Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes 2004
MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, January 14, 200417:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson, Larry Raffel, Alice Rebechini, Lawrence Widmayer Richard Cook, Steve Samson, Sharon Bowie, John Lyman, Kenneth Rodgers, STAFF PRESENT: Arthur Alterson, Dennis Marino, Mary Baaske I. CALL TO ORDER 1 DECLARATION OF QUORUM Lawrence Widmayer, Chair noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. 11. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND UNIQUE USE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING An application by Asbury Ridge, LLC, property owner, for a Unique Use and a Planned Development as a farm of special use permit Including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances, end other relief as may be necessary to allow redevelopment of an area within the Rl Single Family Residential District. The applicant requests that the City grant a unique use and planned development on the above -mentioned property to allow for its redevelopment. The project Includes the renovation of the existing mansion and coach house to create six condominiums units and the addition of eleven townhouses. James Murray, attorney for Asbury Ridge, LLC, summarized what has occurred since he was last before the Commission. He said there have been several meetings/discussions and reaching out to the community through the offices of Ald. Bernstein as a means to achieve a conciliatory pathway that would permit the project and development of this project to go forward. While not meeting the goals of all the people involved, including the City, the residents and the developer, there would at least be an understanding where all parties could say there was an achievement of an understanding and result. Mr. Murray said that as a result of those interchanges, a new plan was presented to the Zoning Department, a revised site plan that varied from the original site Plan. The revised site plan calls for 7 single-family lots, with the mansion and coach house being divided into condominiums. He said the 7 lots meet the area requirements of the R1 district. An application has also been filed with the Preservation Commission for the review of subdivision plans. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - January 14. 2004 Pane Two In response to a question from Steve Knutson, Mr. Murray replied that the option of building homes on the 7 lots or just selling the lots and letting the buyer of those lots build the homes are both options opened to Mr. Niazmand. Mr. Niazmand said that he was aware that any new home that would be built would have to be approved by the Preservation Commission. Chair Widmayer asked what was being asked of the Plan Commission tonight. Mr. Murray said that the Plan Commission could conclude this evening on a vote of the Commission that the unique use was applicable as a resource to the developer of this property as a means by which to preserve the two existing designated landmarks on the site. Chair Widmayer and Mr. Murray discussed the multi family use and unique use aspects of the zoning ordinance as it pertained to 1314 Ridge. Member Doetsch moved that in light of the large size of the Asbury/Ridge parcel, the historic significance of the Dryden Mansion, the physical deterioration of the Dryden Mansion under the ownership of District 65, the prominence of the location and the interest of the City in preserving the Dryden Mansion, that the "Unique Use" zoning designation be available to the Asbury/Ridge Development to permit the Dryden Mansion to be subdivided Into no more than four residential units subject to: 1. The developer submitting a revised complete application of the development of the entire parcel to the Plan Commission and all other applicable authorities and subsequent receipt of all applicable approvals from the Plan Commission and all other applicable authorities. 2. Receipt from the City Law Department of an opinion that the Plan Commission has not exceeded its jurisdiction in so applying the unique use zoning designation. Motion seconded by Member Knutson. Motion passed unanimously 6-0. Proposed Planned Development And Unique Use Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Public Hearing was continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting in February, 2004 of the Plan Commission. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. III. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-09-M&T To consider amendments to Chapters 9, 'Business Districts;' 10. 'Commercial Districts;' 15. 'Special Purpose and Overtay Districts; 16. *Oft -Street Parking and Loading" 17. 'Landscaping and Screening;' 18. Definitions;"3, "implementation and Administration;' 7. Zoning Districts and Map; 'and any other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the text and/or the map of the Zoning Ordinance to affect the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as applied to that area Evanston flan Commission Minutes - January 14.2004 Paae Three of the City presently within the B3 District In the vicinity of Main and Sherman and/or to remap off or parts of the following indicated area from the B3 Business District Into the B2 Business District or the Cla Commercial Mix Use District or other appropriate zoning district, or to appty the oRD Redevelopment Overlay District or other appropriate overlay district, Tire properties that are the subject of this Plan Commission hearing comprise, more or less: • all properties a portion of which abuts Main Street east of the Union Pacific right of way and west of Hinman; and • all properties a portion of which abuts Chicago Avenue from a point approximately 200 feet south of the center line of Main Street to a point approximately 200 feet north of the center line of Main Street. These properties, which include all Intervening rights of way. am Idertifred by the following street addresses: • all Main Street addresses from 500 Main through 603 Main; • all Chicago Avenue addresses from 933 Chicago to 835 Chkago; and all even numbered Hinman Avenue addresses from 904 Hinman to 860 Hinman A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on Me wfth the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division Is located In Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center Chair Widmayer swore in all those wishing to speak at the meeting tonight. He then called members of the audience that wanted to speak about this development. The following members of the public spoke regarding this proposed zoning ordinance tent amendment Doug Geyer, 811 Chicago Avenue Maureen Glasoe, 901 Hinman Hans Vija, 811 Chicago Avenue Debbie Hillman, 1118 Sherman Judy Freeman, 937 Sherman Katherine Saccany, 926 Judson Justine Cho, 515 Main Gerald Gordon, 1228 Lake Street The public testimony reflected the following concerns: traffic conditions regarding Chicago and Main and Chicago and Dempster, copies of an overlay district were distributed detailing how some neighbors would like to see this area developed. Speakers also commented on the following: the sidewalks were too narrow; they encouraged the Plan Commission to down zone this area; there are areas that would always be in shade; impact of growth including environmental impact; overcrowding; and one was against mast arm traffic lights currently being planned for Chicago Avenue. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - January 14. 2004 Paae Four Chair Widmayer said that while the Commission is receiving individual traffic analysis, what is needed is a comprehensive traffic study in the Chicago Avenue Corridor, Dennis Marino said that he would follow up on this with David Jennings, Public Works Director. In response to a question regarding the status of the proposed signalization project for Chicago Avenue, Dennis Marino said that he would speak to David Jennings and report back to the Commission at the next meeting. Member Knutson read a statement that John Lyman (Mr. Lyman was Chair of the Neighborhood Committee for the Chicago Avenue Study) made at the last Plan Commission meeting knowing that he would not be attending the meeting tonight. The statement included the following about the downzoning reference for the Southeast Main/Chicago B-3. "... the comment I would make besides the fact that I think it is zoned property and that it is zoned to reflect what ought to be taking place ... the biggest concern for this Commission ought to be the policy of agreeing to a zoning change about two years ago and in less than two years deciding that your going to change the zoning again. I think that Is bad public policy. I think that zoning changes should hang In there for eight to ten years.` Member Knutson said that heavy dense development within less than % block of two rail stations is absolutely good public policy and planning. He said he was not in favor of revisiting this zoning at all. Commission members discussed the pros and cons of building to lot line, the desirability of open space, larger sidewalks, and pedestrian friendly communities. Agreeing with a statement from an audience member, Chair Widmayer said that according to a study taken of multiple family housing in Evanston in 1998 it was found that even if people used public transportation Monday through Friday to get downtown, they still had two cars. Chair Widmayer referred this to the Zoning Committee on the overlay and the overall reference. A member of the audience asked for an explanation on the overlay. Chair Widmayer replied that as it is conceived at the moment, the underlying zoning would give it some definition to what is allowed on the property. But everything that is done in one of these districts has to come as a planned development. Member Knutson said that with a planned development the general spirit or requirements of the zoning is In place, but there is a give and take. Commission members continued this matter until the next regularly scheduled Plan Commission meeting. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - January 14.2004 Paae Five IV. PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-011 PD 413.421 Howard An application by Bristol Chicago Development, LLC by William Patrun, associate for a Planned Development. The applicant is the contract purchaser of the property commonly known as 412- 421 Howard kxated in the B3, Business District. The applicant requests that the City grant a planned development as a form of special use Including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to provide the applicant with the zoning relief necessary to allow the redevelopment of 412-421 Howard and the 16 foot alley north of and abutting that property for multi -family residential. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division Is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center Arthur Alterson, Zoning Administrator read the proposed planned development Into the record. Jack Lawler, attorney for the applicant, introduced Bill Walsh and William Patrun. Mr. Lawler stated that the applicant proposes to construct a high quality multi -family residential facility on this subject property which would be an attractive gateway to Evanston. This site Is within the Clark Street and Howard Street proposed TIF, which is currently under consideration by the Evanston City Council after an exttended planning effort. He introduced architect Jim Curtin of the the Soloman, Cordwell, Buenz & Assoc., Inc. Architectural firm, Mr. Don O'Hare of the KLOA traffic consulting firm and appraiser John Yaeger of the Appraisal Research Counselors Ltd. Mr. Lawler said that at the December 7, 2003 SPAARC meeting, a motion was granted to give concept approval, and today SPAARC granted preliminary approval for both the site plan and the project's appearance. He said that the property being purchased is 413 Howard, the site under contract is approximately 397' by 85' containing approximately 25,271 feet altogether. He distributed a copy of a map showing the alley adjacent to the property. He said the project contemplates a vacation of approximately 281' by 16' alley. In order to continue alley service to the property owners east of the site the project is dedicating a 15' alley to the City from the private sector real estate the applicant has under contract. In vacating the alley the site of the development becomes 281' wide with a depth of 101' containing 28,400 feet altogether. He explained that the CTA's rail yard is to the north which is in a general industrial district, immediately to the east are two and three story mixed -use residential and commercial buildings typical arterial buildings along the north side of Howard Street extending to the El station, to the south of the site lies the CTA's Howard Street Station, a new parking facility, the Gateway shopping center and a six story building at the intersection of Howard and Chicago that is being converted to condominiums. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - January 14.2004 Paae Six There is an auto repair shop and a book shop west of the proposed development. The goal of this development is to provide a southern gateway to Evanston and put more people on the street to supplement the redevelopment that is already occurring. Mr. Lawler then placed the public notice published in the Evanston Review on December 24.2003 into the record as Exhibit 1, the mailed notice issued by the City of Evanston per the requirements of the ordinance as Exhibit 2, their application as Exhibit 3, the plat of dedication and vacation that explains the alley system as Exhibit 4, and Jim Curtin's resume as Exhibit 5. Jim Curtin gave a presentation of the buildings design. He explained the streetscape planned for the development included trees, pavers and planters. Mr. Curtin presented the plan for parking for the development, there will be 245 parking spaces including 7 handicapped spaces. The building will be 17 stories and have 221 units. He gave the general layout of the apartments that will be In the building, including the fact that most apartments will have a balcony. There will be one and two bedroom apartments as well as some studio apartments. The presentation Included the materials that will be used on the facade of the building. There followed a question and answer period between the developers and the Plan Commission members. One member had concems regarding the tack of retail on the first floor, one felt the building is too tail. Another member suggested that retail might not be desirable. Michael Land, stated he serves on the staff of Chicago Alderman Joe Moore. He said that Aid. Moore regrets he could not attend tonight's meeting due to a previous engagement. However, he wanted it known that he views this proposal with a great deal of interest. Chair Widmayer stated that this hearing would be continued to the next regularly scheduled Plan Commission meeting of February 11, 2003. A Zoning Committee hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, January 27 at 8.00 a.m. V. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS - Neiahborhood Plannina Committee Member Hunter reported that the Committee is hoping to have a report to Plan Commission at its March meeting. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - January 14.2004 Paae Seven - Economic Development Committee No report Plannina and Development Committee Chair Widmayer said that P&D would have a special meeting on January 20, at 7:30 p.m. to go over the bulk standards. They also will meet from 6:00 p.m to 7:30 p.m. to discuss Kendall College on that same date. Vl. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, it adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary 2aske Planning Division W" MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Vl'ednesdar. February 11. 2004 / 7:00 p.m. ivanston Civic Center Room 2200 MEMBERS PRESENT................................Lawrence Raffel, Alice Rebechini, Sharon Bowie, ...................................................................... Steve Knutson. Kenneth Rodgers, Lawrence ...................................................................... Widmayer. Albert Hunter, James Woods ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ..........Steve Samson. Richard Cook, John Lyman MEMBERS ABSENT...................................Douglas Doetsch ASSOCIATE MEMBER ABSENT .............None STAFF PRESENT: ........................................ Arthur Alterson, Dennis Marino, Tracy Norfleet I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Lawrence Widmayer, Chair, noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. James Woods was introduced as a new member of the Planning Commission, and Tracy Norfleet was introduced as the new General Planner. II. APPROVAL OF MEETItiG MINUTES FROM JANUARY 14, 2004 Member Raffel made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 14, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. Motion was seconded by Member Rodgers. Motion passed unanimously. III. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND UNIQUE USE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-12 U & PD 1314 Ridge An application by Asbury Ridge. LLC property owner. for a Unique L'se and a Planned Development as a form ofspecial use permit including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances. and other relief as may be necessarti to allow redevelopment of an area within the R1 Single Family Residential District. The applicant requests that the Ciry grant a unique use and planned development on the above -mentioned property to allow for its redevelopment. The project includes the renovation of the existing mansion and coach house to create sir condominium units and the addition of eleven townhouses. James Murray, attorney for Asbury Ridge, LLC, summarized what has occurred since he was last before the Commission. He met with the Preservation Commission, which approved his revised subdivision plan (four units in the mansion, two units in the coach house, and seven surrounding attached units) and recommended it to the City Council. However, late this afternoon, he Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — FebnLL-\ I t . 200—, Paee Two received a letter from the Lek.-1 Department's Corporate Counsel. Jack Siegel, informing him that his proposal cannot be censidered as a unique use under :he current Zoning Ordinance. Discussion focused on how to allow the mansion to be subdivided into the proposed four units, since it is located in the RI Sirgle Family District and the Historic District. Member Knutson suggested a text amendment. and %In Murray distributed a draft he had prepared for the Commission. Associate %1en2arr L«nan thought Lhw a tca-t amendment could solve the immediate issue, but it also m:, ht allow other houses to be subdivided in the future. Member Knutson supported the concept of subdividing the property, into single family lots, as long as the front yard setback of the mansion was respected. N r. Altcrsan. Zoning Administrator, raised the zoning issue of subdividing the coach house, which originally was an accessory use but will become a second principal use under the proposal. Only one principal use is allowed per lot in the Historic District. It was decided that the Zoning Committee of the Plain Commission will meet on March 9 at 8:34arn to consider amendments to the Evanston Zoning Ordinance to include multi -family dwellings, two-family dwellings and'or single family attacbzd dwellings as special or permitted uses within the various residential districts of the Ciry upon satisfaction of certain criteria which may include, without limitation- the age, pre-existence, landmark status, location within designated preservation disuict and/or size of the sm.:ctum in which said use is located, and/or dwelling unit size or lot size. This hearing will be continued until the next regularly schird4uled meeting of the Plan Commission on March 10. 2004. .4 ver6ark" transcrof of tke ,. , o _ .p of 9his Han (-.,nwmbsim case is on file with the Evanston Zoning as Dh ision. The Zoning Divftion it kwaoed in Room 370!� of the £+mow Cnic Cenler. IV. CON?I114WATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-09-M&T Chicago &'.Hain To co►tftder amendments w 0wprerY R 'BujLwst Districts: " i ? "C. n tner:ial Districts; " 15, "Special Purpose and Overlay Dcsrncts : 6 "Off-Off?arkme and Loading; " 17. "LanL-.aoptrg and Screening; " 18. "Definitions; " 3, "lwplementarron and Adair—zrrarcm " ' "Zoning Districts and Map ' and air other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance. to amend tsar tern and or -he gear ofthr Zoning Ordmance rr a, jjecr tie rrs2dattons ojthe Zoning Ordinance as applied to rhw arro of the City presently rulun the B3 Distrxr tit r1w wvtuy of Alain and SAernwn andfar to rrmap all or piaru of the )bliowmg trdtccartl area ftow the B3 Bttsinm Dtrarza moo the 82 Business District or the Cla Commercial tfu Use District or od w- approprwu zoning dis trier or to -ppl> the oRD Redevelopment Oawlay District or other appropriate vverlay arrwl. Continued without discussion until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Plan Commission on March 10, 2004 at the request of Member Doetsch, who coa3d not attend tonight's meeting. A rerbadm transcr4N of tke proeaedanp of tkit Pun Con» ibsion case is on Jlle with the Evanston Zoning Division. Ike Zoning Dis*Am is fiwaW An Room 3700 of the Evaimmtm Chi * Center. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Febntary 11. 2004 Paee Three V. PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-01-PD 413-421 HO'W'ARD An application '-& Bristol Chicago Development. LLC, for a Pliasrra Cwvelop+xnt. The applicant is the contract purchaser of the pro%Yriy common!► knoun as 413-421 Howan .xues se irw B3. Business District The applicant requesu that the Ct{L grant a planned dnrlopmeni as o form of .r er" um uw hvding such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances and other relief as may l r wersian to provide the applicant with the coning relief necessar2 to alla% the redevelopment of 413-421 Ho%arii and dw 161itx alley north of and abutting that propero-for multi jitn:ili. residential. Generally, the appluont proposes to construct a muli jamhh, rrstjei>nr1 building with the following characteristics: a/ grpraximately =21 dwelling units. bt a defined gross floor area tcsclu&Rg parking, loading, mechanicals, and uses accessary to the baiddingt of oppraximately 206.000 square jeer. ►end=.-g to a !loar area ratio of about 7.25; q a maximum building height approximately I10 feet to the top of the ►oofa►ydgppraximately Mjeer to the top ofthe elevator penthouse: dj approximately 243 parking spaces. r! no amvL-r r=L service uses or other commercial units at the ground inrl. and f} in effect no yards along any lot lines m-ept tha clo. g the front lot line a setback may be provided The applicant asks jo- special use appro►wl. development allowances and exceptions to development allowances jar the following regulatory concerns, The applicant asks for a special snse throsigh a planned development permit In the B3. Business Dutrict for multifamily dwellings, and dnelopment allow ances and exceptions to development allowances as to lot arra for the requested number ojdti<eRings, floor area rsra twang height, yord and build to lot line requirements, and parking. These:ontrig exceptions include the following. The parcels that comp-ise the subject propert) of this Plan Commusion hea-sng include, more or less, all those panels bearing the Permanent Index Sumberr (PA's) of 11-30- 213-013-01000 11.30-:13-016-0000. 11-30.213.017-0000 and I 1-30-113-01 &.MW. and the 16 foot wide public alley north orand abumng these parcels. Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, read into the record letwrs of support for this project. Chair Widmayer then swore in all those wishing to speak at the meeting tonight. Jack Lawlor, attorney for the applicant, introduced Bill A'alsh and William Patrun, of Bristol Chicago Development, LLC; Jim Curtin of Solomon, Cordwell, Buenz & Associates, Inc. (architects); Neil Kenig of KLOA Transportation and Parking Planning Consultants, Inc.; and John Jaeger of the Appraisal Research Counselors, Ltd. Mr. Lawlor then summarized the procedural status. On December 17, 2003, SPAARC voted unanimously to approve the concept, and the pre -application and site plan were approved on January 14, 2004. On January 26, 2004, the Howard Street TTF district was approved by City Council. The project they are proposing will be the first project in the new TIF district. Following a brief orientation and site overview, Mr. Curtin described the architectural details of the proposed building and building materials. The ground floor plan shows utilization of the wider lot made possible by vacating the existing alley to the rear of the site and constructing a new one adjacent to the proposed building. Ground floor uses will include a leasing office, a 24- hour desk, a meeting room and cyber cafe for residents, and possibly a fitness center. There will be four levels of parking starting from the base of the building, which will be accessible from Howard at the western end of the proposed building. Parking cannot start underground due to a high water table and the slight slope of the site. Since the city has already recently redone landscaping along Howard, planter boxes are proposed as additional landscaping in front of the building, but they will not have benches. A metal -edged canopy projecting 2.5-3 feet will run Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — February 11. 2004 Page Four the length of the ground floor. The four-story parking structure will be two-color brick (standard size, not jumbo), and the residential portion will be painted cast -in -place concrete. Residential floors will typically consist of a mix of one- and two -bedroom units with some studios. Each unit will have a balcony, which will be perforated metal. Member Cook asked about the windows, which will have natural ventilation, screens, and painted aluminum mullions with a baked -on finish. Member Hunter suggested the Omni on Sherman as a good example of using glass in the parking structure. He also expressed concern for selling short the streetscape with minimal ground floor retail, and he suggested creating a flexible space in lieu of the fitness center, given that Bally's Fitness is across the street. Member Raffel noted that Bally's had sent a letter of support for this project. Mr. Rodgers indicated his preference for a coffee shop. Chair Widmayer liked the idea of a flexible space with a high - quality retailer. Member Raf fel suggested using the new alley as the entrance to the parking garage, as opposed to a curb cut on Howard where it may disrupt pedestrian movement. He also expressed concern about a lack of open space and that the planters were not enough landscaping. Member Rodgers agreed. Glenn Evans, a member of the audience, suggested extending the canopy to the street and putting a garden on top to provide landscaping without disrupting pedestrian traffic. Alderman Moore (491h Ward. Chicago), whose ward bounds the site on three sides, asked how the building relates to its surroundings in terms of height and architecture. Mr. Lawlor stated that it is 17 stories and 180-feet high, which includes four levels of parking and provides great views of the lake for the 13 stories of residential units. There are other multi -story buildings in the area, but this building is higher due to the challenges of the narrow lot and proximity to the CTA rail yards. Alderman Moore clarified the height as an economic necessity for the development to proceed. Mr. Patrun noted that 200-220 units are needed for this development. Member Rebechini noted that while this building is taller than its surroundings, it would screen the CTA rail yards from the street while giving its residents views of the lake. Chair Widmayer noted that starting the residential units on the fifth story helps screen them from the noise of the CTA rail yards. Alderman Moore asked if a shadow study had been done, and Mr. Lawlor indicated that one could be done. moff Neil Kenig of KLOA, Inc. (traffic consultants) summarized the results of the traffic impact study he conducted. He estimated that there will be 65 vehicles for the morning peak period and 80 vehicles for the evening peak period (note; the estimated duration of each peak period is 2-3 hours, and the number of vehicles is oer hour). Since most traffic will come from the west, he concluded that this should not significantly impact capacity on Howard. He suggested that the city consider re -striping Howard, as some lanes are 8-feet wide instead of the standard I0-feet wide due to bike lanes and parking. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Febmary 1 I . 1004 Pace Five, Chair Widmayer asked for a clarification of the number of parking spaces, which will be 245 rather than the required 289. The 2000 Census indicates that 25% of residents in that area do not own cars, which is likely due to proximity to the CTA. Member Knutson expressed concern with these numbers in Iight of a parking survey done by the Plan Commission, which is the source for current parking requirements. Member Hunter suggested that Census parking data could be distorted by student turnover. Member Rebechini noted that this was a rental building, so permanence could be an issue. Mr. Patrun noted that the building is 75% one -bedroom with some studios, and it will be difficult to generate more than one car per unit with a target demographic of single professionals and empty -nesters. Member Knutson disagreed. Chair Widmayer noted that there is not an alternative if the parking structure is full (i.e., the building across the street has no parking, and there is not a nearby neighborhood for on -street parking). John Jaeger of the Appraisal Research Counselors Ltd. presented his findings for appraisals within a five -mile radius of the site. The proposed development is not expected to negatively impact the values of adjacent properties, rather, it may improve them since it is a significant investment. Furthermore, projections indicate a increase of 10.000 people within a five -mile radius of the site by 2008, suggesting sufficient demand for rentals, especially given the number of rentals taken off the market due to condo conversions. Chair Widmayer asked about the project's impact on schools, and it is estimated that this building may have some children. Mr. Marino, Assistant Director for Planning, clarified the reimbursements per student in TIF districts. Member Bowie asked about rent levels and whether there would be set -asides for low-income residents. Mr. Patrun noted that set -asides had been mentioned but never specifically required in previous meetings, and the economics of the project make it difficult to provide units affordable for low-income residents. Member Lyman noted that affordable housing has been standard for other similar projects. Member Hunter noted that this is very important since planned developments should give something back to the community. Member Rebechini asked for a clarification of the rents, which will be S I.86 per square foot. This produces estimated ranges of S900-1000 for studios, S1,400-1,600 for one -bedrooms, and 51.800-2,000 for two -bedrooms. Chair Widmayer opened the discussion to public comment. Mr. Kevin Richards was concerned that there does not seem to be a general plan for the TIF district or guidelines for height and scale, which not only affects fixture development in the TIF but also across Howard. He suggested joint planning between the City of Evanston and Chicago. He also suggested dropping the height to ten stories instead of 17. Mr. Ronald Losczyk stated that he thought the amount of parking was adequate; there should be more ground floor retail but not a fitness center; entering the parking structure on the western side could cause accidents; and ownership could stabilize the area more than rental units. He also wanted to note that the cul-de-sac that will be created on the adjacent property when the alley is vacated could invite criminal activity. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - February 11. 2004 Pnee Six Mr. Mark Leffers spoke in general support for the project. Alderman Moore was concerned that the proposed development would break up the streetscape and supported the idea of a flexible space on the ground floor. He also suggested doing a wind -tunnel study in addition to a shadow study, citing examples of projects that had adverse impacts once built (e.g.. CHA senior center). Mr. ,lack Weiss noted that if the Pivot Point building were built today, it would be of similar height and scale to this proposed project since it was built before parking was required. He also noted that the 8`h ward has the majority of affordable housing in Evanston, and this project will be good for South Evanston. Michelle Hayes briefly described current crime conditions along Howard and noted that the proposed project will bring additional eyes to the street. Susan McKenna was pleased with the project but thought it should be condo, especially since there are nearly no studios for sale in Evanston. Mr. Glenn Evans asked if the developers had tried to acquire adjacent buildings. The building to the east is not available, but the building to the west just became available, and discussions began this morning. Mr. Kevin Richards reiterated his earlier comments for a plan for Howard Stint. Mr. Marino, Assistant Director for Planning, noted that the document creating the TIF has a redevelopment plan, which was approved by City Council as part of the TIF. It has a focus on creating residential housing and business opportunities but no specific requirements for design review. Mr. Marino also noted that the existing zoning ordinance also governs development in this area. Chair Widmayer clarified that most zoning is B3, which allows for heights up to 120 feet, including parking. Member Lyman stated the importance of considering what this means past Chicago and Ridge. Mr. Marino noted that there was an intensive planning process a few years ago with community participation that resulted in the Southeast Evanston Plan. It called for more residential, but also mixed -use development at commercial nodes. Dorothy Gregory asked for a clarification on the size of the proposed units, which will range from 570-1180 square feet. She also asked if there was an existing requirement to provide affordable housing. Mr. Marino stated that any displaced affordable housing must be replaced, but that is not the case here since the proposed project is new construction on a vacant lot. Member Raffel stated that he liked the concept but not the architecture. Furthermore, he is disappointed that affordable housing is not required since it has been for other projects presented to the Commission. He is also in favor of more commercial space. Member Samson noted issues of height and parking but liked the project overall since it meets a need for rental units and will hopefully spur development in the new TIF. Member Knutson liked the design and suggested that if it goes condo, units might be combined, which will reduce the need for parking. He also noted that only three or four previous projects were required to provide affordable housing. Member Rebechini commended the development team on their proposal for this difficult site. Member Rodgers expressed concern for affordable housing but acknowledged that if it was not required through previous discussions, then it might be too late now. He also thought that a fitness center was not needed. Member Bowie expressed concerns for height, density, gentrification, and affordable housing. Member Cook liked the architecture and thought Evanst.nn plan Commission Minutes - February 11. 2004 Page Seven this project was a long time coming. Member Hunter did not like the architecture but thought that developing the site would benefit the area. Chair Widmayer liked the design but wants to bring in high -quality retail that might be profitable in the future. He also stated that the fitness center counters the goal of encouraging traffic betwe= this building and development across the street (i.e.. Bally's, Gateway Center). He also encouraged the development team to consider affordable housing before presenting to the City Council. Member Woods agreed with the idea of a flexible space far retail at the ground level.:Niember Raffel asked if neighborhood residents had been involved with the design, which they had not. Member Knutson moved to approve project under the following criteria: 1) EFG 2) ABCDEFI 3) ABC (1.2,3,6.7.9,10,11) 4) ADEFGHI S) A3, B3 The motion was seconded by Member Rodgers, and the Plan Commission voted 6 to 2 to recommend approval of the Plan Development to the City Council. Members Bowie and Raffel voted nay. The hearing then closed, and this portion of the Plan Commission meeting adjourned. All members voted aye to adjourn. The regular Plan Commission meeting continued at this point. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commikalon case is on file with the Evrnston Zoning Dlvition. The Zoning Division is located In Room 3700 of tke Evanston Civic Center. VI. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS Binding Annearance Review Committee Chair Widmayer stated that the letter to the Planning and Development Committee regarding appearance review for projects of a certain size has been sent back to the Plan Commission to hold hearings on, with the first being the next regularly scheduled Plan Commission meeting on March 10. Neighborhood Planning Committee Member Hunter stated that the working draft of the neighborhood plan was released on February 10, as well as the schedule for upcoming Drafting Committee meetings. The deadline for written comments is February 16. there will be a public drafting session on February 26, and the plan will be presented to the Plan Commission at the meeting on March 10. He expressed thanks to Member Lyman for his efforts on this project. Zoning Committee Chair Widmayer stated that three of the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance passed: measuring from the lot line, no curb cut if there is an existing alley, and Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — February- 11. 20f,4 Pace Ei*i impervious surface guidelines. However, the o%eray district and height and side yard guidelines did not pass. The neighborhood advisory review committee did not pass either, possibly due to budget reasons, which suggests the possibility of bringing this issue back to Cite Council at a later date. especially if it is proposed city -Hide instead of as an overlay district. Member Knutson will schedule a follow-up meeting. Community Dev+eloarnent Committee Member Rodgers stated that he had received an email from city planners that the HUD budget had been approved in DC and the CDBG contracts would be signed in February. Liahthouse Committee Member Rodgers noted that this committee will meet next week. * Economic Development Committee Member Rebechini stated that she had attended a presentation by Evmark on getting the right retailers and learnod that this group does not focus on recruiting tenants but rather, on responding to them. This led to a discussion of the downtown visioning process and proposal by the Lakota Group. Mr. Marino clarified that this will take place this spring and last roughly four months at an estimated cost of S 13,000. He also noted that the Lakota Group is a land use planning and consulting firm focusing on do%%mtown arras, and they bring a fresh perspective since they have not worked in Evanston recently. Member Rebechini then noted that the next meeting is March 3, and Mr. Klutznick may present an update. * Parking. Committee Member Raffel will be the new liaison, and the next meeting will be in early March. It will be a joint meeting with the Economic Development Committee. Inclusionary Housing. Coznmitiee Member Bowie noted that her presentation in the last meeting marked the conclusion of this committee. The Planning and Development Committee are scheduled to hear the recommendations on March 29. Planning. & Development Committee Chair Widmayer reiterated the idea of bringing back a city-wide neighborhood advisory committee for further consideration by the Planning and Development Committee. Developers and neighbors have met on Kendall College issues, but Planning and Development Committee has not. The City Council will have an ordinance up for adoption at the next meeting to rezone to Rl. Nothing that Smithfield is proposing fits under the RI zoning. and there may be a problem with the old administration building, which is not an Evanston landmark but is within the Northeast Evanston Historic District. Evanston Plan Commission �4inutes - February 11.2004 % II. OTHER BUSINESS Poee Nine Mr. Marina stated that the City's five-year Capital Improvement Plan has been drafted. Mr. Knutson asked about the retreat, which Mr. Marino said was tentatively scheduled for February 25 at 6pm in the Aldermanic Library. N`111. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted Tracy Norfleet Planning Division DRAFT MINUTES EVA STON PLAN COMMISSIOti Wednesday. March 10. 2004` 7:00 p.m. Evanston Ci%is Center Room 2200 MEMBERS PRESENT .................................Douglass Doetsch. Albert Hunter. Steve Knutson, .......................................................................Lawrence Raffel. Alice Rebechini. Lawrence .......................................................................Nvidma�er (Chair). Jaynes Woods, and .......................................................................Sharon Bowie (absent for ZPC 03-09-M&T) ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ..........Richard Cook, John Lyman MEMBERS ABSENT...................................Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........Steve Samson STAFF PRESENT.........................................Arthur Alterson, Dennis Marino. Tracy Norfleet I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Lawrence Widmayer, Chair, noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The order of agenda items was modified: ZPC 03-09-M&T Chicago and Main; introduction of the Draft Neighborhood Plan for the Canal -Green Bay Road -Church Street study anm; ZPC 03-12-U & PD 1314 Ridge; ZPC-04-02-T Mixed Residential Uses. Other items on the agenda were to be addressed as time permitted. with the exception of ZPC 04-03 M&T Chicago and Greenwood. which would be continued without discussion until the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 14. 2004. IL APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 11, 2004 Member Hunter made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. Motion was seconded by `!ember Rebechini. Motion passed unanimously. III. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-09-M&T Chicago & Main To consider amendments to Chapters 9. "Business Dtsrr-.zts " 10. "Commercial Disrr,cu- " 15. "Special Purpate and 0%, rday Districts: 16. -Off-Street Parking and Loading - 1- "Landscaping and Screening; " 18. "Definitions: " 3. "Implementation and Administration, " T. "Zoning Dutri u and Alap; " and any other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance. to amend the test and or the map of the Zoning Ordinance to affect the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as applied to that area of the City presently within the B3 Durrict.in the vicinity of .Hain and Sherman and'or to remap all or parts of the follow ing indicated area from the 83 Burinest District into the B_ Business District or the Cla Commercial Mix L'se District or other appropriate zoning district. or to apply the oRD Rednrlopment Overlay District or other appropriate overla% district Evanston Plan Commission Minutes —March 10. 2004 Patte Two Chair A"idmayer summarized what has happened since the last Plan Commission meeting. The Zoning Committee met to review this 133 area and recommended on a vote of 2-1 that the area be rezoned to C 1 A. which coordinates Aith areas to the north and south on Chicago Avenue. Chair Widmayer then opened discussion to public comment on this recommendation and any alternatives. and he swore in all those «wishing to speak. Mr. Doug Geyer. 811 Chicago, distributed a letter his community group compiled that included appendices of findings of fact. He directed members' attention to Appendices Four and Five, which included surveys of car ownership for 515 Main and 811 Chicago that were conducted in the past couple of weeks. The surveys indicated that this is a car -owning neighborhood: very few residents did not own cars, and 40% of car owners needed more parking spaces. Chair Widmayer asked if the survey determined the number of cars used Monday through Friday and the average number of cars per unit. For the 17 units at 811 Chicago that responded to the survey, there were 29 drivers, and 23 commute by car. Chair N%'idmayer noted that these results are similar to those from the Chicago Avenue Corridor Recommendations Report, adopted in April of 2000. Ms. Debbie Hillman. H 18 Sherman, clarified that there are separate letters and lists of supporters for the Chicago and Main issue and for the Chicago and Greenwood issue. She directed members' attention to Appendix Two of the aforementioned study, which pertains to density. She stated that this area is the most dense in Evanston and while the Comprehensive Plan suggests that higher densities are desirable along transit corridors, this area is too dense. Member Doetsch noted two recommendations on the last page of the letter: rezone the B3 district to CIA and create an overlay district to address setback issues and narrow sidewalks. He clarified that he would like this to be applied to all existing and future C 1 A districts. Ms. Judy Freeman and Ms. Amy Heath, 937 Sherman, rose in support of the letter. Chair Widmayer then put the question to the Commission for comments and discussion. Member Knutson stated that he was the `nay' in the 2-1 Zoning Subcommittee vote. First, tall buildings with urban rather than suburban design are appropriate where two rail stations intersect. Second, it is poor policy to change the zoning after just three or four years, especially when hearings and public input were sought at that time. Member Cook agreed. Member Rebechini asked for a clarification of the Zoning Subcommittee's recommendation, which Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, summarized as rezoning the B3 area to CIA. Member Rebechini preferred to keep the B3 zoning and create an overlay district, which would require projects to go before the Commission for design review. Member Raffel asked for a clarification of overlay district requirements. Mr. Alterson stated that everything built in an overlay district requires review as a planned development. Chair %Nlidmayer asked if this still allows the characteristics oe the underlying zoning. which it does. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — March 10. 2004 Pace Three Member Doetsch stated that he was part of the 3-1 majority of the Zoning Subcommittee's vote to recommend do%%mzoning to C I A for several reasons. Several development projects in the area are not yet complete, so the full impacts of increased density have not yet been seen. Also. creating the overlay district is not as good as changing the zoning to CIA. which is the zoning for the surrounding areas. Keeping the 133 zoning and creating an overlay district may require planned developments, but it also may ensure 125 foot buildings that may or may not have good architecture. Essentially. there is no guarantee of getting good buildings or deliberating to get them. Thus, do«nzoning to CIA puts the maximum building height at 67 feet, which is favorable for density and reducing shadows while still utilizing proximity to rail. Member Lyman felt it was a travesty for the city to rezone after three years, given the amount of discussion and effort that led to the original zoning decision. He also noted that ongoing construction may be creating more activity and confusing residents into blaming higher densities instead. He also noted that 515 Main and 811 Chicago predate the aforementioned Chicago Avenue Corridor Recommendations Report. As a result, they were built to the old requirements of one parking space per unit, as opposed to buildings currently being built. Furthermore, the Commission should be able to negotiate a good building, and a 67 foot building suggests mediocrity. Finally, the overlay district is a clever way to get better buildings while considering public needs, traffic impacts, and opening up sidewalks. Ms. Debbie Hillman responded to comments made by Members Knutson and Lyman regarding whether to rezone after just three years. She stated that the community thought the original B3 zoning Kos a travesty, but it was too late for input since development on the southeast corner was already in the pipeline. They see the present situation as a chance to have a say. Chair Widmayer stated that he voted in favor of bringing the C1 A to the Commission. He noted that the area is more urban than suburban, but it is weighted down and lacks parking for visitors and retail on that side of the tracks. He thought that height was not so much an issue as design and bulk. He suggested a combination of the two choices, namely. rezoning to C I A and creating the overlay district. Member Doetsch reiterated that height is not necessarily bad but rather, bulk and lack of consideration in architecture make for bad development. Member Rebechini stated a point of consideration: citizens' fear of height can produce squashed, blocky -looking buildings. She cited 1930 Ridge as an example where the developers sunk their money in an underground parking garage Aith a flimsy building on time. Member Woods cited Washington, DC's height restriction and zoning code that offer no relief for setbacks or fagade articulation and allow for Iot-line-to-lot-line buildings, which led to a number of bad buildings built in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Member Doetsch supported Chair Widmayer's suggestion to combine the C 1 A rezoning with an overlay district as it could prevent a ring of tall buildings surrounding the intersection, while also inviting developers to design something exceptional. Member Raffel thought it would be better to start tall and encourage the developer to come down in height through the planned Evanston Plan Commission Minutes —March 10. 2004 Paae Four development process. Member Doetsch responded that the Commission has attempted this in the past, and it has not always %orked (e.g.. 413421 Howard). Member Cook noted that there may be a role for the proposed design review guidelines in the future, Member Knutson motioned to keep the B3 zoning and to create the overlay district. Member Rebechini seconded the motion. Mr. Alterson called the Commission's attention to recent court cases referred to in a memo on mixed residential uses. He cautioned that to justify changing the Zoning Ordinance, the City must be able to show that a certain policy decision is not accurate. Discussion returned to the issue of height. Member Doetsch asked if the proposal is adopted, can they assume applicants will not want to build higher or lower than 125 feet. Member Rebechini asked if they can be nudged to sensitivity in design instead of height. Chair Widmayer noted that if a building is proposed to be taller than 125 feet, the Commission does not have to approve it. Member Hunter stated that he is not worried about height but rather, the first three stories and where the building meets the street. He would trade height for control at the ground level and thought that the overlay district is the way to do this. Member Rebechini noted that combining the CIA with the overlay could generate planned developments. Chair Widmayer noted there uas a proposal on the table to retain the B3 zoning and create the overlay district. The Commission voted 4-3, with Members Hunter, Widmayer, and Doetsch voting `nay.' Mr. Alterson noted that Plan Commission rules require five votes to make a recommendation. This matter will be continued until the April 14 meeting so that Members absent from tonight's meeting rill have the opportunity to read the transcript and cast their vote. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on jUe with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located In Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center, IV. DRAFT NEIGUBORHOOD PLANNING REPORT: CANAL- GREE N' BA Y ROAD -CHURCH STREET STUDYARF-4 Chair Widmayer opened the introductory presentation of the Draft Neighborhood Planning Report for the Canal -Green Bay Road -Church Street Study Area by stating that highlights will be presented tonight, and immediate questions can be answered. Detailed discussion will resume at the April 14 meeting. Member Hunter, Chair of the Neighborhood Committee, called the Commission's attention to the Executive Summary. He stated the guiding question for the draft plan process on page 1: "How can Evanston encourage compatible growth and investment to economically strengthen the area, while also envisioning a more livable and vibrant neighborhood for its diverse residents?" Three principles are related to this: • To understand problems`issues in the study area from the standpoint of all stakeholders. • To improve the quality of life ti%7thin these neighborhoods by envisioning and creating a more vibrant area for families. individuals, and local businesses. - Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — March 10. 2004 Page Five • To foster an environment where a diversit% of people, interes: and activities can coexist and feel a mutual sense of pride. while honoring the historic African -American heritage of this area. Member Hunter then stated that the draft plan process produced six issue areas. Within each are a hierarchy of goals and objectives, which are the rationale for action recommendations. Ms. Guderley, Neighborhood Planner. passed around a sign-up sbeet for members of the audience who would like to receive copies of the plan. When asked if it was available in Spanish, Ms. Guderley responded that it was not, but the Executive Summary could be translated immediately, possibly followed by the rest of the plan later. Ms. Guderley then explained the process to produce the plan. This is the third in a series of neighborhood plans (i.e.. Howard Street. Chicago Avenue), all of which had a similar process: identify stakeholders and involve Alderman. their groups. and citizens at zoning hearings. The first step in the neighborhood planning process was the Strengths. Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats analysis (SWOT), which was initiated by a brainstorming session among stakeholders and community residents (Attachment 5). Their comments were then categorized into ten issue areas (Attachment 6). To narrow the focus, residents were then asked to vote for their top four issues and assigned to working groups for those issues over the next 18 months to generate goals and objectives. Last April. an issues report was completed, and the group convened as a whole. The final step was a visioning session (Attachment 9), generating a vision statement and matrix of shared values (Attachment 8). Member Hunter then read from the Executive Summary the goals. objecdves, and summaries of action recommendations for the six issue areas selected for the draft report: economic development; urban design, community character, and zoning: public infrastructure, services, streets, and transportation: housing; public safety and community cohesion: and youth. Chair Widmayer asked if District 202 had participated, and Ms. Guderley responded that the high school had. Also, Oakton Community College has expressed interest in opening a local branch in the study area. With no other immediate questions, Chair Widmayer then stated that this item will be continued at the April 14 meeting. V. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND UNIQUE USE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-12 U & PD 1314 Ridge AND CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED MIXED RESIDENTIAL USES ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-02-T MIXED RESIDENTIAL USES Evanston Plan Commission Minutes —March 10. 2004 Page Six ZPC03-1, [; & PD 131.1 Ridge. An applicatior. Asrun Ridge, LLC. prope•n ow ner for a Unique Use and a Planned Development as a 'crT q, s;vctal use permit iwtu.Tine such development allowances exceptions to development allowances and other relief as mar be neressary to allow redevelopment of an area within the RI Single Fcmih Residential District The :pphrant requests that the Cin grant a unique use ami planned development on the J:10%e-mentioned proNro is ai.'ow iar Its redevelopmenr T;.e project includes the renovation of the existing mansion .:nd coach house it); ro create scz on minium units and the addition of eleven townhouses ,Z'FC 04-02-T MIXED RESIDENTIAL USES. amendments to include various categories ofdwelfitrgsas specuai or permitted uses w at xn ire various residential districts upon satisjbetion ofccrtmn criteria Including. wUhout limirattoa the age, pre-etisten<-e landmark status. location w irhin designated preservation district, and or sire of the structure in which said use a lch: ated. and or dwelling unit st:e or lot siae. Amendments mqv include amending §6-&2- 3. Pemared Uses, or gb S-.-x. Special Lses for the R-I Single ;gamily Residential Dcstrict to include dwelling - nrulti- famsh not to exceed four units iw hen located in a designated historic district or landmark/ in a existing structure, with mrntmurn Awing area of,? squ.:re feet per unit, exclusive of common elements Said amendments also may inelwk amendments to: CIIdUFR 3 I.11PLF.tfF.%:TAELO,1'.4.%'D.46,1ll,% ST/IATIO.'1', CH.4PTRR 4: G&NWRAL PRO I'ISIOVS, C&lElER - ZO%IVG, DISTRICTS !.ti'D .%tom CHAPTER 8, RLSIDE.�TIAL DISTRICTS James Murray, attorney for Asbury Ridge, LLC, summarized the legal/zoning issues for his client's project. Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, referenced a memo of alternatives that he had drafted Member Knutson distributed a memo stating that this matter may affect a client's project and excused himself from the discussion. Chair Widmayer asked if the Zoning Subcommittee had formulated a recommendation on this matter in their meeting the previous day. Member Doetsch stated that they had discussed the issues and generally agreed that there should be a way forward focused on one of the alternatives in Mr. AIterson's memo, namely, the section on unique uses. They agreed that the unique use designation is the most appropriate alternative in a historic district and for a contributing structure in a historic district. Furthermore, language clarifying unique uses should be available in the R14 districts, and the Commission should have oversight for unique uses. The Zoning Subcommittee voted 3-0 to recommend that the procedures of a planned development apply to unique uses. Mr. Alterson incorporated these findings in a memo on redrafting the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to unique uses. He then verbalized new language for the purpose and standards for unique uses where they are applied as a tool for approving multilsingle family units or more than one use. An example in which this might apply might be a new two -flat or addition to an existing one in a single family district. Member Doetsch noted a caveat for the Zoning Subcommittee's recommendation: there is a general view that planned development procedures apply to unique uses, but in the case of a small parcel with less than two units, a planned development should not be applied. Chair Widmayer suggested declaring such properties as legally conforming to eliminate small projects. but Members were concerned about losing case - by -case review. Also discussed was the issue of the District 65 and Kendall College properties. There followed discussion of the minimum number of dwelling units and gross floor area that could trigger case -by -case review. Chair Widmayer suggested that there was consensus for a unique use device vs. a planned development device, which would apply to buildings with a true gross floor area of at least 15,000 square feet being subdivided into a minimum of two dwelling units of at least 2,000 square feet. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — March 10. 2004 Pace Seven Discussion then turned to principal structures vs. uses. At present. the Zoning Ordinance allows for two principal structures but not two principal uses, which is an issue for the project in question and possibly for future projects (e.g., District 65. Kendall College). The issue of accessory uses was also raised (e.g.. Burnham Barn at 318 Dempster). Chair Widmayer suggested that there are two options for dealing with unique uses. The first option would allow for the subdivision of a 15.000 square foot building into more than two units of at least 2,000 square feet each. The second option would allow for one lot with two structures. Member Doetsch suggested that such accessory uses should predate 1993, which would address the Burnham Barn issue. Mr. Alterson agreed to draft language on this decision while Members heard Mr. Murray's presentation, after which it was anticipated that a vote could be taken to advance this project. Mr. Murray summarized the layout of the proposed subdivision. noting that it has been approved by the Preservation Commission and that it complies with the RI zoning requirements for setback and height. The property will be subdivided into eight lots. One lot will contain the mansion with four dwelling units and the coach house with two dwelling units. This lot will be surrounded by seven single family lots at the rim of the property, and houses for any of these seven lots %till need approval from the Preservation Commission. Members expressed concern for one of the seven lots because it could affect the view line of the front of the mansion. Options discussed included making the lot flush with the front of the mansion by redistributing the square footage among the other six lots and eliminating the lot altogether, but Mr. Niazmand, the owner, indicated that neither may be possible for economic reasons. There being no further questions or comments, Member Doetsch motioned to adopt language proposed by staff to amend Section 6-3-7-1 and adopt unique uses. Essentially, this expands the scope of unique uses in certain defined circumstances to address more than a single principal use on an RI, R2. R3. or R4 lot and to address multi -family uses in single family districts. Motion was seconded by Member Rebechini. The motion was approved 7-0-1 with Member Knutson abstaining. For the project at 1314 Ridge, Member Knutson motioned to approve the project if each subdivided lot is a minimum of 7,200 square feet, and there is no new building east of the existing building. This was not seconded. Member Rebechini motioned to approve the plan as depicted, and Member Raffel seconded. Mr. Alterson clarified that the motion is to recommend approval of the planned development and unique use to the City Council as subject to the applicant's revised development plan. The motion was approved 7-1-0, with Member Knutson voting `nay.' A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — tiiarch 10. 3004 Page Ei¢ht VI. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (ITEM GENERATED BY PLAN COMMISSION) ZPC 04-03-M&T Chicago & Greenwood Amendments to Chapters 9 Business Du:r.ru 10. "Commercial Districts. " 13. "S1a ctal Purpose and Overlay Districts. 16. "Off -Street Parting and Loa Lng, 1 -landscaping and Screening." 13. "Definitions. " 3. "Implementation and Adminutration. - Zoning Districts and .Nap. '• and am other related sections of the %nls{g Ordinance, to amend the test and or the m� or the Zoning Ordinance to affect the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as applied to that area of the Coo-presenth %ithtn the B3 District Mtthtn the area bounded by Greene ood Street on the north. Chicago Avenue on the rat. a line Ap;wastmately 11 S feet north of and parallel to the north line of Dempster Street on the south. and the Cd. SPP railroaj right of way on the west and'or to "map all or parts of the indicated area from the B3 Business District into the B: Business District or the Clo Commereial.11ir Use District or other appropriate ronnng district, or to apply the oRD Rednrlopment avrlar District or other appropriate in-erlay district. Continued until the April 14 meeting without discussion. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of Ah Platy Commisslon case is on file with the Eswnston Zonhig Division. The Zoning Division is located In Roots 3700 of the Evanston Chic Center. VIII. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (ITEM GENERATED BY PLAT COMMISSION) ZPC 04-04-T PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MINIMUM THRESHOLDS Amendments to establish minimum thresholds oldnrlopment project characteristics bn-ond which said project would require a planned dnrlopment permit. Said amendments may include any or all of the following: thresholds based on lot area. thresholds based on number ofrese knual or non-residential units, thresholds based on gross jloorarea. Continued until the April 14 meeting due to a lack of time. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of Ail Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Dh islon is located In Roots 3700 of the Evanston Ch lc Center. IX. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES Continued until the April 14 meeting due to a lack of time. X. COMMUNICATIONS Continued until the April 14 meeting due to a lack of time. XI. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS * Binding Anoearance Review Committee * Neighborhood Planning Committee * Zoning Committee * Community Develonment Committee * Lighthouse Committee * Economic Develonment Committee * Parking Committee Evanston Plan Commission Minutes —March 10.2004 lnclusionary Housing Committee Planning & Develonment Committee No reports were given due to a lack of time. XII. ADJOUIL% HEN r The Commission adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Tracy Norfleet Planning Division Page Nine DRAFT —NOT APPROVED MINUTES EVA:1STON PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, April 14. 2004 ! 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Room _200 MEMBERS PRESENT.................................Lawuence Widmayer (Chair), Douglas Doetsch. .......................................................................Kenneth Rodgers. La%vrence Raf el. James Woods. .......................................................................Alice Rebechini. and Sharon Bo«ie ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ..........John Lyman, Steve Samson MEMBERS ABSENT ...................................Albert Hunter, Steve Knutson :ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........Richard Cook STAFF PRESENT.........................................Arthur Alterson. Dennis !Marino, Susan Guderley .......................................................................Traci' Nortleet ................. ......... I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. If. APPROVAL OF MEETING MIN l:TES FRO:►I MARCH 10, 2004 Member Lyman requested a change on page 11 of the transcript pertaining to his comments to Ms. Debbie Hillman on the Chicago and Main rezoning. Chair Widmayer requested an addition to the Chicago and Main section of the minutes in which Mr. Alterson, Zoning administrator. stated that the oRD overlay district cannot be applied to Cla under the current zoning ordinance. 'Member Doetsch requested that a sentence be struck in which he did not make a recommendation but asked :Ms. Debbie Hillman a question about recommendations in a lever on the Chicago and :Main issue. 'Member Doetsch motioned to approve the minutes as amended. ;Motion was seconded by Member Raffel. Motion passed unanimously. III. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-09-11&T Chicago & Main J a consider umendmenis to Chapters 9. "Business Districts 10, 'Commercial Districts, ' 13. "Special Purpose and Dcerlm- Districts, 16 "Or-Streer Parking and Loading. " 1 `. "Landscaping and Screening; " 15. "Dettrutions; " 3. 1mplemeniauon and. tdminixtration. ' 7 "Toning Districts and Nap: " and am outer relared sections or the Zonitrg Ordinance. to amend the teat and or rile map of the Zoning Ordinance in alJ'ecr the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance .;s applied to that area uj the Cin presenth it irhin the R3 Lhstrict to the rrcinin q! .fain and Sherman and rr to remap _.'l or parts of the tnlloming indicated area !trim the 83 BGsineju District unto the 81 Business District or the Cla Commercial Mix C se Morict or other appropriate zoning distrirt or to apph' the oRD Redevelopment Over—l-v District Y outer appropriate ol'erlau district Evanston Plan Comrii,,i,,r. Minutes - Anril 1 ».:(,.ti Pace T►wo Chair is a continuation of theMarch 10 % ote of 4-3 to apply an oRD rede%elopment o%e-la% io the existing B3 zoning at Chicago and Main. Since Members Rodgers and Bo«ie l:a" beer_ absent from that meeting. Chair Widma%er asked for their votes. Member Rodgers ,oted 'atie.' and Member Bo%%ie voted 'na%-.' Thus. the motion as proposed will go forward to the C:n C,-,sncil on a 5-4 recommendation from the PIan Commission. A ►erhatim transcript of the procersfiags of this Plan Commission case is on file Kith the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Dhision is &+sated In Room 3700 of the Evanston Chic Center. IV. DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING REPORT: CA.VAL-GREE.V BA )' ROAD -CHURCH STREET STUD }'AREA As a follow-up to the in=oduc-ion of the draft neighborhood plan at the March 10 meeting. Associate Member Lyman suggested that Plan Commission members discuss the plan tonight, follo,ved by public comment ac time permitted. Since the draft plan is comprehensive and covers a number of issue, outide of usual Plan Commission activities, he thought that another meeting might be necess-ary More a vote could be taken. Ms. Betty Ester, an audience member. distributed a letter to Members with suggested edits to the draft plan. Chair Vl'idma%er stated that the letter %%ill be included as part of the report's documentation. Ntember Rod_ers asked about potential participants listed under Issue 6, the section about youth. He thou --hi that youth should be more involved in decision -making and implementation of the plan. :t_>sociate Member Lyman stated that the plan is a working document and all comrnent_s recommendations are welcome. Ms. Guderley. Neighborhood Planner. provided Members ww•ith City staffs first pass at drafting an action plan for implementauon. It was a matrix that resulted from brainstorming potential actors and phasing/timing- for the draft plan's action items. Member Doctsch commended :.,i involved for their work on such a comprehensive and complex plan. He asked how to prioritize goals and allocate City staff accordingly. Associate Member Lyman stated that items .%:em not prioritized during the planning process because a number of things are interrelated. and some already are in progress (although there may be a lack of public awareness of these activities ar:d programs). fir. Marino, :assistant Director for Planning. noted that recommendations for implementation apply to community groups and the private sector in addition to Cite staff. Chair Widmayer liked the recorn-mendation on page I l for a minority business incubator and asked if it twill be similar to the one in Research Park. He noted the need to create jobs for employees outside of the crc-atiw a class because of the continued loss of manufacturing jobs. Associate Member Lyman thought that rather than incubating firms in the traditional sense of providing facilities and training. this recommendation pertained to helping existing and new businesses in this neighborhood. Mr. Marino suggested that 'incubator' in this sense is less of a real estate concept and more abo.:t wanting to see enterprise development and assistance. Fvanston Plan Commission N inutes — ADriI 14.2004 Pace Three Member Rodgers suggested that asking manufacturing companies to support community programs could eventually lead them to work in the community and provide needed jobs and training, especially since mane companies have existing programs that communities may not be aware of. This could address the problem of losing jobs. students. and non -college bound youth. Associate Member Lyman acknow•ledeed the need to market existing programs and encouraged Member Rodgers to develop this idea further. Member Rodgers reiterated the need to involve youth in decision -making and suggested a sub -committee of youth to ad\zse on these and other issues. tits. Mamie Smith. an audience member. agreed and stated that the community seemed focused on decreasing anti -social behavior among youth instead of involving them. She stated that there are numerous programs for youth in Evanston. but awareness may be a problem. Associate Member Lyman acknowledged a need to market these programs and suggested targeting the youth specifically rather than their elders. Member Doetsch suggested that a subcommittee be created to further develop the section on youth (e.g.. Issue 6). Associate Member Lyman raised the issue of capturing suggestions and indicated that he preferred written comments to verbal ones. Ms. Guderley suggested compiling them as an addendum to the plan. Member Raffel suggested that since this is a guidance document, participants could be responsible for developing the steps needed to achieve objectives. He also thought that Issues 1, 2. and 3 should include local design professionals as participants and an oversight organization. He added that issue I also should have landscape architects as participants. Ms. Betty Ester stated that she had been invited into the process by study area residents who were not familiar with City terms, such as NI E and FAR. She noted a need for community buy - in on the plan and thought there was a particular need to educate the community on T1Fs and the zoning (e.g.. R5 vs. Rya districts). Brief discussion followed on zoning -related issues. Member Bowie stated a need for clarit}.. timelines. and a means of handling corrections since verbal responses were not being documented for inclusion in the plan. Associate Member Lyman reiterated the need for an addendum to the report comprised of the matrix and comments. Discussion followed on matrix organization based on participants vs. a timeline. Member Bowie asked about next steps and whether the plan should go back to the community. Associate Member Leman suggested that the Plan Commission continue to discuss and deliberate the plan through public hearings. Member Rodgers asked about additional fifth ward input. Associate Member Lyman thought the Cit\ Council should reviewthe plan before sending it back to the community. He stated that the plant resulted from a three-year process that involved the communit•, and there had been a public comment period in February. An audience member asked how information on the draft plan had been distributed community to solicit public comment. Associate Member Lyman responded that it had been sent to mailing lists, and it was up to those on the mailing lists to further disseminate it. The audience member suggested that some on the mailing list do not live in the study area. Associate Member Lyman thought this was an important issue and noted that the plan is still in the draft stage and changes Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Anrii 14. _'0{:" Page Four still can be made. Ms. Nfuf3. McAule%. an audience member, thought it was disconcerting that aver three years of community discussion. the._ is the perception that the plan has not been presented to the community. Member Bowie responded that not everyone in the fifth ward is associated with communit, groups. so they may not have heard about it unless by word-of- mouth. another audience member summarized the history of the Chicago Avenue Corridor Studv and stated that the community' re%%Tote the draft and presented it to the Plan Commission. She suggested that a Member make'a motion to hold a special public hearing and have staff send a postal notice for this meeting to all stud' area residents. Members agreed. Member Doetsch motioned to hold the issue until a special Plan Commission meeting, and in the interim, that staff will do a general postal mailing to all residents and land owners within the geographic boundaries of the affected area. Chair Widmayer clarified this as a motion to continue this matter at a date certain for the purpose of a public hearing. and in the interim, a notice of the hearing and information available m ill be sent to residents and Iand owners in the affected areas, and copies of the draft will be available at the City to those who request them. Member Rodgers seconded. and the vote was unanimous. Following discussion of notice procedures and available dates. it was agreed that the special meeting will take place on June 23, 2004 at 7 p.m. V. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINIANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (ITEM GENERATED BY PLAN COM.MISSiON) ZPC 04-03-M&T Chicatzo & Greenwood .amendments to Chapters 9. -Business Districts. " 1G (_7mntFrelal DlstrtCrs: " 15, "Special Purpose and OceAn Districts: 16. "OlJ'-Street ParlunQ and Loading " I - Landscaping and Screening: " 18. " Delinitlons: " 3. Implementation and .4aminatrarion. " " "Zoning Dwricts and .flap: " and arn- other related sections of the Zowng Ordinance, to amend the :e.*t .2-d Dr the map of the 1. xxg Ordutance to affect the regulations aj the Zoning Ordinance as applied to that area of t%e Ccn presentlt is thin the B? District wdhin the area bounded br Greenwood Street on the north. Chicago Avenue on the east a line apprririmarr::: 13 fret north of and parallel to the north line of Dempster Street on the south, and ru Cd SPP railroad right or',. a,. on the k est and or to remap all or parts ojthe indicated areafrom the B3 Busntest D:ttr:ct wo the B? Busines? District or the Cla f ommercial.lfix Use District or other appropriate _oning district or rn appt%- the oRD Rede-•.:. f �ment Orerla.v District or other appropriate overlo - distrxi Chair Widmaver stated that the area at Chicago and Greenwood is currently zoned 133, and the Plan Commission is being asked to consider rezoning it. He swore in audience members wishing to speak, and there being no immediate questions from Members, public testimony was taken. Ms. Penm' Miller. 1310 Hinman. thanked Members for taking up the rezoning issue and read a letter from neighbors supporting rezoning to a level more compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Ann Dienner. 1034 Sheridan. read a letter from the Southeast Evanston Association recommending rezoning to 132. Ms. Debbie Hillman. 1118 Sherman, Voiced her support for the rezoning. She stated that the area «vial become part of the third ward in August due to redistricting and that the Aldermen for the third and fourth wards support the rezoning. She - thought that rezoning was appropriate since the area is just outside of do%\nto%Nm and needs relief from congestion. Mr. Joe Goodman. 1326 Chicago. owns an apartment building in the affected Evan=ton Plan Commission Minutes — Anril 14. 200.4 Paee Five area anJ supports the rezoning_. He stated that he zits more complaints from tenants on the ChieaQo side of the buildine than the side facinc the CTA tracks. Chair Widmayer opened discussion to Members. Associate \Member Samson stated that he lived in fir. Goodman's building a number of }ears ago and supported the rezoning. Member Doetsch also supported rezoning and thought that the neighborhood residents had made a good case to do so for reasons of neighborhood consistency and density. He also noted that this rezoning request differs from that at Chicaeo and Main since there is not the issue of development in the pipeline, so there is no reason not to move forward. Member Rodgers motioned to rezone the B3 area to 132. Member Rebechini seconded. and the vote was unanimous (7-0-0). A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commotion case Is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. the Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. VI. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (ITEM GENERATED BV PLAN COMMISSIOti) ZPC 04-04-T PLA.XNED DEVELOPMENT MINIMUM THRESHOLDS Airendneena to establish minimum thresholds ofdeie opm,rip-ojeri characteristics bet ond a huh said project would require a planned desetonment permit Said amendmentr m n include ant or all of the follou ing thresholds based on lot area thresholds based on number of residenual or non-residential units, thresholds hued on grass floor area, Mr. Alterson. Zoning Administrator, directed Members' attention to a March 4 memo containing the notice on planned development thresholds and to a November 6 memo by the Plan Commission's Binding Appearance Review Committee recommending planned development thresholds to the Planning &: Development Committee. He stated that the Plan Commission had voted on the November 6 memo. and tonight's hearing pertains to putting its language in effect. Member Rebechini thought that planned development minimum thresholds could be a burden to economic development by requiring relatively small projects to go through the planned development process. Member Doetsch agreed that it could be burdensome but stated that it may be the only way fonvard in light of legal and political issues. Discussion followed on the break points for minimum square footages. Member Doetsch motioned to approve the proposal, which is to recommend to the City Council minimum mandatory planned development thresholds of lot area greater than 30.000 square feet, or more than 24 dwellings or commercial spaces or combination thereof, or 20.000 square foot gross floor area. Chair Widmayer asked to which districts the proposal should be applied. Member Doetsch suggested that it be applied to all but the open space and industrial districts. Member Rafael seconded, and the vote was unanimous (7-0-0). A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on f le with the Etwhston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civlr Center. Evanston Plan Commission !Minutes - Anril 1.:. 2064 Pace Six NIL DESIGN REVIE«' GUIDELINES Continued until the \la,. 1, meeting. Fill. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS Binding Armearance Review Commir<e;--Repo. uiil be given next month. • tieiahborhood Planning Committee —Discussed earlier (draft neighborbood plan). Community Develonment Committee Member Rodgers stated that it is Communit% Development Week. and \ir. Marino noted that it is also the 30`' anniversary of the Federal CDBG program. ' Economic Develonment Committee ! Pa kine Committee Member Rebechini stated that a joint meeting was held for the Economic Development and Parking Committees because of parking issues associated with the delay of the Sherman Plaza project (e.g.. the need to shore up d-e existing garage). The start date for Sherman Plaza construction remains unJcno% n and the issue of whether there will be health club also has not been resolved. A)so discussed was a request for financial assistance from the developer of project in the Howard TIF district. A consultant will examine the issue before a vote is taken at the next EDC meting. Inclusionary Housine Committee Member Bowie stated that the Planning & Development Committee will titriew• the Housing Committee's proposal in a special meeting next week. t Planning & Development Committee Chair W'idmaver stated that numerous type I1 restaurants had been approved. The Plant Commission's proposal for unique uses also was discussed. Several aldermen thought that the language opened the door through the unique use device for more dhan they were willing to accept. They wanted to reject the ability to use the device for unusual residential situations discussed at the Plan Commission meeting (e.g.. coach houses. Burnham Barn. Dryden Estate. Kendall College v Ciry Council still has to approve this recommendation from the Plan Commission. Lighthouse Committee Member Rodgers stated that the meeting scheduled for tonight had been cancelled. Chair N%IdmaYer asked about the committee's purpose. 'fir. Marino stated that its purpose is to discuss lighthouse facilities and outlying- buildines near the lighthouse that are in need of repair. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — March 10. 2004 Paee Seven Downtown Visionine Chair Widmayer stated that a diverse group ofdoantox%-n stakeholders are reviewing the Downtown Plan (e.g.. B-mark, representatives from Plan Commission and the Economic Development Committee. City staff, Alderman, condo associations, residents. Northwestern University. Chamber of Commerce, etc.). A facilitator has been hired for a meeting on May 1 to discuss strengths. weaknesses. opportunities, and threats and for a follow-up session on May 13. A traffic study also %vill be conducted. Zoning Committee —No report given. IX. ADJ0URINNtENT The Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Norfleet Planning Division APPROVED MINUTES Eti .ANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday. May 12, 2004 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Room 2200 MEMBERS PRESENT..................................Lawrence Widmayer (Chair), Douglas Doetsch, ........................................................................Lawrence Raf el, Steve Knutson. AIice Rebechini, ... ...................................... I .............................. and Sharon Bowie ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ........... Richard Cook MEMBERS ABSENT...................................AIbert Hunter, James Woods, Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........John Lyman, Steve Samson STAFF PRESENT .........................................Dennis Marino, James Wolinski, Arlova Jackson, ........................................................................Tracy Norfleet ............14 ........................... t• <<,,, I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 14, 2004 Member RaffeI motioned to approve the minutes. Motion was seconded by Member Rebechini. Motion passed unanimously. III. CONTINL;ATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-08 PD 801 Chino An application h► 3_5 liedve. LLC, property owner, for a Planted Development as a form ofspecial usepermit including such des elopment allo%ances. exceptions to development allowances, and other relief as may be necessary to allow redrsrlopment of an area within the Cla Commercial Sfieed-Use District. 323 Ked-ie. LLC is a limited liability company organized under the law s of the State of Illinois for the purpose ofdesrlopment, contracting, marketing and selling condominium unns and commercial space to be constructed on the site at 801 Chicago, Evanston, Illinois. 313 J;ed_ie. LLCcon sists %/'Steven Ornoff, member and manager, and Neil I, Omoff, member. The proposed development is for a mixed use de,6elopment consisting of retail uses, parking; residential uses; and other uses permitted in the Cla district. Generalli. the proposed development plan entails construction of a 6-stony structure with a defined gross floor area of approrimarels 41.161 squarefeet, containing apprarimately 28 dwellings and apprarimately 1,760 square feet of retail floor area The marimum absolute height of the new building would be 67' feet. This project was referred back to the Plan Commission by the Planning and DesTlopment Committee of the Cily Council at its No►rmber 24. 2003 meeting Ms. Arlova Jackson, Zoning Planner, stated that initially this project was not properly noticed, so the Planning & Development Committee could not vote on it, and it was sent back to the Plan Commission to be re -noticed (the 20-foot setback requirement for enclosed parking was not Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - .Nla%- 12. ?(10;L4 Page Two. included in the notices. Chair Widmayer stated that the original proposal also has been significantly revised and will be presented tonight. Mr. James Murray, anomey for 525 Kedzie, LLC. stated that the proposed development does not have a 20' setback enclosed parkins, and this requirement in the C 1 a district triggered re -review of the proposal. In addition. the development team has reviewed comments from the public and the Plan Commission and reconsidered the nature of their proposal, focusing on problem areas (e.g., density, number and size of units, traffic generation, stability vs. mobility). This led to a significant revision of the original proposal. The building height has been dropped from seven stories to six. and they are now proposing fewer. larger units (down to 28 units from 45). This has decreased the amount of parking, which can now be accommodated onsite and include additional spaces for visitors. This new proposal requires three variances instead of the original five: a special use for a multi -family residential building; a variance for the 20' setback for parking, and a variance for screening the loading berth since the public thought a fence or hedge could attract criminal activity. Mr. David Haymes, a Principal at Papageorge and Haymes Architects, presented updated site plans, elevations, and floor plans. There will be four stories of residential above two stories of parking and a small ground floor retail space near the residential lobby entrance. In response to public comment, the one -bedroom units have been removed. Each unit will now have two bedrooms, mo bathrooms, and space for an interior office. The two -stony parking unit will be disguised to look like it is one story. Vehicular access will be from the alley, and the building has been set back 10' from the alley in response to public comments. Landscape plans also were presented, including the area along Kedzie where the building is stepped to allow for balconies. For the continuous wall facing 811 Chicago, they are proposing to plant climbing vines. Building material samples were provided. Standard size brick masonry will wrap all around the building and include detailing at the top using two colors of brick. Stone samples also were provided. Member Rebechini asked if the units met the code requirements for light. One room does not have a window but has a wall that stops short of the ceiling to allow for light from an adjacent room (similar to loft -style bedrooms). Mr. Haymes stated that this is allowed under the borrowed light condition. Associate Member Cook asked if the parking area is mechanically exhausted, which it is. Member Raffel asked about detention, which is on the roof and drains when it reaches capacity. Mr. Murray asked if this project could work with a 20' setback, and the development team did not think so. He asked about the potential for sub -grade parking, which is possible but the high water table would require pumping during construction, which could be cost -prohibitive for the size of the building. fir. Murray directed Commissioners attention to the updated proforma and other information in their binder for this project. Since there were no other questions from Commissioners, Chair Widmayer swore in those wishing to speak. Gail Alexander, a real estate agent with ColdwelI Banker, stated that she had been asked to look into the probability of selling this property and to evaluate market conditions. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — tiMav 12. 2004 Page Three Her findings indicated that there has been a 1-50 o appreciation per year km average. She stated that this development is exciting because of its neighborhood feel. Using the multiple -listing service, she compared recent resale values of units facing each other in adjacent buildings that were very close together. She did not find a significant difference and does not think it will be an issue for this project. Chair Widmayer stated that an uptick in interest rates will more likely have an affect on resale. He asked ifthe ground floor commercial space will be for a food/restaurant use, which it will not. An audience member asked Ms. Alexander if she thought that the continuous wall proposed in this project would affect the adjacent property located just 15' away, and she did not think so. Another audience member stated that residents of the adjacent building will lose their views of downtown Chicago. Chair «'idmayer stated that a 67' building is planned in the master plan for Chicago Avenue, and it is allowed under current zoning. Ms. Alexander added that this is not the sole example, since Sherman Plaza will block views from Optima Towers. Mr. Murray directed Commissioners attention to the Revised Tax Impact, which estimates roughly $315.000 in tar revenue will be generated by the development. Mr. Dan Brinkman, a traffic engineer with Gewalt Hamilton Associates, summarized how the new proposal will have a significantly less impact on traffic than the original proposal and no additional impact than the previous 15-unit use. He stated that published standards were used in the analysis. Proximity to Tetra and CTA were not factored in but would further reduce the number of trips. Mr. Doug Geyer, 811. Chicago, read aloud a letter comparing parking requirements in the B2, 133, and Cla districts. He thought the Plan Commission should be clear in their rationale for recommending a variance. Mr. Hans Vija. 811 Chicago, read aloud from the September transcript in which Mr. Haymes said that under the existing C 1 a a 67" wall could be built. Under this assumption, he and others had an appraisal done to determine effects on appreciation from such a wall. The study indicated that there could be a 5-90-o depreciation due to loss of light and increased traffic. He also stated that not everyone who wished to speak could attend tonight's meeting and as such, they are requesting a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Mike Green, 811 Chicago, thought this proposed planned development was deceptively being called as -of -right when it requires numerous variances, and the geometry of the site and proximity to a busy alley are issues. He also thought that the parking entrance adjacent to Kedzie could be a danger to pedestrians and that the proposal would adversely affect nearby property values. Mr. Andrew Kraft, 811 Chicago, supported what had already been said and encouraged Commissioners to look at all the requested variances as a package. He added that 811 Chicago has underground parking and asked why parking for the proposed building could not be placed underground. Mr. Haymes reiterated that the cost of pumping during construction was prohibitive. Discussion followed on configuring the parking structure. tifr. Lee Tokman, 803 - Hinman, asked why they are asking for a variance for setbacks. Mr. HaVnies stated that the — lot's configuration presents a challenge for making the project financially feasible. Member - Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Mav 12. 2004 Pace Four Knutson stated that he was involved in writing the parking setback requirements. which were intended to keep streets lively and provide watchful eyes as welI. He stated that variances could be given for hardship. which is exemplified by this narrow triangular site. As such. he thought that the request for relief is appropriate. Since there were no other audience members who wished to speak. Chair Widmayer acknowledged the request by residents to continue this matter to the special Plan Commission meeting scheduled for May 26. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on fde with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room J "UQ of the Evanston Ciric Center. IV. BUILD TO LOT LINE REQUIREMENTS IN BUSINESS AND DO%%'NTOWN DISTRICTS Chair Widmayer stated that this agenda item comes from an Aidermanic referral on April 25 in which the Plan Commission was asked to study existing build to lot line requirements in the Business and Downtown Districts. Member Knutson stated that the Zoning Subcommittee had discussed this issue over the years, including tying it to Binding Appearance Review. He added that members of the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (SPAARC) have found this requirement to be problematic at times. Member Rebechini agreed that there should be relief from the requirement. Member Knutson suggested that a solution may be to change the zoning ordinance to say that one may build to the Iot line, in which case the developer may be motivated to do so but SPAARC would have some elbow room to negotiate as appropriate. Chair Widmayer stated that everything above a certain size must come through as a planned development, but flexibility with the underlying zoning is needed. Member Doetsch was in favor of allowing flexibility but favored a limit on the amount of the setback, such as five feet. Member Rebechini thought that meeting a five-foot setback could potentially distract from the design and impose yet another requirement that could be problematic. Member Doetsch asked if the Zoning Subcommittee should study the issue. Chair Widmayer agreed and stated that they should study it and come back with recommendations. V. DESIGN REVIEW GL:IDELINES Chair Widmayer stated that there originally had been a booklet that ►vas part of Binding Appearance Review. and now there are two issues. Instead of Binding Appearance Review, they could recommend binding planned development review. Alternatively, instead of revising planned development rules, they could bring back design guidelines since the City has none. It has been two years since the issue was considered, so the issue ►►•ill be taken up at the next regularly scheduled meeting (June 9). Member Doetsch asked what ►weight the guidelines will have if they are adopted, which he is in favor of doing. Chair Widmayer thought there could be a recommendation that these be adopted as the City's ofiicial guidelines even if they are not mandatory since it will give SPAARC and Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - -flax. 12. 2004 Pace Five the Plan Comr;,ission something to negotiate with as they review proposals. Member Rebechini thought that even if they are not mandator•, they could be useful to developers in assessing the probability of getting through the approval process in a timely and cost-effective manner. Chair Widmayer and Member Raffel agreed. Mr. Wolinski, Director for Community Development, stated that the original design guidelines had positive examples as well as what not to do, including photos of existing buildings in Evanston. Chair Widmayer suggested replacing such photos with sketches or photos taken outside of Evanston. Member Knutson agreed and thought that leaving the Evanston photos would be terrible public relations. The matter was continued until the June 9 Plan Commission meeting. VI. CO�I.NIITTEE UPDATES U D REPORTS * Binding ADnearance Review Committee —Discussion to continue at the next regularly scheduled Plan Commission meeting on June 9. * Neighborhood Planning Committee Mr. Marino stated that the Committee has not met since the April la Plan Commission meeting. A special meeting on the draft Canal -Green Bay Road -Church Street Plan has been scheduled for May 23. * Zoning Committee —No report given. * Community Development Committee --No report given. * Economic Development Committee Mr. Marino stated that the focus of the last meeting %vas TIF assistance for the Howard Street planned development. There is still the issue of the requirement to compensate the school district for new students generated by TIF-assisted projects. These and other issues will be discussed at the next meeting. * Parking Committee Member Raffel stated that the Committee has not met. Mr. Marino stated that the Sherman Avenue Garage has been permanently closed because of structural issues. The date for demolition is unknown. * Inclusionary Housing Committee Mr. Wolinski stated that the Planning & Development Cor unittee had a special meeting on the Committee's proposal. Their recommendation was to look at `payment in lieu of for new projects and condo conversions, rather than for new construction or for offering density beight bonuses. There will be another meeting on the matter at the end of June or early July. He thought that another meeting might be needed that includes condo conversion developers. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Mav 12. ?(Y)4 Page Six • Plannins &: Development Committee Chair Widmayer stated that at the last meeting, the Committee had voted down the Plan Commission's recommendation for the rezoning of Main and Chicago and passed a motion to rezone to C1a. The 1314 Ridge Planned Development and subdivision passed on the condition that the unique use only applies to that property. Chair Widmaver also noted three Aldetmanic referrals to the Plan Commission: • Discuss build to lot line requirements in the Business and Downtown districts (discussed tonight). • Discuss rezoning the National Louis property, which has recently closed. There is a dorm in Evanston, and the rest of campus is in Wilmette and surrounded by single family homes. • Discuss Rya zoning to replace the RS district but only allow single family residences by -right and everything else as a special use. [t would be mapped in the student area, and existing six -flats would remain as special uses. Mr. Wolinski stated that there may be a fourth referral pertaining to residential uses in the 12 zone. Mr. Marino thought the reason for this is the steel plant closure on Oak --ton. Chair Widmayer thought there also may be a need to review the MUE district for live/work spaces. Chair Widmayer then summarized the Downtown Visioning session held May 1 in which a diverse group of stakeholders had a discussion of the dowvntowrt's strengths, weaknesses. opportunities, and threats. There will be a follow-up session on May 13 to discuss next steps. He added that as part of the visioning effort, a study of doµtttown traffic and parking will be conducted, and he thanked City Council for funding it. Mr. Wolinski stated that Vineyard is moving to a portion of the former Shure property, and there is a contract on Vinevard's former location on Ridge for condos. V11. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Tracy Norfleet Planning Division DRAFT —NOT APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, May 26, 2004 / 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Room 2200 MEMBERS PRESENT .................................Lawrence Widmayer (Chair), Sharon Bowie .......................................................................Douglas Doetsch, Alice Rebechini, James Woods, ......................................................................Lawrence Raffel ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ..........Steve Samson MEMBERS ABSENT ...................................Albert Hunter. Kenneth Rodgers, Steve Knutson ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........John Lyman, Richard Cook STAFF PRESENT.........................................Dennis Marina. James Wolinski, Arthur Alterson, .......................................................................Tracy Norfleet I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. 11. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 12, 2004 Member Rebechini motioned to approve the minutes. Motion was seconded by Member Raffel. Motion passed unanimously. III. CONTINUATIOti OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-08 PD 901 Chicago An application by 525 lled:u. LLC. property owner. for a Planned Development as a form of special use permit including such dn-elopment allowances. exceptions to demlopo ent allowances. and outer reJiefas may be necessary to allow redevelopment of an area within the Cl a Commercial .diced-I:se District. RJ Ked:ie. LLC it a limited liability company organked under the laws of the State of Illinois for the purpose of dnvl opme t contracting• marketing and selling condominium units and commercial space to be constructed on the site at 801 Chicago. Evanston. Illinois. 525 !t ed ie. LLC consists of Stesyn Ornoff. member and manager, and .Yes! 1. Ornoff. member. The prnpased development is fora mused -use dn•elcpment consisting of retail uses; parking; residential uses: and other uses permitted in the Cl a district Generally, the proposed development plan entails construction of a 6-story structure with a defined grass floor area of approximatey. 41.181 square feet. containing approximately 28 dwellings and appraritnately 1,760 square feet of retail floor area. The maximum absolute height of the new building would be 67'feet. This project was referred back to the Plan Commission by the Planning and Dn-elopmeru Committee of the City Council at its 1'ovember 11, 2003 meeting Chair Widmayer stated that this is a continuation of the public hearing for a planned development at 801 Chicago. It has been continued at the request of property owners within 1000' of the property. He swore in members of the audience wishing to speak. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes -• Mav 26, 2004 Paee Two Ms. Sylvia Michalski. 811 Chicago, stated that at the last meeting. several Commissioners indicated they might vote on the basis of hardship. She distributed an excerpt from the zoning ordinance (Section 6-3-8-1. Purpose and Standards for Major Variations). She did not think the proposed planned development met the standards to qualify as a hardship. She stated that the developer has never argued for hardship and instead, they have sho%%m in this latest iteration that they can do a smaller project. Associate Member Samson asked Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, if the Standards for Major Variations applied to planned developments. Mr. Alterson stated that they do not apply to this project since it is a planned development in a commercial district. Ms. Michalski stated that there is no indication in the zoning ordinance that the language does not apply to planned developments. and she thought the language should apply to all parcels requesting major variations. Associate Member Samson stated that the applicant is not seeking major variations but rather, a planned development. Mr. Tim Cronin, 811 Chicago, stated that he was not able to attend the Iast meeting, but he has obtained a copy of the report by 525 Kedzie LLC and does not agree with its findings. He read aloud a letter of objections to the proposed planned development and the variations requested. Chair Widmayer stated that i0th regard to screening, the applicant is seeking a variation in response to concerns raised by Alderman Wynne and others at a public meeting. Mr. David Haymes, the architect for the proposal, added that the screening variation also was in response to the perception that nearby residents wanted the alley to be as wide as possible, whereas screening would narrow the alley. Chair Widmayer asked about the differences in traffic and parking between the previous use and proposed planned development. Mr. James Murray. the attorney for the development team, stated that the number of proposed dwelling units has been decreased from 45 to 28 and includes parking, whereas the previous use was 15 units and no parking. An issue identified in the Chicago Avenue plan was buildings built without parking, and this proposal addresses that by providing adequate parking. Mr. Murray then introduced Mr. Francis Lorenz. a real estate appraiser. Mr. Lorenz stated that _ as part of a property values study, he had reviewed the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, inspected the property in question, reviewed the plans for the proposed planned development, looked at the nearby neighborhood, and reviewed multiple listing service dam with a focus on 811 Chicago. He concluded that the proposed planned development would not be harmful to surrounding property values because of. • The strong condo market in Evanston and because the condos at 811 Chicago had seen an increase in prices similar to others in Evanston: • The proximity to retail and transit; and • A similar situation at 1700 Ridge in which results from a study done then are the same. He stated that given the assumption that a property should be worth more today than when it was purchased, residents at 811 Chicago will still stand to profit after it is built. He cited a pair of sales in 811 Chicago after the planned development was proposed which sold for a higher_ - amount than their purchase price. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes -- MaN 26. 2004 Prize Three Karl Schmeddens. 811 Chicago. disagreed with this study and stated that an independent appraiser the residents contacted had estimated a 5-"S decrease in value should the proposed planned development be built. Mr. Hans Vija. 811 Chicago, added that the third through eighth floors would be affected the most. fir. Murray asked if the independent appraiser was present and could testify. but the appraiser was not present. Chair Widmayer asked if the independent appraiser had put their findings in writing. The appraiser had done so. but residents did not have a copy. Chair Widmayer advised the residents to bring a copy to subsequent meetings. He added that he understood the concerns of the residents at 811 Chicago but thought that %Alen their property was purchased, an appraiser should have accounted for development next door. Mr. Murray reiterated points raised at the last meeting: this not the only case of lost views in Evanston. and the proposed building is allowed under current zoning. A member of the audience stated that the economy is showing signs of slowing and cautioned about looking at historical trends when estimating property values. There being no fiirther comments from the audience, Chair Widmayer asked Commissioners for questions and comments. Member Doetsch stated that he was sympathetic to the concerns of residents at 811 Chicago. especially those with south -facing balconies. However, he agreed with what Chair Widmayer and Mr. Murray said in terms of value. He thought that the residents should have known when they purchased their units that a 67' building or blank wall could have been built next door under the current zoning ordinance, He then commented on the variations requested. The intent of the parking setback was to not have parking at the lot line. For screening the loading berth, he was sympathetic to concerns for security and alley width. Finally, he thought the last proposal was too high but this one is of good design and meets other requirements. He stated that he would vote in favor of it. Chair Widmayer stated that he also was sympathetic to the concerns of residents at 811 Chicago but noted that views at Marina Towers were blocked by the IBM building. He added that original owners of 811 Chicago might remember that a 67' building was not allowed but rather. a 125' building. The process for the Chicago Avenue study tried to downsize the area to give more balance to the community. Also, the first proposal for this planned development had problems in terms of height and density, but the developer worked to meet what is intended in the Chicago Avenue plan and the zoning ordinance (e.g., pedestrian -friendly, wider sidevvaiks, retail at the corners, adequate parking). He suggested that everyone look at what the planned development is asking in terms of safety, parking. and special uses. He stated that he would vote in favor of the project. Member Rebechird thought that when a project is considered as a planned development, it should be strong all around. She saw potential for a decrease in the value of adjacent properties but thought it was up to the purchaser to know what will happen next door. She thought the courtyard in the original proposal was better. but that was denied, and now they are facing a blank wall. However, overall the new design responds better to the zoning ordinance and other concerns. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Mav 26. 2(?04 Page Four Member Raffel agreed with Slember Doetsch and was sympathetic to neighbors but thought they should have known what can go in next door. He thought the alley could have been a problem, but the requested variances seem to alleviate concerns. He was sympathetic to neighbors but thought the architect %%orked within the zoning ordinance and Chicago Avenue plan. He added that he had a problem with the appraisal that deterwined value based on what is built next door because there are many other factors. Following a brief recess. Member Doetsch motioned that the planned project be approved as a planned development based on the list of standards for commercial districts that Mr. Alterson distributed and Associate Member Samson read aloud. Member Woods seconded, and the motion passed 5-1 with Member Rebeehini voting 'nay.' A verbatim transcript of the ptvicerdings of this Plan Commission case is on J71e with the Emteswis Zoning Dh*lon. The Zoning Division h located is Room 3700 of the E►vnstoir Civic Center. IV. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 99-09 PD Sherman Phan The Plan Commission,- ill rrzsrw farther adjustments to tht planned de+elopmew that the Cin• authorised by Ordinance 113.O. K f w subzzannal co?formirv- with the approved development plan. The Plan Commission in matiing such a determination would be approving the proposed ad)usrmenu Thu matter concerns the planned development the Cin, granted to Sherman P— inturc LLC on 10. 10?000 for rede►elopmtnt of the an area within the D3. Downtown Development Burr, t htng generally bet%een Church Street on the north. Davis Street on the south. Sherman Avnue on the east and Beiuon Avrnue on the west Chair Widmayer stated that this is a continuation of the public hearing for the proposed planned development known as Sherman Plaza. Mr. Alterson asked Commissioners to address the _ mandatory standards for planned developments listed on a handout he distributed. He stated that approval had been previously eranted. which was extended to January 20, 2003. There have since been modifications to height. amount of retail space. and number of dwelling units. Ms. Judy Aiello, Assistant City Manager, stated that the development team is before the Plan Commission to present modifications as a final change to the project. They have a financial commitment letter in hand. They have presented to the Economic Development Committee, which approved it last week. and the Parking Committee heard the presentation earlier in the evening. They are hoping for approval tonight so they can proceed to City Council in June, demolish the existing garage, and begin construction by September 15, 2004. Mr. John Terrell, a member of the development team, stated that in September of 2002, they had anticipated developing a four-story building on Sherman to Davis which included a health club can the third and fourth floors. but underwriting was problematic. The best alternative was to modify the plan to be two stories. including a health club accessible from the first floor. This allowed for 33 additional loft units to be wrapped around the green roof, bringing the total number of dwelling units to 253. The amount of retail square footage has dropped from roughly 250,000 to 156,000. A revised elevation was presented. J Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Mai• 26. 2004 Page Five Chair Widmayer asked about the second floor on the north side. Mr. Terrell stated that the corner will be two-story. retail. and the remainder will be the health club. Member Doetsch asked about the number of retail tenants. Mr. Terrell stated that there will be three tenants on the second floor, and the pound floor will have ©sco Drug, a two-story tenant, and a number of smaller tenants. He added that including the health club. the space is 85% pre -leased. Member Raffel asked if the loft units fronting the roof top garden will be the only ones with access to it. Mr. Terrell stated that all units will have access to the roof top garden and a party room. Chair Widmayer asked about parking, and discussion followed about the number of spaces, configuration, and sharing arrangements with the City. They are proposing 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit. An elevator will give each residential floor access to the garage. Member Doetsch asked about loft square footage. Mr. Terrell stated that they vary in size, but the average is 14,000 square feet, and they are priced lower than the units in the tower. He added that 42% of all residential units have been pre -sold. Chair Widmayer asked if there will be street level retail, including along the garage, and there will be. Member Rebechini asked about impacts to schools and public services. Ms. Aiello stated that this tax increment financing district was in plane before there were requirements to compensate schools for children living in the development. The new development Ail] be served as usual by water, sewer, police, etc. Member Rebechini asked if they are exceeding the height allowances, which they are. Chair Widmayer asked if they were building to lot line, and Mr. Terrell showed on the elevation where they were not (parts of Davis and Sherman) and noted that this has not changed since the original proposal. Member Doetsch asked Mr. Alterson to review the variations they are seeking, which are the build to lot line requirement and height requirement. The maximum height in a D3 zone is 85' but the residential tower %%ilI be roughly 280' including mechanical equipment on the roof (the tallest building in Evanston). However. this is lower than the original proposal. Member Doetsch asked about the next steps. Mr. Terrell stated that if approved tonight, they will proceed to City Council on June 14. 2004 to approve the amendments. Demolition will start mid -July and last roughly two months. An agreement requires them to start construction by September 15, 2004 or clear the site for use as holiday parking through December. Chair Widmayer asked when the opening date for the garage would be. which is roughly 14 months (80°la open by 2005 holiday season). Chair Widmayer though that it would be very positive for the community to see action on the site. Member Raffel agreed but thought that demolition must be immediately followed by construction. Ms. Ann Dienner asked about the penthouses. Mr. Terrell stated that there are 12 total, and 60% are sold. Member Raffel asked about the swap agreement, and discussion followed about what portion of the garage the City will own and operate. An audience member from 1580 Sherman was concerned about the effects of the 1 I -story garage on light. Mr. Leonard Evans, 1580 Sherman, stated that service and delivery vehicles cannot fit in other garages. Mr. Terrell stated that they were aware of this issue and showed on the revised floor plan how they addressed it. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Mav 26. 2004 Page Six Following a brief recess. 'Member Rebechini motioned that the proposal be approved as a planned development based on the list of standards for downtown districts that Mr. Akerson distributed and which she read aloud. Member Woods seconded. Member Doetsch had a final comment that the City has gone down the road of a centered city core, and this project goes a step further. Since there are now approximately 20 buildings taller than 85', he thought there should be consideration of the negative impacts of this on the human scale in the future. The motion passed unanimously. A ver+ Wim transcript of the procccdings of this Pion Commission case b on file wish the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division Is located to Room 3700 of the Evansion Chic Center. V. COMMITTEE UPDATES AtiD REPORTS Binding Anoearance Review CommitteeDiscussionat the next regularly scheduled Plan Commission meeting on June 9, 2004. Planning & Development Committee Chair Widmayer stated that the Committee had met on Monday. They reviewed the planned development requirements, and discussion will continue at the next meeting. Mr. Alterson called Commissioners' attention to a memo from Alderman Tisdahl asking them to consider rezoning the National Lewis property. Chair Widmayer stated that they also will review the Kendall College issue. Because it is now zoned U, nothing can be done by right since the current property owner is not a university. There also was discussion about residential development in the industrial area, including affordable housing, and a need to keep existing industries rather than attracting new ones and to reuse land that becomes available. • Neighborhood Planning Committee --No report given. • Zoning Committee —No report given. • Community Development Committee —No report given. • Economic Development Committee —No report given • Parking Committee ---No report given ' Inclusionary Housing Committee —No report given VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Member Doemh motioned to adjourn, and Member Rebechini seconded. The Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Evanston Plan Commission is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 9, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Norfleet Planning Division DRAFT - NOT APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday. June 9. 2004 7:00 p.m. Evanston Ci%ic Center Room 2200 MEMBERS PRESENT .................................Lawrence Widmayer (Chair), Albert Hunter, ...................................................................... Kenneth Rodgers, Steve Knutson, lames Woods, .......................................................................Lawrence Raffel ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ..........John Lyman, Richard Cook MEMBERS ABSENT...................................Sharon Bowie, Douglas Doetsch, Alice Rebechini ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........Steve Samson STAFF PRESENT.........................................James Wolinski, Arthur Alterson, Tracy Norfleet I. CALL TO ORDER I DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted a Quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 11. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 26, 2004 Chair Widmayer suggested a revision to the bottom of page 3 of the minutes for May 26, 2004. He thought Member Rebechini stated that the neighbors —not the Plan Commission -- objected to the previous proposal for a planned development at 801 Chicago that included a courtyard. There being no further revisions, there Aw a motion to approve the amended minutes, which was seconded. Motion passed unanimously. III. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES Chair Widmayer stated that the issues are what to approve and in what form design review guidelines should be sent to City Council for incorporation into the ordinance. Associate Member Lyman referenced a November 6, 2003 memo from the Binding Appearance Review Subcommittee to the Plan Commission recommending: 1) binding appearance review should not include new single-family or two-family residential construction; 2) minimum thresholds that would trigger planned development review; 3) performance bonds and architect self -certification as enforcement mechanisms. Chair Widmayer stated that the Planning & Development Committee had a first reading of the draft ordinance and referred it back to committee so staff could put more justification behind proposed numbers. Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, stated that it is being prepared for the June 14, 2004 City Council meeting. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — June 9. 2004 Pace Two Discussion followed on whether the recent consent decree with Northwestern University may preclude application of binding appearance review to university property in the University and Transitional districts. Mr. Alterson stated that the City's Legal Department and Northwestern University are working toward a solution. Chair Widmayer stated that the ordinance does not say anything about design review, just about the size of planned developments. He suggested establishing recommended guidelines that the Site Plan and Appearance Committee (SPAARC) could use to hold planned development proposals to (unless the developer could make a case otherwise). Mr. Alterson directed Commissioners' attention to the packet they received containing the current ordinance for SPAARC, a draft ordinance that would replace it, and the Manual of Design Guidelines. Discussion followed on the use of the word `binding,' tying committee approval to permits, and enforcement. Mr. Alterson thought that design review and planned developments are two separate issues that intersect and should be discussed accordingly. Chair Widmayer suggested separate actions: 1) to recommend the guidelines be adopted so they could go forward whether they are binding or not and 2) to define binding appearance review. Member Raffel had concerns with the guidelines, especially for landscaping. He thought they were good for landscape maintenance but weak for landscape design. Associate Member Lyman stated that they are more than was there before, they took a long time to compile, and much of the focus at the time had been on building quality. Member Knutson stated that SPAARC has some authority over landscaping. He did not think this was the right time to revisit the issue, but it might be possible in two years. Member Raffel asked if the landscape section could be removed and made a separate document, but others disagreed. Member Hunter asked if passing separate motions poses a political question: if design standards are passed and are non -binding, will there be a sense that the issue has been dealt with, which would undercut a separate motion to make them binding? Associate Member Lyman thought that keeping the issues separate and introducing them to City Council as a package was better (i.e., passing the guidelines to give the city and developers something to work with, _ dealing with the University/planned development thresholds issue, dealing with the draft ordinance, and dealing with performance bonds and ensuring work is done according to permits). Associate Member Cook noted the issue of monitoring. Member Raffel asked if `shall' in the zoning ordinance inferred `binding,' Associate Member Cook thought that the word `binding' must be used and that review and monitoring or some other control are needed. Some Members thought `binding' was problematic and suggested other words (e.g., required, mandatory). Chair Widmayer thought that City Council could strike the word `binding' unless items were introduced separately (guidelines + binding), _ meaning that each issue would have to be addressed. Associate Member Lyman reiterated that City Council should receive a package of related items/resolutions from the Plan Commission. _ Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — June 9. 004 Pate Three Chair Widmayer suggested su-iking the last sentence in Section 4-17-6(B) of the ordinance, which currently makes SP_k-%RC approval non -binding. Other Members preferred refining the draft ordinance that replaces the current language for SPAARC. Chair Widmayer noted that the Plan Commission does not necessarily have authority over appearance, although Member Knutson noted that there is some flexibility through planned development negotiations. Associate Member Cook raised the issue of projects built with different material tnpes. colors, or sizes than were approved by SPAARC. which raises the issue of enforcing what has been approved and permitted. Mr. Wolinski. Director for Community Development. stated that codes are in place to protect health, safety. and welfare, and buildings are required to be in `substantial compliance' with submitted drawings. Currently. most buildings get four or five inspections, but more would be needed to get full compliance with proposed design and especially to catch changes made onsite (e.g., material type, color, size). However. City inspectors are already overburdened. Chair Widmayer asked what would help ensure that guidelines are followed. Associate Member Cook suggested inspection fees be :barged back to clients as an incentive to build right the first time. Mr. Wolinski noted that fees are already high, but the planned development process has been effective in getting better design. He thought the requirement that buildings be in `substantial compliance' with drawings could be refined. Discussion followed on what `substantial compliance' means, performance bonds, and fines for non-compliance. Regarding Plan Commission authority. Chair Widmayer noted that there is a precedent for appearance re%iew through the Presen-ation Commission's review of projects in Historic Districts. He suggested the possibility of an appearance code. Discussion followed on why building material changes may be made onsite (e.g.. marketing, availability of materials) and the likelihood of this happening. Mr. Wolinski thought that it would be good to know what other communities are doing for design review and enforcement (e.g., Park Ridge, Lake Forest). Discussion returned to inspections. Mr. Wolinski suggested self -certification for design —not codes --in which an independent inspector would certify that materials correspond to what has been agreed upon between the City and the developer. This puts the burden on the developer for design compliance, with the City still being responsible for code compliance. Members generally liked this suggestion and asked staff to write language accordingly. Chair Widmaver asked if the number of currentiproposed design review professionals on SPAARC should be revisited. Discussion followed on this issue, whether they should be practicing, and whether the current meeting time is problematic for SPAARC members that are not City staff. Discussion returned to the roles of SPAARC, Plan Commission, and Preservation Commission in the case of historic districts and landmark properties. Mr. Alterson asked if the Plan Commission is proposing to re -write the proposed ordinance and recommending it to City Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — June 9, 2004 Page Four Council, which they are. Chair Widmayer staled it must be clear on the appearance side who comes to agreement %ith a developer. Mr. klterson stated that unlike SPAARC and the Preservation Commission. the Plan Commission is not the final authority and recommend approval to City Council. He also reiterated the issue of 'binding' in the draft ordinance. Discussion followed on whether to call it 'appearance agreement' rather than `appearance approval' and how to handle changes/modifications to proposals (e.g., any modifications to agreed upon design must be re -submitted for SPAARC approval). There being no further comments, discussion %as continued until the next meeting. IV. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS ' Zoning Committee Member Knutson stated that the Zoning Committee met the day before and plans to notice a public hearing for the July 14. 2004 Plan Commission meeting to discuss their recommendations on the build to lot line issue. Mr. Alterson stated that the National Lewis rezoning issue %ill be scheduled for the August meeting, but Chair Widmayer thought this should be addressed at the July meeting since the owner is trying to sell the property. Mr. Almrson stated that there is another issue scheduled for the July meeting. which is to review the B districts along Central Street. Following discussion, it was decided that all three projects ---National Lewis, build to lot line, B districts on Cenmd-- will be noticed for the July 14, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. Chair Widmayer stated that there also may be the issue of I districts and MUEs and discussion should continue on design review guidelines. • Binding Appearance Review Committee —No report given. ' Planning & Development Committee —No report given. ' Neighborhood Planning Committee —No report given. ' Community Development Committee —No report given. ' Economic Development Committee —No report given ' Parking Committee --No report given • Inclusionary Housing Committee —No report given V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Member Knutson motioned to adjourn, and the Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m. A special meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday. June 23, 2004. The next regular meeting of the Evanston Plan Commission is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 14, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Norileet Planning Division DRAFT — NOT APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PLAIN COMMISSION Wednesday, June 23. 2004 ' 7:00 p.m. Evanston CN is Center Room —100 MEMBERS PRESENT .................................Sharon Bowie, Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter. ......................................................................Lawrence Widmayer (Chair), James Woods, .......................................................................Lawrence Raffel, Alice Rebechini ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT .......... None MEMBERS ABSENT...................................Kenneth Rodgers, Steve Knutson ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........John Lyman, Richard Cook, Steve Samson STAFF PRESENT.........................................James Wolinski, Dennis Marino, Susan Guderley, .......................................................................Tracy Norfleet ... �,�........... �. ................. I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. IL APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 9, 2004 There being no revisions to the June 9, 2004 minutes, Chair Widmayer motioned approval, which was seconded. Motion passed unanimously. III. PUBLIC MEETING: DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING REPORT FOR THE CANAL -GREEN BAY ROAD -CHURCH STREET STUDY AREA Since 1001. the Neighborhood Planning Committee ofthe Era uton Plan Commission hat been working with local community members on a collaborative neighborhood phr=ng effort in west Evanston The neighborhood wader stud} is located in both the Jth and 2nd Wards. The actual boundaries of the =4- area are Church Street on the south, the Merropolitan Hater Reclamation District Canal on the Aeat and north. and Green Bay Road/ Ridge Avenue on the east The neighborhood planning report is now under review by, the Evanston Plan Commission As part oftheir deliberations, the Plan Commission is seeking additional public uiput and comment on the report. For this propose. the Plan Commission has scheduled a special meeting at ? 00 p m on June 23. 2004 in Roan 2200 of the Civic Caster. The Commission welcomes written comments submitted in advance of the meeting to that they can be distribtued to its members. Oral and or written comments will also be acceped the night of the meeting. Chair Widmayer stated that this is a special meeting for the purpose of receiving public comment, verbally or in written form, on the draft Canal -Green Bay Road -Church Street plan. He introduced the City's Spanish language translator and stated that a court reporter was present to record testimony. He then swore in members of the audience wishing to speak. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — June 23, 2004 Pate Two Mr. Daniel Garrison. 1228 Simpson, stated that he lives outside the study area but travels through it daisy. For Issue 5, Public Safety and Community Cohesion, he commented that abandoned buildings are a continuing concern in the study area. He specifically referred to the abandoned church construction project across from the Over -the -Rainbow facility. Although the chain Iink fence has been removed and the site has been cleaned up, the church building remains incomplete and in a derelict state. It is a nuisance that attracts squatters and criminal activity. He summarized the history of the project and the role of the City. He asked that as part of the completed plan, a City code be drafted and proposed to prevent the continued presence of uncompleted projects and unused buildings in the study area and throughout the City because they contribute to blight and the land could be used for affordable housing. Mr. Gary Joyce, 2859 Central, stated that he is co-chair of the Mayfair Neighborhood Association (MNA) and owns property on Wesley and Emerson. He distributed two MNA newsletters and a statement that he also read aloud. He described the Mayfair neighborhood and MNA's activities and partners. Key MNA priorities have included community outreach, building relationships within Mayfair and the greater Evanston community, and making the neighborhood cleaner and more appealing. He stated that MNA is grateful for the fortun provided by the City's Neighborhood Process and that they will work together with the City towards addressing the needs and aspirations that are intertwined with Evanston's larger community. Ms. Jan Weeks, 2040 Brown, stated that an issue raised in tenant meetings is the need for increased low income/Section 8 housing in the area that is wheelchair accessible/adaptable. Another issue raised is the need for better street signage to increase motorists' awareness of wheelchair users and the hearing/visually impaired in the area, especially at crossings. There is also the issue of wheelchair users and others being harassed by loiterers as they pass by Ramy's on Simpson. Mr. Wolinski, Director for Community Development, stated that the Traffic Engineering Department is responsible for signage. Ms. Weeks added that a bridge over the canal (Bridge Street) has a seam that many wheelchairs cannot cross, so they are forced to take another route. Mr. Matt Passen, 2040 Brown, added that there should be a guardrail along the bridge. Ms. Weeks stated that people are scared to go across the bridge. Ms. Betty Ester stated that two people could not attend this meeting and asked if written comments can be submitted after tonight. Chair Widmayer stated that they can. She stated that there is a proposed tax increment finance (TIF) district that extends into the plan's study area, which is on the agenda for tonight's 8 p.m. meeting of the Economic Development Committee. She thought that a TIF could benefit the area, but it should not be limited to businesses or _ infrastructure. She thought the community could benefit from a TIF if it also could be used to rehabilitate houses, especially in the form of loans for senior citizens and the disabled to bring their houses up to code. She did not think discussion of a proposed TIF should be separate from the neighborhood planning process but rather, that it should be melded into the process. Discussion followed on the proposed TIF and its boundaries. Chair Widmayer stated that a letter _ of comments that Ms. Ester mailed separately also will be included as testimony. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — June 2 2004 Paae Three Ms. Tem- Januar%. 1816 Dodge, stated that she is the Vice Chair of Community Alliance and was at a meeting when Ms. Ester raised the idea rehabilitating houses under the TIF. She told Ms. Weeks that there have been public safety meetings with the new owners of Ramey's about the loiterers that harass passersby, and it is being addressed. She added that she liked the idea of an annual festival raised in the draft neighborhood plan. There being no further comments, the hearing closed. The public was invited to attend the 8 p.m. meeting of the Economic Development Committee, also in the Civic Center. Member Hunter, Chair of the Neighborhood Committee. thanked everyone for attending. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of Yhis Plan Contnalssion case is on jtk with the Evanston Zonhrg Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of Me Evanston Civic Center. IV. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS ' Zonine Committee —No report given. • Bindine Annearance Review Committee --No report given. ' Plannine &: Development Committee —No report given. " Neighborhood Plannins Committee —No report given. ' Community Development Committee —No report given. * Economic Development Committee —No report given " Parkin2 Committee —No report given ' Inclusionary Housine Committee —No report given V. ADJOG ILNMENT There being no further public comments, the hearing closed at 7:45 and the Plan Commission adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Evanston Plan Commission is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 14, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Norfleet Planning Division DRAFT -.NOT APPROVED MINUTES E4:A:1STOti PLAN COMMISSION Wedncsda%. ! ui - : 4. 7:00 p.m. Evan_ton C-A%ic Center Room 2_00 MEMBERS PRESENT .................................Albert Hunter. LauTence Raffel. Lawrence .................................................................%lidma%er iChair). James Woods. Alice Rebechini ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT .......... Ste►e Samson MEMBERS ABSENT.......... .........................Sharon Bode. Kenneth Rodgers. Douglas Doetsch. ....................................................................... Ste► a Knutson ASSOCIATE .'1EMBERS ABSENT ...........John Leman. Richard Cook STAFFPRESENT ......................................... Arthur Alterson. Dennis Marino. Arlova Jackson. ....................................................................... Trac► Norfleet 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted a quorum ►►as present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. IL .APPROVAL OF \IEETItiG .MINUTES FROM JUNE 23, 2004 Chair Widmayer asked if there ►►ere revisions to the June 23. 2004 minutes. On page two. Member Hunter clarified that Mr. Gan !o►ce submitted as testimony the statement that he read aloud. Chair Widmayer stated that he did not motion approval of the minutes. and Member Rebechini ►volunteered. There being no further re►6ions. Member Raftel motioned approval of the amended minutes. which ►►ass seconded b► Member Rebechini. Motion passed unanimously. 111. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC Oa-07- T Build to Lai Line Rea uire ments (Business. Downtown Districts) To ;rors;der amen4iments to (haptere 4. "Genera. — .nr. ;n_' ' , ar!.rets Districts 11 r)ow n1m, of Drstricts. 1 l:ndt„�•ning and Screenmy 1% " Deyinawns .... .:+-e' •c._;:,. seetia s ov theZnn;,ig Ordnance, to amend the tit: or the lotting Oramance to reviris aodam na rrx-nu !ar the )justness and No atos+n distrscts ►r•`CC?'�: »'e:7e orranwie an r!h' ere,rt curd a7fd 5:.7[ '.,;•1 »^wt:.•:i .: I:rirl requirements at Inc .•ollautag sections for the �e)lroxulPdlStrlcfs :h-9-:•- ,,rthe BI Business l' •'',_' .' :-?•- a;•:, B'Busrness D:srr.ct, 0.9-4-7 fortile 83 Business litstrti t: c6-11-3-) for the D' Doee uttm a Re ;,,: ( t -c ! ).s. -.: l : +S- l 1- t-' for the D? Do% nte)u n care 14-iE .sprre+nt District. and Cfi•: r •_` for the D4 N%r,.rm n : ra _a;Lr. District This hearing a dl address modahar7ons tr+ the "hudd to prowrts litre requrrel jv.ranc hr, %:t :red"lard requrrrments o0he Business Districts andrae "h:aldrrifrnntpropern Ant, surtacepar+e.rs: ua-icej-(qulrementsolthe1jr-u niounDistrrets Mr. Alterson. Zoning Administrator. read into the record the description of the build to lot line issue and referred Commissioners to a memo he had emailed them regarding draft text from the Zoning Committee, Chair Widmayer swore in members of the audience wishing to speak. I_,. anston Plan, C, mmiszion Nli-Lit er — lt.,% 12. _"004 Pace Tuo Mr. John Ila-,es. 7 1iurd. thought that setbacks in the B2 district near -here he lies could be adtantageous. but there could be tradeoff,-. He asked --bout the artiount of setback beinc considered. anJ Chair Widma,er stated that discussion at this time i, focusing on a minimum setback of Y with some exceptions. Mr. Ha%es noted that several protects \%ere in the pipeline for his area and eta, concerned about the canyonization of Central. He asked if there is a tradeoff ►\ ith setbacks. "ill the\ be giving up more height? Chair Widma\ er provided a brief history of the issue. Currently. the requirement in the B and D district• i, that buildings must be built at the front lot line. Tonight's discussion pertains to a modification to that requirement that says that if a building is a corner building or some other t%pe as defined during discussion. this will require some setback from the lot line to tt%a designers flexibility. It %ill not require them to push the building to the lot lint and could require them to set it back a bit. allowing for green space. They are not talking about providing any sort of tradeoff at this time. Nfember Hunter asked about the rationale behind the build to lot line requirement. Chair Widmayer stated that it vvas an architectural rationale for a consistent front typical of traditional neighborhood shopping districts. At the time, the concern was that an inconsistent setback for a small property that has adjacent properties built to lot line would create dark comers leading to crime problems. trash accumulation. etc. Fiowever. the different types of developments in recent years. especially large projects. can have negative impacts instead of the positive ones considered when this type of zoning "-as established. That is why Aldermen have asked the Plan Commission study the build to lot line issue. There being no further public comment, discussion was opened to Commissioners. Chair Widmayer referred to Mr. Alterson's memo and thought there was a possible exception --the large rental building set back on Church and Davis that he thought looks %m- good. He thought that buildings of a similar size should be allo«ed to be built further hack. \iember Raffel asked if this would require decisions on a case -by -case basis. but Chair Widma\ er thought it could pertain to lots o%era certain size le.g.. 200' I. Member Rebechini agreed and asked for a clarification of the draft lancuace in Mr. Alterson's memo. 11r. Alterson stated that there is identical language for the affected B and D districts. and instead of the build to lot line requirement in place now. there %\ould be a required 3' setback except %%here both adjacent lots are I' or less from the front lot line. in which case there would be no setback requirement. The exception does not apply to corner lots. Chair Widmayer asked if a 3' setback was the minimum. and Mr. Alterson stated that it was. Member Hunter asked if buildings must be built to 3' of the lot line. Mr. Alterson stated that they could be built further back. but there cannot be parking in front. Member Hunter asked if the Subcommittee gave any consideration to the variability of the sidewalk width. and Mr. Alterson stated that this -was not considered. Associate \-iember Samson mentioned the 'bright line test' and stated that the 3' was selected for discussion purposes. He thought the setback should not be considered alone because it affects the square footage of project and affect height and parking. He did not think they should make E%an�ton Plan Commis ion '►linutes — Jul 14.'004 Pane Three :h:— etback onerous :or a del eloper. but the% alsr cannot encou-::Le the canonization effect. That is N%h% there is the issue oftradin,_-off height for setback. C::rrenth. there are no four-story buildings along Central Street. but increasing the >etback ma- allot► for taller buildings. whereas building closer to the lot line may produce shorter buildings. which affects parking. etc. There should be consideration of what this means for the feasibilit% of a ci%en project. Discussion followed on lot depth and the abilit% to handle bigger setbacks, especially for planned developments. Chair Widmayer reiterated the need to provide flexibility for design. which was the intent of the Zoning Subommittee, and the issue of correcting the problem of narrow sidewalks in some areas also %ryas discussed. Member Hunter teas concerned about destroying the streetscape with recessed spaces that mas hatie consequences. Chair Widmayer reiterated that the proposed revision applies only if'adjacent properties are built to the lot line, in which case the new building must be built to the lot line. An issue for discussion could be setbacks for Eery wide lots that take up much of the block. `)ember Rebechini thought that previous discussions had been about a maximum 3' setback going forward to the lot line, but the proposed revision pertains to a minimum 3' setback going back from the lot line unless flanked by buildings built to lot line. She thought that the discussion had flipped and that the goal had been to allow for a maximum 3' setback to provide extra room for the sidewalk while preserving the attributes of the street wall. Associate Member Samson did not think developers would voluntarily give up sellable square fbotage. especially for smaller projects. He did not think a 3' minimum setback. especially on comers, would ruin the street wall. Member Raffel noted that a 3' setback %%as a comfortable depth for landscaping. Chair Widmayer noted that for large planned developments. a maximum setback requirement could make it more difficult to ask de%elopers to build to a %ariance because they could come back and say that the zoning ordinance sa\ s 3% A minimum setback requirement would build in more flexibilih' to negotiate a 5' or greater setback. Member Hunter raised the issue of as -of - right developments. which do not undergo the negotiating, process for planned developments. Mr. Aherson stated that the problem with the build to lot line requirement is its inflexibility. He noted that with a 3' requirement. you cannot build forti•ard or behind it either. leading to the same inflexibility as the build to lot line requirement (e.g.. buth preclude recessed doors. \%indows. etc). Another issue is the evaluation of where the building should be (e.g.. where the community vs. developer Hunts it is ►very site specific). An earlier iteration was that there would be no requirement and the setback ►\ould be appro\ ed by the Site Plan and Appearance Committee. but this was rejected. Chair Widmayer asked about setbacks in C l a districts. and Mr. Alterson stated that none is required, Chair Widmayer raised the issue of how the revision could affect adjacent property values vs. the \\all effect of ness construction to the lot line. Associate Member Samson noted a distinction between the B and D districts and asked if they should be separated out since a minimum setback requirement takes away land available for - development. lie was more concerned %%ith shaving off 3' in dassntos+n than in the F%-an. ton Plan Commissii,7 Minu:t:s -• juh, 14. _t,it4 Pace Four neici-„e:trhoods. Chair noted the intiembihi% problem in both areas and asked if they are to ine to buildin_,— -ack or to prt-wide design t)exibilitn Associate ~!ember Samson did nc't think de►elop rs ►►t?u1C on to go back. 3' espz,:ially for small projects. but Members Rebechini and ltaffel thought it %%ould depend on the particular site. Discussion followed. Chair Widma}er asked what should be recommended for D districts. and Mr. Alterson suggested making the setback none, like the C i a district but ►%ithaut parking. Member Woods suggested keeping the exception for the D districts. :Member Rebechini disagreed because she thought that a setback requirement could pro► ide an opportunity to create great slots in large projects built in the middle of blocks. Discussion foIlo►►ed. Member Rebechini suggested that the Zoning Committee review the issue again and separate out the B and D districts. She thought that more consensus was needed on whether the setback requirement should be 3' for►►•ard or backward in B districts and for D districts and whether the setback requirement should be 3' for►ard or nothing. Discussion foi)o►ved. Member Rebechini motioned to send the build to lot line issue back to the Zoning Committee. Member Raffel seconded, and the rote was unanimous (3-0). The Zoning Committee will take up the issue at a meeting scheduled for August l 1, 2004 at Sam. The Plan Commission will continue this zoning hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on August 11. 2004 at 7pm. .9 verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on f le with the Eranston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located In Roan 371i0 of the Eranston Civic Center. IV. PROPOSED ZONING ORDIN AtiCE MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-06-M&T B?'s Along Central Street To:o'ettJ.rarrendmepastoC'%..:1n3 (m^xnrr'rtrur7rnto'sd td^'t•tcsirpliern.-tie+te'ralirgiumnt"9, 'Business speeiul Purpn.te and fhwr(a v Oivt- ; ", "n!r Street P.:rkurg and Lr. i+ni' ! (�+7dse'r7:�:'tY :' : �. 're . {• +, (!<'rrLieLr f %ririmp and t(a r and ant other re::.a:i1 ee ctwnt ut rite Iomtnt+rJ-:fire':, a r...trnr+rJlhe te.tf .1'1.: �r ;r;, rr.7(� O.' fr1 l?nlrT� tirdJnaa;r rn aljrtt tier reCu:jr.nr,• .fire /.oning flrJ:•::^... :t . . .:rd to that area n+'thr .gran the B. L,xrrict,trt properties 47d,acert to arm tilt- vr: r+:ih v,' C e r•:r... %1r, rt and or to re•map all rr piris ofthe ine irdteo:ed area from the B: BWJPterx I+rttrte•r mra another,!;; :r,: wg drxtrur or oter4n district Chair Widmayer opened the zoning hearing. Member Raffel motioned to send the issue of 132s on Central to the Zoning Committee. Chair Widmayer asked for public comment. An audience member stated that he has li ed in Evanston for 40 years and asked about the role of the Plan Commission. Chair Widma► er pro► ided a brief description. lelson Salzman. 2737 Harrison. asked clarified that this issue will come back to the Plan Commission after the Zoning Committee. Chair Widmaycr stated that it will. and public testimony ►till be taken at both le►cis, E=.%ansto.. P::::+ Commission .Nlirtute�, - 1 .' . !4. 2004 Pace l.i%e Man Cri:el 2827 I larrison. siat.d that he cannot anend the August i I meetings and asked if there ww ill tv ether opportunities to comment on this :s,ue. Chair Widma%Lr stated that there would be ot:., opportunities in the coming months. Chair Widma; er noted \lember Raifel's motion. «hick Member Hunter seconded. and the vote was unanimous 15-0). .1 verbatim transcript t jthe proceedings of Ws Plan Commission case is on JUe with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division Is located In Room 3700 of the Evanston Ciric Center. V. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE NIAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-015-M&T National Louis Unisersit% To tors :e, amendments to Chapters 3. '"lmplententct;nr :r«1 dsratiutrarnr. ' - ",Zoning Districts and .flap: "8. Resrae ce . Districts: " 15. ' :Specicl Purpose and 0erla , Duincts. ' ar.1 anti other rei ued sections of the Zoning Qrd+na .;i ro amend the map of the ZontnQ Ordinance to remrnY all or parts nfthe follow tng Indicated area within f.Yarslr,.: •:om the l 'l t university Housrn+ District and place a4i or parts ol' the fibliniving tndreared area into the cpprrpr,s1� �eAtdenujl district or other appropriate .orimir Jim r or to .st+ph the approp►rare orerlm district. %ar,wr.:. Lr ;s f nn'erstn rs Nte llcpJtier of rerurd m the t . 1i.'t p�rrh The property that a the subject ojthis Plan Commaj,,.n hearing is common(►" know n as 2,505 Sheridan Mr. Alterson. Zoning Administrator. read into the record the description of the National Louis University zoning issue. fir. Alterson noted that a University representati%e %,.w present. and Chair Widma%er asked if he would like to speak. Mr. William Roberts. dice President for Operations at National Louis University. stated that he is appearing to read a brief statement on behalf of the University and to hear what neighbors think. The Uni%'ersitw" wishes to be involved in the process from the beginning. and they wish to go on the record as opposing any change to lot A at this time because such a change is premature and could haw e a negative impact on their current and future operations. Based on their current understanding of a change to RI zoning. this could eliminate their right to modify or change the residential hall without additional hearings, and they could lose their right to do what they need to do with the proper} when it is appropriate. They do not want to lose that right casually. Chair Widma} er noted that there has been much discussion in the press that National Louis is considering closing this campus and if so. it would be assumed that the next step would be to dispose of the propert}. Mr. Roberts stated that one %ear ago. the Board authorized staff to pursue a stud% of their properties in the Chicago arm and some of the studies found that this site is not well -suited for students because of its age and condition. The question became whether to renovatelcxpand it or test the market for disposal and relocation. At this time. they are conducting a test of the market. There have been no offers to date. and it would take an extremely good offer to dispose of the proper . The\- acknowledge it could be a long process. Member Raffel stated for the record that he has a child at the Baker School. which is not part of the property discussed today and should not affect his Judgment. but he wanted that connection l:%anston Flan COmmissior: Minutes - .iul% 1-,. _'+)I'U Paee Sig noted for the record. Chair Widmawr clari:iz.J that the Baker ,_,;:'.;ool is In Wilmette. which it is. and the\ are concern.-d instead \\ith the. &,rms in Evanston. ltz then asked for public comment. •ir. Junad Rizki. 2784 Sheridan. read aloud a statement. He has lied across from the dorm since 1984 and supports a zoning change to Rl . He distributed and read aloud an excerpt from the zoning ordinance (Section 6-3-4-3) and stared that if it is rezt:ined. only the R1 zone would meet the applicable standards. Ms. Enid Shapiro. 281 _5 Sheridan. read aloud a statement. She has lived in the immediate neighborhood for 36 years and thinks the zoning should revert back to R1. She thought that developers would be eager for this property. but future development must be compatible. She noted that traffic in the area has increased. and an increase in densit% would be more problematic. She added that there is a booming business core. but they must maintain the neighborhood characteristics described in a recent article by the Chicago Tribune as a 'shady street lifestyle.' She asked those who do not swish to speak tonight but support the zoning change to Ri to stand. and the majority of the audience stood up. Ms. Barbara Janes. 802 Colfax. stated that she is not an immediate neighbor, but she thought this issue was similar to Kendall College. She noted a request by Alderman Tisdahl to change the zoning at Kendall College to R1. Neighbors pleaded for R1, but no one knew for sure what was happening with the site. The Plan Commission's final decision was to rezone it residential, but there xvere no limits the amount of residential allov\ed. and there have been problems ever since it was sold. Iter plea tonight was to rezone the National Louis property as R1 to avoid the problems that Kendall Cohe:ge neighbors are dealing .with. She thought the zoning notification for this issue read like a position paper although there was no additional information about the status of the property than there was for Kendall College. Sol hir. Clarence Townshend IV. 114 Girard avenue. asked 'fir, Roberts about the division of the property between Evanston and Wilmette and whether the Wilmene buildings would remain if the Evanston ones were demolished or vice versa. \lr. Roberts could not ans\%er at this time. Mr. Townshend stated that he is representing Girard Avenue residents. and they support a zoning change to RI. Former Alderman Frank H00%cr. 725 Roslyn. commented that it is appropriate to separate the _ Evanston issue from the Wilmette: issue. but doing so is not economically valid. He noted that = historicail%. the National Louis dorm was accommodated by Evanston to allow the University to expand. so the L•niversit% and Evanston are very connected. He understood the problem of not knowing %%hat the university wants to do, but he suggested that as lone as National Louis is using the dorm for educational purposes and for residential students. then Evanston should not pull the rug out from under them. He thought that it would be safest to rezone it to R i and allow the current use to continue as a legal non -conforming use. This would settle the issue, but the argument against this is that the University would want to maximize the sale of the propene, but _ it is not up to Evanston to help them do this. He noted that Evanston.'Wilmette have �_ 1•:%anston, PIan Com-rniion, \linutes — lu".. . 'I'll. Pace Seven accomrr! ed: the uni%er{it% o % e r a period L, C time aund :; zontradiclion -,v %that should be the normal zorinz in he area. but that time seems to ha%e come to an end. GIs. Susan W isrtni:z 811 Rosl%n. noted that when National Louis issued its press release that this propert} %%a`; going on the market. it stated that the% -;ere anticipating 5 i 6-_24 million for the campus in E%anston and Wilmette. This purchase price suggests that a developer would have to do something other than single family homes and %%ould ask for a high density- project. She noted that Wilmette is apparently going to revert to a residential designation. She noted that a higher densit% de% elopment at the Evanston locatior. %vould be problematic gi%en the level of traffic on Sheridan. She thought that R I was the onN option for the character and safety of the neighborhood. She thinks the%- should act preempti%ely so a developer %%ill know % -hat they can do and a%oid further problems. Mr. John Hayser. 900 Isabella_ thought that the property was Rl before the dorm was built, it is surrounded by Rl. and Wilmette will revert to Rl. He noted that the Kendall College property has immediate access to Northwestern University and Roycemoore. but'National Louis is surrounded b} R I. so consideration should be given to what is best for the residential property values and the community as a whole. Mr. Abe Rubin.'_4U9 Sheridan, has lived here for a number of years and enjoyed its charm and character. He thought the site should no back to single family homes. Mr. Pete Scanlon. 1-809 Garrison. noted that Evanston has made accommodations to have a nice school in the area. If a change must be made. he thinks that the only common sense approach is to go back to Rl. He reiterated pre%ious points about traffic. He also noted that Sheridan is higher in elevation than Garrison. and there is a hill to the dorm. This raises privacy issues if there will be a hich rise or condos with balconies. He added his children also attend Baker School, so he has heard that it is relocating or closing for financial reasons. He has only heard that National Louis is trying to maximize the value of the real estate. but he thinks it should be rezoned RI so that future developers know its %aloe too. Mr. Norm Rubash. 825 Roslyn, stated that he heard the National Louis representative ask to delay action because it could change their future operations. but because the property is zoned RI in Wilmette, he did not that action should be dela%ed in Evanston. Chair Widma%er opened discussion to Commissioners. Member Rebechini asked Mr. Roberts if a new site %%as potentially being sought within a mile and %%hether that might include sites in Evanston. fir. Roberts could not provide that information. Member Woods asked when the dorm was built. Mr. Roberts thought that it was built in the late 1950s. but an audience member thought it was built in the mid- I960s. Member Woods asked about the total contiguous acreage at this site. %%hich Mr. Roberts estimated %%as 6.7 acres. Member Woods asked if the current dorm extends from Evanston to Wilmette. which it does not. Paue Eight '•�V:7 R::I el .:.slced Mr Al',ers,711-1 if :'te ci.:r.nL f 01-1.� Z is not no«. xould this mean ...... `� .�: t.. t:no remit:. could loc :te th.-re. Mr. .:trrs.:., rcaL sioL"A from the .ordinance what t= ai.,: -kcd the L' I z, ne. as •.,.zlI as the special uses. Chi.•. %I i,: z:_ -, stated that for the most :arL :: it is zoned L' 1. ;t ,:-, onl% be ,r.cned and used : % a f.'r universh% functions. Mernf ii-r R_;tei referred to :7e Kendall College issue end sued that he had a fundamental pi ohl,:cri tici_tr changin4 a property's zoning before it is sold nd noted that he was, against the Kend`.:l Cellece rezoning:. This case is different because e�=rtith_ng in Wiimene is single family homes except thi> piece of propertN, so this means that the higher dens, nv might go on this proper-:-.. Ha%%eti er. do,.%nzoning a propert, before iL sale a_lectt the -alue of the property. He did noc man: to change the zoning while it is still o«red b% ,7e ur:Nersivy. Chair Widrnayer asked chat would happen if National Loui= is sold to another university. Mr. A?tzrs,.m stated that zoning regulates the use. not the riser. Discussion followed on how the current: zoning and proposed zoning «ould affect different development scenarios. including ,,.hcthea the building is town down. expanded. or remodeled. Char Ridmayer asked if schools %%ere ar]owed in R1. Mr. Alterson stated that grammar schools are permitted uses (no univeri ties or trade schoolsi. and pri%aie institutions are spe; ial Uses. Membt!�- Rei,echini stated that in reference to the Kendall Cc,:lege Issue. she thought that Kendall College was more integrated with the surrounding nei6borhood. whereas National Louis is stcTounded r\ single famil, houses. Assuming Wiimore «i:1 change to R L this %%iIl make the property an island in an RIdistrict. She also thought dhai coiasider_tion should be given to reusing the existing building. She thought that lice other pro f erZie` in Evanston. it could too easih r, ei%en up for McM ansions. If it can sta_< %%ith no otr..r stress on the building or traffic. then the- Should be considered. Member Hunter thought a transition to R l «as possible. He r,ored t re% ious comments on the sMial _hiaracier of E%arstor. and added that it is not homogenous. rather. it is diverse. Thus. a reaction W rezone to R I rna% undermine unique character. Adi Bhgir.:864 Garrison. thought the% should preserve the h:sioric nature of the community and Nation.L Louis is part of that history. Other audience members dig: greed. Chair Widmayer noted tl--t National Louis has been there a long time and ha%e Toren a great contribution to the COMM li^_ I'.1 . Mr. Torn Wai.ier. 800 Rosl\n. stated that he did not ha%e a problem with National Louis. Ho•%e%er. if it is sold. he did not «ant it to become a housing cztmplex that would change the wa% the neighir-,rhood is. Chair Widmav er noted that there are options bet%+een R1. R2, etc. Discussi._►n fo:lo« ed on density. F%ar.- on Plan Comrni-pion \linu:_z - July 14. Pane Nine Mr. ; irr.,vh% \IcPike. _ , -0 Garrison. asked if .Lnder the i_'I zoning. another university could acquir: the property and build a 20-story dorm. Chair Widmayer stated that this could not happe.-, because there is a -t-;' height restriction under UI zoning. Ms. Lasky. 716 Roslyn. commented on the historic character of the area and noted that when the dorm %.as built, the area was R1 with single family homes. She %%anted to see it go back to that. its. Ellen Marta. 27-54 Ridge. stated that if the university chooses to Vacate the U. I use of the property. the Plan Commission should look at the historic zoning of the site —not just the underlying zoning ---before a developer comes along. Downzoning it later could lead to a Ia«•suit if the property cannot meet the developer's expectations. Chair Widmayer stated that thev did not want to set false expectations for this property. and he acknowledged there have been a few cases where a developer bought property and it was held up. However, if someone wants to buy the property now, they should be a university because that is the only thing that can be done %%ith it right now. He added that very fe«• developers buy property when they do not know what they can do with it. its. Cathy Grant. 706 Roslyn. noted that developers are powerful. and it is very hard for residents to fight them. Nis. Amy Peterson. 748 Wesley. heard the word 'opportunit}' and thought that all over Evanston there is too much consideration for the `opportunity' of developers but not for the residents in the immediate area. She urged reconsideration of .Mr. Hoover's suggestions. Discussion followed. Chair \N*idmaver asked hox\ much of the site is in Evanston. and Mr. Roberts estimated it was roughly 0.7 acres. Mr. Alterson referred Commissioners to a staff memo containing the breakdown of the number of units allowed in RI-7 zones for a site of this size. Discussion followed on maximum heights for each zone. Chair Widmaver stated that assuming the property is sold. the Question before Commissioners is what to recommend in terms of a maximum level of development that can be built, and Cite Council can act immediately on the recommendation or %wait until National Louis is ready. Member Ratrel asked 'Or. Roberts if they are considering selling the property piecemeal. and they are in%estigating that option among others. Chair Widmayer noted that in the excerpt of Wilmette'-, code that was provided to Commissioners. it appeared they allow for a greater variety of special uses in the R I district, including a continuation of a college use. However. Evanston's R I district does not allow for this. Ms. Christine Froula. 2801 Girard. noted that ?rational Louis has been accommodated by Evanston and is valued. However. she thought the University should not exploit the situation by - capitalizing on the sale of the property for a completely different use and especially to a developer who has no stake in the community. L%anston P:sn Conimi:sion Minutes - :.:, 14. 004 Passe Ten Ms. Susan 'A :,hnitz. 811 Ros:} n. a +ded that there could be a cast for doing nothing and one that could attec--rizhbors' property Member IL;nizr noted that a rnernbership organization was li=ted as a special use under the Ltl and could reuse the dorms. althouzh ao%% that could affect property values is unclear. He asked the audience :f they «anted RI sole],.. and the reaction was mixed. Member Rebechini noted that people isc.m to have different opinions —some want the existing building demolished and replaced with R I houses and some like being near an institutional use —and there does not seem to he consen_,u;. Chair Widma%er stated that the,. should not focus on ?rational Louis but rather. thev should consider a question in terms of cite planning: if the site was wiped out tomorrow. what do Commissioners think it should it look like to fit into the community? If they do not think it should be a C or D district. and it will not remain a [; district. then they should give guidelines for the level of density in an R district. Member Hunter stated that if it remains U 1 after rational Louis leaves, then that defines the use and market value for selling and does not maximize the value but offers it for another university use. Chair Widmaver raised the issue of whether there is a market for this but noted that it is an alternative. Member Rebechini suggested leaving it G I with the condition that it become RI if sold to a non-uni, ersity user. but Mr. Alterson stated that there is no device to do this without additional hearings. Chair Widmay er reiterated his suggestion that the Plan Commission make a recommendation to Cily Council. and let them hold it until the time is right to move forward without additional hearings. :Associate Mernher Samson asked if Commissioners agreed with R I zoning. Member Raffel thought that R I %%as appropriate for the dorm but that other buildings could be reused. Chair Widma%cr did not think that anybodl .%anted to see Natiunai Louis leave or do an•thine to encourage them if, lea%e. Member Rebechini stated that she ,would rather it remain !_•I until it is sold to a non-un;% rsit\ and then become RI. but she noted that there is arisk ofdeiay. Discussion follow ed on x%hether it should be R 1, when a rezoning should take place. and what would happen %%ith grandfathered preN ious uses. Associate Member Samson suggested recommending Rl to City Council. Member Hunter noted that this is not a do-nothing but in light of the discussion. he recommended that they hold their options open to include CI . Member Rebechini motioned to recommend it be rezoned R 1. but it was not seconded. Member Woods stated that when he entered this process. he was convinced that it should change from l., I to R 1. ht-t after tonight's discussion. he is not sure because the current zoning doeN not allow «hat e%m one seems to he afraid of t e.g.. medium or high density development of this site). Although there is a concern for doing nothing. changing to R I closes certain opportunities. including the reuse of the existing building_ Looking at the zoning map, he could not decide if RI or R? is best. Both are single famil;.. but he was not prepared to say tonight if it is changed. it should go to R 1. F vanston Plan Comm:: tit n Minutes — July 14. =+){ Paee Fleyen Associate Member Sarn;-on stat;_,J :hat them: is another anLle to consider based on tonight's comments. «hick is th::: there :_ a notable amount of uni%ersiw Iand in Evanston. He noted that the Evanston portion o the National Louis site is small. so Evanston will not lose a lot of the U I district in the big pietu:e. Rather. ghat Evanston needs right now is an expanded tax base. especially in light of the recent t: x assessments. although he acknowledged that an R1 vs. R_' district (four vs. six houses ma} not make that much of a difference. He thought that leaving it L'1 is not the issue but rather, tire• should make a recommendation for either Rl or 112. Member Rebechini thought that R1 was a comfortable fit but was not sure about R2. Either way. she thought there was a need to send a message to the de% elopment community that this is not up for high density development. Member Hunter reiterated that he did not want to close options. Mr. Alterson noted that if the% recommend a T2 zone: transitional campus district). then single family and two-family dwellings would be permitted residential uses as -of -right. and the current dorm could stay as a special use. Discussion followed residential lot area. whether the dorm could be replaced with classrooms. etc. Member Rebechini motioned to recommend to Cit% Council that the property referred to as National Louis University be rezoned to R1. and Chair Widmayer seconded. Member Woods. Member Rebechini, and Chair Widmayer voted 'aye.' and Members Raffel and Hunter voted `nay.' Since the vote %%as 3-2. and 5 votes are needed to act. the hearing was continued until the August 11 meeting so that absent Members can vote. A verhatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. IV. DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING REPORT FOR THE CANAL -GREEN BAY ROAD -CHURCH STREET STUDY AREA Continued without discussion. V. DESIGN RETIE«' GUIDELINES Continued without discussion. VI. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS leiehborhood Pla►nnine Committee .Member Hunter stated that there had been a public meeting for the neighborhood plan to receive public comment. and they are in the process of preparing action recommendations. Chair Widmayer noted that a copy of the Church -Dodge plan has been received and "ill be included as an addendum. Mr. Marino. Director for Planning. stated that it has been presented to the Economic Development Committee (EDC). and Member Rebechini stated that she was present for that meeting. Member Hunter asked E%anston Pla- Minutes - .1u:-. Pa-,,e T%%elve about Tax Increment l inancinc t ill J and its bourdarie.. Diseus:-:c- fA!o%%cd. Member Rebechini noted that the amount of uorl: done by this group «a; Phenomenal. and this is one of the best initiati%es she has seen. * Zonin2 Committee Member Raffel stated that the last issue discussed was the build to lot line requirement. as discussed Ionicht. * Economic De%elonment Committee Member Rebechini stated that the North Shore Convention and Visitors Bureau presented at the last EDC meeting and requested S60.000, but EDC needed more information. * Parking Committee ?Member RatTel stated that they had not met. although discussion follo«-ed on Sherman Plaza. Member Rebechini noted that at the last Planning and Development Committee meeting. financing was still uncertain. * Planning & Development Committee Chair Widma;er stated that the 801 Chicago planned de%clopment had been debated at the past txlo meetings and has been held over again. Aldermen Wynne and Bernstein are opposed. but :alderman Nexvman is in fa%or. Aldermen gent and Tisdahl are concerned about the north ,vall facing 811 Chicago. whose residents are opposed to it. Alderman Wynne %%ants them to build lower. even though they are _' below the C I a maximum height. The% are trying to do that with a variance on parking next to lot line even though most of it is on the second level. He also added that they had passed the planned development threshold recommendation made. and are looking for the Plan Commission's recommendations on design guidelines and the build to lot line requirement. F Mr. Marino stated that staff are N%orkinc +-vith a consultant on a report on the outcome of the Dorvnto%�n Visioning sessions. %%high they hope to have b\ the early fall. Chair Widmaver stated that the two sessions \%ere very good, and they were comprised of members from al] aspects of downtown. Mr. Marino added that the outcome was ven positive. Mr. Marino noted that the Common«ealth Edison franchise has been reputed for three years. which relates to the Plan Commission through the Comprehensh a Plan chapter on utilities. There had been problems ►%ith outages, and while the frequency and duration has dropped dramatically over the past tin e years. there are still issues of capacity and reliability. as a result, staff have been meeting xvith representatives three times a year. which includes briefing them on new projects so the\ can be prepared before a developer needs eneray. i vanston Plan Comrission Minutes -- Jule 14. '_Or" Paee Thirteen Chair Widman er 3sked '%1r. Alterson about upcoming planned developments. which include the former Jung Institute and the south +est corner of Green Ba} Emerson. There also have been pre -application conferences for an addition to the Swedish Retirement Home propem, and there %►ill be a pre -application conference for 1603 Arrington. Bindina nmarance Review Committee —No report given. Inclusionary Housine Committee —No report given Community• Development Committee —No report given. VIL ADJOI, &NINIEtiT There being no further public comments. the meeting adjourned at 1 1pm and the Plan Commission adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Evanston Plan Commission is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday. ;august 11. 2004. Respectfully submitted. Trace Norfleet Planning Division DRAFT - NOT APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, August H. 2004 i 7:00 p.m. Evanston Ci�7c Center Room 2—"00 MEMBERS PRESENT .................................James Woods. Steve Knutson, Douglas Doetsch, .......................................................................Lawrence Widmayer (Chair), Lawrence Raffel, .......................................................................Albert Hunter ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ..........Steve Samson. Richard Cook MEMBERS ABSENT ...................................Sharon Bowie, Kenneth Rodgers, Alice Rebechini ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........John Liman STAFF PRESENT.........................................Arthur Alterson, Arlova Jackson, Tracy Norfleet ........................... I.................. I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 14, 2004 There being no additions or revisions, Member Hunter made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion was seconded by Member Doetsch. Motion passed unanimously. III. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-0rM&T 'rational t.auis Universio To conrider amendments to Ch*ters J. "Implementation and Administration: " 7. "Zoning Districts and lifap. " "Residential Districts: " IS. "Special Purpose and UYrlav Dtstrrca. - and any other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance. to mend the map of the Zoning Ordinancr to rewsove all or parts of the following indicated urea within Evanston from the Ul l:nimrstty Housing District and place all or pare of the following ituiicated arra into the appropriate resuinuial district or other appropriate zoning dtst = or to apply the appropriate overlay district. National Louts Untversjo� is the anpcyrr of record of the skbjrtt proprm-. The property that is the subject of this Plan Commission hearoW is commoniy brawn as 28M Sheridax Chair Widmayer stated that at the last meeting, there was a proposal to remap this property to Rl, and the vote was 3-2. However, 5 votes are needed to make a recommendation to City Council, so the procedure is for Members who were absent last time to cast their votes tonight. Member Doetsch voted in favor of rezoning to R1, and Member Knutson voted `nay.' Since the vote was 4-3, the matter was continued until the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for September 8 to allow the remaining absent ltiiembers to vote. A verbaflm transcript of Ike proceeditgs of this Platy Com miur oa case is onfRe with the Ewmstox Zoning Division. The Zoning Dh*lon is located in Room 3700 of the Eururitorr Civic Center. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Aueusi IL 2004 Paee Two IV. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-0 % T Build to Lot Line Reouirements (BusioessfDow•ntown Districts] To consider amendments to Chapters s. "General Provisions." 4 'Business Districts; " !I. -Downtown Districts;- 17. "Landsce;wng and Screening. " 18. "Definitions: " and any other ►rioted sections of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the text of Zoning Ordinance to renew and amend the yard req-j vements jar the Business and Downtown districts. Specific arras of review are the front yard and side yard abutting a street requirements at the following sections for the following dstrcts: ,q6-9- °-"for the BI Business District, ,g6-9.3-- co- the B2 Business District; g6-9-1.7 jar the 83 Business District; §641-3.8 jar the D2 Downtown Retail Core Durner. g 6-11-4-7 jitr the D3 Downtown Core Development District; and S6.11.3 for the Di Downtown Transmon District. This hearing will address modificalwnr to the "build to pr+oprM, line required; parking prohibaed' turd requirements of the Business Districts and the 'build to front property line, surface parking prohibited" lard requirements of the Downtown Districts. Continued without discussion to the Zoning Committee meeting on September I at Sam. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission cast is on Jilt whit the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division h located In Roost 3700 of the Evanswn Civk Center. V. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 1445-M&T B2 Districts Along Central Street To consider amendments to Chapters J. "Implementation and Administration; " d. "General Prmisions.' 9. "Business Districts; " 10. -Commercial Districts: " 13. ".Special Purpose and O►rr/av, Districts; 16. "O f-Street Parking and Loading; -17. `Landscaping and Screening; " 18. "Definitions, " 7. -Zarung Districts and Map. "and any other related sections ofthe Zoning Ordinance. to amend the text andlor the mqo of the Zoning Ordinance to affect the regulatiam of the Zoning Ordinance as applied to that area of the Ctrs p+rsently within the B2 District on properties adjacent to or in the vicinity- of Central Street and or to remap all or pins afthe following indicated arrafrom the B2 Business District into another appropriate zoning district or overlay durrict. Continued without discussion to the Zoning Committee meeting on September I at Sam. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on jik with the Evamiron Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of she Evanston Civic Center, VI. PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 0"a PD 1567 Maple An application by t; inthrop Properties. LLC for a Planned Development as o farm of special use permit including such development allow antes, exceptions to development allowances, and other relief as may be necessary to allow redevelopment of an area within the D3 Downtown Core Development Duvict. Winthrop Properties. LLC Is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Illinois for the purpose of developmeta contracting. marketing and selling condominium units and commercial space to be cautruaed on the site at 1567 Afaple Avenue, Evanston. Illinois Winthrop Properties. LLC, is directed by Robert Horner and Ibrahim Shihadeh. The proposal is jor a mixed -use development consisting of retail uses; parking; residential uses and other uses permitted in rise D3 district, Generaliv. the applicant proposes to construct a multi family residential building with appraslmately 165 dwelling units. approximately 258 parking spaces, and approximately 6. 378 square feet ofgrou ndfloor retail space. Excluding parking loading. storage, mechanicals, and rues accessory to the building, the defined graufloor area will be oppraxlmately 169.639 square feet, resulting in a floor area ratio of about 3.86. The maximum building height will be 120 feet to the top of the roof and to the top of the elevator penthouse There will be setbacks along the front lot lines ofblaple and Vmwood Aveaues. Ms. Arlova Jackson. Zoning Planner, read into the record the description of'the proposed planned development and the variations requested. Chair Widmayer swore in those wishing to speak tonight. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Aueust 11. 2004 Paste Three MT. James Murray, attorney for 1567 Maple LLC. stated that tonight's presentation pertains to a 220-foot, 165-unit proposed planned development at the area bounded by Davis, Grove, Elmwood, and Maple. Variations requested include height and number of units, among others (e.g., FAR). He introduced the development team and provided their CVs for the record. Mr. Patrick FitzGerald, architect, summarized his experience. He noted that many projects today are targeted toward first-time homebuyers, but this is a different building targeted to a different audience. He thought that a building like this has not been built in Evanston for over 50 years. It will have more amenities (e.g., doorman, valet, dry cleaning, health facilities), but this requires a larger building and higher number of units. He stated that the Site Plan and Appearance Committee (SPAARC) reviewed the project and recommended adding a portion of the property to the south. They were able to acquire this property and design a 21-story building above a 258- space parking garage. There also will be a 6.800 sq ft commercial space on Maple. The entry will be on the east side, which is expected to change the image of that block. A site plan, elevations, building material samples, and floor plans were presented. Member Doetsch noted that not all balconies were shown on the renderings. Associate Member Cook asked where this dark brick color has been used in Evanston. Mr. FitzGerald stated that the townhomes at Central Station are this color. Associate Member Cook noted that that is a low-rise and thought the color was too dark for a high-rise like the one proposed. Member Hunter asked for clarifications on the north and south elevations. Mr. FitzGerald clarified that the Bank One drive through is to the south, and the funeral home addition is to the north. Associate Member Cook clarified that the garage entries are on the east side, which they are, in addition to the loading dock. Chair Widmayer asked about the north side setback, and it is built to lot line (same for the south side). He asked if it is against the funeral home, but it will be next to their proposed parking lot (the funeral home will be torn down and oriented to Davis). Member Hunter asked about the rationale for angling the building entrance. Mr. FitzGerald stated that they are turning the entry to the south and away from the garage and loading dock. They did not want to put the entrance on the south because it would face the bank parking lot, and that space would be better used for landscaping. Mr. FitzGerald described the sideyards. The north sideyard has the first five floors at the lot line (parking garage), and higher floors are stepped back. Discussion followed on the architectural features and silhouette of the building. Associate Member Cook asked why they picked French boulevard architecture when there are no examples in Evanston. Mr. FitzGerald stated that there are no examples of traditional 21-story buildings in Evanston, so after considering several studies and consulting with marketing experts, they felt that this design was appropriate. Associate Member Cook asked about the highest nearby building, which is about the same height as this one. Member Hunter asked how they picked 21 stories. Mr. FitzGerald stated that it is the minimum that would provide enough salable square footage to meet the developer's proforma while providing the amenities and other things they want to provide. Member Hunter asked if they could go higher and decrease bulk at the lower lev4;is: Mr. FitzGerald stated that they had considered it but thought this design related better to the street. Discussion followed. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Aueust l l . 2004 Nee Four Member Doctsch noted the amenities argument for the building's height and asked for more detail. A'ir. FitzGerald stated that there will be generous storage areas and exercise rooms, and they %%ill provide a level of finish throughout all public spaces that is not seen in other buildings. They could build a lower building that more completely covers the site or reduce the height by a floor or two. but this would hardly be noticeable. He noted its unique market and silhouette on the skyline. Member Hunter thought this could be a rationale for more height and less bulk with greater setbacks. Mr. FitzGerald thought they had found a good balance between height and setback and noted that some design elements work at this scale but not when they go taller. Member Hunter asked if they have done any shadow/light studies, and they have not. In reference to Member Doetsch's earlier question about amenities, Mr. Murray added to the list the swimming pool, visitor suites, and other amenities listed in the binders for this project. Associate Member Cook asked about visitor parking. Mr. FitzGerald stated that it depends on spaces available in the garage. With this target market, not all residents will be gone at a certain time of day, and studies indicate that they are providing an adequate level of parking. He added that a public garage will be constructed to the north. Member Raffel thought that parking was driving the bulk of the building. Mr. Murray noted that they followed SPAARC's suggestion to acquire extra feet from Bank One, which allowed the garage to be lowered by one floor. Discussion followed about the pool (first floor) and rooftop area. Member Hunter asked if the deck was a greening opportunity. Mr. FitzGerald stated that it will be landscaped with planting around the patio. Member Hunter suggested further consideration of this as a public amenity, but Mr. FitzGerald was concerned about the technology and longevity of a green roof. Member Raffel noted that Evanston is getting higher and thought that it would be nice to look down and see green. Member Doestch added that he had seen a similar building in Berlin with grasses on it, which mught be an option. Member Raffel noted that the roof can only be accessed through the units, and Mr. FitzGerald agreed that they may need to provide a different means of access. Member Doessch asked how the mix of units and unit sizes plays to their target market. Mr. FitzGerald stated that residents may buy more than one unit and combine them or use one as a guest unit. The problem with doing a different building targeted to a different market is that they must rely on the same financial sources that know what sells. This caused them to back off from a different mix to minimize risk. Mr. Stephen Christy, landscape architect, summarized his experience and stated that the first component of the landscape plan is fairly traditional onsite landscaping, including screening at the south for the Bank One property, street trees as required along Maple, and ivy along the north face. The second component is landscaping the block -long Metra embankment across from the project as a public amenity. Mr. Christy specializes in landscaping Metra right-of-ways (e.g., a two-mile stretch in Chicago from Foster to Irving). Because Metra embankments are elevated, they have dry mixed soils and a harsh climate. Weed trees at this location will be replaced with appropriate species arranged in an arc, and it will be maintained by the homeowners association. Species were named for both components of the landscape plan. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Aueust 11. 2004 Paee Five Member Hunter asked about the height of the wall and safety considerations for access to the Metra tracks. Mr. Christy stated that the wall is high, and the tracks are difficult to access. Member Doetsch asked if it will be fenced, which it will not, but the wall will be restored. Member Raffel asked if they are changing the slope, but they are not. He noted that it is eery steep and asked if trees can be put that close to the tracks. Mr. Christy thought that they can. Mr. Murray stated that maintenance and control of the space has been subject to a lease between the railroad and the City of Evanston and would have to be transferred for this project. Chair Widmayer clarified that they did not have the lease yet. which they do not. Mr. Murray stated that the railroad is concerned with maintaining the distance between the plantings and tracks (e.g., no interference %ith trains). Member Raffel asked if all planting will be in the railroad right-of-way, which it will. He asked if there is a precedent for homeowner maintenance of a railroad right-of-way. Mr. Murray stated that they have assurances from the City and the railroad that this is allowable. Member Hunter was concerned with safety and thought that if the embankment is made attractive, it will attract people. Member Raffel thought that the City should have to maintain the right-of-way. He noted that the SPAARC minutes indicate the improvement is a give -back, but the maintenance will take a lot of work, and he was not sure that a homeowners association could do it in perpetuity. Member Doetsch asked what the consequences would be if it was not maintained. Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, stated that the City can ticket the condo association. Discussion followed on projects in which condo associations are responsible for landscape maintenance/replacement and whether this works. Member Doetsch asked there will be underground sprinklers. Mr. Christy stated that they will not instal] them, but the species selected should survive without them. Mr. Murray noted that the estimated budget for this public amenity is S 100,0004150,000. Mr. Robert Hamilton, traffic consultant, summarized his experience and stated that he looked at traffic and parking for this project. Condos generate about half as much traffic as single-family units, and the target market generates even lower levels of peak hour traffic. In addition, this is a true transit oriented development (TOD), given its proximity to Metra/CTA and the frequency of trains serving those stations. However, trip generation calculations did not include these subtractions, and the predictions were still low. In terms of attraction, the retail is neighborhood scale, and he thought that most trips would be linked (e.g., a series of errands completed on one outing). He described traffic flow and level of service (LOS) for the streets bounding the site. He thought that 1.5 parking spaces per unit should suffice for a TOD in a downtown and near transit. Mr. Murray asked about the likelihood of a significant adverse impact from this project on vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian traffic conditions, and Mr. Hamilton did nat think so overall. Discussion followed about sight lines on Davis, turning buses, and pedestrians. Associate Member Samson noted the single egress for the project that orients cars in one direction and asked if consideration was given to traffic using arterial roads to go another direction. Mr. Hamilton referred Members to the LOS measurements and related information in their binders. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — August I L 2004 Pace Six Discussion followed about midday and peak hour traffic, including impacts to Davis/Elmwood. Chair Widmayer asked if they looked at the impact of reversing Elmwood, but they did not. He noted that traffic flow from the parking lot at the redesigned funeral home also will affect traffic conditions. Associate Member Samson asked about the traffic impacts of increased density due to nearby existing and planned buildings. Mr. Hamilton noted that traffic calculations did not include subtractions for linked trips and TOD/proximity to transit- which might offset increased density. Member Knutson thought this was the most credible traffic study he had heard. Chair Widmayer asked about the traffic impacts of the bank, and discussion followed. Associate Member Samson asked when the traffic counts were done. Mr. Hamilton stated that some were done last year, and the rest were done in May and June of this year. Member Raff'el asked if they accounted for the new City garage, and they did not. Member Woods asked about spaces in the garage, drive aisle width and function, number of loading berths. Mr. Robert Homer, developer, stated that in the original design, the drive aisle was narrow, so the spaces were wider (9') to be more maneuverable. After extra land was acquired from Bank One, the drive aisle was widened but the parking space width was left at 9' because other experience indicated that 8' wide spaces were too narrow and not as marketable. As for loading berths, Mr. FitzGerald stated that the zoning ordinance requires two, but they think one will suffice since they are expecting to use it for trash removal every 1-2 days and for occasional deliveries of large items and move -ins. He added that not a lot of turnover is expected among condo owners, and retail stores are small and will probably receive deliveries from the street. Member Hunter asked why the zoning ordinance required two loading berths. Mr. FitzGerald stated that it does not address unit size or target market or differentiate between condo buildings and apartment buildings that have a higher turn -over. Mr. Horner noted that SPAARC asked them to reduce the number and width of curb cuts on both sides of the building, so in response, they took out one dock and drive-thru. Member Raffel asked about detention, and Mr. FitzGerald stated that there is no surface area for detention, so it will be placed underground in tanks with limited releasetpumping. Chair Widmayer asked if there is a basement, and there is not. Member Hunter asked if they had considered underground parking. They have, but site width is an issue (the foundation would affect aisle width, ramps, and the number of curb cuts). Mr. FitzGerald added that at most, they could get one level underground because of groundwater issues. Mr. Steven Lenet, landscape architect and urban planner, summarized his experience and stated that he had looked at the fiscal impacts of this project, its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance, and how it fits in the urban fabric at this downtown location. Mr. Lenet summarized the fiscal impacts, including school revenues and City revenues/expenses, and the methods for determining these estimates. Discussion followed, and it was determined that the binders given to Members did not have the latest fiscal estimates. Chair Widmayer requested that revised estimates be provided for the next meeting. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — August IL 2004 Pane Seven Associate Member Samson asked how the number of children was determined. Mr. Lenet stated that it depends on who buys the condos and the number of bedrooms per unit (e.g., Illinois Schools Method). Member Doetsch did not think that the mix of one, two, and three -bedroom units nor the number of small apartments made sense in a high -end building. He thought that the number of children would increase if high -end buyers combined units and that the number of small apartments is driving up the amount of parking and variances needed. Mr. Lenet did not think that a significant change in the mix of units would change the number of children. Discussion followed. There being no further questions, Mr. Lenet concluded that the project meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 5). Mr. Robert Horner, developer, summarized his experience, including the Evanston Galleria. For 1567 Maple, he wanted to do something more classic than other high-rises and one that would attract a wide range of buyers. He thought the pricing reflects the recent market in Evanston (e.g., average price is $300/sq ft, and this project will be $315/sq ft). He added that the estimated $lmillion in tax revenues will help allc%iate the tax burden on other Evanston residents. The target market will be more about upscale traditional/conservative taste rather than buyers of a certain age, and the building is substantial but flexible. He believes this market exists, and the project will have a positive impact on Evanston. Chair Widmayer noted that they plan to deliver in 2007, but there have been two interest rate increases recently. He asked how subsequent increases could affect the target market and whether there is a back-up plan. Mr. Horner stated that he has experienced market ups and downs, which are part of the development business. Member Doetsch thought that banks would be reluctant to finance multi -bedroom units. Mr. Homer clarified how the financing will work for this project (e.g., 40% of the value of the building must be pre -sold, etc.). Member Hunter asked about marketing the building, and residents in Evanston and nearby communities will be targeted first. Discussion followed on what size units generate the most pre -sales, effects of guest suites/combining units on parking. and amenities. Member Hunter appreciated the market they were trying to attract and the uniqueness of the building but asked at what point do more high-rises become a detraction. Chair Widmayer clarified that he was asking about a saturation point and asked how many tall buildings the downtown can handle. Mr. Horner thought this was very subjective but that high-rises are an important part of urban/green development. Member Hunter noted that previous proposals had an affordable housing component and asked if they considered this. Mr. Homer stated that they had but were unsure how to set up such a program. Members referred him to other developers for guidance (e.g., Roszak/ADC Sienna Court) and noted that it should have some longevity (e.g., 20 years). Mr. Horner was amenable to the suggestion. There being no further questions, Chair Widmayer stated that there was a request from neighbors to hold public testimony until the next meeting. The hearing was continued to September 8. d verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located In Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — August 11. 2004 Paee Eight IV. DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PL.�`-NING REPORT FOR THE CANAL -GREEN BAY ROAD -CHURCH STREET STUDY AREA Continued without discussion. V. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES Continued without discussion. VI. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Zonina Committee Member Knutson stated that they discussed the build to lot line requirement at this morning's meeting. They covered setbacks in the B districts and will discuss the D districts at the next meeting on September I at Sam. Parking. Committee Member Raffel stated that they are scheduled to meet on August 26`h. Planning & Develonment Committee Chair Widmayer stated that the Plan Commission's recommendation for 801 Chicago was rejected mostly because of second -floor parking at the lot line. The biggest point of discussion w•as the north wall, which is blank but complied with the fire code, but adjacent residents objected to it. The next steps for the project are unknown. Member Knutson asked if it was close to by -right. which it is but the problem is parking/ramping. Associate Member Cook thought the denial was a shame because it was a good-looking building. Chair Widmayer was concerned that a mixed message was being sent about whether neighbors' objections to a project can stop it. ' Binding Armearance Review Committee —No report given. * Community Development Committee —No report given. ' Economic Develooment Committee --No report given. • Inclusionary Housing. Committee --No report given ' Neig.hborhood Planning. Committee --No report given. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion or public comments, the Plan Commission adjourned at 11 pm. The next regular meeting of the Evanston Plan Commission is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 8, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Norfleet Planning Division DRAFT - NOT APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN CONIMISSION Wednesday. September 8, 2004, 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT..................................AIbert Hunter, Lawrence Raffel, James Woods, ........................................................................Steve Knutson, Lawrence Widmayer (Chair), ........................................................................Alice Rcbechini, Sharon Bowie, Kenneth Rodgers, ........................................................................Douglas Doctsch ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ........... Richard Cook MEMBERS ABSENT ...................................None ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........John Lyman, Steve Samson STAFF PRESENT .........................................Arthur Alterson, Dennis Marino, Tracy Norfleet ....... .......... ................ 1. CALL TO ORDER 1 DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:I5 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 11, 2004 There being no additions or revisions, Member Hunter motioned to approve the minutes, and Member Raffel seconded. The motion passed unanimously (4-0). III. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 03-05-M&T National Louis University To consider amendments to Chapters 3. -Implementation and administration. " 7, "Zoning bistriets and Map. " 8. "Residential Districts. " 13. "special Purpose and Overlay Districts... and any other related section of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the map of the Zoning Ordinance to remove all or parts of the following indicated area within Evanston from the U1 Lniversiq, Notising Disirict and place all or parts of the following indicated area into the appropriate residential district or other appropriate zoning district, or to apply the appropriate ot�erlaydistrict, National Louis t `nnrrsily is the rarpay er of record of the subject prop", The property that is the subject ofthts Plan Commisston hearing is commonly known as :808 Sheridan. Chair Widmayer stated that this is a continuation of the Plan Commission vote on a proposal to remap this property to R 1. At the last meeting, the vote was 4-3, with two Commissioners yet to vote. Chair Widmayer asked Members Bowie and Rodgers for their votes, and both voted `aye.' This brought the vote to 6-3, so the motion passed and goes on to City Council. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 1700 of the Evanston Civic Center. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - Sentember S. 2004 DRAFT Page Two W. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-08 PD 1567 .%ianle An application b) Winthrop Properties, LLC for a Planned Development as a form of special use permit including such development allowances ciceptions to development allowances, and other reltefas md1 be necessary to allow redevelopment o(an area within the D3 Downtown Core Development Drstnct kinthrop Properites, LLCis a limited liability company organised under the is»s of the State of lllinois far the purpose ofdevvlopment, contracting, marketing and setting condominium units and commercial space to be constructed on the site al 1567 Maple Awnue, Evanston, Illinois tt'tnib rop Properties. LLC is directed by Robert Horner and Ibrahim Shthadeh The proposal isfor a mixed -tut development consisting ofretatl uses, parking, residential uses. and other uses permitted to the D3 district Generally, the applicant proposes ra construct a multi family residential building with approximately 165 dwelling units, appr=marely 238 parking spaces, and approximately 6. 378 square feet ofgroundJloor retail space. Excluding parking loading, storage. mechantcals. and uses accessory to the building, the defined grossJloorarea will be approximately 169.639 square jeer, resulting in a floor area ratio of about 3 66 The maximum building height will be 220 free to the top of the roof and io the top of the elevator penthouse There bull be setbacks along thefront lot Lnes of Maple and Elmwood .4 v enues. Chair Widmayer stated that this is a continuation of the proposed planned development public hearing for 1567 Maple, which will begin with a presentation by the development team followed by public comment. He swore in those wishing to speak. Mr. lames Murray, attorney, stated that since the last meeting, Commissioners have been provided with the latest fiscal estimates and a modified/supplemental traffic engineering brief. A scale model of the proposed building in its downtown context that was shown to the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (SPAARC) was displayed in front of the Plan Commission. Mr. Murray acknowledged receiving copies of letters from Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, which the City received from the public indicating their position on the project. Chair Widmayer asked what the current building is paying in taxes. Mr. Horner, developer, stated that it is roughly S22,000, which does not include the portion of Bank One property acquired for this project. Including this piece, tax revenues range between S22,000 and S30,000. Mr, ;Murray stated that at the last meeting, there was a question about why Elmwood is north- bound only. They met with Mr. Rajeev Dahal, Senior Traffic Engineer, who stated that the intention was to eliminate the possibility of major truck movements onto Elmwood (e.g., turning left after the viaduct). They discussed the benefits of reversing flow on Elmwood. Mr. Dahal thought it was better to keep it northbound only, although it could be possible to make the southerly portion of Elmwood from the building's exit two-way south to Grove. This would enable motorists leaving the building to choose which way to go and reduce north -bound traffic. Mr. Robert Hamilton, traffic consultant, stated that at the last meeting, conservative traffic estimates were used that did not include discounts for the type of nearby retail (e.g., neighborhood —not destination —retail), proximity to transit, type of residents and their work schedules, etc. He referred to a memo detailing traffic estimates if these subtractions are taken. He did not think there would be any adverse impacts to traffic or quality of movement. Fvancton Plan Comrn-ss:on Minutes - Senternber S. `(X,4 DPAFf Page Three Mr. Michael DeRouin.: rc i:ect. presented =:ale model on display. Member Hunter asked if --vind studies have been conducted, and the% ave not. \Ir. DeRouin stated that they applied for LEED certification as a zre`n building. Ore factor for LEED certification is the green roof at the sixth floor, which will have planters visible :.t the edge of the building and low -growth plants Covering most of the roof to decrease the urban heat island. Other factors for LEED certification include the downtown Iocatton near transit- :ndoor air quality, materials, sorting of construction %waste, using recycled materials (e.g., steel). and decrease consumption of water and energy. Member Rebechini asked about parking garage materials. Mr. DeRouin stated that they will be red face brick, stone panels, and windows with white film that let daylight in but no light Nllution out. Member Hunter asked if light. shadow studies have been done, and they have not. Discussion followed about materials and the types and locations of mechanical equipment. Member Raffel stated that the application for LEED certification goes beyond what was asked by the Commission and hoped this will be the First of many LEED-certified buildings in Evanston. There being no further questions from Commissioners, public comment was taken. Xis. Debbie Hillman, I 100 block of Sherman. distributed a letter that she read aloud. She thought the existing Metra embankment is distinct, and its plant materials should be retained. If it is re -landscaped, she was concerned about maintenance and enforcement. She cited several locations in Evanston where landscaping needed better maintenance. She also suggested other alternatives for give -backs. Member Doetsch asked Member Raffel, a landscape architect, for his thoughts on the Metra embankment. Member Raffel differed from Ms. Hillman in his view of appropriate plant materials but agreed with her on the issue of maintenance. He noted that at the last meeting, he raised the issue of maintenance in perpetuity by homeowners as not realistic. fir. Murray stated that an issue with LEED certification is the replacement/removal of native species. While they are replacing native species with native species and ones that are expected to be as maintcnance-free as possible, they can revise the type of species as needed. Dr. Len Feninger, 1020 Grove, stated that he signed a letter to the Plan Commission from residents at 1020 Grove and wanted to emphasize the issue of safety in terms of traffic. Changes in Evanston over the past five years have presented traffic hazards to the elderly and youth, especially around the YMCA. He noted that t-he model does not show the area west of Oak where many elderly and youth live. He asked Commissioners to balance all of the issues in their consideration of this project. Mr. Da%id Galloway, -28 Noyes, stated that he is an architect and member of Design Evanston, but he is speaking as a resident. He is a proponent of mixed use and high density development in the downtown at transit nodes. He noted the increased burden placed on the Plan Commission since the planned development thresholds were decreased but thought they must give increased scrutiny to the type and quality of projects. He referred to the planned development ordinance's flexibility in terms of giving/getting. He noted the development team's high -quality presentation and commended them for bringing a model but thought that the boards were difficult for the audience to view. He was concerned with the number of small units and thought it was better to Evanston Plan Commiss:on Minutes - Sentember S. DRAFT Page Four buy a two -bedroom unit upfront rather than a one -bedroom with the intention of combining it with another unit in the future. He thought that the give -backs were inadequate for the number of variances requested and would mostly benefit the residents of the planned development. He also thought that the site u•as too small for such a building, it was not moderate in density, and its massing at the ground level w-as unacceptable. While the materials were high quality, the dark brick was inappropriate, and the building's style was not forward -looking. Mr. Jim Coriorosi, 1640 Maple, stated that he is the chair of his condo association. He thanked Commissioners for continuing discussion to this meeting and referred them to a letter from the Board at Optima Towers opposing the project. He also noted petitions from other nearby residents. He stated that at the Downtown Visioning session last spring, one of the things that was discussed was that density should step down and decrease toward existing less dense residential areas. He thought that this project goes against this. Ms. Eileen Schwab, I640 :Maple, stated that she was speaking on behalf of Church Street Station residents. A 125' building with 96 units is allowed, but they did not see a reason for a 220' building with 165 units, and they did not want the zoning rules to be bent to allow this. In the past, zoning regulations may have needed to be bent to attract development, but this is not needed anymore, and continuing to do so could detract from the downtown. In addition, the downtown has yet to feel the impact of Maple Court, Sherman Plaza, Optima at BensonlClark, and Sienna on Ridge (not shown on the model). She did not want to see traffic come to a stand- still and lack parking like downtown Chicago. She clarified that that they do not object to a building that conforms with current zoning. She thought that Evanston should be kept inviting rather than becoming an overcrowded place to avoid. Mr. Jim Harper, 1640 Maple, was concerned about traffic. He noted that the new downtown projects combined will add 1000 new vehicles. Even with subtractions, this will impact traffic. Mr. Dan Schiff, 1640 Maple, stated that the embankment across from his building was replanted by the railroad, and he has been weeding it. He noted that weeding the Metra embankment for this proposal has not been discussed but should be. He also noted inaccuracies in the model along Elmwood based on his measurements. Dr. Donald Hodgeman, 1020 Grove, was concerned with the inappropriateness of a building of this size in this location in downtown Evanston. He also was concerned with impacts to traffic and proximity to YMCA, as well as the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Boris Fuhrman, 1403 Maple, stated that he did not mind this building and did not think the neighborhood is too crowded. He noted that 1640 Maple is big, and the increased number of people walking in the area has been good (e.g., increased safety, more shops). While a 96 unit building is allowed, they may get a better building at a greater height and number of units, but he thought there should be a better gave -backs than landscaping the Metra embankment. He stated that 1640 Maple did not ruin the neighborhood, and he did not think this building would either. —� Evanston Plan Commission Minutes -- September 8, 2004 DRAFT PaQc Three Mr. Michael DeRouin, architect. presented the scale model on display. Member Hunter asked if wind studies have been conducted. and they have not. Mr. DeRouin stated that they applied for LEED certification as a green building. One factor for LEED certification is the green roof at the sixth floor, which will have planters visible at the edge of the building and low -growth plants covering most of the roof to decrease the urban heat island. Other factors for LEED certification include the downtown location near transit, indoor air quality, materials, sorting of construction waste, using recycled materials (e.g.. steel), and decrease consumption of water and energy. Member Rebechini asked about parking garage materials. Mr. DeRouin stated that they will be red face brick, stone panels, and windows with white film that let daylight in but no light pollution out. Member Hunter asked if light/shadow studies have been done, and they have not. Discussion followed about materials and the types and locations of mechanical equipment. Member Raffel stated that the application for LEED certification goes beyond what was asked by the Commission and hoped this will be the first of many LEED-certified buildings in Evanston. There being no further questions from Commissioners, public comment was taken. Ms. Debbie Hillman, 1100 block of Sherman, distributed a letter that she read aloud. She thought the existing Metra embankment is distinct, and its plant materials should be retained. If it is re -landscaped, she was concerned about maintenance and enforcement. She cited several locations in Evanston where landscaping needed better maintenance. She also suggested other alternatives for give -backs. Member Doetsch asked Member Raffel, a landscape architect, for his thoughts on the Metm embankment. Member Raffel differed from Ms. Hillman in his view of appropriate plant materials but agreed with her on the issue of maintenance. He noted that at the last meeting, he raised the issue of maintenance in perpetuity by homeowners as not realistic. Mr. Murray stated that an issue with LEED certification is the replacemenu'removal of native species. While they are replacing native species with native species and ones that are expected to be as maintenance -free as possible, they can revise the type of species as needed. Dr. Len Feninger, 1020 Grove, stated that he signed a letter to the Plan Commission from residents at 1020 Grove and wanted to emphasize the issue of safety in terms of traffic. Changes in Evanston over the past five years have presented traffic hazards to the elderly and youth, especially around the YMCA. He noted that the model does not show the area west of Oak where many elderly and youth live. He asked Commissioners to balance all of the issues in their consideration of this project. Mr. David Galloway, 728 Noyes, stated that he is an architect and member of Design Evanston, but he is speaking as a resident. He is a proponent of mixed use and high density development in the downtown at transit nodes. He noted the increased burden placed on the Plan Commission since the planned development thresholds were decreased but thought they must give increased scrutiny to the type and quality of projects. He referred to the planned development ordinance's flexibility in terms of giving/getting. He noted the development team's high -quality presentation and commended them for bringing a model but thought that the boards were difficult for the audience to view. He was concerned with the number of small units and thought it was better to Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — Sentember S. 2r}rJ4 DRAFT Page Four buy a two -bedroom unit upfront rather than a one -bedroom with the intention of combining it with another unit in the future. He thought that the give -backs were inadequate for the number of variances requested and would mostly benefit the residents of the planned development. He also thought that the site was too small for such a building, it was not moderate in density, and its massing at the ground level was unacceptable. While the materials were high quality, the dark brick was inappropriate, and the building's style was not forward -looking. Mr. Jim Coriorosi, 1640 Maple, stated that he is the chair of his condo association. He thanked Commissioners for continuing discussion to this meeting and referred them to a letter from the Board at Optima Towers opposing the project. He also noted petitions from other nearby residents. He stated that at the Downtown Visioning session last spring, one of the things that was discussed was that density should step dow-rt and decrease toward existing less dense residential areas. He thought that this project goes against this. Ms. Eileen Schwab, 1640 Maple, stated that she was speaking on behalf of Church Street Station residents. A 125' building with 96 units is allowed, but they did not see a reason for a 220' building with 165 units, and they did not want the zoning rules to be bent to allow this. In the past, zoning regulations may have needed to be bent to attract development, but this is not needed anymore, and continuing to do so could detract from the downtown. In addition, the downtown has yet to feel the impact of Maple Court, Sherman Plaza, Optima at Benson/Clark, and Sienna on Ridge (not shown on the model). She did not want to see traffic come to a stand- still and lack parking like downtown Chicago. She clarified that that they do not object to a building that conforms with current zoning. She thought that Evanston should be kept inviting rather than becoming an overcrowded place to avoid. Mr. Jim Harper, 1640 Maple, was concerned about traffic. He noted that the new downtown projects combined will add 1000 new vehicles. Even with subtractions, this will impact traffic. Mr. Dan Schiff, 1640 Maple, stated that the embankment across from his building was replanted by the railroad, and he has been weeding it. He noted that weeding the Metra embankment for this proposal has not been discussed but should be. He also noted inaccuracies in the model along Elmwood based on his measurements. Dr. Donald Hodgeman, 1020 Grove, was concerned with the inappropriateness of a building of this size in this location in downtown Evanston. He also was concerned with impacts to traffic and proximity to YMCA, as well as the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Boris Fuhrman, 1403 'Maple, stated that he did not mind this building and did not think the neighborhood is too crowded. He noted that 1640 Maple is big, and the increased number of people walking in the area has been good (e.g., increased safety, more shops). While a 96 unit building is allowed, they may get a better building at a greater height and number of units, but he thought there should be a better give -backs than landscaping the Metra embankment. He stated that 1640 Maple did not ruin the neighborhood, and he did not think this building would either. Am Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - $entember S. 2004 DRAFT Page Five Charles Benedetti. 1640 Maple. stated that there have been several accidents at the intersection of Church and Maple, and cars are still making illegal left turns there. He noted that the area is not yet complete with other proposed developments and thought that traffic will only worsen. There being no further public comment. Mr. Murray asked Mr. Hamilton if the number of accidents had been considered for nearby intersections. Mr. Hamilton stated that they had, in consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer and Police. At Elmwood/Davis, there have been three accidents in the past 2-1/2 years. However, accidents increase with an increase in the volume of traffic. Mr. Murray asked if pedestrian traffic around the YMCA had been considered. Mr. Hamilton stated that there are stop signs for traffic control. Member Hunter asked him to address the narrowness of the street and its implications for speed. Mr. Hamilton stated that speed is impacted by the width of the pavement (narrower streets reduce speed but increase accidents). He thought that 28' was appropriate for parking on one side and one lane of traffic. If it was two-way, then parking would have to be eliminated. Discussion followed. Mr. Murray asked Mr. Horner if he wished to respond to issues raised. Mr. Horner stated that the building was designed to allow for units to be combined, which ideally would be purchased prior to construction rather than at a later date. Member Rodgers asked if the maximum number of units was 165. Chair Widmaver clarified that 165 was the total if no units are combined. Mr. Horner acknowledged convincing arguments for keeping the Metra embankment intact, repairing the wall, and doing something else with the money. He did not want to tear out something that is working. Member Doctsch applauded the scop&care of the presentation and the attempt to do something new in terms of design and price points and with good details. However, he thought the building fundamentally fails because it is too big and too high. it is not close to what is allowed under current zoning, and what is in the zoning ordinance is fundamental because it relates to the human scale. As such, this proposal is dramatically out of scale to what is nearby, and it is the wrong building for the wrong place. He stated that he would vote against it. Member Rodgers also thought the presentation was excellent, but he was concerned with the number of units and height. He stated that he yvould vote against it. Associate Member Cook did not like the building's architecture and thought that the brown brick was wrong for such a large building. He agreed with Member Doctsch on height. He recommended that other members vote against it. Member Bowie agreed that it is too dense and thought that with other condo developments in various stages of construction, there is too much up in the air. Member Rebechini was concerned about density and did not see contributions to the community that compensate for what is being asked by the developer. She added that nearby properties could be built to the maximum allowed in the D3 district, which would further increase density, Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — September 5. 004 DR-kFT Paee Six and she did not «ant to set a precedent n the D3 dtstnct on this side of the tracks. She also noted the public comment that. per the Downtown Visioning sessions, development should step down on that side of the tracks. She commended the presentation but did not like the design. Member Hunter did not think that height was as much of a problem as massing and how the building meets the ground. He thought discussion should separate scale from height. He also thought that the downtown area is mo%ing west. which is being reflected in anomalies like this building. However, he would vote against the project because of its massiveness (not height) and the articulation of the building with the street, as well as traffic impacts and dark brick color. He applauded the presentation and thou¢nt that scale models should be required from now on. Member Raffel applauded the presentation and commended the public for their outstanding arguments. He liked the architecture but thought it was on the wrong site and was too massive. He also was concerned with traffic, especially near the YMCA. Member Woods agreed with other members and the public. He applauded the presentation and acknowledged positive contributions to the city schools, the concept of LEED certification, a traditional masonry building with quality materials throughout, and the intention of landscaping, even if it may not be the right contribution. However, he was concerned about density, traffic, building design, and its contribution to the community. He stated that he would vote against it. Member Knutson thought that this was one of the best presentations before the Plan Commission and that Mr. Horner had the best of intentions. He appreciated his Evanston experience and initiative for LEED certification. However, he thought there was a disconnect between what he heard and what he saw (e.g., it sounds better than it looks). He is in favor of traditional architecture, but the room sizes and bay sizes were too small for gracious units, and the building was too big for the property. He stated that he would vote against it. Chair Widmayer stated that he was more positive than others. He liked the retro architecture, concern for environmental issues, and the quality presentation. However, he did not like that the retro architecture was set on such a large base. He thought that the problem was that they had the wrong piece of property, and the building would be better in the downtown core. It was too tall/bulky on this site, and this area was not appropriate for a building of this size taking up almost 100% of the footprint. Following a brief recess, Member Doetsch motioned that the Plan Commission recommend to not approve the proposed planned development, Member Rodgers seconded, and the vote was unanimous (9-0). A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of This Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division A located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - September S. DRAFT Nee Seven V. PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT P7~BLIC HEARING ZPC 04-09 PD&M 1228 Emerson An Application bi ;ndre•+ Ferris (cr Terris Homes. cc tract pu-chaser. %ah permission from Lasalle Bank National Association Trust a JO: -7 properr i o»� per, jbr a Planned Dew;o; menr and .S/ap Amendment The appb=nt is the conirsct purchaser o(rne arcprrt) commonly known .0 :? Everson (southH'est corner -merson and Green Bay). present's located K rihin : se 01 Office Zoning District The applicant requests that the Ci:, grant a planned dewtopm.ent as a (orm use Including such de-,Wopment allowances. exceptions to development allowances and other rehef as mat -e necessan top F-m ide the ar,- jran.r with A coning relief necessan to allow the rede .'opment qr" 1: _5 E ^:erson for m.itr femi'v res:aenna1 +r:h .accessory parking The applicant in the alrernaitie also requests that the C: -. remo%e the p mpertt from tar Ol 4'rcr Darrict and plate it -holly %[thin the R-6. General Residential District Gene.alh. the proposed project b.-. Ferns Hanes has ihefolloKing characteristres 64 residential condominiums The prvp>sed building has '-storybuti.:ing wtir. a marimum building heigat appro:ttmately 73 feet to the top c (the parapet. "9.•cet to top q(scrcening 71 enrlosed parting spaces are under the building. 10 open parting spaces are located in the southwrst quadrant the rear Vehicular access is from a right. m' tight -out drrteway on Emerson, a right-iningh:•our dritewat onto Green Bay Road, and a driveway into the alley to the tuert of the site. The proposal entails vacation of a portion of the Green Ba;. Road nghi-ofThe project has a building lot coverage of approximately 16,350 square jeer, or about e3`;r, on the 38.533•square foot subject property (including right of way proposed robe vacated as lot area and not including open parking areas The project has a defined gross floor area (tatcluding parting, loading, mechanicals, and uses accessory squ ro the building) of approximately 86.200 are feet, resulting in a floor area rarto ojabout , :4 fire project has no ret.:il or service uses. Mr. Arthur Alterson, Zoning Administrator, read into the record the description of the proposed planned development. Mr. Dan Shapiro, attorney, provided an overview of the proposal and noted that it is an environmentally-chaIlengcd site that was abandoned. He summarized the zoning for adjacent sites and thought that the proposal was a reasonable transition given the surrounding land uses. Mr. Andrew Ferris, developer, then summarized his experience. Mr. Steve Lenet, planning consultant, stated that he studied the landscape and site plans, zoning, and comprehensive plan in relation to this project. He showed an aerial photo of the site and a Iandscape plan, noting the curvilinear nature of the site. He summarized the site's relation to the downtown, research park, and transit and described its orientation on Green Bay and Emerson, noting its two points of ingress/egress. Landscaping will consist of street trees, flowering shrubs, ornamental grasses, and green at the back of the building to soften the parking area and the hard edge of the development. ,Iembcr Raffel noted that this is a different design than what was in the binder that Commissioners received. Mr. Lenet stated that he is presenting the most recent iteration and summarized changes, which were incorporated to avoid a variation for parking. Mr. Lenet then summarized the fiscal impacts bf the project. Mr. David Szaf=, architem showed on the site plan where city property is to be vacated for this project and stated that traffic access will be right irvright out. There will be 16 external parking spaces, 37 spaces on the first floor (accessed off Emerson), and 34 spaces in the basement (accessed off Green Bay). The building will have six floors of residential comprised of 48 two - bedroom units and 12 one -bedroom units ranging from 1,000 sq ft to 1,600 sq ft. Mr. Szafarz showed a cross section of the site and stated that because of the slope, the height will not be as noticeable. He then showed the southwest elevation and noted that each unit will have balconies. The base (parking area) will be pre -cast with a sandblasted finish. Floors 2-7 (residential) will be clear anodized aluminum and clear glass. Discussion followed on building materials, mechanical equipment, and variations. Evanston Flan Commission Minutes — Seatember S. 2004 DRAFT Nee Eieht Mr. Tim Dorn, traffic consultant. summanzed his experience in Evanston and stated that he has met with City staff about this project. The proposal includes a setback from Green Bay that will be landscaped with trees to make it more pedestrian -friendly. Access will be right in/right out only. The alley will remain full -access, but a geometric diverter will be added to direct traffic for this project. He noted that condos generally are relatively light traffic generators. Traffic from the new Roszak project was factored into the traffic estimates. Member Rebechini stated that this is one of the most dreadful places to drive in Evanston. She asked if there were traffic improvement plans in the works for this area that would be precluded by the loss of the right-of-way. Mr. Dorn was not aware of any such plans and reiterated that he had met with City staff to discuss traffic issues. Discussion followed about the alley, geometric diverter, and sight lines. Mr. Dorn stated that they will revisit the issue ofsightlines. Member Rodgers asked about traffic during construction. Mr. Ferris acknowledged that construction cannot affect traffic on Green Bay and Emerson and stated that he will coordinate with the builder to work within the site. Mr. Citron, attorney, thought that the site is large enough to work onsite, and material deliveries can be scheduled accordingly. Discussion followed about traffic and gaps between stoplights. Member Knutson thought that things should be kept in perspective: this site will be developed in the foreseeable future, traffic would be much greater if current d district zoning remained, less than half of the traffic from this project will use Green Bay, the entrances are as far from the intersection as possible, and access is right in'right out. He did not see what else could be done. He clarified that underground/lower level parking will come and go from Green Bay, and parking at -grade will come from the ailevinew drive, which is true. Member Rebechini thought there could be a conflict between uncontrolled traffic in the alley and traffic at the strip of landscaping that separates the drive for the planned development. She thought that it could lead to accidents, it was not the best use of space, and the small strip of landscaping would not fare well with street salt, etc. Mr. Dorn stated that they are dealing with the public right-of-way, and they did traffic counts at the request of the City's Traffic Engineer. Discussion followed about the number of left turns into the alley, the issue of the road narrowing at the same time as people would be pulling out of the development, and issues associated with eliminating the landscaped divider separating the driveway from the alley (e.g. alley width, how the alley would transition onto public property, etc.). Mr. Citron stated that they will revisit these issues. Member Raffel suggested going back to the original concept of the courtyard with parking. Mr. Ferris agreed that plan was better. but it required a variance. Mr. Frank Lorenz, real estate appraiser, summarized his experience and stated that he conducted a study to determine whether/how the proposed zoning change and planned development would impact adjacent property values. He concluded that it would not for several reasons. Changing the uselzoning continues an established trend of development along Green Bay and Ridge. The Evanston Plan Commission ' Minutes — Sentember S. 200.1 DRAFT Pace Nine proposed use will remove an obsolete set of buildings. put the site to a better use, and generate more tax revenue than the existing use. The position of the building as proposed takes advantage of the shape of the site by following the street and providing a courtyard on the other side. Its contemporary architecture is like that of similar uses to the south. Chair Widmayer asked about guest parking. Mr. Ferris stated that the 16 surface spaces will be available for guests, and there will be some spaces in the garage. Discussion followed on adequacy. other options. and whether a lack of separate guest parking would affect the value. Member Doetsch thought that Mr. Lorenz's reasons for concluding that there would not be an impact to adjacent property values did not seem to be specific to this proposed building (except for the courtyard feature). He thought this building looks like other pre -cast buildings with a lot of glass that can be seen in Naperville and Schaumburg. This is a very visible corner and gateway, but this building is not distinct -looking and does not reflect through the materials and quality what a building at a gateway location should be. Mr. Ferris stated that they started with a different building, and this is what they came up with after meeting with SPAARC three times. They also had two meetings with neighbors, who did not like the building. They decided to come to the Plan Commission now to have dialog and discussion on this. He then presented a previous elevation. Member Doetsch asked if the main difference was the materials, which it is. Associate Member Cook did not think that the form was the problem, rather, it was the materials. He thought that material samples should be provided, especially pre -cast, which does not reflect a gateway position. Member Hunter agreed. Associate Member Cook suggested 333 Wacker as an exemplary building. Member Rebechini thought the current design was a near -miss. Member Doetsch wanted to see the curve more accentuated and the use of more stone. Member Knutson agreed with SPAARC that this iteration was the best of the three. Member Hunter requested a model for next time. There being no further comments, Chair Widmayer continued the hearing to the next Plan Commission meeting scheduled for October 13 at 7pm. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. VI. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-07- T Build to Lot Line Reaulrements (Business/Downtown Districts) To consider amendments to Chapters 4, -General Provisrow.' 9. `Business Districts. " 11. "Downtown Districts. " 17, "Landscaping and Screening, 18. "Definitions. " and any other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the tut of the Zoning Ordinance to review and amend the yard requirements for the Business and Downtown districts. Specific areas of review are the front yard and side yard abutting a street requirements at the following sections for the following districts. f 6.9.2-7 for the B1 Business District. b6.9.3-71for the B2 Business District; ¢6.9.4-7 for the B3 Business District; §6-11-3.8 for the D2 Downtown Retail Core District. >6-11-4-7 for the D3 Downtown Core Development District, and J6-11.3.7 for the D4 Downtown Transition District This hearing will address modifications to the "build to property line required, parking prohibited"yard requirements of the Business Districts and the "burld to front property line. surface parking prohibited' yard requirements of the Downtown Districts Evanston Plan Commission Minutes -- September 8, 2004 DRAFT Paec Ten Continued without discussion to the Zoning Committee meeting on September 15 at 8am. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file ►with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Toning Division is located In Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. V11. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE -MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC a4-06-IN!&T 62 Districts Along Central Street Ta consider amendments io Chap:ers 3, ' Implenuntation and Administration,•" t. "General Provisions,"9, "Business Districts.-'* 10, "Conintercial Dzsincm 15. "Spreial Purpose and Oierlay Districts; 16, "O,lj=Street Parking and Loading. " 17. "Landscaping and Screening, " 18. "Definitions: " 7, 'Zoning Districts and Map: "and any other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance. to amend the text and/or the PW of the Zoning Ordinance to affect the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as applied to that area of the Cu)- presently within the B2 District on properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of Central Street and/or to remap all or parts of the following indicated area front the 82 Business District into another appropriate coning district or overtay district. Continued without discussion to the Zoning Committee meeting on September 15 at 8am. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 ofthe Evanston Civic Center. VIII. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS * Zoning Committee Member Knutson stated that the Zoning Committee met on September I to discuss the - build to lot line requirement and B2 districts on Central. Discussion was continued to the September 15 meeting at 8am. * Parking Committee —No report given. * Planning & Development Committee —No report given. * Binding AiDDearance Review Committee —No report given. * Community Develonment Committee —No report given. * Economic Develonment Committee —No report given. - * Inclusionary Housing Committee —No report given • Neighborhood Planning Committee —No report given. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion or public comments, the Plan Commission adjourned at l I:I Opm. The next regular meeting of the Evanston Plan Commission is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 13, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Norfleet Planning Division APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Tuesday. October 26, 2004, 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT ..................................La«7ence Raffel. Law7ence Widmayer (Chair), ........................................................................ Alice Rebechini, Albert Hunter, Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCLATE MEMBERS PRESENT ........... John Lyman, Steve Samson MEMBERS ABSENT ...................................Douglas Doetsch, James Woods, Steve Knutson, .................................... I ................................... Sharon Bowie ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........Richard Cook STAFF PRESENT .........................................Arthur Alterson, Dennis Marino, Susan Guderley, ........................................................................Tracy NorfIeet I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Widmayer called the meeting to order at 7:30pm. There was not a quorum, but a Member was expected to arrive (8:30pm), and discussion began. II. DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING REPORT FOR THE CANAL -GREEN BAYROAD-CHURCH STREET STUDY AREA Since _001. the .neighborhood Planning Committee of the Evanston Plan Commission has been working with local communin members on a collaboraiive neighborhood planning effort in urst Evanston. The neighborhood under study is located in both the Ph and _nd W2rds The actual boundaries of the stud• area are Church Street on the south, the Metropolitan is'aier Reclamation District Canal on the weir and north, and Green Bay Road'Ridge.l irnue on the east. The neighborhood planning report is not, under revi", by the Evanston Plan Commission As part oftheir deliberations. the Plan Commission is seeking additional public input and comment on the report. For this purpose, the Plan Commission has scheduled a special meeting ai 7:00 p. m on June =3. 2004 in Room 2200 of the Cilic Center, The Commission xelcomes x ritten comments submitted in advance ofthe meeting so that the:;- can be distributed to its members Oral and or %ruten comments xtll also he accepted the night of the meeting. Member Hunter, current Chair of the Neighborhood Committee, acknowledged Associate Member Lyman as the previous Chair and commended his work on the plan. Through a 34 year process, the Neighborhood Committee met with many members of the public and worked with several working groups to produce a draft plan. A final draft was presented to the Plan Commission in March of 2004, with time for a public hearing and written feedback. From the draft plan, an action matrix was developed that summarized major points of the plan, identified goals, objectives, and actions recommended, including agents and timeframes. Member Hunter read aloud the one -page summary of the action matrix. Evanston Plan Commission .Minutes — October 26, 2004 Page Two :associate Member Lyman noted that it has been a long process and thanked all participants, especially Susan Guderley. Neighborhood Planner. He suggested that discussion resume tonight in an effort to move the planning document for.-ard to City Council and on to implementation. Chair Widmayer suggested a change to the matrix under Issue 1. Economic Development, Goa! 2. Den-elop Aeighborhood Retail Center at Church/Dodge. The first action pertains to non-profit development, and he suggested expanding it to include for -profits as well. Chair Widmayer, Member Raffel, and several audience members commended the Neighborhood Planning Committee and his. Guderle}• for their leadership and efforts with this plan. 111. DECLARATION OF QUORUM I APPROVAL OF.MEETING MINUTES I VOTE ON DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING REPORT Chair Widmayer noted that a quorum was present at 8:30pm. Member Raffel motioned to approve the minutes from September 8, 2004, and Member Hunter seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Member Hunter motioned to approve the minutes from October 13, 2004, and Member Rebechini seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Member Hunter motioned to recommend approval of the Draft Neighborhood Planning Report. Member Rebechini seconded, and the motion passed unanimously (5-0). IV. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-09 PDgM 1228 Emerson An application by Andre'ic Ferris, for Ferns Homes. contract purchaser, with permaston from LaSalle Bank ,rational Association Trust = 303 "9, propern o-A ner. fora planned Det elopment and Slip .4mendnient The applicant is the contract purchaser afthe properh commoniti known as 12:8 Fmerson (southwest corner Emerson and Green Bay), presently located is tthin the01 Oflice Zoning District The applicant requests that the ('it►, grant a planned desaelopment as a Form of special use including such deirlopment allowances. e-reepitons to development allowances and other relief as mar he nece,san • ; ras ide the _3ppbrant with the zowng rebel nece%%an. to allow the redevelopment of l __8Fnterson jot n ultt jsmily residential with accessory parking The applicant in the alternator also requests that the Ciii remove the propem from the 01. Orice District and place it whollc within the R•6, General Residential District Generally, the proposed project lit Ferris Homes has the allowing characteristics 60 residential condominiums The proposed building has -•sion building isith a maximum building height approrimaiely 73 jeer to the top of the parapet. 79 feet tr, top of screening -1 enclosed parking spaces are under the building 10 open parking spaces are located in the southwest quadrart the rear Vehicular access ii 1roT a right -in right -out driiexaY on F_merson, a r:ght•in right-outdri%rwa% orta Green Bas Read. and a drtse-.+a: into the alley to the weir of the site. The proposal entails sacation of portion of the Green B.?: Road right-ofThe protect has a building lot coverage of approximately 16.330 square 1'et, or about 43, nn the 38,333-square foot fuh)ect property (including right of way proposed to be vacated as lot arra and not including open parking areas the protect has a defined gross floor area (excluding parking, loading, mechan:cals. anJ uses accesson, to the building: oflppro.rtmaich 86,'00 square feel, resulting in a floor area ratio of about ::l The protect has no retail or sen-ice uses Chair Widmayer noted that the Alderman was present. Mr. Shapiro, attorney, summarized changes since they last appeared before the Plan Commission on September 8, 2004. Sightline and gap studies have been done. The original courtyard feature that was removed last time has been put back into the plan. The curve of the building has been smoothed out to the extent possible. The alley has been widened and combined with the site's access point. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - October 26. 2004 Paee Three Mr. Lenet, landscape architect and planner. presented a revised site plan. He described changes to the alley, landscaping. and parking. loading. and courtyard areas. Pulling back the landscaping creates a 200' sightline from the access point onto Green Bay, allowing southbound vehicles exiting from this site to be readily seen. Cite staff and the traffic consultant have given approval due to the signal gaps and right -in right -out only access (no left turns). Mr. Doron, traffic consultant. summarized the sightline standards. He noted that the access point has been moved to the southern -most point of the site, and two existing drives will be closed. Member Hunter noted the grade change and asked about the vertical sightline. Mr. Doran stated that a site profile was done. Chair Widmayer thought this access point was different from others within 200' of an intersection because motorists approaching the site after the intersection are looking behind them to merge, not forward to see vehicles exiting the site's access point. He noted for the record that this is a City issue. and he did not think it had been adequately addressed. Discussion followed on the traffic issue. Mr. Ferris, developer, presented a revised rendering showing a continuous arc at the front and back. Discussion followed on building materials, finishes, and costs. Member Rodgers asked about the unit mix (e.g., one- and two -bedrooms, not three and four). Mr. Ferris stated that the mix was determined by a market study, but the unit count and mix are not final, and units can be combined. member Rodgers asked if there will be a penthouse, and there will not. Mechanical equipment will be located on the roof with a mechanical screen. Member Rebechini was concerned that rooftop mechanical equipment will affect the exterior architecture and asked if the screen will be appropriately high. Mr. Ferris stated that the type of mechanical equipment is not yet known, but the screen will be high enough. Discussion followed on the mechanical equipment, screening. and the height of the building. Member Raffel asked about the courtyard material and how the courtyard will be used. Mr. Ferris stated that the courtyard material is to be determined but will be compatible with truck traffic and the courtyard design. People can sit outside in the courtyard, which is ornamental, although he thought that they will probably use their balconies instead. Chair Widmayer noted that the proposed building has more stories than the buildings to the south. This may be offset by a grade change. but this is not reflected in the model. Associate Member Lyrnan asked if another level of parking can be put underground, but it cannot (drainage issue). Member Raffel asked about detention. %which is onsite/underground. Member Rebechini thought that the current design responds well to comments but is subject to substantial variables with rooftop mechanical equipment, and Member Rodgers ageed. Discussion followed. Associate Member Lyman asked about the height limit for the site and if shadow studies were done to determine effects on Asbury. Mr. Altersom Zoning Administrator, explained the formula for determining height limitations under 01 zoning (20-30' for this site under Ol vs. 89' for 116). Associate Member Lyman thought it would be difficult to have an R6 zone next to RI. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — October 26. 0(A Page Four Mr. Szafarz, architect, described the shadow study and its results (e.g.. no shadows after 10am). The study results have been presented to the community. Member Hunter asked if the study includedbackyardson Asbury. Which it did not. Member Hunter asked if there will be affordable housing, such as Mr. Roszak offers. Mr. Shapiro stated that they are amenable to this and have met with City housing staff. There being no further comments from Members or the development team, Chair Widmayer swore in those wishing to speak. Ms. Barbara Stanley. 1828 Asbury, distributed and read aloud a statement prepared by the neighborhood group (1800 block of Asbury and 1834 Ridge condos). The group wants to see the site redeveloped, but they have concerns With the present proposal: • The developer met with the community txvice but did not change their plans to reflect concerns raised by the community; • Building height dwarfs single family homes across the alley to the West; • Aesthetics are not compatible with homes in the adjacent Historic District; • Daylight and privacy will be affected by the height/proximity of the proposed building; • Noise will be generated by construction. garbage trucks. A/C units, etc. • Traffic generated -.vill affect the intersection and pedestrian safety, especially at the nearby day care center; • Mix/price of units does not encourage families and others who will stay in the area; and • R6 zoning next to R1 does not make sense, rather, it should be R3. She concluded that the project should be denied because it does not meet zoning requirements (per the zoning analysis) or traffic standards (per the sightline requirements). Ms. Jessica Dank], 1834 Ridge. thought that parking was the main issue: there is no place for guests to park, there is talk of eliminating the eight spaces on Ridge to solve the merging issue at the access point, there is a two -hour -per -day restriction on Lyons, there is no crosswalk on Ridge at Clark, and there probably will be two cars for most units in the proposed building. She agreed with previous comments about construction impacts and privacy issues. Chair Widmayer stated that in light of recent parking studies, and there probably will be enough parking for residents, but visitor parking is not required. Discussion followed. Ms. Debbie Tokimoto, 1834 Ridge, agreed With previous comments about congestion, merging traffic. parking, privacy, and aesthetics. She thought that despite the continuous arc design, the concrete structure seems outdated. Member Rodgers asked the development team if they met with the community. They met twice and put site plans (etc.) on file with the City and the Alderman, and no one contacted them with concerns. Member Raffel asked if the building previously had been brick, which it had. A previous rendering was shown. However, SPAARC encouraged the current design. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - October 36, 2004 Paae Five Ms. Gwen Stein. 183-1 Asbury, noted that the neighborhood plan covers this area, and zoning to the north chanced to Rya to lower the height to 42'. but this particular site was not addressed. She requested that its zoning be studied in the context of the draft neighborhood plan. She thought that the requested zoning change to R6 is not compatible with that study. She added that the site is not just a gateway to downtown but also to the residences to the west. A building should be compatible in both senses, but the proposed one belongs downtown. She agreed with previous comments about traffic congestion and noted the nearby fire station. She added that there should not be overnight construction or deliveries of materials. Mr. David Reynolds. 204 Davis, did not think that having an R6 zone next to RI was appropriate zoning policy. However, a 40' building might be fine. Mr. Peter Gann. 1834 Ridge, was concerned with the hyper -stressed intersection, which will be further affected by future projects (e.g., Roszak). He agreed with previous comments about impacts to emergency vehicle access, views, privacy, and aesthetics. Mr. Gary Joyce, 1913 Wesley, stated that the neighborhood plan process happened over the past 34 years. He did not think any of the people present tonight were part of it but noted that they could have joined. He understood concerns about the impacts to adjacent property values but encouraged residents to consider the broader area. The site is underutilized, and this proposal could be a huge improvement, although he was not sure if it is the right improvement. He thought it was stark, and he was not enthusiastic about the materials. He concluded that he was overall in favor of the project, with some modifications. Ms. Lori Summers. 1830 Ridge, thought the issue was the context of the building within the area in terns of site plan and architecture. There have been some improvements to the site plan, but there are suburban elements that are out of context, and the architecture is out of context with nearby brick buildings. Redevelopment %will increase property values, and more people walking in the neighborhood are welcomed, but there need to be changes to the site plan and architecture. Ms. Holly Pierce, 1834 Ridge, agreed with previous comments about traffic congestion at the intersection, emergency vehicle access, parking, and goals within the neighborhood plan. Regarding aesthetics. Evanston is a historic town, but this design fits Schaumburg. Mr. Greg Summers, 1830 Ridge, thought this was the right use but the height, bulk, site plan, architecture, and setback were issues. His building is owner -occupied with low turnover and no Northwestern students. It is similar to the proposed building, and he did not think that turnover will be an issue. However, parking will be an issue. Associate Member Lyman acknowledged that this site was in the draft neighborhood planning area, but there was no input on it. He thought that putting an R6 zone next to Rt was inconsistent. He suggested removing three stories, which would solve the height and parking issues. He was not as concerned about traffic as redesignating 0 Districts in general. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - October 26. 20(A Pave Six Member Rodgers liked the design but was concerned about height, particularly the mechanical screen, and traffic. Member Rebechini had mixed feelings about the project and was concerned about massing. She stated that it evolves north to R5 and is not a bad transition, although perhaps too tall. However. it does impact the south and west properties. Associate Member Samson %•as very sympathetic to privacy issues but noted that when buying a property, there is no guarantee that something will not be built next door that will block views or take away privacy. However, there should be a balance of rights. He thought this was too much building for its location in terms of heivhtbulk that is better suited to downtown. Chair Widmayer thought that if rezoning to residential is a good decision, then the next step is to determine the appropriate height and density. He thought the Plan Commission had not answered the question of what to rezone it to (e.g., R6, R5, R4) and that this should be done before working with the development team. He suggested continuing discussion to the next regular meeting to look at what to do with this piece of property. Member Rebechini agreed but did not think it was a foregone conclusion that it should be residential. Member Raffel stated that he has not seen an office proposal in his two years on the Plan Commission. He asked why the development team has been allowed to come this far when the zoning has not been determined. Associate Member Samson thought this was part of the process. The role of SPAARC was noted. Discussion followed. Final suggestions�comments from Commissioners included: • Member Rodgers requested preliminary numbers on rooftop mechanical equipment; • Associate Member L,.rnan suggested reducing the number of units by eliminating at least one level, which would solve parking and mechanical issues, and possibly traffic issues as it might not require access onto Green Bay; • Chair Widmayer thought that an argument was made for residential. but RS zoning would be better, • 'Member Rebechini suggested softening the severity of the building %•here it meets adjacent properties by stepping it down; • Member Hunter requested that various renderings be prepared showing different options for architectural styles and materials (e.g., brick); and • Member Raffel requested a revised landscape plan for the courtyard. The maser was continued until the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for November 10. 2004 at 7pm in the Civic Center. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file %*h the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Critic Cuter. Ev=-isto;. Plan Commission Minutes -- October 26, 2()(4 V. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT Page Seven AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING 7-PC 04-07- T Build to Lot Line Requirements (Business/Downtown Districts) i ronstder amendmer.:s :o Ch.:pters 4. `General P►7tsstora.' 9. "Business Districts;" 11, -Downtown Districts; • 17. ,.:.andscaping and Screening. 16. "Definitions. " =nd an: other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend ow test of the T.orirr Ordinance to re--wn and ,amen: the .ard requirements far the Business and Downtown districts. k- ific areas Qf ren ze`^ : rc the front i and and side : and aE-.rttng a street requirements at the following sections for the r;:�Jowing districts :rr9•: irr the B1 Business Dwrict.:6.9-3-' for the B_ Business District; S6-9-4-7 for the B3 8artness District, eh :.'-?-b for the D Dobinto-^r Riaatl Care District; s6-11-4-7 for the DJ Downtown Core Dri,clopment District. and ib 1!-S for the Du Dountown Transition District. This hearing will address m:.dlfications to the 'trudd to prnpem line required par#tng prohtbited' Yard requirements of the Business Districts ✓..d the "build ir, front properr line. surface parking prohibaed' yard requirements of the Downtown Districts. Corninued without discussion to the special meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for November 3, 2004 at 7pm in the Civic Center. Vl. COMMITTEE UPDATES AI D REPORTS • Binding Appearance Review Committee —no report. • Neighborhood Planning Committee —no report. • Zoning Committee —no report. • Community Development Committee --no report. • Economic Development Committee —no report. • Parking Committee —no report. • Inclusionary Housing Committee —no report. • Planning &:-Development Committee —no report. • Lighthouse Committee —no report. • Downtown Visioning —no report. 1*7I. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion or public comments, the Plan Commission adjourned at 11:_'0pm. A special meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at "pm in the Civic Center. The next regular meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, November 10. 2004 at 7pm in the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted. Tracy Norfleet Planning Division APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, November :. 20i:L4 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center. Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT..................................Sharon Bowie, Douglas Doetsch. Steve Knutson, ........................................................................James Woods. Alice Rebechini. Lawrence ........................................................................Widmay-er (Chair). Lawrence Raffel ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ........... Steve Samson MEMBERS ABSENT ...................................Albert Hunter, Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........Richard Cook, John Lyman STAFF PRESEN'T.........................................James Wolinski. Arthur Alterson, Dennis Marino, ........................................................................Tracy Norfleet I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He stated that the purpose of this meeting is to address a number of questions related to zoning, especially due to the number of new planned development proposals. II. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-12 T Imaer•iaus Surface Site Development A lowance & Other Modificalions ro consider amendments to ; `s 6-3-6•5 and 6.3-A-?. and Chapierr k. " Residenuil Districts..' 15, "Special Purpose Districts; " 1,5. " Dclinitrons... and am other related seciians of the Zoning Ordinance, to revoew and amend the Evanston Aning Ordinance sr, that the Zl ning Or&n.;cre maker pmtisinr, for we drielopment allowances far planned detelopmenis relater to intpen-tous surface cr,trrige, ;:sts imperious surface cosrrage among authorized variations, and establishes impervious surface coteraze special purpose districts including without limitation the oil llospital Overix. Dorrui a::6.1 !-1 A Mr. Arthur Alterson, Zoning Administrator, read into the record the description of the zoning issue and distributed the standards for amendments. He noted that proposed language was previously provided in a memo to Members. and discussion followed. Member Doetsch asked if there was a policy downside to adopting the proposed language or if it was merely correcting an oversight. Mr. Alterson thought it was the latter and that it was a continuation of the City's policy for impervious surfaces. Member Doetsch motioned to adopt the amended standards with respect to the impervious surface site development allowances as presented with findings of fact as provided, which he stated. Member Bowie seconded. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Flan Commission case is ow file 4*h the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 37,00 of the Evanston Chic Center, Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November ;. 200.1 Paee Two III. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Z.PC Oa-Ob-NI&T B2 Districts Along Central Street To constder amen,:ments to Chapters 3, "Implementation and .4dmtntstratton, s, "General Proristons.' 9. "Business Districts. " 10, Commercial Districts. " 15. 'Special Purpose and 0-e•rlgp Districts. 14. "Of -Street Parking and Loading. 17 L_,, scaping and Screening. ' 1 h. -'Definitions. " "Zontn; Darricts andMax " and am other related sections qt-the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the text and or the map qi the Zoning Ordinance to a. jeer the regulations o! the Zoring Ordinance as applied to that area of the Cir. presentl► ►+chin the B: District on properties adjacent to or in the %innrit- of Central Street and or to remap all or parts of the following indicated area from the B= Business Dwrict int6 another appropriate :ontng district or o►rely dtstrrct Chair Widmayer stated that this matter was continued from a previous meeting to allow for public testimony. He asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this matter, and there was no one present who did. Discussion followed on how this issue related to the build to lot line issue and the status of both in the Zoning Committee. Following a brief recess, Chair Widmayer noted that the Alderman was present. Alderman Moran stated that the public cannot make the Sam Zoning Committee meeting time and requested that a meeting be held on Central since it is the location of the issue. Discussion followed on whether this would set a precedent for Plan Commission meetings since previous issues before the Plan Commission have been discussed at the Civic Center (e.g., Chicago Avenue study, Starbucks on Central). Whether the Zoning Committee and/or Neighborhood Committee could meet offsite also was discussed. For the time being it was decided that both the B?s on Central issue and build to lot line issue would be continued to the November 15, 2004 meeting of the Zoning Committee at 7pm in the Civic Center. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center, IV. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-07- T Build to Lot Line Requirements {Business/Downtown Districts) To consider amendment, to Chapters 4. "General Provisions." 9, "Business Districts. 11. "Downtown Districts. " 17. "Landscaping and Srreennrg. " M. "Defntuons. •' and anY other related severns of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the text of the &ntnfi Ordinance to rerint, and amend the Yard requirements for the Burwess and Dow-rnto►sn districts. Specific arras of retire-., are the franc Yard and side ►-ard abutting a street requirements at the following sections far the folloxtng districts fr.r the Rl Business Dwrtct.:6.9-3.7 for the• B_ Business District. ,�6.9.4-7 for the 83 - Business District. lar the W Dossnrrswn Retail Core District, for the D3 Do%nrown Core MEDevelopment District and ;641.5•" for the D4 Drs►,ntoart Transition District This hearing rill address modifications to the 'hudd to property line required, parking prohibited -Yard requirements of the Business Districts and the "build to front properrti line, strrfoce parking prohibited"Yard requirements of the Do%-ntoss-n Districts Continued to the November 15, 2004 meeting of the Zoning Committee at 7pm in the Civic Center. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on fde with the Evanston Zoning _ Division. The Zoning Division is located In Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. — Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 3, 004 Page Three V. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE NIAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING 7.PC 04-11 M&T Snecial Ntulti-F2rt IN 75nine District To consider jtre•nwfine•nb to Chapters Z. "Implemenrjtior 4. "General Provisions.' 7. Aining Dts:riots ar„: tlap. 4. Rcside•nual Dtstrttts. ' l j• 5pe eta! ?i.rpr se' ar-: Overl tt Districts. 16. "Of()-Sire'el Parking and Lading. ! -. landscaping and Screening," h4. Drrinuione, jr d jr.; oihe•r relaird se'rnons of the 7.oning Ordinance•, to amend the iev and or the map of the Zontniv Ordinance es:-Nishmg new -oning districts characterised hs hating certain residential uses, including nithout limax.c.n. sin¢le-tdmilti detached and tito familydie•ellings, allowed as permated uses "as•(i -right"and hacrn;, certain other resu:er.:ia! uses. which iwn• presentlrbe pernritled uses -as-or-right - allowed onli as special uses .consider jrd amend w here necessan• lot and bulk regulations far said new toning districts. and to re'map all or parn o(the ,iollo-4 ing indicated areas front the R4. RS, or R6 General Residential Dtsrricis into one ofsaid ne'te zoning district or other .;ppm prjxc .otung district or of erla)' district. The properties that are the suhject cf porential map amendment recommendatmns hr this Plan Commission hearing comprise. more or less all prope ries a ohm the R1. R3. or Rb General Residential Districts bounded by Ridge Aw. on the uear. Epperson on the south. Orringion on the east. and C614r on the north Chair Widmayer opened the hearing for this issue and swore in those wishing to speak. Mr. James Wolinski, Director of Community Development. stated that this is a proposed map and text amendment to add a district (R5a) that pertains to the off -campus student area. The area is primarily zoned R5, and multi -family units are a permitted use. However, single family homes are being torn down and replaced with new multi -family units. The purpose of the R5a district is to allow new single family homes as permitted uses with all others as special uses. There is a need to review tear downs, as well as the amount of student housing in the area due to concerns about nuisances and troublemaking. Another issue is the conversion of single family homes to several independent dwelling units without additional parking or review by the City. Mr. Frank Kaminski, Chief of Police, stated his support for Mr. Wolinski's recommendation for the proposed changes. Some landlords allow inappropriate behavior on their properties, and the police get complaints. In response to complaints. City Council passed a nuisance premise ordinance in which properties with several violations are listed and cited for subsequent violations. There are ten nuisance premises at present. most of which are in the student area. Chief Kaminski described the time and costs to police the off -campus student area, particularly in the fall and spring, and he cited several examples of incidents. He thought that allowing more people in the area would lead to more problems. He noted that they have worked with the University and the neighbors on these issues, and he supports tonight's recommendation. Member Rebechini asked how many of the single family properties that became multi family are new multi -unit rental vs. condo. Mr. Wolinski stated that all new construction has been condo. The concern is the conversion of single family homes to multiple dwelling rental units. Member Rebechini asked if the ten nuisance properties are new condos or high density conversions. Mr. Wolinski stated that the problem is not new condos but converted houses. Member Rebechini acknowledged there is a social/behavioral problem but did not think the Plan Commission was in the business of social engineering. She cited the example of Evanston Place, which is very dense rental with roughly 50% students and has not had problems. She did not necessarily see a correlation between density and bad behavior. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — November 3. 0(" Paae Four Mr. Wolinski stated that there is nothing that can be done for existing single family houses that have already been converted to rental units. He noted that E%anston Place is fairly expensive rental housing compared to converted single family houses. He thought the problem was over - occupancy in the area. He noted that the City Council budgeted for an additional inspector for this area this year, and the Planning & Development Comminee requested inspections every 1-2 years in this area instead of 34 years because of over -occupancy issues. Member Doetsch thought there %vere two issues to be addressed: 1) the social behavioral issue and 2) the changing character of the neighborhood due to the conversion of single family homes to rental units. The changing character issue is tied to nc%v multi family construction, whereas the misbehavior issue is tied to the conversions of single family homes. Mr. Wolinski noted the teardown issue: single family homes in this area are targets for tear downs because they are zoned R5, and new construction can be built to lot line. Chair Widmayer raised the issue of parking and suggested stringent requirements for conversions of single family homes to rental units (e.g.. two spaces per rental unit). Discussion followed, after which public comment was taken. Ms. Jane Evans, 8) 3 Gaff field, stated that the house next to hers is under contract, and the purchasers are local realtors who will rent it. It was a single family home with an apartment on the third floor. She has lived in her house for 14 years, and the neighborhood has consisted of families living in single family homes on small lots. She has been on task forces and worked with the City and students. She thought that the nuisance premise ordinance seemed to be working. However, the conversion of single family homes to rental units continues, and she does not want to see absentee landlords and investors creating businesses out of her neighborhood while creating nuisances and eyesores. She supports the Raa district. Member Doetsch asked if the house next door will be torn down. 'As. Evans stated that it will not. She noted that three families have left the block in the past few years, and their homes were converted to multi family rental. Member Doetsch asked Mr. Alterson what can stop someone from buying a four -bedroom house and renting it to eight people. Mr. Alterson stated that the number of dwelling units depends on the lot area, and there can be only three unrelated persons per dwelling unit. Member Doetsch asked if the proposed Rya district affects this situation. Mr. Alterson thought it was an issue of enforcing occupancy rules. unless there is enough lot area to add another unit. Mr. Brian Pardo, 808 Hamlin, stated that he is a new resident and has heard the neighbors talk about reining in students to control noise. He did not think the problem was with newly constructed condos but with 15 people in the front yard of a two -flat. Regarding more stringent parking requirements, he did not .want to see more pavement for parking. Discussion followed. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 3. 2604 Pace Five Mr. Arthur Brown. SOO Custer. stated that he is proud a landlord in Evanston. He rents to students and keeps his properties in good condition. He :::ought that the problem with students will remain whether zoning: is changed or not because the :xisting two- and three -flats will remain. The only solution is to enforce laws and to get landlords* assistance in doing so. He thought that changing the zoning would limit the number of two- and three• -flats, which are old and require maintenance. 1f they are torn down, the%- probably would not be replaced with single family homes due to the price ofthe property. Chair Widnaaver asked how many properties he owns in the student area. He owns a handful of houses in the student area (all two- and three - fiats), with three students per dwelling unit. Ms. Emily Gaul. 2123 Maple. compared Evanston to Wilraene in terms of the older homes and number of mature trees. She thought that more pavement for off-street parking would take away green and make it more urban instead of improving the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Judy Hoffman. 2033 Sherman, clarified that separate from the student issue, the other issue is single family houses being bought and convened without oversight. Member Doetsch stated that this issue applies to the R4 and R5 zones in the student area. He asked Mr. Alterson about the proportion of single family and multi family units in this area and how many single family houses have been converted into multiple dwelling units. The information was not available. Member Doetsch thought that the issue was about preventing further deterioration of the single family character of the neighborhood and that tonight's proposal could be reasonably effective. Associate Member Samson raised the issue of special uses. including the standards for special uses. Chair Widmayer thought that most of the affected area was actually R4 because R5 probably already has large multi family units. Member Knutson suggested that the R3 area be looked at as well. Discussion followed on special uses and the area in question. Ms. Christine Young. 2106 Maple. asked about the imperil for the Rya proposal. Chair Widmayer stated that it was an Aldermanic referral to the Plan Commission to study the issue. Ms. Young thought that the neighborhood had improved, although conditions were cyclical (the worst period was 34 years ago). She was concerned about tear downs on several consecutive lots resulting in a new. large multi family building that changed the character of the street. Member Knutson noted that there does not seem to be a problem with the new, expensive condos, so the solution to one problem is wrong for the second problem (e.g., condos may solve student misbehavior problems, but they change the character of the neighborhood). Member Rebechini thought the problem was primarily not in R5 but in R4, and the issue is controlling the carving up of single family residences for multi family use. She thought that R5 could be difficult to manage, and R4 may be needed to address the carve -up issue online, or it should be changed to R3. Chair Widmayer suggested creating a zone that is essentially R3 but with R4 characteristics by special use, which could work for problem houses as well as parking requirements. Discussion followed. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes -November 3. 3004 Paae Six Associate Member Samson suggested considering what should go up in the place of a house alter it has been torn down (e.g.. height, setback, lot coverage) and how this would be affected by changing the zoning to R3 or R-t. Following a brief recess. it was decided that the area primarily afi'ct eed was R4. Discussion followed. Member Doetsch suggested downzoning, applying parking requirements. or doing both. He noted that Mr. Alterson's memo to the Plan Commission was a thought piece and suggested turning the issue back to Staff to look at additional ideas and the pros.'cons of alternatives. 'its. Young thought that the R4 area east of the Civic Center (e.g., the area around Fireman's Park) should be changed to R3. his. Evans agreed and thought the parking requirements were a creative solution. Discussion followed on the need to survey the area that would be affected and staffs role in doing so and identifying options/alternatives. There being no further discussion, the matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for November 10, 2004 at 7pm in the Civic Center. A rerbedm transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on fde with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. '%'I. CO.MMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS Parking Committee Member Raffel stated that the Parking Committee met. YMCA's proposal to raise parking meter fees from 25 cents to 50 cents was allowed. For the downtown parking study, Neil Koenig has conducted several analyses and is preparing revenue projections. The number of spaces in the new Sherman Avenue is being finalized. Mr. Andy Spatz appeared before the Committee for his project at 1629 Oak. His request to purchase 4' from the City's Post Office parking lot to build four additional units was denied. Finally, increasing parking garage fees was discussed. • Binding Appearance Review Committee —no report. • Neighborhood Planning Committee —no report. • Zoning Committee —no report. • Community Development Committee ---no report. • Economic Development Committee —no report. • Inclusionary Housing Committee —no report. • PIanning & Development Committee —no report. • Lighthouse Committee —no report. • Downtown Visioning —no report. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 3. 2004 Paee Seven NrII. ADJOUR.ti.NiENT There being no further discussion or public continents, the Plan Commission adjourned at 10:05pm. The next regular meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 7pm in the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Norfleet Planning Division CITY CLERK :NARY SIORRIS DRAFT - NOT APPROVED MINUTES EVANSTON PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, November 10, 2004 ! 7:00 p,m. Evanston Civic Center, Room 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT..................................Alice Rebechini, Steve Knutson, James Woods, ............. .................. I ........................................ Lawrence Widmayer (Chair), Lawrence Raffel ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ........... Richard Cook, Steve Samson MEMBERS ABSENT ...................................Sharon Bowie, Douglas Doetsch, Albert Hunter, ........................................................................Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENT ...........John Lyman STAFF PRESENT .........................................Arthur Alterson, Dennis Marino, Tracy Norfleet ................................................ I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 11. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-09 PD&11 1228 Emerson An application by Andrew Ferris, for Ferns Homes, contract purchaser, with ptrtntssion from LaSalle Bank National Association Trust is 30379, property owner, for a Planned Development and Alap Amendment. The applicant is the contract purchaser of the property commonly known as 1228 Emerson (southwest corner Emerson and Green Bayj, present• located within the 01 Office Zoning District. The applicant requests that the City grant a planned development as a form of special use including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to provide the applicant with the zoning relief necessary to allow the redevelopment of 1128 Emerson for multi family residential with accessory parking. The applicant in the alternative also requests that the City remove the property from the Ol, Office District and place it wholly within the R-6, General Residential District Generally, the proposed project by Ferris Homes has the following characteristirs.• 60 residential condominiums The proposed building has 7-story building with a maximum building height approximately 73 feet to the top of the parapet, 79 feet to top of screening. 71 enclosed parking spaces are under the building 10 open parking spaces are located to the southwest quadrant the rear. Vehicular access is from a right -in/ right -out driveway on Emerson, a right -Wright -out driveway onto Green Bay Road, and a drarway into the alley to the west ofthesite. The proposal entails vacation ofa portion of the Green Bay Road right-ofway Pie project has a building lot coverage of approximately 16.3 SO square feet, or about 43% on the 38.333-squarefoot sub)ect property (including right of way proposed to be vacated as lot area and not including open parking areas The project has a defined gross floor area (excluding parking, loading, mechanicals, and uses accessory to the building) of approximately 86.200 square feet, resulting in a floor area ratio of about 2.24 Pie project has no retail or service uses. Chair Widmayer stated that this matter has been continued from a previous meeting. Mr. Shapiro, attorney, stated that issues raised at that meeting pertained to height, parking, mix of units, and massing of the building. In response, the building has been scaled back in general, and the number of units has been reduced by 20% (48 total from 60 previously). , Evanston Plan Commission Minutes -- November 10, 2004 Paae Two Mr. Lenet, landscape architect and planner, did not think that the current 01 zoning classification applies because the site's size, shape, proximity to an RI residential district, and height restriction do not Iend itself to that type of development, and it would be inconsistent with the trend of redevelopment in the area (e.g., condos). He presented the site plan and stated that the northwest and south sides of the building step down, with landscaping on the edges of the terraces to provide additional screening from views. The total number of units has been reduced from 60 to 48, but the amount of parking remains the same (87 spaces) and should be adequate for residents and visitors. The unit mix is now six one -bedrooms, 40 two -bedrooms, and two three -bedroom units. Regarding height, he thought that an R6 zone next to an R1 can be made compatible. He noted that there is at least one other location in Evanston where this occurs, with no adverse impacts. He thought it was part of the diversity of Evanston. Mr. Ferris, developer, distributed information on the HVAC systems, per a Member's request at the last meeting. He presented a rendering of the southwest perspective showing the building stepping down. The price points start in the mid-S300s and go in excess of 5600,000 for top floor units. There will be a 6' roof screen, and each unit will have an individual condenser. The parking ratio is almost 2:1. For the exterior parking spots, they hope to include covenants stating that it is for guests and deliveries, not permanent parking. Schedules for refuse removal have been coordinated with the neighbors. Landscaping is now on each side of the building to treat both as the front, and there is landscaping on the balconies for privacy/screening. Member Raf cl asked how the site plan has changed. Mr. Ferris stated that the building and parking layout are the same. All changes have been to the architecture and landscaping. Member Rebechini requested other elevations, but they were not available. Discussion followed on mechanical equipment and building materials, colors, and finishes (e.g., pre -cast on a steel frame vs. cast -in -place, khakiltan color with texturized finish, aluminum trim). Member Knutson commended the change to a continuous arc and thought it was a big improvement. Member Rebechini and Associate Member Cook agreed. Member Raf el liked the idea of guest parking but thought it decreased the area available for landscaping. Mr. Ferris stated one of the biggest issues with the neighborhood was parking, so they decided to reduce the unit count and keep the same amount of parking. Member Rebechini asked for a clarification of the current request. Mr. Shapiro stated that the previous submission is being amended for R5 zoning and height, with other requests to remain. Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, clarified the specifics of the request. There being no further questions from Members, Chair Widmayer swore in those wishing to speak. Ms. Mary Singh, 1711 Hinman, stated that the height at the front of the proposed building (79') has not been addressed. She lives in an R1 district across from an R4 zone, but there is enough distance for the height to not be detrimental to enjoyment of her property. However, it is also across from an R6, which is very evident. She thought that a 50' restriction in an R5 would suffice. Chair Widmayer asked if the R6 she was referring to was Park Evanston, which it was. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - November 10. 2004 Paae Three Mr. Ken Hinsdale. 1834 Ridge, stated that he lives just south of the proposal. He appreciated the changes the developer made and wants to see the property redeveloped, but he is concerned about height. His unit is a townhouse and would be directly impacted because his loft window faces north. :also. the steel/glass architecture is not in keeping with the area. He lives in a brick rehabbed warehouse, and the historic homes on Asbury are brick. Regarding traffic, there already are concerns with the intersection now, and this mill only increase problems because no changes to the intersection are planned (e.g., widen Ridge). Mr. Michael Dowhan, 1849 Asbury, stated that height is a big concern as it does not keep with the spirit of the adjacent historic district, and it will affect light and foliage on Asbury. The steel1glass is not in keeping with the wood and brick of the neighborhood, and the zoning also is inconsistent. Adjacent residents may want more parking, but he preferred more landscaping. Ms. Denise Simmons, 1841 Asbury, noted previous comments about enjoyment of property, quality of life, height, and materials. She acknowledged that Mr. Ferris was directed by SPAARC to design a modern building, but this looks like a medical building. She commended Mr. Ferris for incorporating suggestions and reducing the number of units. She thought the existing building is a nuisance, but a new one must respect the neighborhood in terms of height, traffic impacts, and the work done in the adjacent historic district. Ms. Barbara Stanley, 1828 Asbury, stated that the zoning is 01 with height less than 20', but the proposal requests 79', which exceeds R5 zoning and intrudes on neighbors to the south and west. At the last meeting, the issue was what the zoning should be. The neighbors want the site redeveloped, especially with residential, but traffic and density must be considered. She summarized other zoning issues to be resolved, including front and side setbacks, impervious surface requirements, height, and number of units. She noted that the number of units has been decreased by 20°/a, but the square footage has been reduced by only 5%, with the same price per square foot. She moved here from Chicago and purposely bought in the historic district for protection. The development should keep in character with the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. David Gidaleeitz, 1834 Ridge, stated that his unit directly faces the proposed development. He will lose his view to a wall, which will devalue his property and quality of life. He also thought that traffic will worsen further, and the look has nothing to do with the neighborhood. Ms. Gwen Stein, 1837 Asbury, stated that her comments from the previous meeting still stand. She appreciated the developer's response, but the proposal is still too dense and too tall for the adjacent neighborhood. If it could be 30' shorter, there would be fewer concerns. She noted that the draft neighborhood plan was passed, and she did not think this building was a gateway to the neighborhood. Ms. Maria Brichta, 1832 Asbury, read excerpts from an October 3, 2004 Chicago Tribune article about the new University of Chicago Business School in Hyde Park and drew comparisons to this project. She was not averse to development but thought it should be done gracefully. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — November 10. 2004 Page Four Mr. Peter Gann, 1834 Ridge, noted his comments from a previous meeting. He thought the building was too big and too tall. The design was not appropriate and did not enhance the site. He thought that at the end of the previous meeting, it had been decided that going from OI to R6 was not the way to go and that the zoning for the site needed further discussion. Mr. David Reynolds, 204 Davis, thought that at the end of the previous meeting, the Plan Commission thought that R6 was too great and that R5 or lower was more appropriate. He disagreed with 3vIr. Lenet's comments that putting an R6 next to an R1 would not have adverse impacts. He noted that they are asking for R5 as part of the planned development, but the building is still an R6. He had the impression from the last meeting that R6 was not appropriate. Ms. Jessica Dankl, 1834 Ridge. stated that she has been to all three meetings on this proposal. She has seen dramatic differences from the first building and applauds the changes. She was one of the neighbors who brought up the need for guest parking and is glad to see it. She did not think that additional landscaping would be better (salt in the winter, etc). She understood concerns about the impacts to the historic district but noted that her building is industi ial- looking. She thought the proposed building was a bit large but the tapering at the ends was nice. Ms. Lori Summers, 1830 Ridge, stated that she spoke at the previous meeting. She did not think that height was consistent with the building on one side but that it was fine on the other side. She liked that it stepped up now. She noted the grade difference on the site (roughly 9') and that one side has a retaining wall on the alley. She noted that at the end of the last meeting, there was a request for the developer to bring in alternate elevations for the Plan Commission to review, but this has not happened tonight. She reiterated concerns about respecting the adjacent historic district and parking. Mr. Scott Voege, 1834 Ridge, stated that he will want to move if this proposal happens and thought that others in his building would feel the same. He moved to Evanston from L.A. to get away from this type of development and to live in a neighborhood with character. He did not think anyone would buy his unit if the view is gone, and he will lose money. Associate Member Samson noted the need to look at zoning but thought that approaching the question from the perspective of this project was wrong. He thought the building was too high for the site. He noted that the downtown is changing (e.g., more glasststeel, more height) but did not think discussing moving the outer rim of downtown should be done in the context of the project driving the issue. He thought it was a better building than before but just too tall. Member Rebechini agreed that the design was better, but it was still too large and high. She thought that this location was transitional, and the argument that it is an historical area does not apply due to nearby industrial and commercial uses. She suggested reducing it by one or two stories to fit in with the physical massing of the area. The architecture could swing either way, but the issue is massing and fitting in with what is there. She requested more perspectives and a model to aid in design evaluation and zoning action. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — November 10. 2004 Paee Five Mcmber Raffel thought this was an R6 building. He liked the diversity of Evanston, including the architecture, and noted that this is a transitional location demanding that kind of architecture. He thought the proposed building was too high. He thanked the public for their comments. Chair Widmayer stated that he was disappointed that after the discussion of height at the previous meeting, nothing was done. He thought the building was 27-30' too tall. Following a brief recess, fir. Shapiro stated that they presented what they thought were significant changes, and they have tried to respond to comments from SPAARC and the community (e.g., reduction in number of units and mass, clarification of unit mix, more parking and landscaping). This is a challenging site, and they are trying to be responsive to the Plan Commission, the community, SPAARC, etc. They respect the historic district and ask that the historic district respect that the site is outside of the historic district. In addition, the site was not part of the neighborhood plan. He stated that the proposal is consistent with the trend of development, and he requested the opportunity to come back before the Plan Commission and respond again to comments. Final comments/requests from Members included: • Chair Widmayer requested more information on materials and a model, as well as information on grade changes; and • Member Rebechini noted that only one perspective was shown tonight and requested more perspectives that depict the building from everyone's view. The matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for December 8, 2004 at 7pm in the Council Chambers. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. III. PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING 04-10 PD di M 2320 Pioneer Road An application by Three Crowns Park, properly owner, for a Planned Development and Map Amendment for the property commonly known as 2320 Pioneer Road presently located within the R4 General Residential Zoning District. The applicant requests that the City grant a planned development as a form of special use including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to provide the applicant with the zoning rehef necessary to allow the redevelopment of 2320 Pioneer for a continuing care retirement community with accessory parking. The applicant in the alternative also requesu that the City remove the property from the R4, General Residential District and place it wholly within the RS, General Residential District. Generally, the proposed project by Three Crowns Park has thefollowing characteristics. 2:4 unuslapartments consisting of 118 independent living units, 48 private and semi -prorate nursing beds, 39 assisted living units, and 19 memory support units. There will be 2 new independent living wings ranging from 3-4 !/i stories in height, an addition to the west side of the Landstrom building, a new commons building, a new trellis and enclosed courtyard facing Colfax Sirret, and approximately 33 surface and 103 underground parking spaces The applicant asks far a special use through a planned development permit in the R4. General Residential District jar a retirement community, and development allowances, and exceptions to development allowances as to building height, yard requirements, maximum impen:ous surface area, and parking and loading requirements. Alternatively, the applicant asks for a special use through a planned development permit in the R3, General Residential District jar a retirement community and development allowances. and exceptions to development allowances as to building height, yard requirements, maximum impenious surface area, and parking and loading requirements. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — November 10, 2004 Page Six Ms. Arlova Jackson, Zoning Planner, read into the record the description of the proposed planned development. Chair Widmayer noted correspondence for :Members to be aware of: a memo from Mr. Carlos Ruiz. Preservation Coordinator, regarding the project's status with the Preservation Commission; a request by residents within 1000' that the hearing be continued to the next meeting to allow for public comment; and a petition from 3001b of owners within 500' of the project (e.g., requires majority of City Council to pass a map amendment). Mr. Shapiro, attorney, introduced into the record two letters supporting the project, and he introduced the development team. .Ms. Susan Morse, Executive Director of Three Crowns Park, stated that they are seeking approval for a planned development and map amendment to upgrade and expand their facilities. She summarized the history of the organization and the home. Most Board members live in Evanston, and many staff and residents also are from Evanston. A few years ago, the Board realized that the future of the home would be limited without expansion. They initiated strategic planning and at that time, the name and address were changed. They also began to engage the community. The buildings are old and unable to meet the services expected by retirees. Expenses are increasing, endowments are decreasing, and big capital improvements are needed. She described the current business model and how it needs to change. They need to provide a continuum of care and update buildings and programs with a plan that preserves the campus feet and architecture while offering affordable housing. They have studied the market, met with neighbors and residents, incorporated their recommendations, and met again to present revisions. They also have met with SPAARC and the Preservation Commission. In addition, the Board looked at other similar retirement communities, and they hired a consultant. Mr. Ed Kelly, President of New Life Management and Development, stated that he works with charitable non -profits in senior housing and cited examples in the Chicago region. Their role is to help older organizations serve another 100+ years. Based on focus group discussions, there is need for this service that is more moderate in price. He summarized the problems with the _— campus and what is missing (e.g., independent living and a memory/Alzheimer's wing), as well as financial losses in recent years. He summarized input from the Board, neighbors, SPAARC, and the Preservation Commission. The neighbors requested less surface parking, which is now underground. SPAARC thought the memory wing infringed on open space, and the site plan has been reconfigured to address this. They have been careful not to overload the campus with more development than is needed to survive. He noted that the average resident is an 80 year old female, and a market exists. Traffic impacts are expected to be minimal since transportation will be provided for residents, and there will be only a small increase in the amount of staff. Mr. Gene Doskowsky, architect, summarized his experience with similar projects to this one, including three other projects in the Chicago region. The notion of repositioning is a major trend in senior living to stay competitive with new suburban facilities. He presented an aerial photo showing the site and the surrounding RI area, except to the west where there is a school and a forest preserve. Development was focused to the west side to preserve views of the historic parts of the campus, to respect the park -like area Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — November 10. 2004 Pace Seven at the eastern edge. and to maximize views of residents to the west of the school. He noted the new entry at the northeast comer. Building forms %will be consistent with the area (e.g., u-shaped buildings with courtyards). The center building on McDaniel will be four stories, flanked by three story buildings. There will be underground parking to preser►•e open space and be sensitive to the neighborhood. He presented a site plan and pointed out changes from the existing layout. Associate Member Samson asked about the height of the tallest building, which will be 48' for the four-story building on McDanieI. Currently, the highest building is about 37' on the Landstrom Building. Mr. John Kronon, architect, presented color perspectives of the new entry at the northwest corner of the site. The architecture is derived from the Pioneer Building (brickAimestone). Currently, there are six types of brick, so experts were consulted to determine the color and scale to match. Exterior elevations were presented fro Grant and McDaniel. Mr. John Kinnear, landscape architect, stated that the site has an abundance of existing trees, and only a minimal amount will be removed. He presented the landscape plan and stated that the intent was to unify the site and enable it to fit in with the neighborhood. The parking area near the entry will be screened, there will be green courtyards with seating, existing areas will be enhanced, and there will be an area for a community garden. Circulation throughout the site also has been improved. Mr. Shapiro stated that an R5 is needed to accommodate this development (the middle building on McDaniel is 48') and the number of units. He added that the fence at the sidewall on Colfax will be moved back 3' to avoid asking for a variance. Mr. Mary Lovquist, Chairman of the Board, stated that the Board for Three Crowns Park is comprised of volunteers that are committed to the residents. They seek to provide life care for residents for 20+ years. However, they also need to maintain their financial status, and this is challenging due to the aging facilities. He noted their commitment to Evanston. Associate Member Samson asked about the market within and outside of Evanston. Mr. Doskowsky described the units and prices and compared them to what is available in further suburbs. The new, larger units will cost more than existing ones but still remain affordable. Market research was done as part of the feasibility study. A zip code search indicated a need for this type of housing in this income bracket. There are 92 units now, and a few existing residents will be displaced during construction. New units will be offered to them first, leaving a net of 82-84 available units. Member Raffel thought some of the new units would be very large and asked if a market exists for this. Ms. Morse stated that they are not accepting deposits yet but based on inquiries, they estimate that 25% of the large ones will be gone (e.g., they will go faster than the smaller units). Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — November 10, 2004 Palle Eiaht There being no further questions from Members, the matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for December 8, 2004 at 7pm in the Council Chambers. A verbadnn transcript of the proceedings of this Platt Conmtissdom use is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Eranvon Civic Center. IV. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE MAP & TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-11 tit&T Special Multi -Family Zoniat District To consider amendments to Chapters J. 'Implementation and Adftunistration; " I, 'General Provisions' 7, Zoning Districts and Map. 8, "Residential Districts. " 13. "special Pwposr and O►erlay Districts; 16. "Off -Street Panting and Loading. •' 17. "Landscaping and Screening. " 18. "Definitions; ' and any other related sections of the Zoning Ordinance, to amend the test andlor the map of the Zoning Ord n-mcv establirbing new awning districts characterised by having certain residential uses, including without limitatiam singlefamilydeswAed and t*o-fawdy dwellings, allowed as permitted uses as -of -right- and having certain other readenttal uses, which may presently be permitted uses as -of -right' allowed only as special uses ,consider and amend where necessary lot and bulk regutatlons for said new :lining districts, and to remap all or parts of the following indicated areas from the Ra, R3, or M General Residential Districts into one of said new zoning district or other apprapriatt zoning dirtrict or oiwlay district. 77+e properties that are the subject of potential map amendment recanmvidwkw by this Plan Commtsslon hearing comprise, more or less all properties within the RI. RS, or R6 General Residential Districts bounded by Ridge Ave. on the writ, Emerson on the south. Orrington on the east, and Colfax on the north. Continued without discussion until the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for December 8, 2004 at 7pm in the Council Chambers. V. COMl4II'ITEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Parking Committee —no report. • Binding Appearance Revie«' Committee —no report. • Neighborhood Planning Committee ---no report. • Zoning Committee —no report. • Community Development Committee --no report. • Economic Development Committee —no report. • Inclusionary Housing Committee ---no report. • Planning & Development Committee —no report. • Lighthouse Committee ----no report. • Downtown Visioning --no report. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the Plan Commission adjoumed at I Opm. The next regular meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, December 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Norfleet Planning Division DRAFT -.NOT APPROVED MINUTES E%'ANSTON PLA` CONI!►IISSION Wednesday. December S. 200-1 7:00 p.m. Evanston Civic Center. Roorn 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT..................................Douglas Doetsch. Steve Knutson. James Woods, ..................... ..............................................Lawrence Wi"4-nayer (Chair), Lawrence Raffel ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PRESENT ........... Richard Coop SI£hIBERS ABSENT ...................................Sharon Bo%ie. Albert Hunter, Alice Rebechini, ...............................................................Kenneth Rodgers ASSOCIATE MEMBERS ABSENIT ...........Steve Samson STAFF PRESENT .........................................Arthur AIterson, Dennis Marino, Tracy Norfleet I. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Widmayer noted that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF NIEETI*%G MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 26, 2004; NOVEMBER 3, 2004; AND NOX MBER 10, 2004 There being no additions or revisions. Member Doetsch motioned to approve the minutes of October 26. 2004, and Member Woods seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Member Rafl'el motioned to approve the minutes of November 3, 2004, and Member Knutson seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Member Woods motioned to approve the minutes of November 10. 2004, and Member Doestch seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). III. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING 04-10 PD & N 2320 Pioneer Road .4n application bY Three Crowns Park. propem- owner, far a Xznrrd Dnrlopiment and .clap Amendment for the properrS commonly kno vii as '3.0 Pioneer Road present!}- located %whin the R4 General Residential Zoning District. The applicant requests that the Cir. grant a planned development u a fGrm of special use including such dt►rlopment allowances, exceptions to development allow ances and other relief as our be necessary to provide the applicant with the zoning relief necesson to allow the redetclopment of:3:0 Pioaerr f,r a continuing care retirement community with accessor► parking The applicarr in the alterative also requests th_ the Citr remote the property from the R4, General Reridenrial District and place it v.ha!!v within the R5, General Residential District General!►•, iheproposed project by Three Crowns Park has the ioiloa ing characteratics :: d unats'apartments consisting of 118 independent living units, s6 private and sem;•pris,;ie ..;,r.Ymg beds. 39 assisted 1;vmg .arts, and 19 memory support units There will be: new independent lining wings ringing from 3-4'!i stories in height, an addition to the west side of the Landstrom building. a ne+ commons building, a new trellis and enclosed eourtMard facing Colfax Street, and approximately 33 surTace and 105 underground parking spaces The applicant asks for a special use through a planned development permit to the R4, General Residential District for a retirement community, and development allowances. and exceptions to de►elopment allowances as to building height, Tarr! requirements. maximum imperious surface area, and panting and loading requirements Alternatively, the applicant asks for a special use through a planned Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - December S. 2,:,+a-% Paue Two de,rlop^te+;rer^t.., 't t?! .'C4t'rJ Re,%ideq:,.., 7: Crri. -"Y. i^a^.:C(^t^r:....J+i.:.1.-% C.Oprilent ullol, antes, .nd ercertlons t' s.:e. "mcn:3:lon-antes as tV 1':.ti.ling he:;4: i s•� rripd.rements matimia�,t it,:peniniis surface -:-ca. andrurkzn, ... •taurremenis Continued at the request of the applicant to the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission scheduled for Wednesday. January I?, 2005 at "pm �n the Civic Center. IV. CONTINUATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE A.MENWMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS The foIlowing zoning ordinance amendment public hearings were continued to the next meeting of the Zoning Committee on Wednesday, January 5, 2005 at 7pm in the Civic Center: Special Multi -Family Zoning District (ZPC 04-1 I M&T) Build to Lot Line Requirements (Business.'Do%%mto%%,n Districts) (ZPC 04-07- T) BZ Districts Along Central Street (ZPC 04-06-M&T) V. CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-09 PD&fit 1228 Emerson An application by Andre-.. Ferns for Ferris Homes. rontria purchaser, w uh permissran from LaSalle Bank National Association Trust = M i -9, props qy owner, for a Planned Dorlopncnt andMap Amendment The applicant u the contract purchaser of Me proper) commonly known is 12:8 Emerson (southwest corner Emerson and Green Hap. presently located a is hin :he 01 Office 7.oning D; sine : The applicant requests that the a its grant a planned development as a form r' spec,.: use including such jeve!opment ailowanres, e.te prions to detrlopment allauances and other relief as mx, ..4e necesssn• to provide the applicant with the :onrng rehel necessan- to allow the redenrlopment of 1:_B Emersor far multi fanuly resi.:rnitai wti:h accessory parking The applicant in the ahernative also requests that the Cun remair the property from the 01. Office District and place it wholly +,ithin the R-6, General Residential District Gerrrali:.:he proposed project F► Ferris Homes has the following characteristics: 60 residential condominiums The pro;-ised 1*lilding has 7-slon• 1,urldmg with a maximum building height approximately 73feet to the top of the parapet. -9 feet to top of screening -1 enrlosed parking spaces are under the building. 10 open parking spurs are located in -he svu:h--rst quadrant the rear t shims .i:r stress is from a right -in, right -out driveway on Emerson. J right -in ngh:-out dri rway onto Green B.ti Road_ ands drii"ga into the alley to the west of the site Vie proposal entails wean a ofa p-irtion of the Green Bsti Road right-<�.rway The protect has a building lot coverage of approximately 16 50 square r�er, or about 43'K on the 38 M3-square foot subject propern (including right of way proposed to be ►neared ss lot srca and not including open parking .areas The protect has a de/inedgrossfloor area (excluding parking, loading. met hanicals, and uses accessor to the buildings ofapprorimately 86.200squarefeet. resulting in a floor area ratio rr about ::4 The pmjcct has no retail or service uses Chair Widmayer swore in those wishing to speak. Mr. Shapiro, attorney for the development team, distributed updated information on the proposed planned development, including photos and renderings, ind noted the scale model on display. He summarized the history of the project, including the development team's response to comments and requests by the community and the Plan Commission. He stated that there was a community meeting the previous Saturday, which was led by Alderman Jean -Baptiste. The changes to the project include a reduction in height of one story with the building stepping down on one side. The development team also is amenable to moving the building to the north (to the extent allowed) for more Iight/setback from the neighboring property. He noted that redevelopment of this site would provide tax revenue, and residential development is consistent with the trend in the area. Ea anston Plan Commission Minutes - December S. 004 Paae Three associate Member Cook asked if the building has been moved north. It has not, but it is an option being considered. Mr. Shapiro stated that another option being considered is limiting the amount of glass on the building's south side to increase pn►•acy for adjacent residents. Discussion foiiowed on whether the building should be moved and if so, how far. Associate Member Cook asked about the height of each step down on the side of the building. There ►ull be two S' steps and one 13' step. Several perspectives and building material samples (e.g., yellow concrete at the base and sides. clear glass, stone parapet) were presented. Member Doetsch asked about the use of the building to the left, which is residential. He asked if rotating theproposed building and placing it closer to the alley would raise concerns by Asbury residents. Mr. Ferris clarified that the building would not be rotated but rather, it could be moved north. Member Doetsch asked if the building could be stepped down on both sides, but the development team did not think this was possible. He asked about the mix of units, which is to be determined. Discussion returned to moving the building to the north. Member Doetsch understood the concern for privacy for adjacent residents, but he opposed moving the building to the north because this would make it out of scale. Discussion followed on whether the site's zoning should remain 01 or be changed to R5 or R6. Member Knutson thought that if the new building is residential, then the zoning should be residential. Member Raffel stated that an issue raised at a previous meeting was the incompatibility of an R6 zone next to an existing R1. Mr. Shapiro stated that the project satisfies the allowances for R5, and there are eight other locations in Evanston where an R5 is next to R1. Chair Widmayer thought that R5 was more consistent with the rec#ntly-passed neighborhood plan. He thought that leaving the zoning 0 1 would cause more traffic problems, as discussed in previous meetings. There being no further comments from Members, Chair Widmayer asked for public testimony. Mr. Ken Hinsdale. 1834 Ridge, pointed to his residence on the scale model (e.g., a three-story townhouse with a loft). His unit faces the proposed building with a two-story brick wall in between. He was concerned about this proposal's effects on his property value and his ability to resell it. He attended the meeting on Saturday and thought that moving the building to the north and limiting the amount of glass on that side would help. Ms. Mary Trew, 1834 Ridge, stated that she lived in the unit next to Mr. Hinsdale. She has been in Evanston for 12 years and moved to this location a year ago to be closer to downtown. She also was concerned about the proposal's effects on her property value, as well as other units at the same address. She surveyed existing tenants about this proposal, and the results were 60 for / 40 against after Saturday's meeting. She also was concerned about the effects of this project combined with others nearby (e.g., 1800 Ridge, Sienna) and thought that each was being approached in isolation rather than cumulatively. She thought it was unfortunate that this area was not included in the neighborhood study. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - December S. 2604 Paee Four Ms. Barbara Stanley. l S'S Asbury. stated that she attended Saturday's meeting. It was agreed that they wanted to see this comer developed with parking included. It should be residential and not office for traffic reasons. Disagreement pertained to what can Fit on the site. While the developer has come down from 79' to 69'. this is still up from 20' height under 01 zoning. She thought that R4 might be better and summarized the ways that the proposal does not meet R5 requirements. She thought that the building should blend in with what is on Asbury and Ridge now. Denise Simmons, 1841 Asbury, stated that she spoke last time and was at Saturday's meeting. She summarized the ►work that has been done on Asbury and Ridge to preserve the buildings and stated that the proposal does not fit. She asked that the zoning be kept proper for the corner and that the new building be a salute to the city. Member Doetsch asked about the maximum heights for R5 and R6. Mr. Alterson, Zoning Administrator, stated that it is 50' by right for R5 (five stories) and 85' for R6 (eight stories). Member Doetsch was sympathetic to the Asbury neighbors. He thought the problem was a combination of somewhat too much height (e.g., one story) and a contemporary building with a ziggurat. He suggested coming down another story and/or changing the design. Mr. Shapiro stated that there have been numerous meetings with the Site Plan and Appearance Review Committee (SPAARC) and the Plan Commission which resulted in this design. Mr. Mark Stein, 1837 Asbury, commended the developers for their patience in the process and for their interest in developing in Evanston. He also commended Alderman Jean -Baptiste and the neighbors. He stated that his house is directly west of the site. He wants to see this site redeveloped and thinks that residential is best. However, this proposal is too large, and the impact is too great. He is glad to see the building step down but thinks this should happen on both sides, and the building should be made smaller. Ms. Jessica Dankl, 1834 Ridge, stated that R5 zoning is better for future residents than 01. Because her building is zoned OI, there is no permit parking on residential streets. She did not care for the look of the building. She thought it could be a better blend and not look so much like an office. She encouraged minimal windows on the side facing her building. Leon Robinson, l 3 l 7 Lyons, summarized the history of the site. He Iiked the proposal but noted that this is a challenging location, and traffic is bad on Emerson. Ms. Lori Summers, 1830 Ridge, presented a parcel map showing the number of nearby masonry buildings. She thought that while these buildings do not have a common style, they have continuity in materials. For safety, she suggested there be a fence to finish off the corridor. Member Knutson applauded the recessed balconies and asked the developer to consider putting roofs on the top balconies and curving them. The developer agreed to consider this. Member Knutson thought that the height was consistent with what is happening on Ridge. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes - December S. 2004 Pave Five Chair Widmayer asked Mr. Alterson about SPAaRC's comments on the architecture. Mr. Alterson stated that at the last SPAARC meeting. members agreed ovith the decision to lower it one stony, and setbacks %were discussed. Member Doctsch asked if materials had been discussed, and they had not. Chair Widmayer asked about discussions at previous SPAARC meetings. Mr. Alterson stated that the consensus was that a well -designed modern building was better than a faux-1900s building, and this design was well-receivcd by SPAARC members. Associate Member Cook agreed in light of the transitional nature of the site. Member Raffel appreciated that the developers tried to do something different on this site, which is a tough site. Associate Member Cook agreed with hfembcr Knutson on height. Member Doetsch noted the elevation chart in the materials that had been provided to Members, which showed that this proposal is taller than buildings to the south and much taller than the buildings on Asbury. He thought that the ziggurat setbacks helped but that it is still 10,42' too high. Member Knutson disagreed regarding height due to what is east and north, including the large- scale railroad tracks. He thought the proposal's height was a good compromise between the urban scale to the east and north and the residential area to the west. Chair Widmayer stated that he liked the design and that this is a very difficult piece of property, but he would be more inclined toward a 50' building. He understood that there is a need to develop the property with economic justification. He thought that the zoning must be changed because an office use would be wrong for the site. He thought that R5 zoning was reasonable, but he preferred that the height be reduced by one story. Following a brief recess, Member Doetsch motioned that the project be forwarded to City Council with the condition that one story be eliminated but otherwise as shown with the setback at the alley along Asbury. He noted that two Members found the current height acceptable, and three Members found the height not acceptable. Member Knutson stated the findings of fact for the record, including remapping to an R5 district. Member Raffel seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously (5-0). A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on fde ,with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Chic Center. V1. PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING ZPC 04-14-PD 1800 Ridge An application by 1800 Ridge LLC by its managers John Cunningham and Tan Engel. property owner, fora Planned Derelopment far the property commonly known as 1800 Ridge, formerly occupied by the Vineland Christian Fellowship of Eianston The planned development project area consists of all or parts of the tax parcels ident fed by the permanent identification numbers jar real estate tax purposes (P1N's) 11.1 F•111.0?2-0000 and 11-18-IN-023- 0000. (1800. 1740 Ridges and is in the 01 Office Zoning District and as to the wrsr most approximately 210 feet is mapped within the R. 1. Single Family Residential Dutricl The applicant requests that the City grant a planned development as a form of special use including such development allowances, exceptions to development allowances and other relief as may be necessary to provide the applicant with the zoning •elief"reessary to allow the redevelopment of 1800 Ridgefor multi family residential Generally, the propo5rd project has thefollowing characteristics 34 residential condominiums, generally being 13 within the present structure and/it within a 3rd and 41h floor addition atop the present structure The program contains the zoning required number of parking spaces having and requiring 53 The proposed 3rd and 4th floor addition results in a height of app►oriniately 65feet tot he Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — December S. 2C04 Page Six t.,p of rr _r1 Gb ree• for yr parart: ?irking generall► ►. ill be On j- - is e_e:Crior spares to the south and southxest in the pre;fnt rZrl:r.Z : •Cat sewing :.td : �Csen, aruriure The propose.:.:anre .i deselopment e1•tll continue to bold interest in ►ar.o;o and ser. c :e ri :i r:! Or ease•nicni parre!, ;'wh'J:—r ►e'ithuut limttaltor those of ingrrss. egress, an— pedestrian aCa::.! C. P-W.pn 11[th the earrcnt pr�r wirer :r the Evanston Ridge - i me)ard .Sulv/ne.rcr rCccrwe.: LHcunieni Generall}. thepropose.; manned drie•lopment 11 itl preser,e rasong vehicular and r^edestrrz! access wa_ :tic general circulation pattern %o r•.:-strut iron is proposed for the property commoxli known as ; "rp Rid, The :;-l:x :r•t ask_e,tar a special use thrc-.&gh a planned deaelopment permit ay a mirltrple•IJr+i:: Jim c1hP!c in the 01, 0-':.r Disirtri and to the extent necessan _u :o the wexi most approximately 10 feet tha: r! mapr�ed ,� e: the R•1..Sitze F.:x:tli• Residential District for rr ultt�_mrh dleellings, and dr%vtopment alloµltnee's and etce,rs te; derail,:fir': ::1oKances as to iniper%sous euri.:ce coirrat;e• building hetght, }•ard requirements rneiujing :ranettvn larrai..:'Y strips. parking and loading •rqutre^ Cnts. �(floor urea ratio to the extent necessary to +ra:niain .!r compliance t:_ .s o� 1 "=0 Ridge Mr. Alterson read into the record the description of the proposed planned development. Mr. James Murray, attorney. introduced the development team. He summarized the history of the site (e.g., former Cadillac dealership. then an office building) and stated that they are proposing an adaptive reuse of the existing building for residential use. Mr. Thomas Engel, developer, stated that he has been an Evanston resident for over 25 years, and he summarized his experience in Evanston and Chicago. He acquired this property a year ago. It comprises less than an acre and allows for over 80 units, but he does not think this level of development fits on the site. Instead, he is opting to reuse the existing structure with a modest addition for a total of 34 units. The project seeks to be respectful to the neighbors on all sides and includes 25' setbacks, terraces, balconies, a green screen, and landscaping improvements throughout the site. It is expected to cause less congestion than the previous office or a new office use, and it will generate tax re% enue. He noted that he lived on the 1800 block of Ridge for over 10 years. Mr. Brent Norsman, architect, summarized his experience and stated that the proposal is to convert an existing building with an addition to 34 loft style units with 53 parking spaces. He presented slides showine the context of the site within the neighborhood and the trend toward residential redevelopment. He then presented elevations for all sides of the building. On the west elevation, he pointed out the green screen (e.g., to enclose balconies and have ivy). The residential entry was shown on the south elevation. He also described parking. Traffic will enter off Ridge, nearly all parking is exterior. and the number of spaces is in excess of requirements. Discussion followed on the surface parking area configuration and the relationship with the office next door. - Mr. Norsman presented the floor plans. There will be 11 loft -style units on the first floor, and 12 units on the second floor. The addition is comprised of the third floor (six units) and fourth floor (five units). Additional renderings were presented. Mr. Murray noted a model and building material samples were on display. fir. Norsman stated that they are aiming for LEED certification. He noted that the building height is the same as the building to the north. Mr. John Clark, landscape architect, summarized his experience, including roof deck terraces. He stated that this project has three areas of design: the roof terraces (grasses), ground plantings (existing trees to be kept to the extent possible with other plantings), and the parking area Evanston Plan Commission Minutes — December 5, 20-=04 Paee Seven (replace existing material a 1th pavers if possible. landscape the perimeter, install two landscaped islands, replace existing chain -link fence ivah a 6' board -on -board fence). On Lyons, trees will he added to complete the parkAvay tree line. Member Doetsch commended the mix of plantings and asked about maintenance, especially for the ivy covered green screen. fir. Clark stated that there will be an irrigation system for the green screen and terraces, but the ground plantings will require maintenance. Mr. Murray stated that the condo association will be responsible for replacing die -offs. Member Doetsch asked Mr. Alterson about enforcement. and discussion followed. Member Raffel did not think the neighbors would like a 6' board -on -board fence and suggested an ornamental fence. fir. Clark stated that the reason for the fence was to screen cars and suggested putting ivy along the fence. Member Raffel asked how the rooftop terrace will be drained. It will go the stormwater system, with detention to be determined. Member Raffel thought there was an opportunity to reuse rainwater to irrigate the plantings. Mr. Clark stated that this might help earn the LEED certification and will consider it. Mr. John Cunningham, financial consultant, summarized his experience and presented fhe estimated expenses and revenue for the proposal, noting that extra expense was incurred for the irrigation system and first-class units. There being no further questions, the matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission meeting on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 7pm in the Civic Center. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings of this Plan Commission case is on file with the Evanston Zoning Division. The Zoning Division is located in Room 3700 of the Evanston Civic Center. VII, PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Z.PC 04-13- T Federal Historic Districts To consider amendments to=6-15-11. and Chapters 15, -Special Purpose Districts, " 18. "Definitions; " and any other relared serttons of the Zoning Ordinance, to review and amend the Evanston Zoning Ordinance to eliminate or modify the requirement, as affects properties i<whin federal historic districts that are not also within Evanston, local, historic districts, ai$6.15.11, as follo�i -RE1-MONSHIPTOSPECIAL [:SESAND VARIATIONS 111heneveran application is made for a special use r r :;;rianon relating to an historic landmark, or a propem located to a Federal or local historic district, the apphcari,r A zit be referred to the Preseriation Commission that shall have the authority to maAe its recommendations to ine ,;,7prvprrate decision.making bods relating to lot coverage.) and requirements, parking. building height, fences, and c-:_ndscaping based upon its determination as to µhether the special use or variation MA 1s necessary and or app►opnx:e in the interest of historic consenatton so as not to adtersely affect the historical architecture or aesthetic integn" of the landmark or character of local historic districts, or (BI Is necessary to provide the o%ner a recourrable rate of return an the real property where the denial thereof %amid amount to a taking of the property )4rthoutlust compensation, and fQ Will not be matenally detrimental to the public health. safety � welfare or injurious to propene in the district or vicinity %here the propegv is located Continued to the next regular meeting of the Plan Commission meeting on January 12, 2005 at 7pm in the Civic Center. Evanston Plan Commission Minutes -- December 8, 2004 V7Ii. COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS • Parking Committee --no report. • Binding Appearance Review Committee —no report. • Neighborhood PIanning Committee --no report. • Zoning Committee —no report. • Community Development Committee —no report. • Economic Development Committee —no report. • Planning & Development Committee ---no report. • Lighthouse Committee —no report. • Downtown Visioning ---no report. Page Eight IX. ADJOURNMENT Prior to adjourning, Chair Widmayer noted that Associate Member Cook's term had expired and thanked him for his service. The Plan Commission adjourned at 11 pm. The next regular meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 7pm in the Civic Center. Respectfully submitted, 'fracy Norfleet Planning Division