff discussed the agenda schedule for the next two months. Ms. Anderson informed the Committee of a case the Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission is currently dealing with that could possibly be coming before the P&D Committee around the -1" meeting in March. After discussion on dates, it was the consensus of the Committee to hold the special meeting for discussion on consideration of licensing multi -family rental buildings on Wednesday, March 1", beginning at 6:30 p.m. The Committee requested to send out the notification to the proper interested parties. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. • • 0 Iz MINUTES Planning & Development Committee January 10, 2000 Room 2403 — 7:00 p.m. Alderman Present: S. Engelman, J. Kent, A. Newman, M. Wynne Alderman absent: S. Bernstein Staff Present: J. Wolinski, A. Alterson, R. Crum, M. Robinson, E- Szymanski, J Brownlee Presiding Official: Alderman Kent DECLARATION OF OUORUM Chairman Kent noted a quorum present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 19" MEETING Aid. Engelman moved approval of the minutes of December 13, 1999, seconded by Ald, Wynne. The minutes were approved 4-0. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Kent brought to attention the addendum to the agenda adding item 16b, Ordinance 143-0-99, amending the special use and variation for Ocso's at 430 Asbury Avenue. He noted that Aid. Rainey requested to be present for comment and discussion on this item. He requested that this item be first on the agenda so that A.ld. Rainey could return back to her meeting. Ordinance 143-0-99 — Snecial Use & Variance for 430 Asbury Avenue Chairman Kent also acknowledged Mr. Bill Shiner and Ms. Randy Gussis representing, Ocso. Aid. Rainey pointed out that the Asbury Street Market that was heavily used and favored by the neighborhood once occupied this property. She said that the neighbors wanted to have the site redeveloped as a grocery store but no were made to do so. Then Osco's came in with a proposal for the site and the neighbors were pleased with this and the plans presented. She noted that Bill Shiner and his architect were one of the most responsive developers that she has ever dealt with. They presented their plans to the P&D Coc=nirtec Mtg. Minutes of I11000 Page 2 neighbors and attended several neighborhood meetings, listening to the neighbors • concerns and suggestions and taking them into consideration. She said that many neighbors were heavily involved throughout the process. Aid. Rainey said that the neighbors insisted on a certain type of design for the building that had style_ which they felt the outcome was quite impressive as well as the landscaping. Aid. Rainey informed the Committee that some of the issues that were of concern to her and the neighbors are the number of trucks for delivery, landscaping, hour of operation, no alcohol and easement of the drive -through. She reiterated that the neighbors literally embraced this project from the beginning, noting that type of interest is raze in this community. She said that certain things were required of this developer that were agreed upon in the beginning of this project. aid. Rainey reminded the Committee that one of the promises from the developer was that there would be no more than one large delivery truck per day and several semi -trailer deliveries during the week. The developer mentioned that this %%a.s the normal delivery schedule for Osco stores. She then received a phone call that a different company by the name of Albertson's now owns the company and some of their policies have changes. She was informed that there would be more frequent deliveries with more than one semi -trailer truck per day with added smaller deliveries also. Ald. Rainey said at that time there was no mention of a change in the landscaping agreement or the mention of wanting added service offered in the drive - through other than prescription pick-ups. She noted that when she read the transcript of the ZBA hearing regarding the changes requested by the new owners, she was became very concerned by several items they requested. She "-as shocked to read the extent of M added deliveries beyond what was promised in the beginning; noting 9 semi -trailer deliveries within a week plus approximately 10 smaller trucks per day. She continued with the change of 9 months wait to replace dead landscaping material. She reminded the Committee that the reason for the $5,000 fine that was put in the previous ordinance was to make the developer adhere to the maintenance of their landscaping which is an important issue to the neighborhood to keep up the appearance of that corner. Aid. Rainey asked the Committee, after hearing her concerns mutually felt by the neighbors. to please totally disregard this developers request in the amended ordinance and to disregard the ZBA's recommendations to especially allow the 9 month waiting period to replace landscaping. She stressed her disagreement with the argument of the developer regarding seasonal weather inconveniences for being able to replace certain foliage at certain times of the year. She feels there are other alternatives that can be utilized before resorting to such a long waiting period before replacing dead landscaping. She added that this request appears to be "foot -dragging" effort on the part of the developer that is not acceptable because she feels any bad Iandscaping should be replaced as soon as biologically and horticultarily possible. Ald. Rainey said, with regards to the added truck deliveries, that there is no way to stop the needed deliveries but notes the shock to the neighborhood after their original expectations told in the beginning and conditioned in the original ordinance. She informed the Committee that the loading dock is within close proximity to residential housing plus she reminded of the close proximity of the Jr. High and the danger and safety issue that need to be considered for the children coming to and from school. Aid. Rainey requested that these trucks not be allowed to PB:D Committer Mtg. Minutes of 1/10,00 Page 3 deliver at certain times of the day, i.e., elimination of deliveries during the hours whew children from the Jr. High are likely to be in the vicinity walking to and from school. She noted that the neighborhood supported the developer on the issue of this store not adding increased traffic on this comer due to the location and the already existing traffic patt® and the expected customers that %,,ill utilize this store. However, the increase in lame truck deliveries every day does add to the safety concern for this comer with the Jr. High being so close. Aid. Rainey noted that v.-hen the last ZBA notice went out in the paper, neighbors calW on her with questions because the notice did not give any idea of what the extent of the issues were on the amended changes requested by the developer. She informed the Committee this is why she felt it very important to have her concerns heard in representation of the neighbors and request the Committee take into consideration all the issues that she has addressed. Aid. Wynne added another issue she wished to raise with Aid. Rainey and felt should be added to her list of concern. She explained that along with the concern of added truck deliveries, it has been a big concern of hers with the grocery stores in her neighborhood which coincides with this matter, that Osco's should be required to insist that all of their delivery trucks be made to turn their engines off while unloading their deliveries. She mentioned the problems she has experienced with the new People's Market on Chicago Avenue. She noted that the Jewels in Wilmette has signs posted instructing their delivery trucks to turn their engines off during unloading and suggested this be a requirement of Osco's also. Aid. Rainey appreciated Aid. Wynne's suggestion requesting that the Committee add this to her list of concerns to be addressed. Aid. Newman said that it seems evident to him from Aid. Rainey's comments that she has concerns with the language in the ordinance regarding the landscaping; he noted it is possible to change that wording. Aid. Rainey corrected that notion explaining that she would prefer to leave the agreements and wording on the landscaping as original stated in the initial ordinance. She does not want to see any change on what was originally proposed by the developer regarding landscaping and wants the importance of why the $5000 fine was put in place to remain. Aid. Newman commented on truck deliveries and the difficult in trying to regulate the times of deliveries as well as regulating the trucks to turn their engines off during unloading. He said from his experience, he finds it very difficult to regulate these matters without constant monitoring; he feels it is almost virtually impossible to do by store management and City officials. Ald. Rainey stated that she is not asking for this type of monitoring and understands that it is hard to regulate the amount of deliveries needed for a store. However, she is requesting and feels it within the power of any store to request from their vendors, to eliminate deliveries during certain hours of the day. She stands firm on this request due to the: seriousness of safety for the children in the area. She noted that she is only asking for elimination of deliveries during a 2-hour period when children are most likely to be coming to and from school. She suggested limiting no deliveries between the hours of approximately 8-9:30 am- and 2:30-4:00 p.m. be considered. Aid. Newman explained that he was suggesting that it is very hard to regulate certain deliveries, especially in the morning hours, due to the content of what is being delivered and controlling the delivery trucks schedules. He P&D Comruitte+e Mtg, 1 Minutes of HOW Page 4 further noted from his ow-n experience in the past with restrictions conditioned by this • Committee with stores and restaurants where they were requested certain elimination's with parking and deliveries requirements, how hard it is to keep within those requested conditions and the problems with regulating them. :kid. Newman pointed out that the new owrter, Albertson's, has noted their policy and he %would like to know within the next 2 weeks whether or not this new owner can make chianges to their policy and abide by such requested regulations with regards to their deliveries. Mr. Shiner responded that he sees no problem with h r- ing the delivery trucks turn their engines off while unloading; he feels this can easily b-- controlled. He stated that there are two problems with this. He pointed out this is not a food store, but a drug store which requires many different deliveries. Aid. Rainey questioned why then was it testified at the neighborhood meeting that there would be no more than I large truck delivery per day knowing that drug stores require more. Mr. Shiner responded the z he disagrees %%ith how the testimony was taken at the meeting because: he recalls mentioning that there would be several vendor deliveries per day. He believes it will E-- difficult, due to enforceability issues, to limit deliveries between certain hours. He said in most situations Osco has no control over what their vendor's schedule is for truc - deliveries. Aid. Rainey responded that she feels there has been a tort switch with regards to what "-as testified at the meetings regarding truck deliveries. She feels at Ieast with the total difference in what they were told would be the amount of truck deliveries per day, that Osco's should find a way to enforce that their vendors not delivery berw•een certain hours for the safety of the school children in close proximity. She also feels it unacceptable to allow a 9-month waiting period, in any situation, for replacing bad landscaping materials. Aid. Rainey emphasized that these are the two issues that she and the neighborhood are concerned with and ask that the Committee reconsider the developers request. Ms. Gussis, Attorney for the developer, assumed that from Aid. Rainey's comments, it seems the issues are the timing of the truck deliveries and the timing of the replacement of landscaping. The Committee agreed to those issues being of main concern. With regards to the landscaping, Ms. Gussis clarified why' they requested and what the ZBA agreed to. She explained that there is not a 207 c N. time period for them to do the replacement of landscaping; rather she considered it a request for a provision to be given some length of time in cases where weather prevails and certain times of the year when particular foliage is unavailable and requires a wait. She said the way the initial ordinance was worded, it does not give them any time provision allowed if circumstances are not within their control to replace landscaping immediately which would put them in jeopardy of the $5000 fine and in a position where the}" would not be at fault. Aid. Newman said that it appears that the developer Lr, asking for a reasonable amount of time in certain situations beyond their control, as sued above, without being at risk of the $5000 fine. In addition, Aid. Rainey is insisting :hat it not be allowed to take up to 9 months to replace any landscaping. Mr. Shiner confL-med that they are not requesting to take up to 9 months to replace any landscaping but are simply requesting that a performance provision be added so that during a 9 month period they be given time to comply, if needed. Aid. Newman suggested, as a c=promise, to reword the ordinance P&D Committee Mig. Minutes of 1110100 Page 5 to state that within 60 days of notice, there be proof of order made of replacement foliage. Mr. Shiner and Ms. Gussis agreed to this arrangement_ As far as regulating truck delivery times, Mr. Shiner reiterated that he finds this difficult to control vendors delivery schedules. He gave an example, explaining that most vendors place their deliveries within a certain route to make several stops in the same area. He said it would be difficult to disrupt th._ delivery trucks route schedule during a block of time when he is already in the same <icinity. Mr. Shiner stated that in discussing this matter with the City Traffic Engineer, he felt there would be not significant impact on traffic or safety in the area with the expected deliveries required for the store. Chairman Kent mentioned that he has heard of c*ther stores that limit delivery times during the day such as 8:00 a.m. -- 4:00 p.m. Ms. Gussis distributed a copy of a letter from Albertson's stating the change in distribution and deliveries for their stores since the original approval of the ordinance for this location. She said that since the recent purchase of Jewel/Osco stores by Albertson's, she is not positive that the delivery plan has been implemented as of yet. Mr. Shiner added that it is asstrned by Albertson's that with the increase in semi- trailer truck deliveries per day, it will significantly reduce the number of smaller truck deliveries as originally expected per day. In other words, this should result in the same impact as originally expected by truck deliveries. The Committee discussed this argument with Mr. Shiner further. The Committee members agreed to the argument that it is difficult to control vendor • delivery routes, however, they do feel it is within the control of Osco's to relay to their vendors if it is a requirement put upon their store, to enforce the elimination of a few hours during the day. The Committee members noted that it has been proven to be in effect at many other stores and the hours requested is minimal. Aid. Engelman stated that it is not a particular issue of concern in the morning hours because children do not tend to all come to school at the same time in one large pack but it is a major concern during the after school hour when all the kids would be let out at the same time. He suggested that consideration be given to elimination of deliveries between the hours of 2:30 — 3:30 p.m. He asked Mr. Shiner if he would have any concern if this Committee were to impose such a condition that prohibited deliveries between these afternoon hours when school lets out. Mr. Shiner still argued the fact of the difficulty in enforcing this but assured that he could take this issue back to the representatives from Albertson's letting them know the Committee's suggested condition. Aid. Newman said that he thinks the issue here is not necessarily what the developer wants or what this Committee wants either. He stated his desire to be able to limit the hours of delivery, as requested by Ald. Rainey and the neighbors, but it is more probable to be able to eliminate an hour or two during the day for precaution for the children in the area. He stressed this is the main concern which is safety for the children, a making a compromise to provide this safety. Ald. Newman suggested introducing this item tonight with the suggestion of a conference call to be made between Albersson's. AId. Rainey and the developer within the next two weeks. This would give Alberston's a chance to hear the request of Aid. Rainey and to try and make any provisions to satisf}• this matter regarding the elimination of delivery hours. He noted that if Albertson's relay that they P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of I I10100 Page 6 X. can not do this, then this puts the developer in a position where he will in asked to do • something he could not deliver. He said this is when the concern would ccene in because this issue would need to come to some conclusive agreement. He reminded the Committee that all this came about due to new owrrership, otherwise this master would not be before them. Mr. Shiner and its. Gussis confaTned that they would be willing to work with this suggestion in hopes that a conclusive agreement could be r-.,ached within the next 2 weeks. Aid. Engelman concluded from all discussion, that it is important to fug out what is possible to do from discussion with Albertson's, he feels this is appropria: Nir. Shiner said he feels putting a moratorium on deliveries between the hours of approximately 2:30 — 4:00 p.m. would be a sense of compromise that could be worked out wish the owners. He stated that he can not promise the owner to be open to this but at lest a dialogue could be accomplished and hopefully a satisfactory wriclusion could be ag-red upon; he feels this to be a reasonable request Ald. NVynne mentioned from exper erke with the People's Market store in her ward, that this is a reasonable request beea_:se that store completely excepted the provision of having their deliveries form 7-1 I .-W a.m. She. pointed out it is possible to enforce certain delivery times if required by City Ordimace or policy for a location. Her point being, there is proof that chain stores do have in their power to control their vendors if required policies were conveyed to them. She assumes that if vendors are informed beforehand, they can plan their deliver- routes for accommodation. She also noted the importance of the liabilities that are fvssible with a middle school being located so close and in considering a stores best interest, it is assumed they would try and do anything to support safety concerns for the surrounding neighborhood. Aid. Engelman suggested a motion to introduce this item tonight "Tth a referral back to the P&D Committee for further discussion to address the outcome of the conference call between Albertson's, Aid. Rainey and the developers to come to a conclusion on elimination of deliveries during the hour before and after school. This suggested motion was accepted by the Committee and seconded by Ald. Wynne. Ms. Gussis expressed their concern for delay with holding this item over until the meeting on January 24`h because the scheduled opening for the store is January 20ei. Chairman Kent clarified the normal procedure with introduction and action on as item requiring the 2-week period; noting no delay will be experienced. The condition of the 60-day period far proof of order made to replace any landscaping needed suits agreed to be incorporated in this motion for rewording in the ordinance. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Ordinance 145-0-99 — Planned Development — Sherman Plaza Chairman Kent noted tha this item is still held in Committee from the December 13ei meeting because staff is still awaiting the information discussed at that time. Ald. Ne«-man requested that staff notify the businesses on Church Street that will be effected by this planned development, i.e., the Gaileria businesses and those businesses . on the south side of Church Street that %vill be effected by this. He wishes to inform them P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of I/10/00 Page 7 of the current status of where they are at with the Sherman Plaza planned development and when continued discussion on this matter will resume. He suggested a door-to-� handout be distributed. Staff agrees to comply with this request before the next P&D meeting. (17) Ordinance 144-0-99 -- Ament±rnent to Zoning, Ordinance (Music Venues) Aid. Engelman asked for back information on how this originally generated. Aid. Wynne explained the reference was made %xith regards to interest on live music venues and how it is addressed within the ordinance_ She said there had been an application requesting to open such a business in the downtown district. She said than it .vs pointed out by Mr. Alterson that the definition was m�,a quite inclusive enough as presently addressed in the Zoning Ordinance, as worded undo: dance clubs because it did not specifically cover lire music venues versus a DJ type serang. Aid. W-,nne said that she ultimately there after made the reference for staff to to%:sk into expending the inclusion of Iive music venues with the section on dance clubs. She said that the Plan Commission then re%iewed this issue and came up with a recomrz;=ded amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for better definitions. She added that music venues and dance clubs would be a special use within the D24 and RP districts and prohibited elsewhere. Aid. Engelman said what he would life to see avoided here is the special use carry -out restaurant resemblance where a business comes in as a food service establishment and the addition of live music becomes an accessory use to the main business. He used the Bean Counter restaurant as an example. He recognized that in the ordinance it is specifically • exempted if it is accessory to another use but the extent of the accessory use remains questionable in relation to the main use. Mr. Wolinski added there is a similar question in use with regards to the Danis Street Fishmarl:et. Aid. Newman responded to aid. Engelman's concern on the questionability of accessory use for live music venues. He informed him that there was an application to open a blues club downtown that would specifically entertain live music and serve alcohol with hardly any food service. He said the major use for that establishm-ent is live music only. Aid. Wynne further explained that when the application came in for the blues club, that is when the question of how music venues and dance club's were addressed within the Zoning Ordinance realizing more specific definition on these uses is needed for clarification. Aid. Newman stated that his main concern on this matter is that any zoning issues be clarified and addressed. He feels more definitive wording with the Zoning Ordinance gives more flexibility to the extent of what is considered under a special use. He said the generics from the 1993 Ordinance are being clarified by more specific wording that is needed in order to open up the rrore opportunities and varieties of business in Evanston. He stressed that he would like to have a definition of a dance club clarified and included with this Ordinance. Staff confirmed that has been done in this ordinance. Aid. Newman feels this amendment is very helpful and will make a statement that live music and dance clubs are not accessory uses. Aid. Engelman said that he feels allowing special uses for these types of establishments in the downtown districts is appropriate but by doing this, it will prohibit these businesses from the B1 & B2 districts. He noted that there are certain P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1/10/00 Page 8 businesses in the "B" districts that have live performances in their establishment such as • the Bean Counter. The Committee members agreed with :did. Engelman's point, questioning that in the case of the Bean Counter, would this be an accessory use. Mr. Alterson responded that he understands this concern and feels it is an issue that needs to be addressed by the Plan Commission for further review. However, this issue is not addressed in this ordinance regarding those businesses in the B districts where live music would be considered an accessory use to the main operation. He specified that this ordinance deals with the special use consideration for live music venues and dance clubs within the D24 and RP districts for downtown. Mr. Alterson further elaborated on exactly what this ordinance covers and the issues at hand. Aid. Engelman moved to approve Ordinance 14 -O-99 to amend the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Plan Commission so that music venues, including dance clubs, are special uses within the D24 and RP districts and prohibited elsewhere. Aid. Wynne seconded the motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Aid. Wynne motioned to move into closed Executive Session at 8:15 p.m., seconded by AId. Engelman. Aid. Newman questioned when this issue needs to be discussed in Executive Session. Mr. Robinson explained because the amount for relocation has not • been finalized. The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion. Relocation Exnense for Dave's Italian Kitchen Mr. Robinson acknowledged Mr. Dave Glatt, owner of Dave's, along with Mr. Delph Gustitis and Chad Henson of Gustitis Group, Inc. which are the owner's architect and consultant. He directed attention to his memorandum received by the Committee regarding the estimated expense amount to date to relocate this restaurant. Mr. Robinson refreshed the Committee's memory recalling that back in the Spring it was projected that the cost might be in the S360,000 range based on the information they had at that time. He said they have since received the estimate for construction from the Gustitus Group indicating the approximation in the range of S409,000. fie noted this amount is in addition to replacing the kitchen equipment, 10 month rent abatement and other added miscellaneous expenses which total over S546,000 — not including the moving expenses. Mr. Robinson informed the Committee that he discussed this with Ms. Aiello and others involved and it was felt appropriate that this matter be discussed by P&D Committee in closed session to come to some consensus before this goes to Council for a vote. It was noted that this item is on Council agenda for this evening. Aid. Engelman asked what information is it that has to be considered by this Committee that is proprietary mutual other than approval of the relocation amount. He added that if there is only the amount of expense for relocation to discuss, then this is a matter of public record and does not have to be discussed in close session. Mr. Robinson explained that because of the amount in P&D Committee At Minutes of 1/I0/00 Page 9 cost that they are looking at partly has to do with the tent abatement also. Ald. Engelman said that issue has already been dealt with and voted on. Ald. Engelman said, with al! due respect, he feels this matter should be discussed in public session. The other Committee members agreed. Aid. Engelman moved to return to open session at 8:20 p.m_, seconded by Aid. Newman. The vote was unanimous. Aid. Engelman asked how many square feet the current restaurant has compared to the new location. Mr. Glatt responded with storage, the current location is approximmiely 5500 square feet and the new is over 7000 square feet. Aid. Engelman noted an increase in size of 30%. He asked if there is an increase in seating furniture. Mr. Glatt responded that he is requesting 6 more tables over the current 30 tables in his present restaurant. Ald. Engelman noted the seating increase of 20%. Aid. Newman pointed cca the difference in locations from current versus new. He said the new is located in the basement of a 2-level building. He understands that Dave had to take over the entire 7000 square feet because it would have been unfeasible to split the room for less space. Mr. Glatt further explained that they settled with this location after looking at a member of other places that would not have worked out for some reason or another. Aid. Newman stated that Dave did not necessarily insist on being in the downtown area and • would have settled in a neighborhood location because he feels his restaurant fits the neighborhood style. He reminded the Committee the their choices were limited in order to stay in Evanston. Aid. Engelman asked for explanation on the difference in the way the new location wiq be appointed between what Dave currently has. Mr. Henson explained what would be required to renovate the new location due to being a basement area. He said Mr. Glatt requested to try and keep within same aura or feeling of the current location so they used some of the same materials and design. He stressed the difference in the location sizings has a lot to do with the cost in relocating the restaurant and trying to stay within the same atmosphere and character of the original location. Aid. Newman questioned the comparability of current kitchen equipment, tables, booths, quality of location, etc. versus what is being purchased to install in the new location. Mr. Robinson responded that the proposed location on Chicago Avenue is as close to the current location as possible with what is available in the downtown area, as well as all of Evanston. He admitted that he does not have the construction expertise to state that all the line items are within a reasonable cost for the merchandise listed or if they can reasonably be compared to what Dave current is using. He did comment on the quaity of the booths in his current location compared to the new booths ordered which v►ill be custom made versus the construction of the existing which is of less eminence. Mr. Henson explained that the current booths will be unusable in the new location so they had to look for something that would fit into the design of the new location as well as trying to keep within the original aura. Mr. Glatt feels that he has been put in a "catch 22" a P&D Committee Mtg. Minutes of 1/10/00 Page 10 situation realizing the cost involved to renovate the space on Chicago Avenue but also • realizing the minimal choices in relocation spaces within the City of Evanston. He noted that all needs to be taken into consideration regarding the new location being b2sement space, the different configuration compared to what he currently has, renovation of the venting system, etc. He recognizes being off in expense cost estimation from the original figures but admits that he is not an architect or construction specialist and did not realize all that would be required. He informed the Committee that he had requested to hire a consultant back in the spring when they originally tried to estimate the cost of relocation, but he was unable to do so. The Committee agreed that there is a sense of need to finalize the amount of relocation expense for Dave's Italian Kitchen, noting the length of time that has been spent sew far on this matter. The Committee summarized the amount and figures of the itemized list supplied by the consultant. Mr. Robinson suggested that a cap amount be decided on once and for all, so that Dave has a final figure to work with. Ald. Engelman said that he was under the impression that these figures were taken from the comparison of contractor bids received. Mr. Henson explained that the itemized list and figures are their . estimations as experienced architects and construction consultants. He said that this list actually makes it easier for the contractors to bid on because it gives them some idea of what is being requested and trying to stay within or less than the figures listed. Discussion of the renovation schedule was discussed. Mr. Henson said that their plans have already been submitted to the City so work can begin as soon as all approvals have been received. He estimated a 12-week construction and renovation schedule. Ald. Newman insisted that top priority be given to move as quickly as possible on this project without any delays. Mr. Henson assured this to be possible. After discussion of the itemized line items and the noted expenses in stairs memorandum, the Committee came to an agreement to cap the amount at $499.175. Ald. Engelman expressed his concern with the use of taxpayees money and the deliberations that have been given to this relocation case. He hoped Dave could work with this figure to eliminate anymore negotiations on cost or expenses involved in this relocation. Mr. Glatt responded that he also would like to come to closure with this issue and assured that he would make every effort to stay within this figure. Aid. Engelman reminded Mr. Glatt that all receipts and orders will have to be submitted the City for all payouts. Aid. Newman said in response to Aid. Engelman's comment, that this business has generated thousands of tax dollars for the City of Evanston and will continue to do so by remaining in the community. Aid. Wynne moved approval of a cap amount for relocation expenses for Dave's Italian Kitchen at S499,175, with renovation and Rork to begin upon approval of plans submitted and that the current property be vacated by June 1". Ald. Newman seconded this motion and the vote was 4-0 in favor. 0 • 0 P&D Commimm Nitg. Minutes of IIIGDO Page 11 ADJOURNMENT The meeting vas adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted,