The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 2001ARAFTNYOTAPPAOMD MItiUTES EVANSTON PL-XN COMMISSION Wednesday-, ja tuars• 10, 2001 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, Committee Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT.... Doraine Anderson. Richard Cook, Joseph Eatman. Sydney Grevas, David Hart, Steve Knutson, Ron Kobold. John Lyman, Kenneth Rodgers. MEMBERSABSENT............................................................................................................................ None ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT...............................Sharon Feigon. Nettie Johnson, Jeanne Lindwall ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT........................................................................................ Ann Dienner, STAFFPRESENT.......................................................................................................................Jay Larson PRESIDING................................................................................................................... John Lyman, Chair GUESTS.................................................................................................................................. James Murray I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:04 p.m. A quorum %%•as present. II. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2000. Commission Member Doraine Anderson took exception to a statement in the minutes that a referred to an "informal liaison" relationship between the Plan Commission and the Planning and Development Committee. Ms. Anderson believes that "informal liaison" implies a more casual relationship than the job deserves. Commission Member Sydney Grevas suggested that the word "informal" be struck. The Commission agreed. The November 8 minutes were approved with corrections. III. NEW BUSINESS: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC IfEARING CASE ZPC 01-01 M&T: The applicant pennons to remap the following indicated area from the R-S General Residential District into an Industrial District or other appropriate zoning district. The applicant further petitions to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance so that -TRANSPORTATION CENTER" is a listed permitted use in the 12, General Industrial District or other appropriate zoning district into which the City finds appropriate the rezoning of the following indicated arcs or that -TRANSPORTATION CENTER" be otherwise listed as an allowed use Within the 12. General Industrial District or other appropriate zoning district into which the Cit} finds appropriate the rezoning of the following indicated um The applicant requests that the land use "TRANSPORTATION CENTER" includes the operation of a pri%ate axis business, depot and terminal. The properties that arc the subject of this Plan Commission hearing comprise. more or less, all properties formicr commonly known as the Mayfair Right -of -Way between the south line of Foster A%enuc and the north line of Emerson Street. Plan Commission Chair John Lyman opened the case and recognized James Murray who is representing the applicant. Mr. Murray asked that the petition be continued until the next meeting so that the petitioner D•aff ►OT .apprm'ed E% NSTON PLAN CONWISS1ON I ]anuan• 10. 2001 PAGE 2 can improve the application. The Commission voted 9-0 to continue the case until the next Plan Commission meeting. February 14. 2001 at 7:00 p.m. IN'. NEW BUSL`ESS: APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS TO THE PLAN COMMISSION Mr. Lyman introduced Jeanne Lindwall. his. Lindwall was appointed as a new Associate Member of the Plan Commission during the December 13, 2000 meeting of the Plan Commission. Nis. Anderson moved that Ann Dienner. Sharon Feigon. and Nettie Johnson be reappointed to the Plan Commission for another year. Plan Commission Member David Hart seconded the motion. The motion was approved 9-0. V. NEW BUSINESS: 2001 PLAN COMMISSION RETREAT Mr. Lyman announced that the Plan Commission retreat will be held on January 31 at 6:00 p.m. at the Civic Center in the Aldermanic Library. Mr. Lyman said that the retreat will give members an opportunity to discuss the Plan Commission's goals and workplan for the rest of the year. He suggested that members read the retreat minutes from 2000 and come with their ideas for discussion. A meal will be served. VL ANNOUNCEMENTS Sir. Lyman announced that this is Ron Kobolds last meeting as a Plan Commission member. He thanked Mr. Kobold for his many years of service as an associate member, then member, and chair of the Commission. Mr. Lyman presented Mr. Kobold with a plaque. Mr. Lyman announced that Lawrence Widmayer has been approved as Mr. Kobold's replacement. Mr. Lyman also took this opportunity to Thank Nis. Grevas for her hard work and leadership as Plan Commission Chair over the last year. Finally, Mr. Lyman reminded Commission members that conversations on pending zoning issues outside of a public hearing could be considered prejudicial. He also reminded members that if they have a financial interest in a property or party involved in a zoning case, they are not allowed to discuss or vote on the case. VII. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS * Binding Appearance Review Richard Cook, Chair of the Binding Appearance Review Committee. stated that the Planning and Development Committee has asked the Plan Commission to suggest standards for binding appearance review. Mr. Cook stated that the Committee will meet on February 2. Jeanne Lindwall volunteered to also be on this Committee. • Neighborhood Planning Neighborhood Planning Committee Chair. John Lyman, stated that the Committee had met that morning and discussed a number of issues that are on its agenda. Turnout for the meeting was good. Property owners within 500 feet of the Main Street B-3 district had been notified and a number of them had attended the meeting. The first issue discussed was the B-3 zoning districts. It was decided that the Drgh NOT.3pproved EVA.NSTON PL.A.N COMMISSION I January 10. 2001 PAGE 3 Committee should concentrate its efforts on the area west of the Metra tracks to Sherman even though there was some pressure from the public in attendance to extend the study east of Chicago Avenue. There were also diverse opinions from those in the audience on what should be done with the B-3 area. Mr. Lyman also stated that he and Susan Guderley met with Alderman Kent to discuss a planning effort in the triangle effort that is bounded by Green Bay Rd., the canal and Emerson. Mr. Lyman said that Alderman Kent was supportive of such an effort and requested that neighborhood meetings should be held on Thursday evenings. Mr. Lyman stated that he thinks the effort should start with an introductory meeting were local residents and community groups state the strengths and weaknesses that they see in the area. A number of members in the audience who live in or near this area stated that it was important to not tell them what should be done with their neighborhood, but build on some of the good work that they have already done. A sign-up sheet was passed around so that these audience members could be contacted when the planning effort begins. • Zoning The Chair of the Zoning Committee, Doraine Anderson, stated that on December 14, Zoning held its last meeting with her as Chair. At this meeting She, Steve Knutson, staff, and Ron Naylor from Northwestern University meet with Alderman Engelman to discuss his reference. They discussed the suitability of churches in certain commercial areas and the appropriateness of other non -profits also. Mr. Lyman thanked Ms. Anderson for the hard work that she has put in as Chair of the Zoning Committee over the last several years. • Community Development Kenneth Rodgers, liaison to the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Fund Commission, reported that the last meeting was held in conjunction with the Housing Commission to listen to an audio - conference on affordable housing. Minutes of this meeting will be distributed at the next Plan Commission meeting. Economic Development Sydney Grevas, liaison to the Economic Development Committee, reported that the Iast EDC meeting was held at the same time as Plan Commission so she was not able to attend. From the EDC minute she was able to report that the Mainamet Newstand will be open at the end of the month. There was also a great deal of discussion about the Fagade Improvement Program that has previously been funded through CDBG but may be funded through economic development funds this year. There was also a presentation by the Evanston Convention and Visitors Bureau. • Parking Richard Cook, liaison to the Parking Committee, stated that the last couple Parking Committee meetings dealt solely with the impact of the new Cook County parking tax and how the City will deal with it. Mr. Cook reported that a memo to the Parking Committee from the Plan Commission on off-street parking has been sent. He said the Committee should be able to take up the issue at their next meeting. 0 Planning and Development >gfrsor:(ppw ed E%WNSTO PLAIN COSMISSION I Januarti 10. 2001 PAGE 4 Ms. Anderson, liaison to the Planning and Development Committee, reported that the Planning and Development Committee considered restaurants in UI districts and then held it in Committee to wait for further information. The 1,000 foot parking in U districts has not yet come to P&D. The Committee also discussed using administrative adjudication for building cases coming from the Community Development Department. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 8:45 p.m. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, February 7, 2001 Jay Meson, General Planner Draft, NOT APPROVED MLS`iTES EV.= NSTON P? -'CN CO.WMISSION RETREAT Ja.-_Lmry :.. 2001 6:40 p.m. Evanszcm Cu..c Ce=-xr. AJder=anic Library MEMBERS PRESENT.... Doraine .Ariimor Rica.-d C000k.;oseph Eatrnm Sydney Grevas. David Hatt. Steve Kr:=.soc. John Lyzna.-i. Kenneth Rodgers. Larry Widmayer MEMBERS.ABSE\-f...................................................__...................................................................... None ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ........ Am D:nc:,. Sha-xn Fetgon. Nenie Johnson Jeanne Lindwall ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSE\`T .......................................,...........................................................None STAFF PRESE*%7............................................. Jud-- Aiello. Arthur.Altersan. Susan Guderley, Jay Larson. Dennis Marino, Marc Mylott, Jim Wolinski PRESIDING........................................................... .................. ._.................................... John Lyman, Chair I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUOR"I The meeting was called to order b.. Johr Lr==L Chair of the Evanston PIan Commission. at approximately 6:11 p.m. A quorum was present_ it. INTRODUCTION OF NEW 1iEMBER Mr. Lyman introduced Lain• Widmayer as the latest appointee to the Plan Commission. The Commission welcomed him warmly. M. NEW BUSINESS: RETREAT GOAL SE I ILNG Mr. Lyman called the member's attention to a :-aff ax-mo that had been distributed on the status of current and proposed development. A n=ber of quc--nons came from Commission members about these developments that were addressed by staff. Mr. Lyman pointed out the readings that mere d.stnbc :ed m the packet, particularly the short article on how planning commissions prepare for f_-.are ch=" He asked members whether they believed that the Commission has been proactive or reactiv e in its acti-c-is..A eene:al discussion on the topic took place with many members stating the opinion that in zonmg matters the Commission has been necessarily reactive, but in many other areas the Corr: nission has leer. proac-zive. Specific instances of proactive measures were the binding; appearance rrS3ew e5orL to C'mcago .Avenue planning process, the Howard Street planning process and most Neighbo-hood Plan:.mg Comm_ --ace activities in general Mr. Lyman asked how the Plan Commission could encoirr2e needed development instead of reacting to ni plans as they are presented from the outside. Coruss.an r:xmber Doraine Anderson stated that parking standards for the entire city need to be reconsidered- She asked w hm this issue was in relation to the Parking Committee. Richard Cook. Plan Commission lizison to the Parking Committee, stated that the =\ N 70N PLAN .lit Lar- 1. tiX,I PAGE P:I:'t:I lE 1•:�:.w..-.�. .'.i- tzpe : the .I.'ti'. :C'.V .:iCw'.11P.�1 tli'$: U: h. :1C 1.:lllrr� E ne'x :•izr1-nz t1Y 1:Ii,::;L:, nOI :t--:: i --ie ,. _ k . a- tither ail,: : k eras :111SCLS:- d th.:. 155L: Ut :. ott-le- Mtr: LfC.. ire t- M-.._:nee =-)d or -sue: n'L anz V•:i.:'+C 'Ir the:r -,Icx: --7eer'n: fitter m - ?'.zu'or ="y the =.a 1m1r; ittn tr cink a::i r}: r, as .1 the mid fear coil.: -sz tha:par.==, s iz,-•. wl-,. 'ur. 'Mc!r,:.`\ tv -,aII-,Isuto rw:. Tl ; ;ollo a ed r.:h ar_ C?C:L'.MS-1-e scu4,;:nr. Cn :Irc_latiar. Laid :tau=_c Line itnv% tt -elates :a pul-cam_ Mr. L-.:narc sated -hat 1t:IprIVI ._ nrrk:ng and S:IoultL n; i:;t_w .us goa:.= for :pit P!uir. Corm>:niss:."In %Is..1%tiderm,n ;.;c wou?-w 'like tt• ,= the 1: i . r. a-ke iL!4Lesrt:lns ri.1 the (_^TA to r-eopem the Sk-oiew Sw aft sta.won a: Dod_ a and -=vnt! uutw a: ic.iace. P`.rn �embe. Sydney Cr-r%•as : sked how :he P`•.----i Co•-=-;.slon :t uld love an n moil : or opem- g a C : A irutlon. 1ny L.L!-son, Gener-1 Planner. that a oc_;d be ::npov Cant it-. :u•st L,.••::hi:- tsr,^.ti,e:t into, the RrQonud Tr-mspo ation Plan.:hen r. is a mam= of i`-id,,inr the -seed and the desirrr f,7r tnc i<:r.7cr. Denn1_i Marino. A-;sistart Director f.-rr Pla=inu. wi.j- tha: not e-.:none warts a tt"=is:t izmmun ir. =1+ or her ne%E-' �orht:10d. He said that Lie Al6cr= U,ot:icir alit.. need to be : orisLlted on her ot`s� � \,L L %•m= sugrTzsted their tms issue coved bK ' nwd o,,rr to ti: - Neighbor4icood Plane.i fig Cor..;,.ntic» sa -tna: ti tr \ coc..:,d ga• a lo=) optimon. Aswi; rate Niemc+rr tie:ne Johnson asked If to Pl= C an= ssior= couhd meer with :he Alderrr~..-i to discuss ideals for :be fury e. Ms. Tetgac stated tha: the Nan Co=isquon-imnLld look :o the ConTrrt!her4;n,c PLn to _et its avrk plan. Coe ;imis_ntin Liember Sieve I.nut-4:m itatwd dtur. :�e Plan'= Importanct! is shr.,ur b-. the referei;rts that are rnLidi: to it 2I pu4lic he:.rtn2s. Ass,:,.Iate twie±rttner 1c: Itttne L.mdwa l sutt;gesu:u that ' c pla.-:ntnr. staff shotiad use the Compr-.hens:\-e Plan as.1 guide to --hunr ucekplan. Plait Corr=issiec mernber Dz.id Hart stati:.� thai :he Compr.aem:ve pl= is ac.71—al rn L=Rien and that: --he C.omirLssion does not have the time io dl:, the =,-cessa . i-,=Ierrentatior_ He .utid=t. than :ne Celt Imli h,n ::i tietre at picking ubartmr, and lookrnt: a: -.hem _-omF-ehen3ivel� --nst=L: of'unA mu at su-;le cs.uses. Mr. NL rino -:3ted :hat t_- City Council hLzus req:�ested an a.^cival t o-.port .Iir wit: C or.,. ; Cher,s:\•e P' t r. FAr• s:u,� that '.is should ;,=ve is a gocte -or &.e Cir.:o rronitor •_re pre:fit.* --ni:: w to Plan :mplernenrarmn. Pl:m Cot.-:assioc: member Kennett. Rots live---5 u:tol:t ---it prtti wdiirr that the C.,-irnmis ion -ices Risen stlrr_mg a new p:anni g process. Eke askal.c ru►u pecinie ar` non6rd to :larnc-,pate in the p-oces& because it al,v,Ivc 5a .is tn.-, me-. &a, :hat t. kn .ii= . imwv .:1t1: th:.. a'a5 :lr.- .Aithur .Vice- -, Aszi15i:nI Dtr-rtor'_r. Zor.:ne. i:aied hat nor*'icartatt: t::ttz-:-s L., to ;roper -- of record in the area for e.�m zonate he: -mg. He added that thii etlor- :r iwvonc what :4 reyt: = i,j law +►1s. Fzleon stated the regi. red notitica-non not enou& She :slur- Ann. ncm-oa�-,ers ar:L� i•esi,aenti outsii-c of 500 few need to be not~aed a.Lw. %i-. L.r.: n stated th.al :he % iminor cood P! nnmt. Cornlmiazt: is working :o imzvove weir noc=icatirr, process % ::h tf c curre-: B-i d:sc:ussior.. He i:_id rh:,: norwtcan,:n nerds to ea"lier bu this tAL-t- a lot of steak ume..Lt, Anderson i:uic niu:.:grip the Chicazpo A ,,s-nw ;troce;; as an exa=ple. -.7=% peernie are n0ti::.d ML:IIple ---nCS Mi:. »tina ;r: at tie end Lnd ,:: dim zlut the•, didn' laioa anr--hmg abctx the r,-tee:; tit- Gre\ as sta:w.d that ,:lame pr::r-ienti C -anger, :-id nusire.;{ PCQ. +le arc too Busy to be able to fo: a -. en s.'ti\1 that := imim-, an arnu:u therm '\fir. LN...nr: that :rnpro\zng colwmluruc.ationi shoLid be listed 2.s a _tau. Iar it= P'ian C,:,-tmri_-,on. Ntr L\ra.-. asks: if :hcre Aas a rr,-)e for itic ?'tar. k;.ammiV.iion uc Holwurd Sweet. Judith Aiello,. Az&.,,=t Cir, Ma axer. za a are update on -ic er9u- xi a=ur. de.e;opens to Ef,aUartl Snve:- Mr. L%m= asked if the"• shoe.ld be a Plar. Conzmissioc ltat:tirrr. -a this Y =fort W. «v^.no tttnted that t:were might be a tine wh= a Plan Co-nnusslon liaison ail] br- Isc:lu. He said :�-,at at •_t1s nlmr the effor: conziist.s n-iostly infixTial .onvc: satiors devel-c-pees. c -firma: =isor -rlat e-r.shir. is nor. immr3iateiy necessar%_ E% 36ti5TON PLA% COMMISSION RETREAT Jwi=r; 3I. _(,ail PAGE 3 'sir. I.; . an asked how the Plan Commission could in, o:vcd in the Capital Improvement Program ICIPi \1s. Aiello said that %here iriLht be w'ays for ,-- Co:arms_:on to be involved. She explained that the City Co..:acil is being encouraged :o think strategtcaE.-. about capital needs for the city. There has been some discussion of doing a "Strategic plan for capita: _.;tpro•er: eni needs." \15. Grevas said that she had been ran of a group of 30 to 40 community member; -:ha% looked strategically at the City's long-term financial needs. She said that the City Council did no: want to Iook at the product of this effort and now- it is collecting dust. She believes that before the Plan Ctmura5sion puts effort into this topic, we should see if an!.one is interested in listening to us. Ms. Anderson suggested that a couple of Plan Commission :nemb<-rs should examine the plan that Ms. Grevas was referring to. Ms. Aiello suggested that the PIan Comrrassion draft a letter outlining its desires. Ms. Feigon asked about activity on the Dodge Avenue Comdor. Jim Wolinski. Director of Community Development. stated that there continues to be citywide interest to this area and it receives considerable attention from the City's Community Development Department. He said that Alderman Kent has purchased a property with the intent of putting a muw= in the area, the high school is beefing up :ecurin• in the area, and that there has been a lot of police activity in the area. Mr. Lyman stated that he had spoken to Aldermen Kent about this area as part of a discussion on the M E area. He said that Alderman Kent is concerned about affordable housing_ Mr. Wolinski stated that housing is under siege in the Church Dodge area. \ir. Rodgers told the Commission about the affordable housing audio conference that was presented at the Housing Commission meeting he attended. The Commission asked that minutes from that meeting should be distributed. \1s. Feigon stated her belief that the Pl---i Commission should consider affordable housing set asides such as Highland Park is doing. Ms. Lindwall added that Chicago is doing this in their T1F districts. MT. Lymw brought up the issue of teardowns and bull: regulations as were discussed during the retreat Iast May. Ndr. Alterson stated that he did not think that Evanston was having a particular problem with teardoums. Ms. Dienner stated that on this issue the Plat, Commission should be pro -active, not reactive. Mr. NL'olinski stated that the Planning and Development Committee looked at this issue last year and only found a few- instances of concern. Mr. LyTnan brought up another issue from the pre nou; year - groundfloor retail. He said that there is an issue when a building is required to put in groundfioor retail but the retail space put in is not really large enouch to be usable. The issue was referred to the Zoning Committee. Mr. Lyzran asked the Commission to make some deci.stons on topics for the next year's work plan. The Commission decided that: • The Commission should examine procedures that t: -uses for communicating with the public. • The Commission should monitor the development z:sorts on Howard Street and become involved as is necessan. • The Neighborhood Planning Committee should continue its examination of the B-3 zoning districts and pass the issue on to the Zoning Committee when ready. • The Neighborhood Planning Committee should continue its examination of the westside area bounded by the canal, Green Bay Road, and Emerson. This includes the M E zoning district located fi in &.c fth ward. • Oti=meet parking standards for all residential distrcts in Evanston should be examined as directed by the Parking Committee. D.mt vor.4PPROt ED EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION RETREAT lanuan-31. _(*1 PAGE d • Action on traffic and transit circulation issues should wait until a presentation from the RTA Downtown Circulation Study has been made. • The Commission should delay consideration of affordable housing issues to wait for input from the Housing Commission. • The Plan Commission should examine the long-term financial study that was completed a number of years ago by a citizens committee and then decide on necessary actions for being involved in the CIP. • The tear-do%vmbulk regulation issue has not yet been shown to be of great concern. • The Zoning Committee should consider the ground floor retail issue referred by the City Council. • A Plan Commission bus tour of the City should again be planned for this summer. • The Zoning Committee should examine build -to -lot -line requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. • The Design Guideline Committee ( formally known as the Binding Appearance Review Committee) should continue to re%zew and recommend appearance guidelines as was requested by the Planning and Development Committee. IV. ADJ0UR.N.NIEN T The Evanston Plan Commission retreat adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The Commission's next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. February 6.2001 Jay Larson, General Planner A1AF `11r'OTArrxOvjm MINUTES EV ANSTON PLAN COXVVISSION Wcdnesdav, February 14. ?001 / 7 :OU p.m. Evanston Ci,.ic Center, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT...............................Doraine Anderson, Richard Cook, Joseph Eatman, David Hart, Steve Knutson. John Lyman, Kenneth Rodgers, Lawrence Widmayer. MEMBERSABSENT.............................................................................................................Sydney Grevas ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT........ Ann Dienner. Sharon Feigon, Nettie Johnson, Jeanne Lindwall ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT..................................................................................................... None STAFF PRESENT................................................................... Arthur Alterson, Jay Larson, Dennis Marino PRESIDING.................................................................................................................... John Lynuut, Chair I. CALL TO ORDER I DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:04 p.m. A quorum was present. Plan Commission Chair John Lyman to ask Commission members of the March meeting could be held on March 7 instead of March 14. The Commission agreed. II. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 2001 AND PLAN COSIAHSSION RETREAT OF JANUARY 31, 2001. The Minutes of January 10 and January 31, 200I were approved without corrections. III. OLD BUSINESS: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from January 10,2001) CASE ,ZPC 01-01 %I&T: The applicant petitions to remap the following indicated area from the R-3 General Residential District into an Industrial District or other appropriate zoning distrim The applicant further petitions to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance so that" iRA`:SPORTATION CENTER" is a listed permitted use in the 0, General Industrial District or other appropriate zoning district into which the Cit} finds appropriate the rezoning of the following indicated area or that "TRANSPORTATION CEN-rM" be otherwise listed as an allowed use within the 12. Genera! Industrial District or other appropriate zoning district into which the City finds appropriate the rezoning of the following indicated area. The applicant requests that the land use "TRANSPORTATION CENTER" includes the operation of a pri%wc bus business. depot and terminal_ Thc properties that are the subject of this Plan Commission hearing comprise. more or less, all properties farina commonit kno► m as the tila} fair Right -of -Way between the south line of Foster A%cnuc and the north line of Emerson Street. Opened the case and asked for a representative of the petitioner to make the presentation. Mr. Lyman postponed the case until later in the meeting because the petitioner's representative was not yet in the room. Mr. Lyman later asked that the case be continued because of time. The Commission voted " to continue Case ZPC 0 1 -0 1 M&T until March 7. LMafi NOT Approled E%'ANSi'O\ PLAN COMMISSION / Feb. 14. 2001 PAGE 2 IV. 1ENN' BUSLNESS: ZONING ANIENWNIENT PUBLIC HEARING CASE ZPC 01-02 T An application by Evanston:Skokie School District 65 to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City. specifically amendments to Chapter 18. `Definitions," so that the definition of "educational institution — public- is expan3ed to include the administrative offices of a school district and other associated uses. Mr. Lyman opened the hearing and swore in those members of the audience who planned on malting comments on this case. Robert Best. representative of the Evanston,Skokie School District, presented the petitioner's request. Brian Jack from Cannon Design, the architect of the project, presented the project design and explained some of the changes that %ere made to accommodate the neighbors. Alice Axelrod from the Earle Childhood Program. Angela Johnson from Family Focus, and Marla Israel, the Early Childhood/School-Age Child Coordinator, all explained why this facility was necessary for their programs. Tim Doran outlined the traffic circulation system that will be put in place so that there will be minimal traffic impact on the surrounding areas. Finally, Steve Lennon, a planning consultant, explained how this project relates to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Best and Mr. Lennon both argued that many land uses that are permitted in an "Open Space" designation would have a greater impact on the neighbodwod than the addition of administrative offices. itary Erickson from the District 65 Building Committer argued that this arrangement is the most efficient way for the school district to provide necessary facilities to the public. A number of Evanston residents who live near the proposed project spoke against the amendment. Statements made included complaints that their neighborhood had previously been damaged by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District during deep tunnel construction, concerns that the local sidewalk and roadway infrastructure would not accommodate the increases in traffic, and anxiety about potential pollution and flooding problems. The Commission asked both the supporters of the petition and those opposed questions about their testimony. Finally, Mr. Lyman closed testimony for the Commission to discuss amendment. The Commission discussion centered on issues of protecting limit openspace and whether this was a reasonable ianduse considering the other uses allowable in an Open Space" district. Arthur Alterson, Zoning Administrator, suggested some alternative language for an amendment that was somewhat more restrictive than that proposed by the school district. David Man moved that the Commission adopt Mr. Aiterson's language. Richard Cook seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 7-1 vote with Commission Member Steve Knutson voting nay. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the Plan Commission case ZPC 01-02 T is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division The Zoning Division is located in Roost 3'00 of the Evanston Chic Center. V. COWMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Richard Cook, Chair of the Binding Appearance Review Committee, stated that they have not yet met because research is still taking place. • Neigbborbood Planning Neighborhood Planning Committee Chair, John Lyman. stated that the Committee has now met three times with residents about B-3 zoning districts on Main Street. The Committee had first decided that it should concentrate its efforts on the area west of the Sletra tracks to Sherman. Mr. Lyman said that there Lw, : %or tpry,,wmed EVANSTON PL.kN CONWISS10` ' Feb. 14. 2M 1 PAGE has been inctrasing pressure from residents of the area for the Committee to extend the study east of Chicago Avenue. Mr. Lyman said that even on dn- ues-, side of Chicago Avenue, the residents believe that Main Street sbc%uld Lie considered as one unified cs:rridoc and treated that way. The Neighborhood Planning Committee had discussed this extension.. A m; ioriry of the Committee thought that an extension could be alright. %ir. Lynnan stated that not evervDne co the Committee agreed, Mr. Lyman asked the Commission if the} would agree to this expansion of the study. Mr. Cook said that he would be hesitant to agree w this study expansion. He felt that this coWd lead to a decrease in height and he does not support decreas�ing building height in Evanston. Commission member Steve Knutson said that he believes that questions involved with the B-3 district east of Chicago Avenue were answered during the Chicago Avenue study. He believes that reopening discussion on these questions would be breaking one of the agreements that were made between the parties involved in the Chicago Avenue planning process. A number of rr=n bers disagreed that all the questions had been answered. They stated that a limited focused effort in this area was called for. Mr. Lyman asked for a sense of the Commission. Cook, Knutson, and Commission member La%rence Widmayer stated their disagreement_ The others members of the Commission afio %ere present stated their approval to a limited examination of the 13-3 issues on Main Street East of the Metra tracks as part of the effort that is currently taking place West of the Metra tracks Mr. Lyman also stated that either of the Plan Commissioc or the Parking Committee needs to get serious about ways to provide incentives to developers to eacour$ge them to provide public parking beyond that which they are already required to provide to take cart of their own needs. It was suggested that Richard Cook add this item to his list of items that he takes w the Parking Committee. • Zoning The Chair of the Zoning Committee, Steve KnutsorL stated that based on recent legal opinions the Zoning Committee would probably not go ahead with any a, bon to further restrict churches and other not -for - prof s from certain arras of the city. • Community Development Kenneth Dodgers, liaison to the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Fund Committee, stated that there was nothing to report. • IEronomk Development Sydney Grevas was not at the meeting to report on EDC. • Par•Idng Richard Cook, liaison to the Parking Committee. stared than the last couple Parking Committee meetings dealt solely with the impact of the new Cook County parkir,.g tar and how the City will deal with it. Mr. Cook reported that a memo to the Parking Committee from tine Plan Commission on off-street parking has been sent. He said the Committee should be able w take up the issue at their next meeting. • Planning and Development Doraine Anderson, liaison to the Planning and Developmen: Committee, reported that P&D dealt with a number of issues at their last meeting including: the Evanston Athletic Club Expansion, Restaurants in the E NSTON PL.kN COSMISsiox I Feb. 14. MI PAGE 4 1.:1 Vistr:t= Mt. Zion MB Churca. Amendments to Yard Definitions for Fences, and I511 Monroe: 6 Dumlex Manned Developm=t fcr Sch%ind's Grecnhouse: VE. A.NNOUNCEA'LYIN Mr. a ymmn announced that Jay Larsen would be leaving the Evanston Planning Division as of the end of Febrnmv. Commission members u ished him well. VM- ADJOURNMENT Mw-I svw atou Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 11-{0 p.m. The Commission's next meeting is srbedlulc& for Wednesday, March 7, 2001 at 7:00 pin. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. RcW=: Illg, submitted, February 20, 2001 ]ley tmrsom. General Planner EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday. ".larch 7. 2001 /7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center. Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT.. ............................. Doraine Anderson. Richard Cook. Joseph Eatman. Sydney Grevas. John Lyman. Kenneth Rodgers. Lawrence Widmayer MEMBERS ABSENT...............................................................................................David Hart ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ............... Ann Dienncr, Sharon Feigon, Nettie Johnson, Jeanne Lindwall ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT.................................................................. Steve Knutson STAFF PRESENT ................ Arthur Alterson. Dennis Marino. James Wolinski. Mary Baaske PRESIDING..................................................................................................John Lvman. Chair 1. CALL TO ORDEWDECLARATION OF QUORUM John Lyman called the meeting io order at 7 p.m.. a quorum being present. 11. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2001 The minutes of February 14, 2001 were approved without correction. III. OLD BUSINESS: ZONING AXIENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from February 14, 2001) .4 ~verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the Plan Commission case ZPC 01 dll 4l& T is on file with the Etiansion Zoning Division The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. CASE ZPC 01-01 M&T: The applicant petitions to remap the folio -wing indicated area from the R-3 General Residential District into an Industrial District or other appropriate zoning district. The applicant further petitions to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance so that "TRANSPORTATION CENTER" is a listed permitted use in the 12. General Industrial District or other appropriate zoning district into which the City finds Plan Commission Minutes - March 7. 2001 Pave Two appropriate the rezoning of the folloN,-ing indicated area, or that TRANSPORTATION CENTER" be otherwise listed as an allowed use within the 12. General Industrial District or other appropriate zoning district into which the City finds appropriate the rezoning of the following indicated area. The applicant requests that the land use "TR.4\'SPORTATIO�` CENTER" includes the operation of a private bus business, depot and terminal. The properties that are subject of this Plan Commission hearing comprise, more or less, all properties formerly commonly known as the Mayfair Right -of -Way between the south line of Foster Avenue and the north line of Emerson Street. Mr. Lyman opened the meeting and swore in those members of the audience who planned on making comments on this case. Arthur Alterson read notice ZPC 01-01 M&T. Jaynes Murray, attorney and representative of Robinson's Bus Company presented the petitioner's request. Leon Robinson Jr.. manager of Robinson's Bus Company said that he o%ned Robinson's Bus Company for thirty-three years and sold it two years ago. He explained that he is now the manager and agent for National Express, the company that bought Robinson's Bus Company. He presented his plans for converting the property commonly known as the "Mayfair Right -of -Way" to a parking lot for his employees. Steve Lennet, landscape architect and urban planner conducted an urban planning and study of the vicinity around the Mayfair right ofway between the intersecting streets of Emerson and Foster. He stated that he reviewed the existing land uses and zoning in and around the subject property to determine the appropriateness of the proposal before the Plan Commission this evening. After reviewing the size and shape of the subject property. he came to the conclusion that it has limited utilization. Nir. Lennet added that from a planning; and zoning standpoint, the use of this property as presented tonight would have no adverse impact on the use or enjoyment of other properties in the area. He stated that Mr. Robinson's plan would provide a far better neighborhood circulation system then has existed prior to the utilization of the lot. Arthur Alterson stated, as a point of clarification. that while the ultimate details are the most important thing, what is before the Plan Commission tonight is a hearing on a map amendment to I2 and a text change to the definition of Transportation Center. _ Francis S. Lorenz, Jr.. MAI, a professional real estate appraiser. said that he examined the follo«ing: site plan, aerial photograph (exhibits 9 and 10), the Sid%vell me, maps, visited the site on a number of occasions, inspected the property surrounding the subject _ property. reviewed the intended use of the subject property and its intended design, reviewed traffic flow and security facilities, paving and lighting. the zoning ordinance of the City- of Evanston and the Comprehensive General Plan adopted May 2000. He concluded that residential development on the site was not very practical and certainly PIan Commission Minutes - March 7. 2001 Paae Three not economical. fir. Lorenz Jr., said that his conclusion is that the: proposed use along with the changes to the text and the zoning map of the Cite of Evanston will not have a dilatorius effect on the surrounding property values. He said that getting the employees cars off the street would provide more parking for the area residents. Mr. Alterson stated that should the City Council ultimately grant the petition for an amendment to the map and to the text there is no vehicle for placing conditions on that amendment for an operational behavior or consolidation of the parcel into one tax parcel. A number of Evanston residents who live near the proposed project spoke against the proposed amendment. Area residents Jerome Summers, Murda Rumboldt, Betty Palmer, Tina Galbret. Roberta Hudson, Harris Hudson. Celest Burke. and Lonnie Mohammad expressed their opposition to the proposed amendment. Roberta Hudson. Coordinator for Foster Park Neighbors read a letter sent to Arthur Alterson. Zoning Coordinator by the Foster Park Neighbors. Evanston Westside District Council. Evanston Westside Residents Association. Fleetwood Jourdain Art Guild, and the Friends of Black American Heritage House. Concerns included fumes from forty buses (especially in the winter when they idle all night), health risks. safety of children, deterioration of the neighborhood. decline of property values, and increase of traffic. Betty Palmer read a letter written to the Plan Commission from the Evanston Westside Citizens District Council. Foster Park Neighbors. Community Awareness Block Club. Evanston Westside Residents Association Fleetwood-Jourdain Art Guild. Friends of Black American Heritage House 5`h Ward Residents opposing the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Marcus Butler. employee of Robinson Bus Service said that part of his responsibility %vas environmental compliance. The Company uses reduced sulfur fuel diesel that the company is required to buy by law. By the year 2006 diesel fuel manufacturers will be required to reduce sulfur even further, and engine manufacturers will be required to build cleaner burning engines. Reverend James Wade of Ebenezer AME Church said that this project does impact Ebenezer Church. He said that a 76-unit low-income senior residential facility would be opening on the comer of Dewey and Emerson. Ebenezer Church is hoping to use this proposed parking lot for visitors to the senior facility. There are also occasions when Ebenezer Church takes children to the tot lot and uses a mini van. The proposed parking lot would be an ideal place to park the van because of its closeness to the tot lot. Doraine Anderson moved that the former Mayfair Right -of -Way under consideration tonight stay zoned R5. Motion seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Plan Commission Minutes - March 7. 2001 Paee Four Doraine Anderson moved that the word -public" remain in the definition of "Public Transportation Center". Motion seconded. Motion passed 7-0 Discussion by the Commission indicated that the petitioner could consider ways to implement a portion of his plans to pro,. ide parking on the subject property within the framework of the R-S zoning if he were to eliminate bus parking, reduce car parking to the southern portion of the parcel abutting Emerson. devote a substantial portion of the property to green space or residential. and avoid the exiting of traffic onto Foster. + Binding Appearance Committee Richard Cook stated the Binding Appearance Committee had nothing to report. The next meeting will be March 28 at 8 a.m. • Community Development Committee Kenneth Rodgers, liaison to the Housing and Community Development Act Committee had nothing to report. • Economic Development Committee Sydney Grevas liaison to the Economic Development Committee. reported that the Evanston Convention Bureau attended the Economic Development Committee and gave their %early update on the work they are doing and what they are accomplishing. There was also a presentation by the new executive director of Evmark on what is happening in the do►%mto%-n. Judy Aiello gave an update on Klutznick project. There is a new residential tower being proposed on Ridge. • Parking Committee Richard Cook liaison to the Parking Committee. stated that there have been complaints and comments about the new west wall of the parking structure. A firm will be hired to do something to improve the western face of that structure. The Parking Committee has also been revie%%ing minimum parking requirements for multi -family structures. They are considering incentives to the private sector to provide public parking. They are also considering «Titing an RFP for some city parking lots to consider possible development, including public parking. Plan Commission Minutes - March "r. 3001 Pace Five • Planning and Development Committee Doraine Anderson. liaison to the Planning and Development Committee. reported that P&D dealt with a number of issues at their last meeting including: variances for 1723 Benson Street (a building on the north side of the Evanston Athletic Club). Nvere held over until ,larch I2; amendment to the ordinance on the public education institution was also held to March 12; Type I streets and fences passed 4-1. • Neighborhood Planning There is a meeting on March 8 and it %%ill focus on the Chicago Avenue - Main Street intersection area. West of the tracks .%ill be handled first and then a discussion of east of the tracks will be held. IV. ADJOUILtiMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 11:20 p.m. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. April 11, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in room 240?? Respectfully submitted Mari' aaske Executive Secretary Planning Division Community Development Department D&4FrNOTArFaovjm MINI.'TES EVANSTO PL-XN COMMiISSION Wednesday, April it, 2001 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT.......................................................Doraine Anderson, Sydney Grevas, David Hart Steve Knutson, John Lyman, Kenneth Rodgers, Lawrence Widmayer. MEMBERS ABSENT.....................................................................................Joseph Eatman, Richard Cook ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT..................................Ann Dienner, Sharon Feigon, Jeanne Lindwall ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT......................................................................................Nettie Johnson STAFF PRESENT..........................................................Arthur Alterson, Susan Guderley, James Wolinski PRESIDING.................................................................................................................... John Lyman, Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:08 p.m. A quorum was present. 11. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 7, 200I. The Minutes of March 7, 2001 were approved as corrected. IIL NEW BUSINESS: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING CASE ZPC 01-03-T: The applicant petitions to consider amendments to Chapter 4. 'feaesal Provisions". Chapter I& 'Definitions". Chapter 3. -Implementation and Administration". and any other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance- to amend the regulations, requirements and nnuictions of the Zoning Ordinance as these relate to antennas. Mr. Lyman opened the hearing and swore in Mr. Avi Segev, whom Arthur Alterson had invited as a professional in the field. Arthur Alterson explained that there were two exhibits for the commission members to consider. Exhibit 01 was the staff narrative report, which included, as attachments, a copy of the federal regulations enKled pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and articles related to satellite broadcasts, technology and regulatory issues. Exhibit 42 consisted of pictorial display of antennae and satellite dish installations in and around the Cite of Evanston. Arthur Aherson began the discussion by noting that the Zoning Committee had completed its study of the discrepancy between the City's zoning code and federal regulations the prior fall. Federal regulations, issued pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, prohibit any local government, homeowners' associatiom or landlord from preventing the erection. maintenance, or use of a satellite dish less than one Drab %'07'Appj-m ed E`` NSTON PL ail COMMISSION I .May 3. 2001 PAGE 2 meter in diameter or antennae, or from enacting regulations that would impair or unreasonably delay the maintenance. increase the cost, or preclude the reception of a quality signal. The staff report notes that the City's current zoning regulations, which require the mounting of all satellite dishes on a separate pole in a rear yard and which forbid their installation on S building, would render all of the examples shown in Exhibit 42 non -conforming. The intent of this zoning hearing is to amend the City's current zoning code to be in compliance with federal regulations. Staff proposes that this be accomplished by entering language in two sections of the City's code stating that the regulations are not applicable to any antennae protected by the federal preemption of local zoning authority. As federal regulations are currently worded, this would still require satellite dishes larger than one meter in diameter would continue to be subject to regulation by the City. The Commission asked Mr. Segev why anyone would still want to install a large dish, particularly since they are not exempt by the Federal Act from local zoning regulations. N1r. Seger explained that small satellite dishes and direct TV service mimic cable company service. These make up, by far, the largest segment of new telecommunication installations. However, for persons wishing to receive direct satellite signals for live news, foreign reception or to download information, large dishes are still requested. These types of installations are not exempt from local regulations and require a building permit to erect. Mr. Alterson noted that the City's present regulations have been in effect since 1993. Staffs proposed language would only change the application of the City's telecommunication regulations to those dishes and antennae that are protected from local regulation by the Federal Act. Mr. Segev was asked whether the City should anticipate further decreases in the size of satellite dishes. He stated that these would not begetting smaller in the foreseeable future. Instead, their shape is expected to become more oval as they incorporate 2-way transmission capabilities and Internet, telephone and GPS services. In his opinion, they might become somewhat larger in size. He estimated a 1.5-meter diameter as a possibility. Responding to this observation, the commissioners asked whether the City's proposed amendment should be worded to anticipate these slightly larger dishes, rather than the current federal size limit of i meter. Mr. Segev stated that it is unlikely that the Telecommunications Act will be revised to accommodate larger dishes. The current federal exemption was targeted for small installations and basic direct TV service. Mr. Lyman closed testimony for the Commission to discuss amendment. After some discussion, it was agreed that Arthur Alterson's suggested language would adequately comply with the current federal regulations, as well as accommodate any future amendments to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Mr. Hari moved to adopt Mr. Alterson's proposed language. Mr. Rogers seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the Plug Commission case ZPC 01-02 T is on fife with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3-00 of the Evanston Civic Center. IV. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review David Hart of the Binding Appearance Review Committee, stated that they have met and that Marc Mylott has drafted some preliminary standards for review. Work is expected to continue in committee for the foreseeable future. 0 Zoning Draft NOT'Approwd EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION t May 3, 2001 PAGE 3 The Chair of the Zoning Committee. Steve Knutson, stated that the committee had not met in the prior month, but that its members would be meeting jointly with those of the Neighborhood Committee to listen to neighborhood input on the B3 zoning in the ChicagoTtain area. Other matters before or on their way to the committee include: a referral from Alderman Moran to look at reducing the maximum height in B2 on Central Street from 45 to 40 feet; reviewing parking requirements city-wide; B3 zoning in the Chicago/Main neighborhood, if referred by the Plan Commission; and a possible referral by Alderman Kent to consider changing R4 and R5 General Residential zoning to R3 Two -Family Zoning in the Se' Ward. Jim Wolinski suggested that the Commission request their Parking Committee liaison, Richard Cook. to inquire about that committee's time frame for reviewing parking requirements city-wide. Although there was agreement that there is a need to coordinate with the Parking Committee, concern was expressed about the growing number of developments proposed in the City for which parking will have major community impact. • Neighborhood Planning Neighborhood Planning Committee Chair, John Lyman, stated that the Zoning Committee would be joining them at their next meeting to listen to community stakeholders' statements on recommended changes to B3 zoning in the Main Street/Chicago Avenue neighborhood. He informed the Commission that a moratorium on B3 development on Main Street, proposed by Alderman Berstein and Alderman Wynne, was introduced to Council and referred back to the Planning and Development Committee. As currently phrased, the moratorium would prohibit new development greater than 37 feet in height west of the Metra tracks and greater than 60 feet east of the tracks. The contract purchasers of the present Great Bank building also spoke before the Planning and Development Committee. They discussed their plans for the property and expressed their concern that the proposed moratorium would now prohibit them from proceeding with their project, which will be 67 feet in height. He stated that the Neighborhood Committee is hoping that its next discussions on B3 zoning can inform future council discussion and action regarding the moratorium. The other issue discussed at the PIanning and Development Committee was the status of the development on the James Flannagan property on the southeast comer of the Main/Chicago intersection. Mr. Lyman also stated that he had spoken with Alderman Kent who is anxious for the Committee to begin working on the area around the MUE District. He had told him that work on B3 would have to first be completed. • Community Development Kenneth Rodgers, liaison to the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Fund Committee, reported that they had approved funding for two neighborhood projects. The first was for the installation of a police camera at the corner of Dewey and Simpson. The second was the purchase of replacement planters for the Southeast Evanston Citizen Planning Committee in the Howard Street area. Economic Development Alderman Feldman has been out of town and the meeting cancelled. • Parking Richard Cook, liaison to the Parking Committee, was absent. • Planning and Development brajr ,%'UT'.-�pFra%ed EVANSTO` PLAN COMMISSION /.%Ikv 3.2001 PAGE 4 Doraine Anderson, liaison to the Planning and Development Committee, reported that the committee had appro%ed two sidewalk cafe applications and discussed claims of off -site impact to neighboring homes from the Roszal: development on Chicago Avenue. Mr. Roszak has agreed to send a representative of his insurance firm to the sites to assess the potential for damage related to his construction project. Ms. Anderson noted that a Council decision on the School District building has been delayed until the next Sionda%. V. A-rNOUNCEMNTS Two Committees announced their upcoming meeting dates. Neighborhood will be meeting on April 12'b, and %lay 3`d. Zoning will join Neighborhood at its next meeting and meet on its ow-n May 10*. Jim Wolinski alerted the Commission members to discussions regarding the use of the Central Street theater building as a community performing arts center. The local arts community will be looking into the possibility of taking over the use of part or all of the building. A significant issue to be addressed is the necessity of fund raising for both building improvements and management. The owner of the theater has said that he can wait a couple of months for the groups to get organized and develop a plan of action. His alternative plan is to rent to a second run movie operation on a year -by -year basis VI. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 8:25 p.m. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 13, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, May 3, 2001 Susan Ot , , eigh rh Planner EV ANSTON PLAN COINLMISSION %lrN- 'TES Wednesda%. Stay 9. 200117:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center. Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT:.............................Doraine Anderson. Richard Cook, Joseph Eatman, Sydney Grevas, Steve Knutson, John Lyman, David Hart. Kenneth Rodgers. La%vrence Widmayer ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT: ............ Ann Dienner, Jeanne Lindwall, Sharon Feigon ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT..................................................................Nettie Johnson STAFF PRESS- 7............................................Dennis Marino. Marc Mylon, James Wolinski, Mary Baaske PRESIDING.................................... ..........................................................John Lyman. Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER/DECLARATION OF QUORUM John Lyman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.. a quorum being present. If. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2001 Ann Dienner said that she was not at the April meeting and the minutes listed her as present. With that correction the minutes were approved unanimously. John Lyman thanked Sidney Grevas and David Hart for their years of service on the Plan Commission. III[. CASE ZPC 01-04 ht & PD: An application by Richard Aaronson, manager of Evanston Realty Partners, LLC, with permission from Ben Randall. manager of Schmaltz, LLC, property owner, for an amendment to the City of Evanston Zoning Map and for a Planned Development. The applicant is the contract purchaser of the property commonly known as 1930 Ridge Avenue, located within the C2 Commercial Zoning District. The applicant requests that the City amend the Zoning District. The applicant requests that the City amend the Zoning Map referenced at Standard 6-7-2 "Zoning Map" of the Zoning Ordinance, to place the above mentioned property within the R6 General District in Evamgon Plan Commissior_ Min><:es - Ma% q. '_01 I Paae Two accord:,nce w,:th Se:.:jon -3--= -Amendments" FLxLher. the applicant requests that the Cit- g7',..-nt a p'annec sevicelopment as a forth of �-pecral use pursuant to the applicable subsections or Secu,:vns r..-3-5 -Special Uses". r-:-6-PIanned Developments", 6-8-1-10 Planned Developrnrents" Ewithin Residential C:stricts). and 6-8-7-3 "Special Uses" [Within the R6 Gent= --I 1<_esidential District]. ir_t ludmc such development allowances and other relief as may i_-w nt:t::vssar, to provide the applicant with the zoning relief necessary to allow the redevelcrpmemi, of 1930 Ridge ;avenue for multi -family residential with accessory strucnreti par1{_IIIg. Generally. the applit: mt proposes to construct in 1 1-story multi -family residential building south of, amid arm hed to, the existing iuildine. also, the applicant proposes to construct an addition_ to dux- existing building. T-ne addition would occupy the northeast corner of the subject prope.:rty: this area is currer,tly used for accessory surface parking for the multi -family resitdenniul use SpecifacallY. the prop asal .::ontains 205 dwellinu unit; whereas the Zoning Ordinance limits the densiTy wit tin thie R6 distinct to'_00 d-a,elling units (Section 6-8-74 C), 205 dwelling units require an J'7,000 sq. ft. lot %-hem-s the existing lot area is 85.185 sq. ft. Second. the proposed building lot coverage is aporoximatelr 62,080 sq. ft. or 77.88% ,whereas the Zoning Ordinance limits building coverage within the R6 district to 42.592.5 or 50" b (Sec.`tdon '-8-7-6). Third. the p", pos"d frcmt yard setback is 0 feet whereas the Zoning C►rdinaince requires a 2--foor setback %within the R6 district {Section 6-8-7-7 A 1). Fourth_ the proposed north side y-mod setback is 0 feet whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a ;-fors setback within the Rr dis;.~Ict c Section 6-8-7-7 A 3). Fifth, the proposed building belu:nt is 112 feet 01 stonts) %whereas the Zoning Ordinance limits the building height % t--'tin _he R6 district to 85 tc---t or 8-stories. whichever is less (Section -8-7-8). Sixth. the number of parking spaces is 251 whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires 25- pur4 ing spaces for 205 rr.11u-;amily residential dwelling units -where each dwelling t.Imtt to greater than 700 sq. r and where the dwelling units are located with a residenciai district (Section 6-16-3- 1, Table 16-13). Seventh, the proposed parking structure cont=.:prar.�on has two-way trafflk along :0-degree and 75 degree parking spaces w•here;L_ the Zoning Ordinance only permits two-way traffic along 50- degree and 75-degree --iarLme spaces whereas the Zoning Ordinance only permits two- way traffic in as<�ciat:i:,r. 4•-th 0-degree or W.1-det ee parking spaces (Section 6-16-3-1, Table 16-A).And ane proposal does not include a 10-foot landscape strip along Lhe north tot line and tbt scuahiwest interior lot hri whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires such a device - Secrion 6-8-1-10 133). The parcels that oomprim tit,: subject property- of taus Plan Commission hearing include, more or less, the land cast e*; the !+tetra railroad right-of-way. north of the Emerson Street right-of-way. west of the Rlt#e Avenue right-of-Wav, and south of and including the parcels containing the —_xw ling building formerly c.cupied by a grocery store (Fresh Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - Mav 9.2001 Paae Three, Fields. Whole Foods). These parcels are listed below b, permanent Index Numbers (PCN's): 11-18-IW007-0000, 11-18-106-008-0000. 11-18-1015-009-0000, 11-18-106- 019-0000. l I-18-106-021-0000. including all intervening and adjacent vacated and public rights of %t-ay. A verbatim transcript of the proceedingi of the Plan Commitsion Case ZPC 01-04 U A *PD is oR Jlk wick the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division h located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Carter. The minutes below are a summary of discussion. John Lyman opened the meeting and swore in those members of the audience who planned on making comments on this case. He explained how the proceedings would progress. Marc Mylott read Case ZPC 0 1 -04 hi &: PD for the record. Richard Aaronson. member of Partners LLC. President of Atlantic Realty Partners which is an affiliate of the petitioner. explained that Atlantic Realty is a development company based in Atlanta. Georgia specializing in high quality development property communities. They are geared toward life style renters and renters by choice that tend to be more of an upper end consumer. Mr. Aaronson introduced Bruce Huvard, attorney for Atlantic Realty. Mr. Huvard said he was a partner ►%ith Cohen. Sauk. and Huvard and that he represented Evanston Realty Partners. contract purchaser of 1930 Ridge Avenue. He explained that the property is currently zoned C2 and they are seeking to remap the property from C2 to R6. Mr. Huvard gave a presentation of what Atlantic Realty Partners were planning for 1930 Ridge Avenue. He explained that this was a project that would appeal to a wide demographic spectrum including empty nesters, singles. couples. couples with children and may include students. Mr. Huvard added that two other high quality apartment buildings in Evanston have approximately 20 to 40% Northwestern students as tenants. The building's parking spaces meets Evanston zoning requirements. Doraine Anderson asked if Mr. Aaronson had spoken to the police department regarding the accident rate at what is perceived to be one of the most accident-prone intersections at Ridge, GreenBa% and Emerson. %ir. Aaronson replied that he had not had that specific discussion with the police department. but after speaking to the City's Traffic Department, Atlantic Realty is eliminating the major entering and exit point at the southern end of the site that is right next to the intersection. He has attempted to move the majority of the traffic flow to the northern end of the site. Mr. Aaronson explained the changes in setback from their first apartment design. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - %tav 9. 'C�)1 Pace Four Jeanne Lindwall said that the parking plan shows tandem spaces and asked if that ww correct. Mr. Aaronson replied that there were a number of tandem parking spaces and their experience shows that they work well. Doraine Anderson had questions regarding handicapped parking. She was told that there were approximately 7 handicapped parking spaces. A number of Evanston residents who live near the proposed project spoke against the proposed amendment. David Shemper. Shirley Ellis. Cameron Ellis. Paul Bearn, Jimmie McRaith. James Jensen. Daniel Garrison. Jim Schwoch. and Nancy Faung spoke of their opposition to the project. Concerns included traffic problems. not enough parking, fire department access, changing zoning designations, fear of rental apartments being converted to condominiums. blockage of traffic due to moving vans. Evanston already too crowded with people and buildings. zoning not appropriate to residential area. and lack of green space. Break at 8:50 o.m. INteetine resumed at 9:00 n.rn. Commission members asked questions concerning space for moving vans and the traffic problems that could happen with several large moving vans waiting on Ridge Avenue. Mr. Aaronson explained that there are two bays inside the garage that could accommodate two extra long 60 foot moving vehicles. Because the mores would be scheduled by the manager of the building, fir. Aaronson did not foresee any problems. Discussion ensued regarding what could happen with too marry people moving at the same time. Roberta Hudson submitted a petition signed by 188 people opposing the changing of the Zoning of 1930 Ridge from C2. Betty Palmer. Roberta Hudson. Dan Garrison. Tina Garrison, and Cameron Ellis helped in the collection of those signatures Chair John Lyman closed public testimony at 9:20 p.m. Richard Cook made a motion to rezone the property at 1930 Ridge Avenue to R6. Motion seconded by Lawrence '%*idmayer. The following members voted no: Knutson. Anderson, Grevas. Lyman, Hart, Rodgers, and Eatman. The following members voting yes - Widmayer and Cook. Motion failed. A straw poll was taken to see if the Plan Commission would be willing to rezone the 1930 Ridge to R-5. The following members voted yes: Eatman, Rogers, Hart, Lyman, Cook, Grevas, Widmayer. Anderson, and Knutson. The Commission discussed their concerns including density, parking, and setback. David Hart moved to continue this agenda item until the June 13 Plan Commission meeting. Richard Cook seconded the motion. hvanston Plan Commission Minutes - \Ia%- 9, 2001 Public Hearing adjourned at 10:3)0 p.m. Paee Five ,ifain StreerlChicavo,avenue B3 District Zoning Recommendations: Recommendations from the Neighborhood Planing Committee regarding zoning text and map amendments. The Commission considered a memorandum from the Neighborhood Planning Committee containing recommendations for B3 zoning on Main Street and Chicago Avenue. These recommendations pertain to both text and map revisions. They were developed during a joint meeting of the Zoning Committee and Neighborhood Commission. • .411 new residential development built on Main Street, between Sherman and Hinman Avenues, should meet the parking requirements instituted within the Chicago Avenue Corridor. (Dwelling units with 1 Bedroom or Iess - 1.25 spaces/d/u.; Dwelling units with 2 Bedrooms - 1.5 spaces/d.u.; Dwelling units with 3 or more BR - 2 spaces/d.u. • Ground floor retail space shall be required in all new development. • The City's zoning map should be revised as depicted in the attached map. • Incentives to developers to include public parking were considered but not included. • Ground level and upper floor building setbacks were discussed. Given their direct relationship to other site design elements. this matter should be referred to the Zoning Subcommittee. John Leman stated that the Commission would not be voting on a map amendment tonight, however, it will be discussed tonight. Nfr_ Lyman explained that usually there would have been a process where the Neighborhood Committee would have had its hearings. brought it up before this committee, passed it back down to the Zoning Committee to have the Zoning Committee discussion, and then it would come back to the Plan Commission. Mr. Lyman said that after the Commission discusses the map amendment, if they agree, it would be put on July's meeting agenda for a public hearing for review. Mr. Lyman said that there are no projects currently underway that would be affected by the proposed recommendation to amend the Main Street'Chicago Avenue 133 zoning. IV. COWKITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS Binding Appearance Review Committee Richard Cook said there would be a Binding Appearance Review Committee meeting later in May. Zoning Committee Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - tilay 9.2001 Page Six Zoning Committee Steve Knutson said there would be a meeting of the Zoning Committee on Thursday, May 10 at the Civic Center. They would be discussion All Moran's reference regarding B2 on Central Street. They would also talking about building to lot line. Doraine Anderson mentioned that at the end of the 75 Council. Aid. Newman made a reference to the Plan Commission to study application of the Chicago .avenue Parking regulations across the City. Housing and Communh�r Development Act Committee The last meeting of the Housing and Community Development Act Committee was mostly a retirement party for Aid. Drummer. Dennis Marino mentioned that Aid. Lionel Jean -Baptiste would be taking Aid. Drummer's seat on the Committee. The new Chair of the Committee will be Ald. Rainey Economic Development Committee John Lyman said that a variety of things were discussed including the viaduct at Main and Chicago. On Wednesday, May 16 there will be a meeting between the Plan Commission and the City Council for the purpose of reviewing the Sherman Plaza presentation. Mr. Lyman mentioned that the Hill Project is moving ahead and is looking at a space across from the theaters, where the Optima Group plans on building a condominium. Planning and Development Doraine Anderson reported that P&D spend half the time discussing and giving direction to the Sign Review and Appeals Court. They did say that they were going to recommend to the Council to move the expiration date from I/1103 to 1.1/05 on the new sign ordinance because they were rewriting portions of the sign ordinance. On Slay 21 P&D will discuss an amendment for sidewalk cafd regs to see if they want to grant liquor sales to cafes outside the downtown. Neighborhood Committee John Lyman mentioned that there is a streetscape study underway on Chicago Avenue. There will be two community workshops with approximately 30 invitees attending each one. The First meeting is May 17 and the second is May 19. The process will be similar in both meetings except the first meeting will focus on the area south of Greenleaf and May 19 will focus on the area north along Chicago Avenue. He felt this would end up being a six-month process. Mr. Lyman said he would attend the May 17 meeting and asked Joe Eatman to attend the May 19 meeting. The meetings would be from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Nichols School Cafeteria. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - ,%tav 9.2001 Pace Seven Mr. Lyman reported that he had spoken to Ald. Kent who indicated he wanted the Plan Commission to start on the l fLT. Ald. Kent felt that July would be a good time to kick off the discussion to alert people to the MUE issues and process. In September there would be a strength and weaknesses type session. Sharon Feigon mentioned that Ald. Kent had called ber regarding public transit. Mr. Lyman said that would be discussed in the meetings- V. OTHER BUSINESS Doraine Anderson asked if the Plan Commission would have a bus tour this year. Commission members agreed that the bus tour last year was very worthwhile. It was decided to discuss the bus tour at the July meeting. Discussion ensued regarding canceling the August Plan Commission meeting. The August meeting was officially canceled. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, it adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary E. aaske Executive Secretary Planning Division Community Development Department E` ANSTON PLAN COMMISSION M[NUTES Wednesday. June 13. 2001, 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center. Room 2402 'k4E�•'lBERS PRESSNTi':.......................................................Doraine Anderson. Richard Cook, Steve Knutson. John Lyman, Kenneth Rodgers. Lawrence Widmayer MEN BERS ABSENT: ....................................................................................... Joseph Eatman ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT: ............ Ann Dienner, Jeanne Lind%m 1. Sharon Feigon ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT.................................................................Nettie Johnson, STAFF PRESENT............................................Dennis Marino, Marc Mylom James Wolinski, Mary Baaske PRESIDI?`G..................................................................................................John Lyman, Chair I. CALL TO ORDER/DECLARATION OF QUORUM John Lyman called the meting to order at 7:08 p.m.. a quorum being present. IL CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2001 At the May 9. 2001 meeting a straw poll was taken to see if the Plan Commission would be wiIIrng to rezone the 1930 Ridge to R-S. Doraine Anderson was incorrectly listed as voting des in the straw poll. The minutes should have said that Ms. Anderson noted it was going in the right direction. V4'ith that one correction the minutes were passed unanimously. RL OLD BUSINESS: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING {continued from the tilay 9 meeting. CASE ZPC 01414-NI 7 PD: An application by Richard Aaronson, manager of Evanston Realty Partners. LLC. with permission from Ben Randall, manager of Schmaltz, LLC, property o►yner. for an amendment to the City of Evanston Zoning Map and for a Planned Development. The applicant is the contract purchaser of the property commonly known Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - June 13. 2001 Nee Two as 1930 Ridge Avenue. located within the C2 Commercial Zoning District. The applicant requests that the Cit% amend the Zoning Map referenced at Standard 6-7-2 "Zoning Map" of the Zoning Ordinance. to place the above mentioned property within the R6 General District in accordance with Section 6-34 "Amendments". Further, the applicant requests that the City grant a planned development as a form of special use pursuant to the applicable subsections of Sections 6-3-5 "Special Uses-. 6-3-6 "Planned Developments", 6-8-1-10 "Planned Developments—[ within Residential Districts]. and 6-8-7-3 "Special Uses [Within the R6 General Residential District]. including such development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to provide the applicant with the zoning relief necessary to allow the redevelopment of 1930 Ridge Avenue for multi -family residential with accessory structured parking. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the Plan Commission Case ZPC 01-04 M do PD is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. The minutes below are a summary of discussion. John Lyman opened the meeting and swore in those members of the audience that planned on making comments on this case. He explained how the proceedings would progress. Richard Aaronson. member of Partners LLC. President of Atlantic Realty Partners, stated that he did receive a lot of information at the last Plan Commission meeting and has worked very hard during the last 30 days to make significant modifications to the layout and design of the building to address those concerns. In addition. a meeting was held with Aid. Kent and members of the neighborhood that had some concerns about the project. He made a presentation at that meeting and was able to get additional feedback from the neighbors. Mr. Aaronson said that feedback was incorporated into the final project before the Commission this evening. There was concern that an eleven -stony building %%as too tall. To accomplish the task of lowering the building to eight stories and keep the previous density. a west wing has been added. More parking was added by reconfiguring the parking. while having less units and reducing the size of those units required less parking to be available. Mr. Aaronson said that they were able to achieve all the principal requirements the Commission asked for at the May meeting. Jeff Martin. landscape architect with Teska R. Associates explained the landscaping around the building. Neil Kenig with KLOA, who has been retained by the developer. said that he has also been a consultant working with the City of Evanston for the last three or four years. He said that the apartment building being proposed tonight would generate less traffic that the grocery store that was at that location a few years ago. Evanston PIan Commission Minutes - June 13. 2001 Page Three Kenneth Rodgers asked if there was going to be a problem when people are moving in with larger vans on the street. its. Kenig replied that is why the cutout area is being provided. The parking far the vans wiII be recessed. In reply to a question from Doraine Anderson. Mr. Aaronson said that there would be enough parking in front for two big moving vans and there will be space inside the parking garage for U-Hauls and pickup trucks. Discussion ensued regarding traffic and parking. Jeanne Lindy}all asked if Mr. Aaronson had structural engineers anal)-ze what the remaining life of the parking structure is. Mr. Aaronson replied that his structural engineer has analyzed the structure and said that it would last indefinitely. He said that they would be making structural modifications, primarily cosmetic to the structure. Doraine Anderson said she did not see an appreciable drop in density in the plans presented tonight. Mr. Aaronson. said there were two reasons for that. One being economics, and two. to support the amenities that were planned for this building there is a certain aggregate size that is needed. That size is approximately 200 units. Kenneth Rodgers asked what things were done to address concerns received at the neighborhood meeting with Aid. Kent. Mr. Aaronson said that they did address the concern about height and the concern about the materials used on the fagade of the building. Previously the building was going to be one-third brick and about ovo-thirds applied stucco and now it would be all brick. Steve Knutson was concerned that the Commission had received nothing in %writing regarding lot coverage, height. and FAR. Mare Mylott stated that staff received the plans the same time the Plan Commission received them and did not have sufficient time to do a zoning analysis. Plan Commission members discussed adjourning ZPC 01 04 M & PD to the next Plan Commission meeting. \ancv Little, of 1214 Simpson stated her concerns regarding the proposed project. These concerns included not wanting the development in her community, density. wants the maximum setback. and parking for guests. Doraine Anderson moved that the Comm;:;sion adjourn this hearing to July I Vh. Motion passed unanimously. John Lyman asked if the Commission required the applicant's consultants to attend the July 11 meeting. They replied that they did not. Evanston PIan Commission Minutes - June 13. 2001 Paue Four IV. NEW BUSINESS: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Case ZPCOI-04-PD: An application by Prentiss Properties, property owner for a Planned Development as a form of special use permit including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to allow redevelopment of an area within the D2, Downtown Development District. The subject property is commonly known as 800 Elgin Road/1800 Sherman Avenue (PIN 11- 18-119-022-0000) and lies generally between Elgin Road. Sherman Avenue. Clark Street and Benson Avenue. The proposed planned development is for a mixed -use development consisting of retail and other commercial uses; office, parking. and other uses in the D4 District. The planned development may contain a bank with a drive -through facility and commercial parking. This is a special use in the D4 District. Generally, the applicant proposes to construct a 7-story building with a floor area of approximately 150.000 square feet in the west half o the subject property. The maximum height of the building would be approximately I40 feet; the minimum front and rear yards of the development would be 0 feet, though the building would not be exclusively and unrelentingly built to the street lot lines. The requested development allowances and zoning exceptions include the requirement that parking structures include retail or service uses at the ground floor of any portion of the structure fronting a street and the ziggurat setback requirement in addition to a special use permit for drive -through facility. John Lyman stated that CASE ZPCOI-05-PD would not be heard tonight, but would be heard at a later date. A motion was made and seconded to hear Case ZPCOI-05-PD at the July 11 Plan Commission meeting. Motion passed unanimously. V. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: MAJOR ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING CASEZPC99-8-PD: The Plan Commission will review adjustments to the planned development that the City authorized by Ordinance 145-0-99 for substantial conformity with the approved development plan. The Plan Commission in making such a determination would be approving the proposed adjustments. This matter concerns the planned development the City granted to Sherman Plaza Venture LLC on 10/10'2000 for redevelopment of the area within the D3. Downtown Development District Iving generally between Church Street on the north. Davis Street on the south, Sherman on the cast. and Benson on the west. Judith Aiello. Assistant City Manager introduced representatives from the Sherman Plaza Development Team: James hlutznik and Maun- Fisher from the KlutzniluFisher Partnership; Daniel Coffey, architect; Neil Kenig, traffic consultant; and David Jennings, Public Works Director. Ms. Aiello gave some background history of the Sherman Plaza Development. She said that the Citv's contribution to this development is the redevelopment of the Sherman Avenue garage. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - June 13. 2001 Pane Five John Terril. with Sherman venue Venture stated that all the land involved will be closed on July 16, 200I. He presented a walk though of the proposed Plaza. Daniel Coffey explained the makeup of the props-1sed tenants and their location in the Plaza. In response to questions from the Commission. Mr. Coffey stated that the elevator is placed on the comer to be more convenient for the commuter rail and also for the office personnel. With the elevator on the corner it %%ill encourage commuters to go to the corner and cross the street. and not try to cross in the middle of the street. He said that it would also encourage people to shop in other stores. en route to their destination store. Mr. Coffey added that. Osco will return. John Lyman stated that, other than the parking garage, the City would not be investing any money in this development. Richard Cook made a motion to approve the new concept and recognize that it is in conformance with the last iteration and that this is an enhancement to what was last seen. Doraine Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Plan Commission meeting resumed at 9:22 p.m. John Lyman stated that the following items would be on the July Agenda: The zoning of 133, parking;, Evanston Realty Partners (discussed tonight), with the last item on the agenda being the Prentiss Properties. VI. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS Binding Appearance Review Committee Richard Cook said there was nothing to report. Neighborhood Planning Committee John Lyman stated that there was a Neighborhood Planning Committee meeting June 14, 200I at 830 a.m. The purpose of the meeting was to be ready for the July meeting which was a kick-off of the discussion of the triangle area. Doraine Anderson mentioned that the at last P&D meeting in May, probably the first P&D meeting in June, Aid. Kent's reference for a moratorium will be under discussion and that will impact the Neighborhood Planning Committee meeting. Steve Knuuon said that the Zoning Committee has been meeting with the Neighborhood Committee, and he told the Zoning Committee that, while they were welcome at the Neighborhood Committee, it was not a joint meeting. • Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - June 1 2001 Paae Six Doraine Anderson asked u.-hat the timeframe is on the viaducts. Mr. Lyman stated that the one on Chicago and Main mill be the first one done, the engineering work will start this vear. The Cite is still trying to get the railroad to paint their viaducts. Dennis Marino stated that the viaduct on Church Street is intended to be one of the next tw•o to be rebuilt. Zoning Committee Steve Knutson reported that the Zoning Committee has asked the Parking Committee to have a summary of our hearing forwarded to them. In the next meetings. the Zoning Committee will be discussing the required building to lot line. lie said he %%a_s surprised that Arthur Alterson's concern has a little bit of Ieeway there for entrances. etc. The concern %vasn't necessarily changing the requirement that you build to lot Iine. but to give them flexibility for entrances, etc. Much discussion occurred relevant to sidewalk width. Housing and Community Development Act Committee Kenneth Rodgers stated that there was a meeting of the Housing and Community Development Act Committee scheduled for June 19, 2001. Economic Development Committee Richard Cook stated that the Economic Development Committee scheduled for June 12 had been cancelled. Dennis Marino reported that the Economic Development Committee would meet this coming Monday at 7:00 p.m.. i June 18. 2001) regarding the Kiutznik Redevelopment Agreement_ John Lvman asked about the status of the Optima project. Mr. Marino replied that they received concept approval at site plan. Planning and Development Committee Doraine Anderson reported that Rev. Wade appeared before the P&D Committee and asked for an extension of two weeks. he said he would be signing papers on Friday — for the Jacob Blake Development. The Aldermen gave him forty-five days until July 13. �_ She said that there is a determination on ZBA findings under a court order for Howard Kornacki of 239 Greenwood. the Court has ordered a review of the Zoning Board's findings and that will probably be put on the next P&D agenda. Ms. Anderson stated that much of the time was spent on dealing with variances for the Evanston Athletic Club (E AC ). The EAC is proposing a three-year trial for the Athletic Club to lease garage space and subsidizing patrons if they use the garage. MM Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - June 13. 2001 VII. ADJOUR:NMENT Paw Seven There being no further business before the Commission, it adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 000-1 Mary7tiveSecretary ke Exec Planning Division Community Development Department DR-07NOT APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PL-kN COMMISSION %k'ednesday. iulc 11, 2001 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT ................. Doraine Anderson, Joseph Eatman, Douglas Doetsch. Alice Rebechini, Steee Knutson. John Lyman, Kenneth Rodgers, Lawrence Widmayer. MEMBERSABSENT.............................................................................................................. Richard Cook ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ................................. Ann Dienncr, Sharon Feigon, Jeanne Lindwall ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT .......... ............................................................................ Nettie Joanson STAFF PRESENT...............................................................Arthur Alterson, Marc Mylott. Susan Guderley, PRESIDING....................................................................................................................John Lyman, Chair I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:08 p.m. A quorum was present. Due to audience size, the meeting location was moved from Room 2403 to the Council Chambers II. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2001. The Minutes of June 13, 2001 were approved. as corrected. I11. NEW BUSINESS: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING CASE ZPC 014)&M&T: Consideration of amendments to Chapter 9, "Business Districts,' Chapter 10, "Commercial Districts," Chapter 16. -Off-Street Parking and Loading."' Chapter 17. `Landscaping and Screening," Chapter 18, "Definitions." Chapter 3, "Implementation and Administration." Chapter 7, "Zoning Districts and Map," and any other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the text and/or the map of the Zoning Ordinance to affect the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. As applied to that area of the City presently within the B3 District in the vicinity of Main and Sherman. extending eastward to Main and Hinman, and or to remap all or parts of the following indicated area from the B3 Business District into the B2 Business District or the Cla Commercial Mixed -Use District or other appropriate zoning district. CASE ZPC 01-07-T: Consideration of amendments to Chapter 16, "Off -Street Parking and Loading;' Chapter 3, "Implementation and Administration," and any other related sections of the zoning Ordinance to consider parking and loading requirements for residential uses. Arthur Alterson, Zoning Administrator. explained these two zoning requests and stated that the)- would be heard simultaneously. The issues open for consideration are suggested zoning map amendments and the range of related regulatory standards { e.g. land use, lot requirements, building height, etc}, and off-street parking requirements for new multi -family residential development. The properties subject to the hearing Draft ,%or Appruted EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Jule 11. 2001 PAGE 2 on the first amendment werc noted as all properties fronting on Main Street east of Sherman and west of Hinman: all properties fronting on Custer Avenue. between Washington and the first alle% north of Main; all properties w ith odd numbered addresses on Sherman. from the tint alley south of ;Main to approximately 260 feet north of Main Street: and all properties w ith e%cn number addresses on Hinman, from approximately I " feet south to 140 feet north of Main Street. Commissioner Knutson noted that the amendments recommended by the Zoning Committee reflected input received from the Neighborhood Committee and the results of a parking survey contained in the Chicago Avenue Recommendations Report. The sun-ey found that the requirement of one parking space per unit did not reflect the actual car ownership rate. Citywide, the sunc% found that the rate of vehicle ownership a%eraged at 1.3 cars per unit. While smaller units might onh need one space, the larger units usually needed more than one. Therefore, the requirement should reflect the size of the dwelling unit. The specific recommendation is for one and a quarter spaces required for dwelling units with one bedroom or less, one and a half spaces for units with two bedrooms and two spaces for units with more than two bedrooms. This amendment also specifies that any room other than a kitchen, living room, dining room, and bathroom shall be considered a bedroom. The Zoning Committee's recommendation had also been referred to the Parking Committee. The Chairman first asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to the Commission regarding the parking requirement amendment. No one presented themselves to comment. As a point of clarification, Commissioner Rebechini asked if the average of 1.3 spaces per unit considered the necessity of visitor parking. Mr. Alterson stated that this figure accommodates only the residents of development. While the 1.3 figure is too low to provide visitor parking. the Zoning Committee did not wish to delay forwarding the amendment until this had also been studied. He also noted that notices for these zoning text amendments had been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of property zoned B3. Chairman Lyman asked for a motion for the Plan Commission recommendation on ZPC 01-07-T. Member Knutson moved that the parking requirements for all multi -family residential development be amended to require 1.25 spaces for units with up to one bedroom, 1.5 spaces for two bedroom units, and 2.0 spaces for units w ith 3 or more bedrooms. The motion was seconded by Member Rodgers. Discussion followed. beginning with a question as to whether the proposed parking amendment would also be applied to changes in use of an existing building. Zoning staff replied that the Zoning Ordinance does not require this. regardless of the change in use established. The Commission had explored this question in instances of adaptive reuse of buildings. but no change in the regulations had resulted. There being no further discussion, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion. It was approved unanimously. The Chairman next called for the consideration of the proposal to modify the mapped areas of B3 zoning in the vicinity of the intersection of Main Street and Chicago Avenue. Chairman Lyman asked Member Knutson to review the recommendations of the Zoning Committee on the proposed map amendments. Steve Knutson explained that the Chicago Avenue Plan had focused directly on zoning along Chicago Avenue. Neighborhood concerns about overly intense zoning, notably the prior maximum height standard within the C la zone and its parking requirements, had been alleviated by a subsequent text amendment. Hoverer, there remained an interest in restudying that the B3 zones emanating west and north from the Chicago Avenue/Main Street intersection because of the potential for conflict between new development and the existing neighborhood character. The specific recommendations of the Zoning Dr,211 ►OT.4pprored EVANSTON PLAN CO\1*11SSION / July I t. 2001 PAGE 3 Committee µere that a more appropnme classification for portions of the B3 zoning in this location is B2. µest of the tracks, and C I a, east of the tracks for those properties other than the corners of `lain and Chicago. The northeest, northeast and southeast corners µere identified as appropriately retained within the B3 District. Member Lindwall noted that the portion of Hain Street. from the northwest corner of its intersection with Hinman west to the alley. µas also redesienated to B2. She further noted that the entire southern frontage of Main Street. between Hinman and Chicago Avenues. was to remain B3. The Chairman invited those present in the audience who wished to speak on this amendment to do so. He noted that many of those present had participated in the prior fi%e months of discussion on this subject. An audience member asked the Commission to clarify the differences between B2 and B3 zoning. Arthur Alterson reviewed his memo to the Commission which summarized the differences between B2, B3 and Cla. He noted that these three districts differ with relation to their permitted FAR, maximum permitted heights, and lot size per dwelling unit. The Chairman noted that the primary impact of the proposed amendment was that the maximum permissible building height µould be reduced from 125 feet to 45 feet in the areas rezoned to B2 and to 67 feet in the areas rezoned to C 1 a. Mr. Alterson added that the FAR of properties rezoned from B3 to C I a µould also be changed from 3.0 to 4.0. Debbie Hillman, representing Nichols Neighbors, expressed concern over the fact that the existing Great Bank building is proposed to remain B3 rather than being rezoned to CIa. It was her recollection that the Zoning Committee had recommended its rezoning. She noted that her prepared comments assumed that recommendation. She stated that Nichols Neighbors believes that the preservation of stable residential neighborhoods is a priority for the Cit% and that the proposed amendments will help to balance the impact from the increased scale of new developments with the character of existing development. For this reason, they support the rezoning of `lain Street west of the Metra tracks to B2. She also supported the rezoning of properties along Chicago .Asenue. north of Main Street, to CIa. In their opinion this would make them consistent w ith the rest of the corridor. Nichols Neighbors also concurs with the recommendation to rezone the Colonnades Building to B2 and strongly supports the proposed increase in parking requirements for new multi-famil-. residential developments. Donna Nelson expressed the opinion that the map changes from B3 to less dense zones were necessary to prevent the architecture and scale of the neighborhood from being overwhelmed by density, traffic, parking demand created by new development. She was also concerned about loss of sunlight and displacement of businesses. Bill Minster, 901 Hinman, agreedµ ith the prior citizen comments. He stated that what had attracted him to the Main Street neighborhood µas its mix of residential and business uses. He wanted to see the current character maintained. Patricia Dolton. 825 Main. suggested a referendum on µhether or not to protect the small town atmosphere on slain Street. She also felt that there was a need for a cost benefit analysis of new developments, particularly with regard to their traffic generation. Megan Cawley. 709 Main Street, identified herself as a small business owner. She stated that she did not support the rezoning. Her family has operated an Evanston -based business for more than fifty years. This experience has yielded an understanding and appreciation for the difficulties of make a local business Flourish. She believes that one of the things necessary to do so, is to be able to grow. Efforts to force a "small town' atmosphere in local commercial districts can hinder local businesses efforts to Dr;*r WT APPreoved EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Jut% I t.2001 PAGE promote their growth in place. She felt that the Zoning Ordinance's purpose statement for the B3 District better described the Main Street area. She would like to be able to expand her business there. and given the land availabilih. she can onh go upward to do so. The option to build residential upper floors would also be beneficial. If the Citr does rezone these areas of B3 to B_. she believes the greater restrictions on new development wiiIl be the "death knell" for Iccal businesses. She cited the recent closing of a local hardware store near Dempster Street. Judy Freeman. 937 Sherman, identified herself as both a local resident and a member of the Environmental Board. She identified high rise development in the Cit% as an issue. She agreed with the proposed rezoning to B2. Beth Steffen. President of the Southeast Evanston Association, read a statement prepared for that group. It stated that SEA had voted unanimously to endorse the recommendations ofthe Neighborhood Committee to rezone portions of the B3 zoning to B2 and Cla. This included the redesignation of present site of the Evanston Bank building as Cla. Aaron Remen. 711 Custer, is zoned MUE and is opposed to any zoning change along Main Street. He believes that there are other ways to deal with parking problems. New developments, such as 811 Chicago Avenue, increase the City's tax base while generating fewer school children and costs associated with their education. He also noted that high rise residential buildings in this location are transit friendly and promote environmentally sound alternatives to individual automobile trips. He felt that NU had a right to question the City's downzoning of significant development parcels while it is asking them to increase its financial contributions in lieu of property tares. He also questioned the wisdom of rezoning areas of B3 as C I a because it would permit strip mall development. Alan Price, owner of commercial properties in the 700 block of Main Street, reviewed the results of his survey of property owners/merchants in the Main Street area. He reported that there is a mixture of opinions with this group. He stated that he is sorry to see the rezoning of B3 to B2 because of the loss of economic value for his and other commercial properties. However, he also wouldn't want the architectural context west of the Metra tracks to change. So, while there will be a decrease in the development potential and value, from an aesthetic perspective he can agree with the proposed zoning. He noted that 45 feet maximum height is still greater than most of the existing properties on Main Street west of the tracks. Maureen Glasoe. 901 Hinman, stated that while increased tar values are associated with new development, there is also a value associated with the existing character of neighborhood. There being no further public comment. the Chairman closed the public hearing and asked if there were any comments from the commissioners. Member Anderson stated that the Neighborhood Committee had left the zoning designation of the northwest corner of Main and Chicago open. The Chairman recollected that staff had been instructed to review the redevelopment proposal for the site and to recommend the zoning designation best suited to the plans. Arther Alterson stated that the development had been reviewed by SPAARC and had received a quick zoning analysis for both B3 and Cla zoning. He noted that there are some minor problems under either zoning classification. With Cla, the development has a minor problem with the enclosed parking meeting the front setback requirements. Under B3, the project has a problem meeting the setback line along the western property line and railroad embankment. Under either zoning the development will need to seek a variation. Mr. Altcrson added that from the point of view of protection, one asks, 'what is the ultimate : V AN PLAN COMMISSION Jul} It. 2001 PAGE 5 zontnx emek-pe <Liu want to see on :his purcel'Even with the rrumirmum height allowed in B3. its size, lttc share and the 3.0 FAR limit this s.rte. Steve Mullins. one of the bank propein's ae%ek-pers. stated that ifthe-ropern• were rezoned to Cla they zsauld :ttilize a 4.0 FAR. reduce the beighc of their ceilings and bui)d a '-star building. He also noted drat without the adjacent properh. here i:i no wa% they can exceed 67 feet in height with the B3 zone's FAR %Nf 3.0. The Chairman recognized that there are tucnsions and tradeoffs between the goals of increased real estate :ax rrvcnuey and neighborhood character He also noted that this is noc a new discussion within this z*rridhor and had been fully addressatd by :he Chicago Avenue Recommiendations Report and subsequent citizeci input. Chairman L%man asked for a comet -fission member to make a specific proposal regarding the B3 mapping amendment. :Member Anderson mewed txrat the zoning map be amendced to show the following changes to the B3 District in the vicinity of ►+lain .and Chicago: that portion weal of the tracks shall become B2; the portion on the east side of Chicago Avenue. north of the bank building, shall become Cla: that portion on the west side of Chicago Avenue- north of Main Street- shall becomic C 1 a. and that portion on the north side of %lain Street. west from Hinman to the alley, shall become B2. The mapped areas of B3 in This au,ca which would remain unchanged are: the northeast comer of Chicago Avenue and Main Street, u-hem the Great Bank is constructing its mew building; and the south side of Main Street, between Chik=eo and Hinman. The motion Was i azonded by Member Dicvtsch. Merm er Widrna)er moved that the motican bt amended to keep the northwest comer of the intersection of Chicago Avenue and Main Street zoned tss B3. The motion was seconded b) Member Knutson. The motioon to amend passed 5-3. with Comrntssion Members Eatman. Anderson, and Doetsch voting nay. The Commission then voted on the mottctn. amended to retain B? zoning on the northwest corner of Chicago Avenue and Slain Street. The notion passed unanimoush. Commission member Anderson asked if the proposed parking amendment only extended the revised Cla parking space requirements to all new ttaulti-family residential deve1c;ncnts in the city. or if it also applied the elimination of the paring f1oar exemption for building he-ight. Prior to its amendment, the Cla District had exempted up to four tic:cnrs for fom• feet) from maxirnum building height calculations if the% were devoted to parking. Mr. Alter -son stated that to extend the elimination of the Cla parking floor examption would exceed the legal notice• for this hearing and this aecnption remains in effect within the B3 .and D Districts. The chairman asked that the transzript s;ho% that the Plan Commissicm's deliberations on these hearings wem based upon. Arthur Altersor.'s memorandum dated 7'06'01. A virrhatim transcript of the proceedin s of the Plan Commission cases ZPC 01-06-.%f&T and ZPC 01- 0'-T is on file with the Evanston Zonrrrg Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the £vtmston Chic Center. IV. OLD BUSINESS: ZON-ING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING CASE ZPC01-05—PD: .Am application by Prentiss Pndpertics, property owner for a Planned Development as a form ,Df special use permit including such development allowances, exceptions to development alGvwan=s and other relief as ma} be nccrssary to allow redevelopment of an area Darr %0T.4r^,-)r[1ve41 EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION I Jule It, 2001 PAGE 6 within the 134. Downtown Development D.smct. The subject property is commonly known as 800 Elgin Road 1800 Sherman Avenue i PIN I I-18.110-022-0000) and ties generals} between Elgin Road. Sherman Avenue. Clark St:ect and Benson Avenue. The proposed planned development is for a mixed -use development consisting of retail and ocher commercial toes. office: parking: and other uses perminedm the D4 District. The planned development may contain a bank with a drive -through f3cilie. and commercial parking. This is a special use in the D-t District. (continued from the June 13 mr_tingl. Chairman asked for a motion to continue the hearing for Case ZPC-01-05 PD until the Commission's September 12, 2001 meeting. The motion was made by Dorraine Anderson and seconded by Member Knutson. The motion passed unanimously. CASE ZPC 01-04 M & PD: An application by Richard Aaronson, manager of Evanston Realty Partners. LLC, with permission from Ben Randall. manager of Schmaltz, LLC. property owner, for an amendment to the City of Evanston Zoning Nap and for a Planned Development. The applicant is the contract purchaser of the property commonly known as 1930 Ridge Avenue, located within the C2 Commercial Zoning District. The applicant requests that the City amend the Zoning Map referenced at Standard 6-7-2 -Zoning Slap" of the Zoning Ordinance, to place the above mentioned property within the R6 General District in accordance with Section 6-34 "Amendments". Further. the applicant requests that the City grant a planned development as a form of special use pursuant to the applicable subsections of Sections 6-3-5 "Special Uses". 6-3-6 "Planned Developments". 6.8-1-10 "Planned Developments"[within Residential Districts], and 6- 8-7-3 "Special Uses" [Within the R6 General Residential District], including such development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to provide the applicant with the zoning relief necessary to allow the redevelopment of 1930 Ridge Avenue for multi -family residential with accesson structured parking (continued from the May 9 meeting). Chairman Lyman opened the hearing and asked the developers to review the specifics of the requested zoning actions for their development proposal. The Chairman asked all those who wished to speak on this matter to rise and be sworn in. Staff distributed the required findings of fact, originally distributed at the May 4" meeting. The Commissioners were reminded that they had also received a staff report distinguishing between the regulatory issues related to requests for either R5 or R6. Chairman Lyman noted that the map amendment originally requested by the developers was to R6. Referring to the staff report. Mr. Bruce Huvard, Evanston Realty Partners, explained the requested setback variations necessitated by the site plan and building design. He also noted where the new proposal has resulted in new, increased/reduced. and identical variations or has eliminated the need for them. The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the commissioners before he opened the floor for questions or comments from the public. While both had previously read the transcripts from the preceding meetings. Commission Members Doctsch and Rebechini both expressed the desire to have an brief review of the plans and elevations for the project. Mr. Huvard summarized the major features on and surrounding the site, including the Emerson/Ridge/Greenbay intersection. the Tetra rail embankment, and the existing parking structure. The revised plans still utilize the existing parking structure. He noted that the first proposal had been a t- shaped building at zero lot line, but had been revised to a taller building (eleven stories) with a smaller footprint, running down the middle of the site. A subsequent revision combined both concepts with the toe of the building holding the prominent corner of the site and set back from the street. A wing was added to the building so that its needed floor area could be achieved in eight stories. Mr. Huvard noted the location of the public entrance, the connection to the garage. services and trash storage areas, and the Drab NOT 4ppraved EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Jul? 11.2001 PAGE 7 plans for recreational features. The original ele%ations had shown a brick and stucco. the current plans shop; an all brick fagade. At the conclusion of.ir. Hu%ard's comments, the Chairman asked if there %%ere ani public comments. Daniel Garrison. 1228 Simpson, characterized the changes made to the plans as only minor adjustments. He felt that the present plan is excessively dense for the neighborhood, noting a reduction in units from 205 to 195. He also believes that there are unique problems of access remaining to be addressed, relating to the traffic impacts upon Ridge Avenue and the EmersomRidge/Greenbay intersection. Lee Katz. 2135 Wesley, identified himself as an Evanston commercial landlord, business owner and resident. ,Mr. Katz believes that this site is part of a larger area. including the Civic Center, city yards and NU building, composed of valuable, but under-utilized. land. He believed that a comprehensive development plan should be done for the area to improve both the use of the property and the amount of property tax revenues generated. Harry Hudson. 1941 Dewey. concurred with the prior comments. He noted that the 5" Ward is in a state of transition. It is also exhibiting several serious community -wide problems. This site could be put to another use that would better serve the community. He wanted to see an expansion of either the research park or university educational program onto the property. It could serve technical, social, educational and philosophical needs of the Vh Ward. He did not think that the proposed residential development would benefit the 5`h Ward. Camden Ellis. 1239 Leon Place, stated that he did not believe that the development has addressed or resolved the objections of the neighbors regarding density and traffic. He felt that either R5 or R6 zoning would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Shirley Ellis. 1740 Wesley, stated that the developers' application for zoning to R6 and a Planned Development does not meet the criteria for approval specified by ordinance. She believes that the stated purpose of amendments was not to relieve particular hardships or convey special privileges, but to address changing conditions or public policy. She also noted that an amendment is still required to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive General Plan and with the character of the existing neighborhood. Finally, she stated that the granting of a special use for planned developments is intended to promote the efficient use of land and public services, and to encourage innovative design or development practices. She did not see how the proposed development would meet am of these criteria. She also observed that the surrounding zoning is primarily R4. Jenny ,McGraith. 1107 Colfax, noted that the project's proposed density is wrong for this neighborhood. She also believes that the full impact of other recent large developments in the city has not yet been realized. Roberta Hudson, 1941 Dewey, spoke on behalf of the Foster Park Neighbors. She noted several problems in the 5"' Ward. including the need to improve the quality of life, protect neighborhood children, and to attract and develop positive projects. She asked why a traffic study for the Ridge and Emerson intersection hadn't been required. She felt that another 500 residents would impact the traffic on this intersection. as well as streets in the adjacent area. The Chairman asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Rodgers asked whether the developers had spoken with Alderman Kent and residents in the 5`h Ward. He noted that the evening's rjratt %OT .4pproved EVANSTON PLA` COMNUS51ON ; Jul% 11. 2001 PAGE 8 presentation had spoken more about aesthetics than with commurtit% issues/concerns. While it may be good for the City. w ill it be good for the neighborhood? Mr. Huvard stated that they have tried to address the neighbor's concerns. He also noted that the property is currently zoned C'_ which already permits a range of commercial uses, some of which may also have negative impacts upon the immediate neighborhood. Their traffic engineer did study their proposal against uses permitted under C2 and found that the proposal would have less traffic than a 30,000 square foot grocery. store. The developer is also committed to meeting the Chicago Avenue parking standards. They have also reduced the height and density of their original proposal. Commissioner Doetsch asked whether the City could respond to an earlier comment regarding a more expansive plan for this area, given the City's two nearby properties. The discussion that followed noted that there are no plans of this nature and the City has no definitive plan to relocate the Civic Center offices. Chairman Lyman asked Mr. Hudson to be more specific about the type of use or uses the neighborhood would like to see in this location. Mr. Hudson stated that more buildings like those in the Research Park, devoted to research and education and involving Northwestern University in the community. Corey Sutton, 52� Ward resident, stated that it is the density and height of the project that is most objectionable. He said that Evanston should not try to become Chicago. His neighborhood would be blocked from lake views and breezes if this type of development %ere allowed to continue. Further, this type of residential development only serves the needs of NU, not the community. Commissioner Dienner felt that the proposal would not result in sufficient real estate tar compared to the city services it might require. Chairman Lyman stated that the Commissioners needed to Deliberate on the rezoning request for R6, will. variations, as is needed by the developer's present proposal. He stated that he is hearing a great deal of neighborhood concerns. in considering how this petition responded to the standards for approving Planned Developments. Dorraine Anderson had also thought about what public benefits should be realized in exchange for greater development potential. She requested that the developer provide 20 units ofaffordabic housing. of varying sizes. The Chairman suggested the Commission begin its deliberations by first considering whether or not to grant a rezoning to R6, on which the proposal bases its other requests for variations and density. Mr. Hubard stated that R6 is more appropriate than R5 for the current proposal. Member Knutson moved that the Commission recommend that request to rezone to R6 be denied. Member Anderson seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed by a vote of 7 to I, with Member Widmayer voting nay. Member Rebechini moved that the Commission recommend that the property be rezoned to R5. Member Doetsch seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 3, with Members Knutson, Anderson and Eatman voting nay. The Chairman directed the Commission members to review a zoning memo, prepared by Marc Mylott, which compared the R6 and R5 development regulations. Drall N0T.4pprv%es EVA\STO\ PLAN CONIMISSiO\ ' Jul% 11. 2001 PAGE 9 Member D,,tietsch moved that the Commission recommend that the Planned Development proposal be rejected. The motion was seconded by Member Anderson. During the discussion that follo%ed. Commissioners noted that they found the proposal failed to prevent overcrowding of land due to its height. bulk and density. They also cited its insufficient setback from the sidewalk and incompatibility with the established zoning districts. The motion to reject passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with Member N%'idmas er noting nay. Upon the rejection of the Planned Development_ Member Knutson moved to reconsider the Commission's vote and to not rezone the property to R5. Member Eatman seconded the motion. Arthur Alterson noted that there needed to be separate motions to reconsider and to not rezone. Member Knutson moved to reconsider the prior vote. Member Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 2. with members Lyman and Doetsch voting nay. Member Knutson then moved to recommend that the zone on this parcel remain as it is today. in light of the Planned Development being rejected. The motion was seconded by Member Anderson. There was discussion as to the differences between uses that could be established by right zoned C'_, rather than R5. The motion passed 5 to 3, with Members Eatman. Knutson, and Anderson voting nay. .4 verbatim transcript of the proceedings of the Plan Commission case ZPC 01-4 ,WPD is on file With the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. V. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review I. ere was no report • Zoning The Chair of the Zoning Committee, Steve Knutson, stated that the committee had not met and, therefore, there was no report. Neighborhood Planning Neighborhood Planning Committee Chair, John Lyman. reminded the members of the Committee and full Commission that the first meeting in the MUE District was scheduled for the next evening. He asked that the occasion called for full attendance. • Community Development Kenneth Rodgers. liaison to the Housing and Communit% Development Block Grant Fund Committee, reported that there had been no meeting or activity to report. Economic Development There was no report. • Parking Richard Cook. liaison to the Parking Committee, was excused. There was no report. L►CR %OT.4p+Fro+Yd EVA%STOti PLA.ti COMMISSION / Jul. I I.:OOI PAGE 10 • Planning and Development Doraine Andersom liaison to the Planning and Deveknpmecn CL,=im=. reported that the committee had approved two liquor licenses for J3ckies and Trattoria TruL had emended the honorer~ greet dame program for ten }carsand had approved and sent to council the plans w expand Panera Bread. She also noted that the Evanston Athletic Club discussed renting spm=s in the mew Maple Avenue garage. The Robinson Bus zoning request is expected to cone before the Coammimee at its next meeting. The ZBA will consider a 4-story inf II building on Davis Street. V. ADJO1u' INIKENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 11:2j p.m. The Commission's nett meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 12. 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted. August 17, 2001 Susan Guderley, Neighborhood Planner DRAFT- NOT APPROVED `iINU TES EV IVNSTOti PLA-N COM-NUSZ-ION Wedncmday. Sepr tubes 12, 21Ct01 i 7:00 p.m. Ev-aasron Cmc Center, Room 2403 %MEMBERS PRESEN'T.... ...... ..... . ....... . .... Dewaitte Anderson, Richard Cook, Alice Rebechini, Steve Kn utsom John Lv=—L Larn W i3tn wr %MEMBERSABSENT.................. -..... —............................ —Doug Doetsch, Joseph batman. Kenneth Rodgers .A5:,5OCLATE MENIBERS PRESENT ... ........................_....Ann Dienner, Nettie Johnson, Jeanne LindwaII ASSOCLATE MEMBERS AJ3SEN7._........................... _....................................................... Sharon Feigon ST kFF PRESENT ............................................................ .......................... Arthur Altetson. Jeffrey Burdick PRESIDING....................................................................................................................John Lyman. Chair L CALL TO ORDER DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approx—natel� 7.07 g_m. A quon= %as present. Q. CONSIDERATI01% OF .%IL%'LTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JULY It. 2001. The minutes of Jul% 11. 2D01 -ere apqroved as ccvrected III OLD BUSINESS: ZONI1NG AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Case ZPCOI-k:-Po- .An agpliadon b. Prentiss I'ropctier. property owner for a Planned De%eloprncnt as a form of ipxial use permit including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances .mid ocher relief as may be necessary to allow redevelopment of an area within the D4. Downurxn D rvelcgmcm District The subject property is commonly known as SW Elgin Road 1800 Shern= A,-rnue SPIN 1 I - I & t 1"22-0000j and lies generally between Elgin Road Seeman Avenw CL=k Street and Benson Avenue. The proposed planned development is for a =med-2se dc%rlopr =t consisting of retail and other commercial uses: office. parking and amer uses p+rmitted in the D4 District. The planned development may contain a bank -ith a give-d=mgb facilin and commercial parking. This is a special use in the Ds District lccmtinued from the Jul% 11. Z001 rneetirrgl. Chairman Lyman opened discussion L�5 smmg that the Commission has not actually heard anything on this ax Lnefore because it was con mued u ithoto information so this would be literally the first time that this packmge of information was benng brotught before the Plan Commission. Pia c_ amx ursar .tfe rrmg - 5epr nntwr 1 2001 Page 1 Commissioner Dorraine Anderson stated that she believed that :he public hearing notice was faulty. The notice refers to a seven -story building. when the application materials depict the building as nine -stories. She talked to a lawtier and was told that if a public hearing nonce states a building is to be seven -stories. when in fact it is to be nine. then it is a fault+ public notice. In addition. she lives within 1.000 feet of the proposed project and did not receive a public notice. She thought that this was perhaps due to the fact that she sat on the Commission, but she found out that her neighbors also did not receive the notice. Arthur Alterson. Zoning Administrator, explained that the notice was sent on May 23, 2001. Commissioner Anderson stated that she did not receive anything in the mail at that time. She felt that City staff should pursue this matter with the City's Legal Department in order to determine the legality of the notice. Paul Shadie, representing the law rum of Piper. Maybury, Rudnick. and Wolfe. and representing the applicant — Prentiss Properties, stated that from the developer's perspective, if there is any question regarding the legality of the notice. then the developer is prepared to ask for this case to be continued to the next Plan Commission hearing date. He stated that from both the City's and the developer's standpoint. the public hearing notice should be renoticed. Chairman Lyman asked the developer's representatives if this proposal was seven or nine stories. Steven Wright from Wright Architects responded by stating the reason for the confusion. The original proposal was a seven -story office building on top of a garage. The developer has reduced that to five -stories plus the four stories of parking that are grade plus lertl. The language harkened back to the seven -story office building on top of the parking garage, thus creating the confusion. Mr. Shadle suggested that the developers and Mr. Aiterson meet to discuss the plans. look at the ordinance, define the maximum building height per the ordinance and decide whether the stories will include all of the parking decks or not. Chairman Lyman directed Mr. Alterson to renotice this case and get together with the developers so that they do not have to make their presentation twice by accurately describing the project. A motion was made by Commissioner Larry Widmayer to postpone this case to the Plan Commission meeting of October 10.2001. Commissioner Richard Cook seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division The Zoning Division is locared in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. IV. PLANNED DEVELOP.wtElrT: 11IAJOR ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING Case ZPC994;-PD: The Plan Commission will review adjustments to the planned development that the City authorized by Ordinance 145-0-99 for substantial conformity with the approved development plan. The Plan Commission in making such a determination would be approving the proposed adjustments. This matter concerns the planned development the City granted to Sherman Pura Venture LLC on 10/102000 for rede%clopment of the area within the D3. Downtown Development District lying gener-alh between Church Street on the north, Davis Stint on the south. Sherman Avenue on the east, and Benson on the west. Chairman Lyman asked the petitioner's representatives to present the adjustments to the Sherman Plaza Planned Development. Mr. Klutznik, one of the representatives for the petitioner, stated that they were going to present the adjustments that were made to the project in accordance with changes to the residential part of the building. This was given that there would no longer be senior housing due to the financial market for senior housing at the present time. John Terrell, another representative from the petitioner team, explained that in order for any demolition to be done on the property, all financing needed to be in place for the project. After careful analysis, the team determined that the best thing that could be done to make the project move forward quickly was to switch Plan Commission .tleering - September 12. 2001 Paget from senior housing to condominiums, because of t:,: present strength to the condominium market in Evanston. The senior development uas originally f;.,- approximatel ;12 units. As part of their analysis. Mr. Terrell explained that bigger units were needed The senior urns were around 750 square feet` The newly proposed condominium units were closer to i _ 00 square feet. The proposed parking garage was now going to contain approximately 1.590 parking rpaces. The dtctsion regarding the number of condominium units for the new proposal would be icnilar to the rt=b er of units of senior housing: 212. In order to accommodate this with larger units. the bui!.ing would now be L-shaped, which would hide the east face of the parking garage. Commissioner Cook asked !vie. Terrell how many urns there would be. and what the distribution of those units would be. Mr. Terrell responded that for plane—ng purposes. they are proposing 212 units, which is based on a 1.300 square foot average. Commissioner Alice Rebechini inquired about the design characteristic of the retail roofs that the units would overlook. tilr. Terrell then explained that the top floor units would have terraces overlooking the city and the lake. Commissioner Rebechini also asked about the brighmess of the building as depicted in the drawings. Mr. Terrell said that the towers would be brighter than most other buildings at night to accentuate the building. but that the building largel} spears so bright in the drawing because every light is shown as on. Associate Commission member Ann Dienner asked %bcther it was the intention of creating a "green roof much akin to the Cook County building. Mr. Coffey of the developer's team stated that the roof would be green, but not that green. Commissioner Rebechini sgain asked what the nature of the retail roofs would be that the residence tower would be overlooking. Mr. Terrell answered that they have not fully explored the nature of the roof. and are aware that they will have to creatively screen necessary rooftop mechanical units. One of these creative measures may include prrograraming the roof as an outdoor space for the proposed health club tenant, such as a sun deck. running track. or paddle tennis court. Chairman Lyman stated that the Commission did not have any idea of whether the City Council passed a proposal that the Plan Commission passed two months ago. This proposal was to change the parking requirements for multi -family residential to 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit. If this proposal has been passed. Chairman Lyman stated that this ratio mould have to be met. Judy Aiello, Assistant City Manager, explained that this Planned Development is in place with a one-t"ne parking ratio, so that is how it will be built Chairman Lyman stated that these are not going to be cheap units and that his experience is that those %to will purchase these units will demand more than one arking space per unit. Ms. Aiello explained that part of the current negotiation between the City- and the developer is that if there appears to be a demand for more than one space, there is flexibility from the public side of the garage to provide these spaces. Commissioner Steve Knutson asked how many spaces were in the previous proposal, Ms. Aiello answered approximately 1.570. Commissioner Knutson stated ttat the City has conducted reliable surveys showing that there is essentially one and a half cars per apw t3i t unit in Evanston. He believed the 212 units will add 300 cars to the project and he was not comfortable with adding their cars but not increasing the garage. Arthur Altcrsom Zoning Administrator, pointed out th-- while Zoning did not imply a per bedroom rate to the parking which may have had the effect of increasing the regulatory parking number, they also did not apply any type of shared parking alogrithim to the mix which would have had the opposite effect of decreasing the regulatory parking. Commissioner Knutson reiterated that he was not comfortable adding 200 high -end condominium units to this development without increasing the parking capacity of the garage. Commissioner Rebechini asked Mr. Alterson to clarify whether conventional housing was permitted in the original Planned Development. Mr. Alterson replied that it is permitted because conventional housing is allowed above the ground floor as of right. Commissioner Knutson stared that it was not part of the Plan Commission .tleeung - September 11. 2001 Pagr3 Planned Development. Mr. Aiterson stated that he beliesed that the ordinance allowed them to do what was -+ermined in the under]%inc zoning. Commissioner Rebechini asked whether the Planned Development was very specific in terms of the appcamnce of the building. Mr. Alterson responded by saying that it is an underlying as of right situation. Giving more detail to the roof. such as the proposed terracing effect. will not violate the original Planned Development. Commissioner Larry Widmayer expressed an additional parking concern. He stated that the units would be sold a second. third and fourth time at a reasonable price to maintain the tax level. He was concerned about the remarketing of the units as it related to the number of parking spaces per unit. He asked Ms. Aiello whether renting out 50 or 60 more spaces in the garage would hurt the overall capacity of the garage for the general public. David Jennings. Director of Public Works, stated that the City's most recent analyis showed that 200-300 spaces are being built beyond the projected demand. The way parking was figured was there was no shared parking component for the health club facility. The City knows for a fact that there will be a shared parking component. Some people who work downtown that are health club visitors will not be driving to the facility only for that purpose. Mr. Coffey stated that maybe 30 or 40 spaces could be stacked using stacker equipment. The equipment would presumably be purchased by the condo owner. Commissioner Rebechini asked if the condo uw portion of the garage would be a legal subdivision of the garage. Mr. Terrell responded that it would be a vertical subidivision. as a series of vertical subdivisions would be done for the condo. Commissioner Rebechini asked if any Iiability concerning this mechanical stacking equipment could be segregated to the liability of the homeowner's association and not the City. Mr. Terrell answered yes. Commissioner Knutson stated that, while concerned about the parking situation, he be]ieved that hiding the garage with the condos. opening the garage at the corner and having level decks are all great proposals. Chairman Lyman stated that because this project is changing from a senior development to a conventional residential. bicycle storage rooms or racks would be necessary. Mr. Terrell stated that there will be storage areas within the building. Commissioner Rebechini brought up the roofscape issue once again. She stated that then will be about 290.000 square feet of commerical space within the development and that extensive rooftop mechanical equipment would be necessary. She believed that one-third of the roof space would be covered with mechanical equipment. She wanted to make it clear to the rest of the Commission that the building would not appear as it does in the presentation. the roofs would not be completely flat. Ms. Aiello stated that as more high rises are built, this becomes more of an issue. Mr. Terrell stated that it is in the developer's best interest to make sure that the roofs are attractive. Cottunissioner Atderson requested that Fountain Square be rebuilt as part of this project since it is adjacent to the development and is an important marketing tool for the developer. A motion was made by Commissioner Anderson to accept the adjustment to the Planned Development_ Commissioner Rebechini seconded the motion. The motion to accept passed by the margin of 5 to 1. Commissioner Knutson objected. solely based on parking. .4 verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. V. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS Binding Appearance Review Committee The Binding Appearance Review Committee Chair, Richard Cook, reported that a draft of design guidelines would be complete sometime after Thursday of the following week. Plan Commiuion Ateering - September 11. 2001 Page Neighborhood Planning Committee The Neighborhood Planning Committee Chair. John Lyman. stated that the Committee held a kick-off meeting of the MUE - Triangle Neighborhood study tuo months ago and the minutes from that meeting ha%c been handed out to each Commission member. He reported that the meeting started off sloµ - most of the people in attendance wanted to knoll uhat the City wanted and why they were in their neighborhood. However, residents got lively at the end. deciding that they did not want to lose their chance to be heard from the City. Chairman Lyman informed the Commission that the following night %4ould be a kick-off that would speed things up dramatically compared to the Chicago Avenue process. This will be a two -stage process -- the first night residents will be allowed to post ideas and comments on boards. It will take staff about one month to gather these comments and organize them, so they can be presented to the public at the second meeting. All Plan Commissioners are welcome to attend. Chairman Lyman reported that the Chicago Avenue Streetscape Study is moving ahead. In mid- to late -October, the Commission will hear more about the study. The study is looking at plaits for the bank that is opposite of the now vacant Dominick's and is considering widening sidewalks along Chicago Avenue. The main question that the study is focused on is: What can be done to make the southern entrance to Evanston along Chicago Avenue more arawive? Finally. Chairman Lyman reported that the Howard Street development study is moving ahead. The main focus of the study is currently on the area of Howard Street between Ridge and Chicago Avenues. • Zoning Committee There was no report. • Community Development Committee Commission Rodgers, the Community Development Committee Chair. was not in attendance. therefore there was no report. • Economic Development Committee Richard Cook. the Economic Development Committee Chair, stated that the Economic Development Committee did not meet during the past month. + Parking Committee The Chair of the Parking Committee. Richard Cook, informed the Commission that the majority of the meeting concerned the parking situation at the Hilton Inn- The Committee spent a great deal of time attempting to determine the proper definition of *guest parking'. One of the commissioners asked if the hotel was having a parking problem. The hotel originally thought that they would be provided with more parking. Another commissioner asked if a 'guest' should be defined as someone registered to stay at the hotel. The Committee decided that this should be the definition of 'guest' when considering the guest parking issue. Hilton representatives were in attendance at the Committee meeting, in addition to another Evanston hotel representative. This representative expressed some resentment given the fact that the City seemed to go out of its way for Hilton but not for other hotels in Evanston. • Planning and Development Committee Doraine Anderson, the Chair of the Planning and Development Committee, began her report with 622- 624 Davis Street (Request to Approve a Major Variation that was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals). She stated that the Committee decided to ovetnrm the ZBA and approved the construction of a 4-story mixed -use building at this location. 1930 Ridge Avenue: There were misunderstandings among the aldermen regarding who said what, so the Council decided to set a special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee (with all the aldermen in attendance) on Thursday. September 20. One of the Commission members stated that Plan Commaston .Heeling - September 12. 2001 Pages there have been too marry lay ers of bureaucrat} regarding this case and feared that the Planning and Development Committee would overturn the Plan Commission's recommendation regarding this case. Zoning Map Amendment (Main and Chicago): The Committee was prepared to have dealt with this in August. however. the Council felt that Mr. Stullen had 'blindsided' them and further review would be needed. As for now. the Cotnminee has passed with zoning changing to B3 on the northwest comer of Main and Chicago. Request for HOME Foods for 1816 Darrow: HOME funds are being requested for the construction of an affordable single family house at this location. Commissioner Anderson informed the Commission of a proposed amendment to the City Building Code requiring City parking garages to be sprinkled if they are less than 50% open. She also stated that the proposed text amendment for required parking for multi -family residential developments be held pending news from the Parking Committee regarding this proposal. VI. OTHER SUSINESSIANNOUNCEMENTS Jeff Burdick introduced himself to the Commission as Evanston's new General Planner. Vll. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 8:55 pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Burdick General Planner October 1, 2001 Plan Commmion .fleeting -September IZ 2001 Page Draft — Xot Approved MINUTES EN:-\NSTON PLI�N COMMISSION Wednesday, October 10, 2001 / -:00 p.m. Evanston Cis-ic Center, Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT .............................. Richard Cook. Douglas Doetsch. Steve Knutson (arrived at 7:13 pm). John Lyman, Alice Rebechini, Kenneth Rodgers, Lam Widmayer MEMBERSABSENT............................................................................................................ Joseph Eatman ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ....Ann Dienner, Sharer. Feigon, Nettie Johnson (arrived at 7:13pm) ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT...................................................................................Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT............................................................ Arthur Alterson, Jeffrey Burdick, Dennis Marino PRESIDING...................................................................................................................John Lyman, Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER/ DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting -A-as called to order at approximately 7:08 p.m. A quorum was present. If. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF SETEMBER 12, 2001. Commission Lyman made note of the fact that the minutes stated that certain Plan Commission members were chairmen of the committee they were reporting for. Jeffrey Burdick the General Planner, stated that he would correct this. Commissioner Cook moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 2001. The motion was passed unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Case ZPCOI-05-PD: An application by Prentiss Propertim property owner for a Planned Development as a form of special use permit including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to allow redevelopment of an area within the Da, Downtown Development District. The subject property is commonly known as 800 Elgin Road/] 800 Sherman Avenue (PIN I 1-18-1 19-022-0000) and lies generally between Elgin Road. Sherman Avenue, Clark Street, and Benson Avenue. The proposed planned development is for a mixed -use development consisting of retail and other commercial uses; office: parking: and other uses permitted in the D4 District. The planned development may contain a bank with a drive -through facility and commercial parking. This is a special use in the Dd District (continued from the July 11, 2001 meeting). Plan Commamon •uttering - October 10. 2001 Page t Chairman L}man opened the discussion b% describing the petitioner's request and swearing anyone in that wished to speak about this case during the public hearing. He then asked Arthur Alterson, the zoning administrator, if he had anything to say before the applicants made their presentation. Mr. Alterson corrected his staff report. which stated that the building height of the project was 83 feet. The actual building height will be 95 feet. The presentation was then turned o-.cr to Paul Shadle. one of Prentiss Properties Representatives. Mr. Shadle stated that he had an affidavit indicating that he sent public notice to all of the people shown on the assessor's records that live w ithin 1.000 feet of the property, including the residents of Sherman Garden Apartments. He explained that Prentiss Properties owns the entire site including the 1800 Sherman Building, which sits on the east portion of the site. The propem, is currently improved with this building, which is 138.000 square feet. The west portion of the site is a surface parking lot. The proposal is to construct a four and a half story parking structure with a five -story Class A Office Building above it on the western portion of the property. The Ciry's Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee did its concept review back in March and approved the concept with some proposed design changes that ha%a been responded to. The three site development allowances that the developers are seeking within the D4 District include: - The elimination of the ziggurat setback along Benson and Sherman Avenues - The absence of retail or service uses on the ground level of the portions of the building fronting Benson and Clark - A maximum defined building height not to exceed 95 feet. where 85 feet is permitted. Mr. Shadle asked the Commissioners to note that the developers are no longer asking for a drive -through facility on the site. Moreover, they are complying with the density requirements of the D4 District. Permitted FAR is 4.5 for the site. This project will be substantially below that. Mr. Shadle introduced Steve Wright from Wright Architects in Chicago to present the elevations and design issues to the Commission. An interactive art display has been included along the southern portion of the Benson elevation and the entire Clark Street elevation. This will provide the opportunity for various an or historical groups to display exhibits. These exhibits could be changed an a regular basis. Member Cook asked Mr. Wright how many parking spaces would be provided. The total number will be 562, which is more than the 445 that would be required. This number is the requirement for both of the buildings on the site. Currently there are 185 parking spaces an the site. Associate Member Feigon asked what percent of people working in the current building use public transportation. Dan Cushing answered between 40 and 60 percent. Member Cook asked Mr. Wright if they attempted to put retail on the fast floor along Clark Stint. Mr. Wright said that they did. however, from a practical and economic point of view, this would not work. It would be very difficult because of the way the ramping in the garage would need to go. Retail in this location would on]% be 18 feet deep if the current design of the parking garage remained. Furthermore, the appropriateness of retail in this location is in question considering the large amount of vacant retail space along Clark Street just to the west of this project. Member Widmayer asked Mr. Wright how many parking spaces would be lost if retail space was created that was greater than 18 feet in depth. Mr. Wright explained that increasing the depth of proposed retail space in this location would change the whole ramping system of the garage and a significant amount of parking spaces would be lost. Member Rebechini inquired about the landscaping to be used at the corner of the new development along Elgin Road. Mr. Wright referred to the landscape plan and stated that it can certainly be enhanced to include increased landscaping in this highly visible area. The developers will consider setting the sidewalk off the street and including a green parkway between the sidewalk and the street. Chairman Lyman made it clear that the Commission would like to see hedges and plantings as landscaping, not just grass. Plan Commision .tleering - Ociober 10. 2001 Page 2 Associate member Feieon asked the developers if the% considered flipping the proposed building because retail makes more sense along Clark Street. which is more pedestrian oriented. than along the automobile - oriented Elgin Road. Mr. Wright stated that the people using the building would largely support the retail along Elgin. as it uruld be tied in with the main lobby. Furthermore. there is too much retail space that is struggling to be leased along Clark Street. The Church Street Plaza is ha%ine a tough time leasing its Clark Street retail. He also stated that retail is only successful when there is a critical mass or use that enlivens it. Mr Cook expressed his concern regarding the screening of the lights from the building and the parking garage. He stated that the challenge to the developers is to find a way to screen the lights in a fashion that still allows the garage to be well lit and safe for everyone. fir. Wright explained that the openings in the building on the garage elevation are such that the fronts of cars will not be seen from the outside. He did say that there is no complete way of screening the light from the garage. but the direct view of the lights would be mitigated by double Ts located in the structure of the garage. It will not totally eliminate light glare, but it will address it. Mr. Wright described the proposed building materials to be used. The building will be precast concrete and done in an architectural finish. They have differentiated between the northern and southern portions of the buildings. A large amount of glass will be used to "open up" the building. Precast concrete will also be used on the garage. It will be part sandblasted and some parts of it will be acid etched. Associate member Johnson asked what portion of the garage would be public. Mr. Cushing responded that there would be a component of the parking related to the tenants' lease. However, it would be a public garage and the City will be able to keep it open 241 if it so chose. Larry Okrant addressed the Commission regarding the development qualifications for a planned development special use. He emphasized that ground floor retail does not always do what it is designed to do. Ground floor retail does not always creating interesting pedestrian experiences. The Comprehensive Plan is overflowing with arts policies and recommendations. The public an display windows will fulfill the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for increased public art. Store windows will be installed, they will be lit by the developers. maintained by the developers. and the developers will install awnings. The Evanston Arts Council. if it chooses to, can be responsible for the exhibits. Mr. Oktant went on to explain that the site plan provides for 3MIo open and landscaped space. The plan calls for the kinds of buildings that accommodate high-tech office uses. It will expand the employment base in downtown Evanston. Finally, there is a significant real estate tar benefit. The Evanston tax base will be built up from this development and this development will not drain the tax base, there is no school demand, almost no police demand. and almost no fur demand. Mr. Shadle concluded the applicant's presentation and formally requested that the written application materials, the reports. the slides. and the boards be accepted into the record of the hearing: Exhibit 1: Context Plan Exhibit 2: Ground Floor Site Plan Exhibit 3: Landscape Plan Exhibit 4: Longitudinal section Exhibit S: East and West Elevation Exhibit 6: North and South Elevation Exhibit 7: View to the northeast corner of Claris and Benson Exhibit 8: View towards the courtyard across Elgin Avenue Exhibit 9: Conceptual floor plans Exhibit 10: Roof Plan Exhibit 11: The first through fifth office levels section of Clark Street Exhibit 12: South aerial photo Exhibit 13: North aerial photo Exhibit W: Public benefits of the project sheet Plan Commission .t1teting - October 10. 2001 Page 3 Chairman Lyman ofticiall% concluded the presentation portion of the meeting and opened the public hearina Mr Gison. '350 Orrington Asked if the propem -.%as still under a TIF. Dennis Marino. Esansion's Planning Director, explained that the property is in the TIF district. but that doesn't necessarily meant that it is getting any assistance. Sir. Gibson also inquired about the location of detention for the site because surrounding properties occasionally get flooded. Sir. Wright explained that underneath the parking deck there is a detention area. Water is collected from the site. stored here. and released at the appropriate engineering rate according to Cin ordinances. Tammti• Pappis. 1856 Sherman She stated that she was concerned with the amount of light that may emit from the parking garage. She also did not understand why the tall part of the building could not be on the south side of the property, away from the residents to the north. Bill Joiner. 1862 Sherman: He was concerned that the Befits from the parking garage are going to be shining directly into the bedrooms of some of the surrounding homes. Dorrame Anderson, 1860 Sherman Nis. Anderson referred to one of the presentation boards and stated that the greenery within the median of Elgin Road needs to remain. She also informed the Commission that D4 (the zoning of the subject property) is considered a transitional district between downtown and surrounding residential neighborhoods, but allows for the greatest height of any other downtown zoning district. People are concerned with the highest portion of the building being located adjacent to the neighborhood to the north rather than along Clark Street. She also stated that there is little pedestrian traffic along the south side of Elgin Road. Locating retail along Elgin Road would not be viable. Chairman Lyman closed the public testimony portion of the meeting and asked the developers to respond to the comments made by the public. Mr. Wright responded to the concerns regarding the light coming from the building. He explained that the windows of the building would be coated so that the sun. as it shines in, will be reduced to increase the energy efficiency of the building. At night. µhen the situation is reversed. light µill emit from the building. but not more than the building at 1800 Sherman or other existing buildings in downtown Evanston. As far as the parking garage. there is the opportunity to provide screening and some of that has already been done through the use of the double T's in the structure of the garage. The developers would be willing to work with the Cin to find ways to reduce the light from the garage but maintain the public safer` of the garage. Mr. Wright then answered the inquires regarding moving the taller portion of the building to the south side of the site. He explained that doing so would cause the building to be 40 feet from the other building and create a huge mass of buildings in this location. They felt very strongly for functional reasons, as well as from a massing point of view. that the taller portion of the building should be to the north. Ms. Anderson asked about sliding the tall portion of the building half way down on the site. Sir. Wright explained that locating the tall portion of the building along Elgin Road would create a strong gateway into the downtown for traffic traveling from the northwest along Elgin Road. Commissioner Widmayer wanted to make sure that he understood why the case was before the Commission. If the building was not ten feet too tall, if retail was located along Clark, and if it had complying setbacks. then it would not have to come before the Commission. He asked Chairman Lyman if that was correct. Chairman Leman said yes. Associate member Feigon stated that when she first got involved with the Plan Commission, they were still discussing the Church Street project. One of the major issues of this project was the connectivity of the project to the rest of the downtown. She believes that it is eery important to have retail along Clark Street. Retail will serve a number of functions. including enhancing the streetscape. increasing safety, and creating Plan Commission .fleeting - October 10. 2001 Page 4 lift on the stint. The increase in residential development downtown will enhance the retail market. This location alone Cask Street is s link bemeen Northwestern and the "o-A noun. Commissioner Rodgers asked :he developers if study was done that pro►ed that locating retail along Clark Street would not be suc:essf:l compared to putting it on Elgin; Street. Mr. Cushing said that there was not a study. howe►er the greatest retail interest recei►ed has been along Elgin due to traffic and sigmge opportunities Commissioner Rebechini stated that Clark Street could be ►iewed as a strut with a taller building with retail on the norh. with a lower scale, pedestrian oriented south side of the street. There may be validity to locking at Clark Street in this way. Commissioner Knutson explained that he was going through the crireria for a planned development and is not coming up with a great deal of benefit that the Cit} would receive b% approving this project. He believes that the City should hold out for retail along Clark Street and for a better building. Commissioner Doetsch stated that given the number of empty storefronts. the City might be fooling itself that retail would be viable along Clark Street. He stated that he is not sure it would happen in the near term. Commissioner Widmayer said that one of the things that the Commission is responsible for is to procure additional tax base for the City. He believes the Commission has the responsibility to push retail in an area that has strong chance of generating some sales tax base. There is probably a better chance for profitable retail on the Clark Street side than on the Elgin side. Chairman Lyman stated that he does not have a problem with the an display windows being located along Benson Sweet, but agrees that retail along Clark Street is preferable. Commissioner Knutson made a motion to reject the planned development. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Commissioner Widmayer stated that he would rather see the project be tabled for a month and then have them come back to see if they can adjust it. The Commission discussed this option. but determined that tabling it would have the same effect as rejecting it - either way a new proposal would have to appear before the Commission. The motion to reject the Planned Development passed 6-1. Chairman Lyman asked the developers if they had enough input from the Commission regarding the reason for why the planned development was rejected. He stated that he felt the main issue was the lack of retail on Clark Street and the location of the tower. Lighting was another issue that needs to be handled. The positive aspects of the plan are that something is being done with an odd piece of property and the parking is being handled beautifully. .11-[r. Cushing asked for more clarit. regarding the notion of shifting the lower to the north and creating a set back off of Elgin Road. Commissioner Cook said that pulling the building back from Elgin Road would create more of an opening coming into the neighborhood. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission rase is on file %nth the Evaruton Zoning Division. The Zoning Division a located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Cn•ic Center V. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS + Binding Appearance Review Committee Commissioner Cook reported that the draft of the design guidelines would be complete on Friday. Prior to bringing it before Plan Commission, the Comminee will have a meeting with groups such as Design Evanston to present the draft to them. • Neighborhood Planning Committee Chairman Lyman stated that the next meeting would be tomorrow night. The Committee will ask the public to look at categories of the MUE - Triangle Neighborhood study, add new ideas, and shift ideas between categories. It will then be cleaned up and presented to the public for the next meeting. Commissioner Knutson thanked Chairman Lyman for his efforts in presenting the well -organized meeting. The subject of the meeting ranged from lack of adequate schooling to public safety issues. The Committee is still awaiting feedback from the developers regarding the Howard Street study. The Chicago Avenue study is moving ahead and, within a month. ideas should be presented to the public. Pfau Commission Meeting - October 10. W I Page 5 zotzing Cammit~-&c Cam,�mrss,rrtrr K nxsntt —.n0r i_-r :tar the commit_-e is continu,.-mr to ,.=ccws the built to lot line issue. He xsi.ed the Cor-tmisswir. if -tltr� w•tshed to disct::s; a ch=ae ir. the zxming for the southwest corner of Gmtnucce: nerd t='ntcat u. It t cur—mmtly zoned Bs and Aldertnam Ber--.�tein requested that the Plitt Car:- nissam disc:. ss a ;tt.�ssibur chantee in this zor.:ng. i he Ceram, s;on felt that if B3 zoning is Wked at ir. this Ic:e:ation. now ::aula r. nor :,: comidered for the proper-nes alt,"g Howard Street? The Cor arnisstc:r. qu"; amett whetb= tfn:t should cont:=ue to :+c dome in a piecemeal fashion. Con-missu:ner K.:tutson said -rims the Zoning Corrrnittee is done IDOL,= at this issue and it is now up to the Man Cernmis:w—cm to =,uw if thtr% want to ex=ine iL The Plan Commission could decide to discuss it a=.rr recTtvinrs i reattt- ti't:nr the zoninu Committee. i he Commission asked Commissioner Knur_%on if he htraimig wnuiv ter abunn the zoning of Chicago Avrnue and Greenwood or B3 zoning as a wi:,ple. The Ccrs::ttss:tan .i=Mded :not it is not iratcrestrd in cfmcusstg the zoning of this location at this :ime. [a the uamina mcnrttts. Cite Zoning Corr=nittee should 3etermine if the B3 district should be exar lned xt a wht;ic. • Canrmunir% Devtlopmwnt C immim= Cormmissic:rtcr Rcczeem Tepart_d taut: there would be a Community Development meeting next Wednesda-, At its time--. them:• is actthung to reps m • £eooamic Deveh:Tmrenn Camtmit>mr Commissicoer Cc,:), smnud dim the :topic of the last comminee meetitnc was the Sherman Plaza devr3opmeat. The Comrmittre- warm d to know the Plan Commission's opinion of the project. Connmissicaer Cco:,k stun char ire intkmned the committee that dne bigLpm topic of discussion among the Plan Commis:t.tnn mi ardetd pariume. The Coimminee appro+i-_d the project • Parking Commicnrc Commissioner Crt:t► statt`d tau thee_ was not a meeting and thcx titer: was nothing to report. He inqu_ved al:out the-herrubotau, of thtr incrimsed parking requim=ent for residential building issue and was %old thxt it is torn¢ Znrou,ach the +:.in Council m this time. • Planning and Din-esopmtcur C.nmmrittee There is ct.-rrntl� no one- from the Man Commiss= assigned to this zzimmittre. Associate member Dier :ner sm-. a the -cpam 183 r Sher:.,jn R.:,a.* 1"ttv cernimimac approved a plat of consoladadon for this property. 181 f Darr•.ne Par C ire Manuiaer was authorized to enter into a Teal ate contract for the sale of propem 1i his 1Ca1'=55. h S L�vacwr. lot that vitas captured un6m the = reactivation program- The de-,6opers ,ire going to narmw, touter to build a home and sea it fcr S 175K. which is an affordable amct;mt. The Commence the crmc:m of a sign inner. amend=g the comprehensive plan. The Second Bapr" Chris-ch.: I pm;i:ttied addition to the rear of --be chinch was discussed. The major issue was Lilac the chu= was woktntg for enough harking spaces. As of last night, the City Council approved &x =mz of tt =-_4 by the: church in the Mapie Avetite garxec. 17 spaces will be maintained in the zaraLm as ce--pemim The dump stem on the i= new to be placed within the footcu-int orthe c6irch Stitt: r mlvved from the alltr.. Therr is a proposed joint: mr_Ln—ing or the Planning and Development Commince. the Plan Commission and :he Zoning B:yard urr Appe:uls. r'ne three dares to choose &= are 'November 5, November 19 or Nouexrtber 26. -rhc pur-pose ay'the mtesting is to dsctss ways to unprc ve the interaction between these boars. Tr.,e Plan Commission sea= that they preferred the Ntn=ber 19 date. A time for the mccung ha..' not yet been sear VL OTHER BUS[CIE:S'S..4.N'NOL-10E,%IEN-rS 1 w30 Ri4c Ao _:rue w JI appe= at nena amnnth's Plan Commission cneetimL Chairman Lyman explained hou the pxrojcct has cl•;=ed saner She Plum Commission last revie%+cd iL Commissioner Cook announced Paan Cammmvwx Aleenmr - Cc:rnnur !1 2017 Page 6 that the plan appeared before th< Site Plan and Appearance Re%iew Commince earlier that day. It was approved in concept wiLh many comments from the Committee members. Chairman Lyman asked about ore Fiaaiean project. Mr. MarUw said that there has been no contact with the developer recently. Assa:iate aerrt[ Diener inquired about Mr. Lee's project. Mr. Alterson said that there was something in for building pt=mit regarding this project. Mr. Alterson informed the Cor=nissirm that the consultants for the bicycle plan are looking for feedback regarding people riding bikes ir. dowraown Evanston. There will be an open meeting regarding this plan in November. Mr. Marino explained that this project is pan of a S50K grant that the City received to do bicycle planning. Mr. Marino informed the Commission that the last revision of the RTA plan has been completed. Chairman Lyman said that Des:grt Evanston is looking for inpta from the Plan Commission. Commissioner Cook said that the Binding Appearance Review Committee is working with this group. Mr. Alterson asked the Commission members to provide their e-mail addresses and a sheet was passed around for this purpose. V11. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commissiaa adjotmied its meeting at 9:56 pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. November id. 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Doom 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner November 8. 200I Plan Communion Afeeting - October is 2ool Pagr 7 Draft — Not Approved MINUTES EVANSTON PL-kN CO\iNI1SSION Wednesdav, November 14, 2001 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, Room 2402 MEMBERS PRESEXT............ Richard Cook Douglas Doetsch, Steve Knutson, John Lyman. Alice Rebechini, Kenneth Rodgers, Larry Widmayer MEMBERSABSEN7............................................................................................................ Joseph Eamtan ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ....... Ann Dienner, Sharon Feigon, Nettie Johnson, Jeanne Lindw•ail STAFF PRESENT............................................................ Arthur Alterson, Jeffrey Burdick. Dennis Marino PRESIDING..................................................................................................................John Lyman. Chair I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:03 p.m. A quorum was present. If. .CONSIDERATION OF NIINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 10,2001 A motion was made to approve the minutes for the October 10, 2001 Plan Commission meeting. The motion was seconded and was approved unanimously. III. OLD BUSL\'ESS: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING CASE ZPC01406-M&PD: An application by Richard Aaronson. manager of Evanston Really Partners. LLC. with permission from Ben Randall, manager of Schmaltz, LLC, property owner, for an amendment to the City of Evanston Zoning Map and for a Planned Development. The applicant is the contract purchaser of the property commonly known as 1930 Ridge Avenue. located within the C2 Commercial Zoning District. The applicant requests that the City amend the Zoning Map, to place the above -mentioned property within the RS or R6 General Residential Districts or the C1a. Commercial Mixed Use District. Further. the applicant requests that the City grant a planned development as a form of special use including such development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to provide the applicant with the zoning relief necessary to allow the redevelopment of 1930 Ridge Avenue for multi -family residential with accessory parking. Generally, the applicant proposes to construct a multi -family residential complex of 4 buildings. each with 4-stories of apartments. Beneath this complex will be a level of parking that will be Plan Commissions ,sleeting — Ncnvmber 14, 2001 Page 1 more or less sub -surface along the east edge of the complex. Apartment sizes include 1.2 and 3 bedroom units ranging from agproximatel% 500 square feet to 1300 square feet. Arthur Alterson. the Director of Zonine. pro► ided a brief summary of the proposed de:eiopment. He explained that the proposal would contain 195 dwelling units with 115 units havit g a floor area of 700 square feet and 80 units having a floor area exceeding 700 square feet. Thc building lot coverage would be approximateh 62% of the 85.185 square foot property. The building height from grade along the east edge of the complex would be approximately 46 feet to the top of the parapet. there would be 223 parking spaces in the underground garage, 7 of which would be handicapped spaces. Chairman Leman pointed out that the last time this project appeared before the Commission, the Commission voted for a R5 zone of this property. He asked Mr. Alterson if there would be any reason for the Commission to revisit the R5 designation or use that as a basis for the discussion. Mr. Alterson said that would be up to the Commission and suggested that the Commission hear the proposal and they• make a decision. Chairman Lyman swore in anyone who wished to speak. Richard Aaronson with Evanston Realty Partners and Atlantic Realty Partners introduced himself and the rest of the developer's team to the Commission. Stephen Yas, the project's architect, briefly discussed Evanston in an urban context and then introduced Nick Patera from Teska Associates to discuss the site. Mr. Patera summarized the site design. He explained that them would be multiple entrances into a loi-rise type building that is indicative of many buildings throughout Evanston, especially along Ridge Avenue. He believes that this site design fits into the residential fabric of Evanston more so than the previous site designs of this proposal. He noted that the entrance to the underground parking would align straight on with the alley that is just north of Garnett Place. The underground parking garage would occupy the entire site, except for the north and southwest corner, where the pool would be. It would differ from neighboring courtyard apartments in that it would not have an alley in the rear and people will not be hunting and pecking for parking spots. There will be a 50-foot by 35 foot loading bay adjacent to the entrance to the parking garage that residents schedule for moving and deliveries. Along the Ridge Avenue frontage, short-term drop-off spaces will be provided so that traffic flow will not be impeded along Ridge Avenue. There will be a series of courtyards on the site. The north - south courtyard will be the spine of the site, providing a visual alley from the clubhouse to the pool. There will be the ability for fretrucks to access these courtyards. Chairman Lyman asked if a right and left turn would be permissible from the parking garage. Mr. Aaronson stated that turning would be allowed in both directions. Mr. Yas discussed the details on the fagade of the proposed buildings. He passed around a picture of a building that his firm designed that utilized the same checkerboard design that is being proposed for this building. In terms of colon of materials, there are two shades that are being considered for the brick. They include w hite, to off-white and dove gray. The colors of the window frames are still being considered. Mr. Yas explained that the brick would be taupe. not red. Mr. Aaronson explained that an affordable housing component would be included as part of the proposal. The proposal is to provide ten units of affordable housing with a discount off the market rent of 25 percent. He had conversations with the Interfaith Housing Center about the possibility of working with them to assist in finding appropriate applicants to fill these units. Mr. Aaronson also mentioned that there was a traffic analysis and report that was prepared. The traffic generated by this project will be significantly less than the grocery store that was them previously or any other retail establishment that would currently be allowed by right on the site. Plan Comnusreon 3feenng -November 14 001 Page 2 Associate member Dienner asked W hat the accident rate is near the site. Mr. Aaronson said that he did not have this information. Mr. Aaronson stated that a real estate tax attorney has been hired to project the potential assessment in the future based on the proposed development. The increment is nearly $500,000. Commissioner Widmayer asked if the number of parking spaces would be restricted for a unit. Mr. Aaronson explained that permit parking would be utilized, which would leave anywhere from ten to fifteen percent of the spaces vacant due to people working at odd hours or not having their car on the property. Associate member Lindwall said that in the SPARC meeting minutes there was an indication that the Fire Department was concerned about what might happen in terms of access once landscaping matured. Has this issue been resolved? Mr. Patera replied that there would be an open dialogue with the Fire Department. Mr. Aaronson explained that the buildings have been curved to allow for access while maintaining the space for landscaping. The code requires a I2-foot wide access lane. Captain Berkowsky has requested an 18-foot wide lane and that is what will be provided. Chairman Lyman opened the floor for public commentary. Mark Dillon — Vice Chair of the Evanston Housing Commission: Mr. Dillon reviewed the memorandum that the Housing Commission forwarded to the Plan Commission regarding an affordable housing component in this development. The memorandum stated that 20 units of affordable housing should be provided. The units should be disbursed equally throughout the complex. The project should not be converted into a condominium for a minimum period of seven years. If in the future there is to be a condominium conversion, the Committee asks that the affordable units be converted into affordable condo units. Finally, first preference should be gi%cn to financially qualified Evanston residents who have lived or been employed in the City for at least rAo years. Commissioner Doetsch stated that he does not believe that the metal rates of these units and the affordable component being proposed by the developer will constitute what he considers to be affordable housing. Mr. Aaronson stated that he believes affordability is relative to what the market is in Evanston. Dorraine Anderson — 1806 Shernum .4 venue: Ms Anderson stated that during earlier iterations of this plan, traffic was a major concern and there were questions about the depth and breadth of KOLA's traffic studies. Accident statistics were supposed to be provided by the developers and have not been. She questioned whether only 30 percent of the occupsnc}- of the project would actually be students. She also pointed out that the school district would receive most of the tax benefits of this project. Judy Fiske: Ms. Fiske stated that this project should be compatible with the vintage buildings along Ridge Avenue. Her main concern is with the appearance of the building, especially the 12 by 12-foot bricks. She believes that the double gates dividing the entryway set up a negative `us vs. them" connotation in the neighborhood. She would like to see the development be more welcoming to the community. Daniel Garrison -- 1228 Simpson Street: Mr. Garrison explained that he had been studying police reports and that these reports show a high correlation between apartments occupied by students and nuisance calls. He is concerned that this development will be predominately occupied by students and these same problems will Plan Commuuon .heeling - .vavember 14. 2001 Page 3 1 therefore occur in this a.. -ea. He believes that the smaller the apartments. the more chance of students lining there. T'r.e density is the major concern of the des elopment. David Reynolds — : 04 D n ts Srreet: ,*ir. Reynolds stated that if this development ever produced an overflow of parking. there v►•ouid be no other places to park. It is incumbent upon the City to require that adequate parking be produced at this site. If this development converts to a condo in the future. more parking -Rill be needed and it would haw a to be the City providing this parking. Holly Reynolds — 204 Dtin-is Srreel: Ms. Reynolds believes that this development .would be acceptable in another environmemL but not in Evanston. ,Wry Singh — 1711 Hinman .4 renue: Ms. Singh explained that R5 zoning would allow 103 units on the site. and because this is a planned development. more units could be added. This proposal exceeds this amount by so much; it makes a mockery of planned developments. In addition, the checker board design is very startling and will wt positively add to the fabric of the community. Chairman Lyman ended the public testimony portion of the meeting and opened up the meeting to questions from Commission members. Commissioner Knutson asked W. Alterson wiaat he believes to be the appropriate underlying zoning for this site. Mr. Alterson stated that he Wie%vs that this site can handle R6 zoning. Bruce Huvard. the attorney for the project. stated than if dwm were some queasiness regarding the design aspects of this project, the developers would not stiv working between noµ and the City Council to alleviate these concerns. Chairman Lyman stated that there are man% items to discuss and that he would like the Commission members to grab one topic and stick w ith it until it is resolved. He requested that the issue of R5 or R6 zoning be discussed. Mr. Alterson stated that although he believes that this site can handle R6 zonine- he is concerned that the densit% of building on the lot is quite severe. There is excessi%e lot coverage and he believes the project could handle more height and less k-4 coverage. He is also concerned about the parking numbers. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he is curious as to why the Plan Commission did not receive an accident report_ A staff member explained that it could be pro%ided, but it would ob%iously be after the fact. Commissic= Widmayer said that it should be provided prior to the Cin Council session. Commissioner Rebechini stated that the Emerson/Ridge!Green Bay intersection is unaffected by this piam because the entrance to the garage is pulled as far back from the intersection as possible. Commissioner Widmawer believed that R5 was previously recommended because of the bright issue with the pre% ious proposal. Associate member Lindwall stated that her concern wms that there would be too man} people living on this site. Commissioner Widmayer explained :hat the number of students living on the site would not change if the unit numbers decreased. L$rger units would be created and each unit would therefore contain a greater number of studems. Commissioner Knutson asked Mr. Alterson if this planned development could be approved with a 'C' zoning. Mr. Alterson replied no and Associate member Lindw-all explained that the C district does not allow multi -family residential. Commissioner Knutson clarified that if this projtect does not proceed, then the property would maintain its C district zoning. Commissioner Knutson requested that he move the meeting along by moving that the Commission consider the planned development with R6 zoning. Commissioner Rodgers seconded this motion. Mr. Huvard stated that under R6, there would be no need for a site Plan Commission .Herring - % oremher 14. 2001 Page 4 development allowance as there,6*c41d be under R3. Commissioner Doetsch stated that height appears to be the major issue. Them -fore. he is in favor of R: to prohibit a tall building from being constructed on this site. The 6ensir% issue could be handled separately as part of the planned development. Chairman Lyman called to question the motion for R6 zoning on this site. The motion passed 5-2. In response to the discussion of a ptiissible condo conversion. !sir. Aaronson explained that his firm is an apartment development company and it is their desire to develop apartment communities and hold them long tern as rental apartment communities. Commissioner Rebechini stated that it is not appropriate for the Commission to speculate as to the exact outcome of the market and how that will affect this development. This is speculative and unfairly penalizes the developer. Commissi�cner Widma%er stated that this development would meet the need for rental housing in Evanston Commissioner Rebechini stated tha: the remaining topic of discussion should be what the Commission's role should be with respect to the architectural design of the project. She believes that the scale and the elements of the project are wonderful. but the actual surface materials of the building arc quite harsh and that she would like to see a softer looking building. Commissioner Doetsch stated that to the extent that this building is trying to communicate with other buildings nearby, which is one of the aims of the zoning code, using red brick would be much more appropriate. It also seemed to him that there is a profusion of surface materials that is somewhat overdone and gives the buildings a confused look. Associate member Dienner stated that she does not care for the taupe effect because it is too bland. She would prefer red brick. Commissioner Cook explained that he likes the taupe brick. Associate member Lindwall stated that she does not mind the taupe brick. but it should be small brick. She believes that it is very important that buildings on this site relate to the surrounding neighborhood and its architecture. Associate member Feigon stated that she likes the scale of the building but is not fond of the checker board design. Associate member Johnson said that she likes the design and believes that the choice of brick is going to offer a classy look to affordable rental property. Commissioner Knutson stated that he believes that the design is well thought out. There is a lot of attention to scale, detail and texture. The design is absolutely specific to the site. Chairman Lyman informed the Commission that there are a number of areas with this planned development that are not meeting requirements in terms of setbacks, etc. He asked Mr. Alterson to run through the exceptions being asked because when a vote is taken, the Commission will have to go back through the standards and findings of a planned development and vote on the whole item as a package. Mr. Alterson explained that in R6 with a planned development, building lot coverage could be up to 60%. The proposal is for 63.43%. There is a one -foot setback on both the north (interior side %ard) and west (rear) property lines. R6 allows for a minimum setback of 3 feet and _= feet respectively. Planned developments in the R6 District require a ten foot landscaped strip along non -street lot lines. This is not provided along the north and west. Chairman Lyman informed the Commission that when a motion is made. there needs to be a reference to the findings and standards document that each of the Commissioners have before them. Commissioner Cook made a motion to approve the planned development as shown as R6 under the City of Evanston residential district planned development findings and standards. The Commission members went through each of these findings and standards. The motion was seconded. It was added to the motion that all variances are being accepted. The motion was called to question and passed 7-0. Plan Commuslon .Meeting -- .Vcnvmbe.-! s_ 2001 Page 5 .4 verbatim truru rapt of the proceedings of zh" Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zon:ng Division is located in Room 3-00 of the Evanston Civic Center. V. CO`I.NfMEE UPDATES A►.\'D REPORTS • Binding Appearance Re-t7ew Committee Commissioner Cook said that there would be a meeting on the morning of Friday, November 16 to make a recommendation regarding the draft binding appearance review document. He suspected that the Committee would approve the document and that it would appear before the PIan Commission in December. • Neighborbood Planning Committee Chairman Lyman informed the Commission that the meeting scheduled for tomorrow would be postponed because of a conflict. The next meeting would take place on Thursday, December 6. At this meeting, people will vote on projects that they wish to work on. He strongly encouraged Plan Commission members to attend this meeting. • Zoning Committee Commissioner Knutson stated that the Zoning Committee did not meet but planned to meet on the morning of December 6. • Community Development Committee Commissioner Rodgers informed the Commission that there would be a meeting tomorrow night. • Economic Development Committee Commissioner Cook explained that he missed this meeting because it was occurring simultaneously with tonight's Plan Commission meeting. • Parking Committee Commissioner Cook stated that the Parking Committee met earlier this evening. The Committee discussed Hill's request for short term parking inside of the garage and out front. They also discussed parking on the second and third floors of the Maple Avenue garage. It was proposed that gates be put up that would go do%m after I lam when the stores in downto%%m would generally open. The Committee expressed concern regarding the location in which the U.S. Postal Service parks its vehicles in the garage. An interpretation of the word 'guest' as it relates to hotels was also discussed. The Committee considered that word `guest' to mean a person who stays overnight in a hotel. The Committee informed the Hilton that there is no free parking for its staff in the garage as per the agreement made with the city. • Planning and Development Committee Associate member Dienner provided a Planning and Development Committee report. The discussion regarding the Starbucks on :Main Street was continued. The Committee requesW further information regarding traffic and parking related concerns. The Committee will review the 800 Elgin Road planned development at its special meeting of November 19. Mr. Garrison spoke at the meeting and informed the Committee of several violations occurring in the 800 and 900 block of Simpson Street. These violations related to the amount of litter in the area from students and the fact that the City has not been attending to this matter. Plan Commusim Meertng - November 1 a.1001 Pagr 6 NI. OTHER BUSLNESS/ANNOUNCEN1ENTS + Chairman Leman informed the Commission that an Executive Committee meeting needed to be scheduled prior to December's regular Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Cook and Commissioner Knutson both stated that they would be available the morning of Monday. December 3. The meeting was scheduled for 8:00am on this date. • Chairman Lyman informed the Commission of the joint Plan Commission, Planning and Development Committee. and Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to take place on Monday. November 19 at 7:30 pm. The meeting will discuss conflicts that these boards are having process wise. He stated that everyone should be in attendance at this meeting. • Commissioner Cook explained that Alderman Newman wanted the Plan Commission to examine the parking requirements that should be required for Northwestern University. The study that was done by David Jennings regarding overnight off street parking for multi -family residential units was sent to the Commissioners in their packets. The Commission decided to hold this discussion at the joint meeting occurring on November 19. • Chairman Lyman stated that the final draft of the RTA study would be presented to both the Commission and the Economic Development Committee at the regular December meeting. • Associate member Johnson informed the Commission that she has been nominated for a position on the Preservation Commission and that her last meeting would be in December. Jeff Burdick informed the Commission that Albert Hunter would be the new Plan Commission member starting in December. V11. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 10:45 p.m. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. December 12. 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted. Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner Plan Commission .tfeering - Smvmber 14.1001 Page 7 December 6, 2001 Draft — Not Approved MINUTES EVANSTON PL--kN COMMISSION Wednesday. December 12, 2001 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT ............ Richard Cook, Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson, John Lyman, Alice Rebechini, Larry Widmayer MEMBERS ABSENT ......................................................Doug Doetsch, Joseph Eatman, Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ....... Ann Dienner, Sharon Feigon, Nettie Johnson, Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT......................................Arthur Alterson, Jeffrey Burdick, Dennis Marino, Marc Mylott PRESIDING....................................................................................................................John Lyman, Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximatelh 7:05 p.m. A quorum was present. 11. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 2001 Associate member Dienner felt that a different word should be used besides several to describe the number of violations found in the 800 and 900 block of Simpson Street by Mr. Garrison. Member Widmayer asked that the transcript from the November 14, 2001 meeting be reviewed to assure that a recommendation was made that affordable housing units in the 1930 Ridge Avenue project remain affordable for a period of at least ten years. Member Widmayer thought that the recommended period of time was longer. A motion was made to accept the minutes with the suggested adjustments. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. III. PRESENTATION OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE RTA STUDY Dennis Marino informed the Plan Commission that Robert Teska from Teska Associates would give a presentation based on the Executive Summary of the RTA study. He explained that RTA, along with other entities, played a significant role in funding the study. RTA has received an electronic copy of the final report and either RTA or the City will be responsible for printing out the report and distributing it. Mr. Marino introduced Robert Teska to the Plan Commission. Mr. Teska explained that the area within a 1,500-foot radius of the downtown transit stations was considered the study area. This Plan Commuxion Meeting - December 12.1001 Page ] distance %as chosen because it has been used in other similar transit studies. Mr. Teska presented a couple of key findings from the employee and transit user sure% conducted as part of the study. Metra ridership has increased ISO% from 1983 to 1999, CTA ridership in Evanston has declined. A Commission member asked Mr. Teska %hat cut off date the traffic consultants used for developments %hen determining road capacity figures. Mr. Teska stated that the traffic consultants %ere a%are of all pending do%nto%n projects. with the possible exception of the 1930 Ridge Avenue project. Mr. Teska summarized the recommendations from the different chapters of the report. A member of the Commission noted that the CTA has allocated money for the replacement of the viaducts in Evanston. He asked if there is a schedule for this replacement. fir. Marino informed him that a plan is in place for the replacement of these viaducts, but the timeline for replacement is quite slow. Chairman Lyman asked Mr. Teska if each Plan Commission member would be able to get a full copy of the final report. Mr. Marino explained that the City asked RTA for 50 copies of the final report so it is likely that each Plan Commissioner will receive a copy. Chairman Lyman asked what the next steps would be in terms of City involvement and Plan Commission involvement. Mr. Marino stated that the City would maintain a partnership with the entities involved in the study. The various entities involved in the study will meet after the start of the New Year. In the meantime, related initiatives are underway including a transit marketing strategy to be implemented in neighborhood business districts by the Chamber of Commerce and Evmark. and a bike study initiated by the City. Steve Perkins, a member of the Evanston Interreiigious Sustainability Circle, stated that his group's primary concern is that there is no institutional base to implement the recommendations of this study. He stated that a subcommittee should be created. or another form of institutionalization should be created, to guide the implementation of the recommendations of this study. Mr. Marino stated that it is also important to get transit riders involved in the implementation process. Associate member Feigon suggested that the City set up a citizen commission to focus on public transportation issues. This will keep public transportation issues in the public eye. Mr. Teska felt that institutionalization should take place as a function of existing groups. He feels that the main unresolved issue is who %ill lead this process overtime. The City agreed to lead the process initially, but no group wanted to lead the process permanently. Associate member Lindwal! stated that a lot of the recommendations of the plan could be coordinated through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Commissioner Widmayer stated that many citizens are not orientated towards public transportation and the public needs to be more involved in the process in order to gain input on how public transportation can be made more attractive to the common citizen. Mr. Teska stated that a liaison from the State Representative's office informed him that now is a good time to get grant money from federal agencies. Mr. Marino notified the Commission that the CTA has announced that it will expand its service in Evanston. Chairman Lyman stated that the Plan Commission strongly supports the study and will be available for support in terms of implementation. IV. PRESEtiTATION OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE BINDING APPEARANCE REVIEW GUIDELINES Commissioner Cook explained that the Binding Appearance Review Committee held several public meetings and contacted several other communities with Binding Appearance Review Plan Commission .tletling - December 12. 2001 Page 2 during the process of formulating the guidelines. He noted that single family residences are excluded from these guidelines. Chairman Leman stated that he did not knoµ µhat E.1.F.S. %%as and that this and other technical terms in theguidelinesshould be spelled out for the benefit of laypersons. Members of the Commission felt that poor examples of design and appearance should be pointed out in the guidelines, including the utility box that sits at around level near a new development along Main Street. Chairman Lyman suggested that the Landscape section of the document contain a requirement for irrigation and maintenance of landscaping. Marc Mylott, Zoning Planner, said that he would run this suggestion b% the Superintendent of Parks and Forestry. He stated that the enforcement of landscape maintenance is an important issue. but it is an issue outside the scope of these guidelines. He suggested that language be included that states that landscaping must be maintained. but that it is up to the property owner to determine the best method for maintaining landscaping. A Commission member stated that there should be language in the document requiring curb cuts to be kept to a minimum to encourage a safe and pedestrian -friendly environment. Mr. Mylott informed the Commission that such language exists in the document. Chairman Lyman stated that he likes how Chicago installs wrought iron fencing and landscaping around its parking lots. He asked if such a requirement would be appropriate for this document. Commissioner Rebechini informed him that Chicago does this with their parking lots, and that such a requirement for private development would impose a significant cost on a developer. Associate member Feigon stated that developments with lots of vision glass but no entryways are not pedestrian friendly. She cited the north elevation of Whole Foods Market in Evanston as an example. Commissioner Cook explained that the guidelines try to require that activity needs to take place behind glass. Commissioner Rebechini said that a major problem with glass elevations is that stores plaster paper signs on the glass, which detracts from the attractiveness of the facade. A member of the audience stated that this is a labor intensive enforcement problem and that there is a City ordinance allowing only 25% of a window facade be covered by paper signs. Commissioner Cook explained that the guidelines anempt to require that signs on facades follow a visual order. A Commission member stated that the City needs to encourage a wide variety of retail uses on the first floor of parking structures. Another Commission member pointed out that one of the standards for variations to the guidelines deals µith the ability for a variation to enhance the local economic tax base. This Commission member felt that economic issues and benefits should not be directly related in any way to design review. Mr. Mylott explained that these standards were largely taken from the standards for Planned De%clopments. The Commission stated that they would like to see this particular standard removed. Commissioner Knutson felt that a stronger mission statement was needed as part of the introduction of the document. He asked how this document would be used to reject a project such as 800 Elgin Road. Commissioner Cook said that the materials being used on that building are mediocre at best. Mr. Mylott stated that these guidelines are not going to teach an architect how to design a good building, but will serve as an insurance policy against disastrous design. He explained that the 800 Elgin Road project would not meet certain guidelines in this document. He gave the example that the streetscape along Elgin Road lacks any semblance of a semi -private zone, the mass of the building is a box and there is no attempt to break up this massing, and this project is a planned development, making it possible for the City to ask for superior architecture. Commissioner Knutson stated that this document should raise the bar higher in order to require Plan Commission .Lleering - December 12. 2001 Page 3 good, sound design. Chairman L}man stated that the issue of quality building materials is not addressed in this document. Sir. sty loft explained that it is hard to define quality building materials. The document Attempted to do this by stating that materials should be durable and appropriate to the architectural style of the building. Commissioner Knutson suggested that a sentence be included in the documents stating that 'A building should be well -designed'. Chairman Lyman felt that it needs to be determined how the Committee structure will work and how these guidelines would be enforced. He suggested that a good first step for a developer is to meet with the appropriate alderman and citizens to introduce the concept of the development. Citizen involvement should occur early in a development process. The Commission felt that it should propose a process for review and outline a separate process to be followed for planned developments. Associate member Lindwall suggested two flow charts be developed, one for normal developments and one for planned developments. Most Commission members felt that Binding Appearance Review should occur after Plan Commission review. The Plan Commission asked Mr. Mylott to present a draft flow chart to the Plan Commission for its January meeting. At the January meeting, suggested language changes would be made and the process for Binding Appearance Review would be developed. The public hearing will likely not take place until February. V. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Committee Discussed as part of the review of Binding Appearance Review Guidelines • Neighborhood Planning Committee Chairman Lyman informed the Commission that the next meeting of the Neighborhood Planning Committee would be January 10, 2002. • Zoning Committee Commissioner Knutson explained that the Committee briefly discussed built to lot line issues and Alderman Newman's topic of university parking regulations at its last meeting. • Community Development Committee Dennis Marino informed the Commission that Community Development funding for the coming year would be S40,000 less than the previous year. • Economic Development Committee Dennis Marino informed the Commission that five funding recommendations were made for groups under the Neighborhood Business District Improvement Program. Two of these groups are west -side groups (Doctor Hill, E Town). • Parking Committee Commissioner Cook explained that this committee has not been meeting regularly. • Planning and Development Committee The previous Planning and Development Committee meeting was the joint meeting with ZBA on November 19, 2001, in which the Plan Commission was in attendance. Plan Commission Afeering - December 11. 2001 Page 4 %1. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT Chairman Lyman asked the Commission members to treat the recommendations borne from the Executive Comminee meeting as proposed. The E-xecutive Committee has recommended that Richard Cook be the chair of the Plan Commission for 2002. It ►►as recommended that Commissioner Rebechini become thevice-chair. but Chairman Lyman stated that this recommendation would be put on hold to give Commissioner Rebechini the chance to consider this nomination. Chairman Lyman informed the Commissioners of the new staffing designations for the subcommittees: Binding Appearance Review: New Commissioner Albert Hunter would serve on this Committee. Zoning: Commissioner Widmayer and Commissioner Doetsch would serve on this Committee. Neighborhood- Commissioner Hunter would serve on this Committee. Economic Development: Commissioner Rebechini would serve on this Committee, with Commissioner Knutson serving as a substitute. Community Development: Commissioner Rodgers would continue to serve on this Committee. Parking: The future new member of the Plan Commission would serve on this Committee. Planning and Development: Chairman Lyman stated that the Plan Commission needs to do a better job of representing itself and its positions on projects at this meeting,. The Chairman will take on the role of serving as the Plan Commission liaison at these meetings. Chairman Lyman explained that the Executive Committee considered creating a University Parking Regulations Committee. However, after a meeting with the Mayor, it has been determined that it is very important that support and representation from Northwestern be established prior to this creation of this committee. Chairman Lyman stated that new associate members would be chosen to replace the three exiting associate members. He explained that associate members are needed for their expertise and some may be asked to join solely as members of certain subcommittees. Chairman Lyman and the rest of the Plan Commission thanked associate members Dienner, Feigon, and Johnson for their excellent service and participation. VIL ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 10:22 p.m. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner Plan Commission .Sleeting - December 12, 2001 Page 5 January 3.2002