Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2002Draft — Not Approved MINUTES EVANSTON PL-%N COI MiISSION Wedncsdav, f anuary 9, 2002 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT ............ Richard Cook, Doug Doetsch, Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson, John Lyman, Alice Rebechini. Kenneth Rodgers, Larry Widmayer MEMBERSABSENT............................................................................................................ Joseph Eatman ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT .............................................................................. Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT.......................................................................................... Jeffrey Burdick, Mam Mylott PRESIDING............................................................ I ....................................................... John Lyman, Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:02 p.m. A quorum was present. H. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER I2, 2001 A Commission member stated that in the Executive Committee section of the minutes — on page 5 — it was supposed to be stated that Kenneth Rodgers would serve on the Neighborhood Committee. The Plan Commission made a motion to accept the minutes considering that this change is made. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Ill. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Lyman explained that with so many new members being on the Plan Commission, the Executive Committee for 2002 would consist of five Plan Commission members. A vice chair was not selected for 2002. Chairman Lyman reviewed the Plan Commission appointees to the different subcommittees: Binding Appearance Review — Jeanne Lindwall, Richard Cook, Albert Hunter Associate member Lindwall interjected that she needed to be reelected to serve as an Associate member for another year. Chairman Lyman decided that this should be done immediately. The Commission voted unanimously to reelect Associate member Lindwall to a second year. Zoning — Steve Knutson, Larry Widmayer, Doug Doctsch, Jeanne Lindwall Neighborhood — John Lyman, Steve Knutson, Larry Widmayer, Kenneth Rodgers. Albert Hunter Plan Commission .Meeting - Janaapy 9. 2002 Page I E- oncmic Development - Alice Rebechini tSte%c Knutson could ser%c as a substitutes t:....r..::ner% Development - Kenneth Rogers P-=-Lank - The newly appointed Plan Commission member PS:sname and Development - Richard Cook Etecureve Committee - Richard Cook. John L}man. Steve Knutson. Alice Rebechini. Larry Widmayer CM..atrman Ly man informed the Commission that Richard Cook needs to be formally voted in as the new Plam Commission Chairman. A motion was made to elect Richard Cook as the new Plan Commission Cl-mirman. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. John Lyman officially turned the meeting o+r7 to the newly elected Chairman - Richard Cook. IN'. DISCUSSION OF BINDING APPEARA. CE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMO REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW DESIGN STANDARDS Chairman Cook went through each point from the January 4. 3002 memo. He explained that the underground sprinkler system requirement met with some controversy from the Department of Parks and Faresw% staff. Some staff members felt that underground sprinkler systems are not always appropriate. Commission member Widmayer inquired as to when underground sprinkler installation would not be appropriate for new commercial landscaping. Marc M%Ion replied that in some cases. soils are too compacted and do not efficiently absorb water. He stressed that the City's Forester is a member of SPARC and that he would be able to make a determination at the SPARC meeting of whether or not underground sprrnlclers are appropriate. Commission member Doetsch suggested that the language in the standards be switched to make it appear that underground sprinklers are appropriate in most occasions. therefore encouraging their use where appropriate. Carzmissioner Lyman expressed concern regarding the way that balconies are addressed in the standards. The standards state that balconies should be an integral design of the building. Chairman Lyman believed this language to be too subjective. Chairman Cook explained that this language means that balconies have to be designed so that, if they were removed, it would detract from the design of the building. Marc Mylott stated that the intent was not to require that every balcom be recessed. but to require better design. Commissioner Rebechini felt that this language should retrain subjective so that it allows members of SPARC to make a judgement. Commissioner Widmayer asked how this language would relate to upgrades of existing buildings. Mr. Mylort stated that well -designed projected balconies would be permitted but these balconies should not appear slapped on." Mr. Mylott passed out a flow chart depicting the site plan and appearance review process that developers have to go through and summarized it to the Commissioners. Commissioner Doetsch stated that the chart should make it clear that this process is not only reserved for planned developments. Commissioner Knuum stated that the Preservation Commission would have final authority in appearance matters for cases that involve preservation issues. In these cases, SPARC would have final site plan authority. Commissioner Knutson stated that the Cih's Historic Preservation Planner should be a voting member of SPARC. Chairman Cook led the Commission in a review of a memo from Commissioner Knutson regarding suggested revisions to the Site Plan and Appearance Review Design Standards. Commissioner Rebechini suggested that the standards reveal what the term E.I.F.S. stands for. The glossary should include Exterior InsuLidon Finishing System as the technical full term for E.I.F.S. Commissioner Doetsch asked how the standards would be used to prevent a gaudy or loud design to a building. Mr. Mylott explained that members of SPARC would have to site a standard that would clearly determine that a certain design would not be appropriate. Chairman Cook added that the design professional on SPARC would be responsible for Plan Commumon .tferring - Januan 9, :002' Page explaining why a cemian proposed desigr: wou:,_ net n: arl:rapna:e Commissioner Rebechini explained that there -could be s.:ne subjecti►ity on t:;e par_ of SPARC w-ir ic-ministering these standards. A memEx - of the audience. Ron Naylor t: ter- ti�r�v` r, ,, L ni►ersit►. offered his comments and suggested-e►isions to :he standards. He stated r, is -cr clear how :he standards encourage well -designed buildings -nd qualm z instruction. In ter —is of -•ariacozs. he suig=•sted that if a developer can prove that he she is pro.iding a AclWesigned or qualiry nuildi: �c them a L-wiation should be granted without the requirement of meeting the other ►ariarion star.sdards mrdinata to --he document. Commissioner Lyman replied tha: qualm bui,d g and design should l:e an ab- lure for a variation. In addition. at least one of the other variati-_v standards should be r tr.. The Con= issicm decided that if a building is not of a superior design. then it need to be well -designed and me-vt at lea-_qz two of the variation standards. Mr. Nay [cc explained tat unobstructed ►tsion titans sinauld rnnr be required for the majority of a ground floor cte%wion for certain office and industrial _ises. He quecziorrd if the standards stated this. as they encourage unobstructed vision glass for come i.-•rcial uses. Commissioner Lyman suggested that an exception could be granted in those cases ►►here :h= is goof reason why unobstructed vision glass would not be ideal or appropriate. Mr. Na) for replied t nat the sandac-ds should require unobstructed vision glass for retail uses and highly encourage it for other commercial uses. Mr. Mylort stated that the language should remain as is. If a developer wants to deviam hr-she shou!d supply something in rcr= for the deviation. Mr. Naylor questioned the standard stating that ran more than fifteen parking spaces can be provided in a row without the inclusion of a landscape island. He fch thata this standard would be highly restrictive considering the issue of parking in Evanston. The Commission dis=sed this standard and determined that if a parking lot contains 60 total parking spaces ar tno"_ a I=dsc•.tr-c island would have to be provided every fifteen spaces. If a parking lot contains mcre that 100 parking spaces, a landscape island would be required every 20 spaces. In both cases, a landscape strip between a row of parking could be substituted for a landscape island. A motion was made to approve the document as amend. The m.xion was seconded. Chairman Cook explained that the next sup would be to schedule a public hearime before the Plan Commission. Mr. Mylott stated that a public hearing would not be required for a suggesatd change to city code. He would prefer to call it an open meeting. Associate member Lind -wall suggested that the alderman be included in the open meeting notice. The open meeting was scheduled for Wednesdati. February 6, 2002 at 7:00pm. The motioa was called to question. The Plan Commission •oted unanimously (8-0) to approve the document as amended. V. CO.�iI7TEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Committee Discussed as part of the review of the Binding Appearance Rz.•ie%% Standards. • Neighborhood Planning Committee Chairman Lyman informed the Commission of the meeting = the following night at the Fleetwood Jordain Center. At this meeting. attendees will be asked to vm on ten different priority items. Chairman Lyman stated that a presentation of ta- Chicago A► cnue Streetscape Study should be given to the Plan Commission by the consultants. • Zoning Committee Commissioner Knutson stated that the Zoning Commiu m had not net. • Community Development Committee Commissioner Rodgers had nothing to report. Plan Commuuon .tfeeting - January 9, 200 Page 3 Economic Development Committee Commissioner Rcivrhini stated that the Eccoornic Development Committee would meet in two weeks. • Parking Coin mkut No report was prodded. • Planning and Development Committee Chairman Cook informed the Commission tfa the Plann: ng and Development Committee would meet on January 14. 20U2. N"L ANNOUNCE!ME.N'TS Chuurnman Cook informed the Commission that a date aad tote would need to be set up for the annual Plan Commission retreat. The Commission agreed to meet tm Monday, February 18. 2002 at 7:00pm. Commmissioner Rodgers informed the Commission that be received a call from Commissioner Joe Eatman. Commissioner Tatman informed him that he has moved and will be officially resigning from the Platt Commission. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting an 9•?E p.m. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. February 6, 2002 at 7-00 p.mmL in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitsod, Jeffm- Burdick. General Plattner F Commission .4lttrtng - Jmoumy 9.1001 Paw 4 January 28, 2002 Draft —Not Approved MINUTES EVANSTON PL-kN COMMISSION Wednesdav, February 6, 2002 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT .............................. Richard Cook, Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson, John Lyman, Alice Rebechini, Kenneth Rodgers, Larry Widmayer ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT.................................................................................Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT ...................................... Arthur Alterson, Jeffrey Burdick, Dennis Marino, Marc Mylott PRESIDING................................................................................................................. Richard Cook, Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting %w called to order at approximately 7:06 p.m. A quorum was present. I1. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2002. A motion was made to approve the minutes of January 9.2002. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. III. PUBLIC OPEN MEETING TO DISCUSS THE SECOND PLAN COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW DESIGN STANDARDS Chairman Cook opened the public meeting and introduced Zoning Planner Marc Mylott, who presented the draft of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Design Standards to the public. Following Mr. Mylott's presentation. Chairman Cook invited members of the public to speak before the Plan Commission. Ron Kysiak,- Mir. Kysiak stated that he represented Evanston Inventure, 1327 Church Street. He explained that he commended the Plan Commission and staff for their concern regarding a better -looking Evanston, but that he had some problems with the existing draft. He referenced the quotation used at the beginning of the draft, which was one of the stated goals of the 2000 Evanston Comprehensive Plan: "Encourage high quality design and the heightened awareness towards appearance and proposed development through the site plan and appearance review. " Mr. Kysiak explained that he found very little encouragement of this goal in the draft, but be did find a lot of requirements for developers. He stated that incentives should be provided to developers to encourage better design Plan Canmwjon Meeting - February 6. 2002 Page I Mr. Kysiak said that his second problem with the draft is that there are many words and phrases in the document that infer judgement and opinion. He also explained that a speedy appeals process is needed and that he does not believe that the current process is broken. He believes that most projects come out of site plan review s4 ith a design compromise that is acceptable to both the Cit% and the developer. Alex Sprowl Mr. Sprowl stated that he is the president of the Chamber of Commerce. He stated that he does not believe that binding appearance review, as presented, is going to accomplish much of anything in the way of inspiring wonderful architecture. He explained that many of the standards included in the document are actually guidelines and are subject to subjective interpretation. John Macai: Mr. Macai stated that he represents Design Evanston. He explained that the only guarantee of excellent design is an excellent architect and an understanding client with a good budget. He stated that he deeply believes that the standards are excellent and that staff should be applauded for preparing them. He explained that if binding appearance review had been in place, certain ill conceived and ill designed projects could have been stopped and/or prevented. He questioned how the review Committee should be constituted. He stated that the current Committee has only two architects and two to three planners and they can be outvoted by non -design professionals. He strongly encouraged that the number of design professionals be increased at least to the point in which they could outvote the other members on design and appearance issues. Jim Corirossi: Mr. Codrossi questioned the ability to find qualified volunteers to serve on the Committee. He asked how they would be chosen, who would choose them, and what criteria would be used in which to choose them. He stated that some Evanston citizens are just as qualified as staff to determine what looks good and what does not look good. Mr. Corirossi also stated that he would like to see some type of timeline showing developers how long the binding appearance review process would be so that a developer could determine how much the process would cost. George Sarafaio}: Mr. Sarafatty passed around a handout to the Plan Commission members. He explained that he would like to offer his assistance to the City regarding the creation of these standards and that he would possibly like to serve on the resulting committee once it is instituted. He stated that single family residential developments should also be within the purview of binding appearance review and asked why they had not been included. Chairman Cook explained that single family development was excluded because the great number of such developments would overpower staff and the committee. Mr. Sarafatty stated that he has seen other communities successfully hold single family development to binding appearance review. Mr. Sarafatty stated that the amount of landscaping for non-residential development should be determined by the percentage of the paved area or non -building area on the given site. Mr. Sarafatty explained that an architect who is very familiar with the binding appearance review process would need to serve on the committee. He explained that it is very important that the applicant defend his or her design to the committee. Dave Galloway: Mr. Galloway stated that he is president of Design Evanston. He explained that Design Evanston took it upon them to investigate other communities that have instituted binding appearance review. In this review, it was apparent that the best binding appearance review ordinances combined a good combination of well - written, clearly phrased requirements augmented with graphic examples, either drawn or photograpbed. He explained that they provide very little specific recommendations with regards to architectural style, but dealt with general design parameters, all oriented around increasing the quality of the design, not dictating a particular design. Mr. Galloway stated that in Design Evanston's opinion, these standards represent the Plan Commission .tferting - February 6.2002 Page 2 best characteristics of the ordinances that w cre reviewed, especially given the context of Evanston's existing requirements. Mr. Gallo%hay stated that the proposed guidelines fall short in one area: staffing. He explained that it would be very difficult to find architectural representation during Wednesday afternoon. He recommended that at least rwo architects augment the present SPAARC staff in representation on the committee. He stated that he would be comfortable with three architects serving on the committee, He would also like to see a landscape architect serve on the committee and possibly a graphic designer and an urban planner. Ron Sayler: Mr. Nayler stated that he represents Northwestern University. He explained that the University believes that binding appearance review is not warranted and that the standards presented are not appropriate. He stated that Northwestern believes that a better approach would be to use what has been developed in this proposal as the guidelines in the current site plan and appearance review process. Mr. Nayler explained that a large amount of the criteria included in the draft is very subjective and allows for arbitrary decisions. As a result, the committee could withhold the building permit and deny approval based upon subjective interpretations. Mr. Nayler suggested that the Plan Commission be the recommending body that a planned development project is subject to. He pointed out specific language -related corrections and inconsistencies that he believed need to be addressed in the draft. Bert Yew Mr. Yen stated that he represents Holiday Inn. He explained that it is not always feasible to enhance the design of a poorly designed inherited building. He stated that he feels that the standards as presented are rather rigid. George Cyrus: Mr. Cyrus stated that he does not mind the appearance of the balconies that the draft guidelines state are inappropriate. He explained that these balconies have been a common part of Evanston's streetscape for many years. He explained that many of the standards in the draft come down to a matter of taste. He stated that that he would prefer that these guidelines not be binding and that there is a track record of excellent negotiation between the City and developers. Jonathan Perman: Mr. Perman stated that he is the Executive Director of the Evanston Chamber of Commerce. He stated that he wished to offer several comments regarding the draft guidelines. He explained that he had an issue with the fact that the guidelines state that binding appearance review is a solid long-term economic development strategy. He stated that if this statement was taken to its fullest extent, then all buildings and landscaping should be paved in gold because it would increase the value of property. However, the law of diminishing return applies in this case. He explained that the interests of aesthetics and maintaining character and beauty couldn't be separated from economics. Mr. Perman explained that he would like to see specific time lines be established so that a developer would understand how long the review process would take. He also took issue with the requbrment that vision glass on buildings not be obstructed. Evanston holds independent businesses in high regard and window displays are the predominate form of advertising for these small, independent businesses. Mr. Perman pointed out excerpts from previous Plan Commission meeting minutes that illustrate that appearance review is very subjective in nature. He stated that he finds it unusual that a public meeting would take place after the Plan Commission voted to approve the draft of the design guidelines. Fredrico Yidargas: Mr. Vidargas explained that he is a member of Design Evanston. He stated that the quality of design is the most important aspect of binding appearance review. Plan Comminion .Neeteng — February 6. 2002 Page 3 Steve Beck Mr. Beck stated that he represents Coda. He explained that these cmdelines could have been very helpful for his firm during the times that the% appeared before SPAARC because the% would have provided direction as to chat the Ciry was looking for in terms of design and would have saved time and money for the firm. He believes that making the guidelines available to the developers up front and only requiring nonbinding review would be a more successful approach from &,e standpoint of reducing the subjective nature of the guidelines. Hans Friedman: Mr. Friedman stated that he is a current member of SPAARC. He explained that the quality of design is a quantifiable element and that one can identify quality design pount by point. He stated that architects are the only professionals qualified to ensure the reasonable development of new construction and remodeling of buildings in Evanston. Barry Greenberg: Mr. Greenberg stated Evanston's buildings would exist long after we are all standing. He explained that architects should not be afraid of the skills they have developed in evaluating aesthetics. Chairman Cook thanked everyone who appeared before the Plan Commission with their opinions. He requested that the Binding Appearance Review Subcommittee get back together and take a look at the recommendations mace by the public at this meeting. After this review, the subcommittee should report its findings back to the Plan Commission. Commission member John Lyman stated that he was concerned with a comment he heard a couple of times during the public testimony regarding the fact that the current process is not broken. He explained that there is plenty of evidence that the current site plan and appearance review process is broken and does need to be fixed. He pointed out several development projects in which certain design -related issues were agreed on between the developer and the City and the developer. in turn, made adjustments to the previously agreed upon issues after the fact. He stated that an enforcement mechanism needs to be put in place to ensure that agreed upon design decisions are followed and brought to fruition. Commission member Alice Rebechini explained that a degree of subjectivity would always exist when it comes to design review. She believes that these standards will protect Evanston from poor and mediocre design. She explained that the Plan Commission felt it very important to add a component to the document that would allow for exceptional and unusual design to occur by allowing a variation from the design standards. This would assure that unique creativity in design would not be stilled. Commission member Kenneth Rodgers stated that it is very important that the Plan Commission review the comments made this evening to assure that there arc not aspects of this process that are being overlooked. Commission member Larry Widmayer stated that his concern is that if design review is not binding, then how will the City stop a bad project from occurring if it meets other City ordinances. He explained that the City has the responsibility to assure that the quality of projects are high since poor design leads to deterioration of neighborhoods and, in turn, the deterioration of property values. Chairman Cook recommended that these comments be taken to the Binding Appearance Review Subcommittee for review. He adjourned the public meeting. d verbatim transcript ojrhe proceedings ojthis Plan Commission case is on f le with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 ojthe Evanston Civic Center. Plan Commixrion Meeting - Felxvary 6, 2002 Page 4 V. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS Neighborhood Planning Committee Commission member Lyrnan stated that the Comminee is prepared for the meeting regarding the Church Green Bay Canal Neighborhood Study of Februa.^• 21. He explained that there has been a commitment from Commission members and staff to divide up their participation among the four specific areas. He believes beat there is a lot of enthusiasm among staff and the public regarding the study. • Zoning Committee Associate member Jeanne Lindwall stated that the Commi..ae has not met recently. • Community Development Committee Commission member Rodgers stated that the Community Development Committee would be meeting the following Tuesday. • Economic Development Committee Commission member Rebechini stated that the January 23, 2D02 meeting consisted of a full agenda. A major topic was the status of city owned lots currently used for parking. She explained that there was much debate regarding this issue. The Committee is considering selecting a few such lots in which to request RFPs for. She stated that Dennis Harter from Freed presented the status of mail leasing at Demptser Plaza. He felt that the process has been going well. She reported that tax former Yesterday's Restaurant building is being rehabbed and a Lou Malnati's is proposing to occupy the site. • Parking Committee Chairman Cook stated that Alderman Newman addressed parking requirement issues at the Parking Committee meeting the previous evening. • Planning and Development Committee Chairman Cook stated that the BD0 Elgin project was discussed again at this meeting. He requested that the Plan Commission needs to be very clear regarding recommendations to the Planning and Development Committee, VI. OTHER BUSINESWANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Cook informed the Commission that the Dominick's site proposal on Chicago Avenue would appear before the Plan Commission as a public hearing w next month's meeting. He also informed the Commission members of the neighborhood petition in place regarding this project. Commissioner Lyman stated that the developers should coordinate with the Neighborhood Planning Committee to assure that the project considers the recommendations of the Chicago Avenue Strectscape Study. General Planner Jeff Burdick informed the Plan Commission that their annual retreat would take place at 7:00 pm on Monday, February 18, 2002. VIL ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 9:55 pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 13. 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner March 8, 2002 Plan Cootmanon .Mfeeling - February 6. 2002 Page 5 Draji — tVot Approved MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN CO�LNIIS4ION Wednesday, March I3, 2002 / 7:1:10 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT .............................. Richard Cooler Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson, Kenneth Rodgers, Larry Widmayer MEMBERS ABSENT..................................................................John Lyman, Alice Rebechini ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT................................................................................. Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT............................................................ Arthur Ahcrson, Jefftey Burdick, Dennis Marino PRESIDING................................................................................................................. Richard Cook. Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:06 p.m. A quorua was present. if. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2002. A motion was made to approve the minutes of February 6.2002. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. III. ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSAL FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 525 CHICAGO AVENZ:E — ZPCO2-01-PD Chairperson Cook explained that the applicant request that the public hearing be continued to a later datt. A motion was made to grant a continuance to this public hearing. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. A verbatim transcript of he proceedings ojthis Plan Commission case is on fide with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 ojthe Evaruron Civic Center, IV. COMMITTEE LPDATES AND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Committee Chairperson Cook stated that the public meeting was held at the last regular Plan Commission meeting and that a follow-up BARC meeting would be held the morning of Friday. March ?'. 2002. • Neighborhood Planning Committee Commissioner Albert Hunter stated that the Committee met on March 7.2002 at Family Focus and broke into the four established groups. He explained that the groups have progressed to the point where problems have been defined and identified. Commissioner Hunter stated that the housing group identified a series of issues and concerns and that the charge for the next meeting would be for the members to come back with a list of actors and resources that should be involved in the process. Plan Commission .fleeting - March 13. 2002 Page I Commissioner Knutson stated that his group is dealing with streets and inhastructure. He explained that his group would meet prior to the next Neighborhood Planning Committee meeting to further determine issues. Commissioner Widma. er offered a report from the economic development group. He explained that the group spent a lot of time determining what should be dealt with and stressed issues from a community development standpoint as opposed to a tax generation standpoint. He also explained that the group was looking at how businesses operating out of homes could be more successful. Commissioner Rodgers stated that his group dealt with crime, gang, and social behavior issues. He explained that his group would meet on a weekly basis and would concentrate largely on youth issues. • Zoning Committee Commissioner Knutson stated that the Zoning Committee had not met. Commissioner Doetsch explained that he would send a letter to the City Council explaining that the Zoning Committee would not want to examine zoning issues along Chicago Avenue at this time. • Community Development Committee Commissioner Rodgers explained that the last meeting was postponed and that the next meeting would be the following Tuesday. • Economic Development Committee Commissioner Rebechini was not present. Audience member Dienner offered a report from the meeting. She explained that the meeting was devoted to a report regarding the Convention and Tourist Bureau, in addition to a discussion regarding the proposed development of an art and dance center within the old movie house on Central Street. It was determined that the cost of the rehabilitation of the movie house would far exceed the original anticipated costs. Parking Committee Jeff Burdick explained that there currently is no one to cover the Parking Committee. 0 Planning and Development Committee Chairperson Cook stated that Alderman Rainey opposed the proposed Subway shop on Howard Street because of the potential for loitering and crime. He explained that the proposed CVS pharmacy on Howard and Asbury was approved with conditions regarding truck unloading. Arthur Alterson stated that the Committee inquired about a possible variance dealing with parking regulations for chain multi -family developments. VI. OTHER BUSINESSIANNOUNCEMENTS Arthur Alterson stated that the City Council considered studying whether or not Bed and Breakfasts should be prohibited uses or permitted as special uses. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 7:45pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. April 17, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respeafully submitted. Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner April 11, 2002 Plan Commusion .fleeting - Alarrh 13. 2002 Page 2 Draft — Not Approred MINUTES EV ANSTON PL.-kN COLNIMISSIO` Wednesday, April 17, 2002 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, City Council. Chmmbets MEMBERS PRESENT .............................. Richard Cook. Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson. Lam' Widmayer MEMBERS ABSENT.................................................................John Lyman. Alice Rebechini, Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCIATE MEMBER ABSENT..................................................................................... Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT................................................................Jeffrey Burdick, Marc Mylott, James Wolinski PRESIDING................................................................................................................. Richard Cook, Chair I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 p.m. A quorum was present. II. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 113, 2002. A motion was made to approve the minutes of March 13, 2002. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. III. PRESENTATION OF CHANGES TO BINDING APPEARANCE REVIEW FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE UiPL£MENTATION OF BINDING APPEARANCE REVIEW Marc Mylon provided an overview of the changes to Binding Appearance Review. Commissioner Widmayer stated that other design professionals besides architects should be considered as members of the Binding Appearance Review Committee. Commissioner Knutson explained that he has mixed feelings about this suggestion. Chairman Cook stated that he did not have a problem with other design professionals besides architects serving on the Committee. The Conunission decided to change the wording in the guidelines to read that the Binding Appearance Review Committee should consist of three building and landscape professionals of which at least one should be a registered architect. Commissioner Doetsch asked if having three design professionals on the Committee would be practical in terms of time and availability. Chairman Cook explained that if the meetings are early in the morning, then there should not be a practical difficulty in getting three design professionals to serve on the Committee. Mr. Mylott confirmed that the vote on site plan and appearance is split and that the five individuals voting on appearance would also vote on site plan. A member of the audience inquired as to the length of terms for members of the Committee. Chairman Cook stated that this has not yet been decided. The Commission felt that the term limits should be the same as Plan Commission's, which are two three-year terms. Plan Commu mn Meeting-.tpril 17. 2002 Page I !im Wolinski stated that he is not a believer in unfunded mandates. He did not feel that this process could be accomplished w ithout an additional person being added to scarf. Chairman Cook concurred with the sentiment that the City is currently short staffed. Ho►►c%er. he reiterated that this process should continue to go ahead and that staring should be determined later. Mr. Mylott ►►ent through some text changes to the guidelines. Commissioner Doctsch stated that on the last noted change on Page =, the term 'public a -ay' should be used as opposed to 'street'. This would help to mitigate the effect of lighting from parking garages on residences on the other side of alleys, not just streets. Mr. Mylott suggested that a change to the language could state that the light source should not be visible from areas outside of the parking garage. The Commission members agreed that this language change would be effecti►e. Commissioner Widmayer explained that the language stating that the Committee has purview over donation boxes and ►endine machines should be changed to clarify that this purview is solely for outdoor donation bores and ►ending machines. Ron Nayler from Northµestern University explained the University's position is that these become guidelines as opposed to part of a binding appearance review process due to the level of subjectivity in the document. Marc Mylott read a letter from Bruce Huvard stating that the Binding Appearance Review Committee and the Plan Commission can potentially be at odds regarding planned development projects. Mr. Wolinski asked if the Committee considered appeal fees for the process. He suggested that a fee schedule based on the construction cost of the project be implemented. This would discourage superfluous appeals. Commissioner Widmayer pointed out that current language states that if the review board does not meet within 30 days of an appeal being submitte& then the appeal is automatically granted. He would prefer this to state that the appeal would automatically be forwarded to the City Council for review. The members of the Commission agreed with Commissioner Widmayer's suggestion. Mr. Mylott suggested that the appeal fee schedule be similar to that of variances. Commissioner Doetsch read a motion stating; Incorporating the proposed changes by the Binding Appearance Review Committee, as modified by our comments this evening. I motion to reaffirm the previous recommendation of the Plan Commission to recommend that the City Council adopt Binding Appearance Review as proposed, supported by the proposed Site Plan and Appearance Review Design Standards. The motion uas seconded and passed unanimously. Vote (5-0). COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Neighborhood Planning Committee Commissioner Widmay er reported on the economic development group of the Neighborhood Planning Committee. He explained that the economic development group discussed proposals from two different groups with interests in development in the DodgefChurch area. One group is exploring the opportunity of an African American History Museum in the area. The other group is E-To%4m. which is considering commercial development in this area. Commissioner Hunter reported on the housing group of the Neighborhood Planning Committee. He explained that a matrix was created looking at possible solutions to housing problems in the study area. He also stated that the Committee would review zoning in the area. Commissioner Knutson reported on the infrastructure'streets group of the Neighborhood Planning Committee. He reported that the Onyx Disposal facility might be closed which would eliminate some of the problems in the study area. • Zoning Committee Commissioner Knutson reported that the Zoning Committee discussed possible exceptions to the new parking requirements. He explained that Arthur Alterson felt that exceptions to the parking standards should not be considered variances, but rather special uses. Commissioner Doetsch explained that Mr. Plan Commission .fleeting - April 1 ". 2002 Page 2 Alurson provided a list of factors that would be a basis for justifying the granting of special use for these sinmrions. Commissioner Knutson stated that the Zoning Committee would be reviewing funeral home uses and how they are labeled and included in the Zoning Ordinance. • Community Development Committee Commissioner Rodgers was not present and a report was not provided. • Economic Development Committee Chairman Cook explained that there is an issue regarding the property in the Northwestern Research Paris that is vacant. Apparently, the original office development for this site is not going forward and there is some discussion regarding housing on this site. The Economic Development Committee will be requesting that the Plan Commission study this issue. • Parking Committee Jeff Burdick explained that Sharon Bowie would serve as the liaison to the Parking Committee once she becomes a member of the Plan Commission. Mr. Burdick stated that her first meeting should be in May. Planning sad Development Committee Chairman Cook explained that the Plan Commission proposal for parking was approved by the Planning and Development Committee. 1V. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Cook reported that the Dominick"s on Dodge and Dempster is doing well. He offered a brief report on the Howard Street meeting that he attended. V. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 8:45pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May S. 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respect lh submitted, i �i G Jeifieck. General Planner May 3.2002 Plan CommLuton .Meeting - April 17. 2002 Page 3 Draft — Xot Approved MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN C0l111ISSION Wednesday-,1tay 8, 2002 / 7:00 p.nL Evanston Chic Center, City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT .............................. Sharon Bowie, Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson, John L�muwt. Alice Rebechini, Kenneth Rodgers, Larry Widrnayer MEMBERS ABSENT .................................................................Richard Cook STAFF PRESENT............................................................ Arthur Alte son, Jeffrey Burdick, Dennis Marino PRESIDING........................................................................................................John Lyman, Acting Chair I. CALL TO ORDER I DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:1 S p.m. A quorum was present. II. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2002. Commissioner Hunter notified the Commission that the minutes should read that the Onyx facility might be enclosed, not closed. A motion was made to approve the April 17, 2002 meeting minutes with the condition that the aforementioned language error be corrected. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (8-0). III. INTRODUCTION OF SHARON BOWIE, NEW PLAN COSIMISSION MEMBER Acting Chair Lyman introduced new Commissioner Bowie to the rest of the Plan Commission. FV. CASE ZPC OM24: ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WHETHER FUNERAL HOMES SHOULD BE INCLUDED AMONG THE PERMITTED OR SPECIAL USES FOR VARIOUS NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Arthur Alterson provided a brief overview of the issue to the Plan Commission. Acting Chair Lyman asked if the parking requirements for funeral homes should also be examined. Mr. Akerson explained that the current panting requirement for funeral homes is two spaces per 1.000 square feet. The Plan Commission unanimously decided that based on available empirical data, the parking requirement did not need to be examined at this time. Two members of the public spoke regarding this issue: o�nh Donnellan: Mr. Donnellan informed the Commission of his plan to construct a new funeral home in place of his existing home. He stated that the new facility would create a non-sectarian situation for funeral services Plan Commissions Aleeting - Afm & 2002 Page I and would provide a reception area for funerals. Commissioner Doetsch asked Mr. Donnellan if cremation fa:ilit} would be located at the facility. Mr. Donnellan replied that there could not be a cremation fazilitti and that Cook County does not permit a cremation facility to be located on site. Nathan Haliburton. Mr. Haliburton asked wh% this discussion has turned to cremation. when this item originally had nothing to do w ith the issue. He asked that the Commission consider wtxther food could be served in a funeral home. Arthur Alterson stated that there is currently no explicit prohibition on food service in a funeral home and that this is a non -issue. A motion was made to recommend adoption of an ordinance amending the sections of the Zoning Ordinance as indicated below to allow in the indicated districts as a permitted use "funeral services excluding on -site cremation. - District B 1. Business I B2, Business B3. Business C I, Commercial CIa. Commercial `Sized -Use C2, Commercial D1, Downtown Fringe D2. Downtown Retail Core 133, Downtown Redevelopment 134, Downtown Transition RP. Research Park 0. Office 11. Industrial, Office 12, General Industrial 13, General Industrial Ordinance Section Use Status 6.9-2-2 Permitted 6-9-3-2 I Permitted 6-94-2 Permitted 6.10-3-2 Permitted 1 6-10-3-2 Permitted 16-104-2 Permitted f 6-11-2.2 Permitted i 6-I1-3-3 Permitted I6-114-2 I Permitted 16-11-5.2 I Permitted I6-12-2-2 Permitted 6-15-2-2 Permitted 6.14-2-3 Permitted 6-14-3-2 Permitted 6-144-3 Permitted The motion included the recommendation of the adoption of an ordinance amending the sections of the Zoning Ordinance indicated below to allow in the indicated districts as a special use "funeral services excluding on -site cremation." District Ordinance Section Use Status MU, Transitional Manufacturing 6.13-2-3 Special MUE- Transitional 6-13.3-3 Special Manufacturing- Employment The Plan Commission fuWly recommends that the City retain funeral services as a prohibited use in all other zoning districts. Those zoning districts for which the Plan Commission recommends no change from the presort prohibition are indicated below as prohibited uses in the indicated districts. No amendment to the existing text of the Zoning Ordinance is required to maintain the prohibited status of "funeral services" in the following districts: District Use Status RI, Single-family Residential Prohibited R2, Single-family Residential Prohibited R3, Two-family Residential Prohibited R4, General Residential Prohibited R5, General Residential Prohibited R6, General Residential I Prohibited T1, Transitional Campus Prohibited T2, Transitional Campus Prohibited Ul, Universin Housing I Prohibited U2, University Athletic Facilities Prohibited U3, University Lakefront Campus I Prohibited Plan Commirrion .tteernng — .ttay $ 2002 Page 2 I OS. Open Space Prohibited OH. Hospital Overla% I Prohibited The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Vote (8-0). V. DISCUSSION OF ALTERINATWE USES FOR 1881 OAK AVENUE LOT Commissioner Rebechini provided the background of this issue for the rest of the Plan Commissioners. She explained that the master plan in place for the business park called for an el -shaped building on each lot and that the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee initially believed that the lot should be developed in accordance with the original master plan. However. Glenlake has control of the lot and has not been able to construct an office development on the site given the nature of the present economy. The Economic Development Committee was asked if an extension for Glenlake's development should be granted, since the redevelopment agreement is about to expire. The EDC decided that it would be in the best interest of the City to regain control of this site for tax base purposes. The property would be sold to the City for S201square foot. which is a very good deal. The fundamental underpinning is that the land is worth too much to be given away for this price. Associate member Lindwall stated that the Cit% could regain control of the land and then issue a Request for Proposals for development. Dennis Marino notified the Plan Commission that a provision in the redevelopment agreement has been acted on that extends the time in which Glenlake could pull a foundation permit from the City. The extension is to August 31, 2002. Commissioner Widmayer inquired as to what EDC is specifically asking the Plan Commission to take action on. He noted that Alderman Newman suggested that this matter appear before the Plan Commission for hearings. He asked if the Plan Commission should be responsible for gathering the public opinion regarding this issue. Commissioner Rebechini stated that although the term "hearings" was used, Alderman Newman is simply looking for the Plan Commission to offer a land use recommendation for the site. which would provide the best fiscal option for the City. Commissioner Hunter asked if any land use could be developed if the redevelopment agreement was further extended. Commissioner Rebechini stated that the redevelopment agreement would have to be amended if a new use was to be developed. Associate member Lindwall stated that it is important to prioritize what uses would be appropriate for the site. Commissioner Widmayer stated that if housing was to be developed on this site, it should be rental housing, given the existing shortage in the City. Commissioner Rebechini stated that if the research park is completed as planned, it still will not the meet the critical mass of most large research parks. In order to realize it as a unique office and research use, the lot would require a unique RFP approach with the City soliciting developers to develop a building consistent with the original master plan of the research park. Commissioner Hunter was concerned that jumping into an immediate solution for this site might be at the expense of the future development of this area. Commissioner Rebechini felt that a residential development on this site would disrupt the streetscape effect along Emerson Avenue. Commissioner Hunter noted that an additional research building on this site would increase the value of the existing buildings in the research park. Commissioner Rebechini stated that this would be beneficial to the City as a whole. because property values would be raise, thus increasing tax revenue for the City. Commissioner Doetsch stated that the language of the RFP could be geared towards requiring that the design of any development on this site compliment the existing design of the research park. An eight -story residential development could conceivably be built on this site if its design complimented that of the research park buildings. Commissioner Rebechini asked Mr. Alterson what the current zoning of the site would allow in terms of residential. Mr. Alterson replied that a single-family home could not be built on this site. but that an 85-foot residential building would be permitted. Associate member Lindwall stated that the RFP could included certain desired limitations that would prohibit a building of this height to be built on this site. Acting Chair Lyman stated that there is seven years left on the TIF and that it would take at least two to three years for a development to be complete on this site. Commissioner Widmayer raised concern that the condo market may not remain strong and that many condos units are being purchased by investors and that Plan Commission Alreling — .Ilan• 8. 2002 Page 3 eventually, the Cin is going to run out of investors. He suggested that the Plan Commission examine the state of the condo market to assure its viability for the next few years. Acting Chair Lyman suggested that the Cin issue two RFPs. each focused on different npes of development. Mr. Marino stated that this might nuke the City not appear to be earnest. Committee member Rebechini stated that this is a parking deck opportunity, and that this may be an option to look into as well. She suggested looking into the existing parking situation to determine if more parking is needed for the future. Acting Chair Lyman followed up by stating that a condo development could be built that would require a significant amount of parking as part of the development_ Acting Chair summarized the discussion by stating that the TIF argument is not as pertinent as it might appear because of the time it would take to develop the site. Mr. Marino stated that he would like to nut some numbers regarding this assertion. Commissioner Doetsch hypothesized that the other research park buildings fail in the next few years. If this were to happen, he asked if these building would have to remain office or commercial. Mr. Marino stated that there is a covenant. but that he is not certain as to how it would affect this situation. Acting Chair Lyman asked Mr. Marino if a formal motion or recommendation needed to be made this evening for EDC review purposes. Mr. Marino replied that a formal recommendation is not needed at this time. but that the Plan Commission is free to have this discussion at their June meeting and to involve more people in this discussion. Acting Chair Lyman requested that the EDC advise the Plan Commission if they wish for a public hearing to be held regarding this issue. and if so, what the parameters of such a hearing should be. Mr. Marino stated that he believes a public hearing would deal with fact-finding issues and would include the participation of real estate and development experts. The Commission felt that it would be very valuable to have the owners of the existing buildings in the research park attend this public hearing. VL COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Committee Associate member Lindwall reported that the Planning and Development Committee began their discussion of binding appearance review and will continue their discussion on May 20.2002. • NieiighborhGod Planning Committee Acting Chair Lyman reported that public representatives have been running some of the subcommittees and that dialogues are moving along nicely. He explained that the subcommittees should be able to have a timetable as to when reports could be ready in October. He stressed that the City should develop specific design criteria for the Chicago Avenue streetscape so that present and near fume developers along this corridor can coordinate with the City's streetscape design. • Zoning Committee Commissioner Knutson reported that the Zoning Committee has been examining the issue of relief for the new residential parking requirements. He explained that this relief might be considered a special use. He stated that Carolyn Smith was present and asked the Committee to reexamine the build to lot line issue because she runs into the problem of a developer building to the maximum lot coverage and the subsequent need for covered parking on the lot. This creates a situation where the lot coverage figure is exceeded. • Community Development Committee Commissioner Rodgers reported that the previous meeting's discussion involved affordable housing and that the Committee is planning on having its meetings in the community as opposed to City Hall. He stated that there would be a meeting the following Tuesday. • Parking Committee Jeff Burdick explained that then: currently is no representative from the Plan Commission attending Parking Committee meetings. The Plan Commission felt that new Commissioner Bowie should have time to get acclimated to her new appointment before deciding if she would Iike to serve as a liaison for the Parking Committee. Plan Commission Aleeting -A/ay 8. 2002 Page 4 * Planning and Dn-clopment Committee Associate member Lindwall repotted that the Committee discussed the traMc signal issue along Ridge Avenue. Dennis ~Marino stated that the Committee also discussed the fact that landlords are opposed to having to pay 5!a interest on security deposits and considered examining certain indices that could be used in place of this interest pa}7nent. VII. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Widmayer reported that the School District 65 property auction was taking place this evening. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 9:02pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. June 12, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. RespertfiiliXAubm' ci Jef%iey Burdick, General Planner June 6,2002 Plan Coimmiuian Meeting -May & 2002 Pegr 5 Draft — jVot Approved MINUTES EVANSTON PL -\N COMMISSION Wednesday -,%f* £8,_�X12 / -;00 p.m. �rar;ston Civic Center. �ity Council Cbasnbrrc MEMBERS PRESENT ....................... Sharon Bowie. Albert Hunter. Steve Knutson, Kenneth Rodgers, Lam WidmaNeT :MEMBERS ABSEtiT............................................... . .......... Douglas, Doetsch, John Lyman, Alice Rebechini ASSOCIATE MEMBER PRESENT.............................................Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT.......................................................................................Jeffrey Burdick, Dennis Marina PRESIDING .......................................................................Richard Cook, Chair I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximatel% 7:09 p.m. A quorum was present. if. CONSIDERATIO:ti OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 8, 2002. Commissioner Knutson rioted that on Page 4 of the minutes, Carol m Smith asked the Plan Commission to examine m o issues. the built to lot line issue, and including parking as lot coverage. A motion was made to approve the minutes as modified. This motion was seconded and passed unanimoush.. 16-0). III. SUGGESTIONS FROM ENVIROMENTAL BOARD M10 BERS REGARDING BINDING APPE.kRAI CE REVIEW GUIDELINES Chairman Cook explained that the Evanston Em ironmental Board has asked the Plan Commission to review their suggestions regarding Binding Appearance Review and possibly consider including some of these suggestions into the actual proposed guidelines. Two representatives provided an overview of their suggestions. These suggestions were included as part of memo that was presented to the Plan Commission. It was explained that a lot of these suggestions are based on the LEED (Leadership in Em ironmental and Energy Design) program and that many municipalities are considering adopting LEED guidelines. An overview of the Environmental Board's suggestions was provided. Chairman Cook stated that many of these suggestions are geared more towards the building code. Commissioner Widmayer stated that if it can be proved to a developer that these suggested guidelines would not be expensive, then it could be beneficial for everyone to include them within the Binding Appearance Review Design Guidelines. However, if these guidelines would be expensive to follow, then the City of Evanston would be placing an even greater cost on small developers and discouraging or even prohibiting these developers from building in Evanston. Commissioner Plan Communion Afeering - June d: 2002Page 1 Hunter disagreed and stated that t.`te City is trying to promote a qualit% of life for Evanston residents and that these suggested guidelines could improve the quality of life in Evanston. It %%as r-ated that the Enti ironmental Board is not askine that the Council*s vote on the Binding Appearance Review Design Guidelines be delayed. but that the Plan Commission show their support regarding these suggested guidelines. It would be possible to amend the guidelines to include some of these suggested guidelines at a later date if the Council does in fact approve them. Chairman Cook stated that he would like to readdress this issue at the next Plan Commission meeting when there is full attendance among Plan Commission members. V. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR 1881 OAK AVENUE LOT Commissioner Knutson asked tktr. Marino if the Economic Development Committee requested specific action from the Plan Commission. Mr. Marino stated that the Economic Development Commitm a does not want the Plan Commission to have a public hearing regarding this issue. However. they would like the Plan Commission to look at this issue with the Comprehensive Plant in mind. Chairman Cook stated that the research park intention has never really taken off as it was supposed to. Commissioner Widmayer stated that it currently makes sense at the moment not to construct an office building on this site. However, this may be the most compatible use for the site from a land use perspective. Commissioner Hunter suggested that a long -terns land use impact be examined for this site. Commissioner Widma%er stated that if the trend of young people moving to Chicago and the popularity of the north shore continues, then office might be the best land use for this site in the long term. However, if it were believed that this trend would not continue, then rental housing would be a desirable land use. Associate member Lindwall stated that there needs to be some sort of commercial entity on this site for long term viability sake. Mr. Marino stated that Glen Lake has applied for a foundation permit for an office building at this location. However, construction must commence by August 30.2002 according to the agreement. %'L CO..M3El ITEE UPDATES AND REPORTS * Binding Appearance Review Committee Chairman Cook stated that another open meeting would be held with the Planning and Development Committee regarding Binding Appearance. Associate member Lindwall explained that Alderman Newman is considering the review of new single-family residences and to not review additions to single family structures. She also stated that it is important to be lobbying for the guidelines, especially gearing the lobbying towards Alderman who ate not on the Planning and Development Committee. • Neighborhood Planning Committee Commissioner Widmayyer stated that attendance was down at the last meeting. He stated that the Economic Development subcommittee discussed concepts that stand in the way of economic development. such as safety issues. He explained that a subcommittee of this subcommittee would be formed to work with Harris Bank to try to persuade them to reexamine locating to the Dodge/Dempster area. He stated that the next meeting would be July 25, 2002. Plan Commu lm lfeenng - June 1:. 2002 Page 2 Commissioner Hunter stated that his Housing subcommittee reduced 14 issues to S or 6 that would be focused on. Commissioner Knutson stated that David Jennings attended the previous Infrastructure subcommittee meeting and answered many questions such as %hy certain alleys are not yet paved. * Zoning Committee Commissioner Knutson noted that the minutes from the Zoning Committee were provided in the packet. He explained that the Committee is about to move forward on the relief from parking requirements issue. He explained that if relief were sought from parking requirements, this would be considered a request for a special use as opposed to a variance. • Community Development Committee Commissioner Rodgers stated that a meeting would be held the following Tuesday. He explained that Alderman Rainey is discussing possible fair housing workshops. a Parking Committee Jeff Burdick stated that there is still not a Plan Commission representative to the Parking Committee. Chairman Cook stated that he did not feel that a Plan Commission presence was necessary at these meetings when he was the Plan Commission representative. Mr. Burdick asked if it is a requirement for a Plan Commission representative to sit an the Parking Committee. Chairman Cook did not think it %vas, but Mr. Marino stated that this would have to be confirmed. a Economic Development Committee Dennis Marino explained that there was a development update at the meeting. He noted that the 1881 Oak Avenue lot issue was discussed and that this issue would be later discussed as part of item III of this meeting. • Planning and Development Committee Associate member Linduall stated that the Planning and Development Committee introduced the Funeral Home Zoning Amendment and passed it on to the City Council. VII. OTHER BUSLNESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Dennis Marino explained that a Plan Commissioner is needed to represent the Place Names Committee. Commissioner Sharon Bowie volunteered to serve on this committee. Jeff Burdick stated that Susan Guderley would like to have the Chicago Avenue Streetscape Plan presented to the Plan Commission and other Evanston committees. The members of the Plan Commission stated that they would be very interested in this presentation. Mr. Burdick also informed the Plan Commission that the Housing Commission would like to hold a joint meeting with the Plan Commission. VIZ. ADJOUR.NMEN'T The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 9:06pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 10, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted. Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner Plan Commission Meeting -June 12. 2002 July 2, 2002 Pagr 3 Draft — .Vot Appro►•ed MINUTES EVANSTON PL-kN COMMISSION Wednesday, July 10. 2002 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Ci,. is Center. Citv Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT .............................. Sharon Bowie. Richard Cook Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter. Steve Knutson. Kenneth Rodgers MEMBERS ABSENT...............................................................John Lyman, Alice Rebechini ASSOCIATE MEMBER PRESENT.............................................Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT.......................................................................................Jeffrey Burdick, Dennis Marino PRESIDfNG........................................................................Richard Cook Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:09 p.m. A quorum was present. 11. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2002. A motion was made to approve the June 12. 2002 Plan Commission Meeting minutes. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (6-0). III. DISCUSSION OF ALDERMAN RAINEY REFERENCES Alderman Rainey informed the Plan Commission that them are businesses on Howard Street that are not licensed and tend to be a breeding ground for loitering and trash generation. She sited the examples of nail salons that stay open 24 hours and convenience stores that prepare and sell food but are not licensed to do so. She requested that the Plan Commission consider asking staffto draft a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would require 2.3-hour commercial operations to be special uses and to establish a definition for 'convenience stores.' Chairman Cook stated that this issue seems to be more related to property standards or code enforcement than it does to planning. Alderman Rainey responded that these businesses, especially the convenience stores. tend to be fly by night operations and seem to be immune from code enforcement efforts. She would like to see the zoning ordinance amended so that these types of operations are required to be reviewed as a special use up front. She also sited 24-hour laundromats and storefront churches as problem businesses along Howard Street. Chairman Cook asked staff to look to other municipalities to see how they handle 24-hour operations and convenience stores. He stated that after careful study, staff should draft a zoning ordinance text amendment that would deal with these issues. Plan Commaiton .iteeting - Ah 10 2002Page I IN'. COMMITTEE UPDATES AIND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Committee Chairman Cook explained that the City's Legal Department is re► ie►►ing the proposed ordinance that ►►ould enact binding appearance re►ie►i and design guidelines. He did not know when the Legal Department would be finished with its rc%ie«. • Planning and Development Committee Chairman Cook notified the Commission that the Pimining and Development Committee approved a special use for a Hen and Jerry's ice cream store at 1634 Orrington. The Committee also discussed Zoning Planner Marc Mylort's departure from the City and was informed of the status ofthe Binding Appearance Revieu Design Guidelines. V. FORMULATE DECISION FOR ALTERINATE USE FOR 1881 OAK AVENUE LOT Chairperson Cook asked the Commission to de►elop a formal recommendation regarding an optimal land use for the vacant lot at 1881 Oak Avenue. Commissioner Knutson stated that the Commission's recommendation should include at least part of what associate member Lindwall stated at the previous Plan Commission meeting — there needs to be some sort of commercial entity on this site for long term viability sake. Alderman Rainey felt that there is not a need to rush development on this site, because the site would not be developed toward the tail end of the TIF. Commissioner Hunter concurred and stressed that it is ►ery important that the site be developed with quality and the long-term in mind. The Commission decided that their recommendation should state that the site should be developed with a commercial or retail component and that development should not be rushed. Commissioner Doetsch raised concern regarding the design of the new building. He felt that there should be some son of language in the Commission's recommendation stating that the development's design should be contextually compatible with the surrounding developments. Jeff Burdick stated that the development would be required to appear before Site Plan and Appearance Review and its design would be scrutinized at this juncture. Associate member Lindwall stated that if the City issued an RFP for the development of this site. and the RFP could specifically request the type of design the City could like to see take place on this site. Dennis Marino asked Commissioner Hunter what he meant by 'contextually compatible.' Commissioner Hunter replied that the building's materials and design should be compatible with those other buildings in the research park. Associate member Lindwall added that the building's scale should also be compatible with the scale of other buildings in the research park. The Plan Commission made a recommendation that the site be developed as an entirely commercial/office entity. However, as a second option, the Plan Commission stated that the site could be developed as a mixed -use development. consisting of both commercial and residential uses. Commissioner Knutson stated that residential should only be included on this site if it is pan of a mixed -use development containing a commercial component. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 8:21 pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 11. 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted. Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner July 19, 2002 E Plan Commustan .tteerrng - Jul) : O 200 Page 2 Draft — .Vot .-lpprored MINUTES EVANSTON PL-kN CO.M.MISSION Wednesday, September 25, 2002 J 7:00 p.m. Ev2nston Ci--ic Center, City Council Chambers MEtiIBERS PRESENT.............................................................Richard Cook. Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson. Kenneth Rodgers, Larry Widmayer MEMBERS ABSENT...............................................................Sharon Bowie. Doug Doetsch, John L),man. Alice Rebechim ASSOCIATE MEMBER PRESENT.............................................Steve Samson ASSOCIATE MEMBER ABSENT..............................................Jeanne Lindwall STAFF PRESENT............................................................ Judy Aiello. Arthur Alterson, Jeffrey Burd PRESIDING........................................................................Richard Cook. Chair I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:05 p.m. A quorum was present. Il. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 10, 2002. A motion was made to approve the meeting minutes from July 10, 2002 subject to the following changes: - A reference that Commissioner Widmayer was present at the meeting. - A quote regarding contextually compatibility of the new building in the Northwestern research park" be attributed to Commissioner Doetsch instead of Commissioner Hunter. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (5-0). III. UPDATE OF CIW GES TO SHERMAN PLAZA DEVELOPMENT Judy Aiello explained that revisions to this approved Planned Development would be presented tonight. She requested that the Plan Commission determine if these changes constitute a minor or major change to the Planned Development. John Terrell explained that the corner building at Church and Sherman has gone through changes in design. The fagade along Sherman Avenue has been broken down to appear as a series of buildings as opposed to one long building mass. The comer building would now be a partial four -floor building as opposed to a completely four -floor building. The rationale for the change is to break the appearance of the building down and to accommodate the interior design of the Lakeshore Athletic Club tenant. The residential tower would now contain 229 units instead of the approved 212 units. Mr. Terrell stated that these changes are based on the Tracy Cross study. The soft lofts would now take up three floors of the tower instead of four floors. and the loft units would no longer be two story units. The soft lofts would average 1.600 square feet in area. The units in the tower would average 1,370 square feet in area, and the penthouse units would average 2.300 to 3,500 square feet per unit. Mr. Terrell stated that in order to Plan C'ommusion Herring - September 25. 2002 Page 1 provide a ceiling height of 8 1. fm the height of the toner would be slightly increased. The tower would row be 239 feet in height as opposed to the approved Planned Development height of 238 feet. The overall ware footage of the residential tower increased by about 30.000 square feet. C;airnan Cook asked if the increase in height could affect the casting of shadows below on adjacent properties. Mr. Terrell explained that the frontage of the building has been minimized through utilizing a butterfly approach in design and that there should be little to no change in the amount of shadows cast on surrounding properties. Commissioner Rodgers inquired as to the placement of mechanical equipment. W. Terrell explained that the mechanical systems would be contained within two cooling towers and within the building behind the retail. Commissioner Hunter asked how the elevator shaft relates to the units in the building next to it. Mr. Terrell estimated that the distance between the elevator shaft and the units to be 50-feet. Judy Aiello added that the Public Art Committee would like to incorporate public art into the parking garage by updating some of the garage components into artistic components. Commissioner Knutson stated that the project is very well done and attractive. However. the number of parking has not changed but the number of residential units has increased. Mr. Terrell stated that the developers are very comfortable from a marketing perspective with this panting ratio. Commissioner Knutson responded that many of the residents of these units would have more than one car. Mr. Terrell explained that there would be the opportunity to rent out additional spaces. He stated that cars could be stacked in spaces if there is a demand. Commissioner Hunter asked what the developer meant when he stated that this development would appeal to the higher end. Mr. Terrell stated that the changes to the development and the design and materials would enhance the quality of design in downtown Evanston. Chairman Cook stated that the design has matured but that he far ored the previous design of the top of the building. Commissioner Knutson felt that these changes would not constitute a major change to the Planned Development. Arthur Alterson concurred with Commissioner Knutson. A motion was made that the revisions to Sherman Plaza presented this evening constitute a minor change to the Sherman Plaza Planned Development. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (5-0). IV. ZONING ANIENDMEti'T PUBLIC HEARNG Case ZPC 02-03-T: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding regulation of convenience stores. and land uses devoted to the retail sale of goods or the retail provision of services to consumers having floor areas under or hours of operation in excess of specified thresholds. Arthur Alterson read the public hearing notice. He stated that convenience stores are currently a special use in the downtown and business/commercial zoning districts. However, the current definition of convenience store does not capture many of the establishments in Evanston. He explained that most other communities base their definitions of convenience stores on size rather than hours of operation. Arthur Alterson stated that the definition of "open sales lot" should not include temporary uses such as Christmas tree lots and the Evanston Farmer's Market. Alderman Rainey asked Mr. Alto -son what the current Zoning Ordinance definition of convenience stores is. Mr. Alterson replied that there are two tests to determine a convenience store: 1.) Food establishment of under 3.200 square feet 2.) Food establishment that remains open 15 or more hours out of the day. Alderman Rainey explained that she is concerned about the stores that are less than 3.200 square feet, but remain open less than 15 hours a day. She sited examples of establishments on Howard Plan Commission .tleerrng - Seprember 23. 2002 Page 2 Street that are not cons; ��lled a hatsoever and close their doors at 3p.m.. but then open them at 3a.m. Commissioner Widmay:r asked Alderman Raine% if the Cir% should dictate a business' hours of operation. Alderman Rine% replied that she is not requesting this sort of regulation. but an amendment to the Zonjnz 6rdinance that requires a convenience store of less than 3.200 square feet to be a special use. Str- Alterson explained that another proposed amendment is to make an establishment tha; is open for more than 15 hours a special use. He stated that this is a separate amendment from the con%enience store amendment. He also explained that the issue of unattended businesses might be a business license issue as opposed to a zoning issue. Sir. Alterson explained that special uses run with the land. Chairman Cook stated that one store could then close do%,%-n and move down the street and dodge the special use requirement. Mr. Alterson also explained that an existing convenience store would become a legal special use if this amendment is passed and that there would be no conditions attached to this special use. However. the City Council could adopt language that would limit the conveyance of legal special use to the current proprietor. Alderman Rainey explained that many of these businesses are fly by night operations and will close down suddenh. and then reopen a few months later. A special use on the current user would restrict this problem. She explained that these types of businesses are not subject to litter control regulations that businesses such as McDonald's and Subway are subject to. Commissioner Rodgers suggested holding the owners responsible for any code violations regarding these establishments. Chairperson Cook opened the public testimony portion of the hearing and asked audience members to speak regarding this issue: Mimi Peterson — 1008 Ashland Avenue: Ms. Peterson stated that there is an abundance of 24-hour stores such as Jewel, etc. She felt that the small 24-hour convenience stores seem to attract loiterers. She supports these establishments being special uses and would like to see the special use run with the owner as opposed to the prop",. Lance Schart — 1324 Dobson Street: Mr. Schart stated that he is in favor of the proposed text amendment and he would like to have some sort of control over the establishments that are coming into his neighborhood. Public hearings through the special use process would give the neighbors a chance to review the appropriateness of a business. Glenn Hedman — 1 100 Dobson Street: Mr. Hedman also spoke in fa%or of the amendments. He explained that an alley only separates the rear of the businesses on Howard from the residences on the south side of Dobson Street. He stated that there needs to be an ongoing commitment from the business owners to provide a safe and clean commercial area. He also felt that businesses that are not run in a professional manner inhibit new legitimate businesses from moving into an area. Chairperson Cook closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Knutson stated that the Plan Commission needs to consider the ramifications of these amendments on the entire City. not just the Howard Street corridor. He felt that during the public hearing portion of a special use case, the neighbors should be able to decide whether they want the special use to run w ith the land or with the business. Commissioner Hunter stated that he is not sure these issues are a zoning and/or planning problem, but he would be willing to vote Plan Communon Meeting - Sepumtber ?:. _ 002 Page 3 in favor of making these establishments a special use. Commissioner Rodgers reiterated that the owners of the buildings containing these establishments should be held to a higher responsibility and that the o►►ners should be fined if there are ►iolations. Commissioner Widmayer stated that he is concerned that this amendment will not sole the problem. if these concerns cannot be addressed b% current health codes. noise ordinances. etc.. then the special use requirement will just add another ia►er of unenforceable regulations. alderman Rain} responded that making these establishments special uses would deter man} of these establishments from opening in the first place. Furthermore. she cited the example of the CVS Drug store on the northeast corner of Asbun and Howard. This establishment ►►ent through the special use process and the resulting project is fabulous. Associate member Samson stated that enforcement is not as big an issue as some people make it out to be. If an establishment is not meeting regulations, there will be pressure from the community for them to do so. Mr. Alterson provided the example of the Subway on Howard Street. A condition ►►as placed on this establishment's approval that the propem owner meet with the Evanston Police Department on a regular basis. These meetings have been taking place. He explained that the special use process allows the Ci* to request stipulations that are over and above what nonnali% is required from these businesses. Commissioner Knutson moved that the Plan Commission recommend that the definition of convenience stores in the Evanston Zoning Ordinance be changed to the language presented in Arthur Alterson's staff report written on September 24, 2002. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (5-0). Commissioner Knutson moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the definition of open sales lot as defined in the Arthur Alterson staff report of September 24, 2002. This definition would exclude the Evanston Farmers :Market. Commissioner Widmaver wanted to be clear as to what this motion would address. Mr. Alterson explained that there are occasionally flea markets and individuals selling items out of their cars in parking lots. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (5-0). Commissioner Knutson was not convinced that hours of operation is a zoning issue and that there needs to be clarification regarding whether this is a zoning issue or is not. Commissioner Widmayer moved to table a decision on requiring retail establishments that are open more than I5 bours to be special uses within the B and C Districts. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (S-0). Commissioner Knutson moved that the definition of temporary use in the Evanston Zoning Ordinance be changed to reflect the definition in the staff report written by Arthur Alterson on September 24, 2002. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (5-0). V. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS a Binding Appearance Review Committee Jeff Burdick notified the Commission that there would be a member of the City's Corporation Counsel offering a legal opinion on the Binding Appearance Review Guidelines at the October 14, 2002 Planning and Development Committee meeting. a Neighborhood Planning Committee Commissioner Hunter explained that he was present for part of the last Neighborhood Planning Committee and that the Housing subgroup went on a walking tour of the neighborhood. Because Commissioner John Leman has not been present. Chairman Cook requested that a new chair be appointed to this committee. Plan Commusion Ateenng - September l5 2002 Page 4 • Zoning Committee Commissioner Widma}er stated that the Zoning Committee discussed the text amendments that «ere presented at tonight's Plan Commission meeting. • Community Development Committee Commissioner Rodgers stated that he is going to have to discontinue his services on the Community Development Committee because of other time commitments. He would not have step down until the end of the year. He informed the Commission that the Committee is starting to review Community Development Block Grant proposals. • Economic Development Committee Commissioner Alice Rebechini has not been present at the past few Plan Commission meetings. Chairman Cook stated that she has had several time conflicts with her job. • Planning And Development Committee Chairman Cook stated that there has not been any pertinent items discussed at the last few Planning and Development Committee meetings. VI. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Cook introduced Steve Samson, the new Plan Commission associate member. Jeff Burdick notified the Commission that the RTA study has been completed and made sure that each Commission member received a copy of the study. He also notified the Commission that the November Plan Commission meeting may have to be pushed back a week in order to allow for a joint Plan Comm ission/Economic Development Committee meeting in which the Chicago Avenue streetscape plan would be presented. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 9:17 pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. October 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 2403 of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner October I, 2002 Plan Communion .tfeeting - September 23. 2002 Page 5 Draft — .Vot Approved MINUTES E1 ANSTON PL-IN COMMISSION Wednesday, October 9, 2002 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT.............................................................Richard Cook, Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter. Steve Knutson, Alice Rebechini. Larry Widmayer MEMBERS ABSENT...............................................................Sharon Bowie, John Lyman, Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCIATE MEMBER PRESENT.............................................Jeanne Lindwall ASSOCIATE MEMBER ABSENT...............................................Steve Samson STAFF PRESENT ............................................................ Arthur Alterson, Jefl'rry Burdick PRESIDNG........................................................................Richard Cook, Chair 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:10 p.m. A quorum was present. II. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2002. A motion was made to approve the meeting minutes from September 25. 2002. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (5-0). W. ZONING AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Case ZPC 02404-T: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding regulating parking including creation of a special use category far accessory use of parking and/or loading (Circulation Impact Mitigation [Parking] Plan Special Use) that includes exceptions to the regulations of Chapter 16. and defining and imposing upon situations for which such a special use for accessory use of parking and/or loading is mandatory. Arthur Alterson explained that this proposed amendment would open up another avenue for someone that is looking to come in for an exception to the parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Currently, someone can apply for a variance to the parking regulations, which would eventually appear before the City Council. The amendment would create a new category of special use so that an applicant could apply for a special use, rather than a variance to the parking regulations. He stated that the theory behind a variation is that there is something peculiar about a piece of property the makes it difficult, or impossible, to the extent of providing a hardship, to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The theory of a special use is different. A special use allows an applicant to appear before the City and make a case for how what helshe wants to do is no worse than what is permitted under the permitted use category. Variances should be reserved only for propern -related hardships. A new special use category dealing with parking would Plan Commavon .Weting - October 9. 2002 Page ) allow an applicant to come to the City %s ith a plan to discuss the merits of the plan and propose a solution that is at least as gird as pro% iding the required number of parking and loading spaces. and in some cases. ma% be a better plan. Commissioner Hunter asked %fr. Alterson -.Oat prompted the need for this zoning amendment. .fr. Alterson replied that when the Cit< Council amended the parking regulations for multi -family uses by increasing them. one of the concerns was that someone would come forward. maybe with an affordable housing scheme or something uhcreb% they could make a case for not needing higher parking requirements. and apply fora variance. In this case. the City could not grant a Variance on the true basis of what a variance is for. In essence. the Cite would be dancing around the standards for variances. He further explained that a variance deals with the physical characteristics of a piece of property. not with the type of use proposed for a piece of property. Commissioner Doetsch asked %fr. Alterson how mari variances have been requested since the City adopted these new parking regulations. Mr. Alterson replied that he could not think of any variance applications dealing with parking since this time. Associate member Lindwall mentioned that both the Sherman Plaza development and the 1930 Ridge Avenue project asked for less parking. Mr. Alterson made the distinction that both of these cases were planned developments. which is a type of special use. Commissioner Rebechini asked if the impetus of the proposed amendment is to keep variances from being confused with use -related issues. Mr. Alterson agreed. but stated that this amendment deals with parking issues only. Commissioner Hunter asked if the amendment could be extended to issues other than parking. Mr. Alterson stated that bulk regulations and height issues could be covered under planned developments. Commissioner Doetsch warned that if this is being done for parking. then next )ear ma%be a similar special use provision may be entertained for setback requirements. bulk regulations. etc. %fr. Alterson stated that the reason parking is being considered as a special use is because it is concerned and related to the nature of a use rather than the nature of a propem. Commissioner Widmayer illustrated a scenario in which a building was constructed for Alzheimer's patients. This building could receive a special use for parking because the residents of the building do not oun cars and only a certain amount of parking spaces would be needed. What would happen if 10 or 20 years down the road the building was sold to a developer who w ishes to convert the building to condos? The special use would be gone, but the building and the small parking lot remains. How would this situation be handled? Mr. Alterson stated that this is a problem between the seller and the buyer. Commissioner Rebechini stated that this would end up being a City problem and a real estate problem for the community. The public hearing was open to the members of the audience. Ron Navler— Northwestern University: Mr. Nayler stated that developers always have the opportunity to apply for a planned Development in order to obtain relief and there is nothing that would prohibit a developer from applying for a planned development in order to get exceptions from parking. 41r. Alterson responded that the benefit of a special use is that it is a less elaborate and expensive process than a planned development. Commissioner Widmayer asked how marry developments are occurring in the Citti in which parking is the oniy relief issue. fir. Alterson replied that he could not answer that right now. but could provide an analysis. Commissioner Widmayer stated that he is concerned that there would be a remedy for a situation such as his Alzheimer's example. Mr. Akerson replied that he is not as concerned about this because of the tendency among reviewing bodies is to view a project from a long-term vantagepoint. Commissioner Widmayer stated that this amendment was borne from Alderman Kent stating that initiatives needed to be developed to encourage low-income housing. Phan Commission .Neenne - Ocrolvr 9.: �Xj. Page 2 tifr. Alterson %%ent through Section G of the Zoning Amendment Report. It states that anything that comes in as a special use should also app1% for a parking special use. It also states that any development occurring in a University District other than those in the U3 District and not within 100 feet of Sheridan Road %%ould need to supply a parking and circulation plan and apply for a parking special u:e Commissioner IX-c sch stated that he understands the philosophy of this proposed amendment but that it seems to deal w ith a problem that does not reall% exist. The only time that this seems to be an issue is for large de%elopments, and these de%elopments can use the planned development mechanism to handle parking issues. Furthermore. the benefit of the %ariance procedure is that there is a presumption against granting a variance. This procedure could shift that presumption the other %vay. It «ill also potentially be burdensome to small users. Mr. Nagler added that this amendment could grant exceptions. %%hick are presumed to be allowed as opposed to variances w here standards need to be met in order to gain exceptions. In addition, he stated that the proposed amendment is geared towards granting relief, and then there is one section that is targeted only at University uses that is not granting relief: It's taking away property rights from Unisersities. Northwestern University provides cheap parking at Ryan Field, and runs shuttle buses to and from parking lots and the its downtown Chicago campus. Bicycle racks are also prow ided throughout campus. so there are actually a number of things provided by Northuestern University that are within the standards. Chairman Cook closed the public hearing. Commissioner Widmayer moved that this item be returned to the Zoning Committee so that it would be reduced to just discussing low-income housing. The motion was not seconded. Commissioner Rebechini stated that she does not believe that going through variance or planned development process is a deterrent to affordable housing. She stated that she does not feel that it is prevalent enough that an amendment is needed to address it. Commissioner Doetsch made a motion that staff be thanked for their careful analysis and drafting of the proposal, but that the Plan Commission does not feel that it is necessary at this time. Commissioner Rebechini seconded the motion. The motion did not pass, Vote (3-3). Commissioners Knutson, Hunter, and Chairman Cook voted nay. Chairman Cook made a motion stating that the item return to staff, and that staff consider points in tonight's discussion in order to determine if the amendment should be limited in its scope. Commissioner Hunter seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote (4-2). Commissioners Doetsch and Rebechini voted nay. (Although a majority vote of the entire Plan Commission was not received, the vote still carries because a formal recommendation was not made, just an informal recommendation to send the item back to the Zoning Committee). IV. ZONING A.SIE1DtiiENT PUBLIC HEARING Case ZPC 02-05-T: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding reserving a portion of permitted building lot coverage allowance for a minimal floor area for a garage regardless of construction of garage on the zoning lot. Mr. Alterson explained that this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is being proposed because there have been man% situations in which a residential developer (both single-family and multi- family) maximizes the building lot coverage with the house itself and does not provide enclosed parking. As a result. a homeowner may eventually request a variance to the lot coverage in order to provide parking on the property. In most cases, these variances have been granted but the applicant's rationale for ah% the variance should be granted is that his'her neighbors have a Plan Commission .tfeerrng - Ocrobar 9 ,M; Page 3 garage and that he she should have one as Nell. This is not a reasonable rationale for why a variance should be granted. The proposed amendment would allo%% the City to evaluate a residential construction proposal with the consideration that residential lot coverage shall include 200 square feet for each parking space required by the Zoning Ordinance for any residential unit for which such required parking space is not provided within a building. Committee member %VidmaNer supported this proposed Zoning amendment and added that an applicant can still come in far a variance if he/she wishes to build a garage that exceeds the lot coverage guaranteed for parking. Committee member Knutson stated that he thinks this amendment is a good precaution for monster houses and tear downs because it discourages big rear additions. He also pointed out that this amendment would properly address those situations in which a prop" owner has a non -conforming garage that is dilapidated and needs to be replaced, but cannot without the need fora zoning variance. Commissioner Knutson motioned to approve this zoning amendment as written. Commissioner Rebechini seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. (tr0). V. RELATED ITEM PERTAINING TO THE SKOKIE SWIFT (CTA YELLOW LINE) FROM ARTHUR ALTERSCtN, ZONING AD�IV ISTRATOR Mr. Alterson explained that the mayor of Skokie has embarked on a campaign to get more stations on the CTA Yellow Line. Chairman Cook stated that a station at Dodge would be appropriate, especially considering the proximity of the Levy Center. Mr. Alterson suggested that the Plan Commission make a motion requesting that the City Council pass a resolution that can be sent to CATS (Chicago Area Transportation Study), who is conducting a long range transportation plan. stating that the City supports the addition of transit stations on the Yellow Line. Committee member Hunter made a motion recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution that supports at least one new station along the CTA Yellow Line in Evanston. If there is only to be one station in Evanston, it should serve the Ln-y Center and be located at Dodge Avenue. The motion was seconded and passed unanimonsly. (6-0). VI. COMMITTEE L`PDATES AND REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Committee Chairman Cook stated that the City's Corporation Counsel would make a recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee on October 14, 2002 regarding the proposed Binding Appearance Review Ordinance. Commissioner Doetsch asked if there was an indication of what the Counsel's recommendation would be. Chairman Cook replied that there has been no indication from the Legal Department. Neighborhood Planning Committee Commissioner Hunter noted that the Neighborhood Planning Committee is in the process of developing an initial report regarding the findings of its four subcommittees. The report should be ready for review by the First of the year. + Zoning Committee The two zoning cases this evening provided an ample report regarding the activities of the Zoning Committee. No report was provided. Community Development Committee Commissioner Rodgers was not present and no report was provided. Plait Commission .fleeting - Octo:er 4. 2002 Page 4 • Economic Development Committee Commissioner Rebeu-hini stated that she was not present at the previous Economic Development Committee meeting. • Planning and Development Committee No report was provided. VIL OTHER BUSLti'ESSJAINNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Burdick explained that David Jennings presented an ordinance noting that the Parking Committee should have a liaison from the Plan Commission. Several months ago, the Plan Commission ceded to participate in the Parking Committee. Chairman Cook stated that he Parking Committee is extremely interesting and asked for a volunteer to be a Plan Commission liaison. Commissioner VV idmaver volunteered to be the new liaison. Mr. Burdick notified the Plan Commission members that the November Plan Commission meeting date may be changed in order to accommodate the schedule of the Chicago Avenue 5trectscape consultants, who vill be presenting the plan at this meeting. villa. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 8:43 pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner November 14, 2002 Plan Commission .Meeting - October 9, 2002 Page 5 MINUTES EVANSTON PL-kN C01 MISSION Tuesday November 19. 2002 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT.............................................................Sharon Bowie, Richard Cook, Steve Knutson, John Lyman, Alice Rebechini, Kenneth Rodgers, Larry Widmayer MEMBERS ABSENT..............................................................Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter ASSOCIATE MEMBER PRESENT.............................................Jeanne Lindwall, Steve Samson STAFF PRESENT............................................................ Jeffrey Burdick. Susan Guderley, David Je PRESIDING........................................................................Richard Cook, Chair I. CALL TO ORDER I DECLARATION OF QUORUM The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:03 p.m. A quorum was present. II. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 9, 2002. A motion was made to approve the meeting minutes from October 9, 2002, noting that the meeting took place in Room 2403 and not the Council Chambers. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (6-0). III. CONSULTANT PRESENi'ATION OF CHICAGO AVENUE STREETSCAPE PLAN Commissioner Lyman stated that this plan is the result of the hard work over the past few years of the Neighborhood Committee. Susan Guderley concurred, and noted that the streetscape plan addresses both aesthetic and economic development concerns in the Chicago Avenue corridor. She introduced the consultant, Mr. Greg Calpino. Mr. Calpino presented the streetscape plan to the Commission. He stated that the project area is approximately one mile in length, consisting of Chicago Avenue from South Boulevard on the south to Lake Street on the north. There was not a single treatment to the corridor throughout the entire length; instead the corridor %vas divided into three sector lengths, each with its own existing land use characteristics. Two rounds of public workshops were held. A major point made at these workshops included making the corridor more pedestrian -oriented, and providing a unique Evanston design scheme and atmosphere. The concept of a tree -lined corridor with Tallmadge lighting was very popular among the public. Better IeR turn movement on Chicago Avenue and green treatment of the cement rail embankment was also suggested. Plan Commimon Aketing - Nosymber 19.:002 Page I David Jennings, the Director of Public Works, explained how this streetscape plan could be implemented. He noted that the estimated cost for this streetscape plan would be between 7'1 and 8 million dollars. This plan could be broken down into three phases: -South Boulevard to Kedzie -Kedzie to Greenleaf -Greenleaf to Dempster. Mr. Jennings noted that certain water mains would have to be increased in size and that this should be done prior to or as part of the streetscape plan. He noted many other reasons why the implementation of this plan would be expensive. There are a lot of different funding opportunities. such as bond monies, grants. and the creation of a special service district within the corridor. Chairman Cook stated that he would like to see more prominence given to the gateway area near South Boulevard and Chicago Avenue. Mr. Calpino replied that many residents did not want an over -the -top design at the gateway, just something that reflected the quality of Evanston. Commissioner Rebechini asked if there are any economic incentives offered to area businesses to improve the appearance of their storefronts. Dennis Marino replied that some CDBG monies are allocated to a storefront fagade program. Commissioner Lyman stated that a preliminary strectscape plan has to be decided on so that large developments within the Chicago Avenue corridor, such as the to%mhomes at 525 Chicago Avenue, can have a streetscape prototype to follow for their development. He inquired as to what section of the corridor would be slated to be redesigned first. Mr. Jennings replied that the south section of the corridor would probably be Phase One of the project. A motion was urade for the Plan Commission to enthusiastically recommend approval of the Chicago Avenue Streetscape Plan. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (7-0). IV. DISCUSS RESULTS OF NOVEMBER 18, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Jeff Burdick passed out a summary of the Plan Commission's Executive Committee meeting. Chairman Cook noted that the Executive Committee has nominated Larry Widmayer to be the 2003 Plan Commission Chairperson. Doug Doetsch would be the Vice Chair. Chairman Cook stated that his term as a Plan Commissioner would run out on January 1, 2003 and that he would continue to serve as an Associate Member. He also noted that Jeanne Lindwall's term as an Associate Member would be expiring at the end of 2002. Chairman Cook listed the subcommittees and the flan Commissioners serving on each one for 2003: Binding Appearance: Doug Doetsch. Albert Hunter, Richard Cook .Zoning: Steve Knutson, Doug Doetsch. Steve Samson Community Development: Kenneth Rodgers Economic Development: Alice Rebechini Neighborhood: Albert Hunter, John Lyman. Larry Widmayer, Kenneth Rodgers, Steve Knutson (Commissioner Rodgers stated that he would have to make sure he would have the time to serve on this Committee, and that he would look into his schedule to see if he can find time to serve on this Committee). Plan Commission Metnng - November 19, 2002 Page 2 Parkins: Sharon Bowie Lames and Places: Sharon Bowie Planning and Development: Lam Widmayer Chairman Cook notified the Commission that a new Plan Commissioner is going to be needed in 2003 and stated that someone with a strong planning background be considered. V. DISCUSS APPOINTLtiG A PLAN COMMISSION MEMBER TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE r iCLUSIONARY HOUSLtiG TASK FORCE :Mark Dillon explained that a neu Inclusionary Housing Task Force would be looking for a Plan Commissioner to serve on its team. Sharon Bowie volunteered to serve on this task force. VI. CON", MTEE UPDATES &%D REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Committee Jeff Burdick notified the Commission that he drafted a comparison sheet between the existing ordinance authorizing Binding Appearance Review and the new ordinance drafted by the Corporation Counsel. He stated that he would provide this sheet to the Plan Commission. • Neighborhood Planning Committee John Lyman stated that the next Neighborhood Planning Committee would be on December 12, 2002. The previous meeting consisted of an Evanston Chamber of Commerce presentation, and a presentation on the proposed Onyx Waste Transfer Station_ • Zoning Committee Steve Knutson stated that the Zoning Committee would be discussing the proposed text amendment allow ing the reduction of parking spaces to be a special use at its next meeting. • Commnuity Development Committee Kenneth Rodgers stated that 2 million dollars in funding needed to be cut this year. Chairman Cook asked Mr. Rodgers to provide a copy of cuts to the Plan Commission. • Economic Development Committee Alice Rebechini stated that there was an update on the Klutznick project at the previous Economic Development Committee meeting. The existing parking garage would not be shut down until outstanding loan issues are settled between the developer and the City. In addition, the Committee discussed the $180.000 grant proposal for the Evanston Youth Job Program and did not fay or the proposal for an ice cream store that would provide job skill training for youths. • Parking Committee Larry Widmayer stated that the Parking Committee discussed the increased parking plan for the Civic Center. The Parking Committee would be looking at the status of parking around Sherman Avenue and Dempster Street and the issue of short-term meters in downtown at their future meetings. • Planning and Development Committee Chairman Cook stated that the Committee discussed the emergency generator in front of the Starbucks at Main and Chicago and how the visual impact of the generator could be mitigated. Plan Communon Afeeting - .' us-rmber 19. 2002 Page 3 NIL OTHER BLSLNESS/AINNO "NCEMEN'TS Chairman Conk sta:rd thm he was asked if the Plan Commission canted to co-sponsor the Sustainable Evanston Fortin Series on Energy and Transportation. Dennis Marino stated that the FnerR• Commission Was a]so asked to co-sponsor, and that the%, offered to provide assistance and input* but not to co-sponse4 the series. A motion was made to encourage interested Plan Commission members to attend the Forum Series, as there may be planning issues brought up, but that the FUz Commission should not sponsor the Forum Series. The motion was seconded and paned unasimously. (7-0). The Plan Commission sec the time and date of the 2003 Plan Commission Retreat to be Wednesday. January 22. 2003 from b — S p.m. Dennis Marino notified the Committee that the Builder's Square site is under contract to be redeveloped as another retail center. One of the developer's ideas is to include a couple of outlot parcels along Main and to turn the former garden center area of the Builder's Square into retail facing Main Street. Commissioner Ltman noted that a progress report should be provided to the Plan Commission regarding both the Howard Street and Chicago Avenue Sueetscape Plans. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Evanston Plan Commission adjourned its meeting at 9:00 pm. The Commission's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 8. 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, (1 e6 Jeffrey Burdick, General Planner January 3, 2003 Plan Commission Alerting - .tiocember 19.2002 Page 4